us is that used in the west, in the Catholic church-the Latin vulgate and the Syriac translation. Of the Latin vulgate we do not certainly know the origin: it is probable that it was written in the first, perhaps in the second century; but there are the strongest reasons to believe that for at least two centuries it was confined exclusively to Africa, so that Italy, the country whose language was Latinised, no Scriptures but the original Greek of the New Testament, and the Greek version of the Old, not the vernacular tongue, not that which they would understand, not that which could be understood popularly, or read by the great mass and bulk of Christians. The Syriac version, in like manner, would be confined to a small portion of the early converts of the apostles, and even of that, there is no evidence that it existed previous to the second century; so that again we have, even here, two centuries passing over, without the Bible or the New Testament being placed in the hands of Christians. But what shall we say, for instance, of our country? What shall we say of England? For it has been proved, that so far from this country being in any communion with the church of Rome, or receiving any thing that it would have sent it, on the contrary, it stood in fierce opposition to its pretended claims. We are told that the British church was an apostolic church, pure and free from every error, and from every corruption, which was, in later times, introduced into Popery. Where did it gain this knowledge of the pure doctrines of Christianity? No version of the Scriptures existed in our language, there was nothing which the people could possibly have read; and we must therefore conclude, that these doctrines, even upon the hypothesis of those who differ from us, must have been handed down by oral tradition. But, at any rate, it excludes the idea of considering the Scriptures, as the only foundation upon which the apostles built the church.

Before I pass on, I will read the authority of one of the most ancient fathers, upon what I have said. It is that of St. Irenæus, the illustrious bishop and martyr of Lyons, in the third century, who, speaking of this very subject, of the necessity, or non-necessity, of the Bible as a rule of faith, says, “Had the 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 regard the doctrines which have been delivered." So, that even in the third century, according to this venerable authority, there were many churches which believed in all the doctrines of the apostles, without having had the Word of God presented to them in a manner that they could under

stand.

But before leaving this early portion of our history, let us for a

moment reflect upon what could have been the principle on which the apostles received converts into the religion of Christ. We read, in the Acts of the apostles, of three, or five, and more thousands, being converted in one day, and admitted to baptism. Does this possibly allow us to imagine, that they were all instructed in detail, in all the mysteries of religion? By baptism, it was understood, that they were received into perfect communion with the faithful. Can we, therefore, suppose, that all these thousands who were baptized immediately, had time to go through the minute and detailed examination of the specific doctrines presented to their acceptance by the apostles? The very words of the Scripture text are at variance with this opinion, for it speaks of these conversions as being instantaneous. But then there must have been some compendious principle; there must have been some ground on which they were received into Christianity, which involved in itself their admission, when taught, of whatever should be explained to them by those who converted them. You cannot possibly suppose that they were called upon individually, and in detail, to examine every doctrine of Christianity; but there must have been, as I said before, some principle, some confession of faith, exacted from them, which secured their subsequent adhesion to every doctrine that should be taught, otherwise it would have been profaning the solemn rite and sacrament of baptism, to have admitted men within the pale of the church, reserving to them the condition of afterwards retiring from it if, upon examination, they could not satisfy themselves that such was its doctrines.

Now imagine what you please, make what theory you prefer, you must come to this conclusion, that it was understood, that whatever should afterwards be explained to them by the apostles, they should be willing to receive. And, in fact, we do find this to have been the case in practice, because we find that the apostles subsequently made decrees, and published laws, regarding the practice of the church, and came to a decision as regards matter of belief and discipline, and that all the faithful instantly submitted to their decrees; that all the faithful seemed to have considered them from the beginning, not merely as teachers, but absolutely as superiors, to whose authority they were obliged to bow. And this, therefore, explains at once the difficulty, and shows us the principle upon which the early Christians were received into the church. It was upon an understanding, upon giving a sufficient pledge, that they were ready to embrace Christianity as a system of doctrines, without individual examination; from being satisfied of the first step being right that is, the principle of authority invested in the apostles-they were willing, and would be obliged to receive, whatever came afterwards from their mouths.

Now apply this, if you please, to the two rules of faith; and suppose a missionary arriving in a foreign country-in a country where the name

of Christ was unknown-and suppose him, therefore, advancing with the rule, that it was necessary to read the Bible; that it is necessary to satisfy each one's mind on all that is to be believed, I ask you could he, by one discourse convert-or, at least if he did not change their minds, could he, after one discourse, receive, simply by the rite of baptism, thousands into the religion of Christ; and would he be satisfied in himself, that he had made true converts who would not go back from the faith they had embraced? I am sure any one who is conversant with the practice of modern missions, will be satisfied, that no missionary, from any but a Catholic church, would venture to receive persons, so slightly instructed into religious communion, or would feel satisfied that they would persevere in the faith which they had adopted. But Catholics can do this, and they have done it in every age up to this day; for they have been satisfied—they have considered any person as truly in heart a Catholic, and as having implicitly received all the doctrines of the Catholic religion, when he has once given up his belief in his own individual guidance, and adopted the principle, that whatever the Catholic church shall teach him must be true.

While, therefore, so far as we know from the history of their own writings, and from the conduct of the apostles, we cannot find the slightest hint, that the Scriptures of the New Testament was to be the rule of faith, we find a course pursued by them necessarily supposing the Catholic principle of authority, and of an infallible teaching in the church of God.

We will now, therefore, descend to a later period, and see how far the church continued in its earliest and best days, to act upon the same principle. For, I am not now going to startle you by bringing forward the authority of tradition, or of the church, in favour of the system which I am endeavouring to explain and demonstrate; I am not going to quote to you authorities for what I have said-I am simply looking at the question historically, and supposing that these immediate successors of the apostles would naturally go on in the method which was pointed out, and that they learned their way of instructing and of supporting the church or the religion of Christ, entirely from those from whom they learned the faith itself. We have, in their conduct, a sufficient, not merely confirmation of what we have seen, but a security, that the view which which I have taken is not incorrect providing we shall find that they pursued precisely a similar method.

Now we will go to the second and the third centuries of the churchthe age of martyrs and of confessors-before it can even be surmised by any one, that the slightest stain had been cast upon the purity of morals, or perfection of doctrine in the church. If, coming to these ages, we examine the private method of teaching, or their belief regard

ing the grounds on which Scripture was to be believed, or their opinions regarding the authority of the church, we shall find precisely the same modes-precisely the same methods.

To begin, therefore, with the first: it is a well ascertained fact, that during the first four centuries of the church, it was customary to instruct converts in the doctrines of Christianity before their baptism—that is to say, there was a certain discipline, popularly known by the name of The discipline of the Secret—that is, the most important doctrines of Christianity were reserved for the knowledge of those who had been baptized; and persons who applied for admission into the Catholic 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 the church, and remain without; and in this way, until they had been actually baptized, they were not aware of the most important dogmas of Christianity. There is, indeed, some controversy regarding the extent to which this reserve was carried, There are many, indeed, who suppose that the doctrine of the Trinity. and the doctrine of the incarnation, were communicated before baptism; but there are others who maintain, that even these were jealously withheld from the new converts, until they had been actually initiated into the church by baptism; that nothing more than an implicit belief in these doctrines was exacted from them. I do not say this is my opinion; but I will show you, just now, that it is the opinion of learned Protestant divines.

It is necessary, therefore, to consider what were the motives which led to this discipline. It is supposed to have been grounded upon several passages of Scripture, such as where our Saviour warns his disciples not to throw pearls before swine; that is to say, not to communicate the precious mysteries of religion to those who were unworthy of them; and several hints which are thrown out in the Epistles of St. Paul, in which he speaks of those doctrines that were food for the strong, while others were only to be nourished with milk, which might be communicated to the infants in faith, as it were, those who were called actually by him, in the early language of the church-children or infants, in respect to the perfect and full attainment of faith. It was deemed, therefore, expedient, indeed almost necessary, to conceal the doctrines of Christians from their heathen persecutors; to conceal them, not merely from dread of their being treated in consequence with greater severity, but still more from a fear of their being profaned, and subject to indecent ridicule, or mere idle curiosity.

This being the object to be attained, upon what principle can the system have been carried into effect? Supposing now, for a moment,

that the principle of faith among these early Christians, was held to be the examination of the doctrines proposed by the teachers of the word of God, the examination carried on by each individual who was responsible for himself, and the necessity, on his part, for rejecting whatever he could not satisfy himself was true in the word of God. Supposing this to have been the principle of faith, how would this have agreed with the ends of this system? It would have exposed them to the dreadful necessity of first of all receiving men actually into their communion, leaving to them the option of retiring from it; and not only the option, but the necessity of it, if conscientiously they could not satisfy themselves of every doctrine that was proposed to them. This would be precisely frustrating the very object; for unless they had such a pledge from each person, that after he was baptized, there was no danger, there was no chance, there was no possibility, humanly speaking, of his being dissatisfied with any doctrine to be hereafter communicated to him, and consequently of retiring from the step which he had taken : unless there had been such a pledge as this to be exacted, the discipline would have precisely defeated its own object, and not only have defeated their own object, but by an act of the grossest injustice, it would have been drawing and inveigling men into a dangerous and solemn step; it would have been exacting from them what every moralist must consider essentially wrong, namely, to bind yourself down to a system which has not been explained to you, to pledge yourself to you know not what, and of whose correctness you have not been allowed to judge. Unless, therefore, there was some principle embraced by the catechumen before he was baptized, which gave a guarantee to those who admitted him to baptism, that it was impossible for him to go back, no matter what discipline, no matter what practice was exacted from him, however sublime and incomprehensible the dogmas might be that he should propose to him, however severe the sacrifice should be, that his individual feelings or his individual reason should have to make-unless they had before baptism a security, a guarantee, to this extent, it would have been unjust, in the highest degree, to have admitted him to it. But only one principle could give this guarantee, namely, the satisfaction, on the part of the person so pledging himself, that he was guided by such an authority as could not lead him astray; that, in giving up his future belief into the hands of those that taught him, he was giving it up into the hands of God; that he was satisfied that there was a superior and divine sanction given to all the doctrines that they might afterwards teach him. Upon this principle alone could security have been given, that men after being once baptized, would not turn back from the faith; and consequently, by the admission of this principle alone--the ground-work of Christian truth-can we suppose the ancient disciples to have been