were obliged to leave it, and remain without. In this way, until actually baptized, 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 several 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 had 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 had been instructed in them. But if we suppose the principle just mentioned to have been followed by the Church, she exposed herself, uselessly, to a dreadful risk. Instead of at once proposing her docrines 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 had 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 principle 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 ductrines 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 cathechisings, 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 secresy 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 from Scripture. Surely the Sacred Volume was never intended and was not adopted to teach us our creed; however certain it is that we can prove our creed from it, when it has once been taught us, and 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 the Scripture in vindication of its own teaching. And, from the first, it has been the error of heretics to neglect the information provided for them, and to attempt of themselves a work to which they are unequal, 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 obstinately reject Newton's theory of gravitation, and endeavor, with talents inadequate to the task, to strike out some theory of motion by himself. The insufficiency of the mere private study of Holy Scripture for arriving at the entire truth which it really contains, is shown by the fact, that creeds and teachers have ever been divinely provided, and by the discordance of opinions which exist wnenever those aids are thrown aside; as well as by the very structure of the Bible itself. And if this be so, it follows, that when inquirers and neophytes used the inspired writings for the purposes of morals, and for instruction in the rudiments of the faith, they still might need the teaching of the Church, as a key to the collection of passages which related to the mysteries of the Gospel-passages which are obscure from the necessity of combining and receiving them all.”

Here, then, my brethren, we have an acknowledgment made, within these last two years, by a learned divine. of the Established Church, that the Christians in early times were not instructed in the important dogmas of religion, until baptized; and he answers the objection that the Scriptures were then the rule of faith, by asserting that they were indeed employed by

the Church to confirm the faith which it taught, but were never considered as the only ground upon which faith was to be built. This is more than sufficient for my purpose; it not only admits the premises which I have laid down, but goes as far as I can wish in the consequences it draws.

II. Thus much may suffice as to the method of instruction in the three first centuries; it was conducted on precisely the same principle as I explained in my last discourse. The next inquiry is, on what grounds the Christians of these centuries received the word of God. Did they consider the Scripture as the sole groundwork of faith, or, with us, as a book to be received and explained on the authority of the Church? You shall judge from the very few passages which I will read to you from their works; because it would detain you a great deal too long, if I entered fully into this portion of the argument. There is a remarkable saying on this subject of the great St. Augustine; for he is speaking of the method by which he was brought to the knowledge of Christianity. Disputing with a Manichee, one of a class of heretics with whom in early life he had associated himself, he says expressly, as it should be rendered, from the peculiarity of the style: "I should not have believed the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church had not led or moved me."* This little sentence declares at once the principle on which he believed. This greatest light of the century in which he lived, declares that he could not have received the Scripture, except on the authority of the Catholic Church!

See now the way in which St. Irenæus, the same father whom I before quoted, speaks on this point: "To him that believeth that there is one God, and holds to the head, which is Christ, to this man all things will be plain, if he read diligently the Scripture, with the aid of those who are the priests in the Church, and in whose hands, as we have shown, rests the doctrine of the apostles." That is to say, the Scripture may be read, and will be simple and easy to him who reads it, with the assistance of those to whom the apostles delivered the unwritten code, as the key to its true explanation.

Still clearer are the words of another writer of the same cen

Contra epist. Fundamenti op. to. vi. p. 46, ed. Par. 1614, "Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Catholicæ ecclesiæ commoveret auctoritas." Heraldus observes, that an Africanism here exists in the text, and crederem is for credid 'ssem.—See Desiderii Ileraldi animadv. ad Arnobium. Lib. 4, p. 54, or "Two Letters," as above, p. 66.

† Ibid, 1. iv. c. 52, p. 355.