to the obedience of faith; and the church, which in the first instance was considered only as an illustrious society of men, was acknowledged to be divinely inspired, and assisted, independently of any written document. To supply a convincing proof of this statement, it is well known that the apostles, who had received no commission to write, published nothing in the first place; but directed the faithful to repeat, as an essential term of communion, and immediately after the article concerning the Holy Ghost, I BELIEVE THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH. The church was therefore known, not only as an illustrious society, but as a society divinely established, teaching with authority the way of holiness, and consequently incapable of error in matters of faith, before a particle of the New Testament was composed. Besides, with what decency can the Protestant, who admits the Scripture, exclude the Catholic from appealing to those sacred documents, the authority of which is acknowledged by both parties. This imputation, therefore, of recurring to the logical circle, must vanish upon the slightest examination. For here are not found two unknown propositions proving one another, but two points, clearly established, giving weight to each other; in the same manner as the testimony of John the Baptist led the inquirer to Christ; and the testimony of Christ enhanced the character of the precursor:

The weight of authority contained in these passages of Scripture referred to is so great, as to induce many Protestants to give to the church an infallibility in fundamental points, but to deny it to her in articles which they are pleased to term non-fundamental. We may really assert, that the author of this distinction was either a fundamental fool, or a designing knave. For if such a distinction be admissible, it will follow, that the separation from the church, with all its attendant evils, originated in a dispute about points not fundamental; consequently, not necessary to salvation. Secondly, it will follow that divine faith, without which it is impossible to please God, will be exposed to the utmost uncertainty, and thus will be extinguished. For amidst the conflict of discordant opinions on religious subjects, who is to determine what points are to be deemed fundamental, and what are to be considered as nonfundamental? The Protestant of the church of England admits the trinity of the divine persons, and the consubstantiality of the Son; the Socinian and the Unitarian sturdily reject both. The Arian, the Macedonian, the Nestorian, the Eutychian, the Pelagian, with ten thousand other denominations of religionists, support with vehemence their respective opinions, on what is or is not necessary to salvation. In this confusion of sentiments, arising from the principles of what is called reform, who shall decide what is precisely

to be deemed a fundamental point? There is no possible method of coming to any certain conclusion on the subject, if the authority established by Christ be rejected and this celebrated distinction is but a hollow artifice to destroy the very existence of faith. A third and tremendous consequence arising from this distinction is, that the spirit of God, who was to teach all truth for ever, who, according to Dr. Porteus', was to enlighten, guide, assist, comfort, and support the church to the end of the world, is here made to insure infallibility only in some undefined points, on which there can be no agreement among religionists, and to suffer positive error to be taught in others. Thus the spirit of God, who was to teach all truth, is in some instances made a partisan of deception, and is represented as permitting the whole church to go astray. From such blasphemies, let every Christian promptly divert his attention.

If we consult the voice of Christian antiquity on this momentous question, which is decisive of every other point of controversy, we shall find the same uniform language, conveying the clearest statement, that nothing but truth is found in the church of Christ. On this very point St. Iræneus, who was the ornament of the second century, speaking of his master St. Polycarp, records that he visited Rome during the pontificate of Anicetus, and that he reclaimed many of the par

1 Loc. cit.

66

tisans of Valentinus and Marcion; publishing aloud," adds he, "that the only truth which he had learned from the apostles, was that taught by the church." It appears, therefore, that according to St. Irenæus and St. Polycarp, nothing but truth can be looked for in the church of Christ: here is no distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental articles: these are the disingenuous inventions of latter times, introduced for the obvious purpose of weakening, and finally destroying, that authority which Christ has bequeathed to his church.

The great St. Cyprian, adverting to the words of St. Peter to our Redeemer, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life, thus expresses himself: "St. Peter, upon whom the church was built, speaks here, and in the name of the church teaches and declares, that although the multitude, from stubbornness and pride, should desert their faith, yet the church does not fall off from Christ." In his celebrated treatise on the Unity of the Church, he speaks in terms more explicit: "The spouse of Christ cannot become an adultress. She is undefiled; she is pure; she knows but one house; she preserves the sanctity

See St. Irenæus, lib. 3. c. 3. & 4. I recommend this whole work, and particularly the third book, to the attentive perusal of the catechist.

2 Epist. ad Florent. 69. Edit. Pamel. 66. Edit. Oxon. versus fin.

of one chamber with exemplary modesty; she it is who guards us for God; who reserves the children, whom she has brought forth, for an eternal crown. Whoever separates from the church, and joins an adultress, is excluded from the promises made by Christ to the church; nor will he obtain the rewards of Christ, who leaves the church of Christ: he is an alien; he is a profane man; he is an enemy. He cannot have God for his father, who has not the church for his mother1" Language more appropriate, forcible, and decisive, is not to be found, than what St. Cyprian here employs to condemn the insolence of those who charge the church with error, in order to separate themselves from its authority. Leaving the catechist to make this remarkable passage the subject of his pious contemplation, I will cite an authority not less decisive, from a popular work of the great St. Augustine. That most learned and most eminent father, in explaining the creed to the catechumens, comes to the part relating to the church; on which he writes in the following terms: "Here is pointed out God and his temple. The temple of God is holy, says the apostle, which you are. This is the holy church, the one church, the true church, the Catholic church, combating all heresies. Fight she can, but she never can be subdued. All heresies

St. Cypr. de Unit. Eccles. p. 151. Edit. Pamel. p. 78. Edit. Oxon.