simply and authoritatively propounded; and to enforce them effectually, motives of a high order are proposed, and the most solemn and awful sanctions are added. Instead of leaving each one to discover by reflection this secret law, and to unfold to himself its precepts, our science lays them down broadly and clearly, with their consequences, at least, such as directly flow from them; and promulgates them, in the name of God, to the young, in the simple language of the catechism, and to all, from the pulpit or altar. A Christian child, after short instruction, knows, with the assurance of faith, what Plato, or Aristotle, or other philosophers, perceived but dimly, and with great admixture of gross error, after many years of profound investigation.

There is an affecting tenderness and sublimity in every moral principle taught by Christianity, inasmuch as it is commended, sealed, and hallowed by the great mystery of Redemption. The Christian teacher does not insist merely on the conformity of the law to the dictates of reason, and on the propriety of sustaining the dignity of man by acting accordingly. Neither does he confine himself to the solemn sanction given to the natural law by its promulgation amidst the thunders of Sinai. He tells of a Redeemer's love; he points to the cross, and shows the crimson tide that flowed to wash away man's transgressions. Each precept is proposed, not merely in the name of a sovereign who must be obeyed, but as the will of a Saviour, with boundless claims on our gratitude and love. Sin is not only intrinsically base, because contrary to reason and nature; it is not merely treason against Supreme Majesty; it is black ingratitude to a Divine Benefactor; it is the revolt of a ransomed slave against the Lord that bought him; it is the "crucifying again to one's self the Son of God, and making him a mockery"; it is the "treading under foot the Son of God, and the esteeming unclean the blood of the testament by which he was sanctified."

The sanctions of the moral law, which Christianity presents, are the highest imaginable. The philosopher can only urge that virtue gives peace to the heart, sustains the dignity of human character, gains the esteem of men; and if he speaks of futurity, it is only with a faltering tongue, uttering the language of conjecture. The torments of a guilty conscience stung with remorse, the shame and censure which follow the exposure of guilt, the wretchedness which it produces, the punishments which society inflicts on certain crimes, and the

possible evils that may be endured hereafter, are the grounds of philosophical remonstrance against sin. Earthly rewards and punishments were the immediate sanctions of the Mosaic. dispensation; whilst the Christian moralist promises with confidence eternal rewards for a cup of cold water given in the name of Christ, and foretells with certainty that torments without end await those who transgress and do not penance.

The Sermon on the Mount is the compendium of Christian morality, which is developed throughout the sacred writings of the New Testament, especially in the Epistles of St. Paul. There is, indeed, in this divine book no appearance of system, nothing that savors of didactic forms, no professed or implied design to furnish a complete code of morals; but great principles are laid down, and sometimes applied to particular events or persons; and many vices are specifically denounced, and the sanctions of futurity are urged with great force. If we add the precepts of the decalogue, incidentally referred to in the New Testament, and all the moral maxims contained in the ancient Scriptures, the obligation whereof is in their nature perpetual, we shall have abundant materials for a complete moral system. The science, as such, may not have been cultivated in the commencement of Christianity. The Apostles spoke with authority, and not as theorists. Under divine illumination, they prescribed the good which was to be performed, and warned the faithful to shun all that bore the appearance of evil. They solved the doubts that arose in regard to many practical questions, such as the duties of the married state, the use of meats sacrificed to idols, and they entered into many other details. Their successors, doubtless, imitated their example, when called on as priests of God to declare his law, which was sought from their mouths as from his chosen messengers. Of their moral instructions little has escaped the ravages of time. They were, for the most part, delivered orally to the assembled faithful, or addressed, we may presume, to individual inquirers. The chief documents of that high antiquity which have come down to us are general exhortations to charity, obedience, and religious fervor, and apologies for the Christians, addressed to their persecutors, with some doctrinal essays. As we descend

the stream of time, authors in considerable number appear in view; but they were chiefly employed in combating error, or in expounding Scripture; and only incidentally or oratorically put forward and applied the principles of morals. Tertullian, indeed, may be classed with the earliest casuists; since

he canvassed the question of the lawfulness of wearing the military crown, and denied it to be allowable, on account of the heathenish superstitions wherewith he considered it to be connected. In the same spirit he condemned the Christian sculptor who for gain employed his chisel in forming idols, although he took no part in their worship; and he inveighed against all Christians who assisted at theatrical amusements, which were then full of heathenish allusions. The discourses of all the Fathers abound with moral lessons, and with invectives against the gross vices of the day. With intrepid zeal Chrysostom denounced the luxury of the Empress Eudoxia, and of females generally, and exposed the wanton waste of precious metal employed for the meanest purposes, whilst the poor of Christ were perishing. Ethics were thus presented in a popular form; but we have no systematic treatise of a comprehensive kind which can claim this antiquity. In the writings of Augustine we have the like oratorical exposition of moral duties, and invectives against breaches of the Christian law, with a treatise on falsehood, and the solution of some special cases. At a much later period, when the diligence of theologians had methodically arranged what was written in a desultory manner in defence of the doctrines of Christianity, the moral code was likewise reduced to order, and its parts were presented in the like close and combined form; both which important services, cost what it may to our pride to make the humiliating acknowledgment, we owe to the Schoolmen of the Middle Ages. The fuller development of ethics is, indeed, still more recent; but it may be doubted whether the investigation of so many possible cases, attended as it has been with the hazarding of many dangerous opinions, has added much to the simple beauty of the moral system found in the writings of St. Thomas of Aquin. Let, however, the meed of praise be given to the mariners to whose enterprise and observation the modern navigator is indebted for the knowledge of each small isle, rock, and shoal, each gulf, current, and eddy, which are now so minutely marked on the well dotted chart. This takes nothing from the merit of those who first ventured on the broad ocean, trusting to the compass, and furnished with the mere elements of nautical science. Much less can the labors of modern divines in the detailed application of moral principles detract from the praise due to the luminous simplicity and great comprehensiveness of the moral system taught by the Mediæval doctors.

The connection between this science and sacramental confession is manifest; since the office of confessor is that of judge and physician, and the judge must be thoroughly acquainted with the law, the physician must have studied attentively the maladies to which man is liable. Hence, the study of casuistry, as practical ethics are called, has been almost wholly neglected by those sects which have expunged penance from the list of the sacraments. Jeremy Taylor, after a weak apology for the want of books of cases of conscience in his communion, points to the true cause. "It is not to be denied," he observes, "but the careless and needless neglect of receiving private confessions hath been too great a cause of our not providing materials apt for so pious and useful a ministration."* But then we may be asked how this science remained so long unheeded, if confession be an original practice of Christianity. The science, in its main principles, was doubtless cultivated from the beginning; since all moral instructions were so many scientific lectures (according to modern phraseology), although not couched in scholastic form, or presenting all practical cases in minute detail. Doubtless, special and secret instructions were given, at all times, to the aspirant to the ministry by clergymen of experience or of high authority, and the mode of administering penance was taught with the other sacramental instructions, which it was held unlawful to commit to writing, lest they should fall under the eyes of the uninitiated.

In the infancy of the Church the study of ethics was necessarily far more simple than at present. It was confined to the great principles of Christian morals, and their application to cases for the most part obvious and easy of solution. In the progress of ages, new and difficult cases arose, from the new phases which society assumed, and from the special relations of the Church to various governments. Ecclesiastical discipline was formed, modified, and changed; laws were enacted; cases proposed to the sovereign pontiff by bishops and others were authoritatively solved; and opinions were submitted to his judgment, some of which were found worthy of censure. The science is consequently highly complicated in its details at present, whilst it retains the simplicity of its principles. It were unfair to argue that there were no law and no judicial tribunal in the days of Alfred or Edward, because there remain

*Ductor Dubitantium, or the Rule of Conscience. Preface.

no positive records of that early date, and the principles of common law are proved by decisions far more recent, which, however, presuppose, declare, and apply the great legal rules acknowledged since the time of those monarchs.

The minds of men have been exercised in various ways on the truths of Christianity, from the time of their original promulgation. These were embraced by the mass of believers in the fulness of faith, and were practically exhibited in the Church; but the temptation of prying into the unfathomable mysteries of the Incarnation and Trinity agitated the East for many ages. Then discipline was attacked by the Iconoclasts, and the unity of the Church was subsequently rent by the abettors of Photius and Michael Cærularius. The West, in its turn, suffered from the attempts of Berenger to reduce a divine doctrine within the limits of human conception, and, after successive outbursts of error, the whole fabric of religion seemed to totter, when Luther, with a giant's hand, sought to overthrow it. Scarcely had the controversial tide begun to ebb, in the middle of the seventeenth century, when ethics became the great matter of inquiry and dispute among theologians. The pontiffs, true to the duties of their high office, weighed the various opinions in the scales of the sanctuary, and rejected, without fear or favor, all that were found wanting. On the one hand, they struck down the harsh advocates of principles too severe for human weakness; on the other, they rebuked the imprudent patrons of excessive indulgence.

The errors into which some casuists have fallen should not, however, bring the science itself into disrepute; since these must be regarded as individual extravagances. Wherever authority does not guide, reason, arguing from premises that seem indubitable, will oftentimes draw erroneous inferences; and the deformity of sin, which, if exposed without veil, would excite horror, may be concealed by some adventitious circumstance. If the gross absurdities which were maintained by the most eminent philosophers of antiquity, and which have been rivalled, if not surpassed, by some moderns, do not warrant the rejection of all philosophy, or a low estimate of its value, why should the errors of some divines involve in disgrace a science which is certain in its principles and true developments, and is pure and sublime in its tendencies? Besides, it should not be forgotten that some of the propositions which were denounced to the Holy See for condemnation were invented by interested accusers, and the meaning of others was