ce, as adequate to purchase
eternal life? There is no proof they did. Let then these three
protesters be ever so cogent an argument against the Catholic creed,
this does not bring them a whit nearer to the Protestant; though in fact
there is nothing to show that their protest was founded on historical
grounds, or on any argument deeper than such existing instances of
superstition and scandal in detail as are sure to accumulate round
revelation.

Further, even if a modern wished, he would not be able to put up with
even the negative creed of these primitive protesters, whatever his
particular persuasion might be. Their protest suits no sect whatever of
this day. It is either too narrow or too liberal. The Episcopalian, as
he is styled, will not go along with Aerius's notions about bishops; nor
will the Lutheran subscribe to the final perseverance of the saints; nor
will the strict Calvinist allow that all fasting is judaical; nor will
the Baptist admit the efficacy of baptism: one man will wonder why none
of the three protested against the existence of the Church itself;
another that none of them denied the received doctrine of penance; a
third that all three let pass the received doctrine of the Eucharist.
Their protestations are either too much or too little for any one of
their present admirers. There is no one of any of the denominations of
this day but will think them wrong in some points or other; that is all
we know about them; but if we all think them wrong on some points, is
that a good reason why we should take them as an authority on others?

Or, again, do we wish to fix upon what _can_ be detected in their creed
of a positive character, and distinct from their protests? We happen to
be told what it was in the case of one of them. Aerius was an Arian;
does this mend matters? Is there any agreement at all between him and
Luther here? If Aerius is an authority against bishops, or against set
fasts, why is he not an authority against the Creed of St. Athanasius?

2. What has been last said leads to a further remark. I observe, then,
that if two or three men in the fourth century are sufficient, against
the general voice of the Church, to disprove one doctrine, then still
more are two or three of an earlier century able to disprove another.
Why should protesters in century four be more entitled to a hearing than
protesters in century three? Now it so happens, that as Aerius,
Jovinian, and Vigilantius in the four