The Observer asserted that the articles of faith were expressed in the Holy Scriptures in propositions "as clear and as intelligible as language can make them." We denied this, and alleged in support of our denial that the articles of faith are more clearly and definitely expressed in the creed and decisions of the Church, which is evident from the fact that men perpetually dispute as to their meaning as expressed in the Holy Scriptures, while they do not dispute as to their meaning as expressed in the creeds and decisions of the Church. The editor of the Observer meets the argument by alleging that there are disputes among Catholics as well as among Protestants. But even if this were true, our argument might still be sound; for it was urged only to prove that the faith as expressed in the Holy Scriptures is not expressed in propositions as clear and as intelligible as language can make them, — which is not disproved by proving that there are disputes among Catholics, but only by proving that these disputes are equal to the disputes among Protestants, and extend to as many

-

and particular terms under which it is proposed to us. Thus, he, who believes the Son of God assumed human nature and is God and man, believes explicitly the mystery of the Incarnation; he who believes the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one God and three persons, believes explicitly the mystery of the Trinity. But to believe something implicitly is to believe it in another; either as in a more general principle in which it is contained, or as in the doctrine of the teacher to which it pertains, or as in a shadow or figure, which is known to have significance, although the thing signified is not clearly apprehended. But it must not be inferred from any thing in the text, that belief in this last sense is the only faith that is of necessity as the medium of salvation. It is necessary to believe explicitly God as the author of the order of grace, that he will reward the just with beatitude and will punish the wicked, according to the words of the blessed apostle, Heb. xi. 6. "He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him." Also, as Catholic doctors in general teach, it is necessary to believe explicitly the mysteries of the Incarnation and of the Trinity, for, according to the words of our Blessed Saviour in St. Mark, xvi. 16, "He that believeth not (that is, believeth not the Gospel) shall be condemned"; and in St. John, xiv. 1, "Ye believe in God; believe also in me"; iii. 36, "He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him"; and, according to the words of St. Peter, Acts iv. 12, "Nor is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved." From these and many other texts which might be adduced, it is evident that explicit faith in the principal or primary doctrine is necessary as the medium of salvation. All we would say is, that the number of articles necessary to be believed with explicit faith is very few, and therefore the necessity, save when it concerns establishing truth or overthrowing error, of the long study the Observer alleges, does not exist.

points of faith;a fact the Observer has not proved, and cannot prove. But there are no disputes among Catholics that turn on the meaning of an article of faith. There are disputes among Catholics, we admit, but they are disputes concerning matters which are not of faith, which the Church has not decided. Not one of the instances the Observer cites is a dispute concerning an article of faith, but all are disputes on questions on which there is no decision of the Church, or which are not covered by her decisions. The dispute between the Gallicans and Ultramontanes is not, as it supposes, a dispute as to the meaning of a canon. Both parties admit the canon of the Council of Florence, which the editor quotes; both parties agree as to its meaning; and dispute only as to questions it does not cover. The question as to the temporal authority or supremacy of the Holy Father is a dispute among doctors, and has nothing to do with faith at all; for no article of faith, no decision of the Church, claims temporal supremacy or authority for the successor of St. Peter. The temporal authority which was possessed by the popes was not possessed by virtue of their office as visible head of the Church, but, if one may so speak, by virtue of what was the common law of Europe; because that authority was an integral part of the political order which then obtained. That order has now passed away, and the office which for many ages was filled by the ecclesiastical power is now filled by the money power; and the part of mediators between the temporal princes, which was played by the Gregories, the Innocents, the Bonifaces, is now played by the Barings, Rothschilds, and Biddles; whether for the better or for the worse it is not for us to say.

The Observer is quite mistaken in saying, that in reference to these disputes we cannot avail ourselves of the distinction between faith and opinion. "This," it says, "is a valid plea for Protestants, but not for Romanists. We say that agreement in great fundamental truths is necessary; and we say, further, that in these vital truths there is between all orthodox Protestants a substantial agreement, while they disagree only on those minor topics which are matters of opinion only. But this distinction between faith and opinion, whoever else it may serve, can avail Mr. Brownson nothing; for he avers that it is necessary to believe the whole revelation as the condition sine qua non of salvation, that faith consists in believing all the truths God has revealed."- pp. 332, 333. The distinction between faith and opinion we can avail ourselves of, but not of

such a distinction as the Observer points out. The distinction we contend for is a distinction between what is revealed and what is not revealed. What is revealed we hold to be of faith; what is not revealed is matter of science or of opinion. We can, then, very consistently contend that the whole revelation must be believed, and yet tolerate differences on matters of opinion. But the distinction the Observer speaks of is a distinction in the revealed word itself, and presupposes one part of revelation is of faith, and another part of minor importance, a matter of opinion only. Of this distinction we do not wish to avail ourselves, for we do not admit that any part of God's word is a matter of opinion only; and we would thank the Observer to tell us by what authority it can say that any thing God has revealed may be rightfully treated as a matter of opinion.

The Observer makes it a sin in us, that "opinion has no

place in " Our creed." Is that which is held as opinion

held as one's creed? What is the meaning, in theological language, of credo? If one admits opinion into his creed, what is his creed but an opinion? The editor of the Observer distinguishes between faith and opinion. Does he include in his creed any thing not of faith? Of course not. Why, then, complain of us for not admitting opinion into ours? But by what authority does he distinguish in God's word what is necessary to be believed, and what is not, and include the former in his creed, and exclude the latter from it?

The Observer says, in these vital truths there is a substantial agreement between all orthodox Protestants. This is saying, in other words, that all who do not substantially differ do substantially agree! Who are orthodox Protestants, and by what authority can Protestants say who are or are not orthodox? The only answer they have to the question, what is orthodoxy and what heterodoxy, is that given by the Protestant student: "Orthodoxy is my doxy, heterodoxy is your doxy." Protestants are all orthodox, each in his own estimation; all heterodox in the estimation of each other. The editor of the Episcopal Observer, notwithstanding his airs, has no more right to call himself orthodox than the editors of the Christian Examiner, between whom and himself there is a fundamental difference, have to call themselves orthodox. all pitiable sights, the Protestant talking of orthodoxy is the pitiablest. The editor of the Observer can claim to be less heterodox than his Unitarian brethren, only because he departs

Of

less from the Catholic faith; and the moment he alleges this, he recognizes the authority of the Catholic Church, which it is his main business to calumniate. It is worthy of note, that Protestants in general feel themselves sound in the faith just in proportion as they find themselves agreeing with the Catholic Church.

The editor of the Observer would do well, when he wishes to attack the Church on historical grounds, to be careful to draw his history from authentic sources. If he relies on such authors as Bishop Hopkins, or any authors his own church can furnish, he will be betrayed into many ridiculous mistakes. These Anglican ecclesiastical historians are in all cases unsafe guides, and in no instance, even in matters comparatively indifferent, have we found them worthy of reliance. The position of their pretended church is such that it is not safe for them either to see or to tell the truth.

The editor of the Observer would also do well, before attempting to pit council against council, to ascertain what is a council, and that the Catholic predicates infallibility of no council not held to be œcumenical, and of no acts of an œcumenical council not approved by the sovereign Pontiff. Had he known this, he would not have spoken of the second council of Ephesus, nor have told us that "the second council of Ephesus, held in 449, condemned Flavianus and sent him into banishment for rejecting the heresy of Eutyches; and the council of Chalcedon, convened two years after, condemned and banished Dioscorus for maintaining the heresy discarded by Flavianus." p. 330. For there was no second council of Ephesus. The only council of Ephesus was held in 431, before Eutyches had even broached his heresy. Nor was Flavian ever condemned by any council. The mistake of the learned editor arose, probably, from his confounding an illegal and tumultuous assembly, commonly known in history as the Ephesian Latrocinium, with an ecumenical council, which it was not, and was never admitted to be. This shows the necessity of studying ecclesiastical history, before attempting to write it.

Protestants frequently allege that council has contradicted council, council has contradicted Pope, and Pope has contradicted Pope and council; but no instance of such contradiction ever has been or ever can be adduced, for no such instan- . ces exist. The instances commonly adduced are all founded in mistake, and are as easily answered as that about Flavianus and Dioscorus. The Protestant either calls that a council

which was not a council, or he mistakes the real question decided, or the actual purport of the decision, in consequence of his general ignorance of Catholic theology and history.

But, as we have intimated, we have no intention of following the Observer through his attack on the Church. If he concedes his inability to maintain his own thesis, we will then meet him, or any one else, on the merits of Catholicity. But, till then, we will not consent to be diverted from the main issue we have raised.

In conclusion, we will say, our argument has run out to a greater length than we intended, and to a greater length than the feeble arguments, if arguments they can be called, of the Observer really warranted; but we make no apology to our readers, for we have aimed to give to our remarks a general character, and a fair, full, and final discussion of that branch of the subject to which we have in the main confined ourselves, rather than to effect the comparatively insignificant purpose of refuting the editor of the Episcopal Observer.

NATIONAL greatness is at all times and in all countries a subject of very deep interest, and one on which it is highly dangerous to entertain false or erroneous views. It is especially so for the American people; because we have founded a government which rests on popular opinion, and must follow its direction; and because we entertain very lofty notions of the greatness to which we have already attained, and are disposed to indulge in no little patriotic pride when contemplating what we have done since we became an independent nation, and looking forward to what we are likely to do hereafter.

It is true, that now and then is heard a discordant note in the general harmony of self-glorification; it is true, that here and there a disappointed, discontented, perhaps ascetic voice, is heard intimating that all is not gold that glisters, that the sparkling eye and blooming cheek do not always indicate sound health and promise long life, and that beneath the festive robes and wreaths of flowers may often, as at Egyptian feasts, be detected the ghastly and grinning features of death; but, in