received into the church, on the practice of admitting uninstructed persons to baptism, justified and warranted.

I am anxious to read to you an authority for all I have said, and it shall be a very modern authority, and one which, in the Church of England at least, will be considered extremely orthodox. It is from a work published by Mr. Newman, two years ago, and entitled, The Arians of the Fourth Century, a work which is understood, I believe, to have come out under the sanction of the late Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, and which has been, to my knowledge, highly commended and praised by persons considered most accurate in their acquaintance with the doctrines of that church. The passage is the more important, because it not only bears me out, but goes much farther than I have done, and confirms what I started with at the commencement of my discourse: that is, that the great doctrines of Christianity were not originally taught or learnt from Scripture. In the forty-ninth page, he thus explains the doctrine of which I have been giving you a slight sketch: "Even to the last,” speaking of the catechumens, “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 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 experienced Christian. On the other hand, the chief subjects of catechisings, as we learn from St. Cyril, were the doctrines of repentance and pardon, of the necessity of good works, of the nature and use of baptism, and of the immortality of the soul, as the apostles have determined them." So that the only doctrines, according to this, that were taught before baptism, were repentance and pardon, the necessity of good works, the use of baptism, and the immortality of the soul-a mere general idea of what Christianity was; whereas, important doctrines—I mean, important in every sense-for they must, by Christians of every denomination, be considered more or less important doctrines, on which differences of religion must hinge-the Trinity, the incarnation, and, above all, that dogma which now-a-days, particularly is considered the most important of all, the atonement of Christ, were not even slightly communicated to Christians before they had been baptized. But here comes an objection to this doctrine, and you shall hear its answer, Page 55, “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." A natural objection for a person whe understands Christianity to have been always as it is now in this country —that is, that the book of Scripture was in the hands of all the faithful, and that they were directed to make use of this, to discover the faith.

A person who considers Christianity to have always been so from the time of the apostles, naturally asks, How was it possible to preserve that secrecy about the doctrine of the Trinity, and the incarnation, if the Scriptures which contain these doctrines, were in the hands of every body. Here, then, is the answer: "It may startle those who are but little 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"—that is, the doctrines of the Trinity, the incarnation, and the atonement-" have never been learned merely from Scripture. Surely the sacred volume was never intended, and was not adapted to teach us our creed. However, certain it is, that we can prove our creed from it, when it has once been taught us, in spite of individual producible exceptions to the general rule. From the very first, the rule has been as a matter-of-fact for the church to teach the truth, and then appeal to Scripture in vindication of her teaching; and, from the first, it has been the error of heretics, to neglect the information provided for them, and to attempt for themselves a work for which they are unable-the eliciting a systematic doctrine from the scattered notices of the truth which Scripture contains. Such men act in the solemn concerns of religion, the part of the self-sufficient natural philosopher, who should rashly reject the Newtonian theory of gravitation, and endeavour, with talents inadequate to the task, to strike out some theory of motion by himself. The insufficiency of the mere private study of the Holy Scriptures for arriving at the entire truth, which that rule contains, is shown by the fact, that creeds and teachers have ever been divinely provided, and by the discordance of opinion which exists wherever these aids are thrown aside, as well as by the very structure of the Bible itself. If this be so, it follows, that when inquirers and neophytes used the inspired writings for the purpose of morals and instruction in the rudiments of faith, they still need the teaching of the church, as a key to the collection of passages which contain the mysteries of the gospel-passages which are obscure-from the necessity of combining and receiving them all.”

Here then, my brethren, we have the acknowledgment made, within these two years, by a learned divine of the Established Church, brought out under the particular care and direction of the late Regius Professor of Theology in the first Theological University of this country, who tells us, that Christians of early times were not instructed in the important dogmas of religion, till they were baptized; and he removes the difficulty arising from this truth, upon the very ground which I have given you, that Scripture was not the rule upon which they were taught to ground their faith; that Scripture was appealed to by the church, to confirm the faith which it taught them; that it never allowed them merely to read the Bible with the idea of finding their faith in it. This

is more, as I said, than sufficient for my purpose; for it not only admits the practice I have laid down, but it goes as far as I could wish in the consequences it draws.

So much, therefore, for the private method of oral teaching in the church, for the first, second, and third centuries-precisely the same principles which we see laid down by the apostles-the principles resulting from those doctrines regarding the church, which I presented to your consideration in my last discourse.

The next question is, upon what grounds did the Christians of those centuries receive the word of God? Did they consider the Scripture as the ground-work, or did they consider, as I have done in the view I have given you, as something received upon the authority of the church? You shall judge from a very few passages which I shall read you; because it would be detaining you a great deal too long, were I to enter fully into this portion of the argument. There is a memorable saying of the great St. Austin, when speaking regarding the method in which he was brought to a knowledge of Christianity in disputing with a Maniche, one of the class of heretics with whom he, in early life, had been associated. He says expressly, "I should not believe"--or it would be more accurately rendered, as the form of expression is peculiar to the style of the writers of his nation" I should not have believed the gospel if the authority of the Catholic church had not led me." This little sentence contains, at once, the principle upon which he believes; the greatest light of the century in which he lived, could not receive the Scriptures upon any authority, but upon that of the Catholic church. Now, see the way in which St. Irenæus, the same father to whom I before alluded, speaks of the manner in which the Scriptures should be read. "To him that believeth that there is but one God, and holds to the Head which is Christ-to this man all things will be plain, if he will but read diligently the Scripture, with the aid of those who are the priests in the church, in whose hands, as we have shown, rests the doctrine of the apostles." That is to say, the Scripture may be read-the Scripture will be simple and easy, if read—with the assistance of those to whom the apostle had delivered the unwritten doctrines that are to be the key to its true interpretation.

Still clearer are the words of another writer of the same century; but before quoting them, I should premise a few words regarding the peculiar nature of his work. I allude to Tertullian, the very first writer in the Latin language, upon the subject of Christianity-to one, consequently, who gives us the very first and earliest notices of the method of proceeding in matters of faith and discipline in the Western churcha writer of such importance, that here again, within these very few years, a learned Bishop of the Establishment, has illustrated his writings in a particular treatise. He has written a very important

work, when considered in reference to the present times. It is entitled, "On the Proscription of Heretics"-that is to say, upon the method whereby those are to be judged and convicted, who depart from the communion of the universal church. The whole drift of his argument is to show, that they have no right whatsoever to appeal to the Scripture, because the Scripture has no authority as an inspired book, save that which it receives from the sanction of the infallible church; that, consequently, they are to be arrested in this first step, and not allowed to proceed any farther in their argument, but be told, "You have no right to this word of God which is not yours; for you reject that authority of the church which alone can give it you. You have, therefore, no right to appeal to that volume from the authority of the church, on whose authority alone it can stand—and, consequently, they are never to be allowed to enter into a detailed argument from the Scriptures, but they are to be brought to the first fundamental principle. That is, if you want to employ your time to some advantage, go and seek the apostolic churches at Antioch and Jerusalem; or, if you are in Africa, Rome is very near; go and see what they believe there in that blessed church, which has received the fulness of doctrine, which has been believed from the time of the apostles; and so you shall arrive, in a simple way, at a knowledge of what you have to believe." Now I will quote, therefore, only one passage from this treatise, which I might safely read to you entire, and you would not find one doctrine different from that which I have preached to you in this pulpit. "What will you gain," he says, by recurring to Scripture, when one denies what the other asserts? Learn, rather, who it is that possesses the faith of Christ, to whom the the Scriptures belong, from whom, and by whom, and when, that faith was delivered by which we are made Christians." You are to ascertain, therefore, from whom you receive the faith, by whom you are converted to a knowledge of Christianity, and thither you are to go to learn what you are to believe. "For where we shall find the true faith, there will be the genuine Scripture; there the true interpretation of it, and there all Christian traditions. Christ chose his apostles, whom he sent to preach to all nations; they delivered his doctrines, and founded churches, from which churches, others drew the seeds of the same doctrines. So now, also, they daily continue to do this; and thus the offspring of the apostolic churches, are themselves deemed apostolical. Now to know what the apostles taught that is, what Christ revealed to them-recourse must be had to the churches which they founded, and which they instructed by word of mouth, and by their epistles; for it is plain, that all the doctrine which is conformable to the faith of this mother church is true, being that which they received from the apostles -the apostles from Christ-Christ from God, and that all other appeals must be novel and false." Is not this precisely the same which I have

given you as the doctrine of the Catholic church at present? Does it not comprise, in a briefer space than I could have condensed it, every one of those principles which I have been striving for several successive evenings to explain and demonstrate to you? The doctrine of Tertul. lian is nothing at all at variance with that of others that I might give subsequently to him. We have writers both in the Greek and Latin churches, showing that the ground on which the Christian church at that time went, was precisely the same, and I will content myself with quoting to you two other passages, one from each of these churches. The first is from Origen, one of the most learned men of the three first centuries that Christianity possessed, and particularly distinguished from the deep, perhaps sometimes too deep application, of philosophical principles to the illustration of Christianity—a man of the most logical mind, and capable of detecting any flaw of reasoning, had there been such a thing, in the train of argument proposed to us, as necessary to arrive at a knowledge of Christianity. It is thus that he speaks: "As there are many who think they believe what Christ taught, and some of these differ from others, it becomes necessary that all should profess the doctrine which came down from the apostles, and now continues in the church. That alone is truth which in nothing differs from what is thus delivered. Therefore, as many who interpret Scripture think according to the various meaning, that they have the true meaning of the words which Christ taught there, is a standard to go to the church, to ascertain what the doctrines are that have been delivered by tradition; the meaning that corresponds to that doctrine is the only true one." Again, in another work," Let him look to it, who would arrogantly pass by, or condemn the apostolic word; to me it is good to adhere to apostolic men, and so to go on to Christ, and to draw intelligence from Scripture, according to the sense that has been delivered by them. If we follow the mere letter of Scripture, and take the interpretation of that alone as the Jews commonly explain it, I should blush to confess that the Lord should have given such a law; but if the law of God be understood as the church teaches, then truly does it transcend all human laws, and is worthy of him that gave it." Again, "As often as heretics produce canonical Scripture, in which every sect agrees, they seem to say, ‘Lo! with us is the word of truth, but to them (that is, to those who differ from the church) we cannot give credit, nor depart from the first ecclesiastical traditions. We can believe only as the succeeding churches of God have delivered."

One passage more from St. Cyprian, and I will close this portion of my argument. He has a Treatise on The Unity of the Church-a treatise entirely directed to point out that unity or oneness of faith, is an essential characteristic of the church, and that this unity of faith is to be preserved also by unity of government, and authority over all