ing the Gospel, teaching Christianity to many foreign nations; and, according to ecclesiastical history, not only over all Europe, but to the furthermost bounds of the East. St Thomas, for instance, is said to have preached in the peninsula of India; St Bartholomew carried the faith into parts of Scythia; St Thaddeus into Mesopotamia; and other Apostles into the interior of Africa. We have had learned treatises written, among them one by the present Bishop of Salisbury, to prove that St Paul preached in this island, and converted the Britons.

It must be interesting to discover the principle on which they proceeded, in converting and teaching these distant nations. Doubtless they based their doctrines on the true rule of faith; and took the proper means for these being well learnt and securely preserved in their respective Churches. Was the Scripture, then, the written word, this rule and foundation, and means of security? If so, we surely must have translations of this sacred Book in the different languages of these nations. We have in some of them, as the Indian, works extant, written before the time of our Saviour; and is it credible that the first task of the Apostles would not be to translate the Scriptures into them? the more as they had the gift of tongues, and could have done it without difficulty or error? If the presentation of the Bible to all men, and to each individual be the first step to Christianity, and its most vital principle, and if the only ground of faith be the personal examination of each article of belief, surely the only means for securing these requisites, would not be neglected: Yet, the only versions of the New Testament that have come down to us are, the Latin one used in the west, called the Vulgate, and the Syriac translation. Now, of the Latin Vulgate we do not know the origin. Probably it was written in the first or second century, but we have the strongest reasons to believe that, for the first two centuries, it was con

*I omit the Coptic or Sahidic version, as less important, and probably net so old as the other two.

fined exclusively to Africa;* so that Italy, and Gaul, and Spain, countries whose language was Latin, used no Scripture, except the original Greek of the New Testament, and the Greek version of the Old; not a text in the vernacular tongue, such as the poor could understand-not that which could alone be read by the great mass of Christians. The Syriac version, in like manner, was known only to a small portion of the apostles' early conquests. Even of its existence we have no evidence previous to the third century, so that we have, perhaps, two centuries passing over without the Bible, or even the New Testament being placed in the hands of the eastern Christians.

But, what shall we say of our own country, which was in a manner separated from the rest of the world? We are told that, from the beginning, the Church of this country, so far from being in communion with the See of Rome, would receive nothing from it; that she always stood in fierce defiance and opposition to its mandates; that the British Church was apostolic, pure and free from every error and corruption, which later times had introduced into that of Rome. Where

then did it gain this knowledge of the pure doctrines of Christianity? There was no version of the Scriptures into the British language; none which the people could possibly read: and we must therefore conclude that all these pure doctrines, which are supposed to have existed in the early Church of this island, must have been handed down by tradition. But this very circumstance excludes the idea of considering the Scriptures, as the sole foundation on which the apostles built the Church.

Before leaving this early period of our investigation, let us see, in what way one of the most ancient fathers of the Church confirms what I have said. I allude to St Irenæus, the illustrious bishop and martyr of Lyons, who lived in the third century. Speaking of the necessity, or non-necessity, of the Bible as the rule of faith, he thus expresses himself. “And * See Two letters on some parts of the Controversy concerning 1 John v. 7, by N. Wiseman, D.D." Rome, 1835, Let. 2, pp. 45—66.

66

had these apostles left us nothing in writing, must we not in that case have followed the rule of doctrine, which they delivered to those to whom they entrusted their Churches? To this rule many barbarous nations submit, who, deprived of the aid of letters, have the words of salvation written on their hearts, and carefully guard the doctrine which has been delivered." "'* Even in the third century, then, according to this venerable authority, there were many Churches, which believed all the doctrines of the apostles, without having had the word of God presented to them in any written form, which they could understand.

We must not conclude this portion of our theme, without, for a moment, examining what can have been the principle on which the apostles received converts into the religion of Christ. We read, in the Acts, of three or five thousand souls being converted in one day, and admitted into the Church, through baptism.+ Does this fact possibly allow us to imagine, that they were all instructed in detail in the mysteries of religion? By baptism, it was understood that they were received into perfect community with the faithful; and can we therefore suppose that all those whom the apostles at once baptised, had time to go through the minute examination of all the doctrines presented to their belief? The very words of Scripture itself are at variance with such a supposition, because it speaks of these conversions, as having been instanBut there must have been some compendious principle-some ground on which they were received into Christianity, which involved their acceptance, when taught, of whatever would be explained by those who had converted them; there must have been a summary and complete confession of faith, exacted from them, which guaranteed their subsequent adhesion to every doctrine that should be taught, ctherwise it would have been but a profanation of the solemn rite and sacrament of baptism, to admit men within the pale * Adv. Hæres. Lib. iii. c. iv. p. 205.

taneous.

Acts ii. 41; iv. 4.

of the Christian Church, and yet leave them the option of retiring again from it, should they not be able to satisfy themselves that each of its doctrines was true. Now, imagine what you please, make what hypothesis you like, you can give no adequate solution, short of supposing implicit reliance on the teaching of the pastors of the Church,* which, in matters of religion, amounts to a belief in the infallibility of the teaching power; you must conclude it was understood, that whatever doctrines should afterwards be placed before them by their instructors, they were willing to receive. And, in fact, we do find this to have been the case in practice: because, when the apostles subsequently made decrees, and published laws regarding the practice of the Church, when they came to a decision on matters of belief and discipline, all the faithful submitted to those decrees; all the faithful reverenced them not only as teachers but as superiors, to whose authority they were obliged to bow. This admission explains at once the difficulty, and shows the principle on which the early converts were admitted into the Church. It was upon the understanding, and upon a sufficient pledge given, that they were ready to embrace the doctrines of Christianity, not because they had minutely and individually examined them; but because, satisfied of their first step being right, the belief in an authority vested in the apostles, they were willing, and obliged, to receive implicitly whatever might afterwards come from their mouths.

Apply this to the two rules of faith. Suppose a missionary arriving in a foreign country, where the name of Christ was not known, and advancing as his fundamental rule, that it was necessary for all men to read the Bible, and for each

*This method was followed not merely by the divinely commissioned apostles, but by those no less who only had a delegated mission from them, and partook not of the high prerogatives and peculiar powers of the apostleship; as by Philip (Acts viii. 12.) who was only a deacon. This observation is important, as it shows the method to have been founded on a system, not merely on a reliance on the personal infallibility of the apostles.

one to satisfy his own mind, on all that he should believe. ask you, not if you think it possible that thousands could de ever, properly speaking, said to be converted by one discourse, under such a principle, but whether, if the missionary conscientiously believed and taught this principle, he could, in one day, admit those thousands, by the baptismal rite, into the religion of Christ? Would he be satisfied that he had made true converts, who would not go back from the faith once received? I am sure any one conversant with the practice of modern missions, will be satisfied that no missionary, except one from the Catholic Church, would receive persons so slightly instructed into its bosom, or be satisfied that they would persevere in the religion they had adopted. But they can do it at this day, and they have done it in every age; for, St Francis Xavier, like the apostles, converted and baptized his thousands in one day, who remained steadfast in the faith and law of Christ. And all may be so admitted at once into the Catholic religion, who give up belief on their own individual judgment, and adopt the principle, that whatever the Catholic Church shall teach them, must be true.

While, therefore, so far as from history and their own writings, we can ascertain the conduct of the apostles, we find not the slightest proof that the Scripture, the New Testament, was to be the rule of faith, we see the course pursued by them, necessarily supposing the Catholic principle of authority, and of infallible teaching in the Church of God. We will now descend to a later period, and see how far the Church continued, in her earliest and best days, to act on the same principle. I am not now going to startle you by bringing forward the authority of tradition itself in favour of the system which I have endeavoured to explain and prove. I am not going to quote authorities for what I have said; but by looking at the question only historically, and supposing that thos who were the immediate successors of the apostles, would naturally persevere in the methods enjoined by them, that they learned their way of instructing the Church of Christ,