Part the DIVISION I. IDENTITY OF CHRISTIAN FAITH. THE second century of the Christian era is a comparatively dark period, thrown in between two periods of light; and it is not to be wondered at if controversialists, unable to maintain from direct historic evidence, the non-revelation of doctrines cherished by their adversaries, should refer the introduction of them to such a period as this, where direct rebutting evidence is not discovered without difficulty, and the materials of positive proof are few indeed, and not very strong or convincing. The Church of this period has been a favourite theme with the adversaries of the Catholic Church. They discover here an orthodoxy at first, and there a heterodoxy of belief and practice. It grew and it grew not. It flourished and it died. It believed-it doubted-it denied the faith: and all within the short space of one hundred years. Such is the Protestant view. Let us consider the facts of this important case as they can be culled from the writings of the time. Was the faith of the Church the same at the beginning and at the end of this period we now examine? Here is the question as to the identity of faith. Or in other words, did the Church in the middle of the third century, hold a body of doctrine substantially different from that which it held while the Apostles were still presiding over it, and guiding it by their counsels and inspiration? It must be admitted by all parties that a certain body of revealed doctrine was delivered by God to His Church. Certain men of the old dispensation were inspired; who they were is a question with which we have nothing to do here. Certain men of the new dispensation were inspired; whether they wrote all that God revealed to them, or whether they delivered a portion of it unwritten to the Church, is a question we do not now discuss. That certain holy men of the old and new dispensations were heavenly-taught men is a fact admitted by all: and that these men-the Prophets of the Old, and the Apostles of the New Testament, delivered their heavenly doctrines to the people of God under divine inspiration is a fact that is equally incontrovertible. The body of revealed doctrine was certainly not the same at all times-for instance, it was greater in the time of St. Paul than it was in the time of Isaias. It had been gradually growing from the time that Moses wrote the book of Genesis: and it went on accumulating word upon word, and fact upon fact, and book upon book, until some period approaching the death of the last of the Apostles, when it formed one comprehensive body of doctrine, which was the property and the possession of the Church of God on earth. Did the Church retain this body of doctrine unchanged during the second century of its existence? Here is the important question that we have now to examine, and from the answer to this question there will be a great result deducible, for it will determine the validity of the claims of parties sufficiently hostile to identification in faith with the professors of primitive Christianity. This question involves a twofold inquiry. The Church might be supposed to lose the deposit of faith -1st, By becoming absolutely oblivious of some revealed doctrine committed to her keeping. Or 2nd, By erring as to the meaning of some such doctrine, though perhaps retaining its forms. Or, in other words, the Church might be supposed to get into a state of simple nescience in reference to certain articles of faith, or into a state of palpable heresy. Heresy is criminal-oblivion is not necessarily a crime. The Church might be an oblivious Church: and yet not necessarily unorthodox in faith. But if the Church lost the faith, by erring as to the meaning of any revealed article committed to her care, she would by this very fact cease at once to be the heavenly-taught Church of Christ. We do not inquire here whether the Church of the two first centuries was oblivious of the faith or not; but we want to discover, whether the Church was orthodox or unorthodox. The adversaries of the Catholic Church who identify the integrity of faith with the integrity of the sacred Scriptures, and who gladly acknowledge that the Scriptures were preserved in their integrity during the two first centuries, do not bring any charge of obliviousness against the Church of this period. They impute to her a crime-the crime of having erred from the faith-the crime of having believed, of having doubted, of having denied. Catholic divines, while admitting that the explicit belief of the Church might undergo some change from circumstances, and might be greater at one time than another, are still unanimous in asserting that the adequate belief of the Church has been always one and the same. Catholics and Acatholics argue the question on different grounds, and they regard the question of the Church's obliviousness from an entirely different point of view; but they are both agreed as to the result, namely, that the Church of this period handed down to the Church that succeeded it, a body of doctrine, co-extensive with that which it received from the Apostles; or, in other words, both admit alike, that the Church did not become nescient from obliviousness of any article of the faith committed to her during the course of the two first centuries. But we have said that the Church might be supposed to lose the faith, by erring as to the meaning of some article of it, though perhaps retaining the form of words in which such article was originally conveyed: and it is in reference to the truth or falsehood of this supposition as regards the Church of the second century that the identity of faith becomes here a matter for discussion. The question we ask is as follows-Did the Christian Church during the course of the second century of her existence, err as to the meaning of any article of faith committed to her? Did she substitute truth for falsehood-a shadow for the substance, a human lie for the revealed Word of God? Did she, for instance, in reference to the Holy Eucharist, substitute a real presence for a figurative presence; or in reference to orders, did she conceive an inherent virtue, operative of grace, in the rite, whereby it was administered, in lieu of a mere denominating influence, or a simply consecrating power? Did she, in one word, understand any revealed dogma touching grace or ceremony, sacrifice or election, mediation or sacrament, redemption or salvation in the middle of the third century in a sense different from that sense, in which such articles were understood by the Apostles, and received by that Church over which the Apostles personally presided? If a truth were clearly deducible from a revealed dogma, it might be for the Church to draw the deduction; and if the Church defined or assumed as a doctrine to be believed an obvious inference from revelation, it would not follow as a consequence, that the Church had changed her faith. Particular propositions are contained in general propositions distributively taken; and if the general proposition be truth, the truth of the particular proposition will follow as a consequence from it. If it be true that all men are mortal, it will necessarily follow that every individual is a mortal man. If it be laid down that every soul of man is immortal, we may lawfully conclude that John, or Thomas, or Paul, is endowed with an immortal soul. What we say of propositions in general, we may say of revealed propositions. If a universal proposition be revealed, a particular proposition contained in it may not be strictly a revealed proposition, but unquestionably it will be a true proposition; and when the Church by an accurate process of reasoning derives a particular proposition not revealed in terms from a general revealed proposition, and adopts the former as an article to be believed, she does not add to the deposit of faith, nor pretend to a new revelation. The doctrine of the Church might be added to, the faith of the Church remaining the same. The body of revelation might be developed without losing a particle of its identity. We do not inquire here whether the Church added to the revelation by deduction or legitimate inference, but we wish to ascertain if she added to it in such a way as to make the body of doctrine assumed as revealed, in the end of the third century, different from the deposit of faith which had been committed to her keeping in the first. Wherefore the original question as to the identity of the Church's faith, divested of all obscurity, reduces itself to the simply inquiry-Did the Church fall into an error in faith during the period which elapsed between the death of the Apostles and the middle of the second century? Did she falsify any article committed to her, or did she add falsehood to revelation, for, if she did, the identity of faith was lost, and if she did not, the faith of the third century, so particular, so manifest in all its parts, so catholic, so fully identical with our own, is proved to have come down by direct tradition from the very source of light and truth-the Redeemer speaking upon earth and the Apostles speaking in his name. DIVISION II. WHAT THE CHURCH BELIEVED ON THE SUBJECT. A CANDID examiner of the ecclesiastical documents of the first and second century cannot fail to be struck by the evidence there afforded of the pertinacious adherence of the Church to the doctrines which she believed to have come from the Apostles. The Church believed in her |