himself has anticipated your great objection; a very fair one, no doubt, and which requires, and deserves an answer;— namely, that true Christianity, far from being diffused ubique, or received ab omnibus, was sometimes confined to a very narrow channel: when the great majority of the Bishops were Arians, what becomes of this rule?' Let Vincentius answer, Quid si novella aliqua contagio, non jam portiunculam tantum, sed totam pariter Ecclesiam commaculare conetur. Tunc item providebit ut Antiquitati inhæreat. Nor be it thought, that by this means, the quod ubique, and quod ab omnibus, are idly absorbed in the quod semper: they are, as above hinted, to be taken, not mathematically, but morally; and, so taken, they are an effectual guard to the quod semper. From the beginning, or, at least, from very remote antiquity, worthy individuals have frequently held, some one or more, unsound opinions; and looking to individuals merely, the quod semper might be alleged, as it has been alleged, in favour of every opinion: it is to be rectified, however, by looking to universality and consent: not universality without exception-for such is not to be found: but the concurrent, and consistent sentiments, of the most, and greatest, Doctors, in the whole body of the Church: not at any given period, but throughout the whole Succession. Nor will such a research be so laborious as might be imagined; for, in the first place, the Catholic verities, those to be believed for necessity of salvation, are but few; and in the next place, the concurrent sense of Catholic Christians, on those few, but important points, has been amply elicited by controversy; insomuch that, from the works of Bishop Bull, and a very few more, any candid and intelligent student might obtain competent and intelligent satisfaction, respecting the sense of the universal Church, on any and every of the Catholic verities. As to all other verities, and as to the interpretation of particular texts of Scripture, they are left at large, provided always that no Catholic truth be impugned, and that the analogy of the faith be maintained inviolable.-Letter to Dr. Nash-Foster's Life, &c. of Bp. Jebb, Vol. II. p. 249.

A Roman Catholic pamphlet, recently published, advances the

e

following "reason to prove that a doctrine that is now held as of faith, by the Roman Catholic Church, must always, in every age, have been received as a point divinely revealed. "I shall appeal," says the writer, "only to one fact which I see before me, a fact for which I can conceive no satisfactory cause, but the indefectibility of Tradition as a mode of delivering the doctrines of CHRIST. The effect or fact which I shall fix upon, is one of noon-day notoriety; namely, the actual conviction of all [Roman] Catholics, that their faith has descended uninterruptedly from CHRIST and His Apostles. This persuasion is firmly rooted in our hearts; it is common to the most learned, and the most ignorant; it is this that gives security to our faith; it is, in a word, an uniform and universal effect, the existence of which must strike every observer, and for which I shall endeavour to prove, that it is impossible to account, without admitting, as its necessary cause, the actual indeficiency of Tradition, in every age of the Church. I come to this conclusion from the two following clear principles.

"1. That age which asserts faith to be unchangeable, and which holds its faith to have been delivered uninterruptedly from the Apostles, neither can itself have changed that faith, nor believe or suspect even, that, in any preceding age, that faith has undergone any change or alteration whatever. This proposition needs only to be well understood, to be at once admitted. For no single individual even can sincerely believe any thing which is contrary to his conviction and knowledge, nor can he change a doctrine, or bring in any innovation without knowing it; much less, therefore, can an entire age or generation fall into an absurdity, of which even one rational being is incapable.

"2. No age could introduce a new doctrine, and yet deliver that very doctrine to the succeeding generation, as having been received by it from the preceding age, and taught and held by all ages, in uninterrupted succession, from the time of CHRIST. The attempt would involve a practical impossibility, and would clearly be an action without a motive. It is evidently impossible that an entire age should conspire to do this, and if all do not join in the attempt, the attempt would at once be dis

covered, and divulged, by those who opposed it, to posterity. I want but these two principles to arrive at my main conclusion, as before stated.". - No well-informed Catholic, however, will admit the above "principles," and if it can be shown that they are false, the "main conclusion" of this subtle Romanist of course falls to the ground.

With reference to his first, I would inquire-If this position be true, why was it necessary to summon General Councils? Did not the great Catholic doctrines of the TRINITY and the Incarnation become so "changed" and disputed within the pale of the Church, that it became necessary for the Heads of her several branches to meet in solemn conclave, in order to stem the tide of innovation by declaring that form of sound words which had been at the first, and once for all, delivered to the Church by the Apostles? Surely if the most important tenets of Christianity were in danger of being "changed" or lost in the Church herself-doctrines of minor importance-to settle which no General Council was called-might gradually, nay imperceptibly, become "changed" and corrupted, and so gradually and imperceptibly that it might be impossible to show when the change was introduced.

The Romanist's second position looks well at first sight, but it will not bear to be analyzed. Were each generation perfectly distinct from any other, and had each, since the age of the Apostles, on departing from the world at a given time, delivered a complete Deposit of Doctrine to its successor, then, indeed, it might appear plausible that the faith of the present age agreed in all particulars with the faith of the Apostolic. But what is the fact? Does not one generation blend so entirely with the next succeeding generation, that no line of demarcation can strictly be drawn between them? And if the distinction between the ages be so imperceptible, why may not the rise and progress of error, as we have before observed, be equally so? We cannot accurately distinguish every shade that blends day with night, although we are in no danger of mistaking one for the other: just so, we may be unable to show, in every case, the gradations of error which intervened between Catholicism and Romanism,

although we can see at a glance the mighty difference which exists between the sunny splendour of the former, and the midnight darkness of the latter.

NOTE C, p. xx.

Even LUTHER allowed, that in the darkest times of the Papacy, the Catholic Church preserved the essentials of Christianity. He says: "DEUS admirabili sua potentia fecit, ut in Papatu permaneret primum sacrum baptisma; deinde textus sacri Evangelii in cujusque nationis idiomate de suggestu recitari solitus; tertió sacra peccatorum remissio et absolutio tam privatim in confessione, quam publice; quarto, sanctissimum Altaris sacramentum. Multi morem hunc retinuerunt, animam agentibus, ostensa crucifixi imagine, memoriam passionis CHRISTI renovandi, ut in CHRISTI morte fiduciam omnem sibi collocandam intelligerent. Ubi ergo ejusmodi capita remanserunt, ibi certissime etiam Ecclesia, et aliquot sancti mansuerunt." Lib. de Missa private, Tom. VI. Ienen. fol. 92. Again: "Cogimur Papistis tam multa largiri et concedere, quoniam vera sunt; in Papatu scilicet esse DEI Verbum, Apostolatum, nosque sacram Scripturam, sacramenta, et predicandi officium ab illis sumpsisse, alioquin quid de istis omnibus nos sciremus? Cogimur itaque dicere; Credo, et certus sum etiam in Papatu Ecclesiam CHRISTI permansisse.”—Tom. VII. Ien. fol. 169.

NOTE D, p. xxiii.

The commission given to the Apostles and their Successors did not empower them to determine what should or should not thereafter become Articles of faith: it merely gave them an infallible authority as witnesses to "all things whatsoever" had been committed to them, once for all, by their Divine Master. "Go ye, and teach all things whatsoever I have commanded you and lo," &c.

"The Church," says Mr. Newman, "is not a judge of the sense of Scripture, in the common sense of the word, but a witness. If, indeed, the word judge be taken to mean what it means in the Courts of Law, one vested with authority to declare the received appointments and usages of the realm, and with power to enforce them, then the Church is a judge,-but not of Scripture, but of Tradition. On the contrary, both Protestant sectaries and Romanists consider their supposed judges to be a judge not merely of past facts, of precedents, custom, belief, and the like, but to have a direct power over Scripture, to contemplate questions of what is true and false in opinion, to have a special gift by Divine illumination, a gift guaranteed by promise, of discerning the Scripture sense without perceptible human Media, to act under a guidance, and as if inspired, though not really so. Whether any such gift was once destined for mankind or not, it avails not to inquire; we consider it is not given in fact, and both Romanists and [ultra] Protestants hold it is given. We, on the other hand, consider the Church as a witness, a keeper and witness of Catholic Tradition, and, in this sense, invested with authority, just as in political matters, an ambassador, possessed of instructions from his government, would speak with authority. But, unless in such sense as attaches to an ambassador, the Church, in our view of her office, is not a judge. She bears witness to a fact, that such and such a doctrine has ever been received and came from the Apostles; the proof of this lies, first, in her own unanimity throughout her various branches, next, in the writings of the Ancient Fathers; and she acts upon this her witness as the executive does in civil matters, and is responsible for it; but she does not undertake of herself to determine the sense of Scripture, she has no immediate power over it, she but alleges and submits to what is ancient and Catholic. The mere Protestant, indeed, and the Romanist, may use Antiquity; but it is as a mere material by which the supreme judge, the spiritual mind, whether collective or individual, forms his decisions, as pleadings in his Court, he being above them, and having an inherent right of disposing of them. We, on the contrary, consider