Judgment, admits, that the necessary characteristic of the principle of private judgment, is to produce dissension, variety, and difference of opinion; and even, as he goes on to say, civil and public war, both among natives of the same country, and between them and those of other nations. Therefore, as to this principle of unity, it is only in the Catholic church that that principle exists. But what shall we say, then, to the principle of holiness? Shall I enter into any comparison of the doctrines of the two churches, in order to see which may be most conducive to the sanctity of its members? Or shall I compare the lives of men rendered eminent in their respective churches? This is a thing which has been done, and which might be done again, and I will say (I mean, not speaking of the present day, or alluding to individuals; but adverting to persons of eminent character; persons distinguished; public representatives in former times, of the two systems of belief), not at all to disadvantage, but, on the contrary, with complete triumph on our part. But I do not wish to enter in it, because it would lead us into details, and, at the same time, it is a subject of an unpleasant nature. I therefore once more stand upon principle. The principle of the Catholic church is, that the church, as a church, can never be immersed in error, in wickedness, and in idolatry, and that it must be to the end what St. Paul says Christ made the church, "The spouse of the Lamb, a chaste virgin without spot or wrinkle." The Catholic church maintains, that, by the teaching of Christ in the church, and by the protection of the Holy Ghost, in the church, she is preserved essentially and necessarily from falling into a state of corruption, of wickedness, and of idolatry. The other principle, the principle of protestantism, not only supposes this possible, but necessary for its justification; and it is only upon the ground that the church need not be holy; it is only upon the ground that the church has not been holy; it is only upon the ground that, on the contrary, the church has been plunged into the worst and most disgraceful idolatry and wickedness, that it pretends to justify the right of separating from it, and forming a new religion. Therefore, the two principles here again suppose, on the one side, the preservation of holiness in the church as its essential quality; the other supposes the destruction of holiness as the ground of its justification. In the third place, with regard to the word Catholic. Here, indeed, my brethren, we have the advantage from the name itself. It may be said, that a name or designation is nothing; it may be said even that we arrogate it, that we usurp it, that we have no right to it, and that, consequently, it is only grounding our claim upon a usurpation, when we consider ourselves the Catholic church, because we have the name of Catholics. Now it is a very singular thing how much of old this title was prized and valued in the church, and how the fathers used to speak mean. just as I have been speaking; that is to say, they proved themselves to be the true church, because those who differed from them wished to deprive them of that title, and never could succeed. Persons have disputed our right to have that title, and yet they themselves have been obliged to give it ; and I believe that any one who considers our present state, will admit, that it would be as impossible to get men to cease from calling us Catholics, as it would be to root out any of the most established forms of speech. Even though they may add an epithet and call us Roman Catholics, still the term Catholic cannot be separated from our name, and in the same way no other church has succeeded in taking that title to itself. Though, in all works, especially by one party of the Church of England, it has become customary in speaking of the English church, to call it the Catholic church, it can only lead their readers into error, and leads them into the dark as to what they To show the strong nature of the possession of this term as it was considered formerly, I will read a few brief extracts from the fathers illustrative of the mode in which they spoke. Even in the first century it is said, that St. Polycarp used constantly to offer prayers for the members of the whole Catholic church diffused throughout the world. I advert to the passage merely to show how early the name Catholic was assumed by the church of Christ, as its name, although it could not be said to be then disseminated to any thing like the extent it has acquired in later times. It is in consequence of this passage that Bishop Bull observes, "No doubt the term Catholic was used in the church from the time of the apostles." But in later times, 300 years after our Saviour, we have St. Cyril, one of the most learned fathers of the Greek church and patriarch of Jerusalem, writing, regarding this title. He is telling a person to persevere in the Catholic church, into which he has been baptized, and to keep out of the conventicles of other religions. Then he says, "Should you come into a city, do not inquire merely for the house of God, for so heretics call their places of meeting; nor yet ask merely for the church, but say the Catholic church -for this is the proper name of our holy Mother." Another father of the same century, in the Latin church, uses precisely the same form of argument. "In the time of the apostles, you will say, no one was called Catholic: be it so. But when heresies afterward began, and, under different names, attempts were made to disfigure and divide our holy religion, did not the apostolic people, require a name whereby to mark their unity—a proper appellation to distinguish the head? Accidentally entering a populous city, where there were Marcionites, Novatians, and others who called themselves Christians, how shall I discover where my people met unless they be called Catholics? I may not know the origin. of the name; but what has been their title for so long a tine, came not surely from any individual man." Then he says, "Is the authority of 6 apostolic men, of the blessed Cyprian, for this name, of so many aged bishops, and so many martyrs and confessors, of little weight? Were they not of sufficient consequence to establish an appellation which they always used. Be not angry, my brother, Christian is my name— Catholic is my surname." In the same century, St. Epiphanius, of the Greek church says, "Those who adhered to Meletius, to distinguish them from Catholics, gave them the name of Martyrs' to their church, while they who continued to occupy the ancient place of worship, retained the appellation of the Catholic church." But we have another, and perhaps still more striking passage in the writings of the great St. Augustine. He says, "It is our duty to hold to the Christian religion, and the communion of that church which is Catholic, and is so called, not by us only, but by all its adversaries. For whether they be so disposed or not, in conversing with others, they must use the word Catholic, or they will not be understood." Once more, in his work on the true religion, he says, "Among the many considerations that bind me to the church, one is the name of CATHOLIC, which, not without reason, in the midst of so many heresies, this church alone has so retained, that although all heretics wish to acquire that name, should a stranger ask where the Catholics assemble, the heretics themselves will not dare to point out any of their own places of meeting." These examples, therefore, suffice to show the force of that name; they prove how preciously the ancient Christians valued it, even as we do-how the endeavour was made to wrest that name from them, and how they contrasted the possession of that name with the title which others took for the designation of their respective opinions. Some were called the Marcionites, the Donatists, and others, Nestorians; but none of them ever took or could take, or did take, the appellation of Catholic; and if any ask even men of this persuasion, which is the Catholic chapel or church, they would not dare to direct them to any but that of the Catholics. Thus, therefore, the very title itself seems to give us a claim to this characteristic, but not merely the title, but the thing itself; for our idea of a church is what I before explained to you-it is a society or government, constituted by Christ, with full dominion over the whole earth; so that men, whatever country they inhabit, may be brought into connexion with, and attach themselves to it; and its endeavours to verify this name, by extending the Christian and Catholic religion over the whole world, have proved eminently successful. The principle again, then, once more involves the idea of Catholicity; but every national church, which only professes to be confined within the limits of its own state; every church-still more churches only so constituted according to their own confession of voluntary members dispensed here and here, and forming separate congregations-all these again, in their principle, exclude the universality, the extension of dominion, which is designated in this term Catholic. Once more, who are Apostolical? Is it meant by this, that the doctrines taught are those of the apostles? Most assuredly not. That the apostolical doctrines will be taught in the true church of Christ is certain; but that the teaching of Apostolical doctrines in it, is to be the criterion of apostolicity, is manifestly erroneous. Because the true church is that in which the true doctrines are taught-in other words, the doctrines of the apostles—therefore to say you are to discover the church, by discovering whether the doctrines are those of the apostles, is supposing that you are attempting to make the discovery through the decided knowledge of the very object which you are seeking after; consequently, the apostolicity must consist in some outward mark; it must be something obvious, something striking, something to guide men to discover where the apostolical doctrines are; and therefore it is in the apostolical succession, it is in the having the line of men who can say, I learned this doctrine from my predecessor; and he, in his turn, can say, I received it as a faithful deposit from him who has gone before, and so on in an uninterrupted succession, till you come to the Founder of the See, and especially the blessed Peter, the first who sat in the chair of Rome. This is what was meant by the apostolic church; and it is in this manner that the fathers applied it. At our last meeting I showed you how Eusebius, Optatus, and Irenæus proved that the doctrines they held were true, against those who separated from them, on the ground that they were in communion with the church of Rome, and could trace their pedigree by each bishop which they enumerated up to the time of Peter; and out of this regard, they said that it was an apostolical church. It is upon this ground, they say, that the blessed Peter teaches in that church. Thus, therefore, the criterion which they meant, and which must be understood to be given, is of an outward nature-the constant, uninterrupted succession from the time of the apostles. Here, though the question is manifest, I do not take it upon the question of fact; I only wish to adopt it on the principle, that we are the only church that claims that succession; that others do not, and cannot claim an uninterrupted succession in a line from the apostle. The only way they can do it, is to prove their pedigree back to the time they separated from us, and then to claim, as it were, that succession which forms the line in our uninterrupted hierarchy. But such a course is at once shown to be oblique, it is not a direct succession, and necessarily goes only to the last root, as it were; it is engrafted upon us rather than having any root in itself. It only goes back to the last root—that is, to the Catholic church; and the Catholic church considers them as separatists from it, and consequently, as having no right to claim a succession which is only in a right line with it. : Thus, therefore, in all these cases, adopting here those guides which creeds or symbols of faith can give us, we come to this important conclusion that on principle, the Catholic church is the only one that maintains her possession of these different characteristics; that the rule of faith of other churches, so far from supposing these to be in its possession, necessarily excludes them, and supposes that they are not be considered as grounds of adhesion to that church. There is, my brethren, another, and a very important topic connected with this subject, and that is the doctrine which is known by what I may call an almost odious appellation—the doctrine of exclusive salvation. It is considered the harshest and the most untenable point of the Catholic creed regarding the rule of faith, that we should maintain ourselves to have so exclusive possession of God's truth, as that we should consider all other religions essentially in error; and so essentially in error, as not to believe, that through them, salvation is to be obtained. believe Upon this point, allow me, in the first place, to observe, that you will find it difficult to analyse to their extreme consequences, the principles of any church that professes at all to have a rule of faith, without its leading you to the implicit admittance of some such doctrine as this. When a church draws up a confession of faith, and demands of all those that are its subjects to sign it, and forbids them to teach, if they do not sign it, and still more if it even goes to the extent of punishing them if they refuse, assuredly that church supposes that the teaching of this doctrine is essentially necessary. What constitutes the necessity of that doctrine in reference to the revelation given by God? Our Saviour comes down, and proposes truths to mankind. Does he propose them under a penalty or not? Does he merely say to them, You may these doctrines, or you may reject them? If not then, is there not something incurred by the refusal to believe whatever he may have proposed? Is there not his displeasure-is there not his indignation? and, consequently, there is a penalty necessarily affixed to the refusal to believe that which Christ has communicated, and which Christ considered as essential to the faith of any church. Therefore, the pronouncing any doctrine necessary, or any doctrine essential, thereby constitutes a violation of God's precept and God's law, in the rejection of this doctrine; and it makes every man who culpably-mind! who culpably-does not believe in it, or who rejects it, it makes him guilty of rejecting that which Christ taught, and that which he came on earth to teach, and which he suffered that it might be taught. This is the simple, necessary consequence to which every formulary |