Doubtful

ness of appeals to early

But when, in the case now before us, men come to consider and inquire what the foundaChurches. tion really is on which they are told (according to the principles I have been speaking of) to rest their own hopes of eternal life, and to pronounce condemnation on those who differ from them, it cannot be but that doubt and dissatisfaction, and perhaps disgust and danger of ultimate infidelity will beset them, in proportion as they are of a serious and reflective turn, and really anxious to attain religious truth. For when referred to the works of the orthodox ancient Fathers, they find that a very large portion of these works are lost; or that some fragments or reports of them by other writers alone remain they find again that what has come down to us is so vast in amount that a life is not sufficient for the attentive study of even the chief part of it; they find these Authors by no means agreed, on all points, with each other, or with themselves; and that learned men again are not agreed in the interpretation of them; and still less agreed as to the orthodoxy of each, and the degree of weight due to his judgment on several points; nor even agreed by some centuries as to the degree of antiquity that is to make the authority of each decisive, or more or less approaching to decisive.

foundation

based on

reports.

Every thing in short pertaining to this appeal Uncertain is obscure, uncertain,-disputable-and actually of faith disputed, to such a degree, that even those who are not able to read the original authors may yet be perfectly competent to perceive how unstable a foundation they furnish. They can perceive

that the mass of Christians are called on to believe and to do what is essential to Christianity, in implicit reliance on the reports of their respective pastors, as to what certain deep theological antiquarians have reported to them, respecting the reports given by certain ancient Fathers, of the reports current in their times, concerning apostolical usages and institutions! And yet whoever departs in any degree from these is to be regarded at best in an intermediate state between Christianity and Heathenism! Surely the tendency of this procedure must be to drive the doubting into confirmed (though perhaps secret) infidelity, and to fill with doubts the most sincerely pious, if they are anxiously desirous of attaining truth, and unhappily have sought it from such instructors.

decisions

tholic

§ 22. But an attempt is usually made to Pretended silence all such doubts by a reference to the of the CaCatholic Church, or the "primitive" or the "an- Church. cient Catholic Church," as having authority to decide,—and as having in fact decided, on the

No accessi

degree of regard due to the opinions and testimony of individual writers among the Fathers. And a mere reference such as this, accompanied with unhesitating assertion, is not unfrequently found to satisfy or silence those who might be disposed to doubt. And while questions are eagerly discussed as to the degree of deference due to the " decisions of the universal Church," some preliminary questions are often overlooked: such as,—when, and where did any one visible Community, comprising all Christians as its members, exist? Does it exist still? Is its authority the same as formerly? Where is its central supreme government, such as every single Community must have? Who is the accredited organ empowered to pronounce its decrees, in the name of the whole Community? And where are these decrees registered?

Yet many persons are accustomed to talk of Catholic familiarly of the decisions of the Catholic Church,

ble records

decisions.

as if there were some accessible record of them, such as we have of the Acts of any Legislative Body; and "as if there existed some recognised functionaries, regularly authorized to govern and to represent that community, the Church of Christ; and answering to the king—senate—or other constituted authorities, in any secular community. And yet no shadow of proof can be offered, that the Church, in the above sense,

the Universal Church,-can possibly give any decision at all;-that it has any constituted authorities as the organs by which such decision could be framed or promulgated;—or, in short, that there is, or ever was, any one community on earth, recognised, or having any claim to be recognised, as the Universal Church, bearing rule over and comprehending all particular Churches.

"We are wont to speak of the foundation of the Church, the authority of the Church,—the various characteristics of the Church,-and the like, as if the Church were, originally at least, One Society in all respects. From the period in which the Gospel was planted beyond the precincts of Judæa, this manifestly ceased to be the case; and as Christian societies were formed among people more and more unconnected and dissimilar in character and circumstances, the difficulty of considering the Church as One Society increases. Still, from the habitual and unreflecting use of this phrase, "the Church," it is no uncommon case to confound the two notions; and occasionally to speak of the various societies of Christians as one, occasionally, as distinct bodies. The mischief which has been grafted on this inadvertency in the use of the term, has already been noticed; and it is no singular instance of the enormous practical results which may be traced to mere ambiguity

of expression. The Church is undoubtedly one, and so is the Human Race one; but not as a Society. It was from the first composed of distinct societies; which were called one, because formed on common principles. It is One Society, only when considered as to its future existence. The circumstance of its having one common Head, (Christ,) one Spirit, one Father, are points of unity which no more make the Church One Society on earth, than the circumstance of all men having the same Creator, and being derived from the same Adam, renders the Human Race one Family. That Scripture often speaks of Christians generally under the term, “the Church," is true; but if we wish fully to understand the force of the term so applied, we need only call to mind the frequent analogous use of ordinary historical language when no such doubt occurs. Take, for example, Thucydides's History of the Peloponnesian War. It contains an account of the transactions of two opposed parties, each made up of many distinct communities; on the one side were Democracies, on the other Oligarchies. Yet precisely the same use is made by the historian of the terms "the Democracy" and "the Oligarchy," as we find Scripture adopting with regard to the term " the Church." No one is misled by these, so as to suppose the Community of Athens one with that of Corcyra,