that what he calls "fundamental" doctrines, i. e. those contained in the creeds, have been denied by the universal church in any age. Nor can it be proved, that

any article of faith, ever confessed by the universal church, has at any other time been relinquished or denied by the universal church'.

XII. The whole church fell into the Arian heresy in the time of Athanasius, after the council of Nice had established the orthodox doctrine.

Answer. I deny that the universal church ever reversed the decree made at Nice; though many individuals were compelled by force, or misled by artifice, to fail in their steadfastness, and to give an apparent and temporary sanction to what was contrary to their real belief. But I shall consider this objection more fully in treating on the council of Ariminum ".

XIII. The church made contradictory decrees in the synods of Ephesus and Chalcedon, concerning Eutyches; and in the synods of Constantinople and Nice, concerning the worship of images.

1 See Bishop Van Mildert's impressive remarks in his eighth Bampton lecture, where he observes, that "if a candid investigation be made of the points generally agreed upon by the church universal, it will probably be found, that at no period of its history has any fundamental or essential truth of the Gospel been authoritatively disowned. Particular churches may have added superstitious observances, and many erroneous tenets, to these essential truths; and in every church, particular individuals, or congregations of individuals, may have tainted large portions of the christian community with But as far pestilential heresies.

as the church catholic can be deemed responsible, the substance of sound doctrine still remains undestroyed at least, if not unimpaired. Let us take, for instance, those articles of faith which we have already shown to be essential to the christian covenant ... At what period of the church have these doctrines, or either of them, been by any public act disowned, or called in question? ... No age of the church has ever been entirely free from attempts to spread pernicious errors; yet at what period have they ever received its authoritative sanction?" &c.

m See Chapter X. section 2.

Answer. The contradictory synods were not both approved and acted on by the universal church ".

XIV. If God has authorized the catholic church to judge in matters of controversy, then the true church must always be in a condition to declare her judgment on whatever controversy may arise. Consequently the true church must always be united in one communion, and the Roman obedience, being the greatest communion, must be the true church.

Answer. I deny that the universal church must always be in a condition to declare her judgment, and shall refute this notion in the succeeding chapter.

CHAPTER V.

ON THE NOTION OF A PERPETUAL TRIBUNAL IN THE CHURCH.

It has been well observed by Bossuet, that "that alone should be held impossible in the church, which would leave the truth without defence "." On the same principle I argue, that the universal church need not always be in a condition to pronounce her united judgment in matters of controversy; because the truth may be sufficiently defended in many cases, without the aid of any such judgment.

I. Some controversies, as every one admits, need no

"See Chapter X.

a "Id tantum in ecclesia habendum est pro impossibili, quo facto, nullum superesset veritati præsidium at in casu, quem

dicimus, tutum superesset in ecclesiæ catholicæ auctoritate præsidium: non ergo ille casus est impossibilis."-Def. Decl. Cler. Gall. lib. x. c. 36.

decision, and may continue in the church. Some heresies are so manifestly opposed to scripture, and the doctrine of the catholic church, that they require no condemnation: as St. Augustine said, "What need was there of a synod to condemn a manifest error? as if no heresy had ever been condemned except by a synod. There are but few which need for their condemnation any such thing; and there are many, yea incomparably more heresies which have been rejected and condemned where they arose; and which have been known elsewhere, only in order to be avoided"." Other sects, by their voluntary separation from the church, or their formation exterior to it, are but little dangerous to the faith of christians. Even of those heresies which require to be condemned, very few need the united judgment of the catholic church. More than sixty heresies were suppressed before the synod of Nice, by the arguments and authority of the bishops and provincial synods. Bossuet himself admits that the judgment of the catholic church is not essential in every case of heresy; besides this, new heresies may often be manifest revivals of old ones formerly condemned by the catholic church; therefore she need not always be in a condition to judge in controversy.

II. This indeed cannot be denied by Romanists: for during the great Western schism, the catholic church (according to their opinion) was divided into two or three different obediences, subject to as many rival popes. Therefore a general synod could not then

have been convened at any moment; neither could any bishop of Rome have made a decision in controversy which would have been transmitted to, or acknowledged by all the church. Consequently the church was not at that time in a condition to determine unitedly controversies in faith.

III. Besides this, it results necessarily from a belief in the superintending care of Christ over his church, that if at any time the church universal be divided in communion (as it actually is at present), no new heresies shall be permitted to arise, which would require the united judgment of the catholic church; but that any which do arise, shall be capable of refutation and suppression, by the light of scripture and tradition, and the admonitions and judgments of the successors of the apostles, either separately, or in provincial or national synods. It may also be assumed, as a matter of certainty, that if God should determine that the judgment of the united catholic church is at any time necessary to preserve the truth; he will remove those jealousies and misunderstandings, that ignorance, and that exaggerated influence of the Roman see, which have for a time impaired the harmony of the catholic church.

were schismatical.-See Tournely, Prælect. Theol. de Eccl. t. i.

p. 643; Delahogue, De Eccl. Christi, p. 34.

CHAPTER VI.

ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ECCLESIASTICAL JUDGMENTS AND TRADITIONS, AND MERE COMMON OPINIONS.

OF doctrines and practices in the church, some have been always universally received, and are matters of catholic tradition: others have likewise been defined and enjoined by the authoritative judgments of the universal church: but besides these, there are doctrines which prevail in certain times and places, without formal judgments, and which are afterwards relinquished, as forming no part of the revealed truth, and rather repugnant to it. It is now to be enquired whether such opinions may at any particular time prevail in a large portion of the church.

I. I contend that some opinion which is an error, but not a heresy, and directly contrary to the truth revealed by Jesus Christ, may for a time prevail in a large portion of the catholic church.

1. No one pretends that individuals taken separately, are, by the divine promises, exempt from error even in matters of faith: nor is there any certainty that particular churches may not fall into error. It is