from the same persons from whom they ཟེ།་ལྷ་མཛས A heir faith itself, we may have in their conduct a come nat of what I have advanced; and may further determine another important point in our examination; how far, that is, the methods followed by the apostles depended upon their peculiar privileges and personal authority, or were the result of a principle permanently instituted in the Church. For, if we find that the very same homage to authority in teaching was exacted by the successors of the apostles, and willingly paid by the faithful, we surely must conclude, that this system was an integral part of Christianity, and the principle of faith which we have proposed, not a temporary one resting upon the apostolic character, but the essential groundwork of all belief.

Let us study the second and third centuries of the Church, the ages of martyrs and confessors, for then surely she was marked by no one spot or taint, nor can any imputation be cast on the purity of her morals, or the integrity of her doc

trines.

If, looking at those ages, we examine the method pursued in private instruction; or, their belief regarding the evidences of Scripture; or, finally, their sentiments respecting the authority of the Church, we shall find precisely the same ideas, precisely the same method.

I. To begin, therefore, with the first; it is a well ascertained fact, that, during the first four centuries of the Church, it was not customary to instruct converts in the doctrines of Christianity before their baptism. There was a certain discipline, popularly known by the name of the discipline of the secret, by virtue of which the most important doctrines of Christianity were reserved for the baptized. Persons who applied for admission into the Christian Church, were kept, generally, at least two years in a state of probation. During that time, they were allowed to attend in the Church for a certain portion of the service; but, the moment the more important parts of the liturgy approached, they were obliged to leave it, and remain without. In this way, until actually bap

tized, they were kept in ignorance of the most important dogmas of Christianity. There is indeed some controversy regarding the extent to which that reserve was carried; many suppose that the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation were communicated before baptism; others maintain that even these were jealously withheld from the converts, until they had actually entered into the Church by baptism, so that nothing more than an implicit belief in Christianity was previously exacted from them. I do not mean to say, that this is my opinion; but I will show you, by and by, that it is the opinion of learned Protestant divines.

Let us now consider what were the motives which led to this discipline. It is supposed to have been grounded on seve ral passages of Scripture, such as that where our Saviour warns his Apostles "not to throw pearls before swine," not to communicate the precious mysteries of religion to those who were unworthy of them. Several hints, too, of such a system are thrown out in the Epistles of St Paul, where he speaks of some doctrines as being food for the strong, while others are compared to milk, which may be communicated to infants in faith; and the unbaptized were, in the early language of the Church, called children or infants, in comparison with the adult, or perfect, faithful. It was deemed therefore expedient, and almost necessary, to conceal the real doctrines of Christianity from heathenish persecutors-not indeed from a dread of being treated with greater severity, but rather through fear of the mysteries being profaned and subjected to indecent ridicule, or wanton curiosity.

Now, this being the object to be attained, upon what principle can the system have been carried into effect? Suppose for a moment that the principle of faith among these early Christians had been the examination of the doctrines proposed by their teachers in the written word of God; and that the examination hall to be carried on by each individual, with responsibility for himself, that he believed nothing but what he could satisfy himself was so proved. Suppose this to have

been the principle of faith, how can it be reconciled with the ends of that system? The object of this was to prevent exposure of the sacred mysteries, by betrayal from those who But if we suppose the prin

had been instructed in them.

ciple just mentioned to have been followed by the Church, she exposed herself uselessly to a dreadful risk. Instead of at once proposing her doctrines to the examination of the candidate for baptism, and, if he were not satisfied, allowing him to withdraw, we are to suppose that she preferred receiving such actually into her communion, leaving them of course, the option of then retiring from it, not only the option, but the necessity of doing so, if they could not afterwards satisfy themselves of every doctrine proposed to them. This would have been defeating the very object in view; because, in this case, apostates, if ever there were any, would have been necessarily actual members of the Church and practically acquainted with all its rites and sacraments, and the guilt of profanation would in every instance have been added to their treachery and apostasy. Unless, therefore, a sure pledge has been possessed after baptism there could be no danger, or moral possibility, humanly speaking, of dissatisfaction with any of the doctrines communicated, and consequently of any wish to draw back from Christianity: this discipline would have defeated its own object. Not only so, but it would have been an act of the greatest injustice; it would have been inveigling men into an unknown system, and, at the first step, exacting from them what every moralist must consider, under ordinary circumstances, essentially wrong -adhesion to doctrines or practices not explained to them, and of the correctness whereof they were not allowed to judge. Unless therefore there was some principie embraced by the Catechumens, as they were called, before they were baptized, which gave a guarantee to the Church that it would be impossible for them to go back, no matter what doctrine, what discipline, or what practices, should be subsequently imposed upon them-however sublime or incomprehensible

the dogmas, or however severe the sacrifice they required of their feelings and opinions,-unless there was a security to this extent before baptism, it would have been unjust in the highest degree-it would have been immoral-to admit them to it. Nay more, it would have been sacrilegious; it would have been a conniving at the possibility of the sacrament being bestowed upon persons who had not even virtually the entire measure of faith, but had yet, on the contrary, the momentous duty to discharge, of studying their belief, and making up their minds whether or no they would accept those doctrines as scriptural, which the baptizing Church held, and would propose to them.

There is only one principle which could justify and explain this discipline the conviction of those subject to it that they would be guided by such authority as could not lead them astray, that in giving their future belief into the hands of those that taught them, they were giving it into the hands of God; so as to be previously satisfied of a supreme and divine sanction to all the mysteries of religion, that might afterwards be taught them. On this principle alone could security have been given, that, after being baptized, the new Christians would not turn back from the faith; and consequently, only by the admission of this principle as the groundwork of Christian truth, can we suppose the ancient discipline to have been preserved in the Church, or the practice of admitting persons so uninstructed to baptism, warranted or justified.

I will read to you one authority in support of all that I have said. It shall be a very modern one, and one which, in the Church of England, should be considered essentially orthodox. It is from a work published by Mr Newman, of Oxford, only two years ago, entitled, "The.Arians of the Fourth Century;" a work which has been, to my knowledge, highly commended and admired by many, who are considered well acquainted with the doctrines of that Church. The passage is more important, because it would bear me out farther than I have gone,

and confirms what I before stated that the great and essential doctrines of Christianity were not according to some at first revealed to catechumens. In page 49, he says, speaking of them; "Even to the last, they were granted nothing beyond a formal and general account of the articles of the Christian faith; the exact and fully developed doctrines of the Trinity, and the Incarnation, and, still more, the doctrine of the Atonement, as once made upon the Cross, and commemorated and appropriated in the Eucharist, being the exclusive possession of the serious and practised Christian. On the other hand, the chief subjects of catechisings, as we learn from Cyril, were the doctrines of repentance and pardon, of the necessity of good works, of the nature and use of baptism, and the immortality of the soul, as the Apostles had determined them." The only doctrines, according to this authority, taught before baptism, were the immortality of the soul, the necessity of good works, the use of baptism, and of repentance and pardon. No more than a general idea of Christianity was given; the important doctrines, I might say the most important doctrines, for, by Christians of any denomination, these must be so considered, of the Trinity, and the Incarnation, and above all, that dogma which now-a-days particularly is considered the most vital of all, the Atonement on the Cross, were not communicated to the new Christian before he was baptized. But here comes an objection to this statement, and you shall hear its answer. Now, first it may be asked, how was any secrecy practicable, seeing that the Scriptures were open to every one who chose to consult them?" That is, if the Bible was in the hands of the Faithful, and they were supposed or recommended to read it, thence to satisfy their conviction; how was it possible to preserve these doctrines from observation? Hear now the answer. "It may startle those who are but acquainted with the popular writings of this day; yet I believe the most accurate consideration of the subject will lead us to acquiesce in the statement, as a general truth, that the doctrines in question have never been learned merely

66