simply in their own name. Our differences from them, considered not in theory but in fact, are in no sense matters of detail and questions of degree. In truth, there is a tenet in their theology which assumes quite a new position in relation to the rest, when we pass from the abstract and quiescent theory to the practical workings of the system. The infallibility of the Church is then found to be its first principle, whereas, before, it was a necessary, but a secondary doctrine. Whatever principles they profess in theory, resembling, or coincident with our own, yet when they come to particulars, when they have to prove this or that article of their creed, they supersede the appeal to Scripture and Antiquity by the pretence of the infallibility of the Church, thus solving the whole question, by a summary and final interpretation both of Antiquity and of Scripture.

This is what takes place in the actual course of the controversy. At the same time it is obvious. that, while they are as yet but engaged in tracing out their elementary principles, and recommending them to our notice, they cannot assign to this influential doctrine the same sovereign place in their system. It cannot be taken for granted as a first principle in the controversy; if so, nothing remains to be proved, and the controversy is at an end, for every doctrine is contained in it by implication, and no doctrine but might as fairly be assumed as a first principle also. Accordingly, in order to make

a show of proving it, its advocates must necessarily fall back upon some more intelligible doctrine; and that is, the authority of Antiquity, to which they boldly appeal, as I described in my last Lecture. It follows that there is a striking dissimilarity, or even inconsistency between their system as quiescent, and as in action, in its abstract principles, and its reasonings and discussions on particular points. In the Creed of Pope Pius not a word is said expressly about the Church's infallibility; it forms no Article of faith there. Her interpretation, indeed, of Scripture is recognized as authoritative; but so also is the "unanimous consent of Fathers." But when we put aside the creeds and professions of our opponents for their actual teaching and disputing, they will be found to care very little for the Fathers, whether as primitive or as concordant; they believe the existing Church to be infallible, and if ancient belief is at variance with it, which of course they do not allow, but if it is, then Antiquity must be mistaken; that is all. Thus Romanism, which even in its abstract system, must be considered a perversion or distortion of the truth, is in its actual and public manifestation a far more serious error. It is then a disproportionate or monstrous development of a theory in itself extravagant. I propose now to give some illustration of it, thus considered, viz., to show that in fact it substitutes the authority of the Church for that of Antiquity.

First, let us understand what is meant by saying that Antiquity is of authority in religious questions. Both Romanists and ourselves maintain as follows: -that whatever doctrine the primitive ages unanimously attest, whether by consent of Fathers, or by Councils, or by the events of history, or by controversies, or in whatever way, whatever may fairly and reasonably be considered to be the universal belief of those ages, is to be received as coming from the Apostles. This Canon, as it may be called, rests upon the principle, which we act on daily, that what many independent and competent witnesses guarantee, is true. The concordant testimony of the Church Catholic to certain doctrines, such as the Incarnation, is an argument in its behalf the same in kind as that for the being of a God, derived from the belief of all nations in an intelligent Providence. If it be asked, why we do not argue in this way from the existing as well as from the ancient Church, we answer that Christendom now differs from itself in all points except those in which it is already known to have agreed of old; so that we cannot make use of it if we would. So far, then, as it can be used, it is but a confirmation of Antiquity, though a valuable Besides, the greater is the interval between a given age and that of the Apostles, and the more intimate the connexion and influence of country with country, the less can the separate branches of the Church be considered as independent witnesses.

one.

In the Roman controversy, then, the witness of a later age, would seldom answer to the notion of a Catholic Tradition, inasmuch as the various parts of Christendom either would not agree together, or when they did, would not be distinct witnesses. Thus Ancient Consent is, practically, the only, or main kind of Tradition which now remains to us.

The Rule or Canon which I have been explaining, is best known as expressed in the words of Vincentius, of Lerins, in his celebrated treatise upon the Tests of Heresy and Error1; viz., that that is to be received as Apostolic which has been taught "always, everywhere, and by all." Catholicity, Antiquity, and Consent of Fathers, is the proper evidence of the fidelity or Apostolicity of a professed Tradition. Infant Baptism, for instance, must have been appointed by the Apostles, or we should not find it received so early, so generally, with such a silence concerning its introduction. The Christian faith is dogmatic, because it has been so accounted in every Church up to this day. The washing of the feet, enjoined in the 13th chapter of the Gospel according to St. John, is not a necessary rite or a Sacrament, because it has never been so observed;-did Christ or His Apostles intend

1 This work, which is short, perspicuous, and eloquent, is now in course of republication at Oxford with a translation. It will amply repay the pains of more than one perusal.

otherwise, it would follow, (what is surely impossible,) that a new and erroneous view of our Lord's words arose even in the Apostles' lifetime, and was from the first every where substituted for the true. Again; fabrics for public worship are allowable and fitting under the Gospel, though our Lord contrasts worshipping at Jerusalem or Gerizim with worshipping in spirit and truth, because they ever have been so esteemed. The Sabbatical rest is changed from the Sabbath to the Lord's-day, because it has never been otherwise, since Christianity was a religion.

It follows that Councils or individuals are of authority, when we have reason to suppose they are trustworthy informants of Apostolical Tradition. If a Council is attended by many Bishops from various parts of Christendom, and if they speak one and all the same doctrine, without constraint, and bear witness to their having received it from their Fathers, that they never heard of any other doctrine, and that they verily believe it to be Apostolic,―great consideration is due to its decisions. If, on the other hand, they do not profess to bear witness to a fact, but merely to deduce from Scripture for themselves, besides or beyond what they received from their Fathers, whatever deference is due to them, it is not of that peculiar kind which is contemplated by the Rule of Vincentius. like manner, if some great Christian writer, of high character, extensive learning, and ample means of information, attests the universality of a certain

In