seeches them, " for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that they strive together with him in their prayers To GOD for him," &c. Rom. xv. 30. And yet Peter Dens has the effrontery to assert that," from the time of the apostles until now, it cannot be shown in what respect, when, where, and by whom, any thing concerning doctrine has been changed!!"

With Roman assurance those are challenged who ground their faith upon the word of God alone, and who "build upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone," "Who are you? When and whence do you come? The possession is mine; I possess it of old; I possess it before you; I have firm origins from the authors themselves." Now, that the Church of Rome may have "firm origins from the authors themselves," of many of her strange inventions, we are not disposed to dispute, but the apostles certainly are not the authors in ques tion. They never said mass; they never sold indulgences; they never manufactured holy water; they never worshipped images; they never imposed penances; they never offered prayers for the souls in purgatory, &c., all which things, and a thousand more equally impious and absurd, are practised in the Romish Church.

But we are farther challenged. "Let them publish the origins of their churches, let them develope the order of their bishops, running through successions from the beginning, so that the first bishop shall have some author from the apostles or apostolical men." Our main concern is whether the doctrines which we receive and preach are those which Christ and his apostles taught; this we hold to be the true apostolical succession, and this is all the apostolicity which we seek. Yet we cannot but admire the zeal with which Romish priests insist upon their apostolical succession. Although it is notorious that there have been repeated schisms in their church; that one pope has anathematized

another, and has in turn been deposed and anathematized by a competitor; though the line of apostolical succession has been entangled and broken by the acts of three rival contemporary popes, who all cursed each other, and mutually pronounced their ordinations, and all other official acts, invalid, yet forsooth they can trace the order of their clergy from the present day down to the times of the apostles! A hiatus of a few centuries is a mere circumstance the occasional breach of a century in the chain of apostolical succession cannot impair either its continuity or its strength!

- and

Besides, when we come to the investigation of the practical benefits to be derived from this boasted succession, what are they? where are they? A Romish bishop professes to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost upon the priest whom he ordains. The mere imposition of the bishop's hands, with the proper intention by virtue of the apostolic succession, imparts the Holy Spirit to the candidate. He rises from his knees duly ordained. But how is it manifest that he has actually received the Holy Spirit? Is he a holier man? Has he become more apt to teach, or has he received a single endowment more than the Presbyterian or Reformed minister, who is set apart by "the laying on of the hands of the presbytery?" Now, if he has received no additional gift, we cannot conceive of what practical benefit the apostolic succession has been to him. The very fact that God sets his seal alike to the testimony of all ministers who preach the gospel in its simplicity, is a standing evidence that the residue of the Spirit is with him, and not with the BISHOP.

But we are told in the last paragraph, "NOVELTY IN THE CHURCH IS ODIOUS." So it is. Peter Dens occasionally presents important truths in vigorous language. "Novelty in the Church is odious," and for this very reason we abhor the leading tenets and principles of Popery.

The section which treats of the duration of the Church, we omit, with the general remark, that we hold as a precious truth the doctrine that the Church of Christ has always been preserved, has never been extinct since its foundation, and never will be overthrown, though the gates of hell and of Rome should move against it.

CHAPTER XXI.

Concerning the Infallibility of the Church. (80.)

"Is the Church infallible?

"That the Church in matters of faith and customs can in no respect err, is a doctrine of the faith. It is proved from Matt. xvi. 18. The gates of hell shall not prevail against her,' and chap. xxviii. 20. Behold I am with you always, even to the end of the world.'

6

"Observe against our heretics, that they indeed admit that the Church can not fail; but then they recur to the invisible: but that the Church is visible, has been already proved, No. 73. Besides, 1 Tim. iii. 15, the apostle says: "That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth;' there, manifestly, the discourse is concerning the visible church; for Timothy is not receiving instruction how he ought to behave in a church which he did not see, but which he saw but now that church is the pillar and ground of the truth; therefore the visible church is indefectible.

"Moreover, a twofold infallibility may be considered in the Church one active and authoritative, which is called infallibility in teaching and defining; the other passive, or obediental, which is called infallibility in learning and believing.

Infallibility, considered in the former mode, belongs to the church by reason of its head or supreme Pf and the

prelates of the Church; although this infallibility does not belong on account of the laity or inferior pastors; for just as a man is said to see, although vision does not pertain to him by reason of all his members, but only by reason of the eyes, so the Church is said to be infallible in this way, although this infallibility belongs to her only by reason of the superiors.

"But if the church be regarded not with reference to her head, but as she embraces all the faithful, even the laity under obedience, she ought not thus, properly to be called infallible in teaching and defining, because in this respect her office is not to teach, but to learn and believe: wherefore the church considered in this way may either be called passively infallible, or in learning, believing, practising, &c.

"Hence it cannot be that the Universal Church obeying the Pontiff may believe something as revealed, or may practise any thing as good, which is not such and hence it is commonly said that the opinion of the Universal Church is always true, and her practice or custom always good."

Concerning the authority of the Church. (81.)

"Is the Church the judge of controversies respecting the faith?

"Ans. The Church, whether assembled or scattered, is an infallible judge of controversies respecting the faith, as is plain from Nos. 68 and 80. It is farther proved (thus); if all the pastors of the church scattered over the world could teach any thing false, the Christian people scattered every where would also be bound to admit and believe that which was false; and thus the error of all the pastors would be the error of the whole church; and so even its passive infallibility would vanish, which even our adversaries themselves acknowledge.

6

"It is proved also from the practice of the church, which although scattered, has condemned many heresies without councils, as Eusebius attests, and St. Augustine teaches, (Bk. 4 to Bonifacius, last chap.) As if,' says he, no heresy has been ever condemned without the assembly of a Synod; when rather those (heresies) are very rarely found, in order to condemn which such a necessity has existed; and there are

much and incomparably more which deserved to be disapproved and condemned there where they have arisen.'

"To whom does the authority of judgment in controversies respecting the faith belong?

"Ans. To the Superiors of the Church, namely, to the Bishops, and above all, to the Supreme Pontiff.

"These Christ means when he says, Matt. xviii. 17: Tell the Church; but if he hear not the Church,' &c.; also Luke x. 16: 'He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me:' to these also Paul says, Acts xx. 28: Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops, to rule the Church of God.'

"Does this judgment, in matters of faith, not appertain to theological doctors, or other ecclesiastics?

"Ans. No: and hence in general councils they have not a decisive vote: but they are admitted to them only for the examination of subjects and for consultation; much less therefore are laymen judges in matters of faith.

"From these things, observe, the government of the church is indeed monarchical by reason of its head, the Supreme Pontiff, but it is at the same time tempered by an aristocracy and, because there is likewise a subordination of the ministers of the church among themselves, hence, also, it is a hierarchy.

"From these remarks it is plain: that this is a vain subterfuge of the Quesnellites, who say that the Bull Unigenitus was not accepted by the bishops assembled in one place: their appeal to a general council is also vain, as the church dispersed is equally infallible, as if assembled in general council, and is the same tribunal. And hence not even that appeal is legitimate according to the principles of the French, who maintain that the pope is fallible and inferior to a general council: because from an infallible judgment, such as is that of the church dispersed, no appeal is admitted.

"Is it necessary in order to the unshaken and infallible authority of a definition, that all the bishops throughout the whole world should be of one and the same opinion?

"No: but a moral unanimity of the bishops is sufficient, or the greater part of them agreeing with their head, the Supreme Pontiff.