rites and ceremonies,' are sound; that is to say, that these doctrines and practices are either somewhere contained in, or are virtually conveyed by, the New Testament, although not thence to be gathered by any convincing method of proof; or that they may be gathered from history. Be it so; that is to say, that, while the Apostles insist upon faith, hope, love, joy, peace, obedience, and the like, they also taught and established in the churches, the church principles and practices,' such as we find them everywhere in the records of ancient christianity.

For reasons which may lie beyond our ken, it may have pleased God to convey the spiritual and moral elements of religion through the medium of explicit written statements; while the ritual and ecclesiastical elements of the same great and harmonious scheme, were to reach us more circuitously, or more ambiguously. If this were granted to be the fact (which is much more than we grant) could we yet go on to believe that the relative position, or, as we may say, the perspective of objects— the spiritual, the moral, the ritual, the ecclesiastical, was, with the divine sanction, and in accordance with the divine will, to be inverted, when the apostolic scheme came into the hands of the next generation? Grant it, that more belonged to apostolic christianity than may certainly or clearly be gathered from the apostolic writings; but yet was not this after-portion to fall into its place, in obedience to the GENERAL LAW of the system, as we may gather that law from the style, temper, and very words, and special decisions, of the Apostles? Was it intended that the individual christian was, as soon as the Apostles left the world, to shift his position, and to betake himself to a point of view whence every thing would appear under a totally different aspect, and present to the been seen before; and that these subtend, on the field of vision, the great seeming small, and the be believed?

eye a side that had not objects severally, should exchanged magnitudessmall great? Is this to

But it must be believed, if we are to take the several articles of what is called' church doctrine,' in the order, and under the perspective, in which we find them, where only we do find them at all, namely, in the extant remains of the early church. If we give up

these records, we give up with them those superadded practices and principles, or church doctrines; for we have no other sufficient warrant for paying them any regard. But if we adhere to these records, then on what principle do we submit to the rites. and notions thence derived, as of apostolic authority, and yet reject the relative position therein assigned to them? Whence do we draw our authority for making this distinction, and for acting upon the difference, between the doctrines or practices themselves, and the location of them? If the bishops of the early church are to teach us the way of the Lord more perfectly' than we can learn it from the Apostles themselves, then, on what ground do we call in question their right to hold the entire scheme of religion. up to our view, in its just perspective? I do not understand how we can yield ourselves to this extra-apostolic authority, just in regard to the articles of christian belief and worship; and then withdraw ourselves from it, in regard to the order in which they are to follow one the other.

I assume it then as certain that, in taking what are called the 'church doctrines' from the early and nicene church writers, we are bound to receive them not insulated, or in fragments; but as we there find them. But if so, then we, that is to say those who yield themselves to this guidance, are placed in a predicament as serious as any that can be imagined, for we are not merely called upon to accept, as of divine authority, very much which the inspired writers barely glance at; but to regard those things as foremost which, in the inspired writings, even if they appear at all, and which is confessed to be doubtful, are placed hindermost. To make so many additions to our faith, worship, and practice, is something; but it yet is nothing compared with the ominous operation of inverting the entire order of things-spiritual and ecclesiastical. What religious mind will not hesitate and tremble when invited to go to such a length as this?

No fact in the history of religion, or philosophy, obtrudes itself more forcibly, or more frequently, upon our notice, than that of the utter contrast between the apostolic writings, and the writings of the fathers, especially of the nicene fathers (who are now to be our masters) in this particular, namely, the relative position of the diverse elements of religion. I can hardly believe that

any will be so bold as roundly to deny, or as, in any important sense, to qualify the statement of this fact. Assuredly nonenot the Oxford Tract writers, for they have confessed the very contrary-none will dare to say that the Apostles were mainly intent upon the enhancement and glorification of the rites, forms, dignities, and exterior apparatus of christianity. If any will say this, I have no reply to make to them. Nor can I suppose that any, except a very few, who, by long and fond converse with antiquity, have lost the vigour of their moral and intellectual perceptions, will deny that the fathers, and the nicene fathers especially, look at the components of their christianity from an opposite point. They do not, as I have stated twenty times, deny, or altogether forget, that which is spiritual in religion; but they place foremost, and they urgently direct the minds of the people towards that which is visible. It is on these matters that their seriousness and fervour are employed; it is while upholding these, that they kindle and spend their force. When do they lavish rhetoric? in glorifying the Saviour of sinners, and in recommending the Gospel?-seldcm; some of them never. they can, one and all, glow and burn, and roll thunders, and dart their sparks, when the mysteries and powers of the Church are in question.

But

An illustration in harmony with the subject offers itself among the stores of graphic ecclesiastical antiquity, where one may find the delineation of this or that sacred edifice, fairly depicted in bold lines and strong colours; embossed too, and palpable, in its glittering decorations. Then there are about it, and about it, flimsy, faint-coloured cherubs, and seraphs, hovering in the clouds, and chirping anthems; and, altogether, making a seemly border to the temple of St. Peter, or St. Mark. Now, much like this is the view of christianity presented to us in the patristic records— there is the CHURCH, boldly drawn, and bodily laid upon the parchment, so as that one may feel its outlines, as well as look at it; and this church is made awful to the mind of the spectator by its hiding the 'terrific mysteries,' while around it, and over it, flutter the airy figures of spiritual piety-faith, hope, charity, joy, peace, and the like; and, to render justice to the system, the moral virtues temperance, self-denial, charity (almsgiving) are seen,

in substantial quality, moving in and out of the building, as living personages. Yet such is the general arrangement of objects in the piece-such the grouping, and the distribution of light and shade, as that, even if the few and the better taught kept their eye fixed upon spiritual objects, the many could do nothing else but look directly toward that which, in a practical sense, seemed alone of any consequence to them. They looked to the sacraments, which they were solemnly assured conveyed infallibly the benefit they were in search of, namely, exemption from future peril. Nay, so direct is the tendency of perverted human nature toward whatever is visible and formal in religion, that, with the mass of men, it was not so much the sacramentthe whole religious rite, which fixed their attention, as the mere material, or instrument of the sacraments: the glassy surface of the baptismal pool, as yet unruffled, and reflecting the marbled magnificence of the church, seemed the very mirror of eternity, and as if, while intently gazing npon it, the glories of heaven might be dimly descried beneath. An analogous instance, and hundreds of the like kind might be adduced, I have already referred to, I mean that of the brother of Ambrose, who had been taught to attach such importance to the mere eucharistic wafer, as to think that, tied about his neck, it would serve him better than the stoutest of the ship's timbers, in making his way to land through the breakers!

Now, when we have instances of this sort before us, the question is not (the immediate question) whether the notions of the early church concerning the sacraments, and the wonder-working efficacy of the bread, the wine, the water, the oil, the salt, the spittle, were true or false; but whether in a broad and practical sense, the effect of these notions upon the mass of the people, nay, upon the best-trained minds (such for instance as Satyrus) was not, to invert the order in which the spiritual and the ritual elements of christianity were to be viewed, as compared with the order in which they seem to have stood in the view of the Apostles?

Say, that catholic teaching, I mean that of the nicene fathers, regarding the sacraments and other 'church doctrines,' is what we ought to adopt and follow. But now I would gladly put the plain question-an historical, not a theological question, to any

S

one competently informed, who has too much of the feelings of a gentleman to resort to evasions, and too much of the conscience of a christian to put a false colour upon facts touching religious principles, and too much of the integrity of a minister, or public person, to compromise in any manner his professional character —to such a one, I would be glad to put the question-Whether, so far as we can judge by their writings, the Apostles, and the nicene fathers, and their respective hearers, were accustomed to look at the spiritual, and the ritual elements of christianity from one and the same point of view, or not rather from opposite points of view? Who will give such a reply to this question as shall not be open to a speedy refutation?

Shall the answer to such a question be staked upon a full exhibition of the style and doctrine of Ambrose, concerning the sacraments; or shall we introduce him, passionately pleading with God for the soul of Valentinian, who had died uninitiated, unregenerate, unjustified, that is-unbaptized; Solve, igitur, Pater Sancte, munus servo tuo! Upon the popular mind, what effect could the ambiguous anxious intercession of their trembling bishop, when thus supplicating mercy for the soul of the uninitiated 'servant of God,' have had, but that of putting the ritual in forefront of the spiritual element of religion? In conformity with the same notion, the Church, from an early time, held that the blood of martyrdom, although nothing else could, might be held, in the case of a catechumen, to supply to the soul the want of the water of baptism.

So the custom, general as it became, of deferring baptism to the last hour, a custom so utterly opposed to the practice of the apostolic age, whence did it arise, but from the doctrine of the Church at the time; for the people, estimating, if we may so speak, their chances of heaven, all things considered, concluded, and not unreasonably, that although in doing so they incurred the fearful risk of meeting death suddenly, or where the regenerating water' could not be obtained, yet inasmuch as a death-bed initiation, if it could but be had, would cover all defects, and moreover, as sin after baptism could be expiated, if at all, only in the precarious and painful methods of penance, which expiatory process itself might be cut short by death, leaving no remedy whatever; the safer course, although a perilous one, was