principle-and it is, that wherever they went, they appointed persons to teach the flocks or congregations they had formed. Nothing can be more evident than that these persons had authority and power placed in their hands, as the means whereby they were to teach and govern. They are told not to allow any one to despise them on account of their youth; they are empowered to receive accusations even against priests; and so early as this, the very conditions and forms of the judicature are established.* These things, primarily indeed, appertain to discipline; but they show how, from the very beginning, the entire system of the Church was essentially based on the principle of authority and authoritative direction. Not so content, we find that the Apostles gave the most minute instruction to those individuals, and to their Churches--not indeed to read the forthcoming word of God in the New Testament, when written, for it is not even hinted that it was ever to be so recorded—but to be careful in preserving the doctrines given into their hands.

St Paul thus addresses his favourite disciple Timothy; "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy charge, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called; which some promising have erred. concerning the faith." That is to say, remember those doctrines which I have given you, lest they be perverted even in their words; take care to retain even correctness of expression in the teaching of what I have delivered to you, lest by the oppositions of false knowledge, it be corrupted; in which words, St Paul alludes to Gnosticism, or the earliest errors that crept into the Church. Now, had his idea been that the doctrines of religion were to be recorded in a book, and that the words of that book were to be the only text on which religion should be grounded; nay more, had he felt that in the very epistle which he was inditing, he was actually writing a portion of that new code, and consequently had it in his power to prevent the danger of perversion, assuredly it would not have 1 Tim. vi. 20.

*1 Tim. iv. 12; v. 19.

been necessary to inculcate with such care the preservation of even the words delivered. Moreover, observc, that he does not commit his doctrines to each individual in the Church, nor to its entire congregation collectively, but to one individual, whom he had clearly appointed to preside over it, as having to render an account to God for the souls of his flock.

Still farther, he thus addresses him, "Hold the form of sounds words, which thou hast heard of me in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus. Keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost who dwelleth in us.' Here we have a beautiful recognition in practice of the teaching of the Holy Spirit of God, and the assistance of our Saviour, through the pastors of his Church; and the consequence is, that the immediate disciple and successor of the Apostle, is exhorted to keep exactly the very form of words in which this teaching is couched. Some have said, that the form of words here alluded to is the creed or Symbol of the Apostles. But, in the first place, we should have proof of this; secondly, the preservation of this could not require to be so energetically inculcated to a bishop then, any more than .now; since the more it was taught, and the more it was made the property of the flock, the less chance there was of its being lost or altered. Here, then, we have the first step in a system of traditionary teaching-the delivery of the doctrine in words, by one sent primarily to preach them, to one whom he delegates to continue his work. Let us now see the next link in the chain. Timothy, after a few verses, is thus further exhorted:-"The things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others."† Once more, St Paul does not say, "Treasure up this my epistle as a part of God's holy word, and give copies of it to those whom you have to instruct;" which surely might have appeared the safest way of preserving the doctrines delivered in it; but he tells Timothy to chuse faithful or trustworthy men, and to confide the truths he † Ib. ii. 2.

*2 Tim. i. 13. 14.

had received, into their hands, that they, in their turn, might communicate them to others. Is not this clearly assuming oral teaching as the method to be established and pursued by the Church of Christ?

Before quitting the epistles of St Paul to his chosen disciples, I cannot refrain from calling your attention to one or two more texts, as appearing strongly confirmatory of the Catholic rule. First, he says to Timothy: "I desired thee to remain at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some not to teach otherwise; nor to give heed to fables and genealogies without end, which minister questions rather than the edification of God, which is in faith." No dissent therefore is allowed, nothing which leads to questions, and diverts the mind from building up within itself the simple faith of God; and to prevent this was the principal object intended by St Paul, when he appointed Timothy to preside over the Church at Ephesus. Now, suppose this to be the commission of all bishops, and that consequently proper means are placed by God in their hands to secure these objects, a simple test of experience would show us, which of the principles now adopted was the one to be used by Timothy. For surely experience must have shown, that if thus appointed to hinder dissent, with no other principles, and no more power, than even episcopal Churches among "the reformed” admit, his means must have been sadly unequal to their purpose.† Whereas, similar observation will show, that the bishops of the Catholic Church are effectually able to preserve unity among their flocks, by their authoritative teaching. In vain would the former charge their clergy or laity "not to teach otherwise;" or to avoid topics "which minister questions;" while the latter are secure that the danger is remote from their fold, and rule it without disturbance or dissension. Thus

* 1 Timothy i. 3, 4.

†The dissensions which have burst out so flagrantly before the public in the Wesleyan Methodists' body, would afford a ground for many inter esting observations on the necessity of rule and authority in religion.

may we plausibly conjecture what was the rule which Timothy had to follow.

To Titus, the language of St Paul is still more remarkable. "A man," he writes, "that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid, knowing that he, who is such a one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment."* I am not going to dwell upon the first portion of this text, so to justify the conduct of the Catholic Church towards those who broach error, and corrupt the purity of faith by innovations of doctrines; the argument to be drawn from this sternness of command, against changes of doctrines, I leave to your own reflections. It is the latter portion of the text which I consider, for our present purpose, most important. St Paul, at that early age, when hardly any one could have been born and brought up in heresy or error, necessarily means by the word, heretic, one who, having professed the true religion, turns away from it to embrace new opinions, without relapsing into idolatry; for, one who did this he would have called an apostate and not a heretic. Now, of such a person he tells us that he necessarily "sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment." But in our days, if a person changes from one Protestant community to another, so far from its being considered sinful, or involving a necessary self-condemnation, it is thought that a man may be, and is generally therein approved "by his own judgment." For this judgment, it is considered, is and ought to be his guide in matters of religion. The principle of Protestantism consequently is quite at variance with this awful doctrine of the apostle. For he supposes the existence of some internal principle, which necessarily condemns, in his own judgment, the man who abandons the truth. But this can only be a principle giving certain assurance that you possess the truth, a principle which convinces you that all that you hold is correct; for only by abandoning such a principle, could you

*Tit. iii. 10, 11.

stand self-convicted by the change. The doctrine of St Paul, in this regard, is precisely that of the Catholic Church. Putting aside the case of unwilling ignorance, no Catholic who really possesses within him the principle and rule of faith, whereby he is united to his Church, can offend heretically against any of its doctrines, without his own judgment condemning him as a violator of those essential principles, and convicting him of a grievous sin.

From the instructions given by the Apostle of the Gentiles to the rulers whom he appointed over his infant Churches, let us turn to hear the exhortations which he directs to these. To the Thessalonians he thus writes; "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."* Here again we have mentioned the two species of doctrines, some written but others unwritten; while both are placed exactly on an equal footing, so that both should be received by the Church with equal respect, and both be committed to the successors of the Apostles. Upon perusing these testimonials, and seeing the principle of an oral teaching, with authority, thus prescribed, and at the same time observing the total silence on any thing like a written code of Christianity to be produced and substituted for it, can you hesitate for a moment, as to the course pursued by the Apostles, and the grounds on which they built their Church?-Must we not conclude that an authority to teach was communicated to them, and by them to their successors, together with an unwritten code, so that what was afterwards written by them, was but a fixing and recording of part of that which was already in possession of the Church?

But let us go a little farther into this consideration. I have said that we discover in the New Testament no hint or intimation whatever, that the Christian code was to be committed to writing; but on the other hand, we see the Apostles preach

* 2 Thessal. ii. 14.