withstands the Church, can he trust that he is in the Church?”* The Church here alluded to is that which is in communion with St Peter, that is, as appears from many passages in his writings, that Church which is in communion with the See of Rome.

So far, therefore, the principle followed both in private instruction, and in the more universal teaching through the Church, at least when she discussed or explained the grounds of her belief in Scripture was, evidently, the same which we receive, that is, the infallible authority of the Church, assisted by God.

III. There is another point, closely connected with the foregoing, and more directly belonging to the public teaching of the Church: and that is the method pursued by it when united together, to define any doctrine of faith. Now, nothing can be more certain than that, when opinions, deemed erroneous, arose in the Church, the only method followed was, to collect the authorities of preceding centuries, and ground thereon a definition or decree of faith; and that, the adversaries of the dogma, without being allowed to define, to argue, or to defend their opinions, were called on to subscribe some formula of faith, contradictory of their errors. The first and most signal example of this was, the first general council after the apostles, that which was convened against the doctrines of Arius. It is extremely remarkable, that when the council is enacting canons or rules of discipline, it prefaces them by saying, "it has appeared to us proper to decree as follows." But, the moment it comes to state the decree or doctrines of faith, it says "The Church of God teaches this" -not the word of God, not the Scriptures, but the Church of God teaches this doctrine; and because the Church of God teaches it, all who are present, and all the bishops over the world, must subscribe to it.

No one, I should conceive, could possibly persuade himself, that this council of the entire Church met with any other idea, *De Unit. Eccl. pp. 194-195.

than that it had a power of uttering a binding and final decision. We cannot, for a moment, imagine that three hundred and eighteen bishops from the east and west, among whom were aged men, who had drunk of the Lord's chalice, by undergoing, in by-gone days, the torments of persecution, would have met together, at much cost and with much trouble, for no other purpose, than to give an opinion, subject afterwards to the judgment of every private individual; or that they believed themselves convened for no object but such as every member of the Church was equally competent to effect; or for any work which he would still be obliged to do. Yet to such inconsistent assertions as these, divines are driven who deny the infallibility of the Church, but maintain the responsibility of each individual's judgment; whereby they constitute each member of the Church the judge over all its collective decisions. This has actually been done; and as a specimen of this reasoning, I will quote the Protestant Church historian, Milner. After giving an account of this general council of Nicea, he thus com"It behoves every one, who is desirous of knowing simply the mind of God from his own word, to determine for himself how far their interpretation of Scripture was true.”* So that, every person had to judge whether the council was right or wrong, by doing what he could have done just as well if the council had never met, by discovering, that is, through his own study of Scripture, whether he should adopt or reject the doctrines of Arius! Surely, such a theory would sound strange, if broached of the supreme legislative council of any state!

ments.

The principle followed on this occasion was continued in every subsequent council of which we have any notice in ecclesiastical history; and that principle and method again suppose the same ground as all the preceding examination has exposed. They assume, that the moment the explanation of the different Churches was found to agree, on any point of faith, that must necessarily be true, and no appeal was to be

History of the Church of Christ, vol. ii. p. 59. ed 1810.

allowed;—no argument admitted that might seem directed to set aside that ground of authority.

And, undoubtedly, we find very few of those, who, in the first centuries, ventured to wander from the universal Church, who did not attempt to show that they had tradition in their favour, and that the fathers of the preceding centuries thought with them. In the fourth and fifth centuries, the great era of ecclesiastical literature, we see the fathers taking pains to ascertain, collect, and preserve the opinions of those who had gone before them.

to

From these writers, innumerable passages might be brought, prove the universal admission of this our rule. Such, for instance, are the words of St John Chrysostom, when commenting on the words of St Paul to the Thessalonians; "Hence" he writes, "it is plain that all things were not delivered in writing, but many otherwise; and are equally to be believed. Wherefore let us hold fast the traditions of the Church. It is tradition: let this suffice."* Or those of St Epiphanius, when he says: "Our boundaries are fixed, and the foundation, and the structure of faith. We have the traditions of the apostles, and the Holy Scriptures, and the succession of doctrine and truth diffused all around." But passing over detached passages, and omitting to dwell even upon the triumphantly Catholic writings of Vincent of Lerins, upon this express subject, I will only call your attention to a principle laid down by St Augustine, and other fathers, which can leave no doubt regarding their belief. It is this: that, se far from considering it necessary to be able to trace back every point, to the time of the apostles, if any doctrine is found existing, now and in times past, through the Church, the origin of which cannot be discovered, it must be deemed to have come from the apostles. Thus writes St Augustine: "What the whole Church observes, what was not decreed by councils, but always retained, is justly believed to be of apos

* Hom. iv in 2 Thessal.

Hær. Ir. Tom. i. p. 471.

tolic origin."*. Such a principle surely implies a conviction that the Church can never fall into error.

It would therefore appear, that coming downwards from the time of the apostles, we find no other principle acted upon in the Church, either in private, as regarded individuals, or publicly, in proposing the Scriptures, and in the definition of doctrines, except that which we admit-an infallible authority in the Church of Christ.

After this we come to another, and a very remarkable period, generally considered as one of darkness, error, and superstition; the time when many fancy that all the doctrines of Christianity had been already corrupted, and that the Church could no longer pretend to claim any part, in the promises of our blessed Redeemer to his apostles. But it is remarkable as the great age of conversion; for any one, conversant with ecclesiastical history, will be aware, that between the seventh and thirteenth centuries, the greater part of Northern Europe, and considerable tracts of Asia, were converted to the faith; and, every me of these countries, with hardly any exception, was conv rted by missionaries sent from Rome.

Here we may expect to find a very interesting and accurate test of the rule of faith, by seeing where Christ's commission to teach all nations has been fulfilled; in other words, where the blessing of God has rested, in regard of one important portion of the work confided to the Apostles. For, I think we should have some reason to conclude, that in that Church hath the promise of God's presence, and of a true teaching, been best. preserved, in which the command to teach all nations has best and most effectually been fulfilled. For, as one individual blessing, and one promise, is given to both charges, and neither could be executed without it, when one part can be proved to have it, the other may be safely assumed likewise to possess it. But I consider this inquiry of such importance, and think that it will admit of so many interesting details, that I will pass over it for the present. and reserve, until * De baptismo cont. Donat. lib.

x

Friday and Sunday evenings, a minute examination of the methods followed in converting by the two Churches, that is, by the Catholic Church, and by the collection of different sects, collectively known by the name of Protestant,—and of the success which has attended each.

I proceed, therefore, at once, to what I consider necessary for the full development and explanation of the matter ir hand this evening. So far I have treated of the methods pursued in the early Church for instructing her children and preserving the faith. But an important question may rise in the minds of some; Were not these methods totally unsuccessful? The Church may, indeed, have professed from the beginning to follow our principle, and it may be that, during the first ages, it mattered but little whether it was correct or not; since the seeds of Christianity cast by the Apostles had still sufficient vigour to produce fruit, in spite of corrupt principles; but has not the consequence been, that, in course of time, the grossest errors have been introduced into the Church of Christ? Is it not true, that the Church of Rome, in particular, has fallen away from the truth into a state of frightful apostacy, and has disgraced Christianity by many absurd and impious doctrines? Such is the view presented, with many varieties, in popular works.

I was careful, in my opening discourse, to caution you against such a line of argument as this. I endeavoured to point out the necessity of discussing principles and not facts, which, after all, must be referred to principles; I showed you that it was an assumption of the question in hand, to maintain what are commonly considered abuses, to be such, on the grounds whereon they are so represented. And here allow me first, to observe, that nothing is more open to misrepresentation than this portion of the inquiry. For, an important distinction is generally overlooked, by those who thus speak and write, between doctrine and discipline. Many practices which the Church may have introduced at any time, and which she could alter to-morrow if she pleased, are treated by them as points