Catholic and Apostolic. Again, they understand by the Faith, whatever the Church at any time declares to be faith; we what it has actually so declared from the beginning. We hold that the Church Catholic will never depart from those outlines of doctrine which the Apostles formally published; they that she will never depart in any of her acts from that entire system, written and oral, public and private, explicit and implicit, which they received and taught; we that she has a gift of fidelity, they of discrimination.

Again, both they and we anathematize those who deny the Faith; but they extend the condemnation to all who question any decree of the Roman Church; we apply it to those only who deny any article of the original Apostolic Creed. The creed of Romanism is ever subject to increase; ours is fixed once for all. We confine our anathema to the Athanasian Creed; Romanists extend it to Pope Pius's. They cut themselves off from the rest of Christendom; we cut ourselves off from no branch, not even from themselves. We are at peace with Rome; but she tolerates us as little as any sect or heresy. We admit her Baptism and her Orders; her custom is to re-baptize and reordain our members who chance to join her.

These distinctions are sufficient for my present purpose, though they are only a few out of various differences which might be pointed out. They are surely portions of a real view, which, while it re

lieves the mind of those burdens and perplexities which are the portion of the mere Protestant, is essentially distinct from Romanism. Some further differences will be considered in my next Lecture.

LECTURE IX.

ON THE ESSENTIALS OF THE GOSPEL.

IT may have been observed, that in the last several Lectures, I have frequently spoken of greater truths and lesser truths, of the essential parts of the Gospel, of the saving faith, and the like. I have said that the Church was indefectible in the faith, or in the fundamentals of revealed religion, and that in consequence she superseded Private Judgment so far, and enforced her authoritative declarations of Christian truth; in other words, that she imposed a certain faith as a condition of communion with her, inflicting anathemas on those who denied it. Yet, I have not as yet said what that Faith is, or how we ascertain it. Here then, a very important subject is opened upon us, which I shall consider in this and the following Lecture; viz. what are the essential doctrines of the Gospel; on determining which will depend the terms of communion,

the range of Private Judgment, and the character of the Church's indefectibility. What are those points, if there are such, which all branches of the Church hold, ever have held, and ever shall hold; and which every individual must profess, in order to be considered a member of the Church?

The Romanists have no difficulty in answering this question. Unscrupulousness commonly makes a clear way. Considering the Church to be infallible, and the faith to depend on the Church, not the Church to be built on the faith, they maintain, as I have already said, that whatever the Church imposes, is fundamental and essential, be it greater or less, except that what it has once imposed, it cannot of course reverse. But we Anglicans certainly have a difficulty in the matter, as aiming at truth, as dealing with facts, with the history of 1800 years, and not framing a theory at our pleasure.

For instance, Romanists ask us, how we determine what are the essential parts of the Gospel and what not? If we answer, that we consider all is essential which Scripture expressly teaches, they ask in reply how we draw the line, and who is to draw it, amid the present variety of creeds, and considering the peculiar structure of the inspired Volume.

Again, if we attempt to decide, antecedently, what is essential and what is not, to judge, criticise, and analyze the Revelation, we fairly expose ourselves to the charge of exalting our own reason inconsis

tently with the very notion of faith, and with danger to its essential characteristics in ourselves.

Once more; if we appeal to Antiquity, which is the most advisable proceeding, then we have to determine whether all that Ancient Consent has taught is essential, and if so, how to ascertain it all; or, on the other hand, if we select a portion, we are bound to say why we select it, and pass over the rest. In consequence of these difficulties, many Protestants have taken refuge in the Latitudinarian notion that there are no essentials at all, no orthodox faith, as it is called, that all anathemas, all "damnatory clauses," as in one instance they are named, are incroachments upon Christian liberty; and that the reception of the Bible, nay, even mere sincerity, is enough, so that we live morally and religiously. Now then let us turn to the consideration of this difficulty; in the course of which I shall have the opportunity of pointing out some of the serious exceptions which lie against the Roman mode of solving it.

And, first, let it be clearly understood what is meant by the word "fundamentals" or "essentials." I do not mean by it what is "necessary to be believed for salvation by this particular person or that." No one but God can decide what compass of faith is required of given individuals, though the Roman Church claims to do so. The necessary Creed varies, for what we know, with each individual to whom the Gospel is addressed; one is bound

S