the individual Christian could undoubtedly convince himself, that the Gnostics were involved in grievous errors. Of this he was subjectively certain: but as the adversary had the like subjective conviction, that the true Christian view of the world was to be found on his side, the objectivity of Christianity would have necessarily disappeared, if, besides the Bible, there had not been a rule of faith, to wit, universal Tradition.* Without this rule, it would ever be impossible to determine with positiveness, safety, and general obligation, the peculiar doctrines of Christianity. The individual, at best, could only hazard the assertion, this is my view, my interpretation of Scripture; or, in other words, without tradition there would be no doctrine of the Church, and no Church, but individual Christians only;

ancient Church; three theological epistles to Dr. Delbrück, from Dr. Sack, Dr. Nitzch, and Dr. Lücke;" pp. 125, 141, 142, 145. Not only Irenæus, Hippolytus, Novatian, Origen, and others, prove the Catholic dogmas out of the Bible also, but in all ages, down to the present day, Catholics adduce the scriptural proof.

* Tertullian, in the work first cited, c. 18, makes the following luminous observations, drawn fresh from life: " Si quis est, cujus causa in congressum descendis scripturarum, ut eum dubitantem confirmes, ad veritatem, an magis ad hæreses diverget? Hoc ipso motus, quod te videat nihil promovisse, æquo gradu negandi et defendendi adversâ parte, statu certe pari, altercatione incertior discedet, nesciens quam hæresim judicet.".........C. 19: "Ergo non ad scripturas provocandum est: nec in his constituendum certamen, in quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est, aut par incertæ. Nam etsi non ita evaderet collatio scripturarum, ut utrumque partem parem sisteret, ordo rerum desiderabat, prius proponi, quod nunc solum disputandum est: quibus competat fides ipsa? Cujus sint scripturæ? A quo, et per quos, et quando, et quibus sit tradita disciplina, quâ fiunt Christiani? Ubi enim apparuerit esse veritatem et disciplinæ et fidei Christianæ, illic erit veritas scripturarum et expositionum et omnium traditionum Christianarum."

no certainty and security, but only doubt and probability.

Scarcely had the struggle of the Catholic Church, with Gnosticism, reached its highest point, when, in the most decided contrast with the latter, the one class of Unitarians arose; for these, and not, as Neander thinks, the Montanists, form the contrary extreme to the Gnostics. If the Gnostics saw in Christianity nothing but what was divine, and in Christ recognized merely the divine reason, so that they attributed to the Redeemer only an apparent body, represented him as merely putting on an illusive form of man, but not taking the real nature of man, and regarded moreover the visible world as thoroughly evil; these Unitarians on the other hand, discovered in the Saviour a mere man, enlightened by Heaven; and consistently with this doctrine, denied the descent of the Divine Spirit upon the apostles and the Church, and the high supernatural aids of grace; which they the less needed, as they acknowledged the existence of no deeply implanted corruption in human nature. Did the former look upon the Gospel as a plastic impulse, a divine germ of life, a celestial energy; so the latter regarded it as a law of formation, a dead rule, an abstract notion, a pure ethical system, by application whereof the defects to be found in our otherwise excellent moral nature, may be totally eradicated. The Unitarians of this class (after falsifying Holy Writ), appealed to the same, and by the rejection of tradition, relied exclusively on its authority.* What course, under these circumstances, was the Church to be advised? Was she to declare that every one was provisionally to follow his own

*Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. v. c. 27.

views, until results, satisfactory to each individual, could be more surely obtained from the study of Holy Writ ? Most undoubtedly, if the Church had been a mere historico-antiquarian association; if she had had no conception of herself, of her foundation, of her essence, and of her task, and no sense of the power of faith. But, as she enjoyed the possession of these, she acted otherwise, and from her conduct clearly resound the words: "eternally certain is the doctrine of the Redeemer to his disciples-the written word is one with the livingthat which is inscribed on paper and parchment, with that which is engraven on hearts by the power of the Holy Spirit; and the doubts, which may arise out of the former, are dispelled by the latter." The faith existing in the Church, from the beginning throughout all ages, is the infallible standard to determine the true sense of Scripture; and accordingly it is certain, beyond the shadow of doubt, that the Redeemer is God, and hath filled us even with divine power. In fact, he who grounds his faith on Scripture only, that is, on the result of his exegetical studies, has no faith, can have none, and understands not its very nature. Must he not be always ready to receive better information; must he not admit the possibility, that by mature study of Scripture, another result may be obtained, than that which has already been arrived at? The thought of this very possibility precludes the establishment of any decided, perfectly undoubting, and unshaken faith, which, after all, is alone deserving of the name. He who says,

"this is my faith," hath no faith. Faith, unity of faith, universality of faith, are one and the same; they are but different expressions of the same notion. He who, if even he should not believe the truth, yet believes truly, believes at the same time that he holds fast the

doctrine of Christ, that he shares the faith with the Apostles, and with the Church founded by the Redeemer, that there is but one faith in all ages, and one only true one. This faith is alone rational, and alone worthy of man: every other should be called a mere opinion, and, in a practical point of view, is an utter impotency.

Ages passed by, and with them the ancient sects: new times arose, bringing along with them new schisms in the Church. The formal principles of all these productions of egotism were the same; all asserted that Holy Writ, abstracted from Tradition and from the Church, is at once the sole source of religious truth, and the sole standard of its knowledge for the individual. This formal principle, common to all parties, separated from the Church; to the Gnostic of the second century, and the Albigensian and Vaudois of the twelfth, to the Sabellian of the third, the Arian of the fourth, and the Nestorian of the fifth century-this principle, we say, led to the most contradictory belief. What indeed can be more opposite to each other, than Gnosticism and Pelagianism, than Sabellianism and Arianism?* The very circumstance, indeed, that one

* With respect to the Arians, compare Athanasius de Synodo, § 1314, 40, 43, 47; Basil de Spiritû Sancto, c. 10. "Id quod impugnatur fides est, isque scopus est communis omnibus adversariis et sanæ doctrinæ inimicis, ut soliditatem fidei in Christum concutiant, apostolicam traditionem solo æqualem abolendo. Ea propter, sicut solent, qui bonæ fidei debitores sunt, probationes e Scripturâ clamore exigunt. Patrum testimonium, quod scriptum non est, velut nullius momenti rejicientes." Compare c. 27, Augustin. lib. i. contra Maximin: "Si quid de divinis protuleris," says the Arian; "quod commune est cum omnibus, necesse est ut audiamus. Hæ vero voces, quæ extra scripturam sunt, nullo casû à nobis suscipiuntur. Præterea quum ipse Dominus moneat nos, et dicat: sine causâ colunt me, docentes mandata et præcepta

and the same formal principle can be applied to every possible mode of belief; or rather that this belief, however contradictory it may be in itself, can still make use of that formal principle, should alone convince every one, that grievous errors must here lie concealed, and that between the individual and the Bible a mediating principle is wanting.

What is indeed more striking than the fact, that every later religious sect doth not deny that the Catholic Church, in respect to the parties that had previously seceded from her, has in substance right on her side, and even recognizes in these cases her dogmatic decisions; while on the other hand, it disputes her formal principles? Would this ecclesiastical doctrine, so formed and so approved of, have been possible, without the peculiar view the Church entertained of herself? Doth not the one determine the other? With joy the Arian recognizes what has been decided by the Church against the Gnostics; but he does not keep in view the manner in which she proceeded against them; and he will

hominum." In August. de Nat. et grat. c. 39, Pelagius thus expresses himself: "Credamus igitur quod legimus, et quod non legimus, nefas credamus adstruere." Eutyches, act. 1. Concil. Chalced. in Hard. Act. Concil. tom. ii. p. 186: “Έτοιμον γὰρ αὐτὸν εἶναι ἔφασκε ταῖς ἐκθέσεσι τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων, τῶν τε ἐν Νικαίᾳ καὶ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ τὴν ούνοδον ποιησαμένων, συντίθεσθαι, καὶ ὑπογράφειν ταῖς ἑρμηνείαις αὐτῶν ὁμολόγει εἰ δέ που τύχοι τι παρ' αὐτῶν ἔν τισι λέξεσι ἢ διασφαλθέν, ἤ διαπλανηθέν, τοῦτο μήτε διαβάλλειν, μηδὲ καταδέχεσθαι. μόνας δὲ τὰς γραφὰς ἐρευνᾷν, ὡς βεβαιοτέρας οὖσας τῆς τῶν πατερων ἐκθέσεως κ. τ. λ.” "He said that he was ready to receive the decrees of the holy fathers assembled in the Councils of Nice and Ephesus, and he promises to subscribe to their definitions. But, if in their declarations any thing by chance should be found either unsound or false, he says that he will neither reject nor approve of it; but search the scripture alone, as being more solid than all the decrees of the fathers."