person can be of opinion that one creed or worship is as good as another? St. Paul speaks of one faith, one baptism, one body; this in itself is a very intelligible hint of his own view of Christianity; but as if to save his words from misinterpretation, here in history is at once a sort of realization of what he seems to allude to. Under these circumstances, what excuse have we for not recognizing in this system of doctrine and worship existing in history that system to which the Apostles refer in Scripture? They evidently did not in Scripture say out all they had to say; this is evident on the face of Scripture, evident from what they do say. St. Paul says, "The rest will I set in order when I come." St. John, “I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee; but I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face." This he says in two epistles. Now supposing, to take the case of profane history, a collection. of letters was extant by the founders or remodellers of the Platonic or Stoic philosophy, and supposing they referred in them to their philosophy, and treated of it in parts, yet without drawing it out, and then besides, supposing there were other and more direct historical sources of various kinds from which a distinct systematic account of their philosophy might be drawn, one account and but one from many witnesses, should we not take it for granted that this was their system, that system of which their letters spoke? Should not we take up that system conveyed to us by history with (I will not say merely an antecedent disposition in its favour, but with) a confidence and certainty that it was their system; and if we found discrepancies between it and their letters, should we at once cast it aside as spurious, or rather try to reconcile them, and suspect that we were in fault, that we had made some mistake; and even if after all we could not reconcile all parts (supposing it), should we not leave them as difficulties, and believe in the system notwithstanding? The Apostles refer to a large existing fact, their system; history informs us of a system, as far as we can tell, contemporaneous, and claiming to be theirs ;-what other claimant is there?

Whether, then, the system, referred to but not brought out in Scripture, be latent there or not, whether our view be right or

the Roman view, at any rate a system there is; we see it, we have it external to Scripture. There it stands, however we may Whether we adopt the wording

determine this further question. of our sixth article or not, we cannot obliterate the fact that a system does substantially exist in history; all the proofs you may bring of the obscurities or the unsystematic character of Scripture cannot touch this independent fact; were Scripture lost to us, that fact would remain. You have your choice to say that Scripture does, or does not agree with it. If you think it actually disagrees with Scripture, then you have your choice between concluding either that you are mistaken in so thinking, or that although this system comes to us, as it does, on the same evidence with Scripture, yet it is not divine, while Scripture is. If, however, you consider that it merely teaches things additional to Scripture, then you have no excuse for not admitting it in addition to Scripture. And if it teaches things but indirectly taught in Scripture, then you must admit it as an interpreter or comment upon Scripture. But, whether you say it is an accordant or a discordant witness, whether the supplement, complement, or interpreter of Scripture, there it stands, that consistent harmonious system of faith and worship, as in the beginning; and, if history be allowed any weight in the discussion, it is an effectual refutation of Latitudinarianism. It is a fact concurring with the common sense of mankind and with their wants. Men want a

dogmatic system; and behold, in the beginning of Christianity, and from the beginning to this day, there it stands. This is so remarkable a coincidence that it will always practically weigh against Latitudinarian views. Nor does it avail to say, that there were additions made to it in the course of years, or that the feeling of a want may have given rise to it; for what was added after, whatever it was, could not create that to which it was added; and I say that first of all, before there was a time for the harmonious uniform expansion of a system, for the experience and supply of human wants, for the inroads of innovation, and the growth of corruption, and with all fair allowance for differences of opinion as to how much is primitive, or when and where this or that

particular fact is witnessed, or what interpretation is to be given to particular passages in historical documents,-from the first a system exists. And we have no right to refuse it, merely on the plea that we do not see all the parts of it in Scripture, or that we think some parts of it to be inconsistent with Scripture; for even though some parts were not there, this would not disprove its truth; and even though some parts seemed contrary to what is there, this appearance might after all be caused simply by our own incompetency to judge of Scripture.

But perhaps it may here be urged, that I have proved too much; that is, it may be asked, "If this system is so natural, and appears at once in the writings of the Apostles' disciples, as in the Epistles of St. Ignatius, how is it that it is not in the writings of the Apostles themselves? how does it happen that it does appear in the short Epistles of Ignatius, and does not in the Epistles of St. Paul? so that the tendency of the foregoing argument is to disparage the Apostles' teaching, as showing that it is not adapted, and Ignatius's is adapted to our wants." But the answer to this is simple; for though the Apostles' writings do not on their surface display the system, they certainly do express (as I have said) a recognition both of its existence and of its principle. If, then, in spite of this there is no Apostolic system of faith and worship, all we shall have proved by our argument is, that the Apostles are inconsistent with themselves; that they recognize the need of a system, and do not provide one. How it is they do not draw down a system, while they nevertheless both recognize its principle and witness its existence, has often been discussed, and perhaps I may say something incidentally on the subject hereafter. Here, I do but observe, that on the one side of the question we have the human heart expecting, Scripture sanctioning, history providing,-a coincidence of three witnesses; and on the other side only this, Scripture not actually providing in form and fulness what it sanctions.

Lastly, I would observe, that much as Christians have differed in these latter or in former ages, as to what is the true faith and what the true worship and discipline of CHRIST, yet one and all

have held that Christianity is dogmatic and social, that creeds and forms are not to be dispensed with. There has been an uninterrupted maintenance of this belief from the beginning of Christianity down to this day, with exceptions so partial and ephemeral as not to deserve notice. I conclude, then, either that the notion of forms and creeds, and of unity in them, is so natural to the human mind as to be spontaneously produced and cherished in every age; or that there has been a strong external reason for its having been so cherished, whether in authority or in argumentative proof, or in the force of tradition. In whatever way we take it, it is a striking evidence in favour of dogmatic religion, and against that unreal form, or rather that mere dream of religion, which pretends that modes of thinking and social conduct are all one and all the same in the eyes of GoD, supposing each of us to be sincere

in his own.

Dismissing, then, Latitudinarianism once for all, as untenable, and taking for granted that there is a system of religion revealed in the Gospel, I come, as I have already stated several times, to one or other of two conclusions: either that it is not all in Scripture, but part in tradition only, with the Romanists,—or with the English Church, that though it is in tradition, yet it can also be gathered from the communications of Scripture. As to the non-descript system of religion now in fashion, that nothing is to be believed but what is clearly in Scripture, that all its own doctrines are clearly there and none other, and that as to history it is no matter what it says and what it does not say, except so far that it must be used to prove the canonicity of Scripture, this will come before us again and again in the following Lectures. Suffice that it has all the external extravagance of Latitudinarianism without its internal consistency. It is inconsistent because it is morally better: Latitudinarianism is consistent because it is intellectually deeper. Both, however, are mere theories in theology, and ought to be discarded by serious men. We must give up our ideal notions, and resign ourselves to facts. We must take things as we find them, as God has given them. We did not make them, we cannot alter them, though

we are sometimes tempted to think it very hard that we cannot. We must submit to them instead of quarrelling with them. We must submit to the indirectness of Scripture, unless we think it wiser and better to become Romanists: and we must employ our minds rather (if so be) in accounting for the fact, than in excepting against it.