greater clearness, and in all their mutual organic connexion; so, in the doctrine of the Church, the doctrine of Scripture is ever progressively unfolded to our view. Dull, therefore, as it is, to find any other than a mere formal distinction, between the doctrine of Christ and that of his apostles; no less senseless is it, to discover any other difference, between the primitive and the later tradition of the Church. The blame of this formal difference arises from overlooking the fact, that Christ was a God-Man, and wished to continue working in a manner, conformable to his two-fold nature.

Moreover, the deeper insight of the human mind into the divine revelations in Christ, seems determined by the struggles of error against Christian truth. It is to the unenlightened zeal of the Jewish Christians for the law, we owe the expositions of Paul touching faith and the power of the Gospel: and to the schisms in Corinth we are indebted for his explanation of principles, in respect to the Church. The Gnostic and Manichean errors, led to a clearer insight into the character of evil, destitute of, and opposed to, all existence as it is, as well as to a maturer knowledge of the value of God's original creation (nature and freedom), and its relation to the new creation in Christ Jesus. Out of the Pelagian contest arose a fuller and more conscious recognition of human infirmity, in the sphere of true virtue; and so have matters gone on down to our days. It would be ridiculous, on the part of Catholics, to deny as a foolish boast of Protestants (should the latter be inclined to claim any merit in the case), that the former had gained much from the controversy with them. By the fall of the Protestants, the Catholics necessarily rose; and from the obscurity, which overclouded the minds of the reformers, a new light was cast upon the truth;

and such indeed had ever been the case in all earlier schisms in the Church. Assuredly, in Christian knowledge we stand one degree higher than the period prior to the reformation; and all the dogmas that were called in question, received such an elucidation and confirmation, that it would require no very diligent or longcontinued comparison between the modern theological works, and those written prior to the Council of Trent, to see the important difference which, in this respect, exists between the two epochs.

The fact that the deeper consciousness of Christian truth (in itself eternally one and unchangeable), is the result of contest and struggle, and consequently matter of history, is of too much importance not to detain our attention for some moments. It explains the necessity of a living, visible authority which, in every dispute, can, with certainty, discern the truth, and separate it from error. Otherwise, we should have only the variable the disputed-and at last Nichilism itself. Hence it happens (and this we may venture to premise) that where Holy Writ, without tradition and the authority of the Church, is declared to be the sole source and rule for the knowledge of Gospel truth, all more precise explanations and developements of Christian dogmas are willingly left in utter ignorance, nay, are even absolutely rejected. Guided by this principle, men can find no rational object to connect with the history of believing intelligence in the Christian Church, and must necessarily evince hostility towards every thing of this tendency, which hath occurred in the Church. Or, when they lose all confidence and all hope of freeing themselves from the turmoil of opinions, and of seeing a bright, steady light arise out of the dark chaos, they cast, in their despair, upon the Bible

the whole mass of opinions, that ages have thrown up; and of that which is, boldly assert it could not have been otherwise, consequently exists of necessity, and is inherent in the very essence of Christianity. They do not see that, with that complaisance to acknowledge every variety of opinion, which, in the course of time, may have gradually been founded on Scripture, a destructive principle, for the solution of all the enigmas of Christian history, is laid down:-to wit, the principle that its object is to show, that the Scripture, as it includes every sense, hath consequently none. But all charges against the Catholic Church are reduced to this, that she has been so absurd, as to suppose the Scriptures to contain one sense, and consequently only one, and that definite, whereof the faithful, in the course of history, must ever obtain a clearer and more intuitive knowledge; while, on the other hand, the refutation of the above-mentioned prejudice, which manifested itself soon after the origin of the Church, hath been, in the succession of ages, the peculiar task of Christian science.

§ XLI.-Tradition in a more limited sense. The Canon of the Scriptures.

From that notion of tradition, which we have hitherto expounded, another is to be distinguished, although both are intimately united with each other. Tradition we have hitherto described as the consciousness of the Church, as the living word of faith, according to which the Scriptures are to be interpreted, and to be understood. The doctrine of tradition contains, in this sense, nothing else than the doctrine of Scripture; both, as to their contents, are one and the same. But, moreover, it is asserted by the Catholic Church, that many

things have been delivered to her by the apostles, which Holy Writ either doth not at all comprise, or, at most, but alludes to. This assertion of the Church is of the greatest moment, and partially, indeed, includes the foundations of the whole system.* Among these oral traditions must be included the doctrine of the canonicity, and the inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures; for, in no part of the Bible do we find the books belonging to it designated; and were such a catalogue contained in it, its authority must first be made matter of inquiry. In like manner, the testimony as to the inspiration of the biblical writings is obtained only through the Church. It is from this point we first discern, in all its magnitude, the vast importance of the doctrine of Church authority, and can form a notion of the infinite multitude of things, involved in that doctrine. He can scarcely be a sincere Christian, who will not attribute to a special protection of Divine Providence, the preservation of the works of those apostles, and of such of their disciples, who have made a contribution to the biblical canon. But, in taking into consideration this special protection, he cannot set aside the Catholic Church, and must, even in despite of deliberate repugnance, admit that it was that Church, which the Saviour employed as a medium for preserving to all ages the writings, that had been penned

* On that passage from the Council of Trent, cited above (Sess. IV. c. 2), "Hanc veritatem et disciplinam contineri in libris scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus,” Pallavicini remarks as follows: "Duo per illam sanctionem intendit synodus, alterum, palam facere, fidei Catholicæ fundamenta non modo esse divinas literas, quod recentes hæretici pertinaciter contendebant; sed non minus etiam traditiones, a quibus denique dependet, quidquid certi obtinemus de legitimâ ipsarum scripturarum auctoritate."-Lib. VI. c. viii. n. 7.

under his peculiar assistance. Every learned theologian is aware, that the Gnostics, as well as one class of anti-Trinitarians, in the second and third centuries, rejected sometimes this or that gospel, sometimes the Acts of the Apostles, and sometimes the apostolic epistles; nay, even brought forward spurious gospels and acts of the apostles, and mutilated, in the most criminal manner, the genuine apostolic works, which they retained. And yet no one can refuse to acknowledge, that the visible Church, which these heretics assailed, in the same manner as is usual with Protestants, -the Church that the former, like the latter, continually denounced as the corruptress of pure doctrine, as exerting a tyranny over minds, as wicked beyond conception-that this Church, we say, was selected and deemed worthy by Almighty God, to preserve the most precious jewel of Christians! What conclusions may not hence be immediately deduced! On Luther himself, as we shall have occasion later to see, this fact made a deep impression; and he brought it forward at times, in a train of ideas, that can scarcely be reconciled with the position which, in other respects, he had taken up against the Catholic Church.

Moreover, in reference to the canon of the sacred writings, some difference exists between Catholics and Protestants. Originally, indeed, it seemed probable as if in this department very important differences would have arisen; as if the melancholy spectacle of the first ages would have been renewed, in which, according to the suggestions of caprice, or the interest of mere individual opinions, sometimes one, sometimes another portion of the Bible was rejected. It is generally known (and indeed in Berthold's and De Wette's Introductions to the Sacred Books, the reader may in part