Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/anglocatholicismOOalexrich ANGLO-CATHOLICISM NOT APOSTOLICAL: AN INQUIRY INTO THE SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY OF THE LEADING DOCTRINES ADVOCATED IN THE TRACTS FOR THE TIMES; AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS THE ANGL0-g3A=SSfi.LIC SCHOOL. ^-^ OF THR 'tjkivbrsitt: ^iim-0 WILLIAM LINmrrTLEXANDER, M.A. kk) tvxyyiXiirTuv ^i^'ofjt,i6x, kx) 'ytvik)(rKofji,iVy xxt trilio/u,sv, ovTiv 'rs^xir'i^eo rovreuv i-ri'CyjTovvTd. — Joan. Damascen. in Expos, Fidei, I. 1. i U EDINBURGH- ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK; AND LONGMAN, BROWN, GREEN, AND LONGMANS, LONDON, MDCCCXLIII. 4^ /^G BALFOUR AND JACK, PRINTERS, NIDDRY STREET, EDINBURGH. PREFACE. It is the boast of the Anglo-catholics that their system will fully abide the test by which the Monk of St Lerins has proposed that the true Christian faith should be discriminated from heretical corrup- tions of it, viz., that it is that " quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est." It is the design of this book, on the other hand, to show that to part, at least, of this boast their system is not en- titled — that it has not always been received by all true Christians — but, that especially in the earliest days of the church, when under the infallible guid- ance of the apostles, it was as a system either wholly unknown, or, so far as known, repudiated and con- demned. The strenuous efforts which certain clergymen and laymen of the Anglican church, and principally con- nected with the university of Oxford, have of late years been making to recommend and disseminate the principles of Catholicism in this country, as well as the unexpected success which has attended their exertions, have drawn to this subject a large share of attention and anxiety, on the part of men of all IV PREFACE. classes in the community. The subject is not one on which, when the public mind is called to it, reflective men can be indifferent. On the issue of the struggle, Dr Pusey says, in his letter to the Bishop of Oxford, " hangs the destiny of our church." Were this all, the controversy might be left in the hands of those to whom the preservation of the Eng- lish church is a matter of personal interest. But the influence of this struggle does not terminate with the church of England ; it touches every sect and party in the empire ; it affects the very substance of our religion, and the dearest of our civil rights. Di- vested of circumstantials, the great question at issue is simply this : Does Christianity depend upon the Church as a visible body, or does the Church depend upon Christianity? In other words, is it the Church — existing by the preserving care of God, endowed with mysterious and supernatural power over the destinies of men, and whose ever-vital nucleus is found in the clerical order, by the members of which her order is preserved, her unity manifested, and her power dispensed — Is it the Church, thus constituted, which conveys salvation to men ? Or do men, by obtaining salvation, each one for himself, by the re- ception of God's offer of mercy through Christ, con- stitute, by their spiritual union with Christ, the Church of God, which is holy, catholic, and invisible, and by their outward fellowship with each other such churches as Christ has appointed to exist visibly on r PREFACE. V the earth? This is the great question at issue, which must be justly apprehended, and fairly dealt with before this controversy can even approximate to a close. Now a question like this obviously goes to the very bottom of our religious and ethical systems. Upon the decision of it rests the entire complexion and influence of our Christianity, as well as of our views of society and life. The questions, How may I know religious truths ? How may I be saved from guilt ? How may I serve God ? What are my duties as a man, as a relation, as a subject ? What should be the main object of my thoughts and pursuits here? — these and other questions, no less important, will all receive different answers, according as we adopt the one or the other of the two views of the Church as above indicated. Where such questions are involved there is no party, there is no individual, who is not interested in the discussion. In such a case it is not surprising that many should be found entering the arena of this contro- versy from different quarters ; and, perhaps, it be- comes the writer of these lines, in adding himself to the number, to offer an apology for appearing where so many able combatants have already pre- sented themselves. In regard to this I have only to say that, so long as great principles are in contro- versy before the public, it appears to me to be the duty of every man, who thinks he has anything to say upon the subject, to say it openly and boldly as VI PREFACE. he best can, leaving it with the public to determine, as they will very easily and speedily do, whether what he has said be worth notice or not. Nor is it otherwise than favourable to the cause of truth that such liberty of discourse should be permitted and used ; for, as one of the greatest philosophers of our own day has justly said, with reference to physical science, that " there is scarcely any well-informed person, who, if he has the will, has not also the power to add something essential to the general stock of knowledge, if he will only observe regularly and methodically some particular class of facts which may most excite his attention, and which his situation may best enable him to study with effect,"^ so may we say, in reference to questions in theology and morals, that there is no man, who is given to the in- vestigation of such subjects, and who looks at them from his own peculiar stand-point, and speaks of them after his own fashion earnestly and frankly, who may not add something to the means already possessed by the public for coming to a satisfactory conclusion regarding them. It is with the fond hope of render- ing some such service (however humble) to the great cause of evangelical truth and scriptural liberty, that the present volume is published. Influenced by no feelings of a personal kind, but those of respect for the talents, the learning, and the apparent sincerity of the leaders on the Anglo- ^ Herschell's Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, p. 133. PREFACE. VII catholic side of this controversy, I have aimed, as far as in me lay, to state fairly, and view candidly, their opinions as advocated by themselves. For this purpose, I have carefully perused their princi- pal publications, especially the Tracts for the Times and the Writings of Dr Pusey and Mr Newman; at the same time abstaining from making use, in the pre- paration of this volume, of any of those works which have appeared against their views. I trust I may have in this way escaped falling into the besetting sin of controversialists — the misrepresentation of an opponent's sentiments. But on this head I will not be confident; for as, on the one hand, one knows not by what perverse delusions one's own feelings and pre- judices may mislead one's best intentions; so, on the other, I have often found it far from easy, after I had done my utmost, to be quite sure that I have understood the meaning of my opponents. Con- strained to resort to the use of reason and argu- ment, as they themselves assure us, much against their will,' and maintaining the extraordinary opi- nion, that " it continually happens that those who are most skilled in debate, are deficient in sound practical piety"^ — sad alternative for a controversial- ^ "Such troublers of our community [as men who think and speak for themselves, and dissent from the church,] wouh], in a healthy state of things, be silenced but our times, from whatever cause, being times of confusion, we are reduced to the use of argument and disputation." — Newman's Lectures on Romanism and Popular Protestantism. Introd. p. 5, 2 Tract, No. 19, p. 3. Vlll PREFACE. ist whose only chance of preserving a character for piety according to this doctrine, is to allow himself to be easily beaten ! — it is only natural that their use of a clear style, and a perspicuous logic, should be sparing, and that clouds of mystical verbiage " should sometimes be used by them (as an opponent is apt to suspect,) for much the same purpose, for which, according to Homer, Aphrodite enveloped Paris 7}s§t ttoKKt], when she conveyed him to his " sweet-scented couch," safe from the vengeful spear of the victorious Menelaus.^ In such cases, one is often constrained to " draw the bow at a venture," and if, therefore, in any case I have misstated their opinions, and pierced, not my antagonist, but only the cloud in which he was enwrapt, I hope they will do me the justice to believe, that had I seen them more plainly, I might have directed my wea- pon with greater skill. Whilst, however, I have endeavoured to examine the doctrines advocated by the Anglo-catholics, as these are expounded in their own writings, I must forewarn the reader not to expect here 2l formal re- ply to these writings. This I have not attempted, nor would it be possible, without writing many books, to execute, such an attempt with success. What I have aimed at has been the selection of great leading essential doctrines; and to these as 1 Iliad, iii. 381. PREFA-CE. ix advocated by Dr Pusey and his colleagues, I have devoted my attention, abstracting as much as possi- ble from all collateral inquiries, and endeavouring in every case to bring the opinion advanced, and the arguments urged in its defence to the touchstone of apostolic doctrine, as unfolded in the New Testa- ment. Besides the aspect under which I have here view- ed Anglo-catholicism, there are other aspects in which it is not unimportant that it should be stu- died. There is, for instance, its relation to the " quod ubique'' and the " quod ah omnibus''' of Vin- cent's rule, which, though less important than its relation to the " quod semper,''' is by no means to be overlooked. There is its relation also to human na- ture; for that Catholicism meets some great tenden- cy in man is certain, from the extent and perman- ency of its influence; and it would be worth while to examine carefully and reflectively whether that tendency be in itself a good one or a bad one, whe- ther it be indigenous in our nature, or the result of that corruption which the fall has brought upon us, and whether the gratification of it, therefore, be wholesome or pernicious in a personal and a social point of view. For the former of these tasks, a large mass of materials collected by the industry of many ripe scholars, lies at the disposal of any one who has time, patience, learning, candour, and acuteness enough to make a right use of them; for X PREFACE. the excution of the latter, we must look to some one who combines an extensive knowledge of man and man's history, with habits of careful analysis and meditative research. A work worthy of the theme on either of these topics would confer a real advantage upon the cause of truth at the present moment. I cannot conclude these prefatory remarks better than by commending this my humble effort to the candid consideration of the Christian public, in the words of one whom Christians of all parties have agreed to revere: — " Me non pigebit sicubi haesito quaerere, nee pudebit sicubi erro discere. Ideo quis- quis hoc legit, ubi pariter certus est, perga* mecum; ubi pariter haesitat, quserat mecum; ubi errorem suum agnoscit, redeat ad me; ubi meum revocat me. Ita ingrediamur simul charitatis viam, tendentes ad Eum de quo dictum, Quaeramus faciem ejus." — AuGUSTiN. de Trin. 1. i. c. 2. W. L. A. Edinburgh, 15th March 1843. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY. Page Simplicity characteristic of Christianity — Early tendency to corrup- tion in the church — Progress of corruption — Origin and growth of Catholicism — Council at Nice — Nicene church — Catholicism of the Anglican church — Relation of Anghcanism to Romanism — The Oxford Tractarians, . . . . 1-24 CHAPTER II. THE RULE OF RELIGIOUS OPINION AND PRACTICE. Test of religious truth — Means of determining the truth taught in scripture — Anglo-catholic views on this subject — The principle of these views common to them with other sects — The point worth contending for — Argument for tradition, . . 25-36 Section I. Form of the Apostolic Teaching. — The oral teaching of the apostles not in the form of a creed — Character of apostolic preaching, ...... 36-43 Section II. Alleged existence of a Symbolical Standard in the Aposto- lic Churches. — The " good deposit" committed to Timothy — The " form of sound words" not a creed — Timothy's good profession — The test of Christianity proposed by John — Grounds on which converts were received by the apostles — No creed of apostolic authorship extant — None known to the early Fathers — Opinion of Du Pin, ....... 43-66 Xll CONTENTS. Page Section III. Use and authority of Tradition as preserved in the Writings of the early Church. — Argument in favour of the aposto- licity of tradition — Obligations which we owe to the Christian Fathers — Respect due to catholic tradition — Catholicity not neces- sarily a proof of apostolicity — Unanimity of the early church traceable to mere human causes — Influence of individual Fathers in producing catholicity of doctrine — The Fathers competent witnesses for the canon of Scripture — But not final judges of the meaning of Scripture — Analogy between tradition and the com- mon law of the realm — Difficulties in the Fathers greater than in Scripture — Impracticability of the Anglo-catholic rule of faith — Conduces to augment unduly the power of the clergy — Statements of the Fathers concerning the interpretation of Scripture — Opi- nion of the Fathers concerning ti-adition — Concluding inference, 67-108 Section IV. Bight of private judgment in interpreting Scripture. — Reasonableness of such a claim — Alleged obscurity of Scripture — Creeds not adapted to produce uniformity of opinion — Statements of Scripture on this head — Opinion of the Fathers on the right of private judgment — Deference to tradition productive of disre- spect to Scripture — Interpretation of Scripture — Concluding sum- mary — Advantages of these conclusions, . . 109-135 CHAPTER III. THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH. A church and the church — Doctrine of the Anglo-catholics concern- ing the church — Protestant doctrine on this head — Main point of difference — The visible church — Meaning of Matthew v. 14 — Meaning of Matthew xvi. 18 — Meaning of Matthew xviii. 17 — Meaning of 1 Timothy iii. 15 — " The pillar and ground of the truth" — The church a spiritual body — The church the body of Christ — The church that for which Christ died — The church the general assembly of the sanctified — No salvation out of the church — Unity of the church — The church imperishable — Con- cluding remarks, .... 136-11 CONTENTS. Xlll CHAPTER IV. THE CLAIMS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. Page Social tendency of Christianity — Divine institution of the Christian ministry — Duties of Christian ministers — Doctrines of the catho- lics concerning the Christian ministry — Connection of this doc- trine with that of the visibility of the church — Positions assumed in support of this doctrine — Such doctrines require clear proof, 182-194 Section I. Apostolical Succession. — Did Christ authorise the apos- tles to appoint successors to themselves 1 — Christ sent the apostles as the Father had sent him — The apostolic commission — Did the apostles appoint successors ? — Case of Epaphroditus — Case of Ti- mothy and Titus — Absurdity of supposing that the apostles could have successors — Integrity of the episcopal chain — Value of this if true — The truth of it suspected — Existence of some of the parties doubtful — Confusion of the evidence respecting the order of others — Want of evidence that the alleged succession is pure — Ways in which the succession may be corrupted and broken — The present state of the church no safe criterion of the past — Gross irregularities have prevailed in the appointment of bishops — Flaws in the succession in the Anglican church — Uncertainty of all claims based on this alleged succession — The succession essential to Catholicism, . . . 195-239 Section II. Ordination, — Doctrine of scripture on this head — Choice of the pastor vested in the members of the church — Inau- guration to office by imposition of hands — To whom does the power of ordaining belong ? — Concluding remarks, . . 239-253 Section III. Priesthood of the Clergy. — Unlikeliness of this — Pas- tors never called priests m scripture — The power of binding and loosing granted to the apostles — The apostles alone have this power — Ministers stewards of the mysteries of God — If Christian ministers are priests, they should offer sacrifice — Alleged connec- tion between the sacramental efficacy and priestly power — Futility of the claims of the catholic clergy — True dignity of the Christian pastor, ..... 254 — 276 XIV CONTENTS. CHAPTER V. JUSTIFICATION UNTO LIFE. rage Man's guUt and pollution — ground of a sinner's salvation — Anglo- catholic views of the nature and process of man's salvation — Anglo-catholic views of justification and sanctification — Anglo- catholic view of regeneration — Anglo-catholic doctrine of baptis- mal salvation — Scripture statements — Meaning of the word Bap- tise in the New Testament — The baptism of Christ a baptism by the Spirit — Meaning of John iii. 5 — The apostolic commission — Meaning of Titus iii. 5 — Meaning of 1 Peter iii. 21 — Meaning of Acts ii. 38 — Baptism of Paul — Baptism into Christ's death — The baptism which puts on Christ — Catholic view of baptism impro- bable — Statements of Paul regarding baptism — Scripture doctrine of justification by faith — Real relation of baptism to regenera- tion, . . . . . . . 277-329 CHAPTER YI. THE CHRISTIAN LIFE, . . 330 Section I. Design of the Christian Life. — Anglo-catholic view iur compatible with salvation through Christ's merits alone — Scripture doctrine of justification by works — Doctrine of our Lord as to justification by works — Doctrine of James on this head in hannony with that of Paul — Meaning of the word Justify — Thesis which James maintains — Cases adduced by the apostle in illustration of his thesis — Concluding remarks, . . . 331-352 Section II. Character of the Christian Life. — Statements of Dr Pusey on this head — Arbitrariness of his distinction between sins before and sins after baptism — Scripture teaches that all sin may be forgiven through Christ — The Christian life not one of gloom and di'ead — The Anglo-catholic doctrine not favourable to holi- ness — Evils of the Anglo-catholic views, . . 353-369 Section III. Means by which the Christian Life is to he promoted, and its ultimate design secured. — All good in man produced by the Spirit — The Spirit to be retained by obedience and prayer — The CONTENTS. XV Page Spirit works in connection with the word — The ordinances of Christianity benefit by instructing us — Preaching used in the primitive and early churches — Romanist and Anglican innova- tion — Their views unscriptural — Commendation of preaching in the New Testament — Contrast in this respect between the church system and the apostolic — Anglo-catholic views of the Lord's supper — A body cannot be spirituaUy present — No sacrifice where no blood is shed — The blessing of the cup not a consecration — Christ's the only sacrifice for sins — The communion of the body and blood of Christ merely symbolical — Benefits of the Lord's supper as simply a commemorative ordinance — Evil consequences of the Anglo-catholic system — Personal religion alone real, 369-406 APPENDIX. A. — Meaning of the title " Angel of the Church," as used in Rev. ii. and iii., . . . . . 409 B. — Dr Arnold on Anglo-catholicism, . . . . 413 C. — Dr Hook on the evangelical clergy of the Church of England, 415 D. — Vmcent's test of truth, . . . . 416 E. — Deference to tradition on the part of the English Reformers and others, ....... 419 F. — Chrysostom and others on 2 Tim. i. 1 3, . . . 422 G. — Evidence for Scripture and for tradition compared, . 423 H. — Difficulties attending the study of the Fathers, . . 426 I. — Danger of renouncing the right of private judgment, . 427 J. — A church and the church, , . . . . 430 K. — Opinions of the Reformers concerning the invisibility of the church universal, . . . . . 432 L. — Anglo-catholic assumptions and denunciations, . . 433 M. — Salvation through the church, .... 435 N. — Bellarmine on the visible unity of the church, . . 436 O. — Bossuet's argument for the Church of Rome, . . 437 P. — Theophylact on Matt, xxviii. 20 — Chrysostom on the authority of the apostles, . . . . . . 438 Q. — Independency of the early churches, . . . 439 R. — Passages in the New Testament in which the word " mystery'* is used, ....... 442 S. — Newman on justification through faith, . . . 444 AN INQUIRY, CHAPTER FIRST. INTRODUCTORY. . . • 'n? ^' h^os rwv 'Atoo-toXuv ;^a^oj '$ta,(po^ov IiXti^ii tSv fiiou riXog, '^ee.^i- XviXvdn rt 97 yivios, SKStwi rZv ocvran ccxooui rsjj Iv^sov (ro(ptee,i I'Jta.Kovffoci Karn- ^tufiivav, TriviKocurcc, rr,; ocSiou TXuvns t^v oc^^t^v Ikd/jiSxviv »j ffutrreKris 9tx rnt Tuv in^oti^affKtiXciiv a.'Tra.T^s. " Up to this time the church had remained a virgin, pure and in- corrupt. But no sooner liad the sacred choir of the apostles in di- verse manner ended life, and the generation of those who were privi- leged to listen to the very sounds of divinely-inspired wisdom pass- ed away, than the faction of ungodly error arose through the deceit of false teachers.", — Eusebius, in Hist, Eccles., iii. 02. Simplicity, as distinguished from that which per- plexes by its intricacy, or which deludes by its am- biguity, is a pre-eminent characteristic of the reHgion of Jesus Christ, as it formed a pecuUar feature and ornament of his personal character whilst upon earth. 2 SIMPLICITY CHARACTERISTIC To whatever part of that religion, as presented to us in the inspired record of his will, we turn our atten- tion, the traces of this simplicity present themselves. In the doctrines which he inculcates we find simple truth, — truth, the purity of which is corrupted by no infusion of error, and the perfection of which no mistake or deficiency impairs. In the course which he has marked out for his people to pursue, there is simplicity at once in the single end in which that course terminates, and in the straight-forward path by which it is to be pursued ; and in all the institu- tions and ordinances of his appointment there is sim- plicity, for all of them are characterized by the pecu- liarity of being fitted to produce exactly their given purpose in the economy of grace, and nothing more ; no part of them being designed merely for attrac- tiveness or show, and none of them being calculated, (in its original form,) to minister to any other pur- pose than the spiritual advantage of the church and the glory of the church's Head. This simplicity is not only a beautiful ornament of Christianity ; it is so closely associated with the very form and essence of Christianity, . that no pro- fessing Christian can depart from it without thereby changing, in proportion to the degree and direction of his departure, the religion which he holds, from that which is set forth in the New Testament, as the religion which is in Christ Jesus. A departure from the simplicity of doctrine is an embracing of OF CHRISTIANITY. 3 error which must prove injurious ; or it is a letting slip of principles which are essential to our conti- nued nourishment in piety. To swerve from the simplicity oi practice is to turn into paths which con- duct away from God, and which, however flowery and enticing they may appear, need only to be pur- sued consistently to lead us at length into open re- bellion against him. And to forsake simplicity of ritual is only to pamper human pride, or nurse hu- man folly by an abuse of the very means which God has provided for the purpose of humbling our pride and purging away our folly. Undesirable, how^ever, as are all such departures from the original form of Christian truth, practice, and institute, we cannot peruse the history of the church without being satisfied that a strong tendency to this is incident to its members in their present imperfect state; even in the days of the apostles, men were found giving heed to seducing errors and antichristian opinions; and hardly had the last of the apostles left the earth, when a whole host of in- novations burst upon the church, which soon left no trace of its original simplicity and purity. A passion for novelty; a desire to incorporate with Christianity the doctrines of pagan philosophy, and to make the Christian church, as a visible institution', respectable in the eyes of the world; a misguided regard for the institutes of Judaism leading to an ingrafting of these upon the original model of the Christian common- 4 EARLY TENDENCY TO CORRUPTION wealth ; an insidious distrust of the innate vitality of Christianity, and its power to maintain itself inde- pendently of ecclesiastical confederacies or the bul- wark of secular power ; and above all, the growth of a worldly spirit, displaying itself in coldness on the part of the people, and avarice and ambition on the part of the clergy, had, long ere Constantino put the last hand to the mischief, eaten out the vitals of Christianity, and changed it from a simple, unassum- ing, unostentatious scheme of religious benefit to man, into a great hierarchical corporation, the pre- vailing tendency of which was to make religion a matter of rites and ceremonies, — to elevate the Christian pastor, whose duty it is to feed the flock of God with the pure food of truth, into the awful priest, whose place it is to stand between God and man, and, by power derived from the former, to in- fluence not by his doctrine, but by certain rites of mysterious meaning, the eternal destiny of the lat- ter, — and to make the church, which, according to the doctrine of the apostles, is the invisible body of Christ, a great, compact, visible engine of spiritual dominion. In the system thus described, we have the substance of the system of Catholicism, to which Romanism has added many corruptions of her own, and to which Anglicanism, whilst protesting against these additions of later ages, would fain bring back the whole of Christendom, as to the pattern of pri- mitive order, loveliness, and strength. IN THE CHURCH. It is not my intention at present to attempt any- thing approaching to a minute detail of the succes- sive steps by which the catholic church rose out of the bosom of primitive Christianity, and advanced to the condition in which it appeared after the council of Nice, — a condition to which its admirers point us back as its palmiest and best. A few cursory notices, however, l)earing upon this subject, may not be un- acceptable to the general reader, and may serve ma- terially to facilitate our subsequent inquiries. If w^e cast our eye over the field which ecclesias- tical history presents to us at the close of the apos- tolic period, i. e. at the commencement of the second century of the Christian era, we observe a vast mul- titude of churches, each consisting of a body of be- lievers united together for the observance of ordi- nances, and for mutual advantage and edification, and each placed under the management of a set of officers, presided over by one having the title of angel of the church, or bishop of the flock.^ Whe- ther this were the earliest form of these churches, may perhaps be questioned, but that this was the form in which they existed at the period mentioned, seems historically certain.^ Of the churches thus constituted and regulated, Mr Waddington, one of the most recent, and per- ^ See Appendix, note A. 2 Mosheim, De Rebus Christianoruin, Saec. ii. § 20. CainpbeU's Eccles. Hist. Lect. vi. b THE CHURCHES OF THE SECOND CENTURY. haps, upon the whole, the best of our British church historians, observes, that they " formed a sort of fe- derative body of independent religious communities, dispersed through the greater part of the empire, in continual communication, and in constant harmony with each other." ^ Of what sort this federative body was, Mr Waddington does not say. So far as the original records inform us, it does not appear that the confederation of these churches was based upon any thing but a community of faith, and a unity of desire and purpose. Holding the same Head, they looked upon each other as members of the same spiritual body, and therefore were ready to show offices of kindness to each other, and to co-operate in works of usefulness wherever they had opportunity. In short, their confederation was one of principle, not of polity, the basis of which was found in the Bible, and not in any edicts or contracts of their own, and the bond of which w^as Christian love, not human authority.^ Such a state of things retained much of the sim- plicity of early times. It had, however, within it, the elements of corruption. Already had the minds of many of the bishops and presbyters in these churches got possessed of the idea that a spiritual and invisible confederacy was not enough — that there 1 History of the Church, ch. 2, 2 Mosheiin*s History of the Church, Cent. i. Part ii. ch. 2, sect. 14. PROGRESS OF CORRUPTION. 7 was needed beyond this an outward bond of union — that the churches, instead of being a federation of independent bodies, each governing itself, yet con- cerned for the general welfare of the whole, should be formed into one great incorporation, based upon common principles, pervaded by one spirit, and go- verned by one law. To give strength to this idea, two things mainly co-operated. The one was the persecutions to which the churches were exposed, which naturally led them, for the sake of united sup- port and protection, to draw still more closely the ties of their intercourse. The other and the more influential, was the frequent occurrence among them of erroneous opinions and diflerences of opinion as to points on which they deemed it of moment that they should be agreed. A desire to put down error, and to prevent dissension, naturally led to the wish that a well-defined understanding should be come to as to what opinions they would tolerate, and with what they would forbear. Differences of sentiment among the bishops would naturally lead to conferences and to councils where these differences might be discussed, and some decision adopted as to what view was to be regarded as the true one. Hence would arise creeds and confessions, and out of all this would naturally grow the idea of an outward visible community, marked by the adherence of its members to a common set of opinions, and by their 8 PROGRESS OF CORRUPTION. co-operating for the maintenance of these against all who doubted or disbelieved them.^ The first meeting of this sort of which we have any intimation, took place in the middle of the se- cond century, between Polycarp bishop of Smyrna, and Anicetus bishop of Rome. A dissension had arisen between the churches of the east and those of the west, as to the proper time and mode of celebrat- ing the feast of Easter; and on this and some other points, regarding the nature of which we are not in- formed, differences of sentiment existed between these two bishops. Polycarp accordingly journeyed to Rome, where, after a lengthened conference, it was agreed that, as neither could convince the other of his error, such matters should be held indifferent, and not be allowed to disturb the unity of the church. Polycarp shortly after this suffered martyrdom, and Anicetus did not long survive him. A new race suc- ceeded, less gentle, less pious, greatly more ambiti- ous. About half a century after this conference of these bishops, Victor bishop of Rome issued an au- thoritative command to the churches of the east to conform to the practice of those of the west in re- spect of the matters on which they differed — a pro- ceeding which, though it was repelled with indigna- tion by the eastern, and was condemned by Irenaeus ^ Mosheim, De Rebus Christianorum, Saec. ii. sect. 22. ORIGIN OF CATHOI^ICISM. 9 bishop of Lyons, and many of the western churches, constituted nevertheless the first effective step to- wards the aggressions subsequently made by the bishops of Rome on the liberties of the rest of the church.^ From these steps certain important consequences resulted . In the first place, the idea came to be established in men's minds of the catholic church as a visible body, holy, compact, unanimous, and tho- roughly organized.^ Secondly, As this idea, if not originally started in Rome, suited well with the no- tions of universal empire in temporal things, which were so much cherished by the Roman people, and as it was one which the numbers, wealth, talents, and, above all, the active, enterprising habits of the Ro- mans, gave them excellent opportunities of carrying out, it became from this time forward the one grand ruling principle of their ecclesiastical ambition; and whilst the Greeks and Asiatics were seeking to ex- tend the knowledge of Christianity, or were anx- iously engaged in the literary efforts necessary for its explanation or defence, the Roman bishops and fa- thers were bending all their efforts to the formation 1 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv. 14; v. 24. Mosheim, De Reb. Christ. Saec. ii. sect. 72. 2 Augusti, Hist. Eccles. p. 9, Lips. 1834. Gieseler, Kirchen Ges- chichte, Bd. i. S. 174 — 177. The term " catholic church," as ap- plied to a visible body, occurs for the first time in the epistle of the church at Smyrna, concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp, preserv- ed by Eusebius (iv. 15). Ignatius uses the term in liis epistle to the Smyrnaeans (sect. 8), but with a different sense. 10 GROWTH OF CATHOLICISM. of a great hierarchical system, of which Rome should be the centre, and the bishop of Rome the head.^ Thirdly, A meaning was attached to the terms heresy and schism different from what these had borne in the days of the apostles. In the New Testament, heresy means the pursuing of a perverse, self-willed course in a church or congregation, whereby its peace is de- stroyed, its order interrupted, and its usefulness im- paired; and schism means a quarrel in a church pro- ceeding from bad temper on the part of some of the members?^ Out of the idea of a catholic church, how- ever, arose a different , meaning for these words. Heresy then came to signify a departure in opinion from the authorized creed of the church general; and schism was applied to the conduct of those w^ho refused to acknowledge the outward confederacy which called itself the catholic church, or to yield up their independence and liberties to the ambitious de- signs of the Romish bishop. Hence the curious and interesting fact, that many who have come down to modern times with the stigma of " heretic" attached to their names, are found, upon careful scrutiny, to have been men whose whole crime lay in contend- ing for the pure doctrine of the apostles against the growing corruptions of the catholics; and many who were solemnly excommunicated as schismatics, turn out to have been persons who came under this ban 1 See Hampden's Bampton Lecture, p. 14 — 16. 2d edit. 2 See Campbell's ninth Prel. Dissert., parts 3 and 4. GROWTH OF CATHOLICISM. ^C^l "'"^/^ solely for their attachment to that liberty of ji ment and action which they deemed to belong to them as rational and accountable creatures, and which they believed Christianity to sanction. Thus, Nestorius was denounced as a heretic, be- cause he refused to call the Virgin Mary " the mo- ther of God;"^ and bodies which maintained substan- tially the orthodox truth, were cut off from the ca- tholic church because they held, along with that, some trifling error of opinion, which the church had not sanctioned; as, in the case of the eathari or puritans who opposed the restoration to the church of any who had apostatized from the faith, even after he had repented. All this shows at how early a period the idea of the superiority of uniformity in 1 Mosheim, Cent. v. Part ii. ch. 5, sect. 5 — 9. Campbell's Eccle- siast. Hist., Lect. 14. Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Em- pire, vol. viii. p. 287, (Milman's edition). There can be no doubt but that Nestorius had rendered himself unpopular by the severity with which he had sought to put down what he considered error, and that in the severity with which he was treated by the council of Ephesus, " his violent dealing came upon his own pate." At the same time the sole alleged cause of his degradation was his refusal to use the word horoKo? (God-bearer) of the Virgin Mary. Gn this point the testimony of Socrates is very explicit. After declaring that though he had before commemorated the faults of Nestorius, he would not, to please any one, depreciate him unduly, but state the simple truth, he says : — " Nestorius seems to me to have followed neither Paul of Samosata nor Photinus ; nor did he at all affirm that Christ was a mere man; but he dreaded the word only {rh xi^iv fjt,ovrtv, i. e. ^ioTOKo;,) like a spectre." Hist. Eccles. vii. 82. Much valuable in- formation concerning the views of Nestorius is contained in a Tract, by P. E. Jablonski, entitled, Exercitatio Historico- Theologica de Nestorianismo, S^c, Berolini, 1724. 2 Mosheim, Cent, ii. Part ii. chap. 6, sect. 17, 18. 12 GROWTH OF CATHOLICISM. all things to agreement in essentials had been en- gendered by the conception of a great visible catho- lic church. Fourthly/, A very pernicious error was gradually introduced respecting the standard of reli- gious truth and practice. In determining the true doctrine of the church, and settling the catholic creed, appeal was continually made to the churches which had been formed or fed by the personal minis- try of the apostles. This was done very naturally in the scarcity which then existed of copies of the written scriptures, and also from the fact that many of the churches had received their sole knowledge of divine things through the ministration of accredited members of these apostolic churches. It came, how- ever, in a short time, to pass, that what was at first done from convenience or necessity, was adopted as a rule in the church, and things came to be ordained and defended, not by any appeal to Scripture, but upon the ground that such things had been handed down in the apostolic churches through a regular succession of bishops, and were conse- quently to be received as of divine authority! It was upon this ground that Victor claimed the sub- mission of the churches of the east to his mandate, and upon this ground alone that they resisted it. In their long-protracted controversies on the subject, no attempt was made on either side to appeal to Scrip- ture ; the sole question between them was with which party lay the greater weight of traditionary I GROWTH OF CATHOLICISM. 13 authority, the westerns claiming the authority of Peter and Paul, and the easterns that of John, in support of their views, though upon a point on which none of these apostles has uttered one word in any of their writings. It was upon this ground also that they argued against the heretics. " I here af- firm," says Tertullian in his tract on the Proscription of Heretics, "that what the apostles preached, e.^. what Christ revealed to them, may be proved in no other way than through those churches themselves, which the apostles founded by preaching to them, as well by the living voice, as afterwards by let- ters. This being the case, it follows that all doc- trines, agreeing with those of these apostolic churches, the sources and fountains of the faith, must be reckoned true."^ Out of this also, great help was gotten by the Romish church in her ambitious pro- jects : for as she was the only apostolic church in the west, she naturally drew to her the deference and the homage of all the churches in that part of the world, and thus strengthened herself against her eastern rivals. That this is no mere supposition of what migJit have been, but is what actually did occur, may be seen from the following passage from the work of Irenseus, bishop of Lyons, who died in the beginning of the third century. After stating that the tradition of the apostles had been preserved 1 Cap. 21. 14 GROWTH OF CATHOLICISM. in many churches, through a succession of bishops, he proceeds to say, — " But as it would be a long process in a volume like this, to enumerate the suc- cession in all the churches, we content ourselves with the church at Rome, the greatest, the most an- cient, and one well known to all, founded by these two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul. By pointing out the traditions which she has from the apostles, — the faith announced to men, and which has come to us through a succession of bishops, we confound all those who in any way conclude what is not meet. For to this church, on account of its mightier authority, it is necessary that every church, Le. all believers, should conform, for in it, in com- mon with all others, is preserved that tradition which was given by the apostles."^ Thus it was that tradition usurped the place of the written word, or received a place of equality with it. A wide door was thereby opened for all sorts of additions to the faith, and all sorts of departures from the simplicity which is in Christ Jesus. Fifthly, In the quotations above given, great emphasis is laid upon the suc- cession of bishops from the days of the apostles, as tending to authenticate the traditions held in the catholic church. So far as this goes, the regularity of succession was a point of first-rate importance ; for if tradition is to be allowed any weight at all, 1 Adv. Haer. iii. 3. GROWTH OF CATHOLICISM. 15 much will depend upon the class and number of persons through whom it passes. Not content, how- ever, with insisting upon this, they soon began to represent this alleged regularity of succession, as conferring a peculiar official virtue on the individual who formed part of it ; and this, combining with the superstitious notions which had been gradually growing up, regarding the sacredness of the clerical character and the mysteriousness of the clerical functions, speedily led to the notion, that along each of these lines of episcopal succession, there was transmitted from the apostles, and through them from Christ himself, the awful and mysterious virtue which, communicated by the bishop in the act of or- dination, could alone qualify any one for the duties of the clerical office. Hence arose the doctrine of apostolic succession as essential to the validity of ordination, and the administration of the sacra- ments, — a doctrine which is avowedly the pillar and ornament of the whole system of Catholicism, and one of which we find distinct traces at a compara- tively early period' in the history of the church. Such were some of the leading views which grew up in the bosom of the Christian church, from the adoption of the principle of Catholicism. Opposed by many pious and conscientious believers, they never- theless, after a struggle of more than two centuries, were at length firmly established by the decrees of the council held at Nice or Nicaea, in Bithynia, un- 16 COUNCIL OF NICE. der the auspices of Constantine the Great. This council, which is the first in the list of oecumenical or general councils, was convened in the year 325, and was attended by the emperor in person, and a vast multitude of ecclesiastics, of all ranks, and from all parts of the Christian world. Its avowed object was the settling of the Arian controversy, which had been for some time raging with great fury in many parts of the empire, especially in Egypt ; but "the holy and apostolic council," as they called them- selves, did not confine their attention to that matter. Besides denouncing Arius, and drawing up a creed to express the views of the catholic church on the points in dispute, they took up and settled some other heresies, determined the long disputed ques- tion about Easter in favour of Rome, defined the status of the clergy, and the rank and dignity of the bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs, adopted cer- tain regulations about synods and dioceses, and de- creed that, from that time forward, the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, should bear the title of patriarchs, and be reverenced as the primates of the whole church. These regulations, with accidental modifications, to adapt them to dif- ferent places, were embraced by the great mass of the Christian church, and formed the principal basis on which the vast superstructure of the Romish hierarchy was reared. To the church thus developed and established, all NICENE CHURCH. 17 true catholics look back with reverence, as to their model and directress. When we come a little far- ther down, however, in the history of Christianity, we encounter certain additions made to the creed and to the rules of the Nicene council, which are re- garded by many catholics as corruptions and unau- thorized departures from the primitive faith and practice. Of these it will not be necessary to take any particular notice in the inquiry to which the present work is devoted, as they belong to Popery or Romanism, rather than to that form of Catho- licism which assumes the nature sometimes of Angli- canism, and sometimes of the Church-system in this country. Confining myself within these bounds, the questions which will fall to be discussed respect the following points : — The rule of religious faith and practice ; the catholic church ; the functions and claims of the clergy ; the means by which men be- come Christians, and especially the ground of a sin- ner's acceptance with God ; the end of the Christian life, and the means best adapted for the securing of that end. On all these vital points, errors of a most pernicious kind seem to me ta be entertained by the advocates of Anglo-catholicism, as I hope to be able to show in the course of the present inquiry.^ The increased notoriety which has been recently given to catholic doctrines, from the zealous efforts ^ See Appendix, Note B. 18 CATHOLICISM OF THE put forth by certain distinguished members of the uni- versity of Oxford, has led many into the notion, that such doctrines are now for the first time advocated in the AngHcan church. But this is a mistake. As the Oxford writers themselves have amply shown, the views they advocate have always been recognised and taught more or less extensively within that com- munion. At the same time, they have all along had to contend with considerable opposition from different classes of its members. To the Erastian party in the church they have ever been distasteful, because they come into collision with the favourite doctrine of that party, that the church should be under the control of the civil power. By the Liberal party they have been disliked, because of their anti-pro- testant character, and of the restrictions which they impose on freedom of thought and opinion. And by the Evangelical party, they were wont to be held in a species of abhorrence, because of their opposi- tion to those doctrines which that party regard as essential to Christianity and to salvation. Of late, however, circumstances have occurred to soften very much the asperities of these parties towards each other, and to draw them together upon ground which they might maintain in unison against the common foe. It is easy to see that, with a reformed House of Commons, into which men of all religious opinions may find access, the doctrines of Erastianism are not those which may with safety be avowed, lest ANGLICAN CHURCH. 19 perchance our legislators may take those who avow them at their w^ord, and exercise their right of con- trol over the church with more freedom than is con- venient or desirable for its members. No less dan- ger may be apprehended, in the same quarter, from the doctrines of the liberal or simply protestant party in the church ; for, if the opinion be maintain- ed, that all things are to be brought to the test of Scripture, and that the outward regulation of the church must rest with the private judgments of the government and legislature, it is obviously very pos- sible that certain arrangements which the church of England deems essential, may be judged by these parties to be neither scriptural nor expedient. As respects the evangelical party, the ground occupied by them in the Anglican church has always been, and always been felt to be, precarious and perilous. Con- strained by conscientious conviction to explain away many parts of the formularies to which they had so- lemnly pledged their unfeigned assent and consent, and thus to waver continually between their private creed and the formularies of their church, they have been driven upon a course of refined casuistry, which ordinary minds cannot well understand, which in many cases seems sorely to have perplexed and troubled their own, and which, in spite of all the good they did, has made them objects of censure, and in some cases of contempt, to their brethren of other 20 CATHOLICISM OF THE parties in the church J On the ground, therefore, of none of these parties could a platform be laid for the reunion of the whole into one body. At this crisis, the voice of Dr Pusey was heard from the venerable halls of Oxford, exclaiming, " We have been born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. The Lord Jesus Christ gave his Spirit to his apostles ; they in turn laid their hands on those who should succeed them ; and these again on others ; and so the sacred gift has been handed down to our present bishops, who have appointed us as their assistants, and in some sense representatives. Now, every one of us be- lieves this. I know that some at first will deny they do ; still they do believe it, only it is not sufficiently practically impressed upon their minds. They do believe it ; for it is the doctrine of the ordination service, which they have recognized as truth in the most solemn season of their lives. In order, then, not to prove, but to remind and impress, I entreat your attention to the words used when you were made ministers of Christ's church. The office of priesthood was thus committed to you : — * Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the church of God now committed unto thee, by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost for- - , ^ See Appendix, Note C. ANGLICAN CHURCH. 21 give, they are forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God, and of his holy sacra- ments. In the name, &c.' "^ The note thus sounded, was often repeated ; and caught up and prolonged by others, it has well nigh vibrated through every cor- ner of the church of England. " Why," exclaims Dr Pusey, in another tract, " why should we talk so much of an establishment, and so little of an Apostolical Succession? Why should we not seriously endeavour to impress our people with this plain truth, — that by separating themselves from our communion, they separate themselves not only from a decent, orderly, useful society, but from the only church in this realm which has a right to be quite sure that she has the Lord's body to give to his people."^ To this appeal, a hearty response has apparently been given by hundreds of the clergy of the Anglican church ; and if we may believe the organs of the Oxford party, the number of its ad- herents is increasing every year. The natural con- clusion from this is, that a principle which has proved itself so powerful in bringing together parties formerly so far estranged from each other, must, in- stead of being a novelty in the system of any of these parties, be a principle to which in reality, though perhaps unconsciously, they had all given in 1 Tracts for the Times, No. 1, p. 4. ^ i^id. No. 4, p. 5. 22 RELATION OF ANGLICANISM their adherence, when they became incorporated in the ecclesiastical body of which they form the parts. If it be a mistake to regard the doctrines of the Oxford tractarians as novelties in the Anglican church, it is on the other hand an act of injustice to these writers to represent them as secretly favour- ing the system of Romanism, and covertly labouring to bring this country once more under the yoke of Rome. Such assertions are continually made by certain of their opponents, but, as it appears to me, unfairly and without truth. That as catholics they have more in common with the church of Rome than protestants in general have — that they may have occasionally expressed themselves with incautious re- verence towards that church, — and that the effect of all this on certain minds that are caught by ap- pearances,- and do not stop to reflect before they act, may have been to induce such to become proselytes to Romanism, — are facts which may be admitted, without the consequence necessarily following, that the Anglican system is only a modification of Ro- manism, and that the Anglican divines are only Ro- manists in disguise. The principles from which the two systems respectively set out are essentially dif- ferent. The principle of the Romanist is implicit deference to the church's dogmas, at whatever pe- riod these may have been issued ; the principle of the Anglican is implicit deference to the doctrines of the church ivhile she was yet one. Whether this I TO ROMANISM. 23 ground be tenable or not is another question ; but assuming that it is, the Anglican has sufficient rea- son in principle for stopping short of Romanism. In this case, all doctrines held by Romanists, for which no authority can be pleaded from Scripture, or the writings of the ante-Nicene church, are mere innovations, which the Anglican cannot embrace without deserting the first principles of his system. For such doctrines the Romanist may be able to argue very plausibly, and perhaps they may coalesce very naturally with certain tenets of Anglicanism ; still there is this against them, that they are unau- thorized by the only standard to which a consistent Anglican can appeal. There is thus, as it appears to me, an insuperable barrier between the Anglican and Romanist systems, which can be overcome only by the one or the other of these parties deserting its distinctive principles. I believe Mr Froude wrote quite sincerely when he declared, — " I never could be a Romanist ; I never could think all those things in Pope Pius's creed necessary to salvation."^ Without meaning to express approbation of all the means which the Oxford party have used for the dissemination of their opinions, I feel constrained to say, that the zeal they have displayed in diffus- ing what they regard as truth, is no less credi- table to them, than are the learning, acuteness and 1 Remains, i. 434. *' Popery," says one of the tractarians, " must l)e destroyed ; it cannot be reformed." Tract No. 20, p. 3. 24 THE OXFORD TRACTARIANS. earnest seriousness with which they have advocated their sentiments. I feel further bound to add, that whilst their leading doctrines seem to me fraught with dangerous error, there is much in their writings deserving of the candid consideration of every sin- cere inquirer after truth. In impugning their errors, therefore, I would desire to do justice to whatever of true doctrine or right feeling I find in their produc- tions, convinced that it is only in such a spirit that they can be either fairly or successfully encountered. CHAPTER SECOND. THE KULE OP RELIGIOUS OPINION AND PEACTICE. "Or/ ^it Tuv f>rif/,a, ri 'pr^oiyfji.oc, •ffitrroZo'doct rri fAK^rv^lx, rns B-BOTviva-rot) " Every word and every deed ought to be accredited by the testi- mony of inspired Scripture.** — Basil, in Ascet. Reg. 26. " Contra Rationem nemo sobrius ; contra Scripturas nemo Chi-is- tianus.'* " No man who contradicts Reason is in his senses ; no man who contradicts tlie Scriptures is a Christian.'* — Augtjstin. de Trin. 4, 6. As the existence of opinion presupposes the exist- ence of a standard by which that opinion is deter- mined, it will be admitted on all hands, that before any doctrines or duties of a religious nature can be enforced upon men, there must be some common test by an appeal to which their claims upon our submission may be tried. In this all parties are agreed. When, however, from this we proceed to ask. What is the test by which all religious opinions are to be estimated, and by the decisions of which all men should abide? immediately the different sects resile from each other, and arrange themselves in three great classes. 26 TEST OF RELIGIOUS TRUTH. Of these the Rationalist party occupy the one ex- treme, and the Romanist the other. By the former it is proposed that all things should be brought to the standard of human reason ; by which they mean not only that every man is to believe and act ac- cording to the judgment of his own mind, (for this all must admit who allow man the power of intelli- gent action,) but that in forming these judgments, he must appeal to no standard above or beyond the common experience of the race. The Romanist, on the other hand, maintains, that in forming these judgments we should render the most unqualified deference to the authority of the church, not only as the interpreter of Scripture, but also as possessing within herself the ever-enduring fountain of Divine knowledge. Between these two extremes stand all those who receive the Bible as the inspired word of God, who regard it as containing all that is neces- sary for salvation and for good morals, and who bow with implicit reverence to its dictates as the only infallible divinely appointed standard of faith and practice. With this last party the Anglo-catholics profess substantially to agree, so far as the mere test of truth is concerned. It is their boast that they occupy the middle path between Rationalism and Romanism, neither arrogating to themselves the right of mea- suring Divine revelations by the standard of human knowledge, nor presuming to assign to even the best I TEST OF RELIGIOUS TRUTH. 27 authenticated doctrines of the church, any other than a place of subordination to the written word of God; far less claiming for the church a continuance in it through all ages, of an infallible power of determin- ing what is true and necessary to be believed. At the same time, they so far defer to tradition as to adopt rites and ceremonies which they find to have universally prevailed in the church previous to its separation into different parties, even though no distinct trace of such should be found in the New Testament ; or, to express their opinion in the words of Bishop Beveridge, as quoted with approbation by Dr Pusey,^ they retain " observances nowhere en- joined in Holy Scripture directly and by name, yet which have, during 1400 years from the apostles, been every where received into the public use of the church ; nor can there be found any church during that period not agreeing thereto." With this ex- ception, — on which, in the present discussion, it does not appear necessary to lay much stress, — Dr Pusey and his party may be regarded as maintaining, to use the words of one of themselves, " the claim of Scripture to be sole and paramount as a rule of faith."' Having agreed upon the test of truth, the next step is to inquire, by what means the decisions of that test may be most correctly ascertained. On 1 Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, 2d edit. p. 42. 2 Keble. Sermon on Primitive Tradition, 4th edit. p. 31. 28 MEANS OF DETERMINING THE this subject, the answer which, judging from the analogy of other cases, one would be ready to give in the case of religious opinion, is, that each man for himself must, as he best can, determine what prin- ciples the admitted standard embodies, and by these regulate his opinions and his conduct. It is so in other departments of human inquiry. When we have agreed on a common standard of duration or extension, we leave each man to determine for him- self in every case what that standard indicates. When we have established a standard of morals, we admit the right of every man to judge for himself what, according to that standard, he ought to be and to do. Nay, where a law is enacted by the legisla- ture, it is left with every man to settle with himself what it is which is thereby required of him as a sub- ject of the empire, — under this condition, of course, that if he interpret it wrongly and act accordingly, he must abide the consequences. Proceeding on the analogy of these cases, we should be ready to infer that the same rule will hold concerning our relation to the Divine law as recorded in Scripture. Admit- ting the supreme authority of the record, it would seem to follow that each man must be left to decide for himself as to what truths it teaches, what duties it inculcates, what sanctions it unfolds ; under a lia- bility, of course, to all such disadvantages or penal- ties as may be the consequence of his deciding erroneouslv. TRUTH TAUGHT IN SCEIPTURE. ^^'29 ^ At this point the path of the Anglo-catholies^i^ verges from that which most other sections of the protestant community profess to follow. In their opinion, the interpretation of Scripture cannot be safely left to the private judgment of each individual. They would, therefore, in the first instance, prepossess the mind with a systematic view of the truths which they conceive Scripture to contain, that in the light of these the varied, unsystematic and (as they deem them) obscure statements of the inspired writers may be justly explained. Instead of sending men to the Bible to form, each for himself, as he best can, his creed, they would first teach men a correct creed, and then send them, by that creed, to interpret and harmonize the words of the Bible. But they do not conceive the formation of such a creed to be a thing left to mere human judgment. They believe that at no time has the church been without the guidance of a Divinely constructed formula of religious faith and practice, older than the New Testament itself, recognized by the New Testament writers, and pre- served in the traditionary records of the early church. To these records they refer, as furnishing us with the only authorized standard of Biblical interpreta- tion. The following extracts from their own publica- tions will set this part of their opinions distinctly before the reader. 30 ANGLO-CATHOLIC VIEWS " We do not appeal, in proof of Christian doctrine, to the ancient Christian writers, as in any way infallible. Our sentiments on this head are well known : they have been repeatedly explained. We hold, that the doctrine of any father, however great and learned he may have been, e. g. that of Augustine, Athanasius, Ambrose, or Basil, is to be rejected in any point where it contradicts Scripture. We consider all these writers as uninspired men, and therefore liable to mistakes and errors like other theologians. Therefore it involves a studied misrepresentation of our meaning and princij)le, when we are met by assertions or proofs, that particular fathers have taught errors in faith or morality ; that they were credulous ; that their writings are in some points obscure ; that their criticisms or inter- pretations of Scripture are sometimes mistaken ; that they invented scholastic doctrines, and were tinged with false philosophy; that the later fathers were better theologians than the earlier; that there are fathers against fathers, and councils against councils, on some points. This is all calculated merely to excite prejudice against an appeal to the doctrine of the church, by misrepresenting our design and prin- ciple in making it. Our answer to all these arguments is, that we do not appeal to the fathers as inspired and authoritative writers; but as competent witnesses of the faith held by Christians in their days. If they are not to be trusted in this, they are not to be trusted in their testimony to the facts of Christianity, and the external evi- dence of revelation is subverted." ^ *' With relation to the supreme authority of inspired Scripture, it l^the doctrine maintained by the Anglicans] stands thus: — Catholic tradition teaches revealed truth, Scripture proves it ; Scripture is the document of Faith, tradition the witness of it ; the true Creed is the catholic interpretation of Scripture, or scripturally proved tradition ; Scripture by itself teaches mediately, and proves deci- sively; tradition by itself proves negatively, and teaches posi- tively; Scripture and tradition taken together are the joint rule of faith." 2 The doctrine maintained in these extracts, viz., that the traditionary teaching of the early church is 1 Palmer's Treatise on the Church, voL.ii. p. ^5. 2 Tracts for the Times, No. 78, p. 2. See also Dr Pusey's Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, 2d edition, pp. 40, 41, where the author especially states the points of difference between Anglicans and Romanists regarding tradition. ON THIS SUBJECT. 31 to be reverenced, not, indeed, as if it could enable us to dispense with Scripture, or as if it were en- titled to stand on a par with Scripture ; but as the fia^ed and authoritative interpreter of Scripture, is one by no means peculiar to the party which has issued the Tracts for the Times. It is a doctrine to which many of the earlier Christian writers make suffi- ciently distinct reference, though it was reserved for Vincent of Lerins, a monk of the fifth century, to reduce it formally to the shape of a rule.^ It was also distinctly recognized by the leading English reformers, as well as by many of the continental churches f and not a few modern divines of the episcopal church, some of whom have even appeared as the antagonists of other parts of the Anglo-catho- lic systems, have given in their adherence to this.^ I am farther constrained to remark, that this doc- trine seems to rest upon a principle which is widely embraced beyond the limits of the catholic party. The principle to which I allude is this, that a for- mulary of Christian doctrine is necessary as an autlioritative standard of religious opinion. The 1 See Appendix, Note D. 2 gee Appendix, Note E. 3 Among the rest, the Rev. G. S. Faber. See his work on the Primitive Doctrine of Election, pp. 11, 13, and 184 ; and his more recent volume, entitled, " Our Lord's Discourse at Capernaum fatal to the Popish doctrine of Transubstantiation," p. 12 fF. For the sen- timents of many of the leading English episcopalians, from Bishop Jewell downwards, on the union of tradition with Scripture as a rule of faith, see the Catena Patrum, in the 78th Tract for the Times. 32 THE PRINCIPLE OF THESE VIEWS meaning of this assertion is, that our religious views ought- to be adjusted according to a certain fixed model, in which what is deemed to be truth is arti- culately set forth. Now, wherever this principle is held, it must follow as a necessary consequence, that as this standard is presupposed to contain the truths which are in Scripture, the statements of Scripture must be understood so as to tally with the ^dogmas of the standard. If this consequence be repudiated, and a claim be advanced for each man to form his opinions for himself from Scripture, the use of the formulary, as a standard of opinion, must be relin- quished ; otherwise, a man might be bound to a cer- tain set of opinions, and yet not bound to them at one and the same time. But if a creed is to influ- ence our judgments in the interpretation of Scrip- ture, the only controversy that can be agitated between us and the catholics, respects the particular creed by which we shall consent to bind our minds. We must not, in that case, ask. Why may we not learn what Scripture teaches at once and directly from Scripture itself, instead of first learning it from a confession, a catechism, or a creed ? but. Which is to be preferred, this creed or that ? The contro- versy is thus one merely of detail, and not of prin- ciple. As, indeed, it has been sometimes formally stated, it is merely a question between the formu- laries of the ante-Nicene church and the formu- laries of the Reformation, — between Rome and COMMON TO THEM WITH OTHER SECTS. 33 Wittenberg, — between Augustine and Luther, — be- tween the Council of Nice, the Diet of Augsburg, and the Assembly of Divines at Westminster. In short, it is no longer, in this case, for the right of every man to judge for himself from Scripture what he ought to believe and do, that we must contend ; but only for liberty, among a host of teachers claim- ing authority over our judgments, to follow implicitly the one whom accident or choice may have assigned to us. I must confess, that were the controversy with the Anglo-catholics, concerning tradition, restricted to these terms, it would not be one on which I should much care to enter. For one thing, the preponder- ating advantage would, in such a case, seem to be too much on their side, both in the ground which they assume, and in the preliminary probability that their rule of faith is the true one. A rule which is recommended to us, not simply on the ground of the wisdom, learning, or piety of its authors ; but on the ground, that it forms part of that which was once delivered to the saints, must be allowed on all hands to be far less offensive in its claims, than one which is avowedly the composition of fallible men like ourselves. And when we must determine on the guide to whom we shall submit, anterior to any exa- mination for ourselves of his claims as compared with those of others, (which would be to exercise the forbidden right of private judgment,) every one 34 THE POINT WORTH CONTENDING FOR. must feel that there is immensely greater security in following the authority of the universal church during the earlier centuries of its existence, than that of men who viewed truth only from the point of their own individual convictions, prejudices, and interests. Besides, it is really hardly worth one's while to spend much strength or effort on such a controversy. It is but a poor thing at best to con- tend for liberty to enslave one's self to one master rather than another. It is only when we contend for the right of guiding ourselves without a master, that the controversy becomes worth the effort which is necessary to carry it on. This right I believe to be the inalienable privilege of all men — not to be wrested from them by others, not to be relinquished by themselves. On every one to whom God has given the boon of a Bible, he has laid the obligation to search that hookjbr himself; and, whilst he repu- diates no aid that the learning or piety of others can furnish, to take heed that he be satisfied in his own mind, that whatever he receives as true is autho- rised by its dictates. The Bible, honestly interpret- ed by such light as God in his grace may give us, is the only standard to which we should consent to ap- peal — the only standard to which, believing in the inspiration of Scripture, we should feel ourselves at liberty to appeal. By interposing between us and this standard the authoritative teaching of tra- dition, Catholicism commands us as it were to look ARGUMENT FOR TRADITION. 35 at the light, not simply with such eyes as God has given us, but through the medium of some painted windov/ — venerable, it may be, for its antiquity, beautiful for its art, and " dim with religious light," yet a mere painted window after all. Here, as it seems to me, is an encroachment upon man's perso- nal liberty of thought. Here is a principle assumed, which, wherever it is held, appears to be fraught with evil. Against such a principle, therefore, I feel it worth while to contend, and that anxiously and earnestly, as for all that is most dear to man as an intelligent and accountable being. The train of reasoning by which the Anglo-catho- lics endeavour to support their views of tradition, may be summarily stated as follows : — The apostles, as the first teachers of Christianity, announced it to men orally, in the shape of a creed or system of doctrines. This they committed to the bishops and presbyters of the churches, as a sacred deposit, to be used by them for the same purpose, as well as a test of all doctrines claiming to be Christian ; and this, or at least " invaluable fragments" of it, we still pos- sess, in the remains of the early church. Now, as the Scriptures of the New Testament were all ad- dressed to churches whose members had been taught these, creeds, and were indeed composed upon this assumption, it follows, that before we can place our- selves in the same position with the members of 36 THE ORAL TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES these churches, so as to understand the New Testa- ment as they understood it, we must adopt the same course which they followed ; and having first duly imbued our minds with the doctrines of the primi- tive creed, proceed to study the New Testament in the light which these emit. This, so far as I am aware, is a fair statement of the substance of their reasoning on this head. It must be allowed to be not without the appearance of considerable force — an appearance which can be dissipated only by a searching examination of the different propositions of which it is composed. To attempt this I now proceed, taking the questions of a purely historical kind first. We shall thus be bet- ter prepared for entering upon the inference deduced from the facts assumed, and on which, as I have al- ready intimated, the main interest of this question turns. SECTION L FORM OF THE APOSTOLIC TEACHING. It is assumed by the traditionists, that the origi- nal form in which the apostles delivered the truths of Christianity to men, was that of a creed. Let us examine the grounds on which this assumption rest^ I pass over all that has been said respecting the NOT IN THE FORM OF A CREED. 37 a 'priori probability that such a plan was that follow- ed by the apostles ; for in such a case I cannot but regard an appeal to antecedent probabilities as at best but a very precarious and unsatisfactory mode of procedure. The conclusion at which a person arrives on such an appeal depends very much upon the character of his own mind, and the point from which he views the subject ; so that what appears to one man highly probable, may to another appear hardly conceivable, in the case supposed. Besides, founding on the supposition, which is common to both parties in this controversy, that the teaching of the apostles was the work of God, it must be allowed by all sober thinkers that we are very in- competent to say, abstracting from the actual facts of the case, in what form it is probable and in what it is not probable that this teaching would be de- livered. We can nefer know by anticipation in what way God will do any act ; we can only, after the fact, by humble study of his works, tell how he has done it. It is idle, then, in such a case, to waste time in calculating the probabilities of the teaching of the apostles having been presented in the form of a creed. Passing from the region of purely antecedent pro- bability, and founding upon the actual nature of the revelation communicated, it is argued that we have the strongest reason for concluding that a religious system, consisting of a set of doctrines, would be 38 THE ORAL TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES conveyed to men in the first instance in a dogmati- cal form. Now, here again I might object to the impalpable and evanescent character of the argu- ment ; for where is the standard by which the force of this conclusion is to be estimated? Is it not possible that the very reasons which induced the apostles to convey truth in an unsystematic form in their written teaching may have availed to produce the same effect on their spoken teaching? and may it not, therefore, be said with equal plausibility, that we have the strongest reason to believe that the apostles did not deliver their first message in a dog- matical form ? Such reasonings serve no good pur- pose either on one side or the other. They make the question turn, as it were, on a hinge that moves both ways, so as effectually to prevent either party from shutting out the other from the conclusion at which he wishes to arrive ? But happily there is a more satisfactory way of meeting this argument. It proceeds, it will be observed, on the assumption that the religion of Jesus Christ is a revelation from God of a set qf doctrines which men are to receive and hold. This position I venture to call in question. What God reveals to us in the Bible, as the sub- stance and basis of our faith, is, strictly speaking, a set oi facts, not a set of doctrines. The fallen condi- tion of man — the incarnation of Deity in the person of Jesus Christ'^the obedience unto death of this mysterious person as a sacrifice for the sins of man NOT IN THE FORM OF A CREED. 39 — his resurrection and ascension to glory — his ac- ceptance on our behalf hj God — the offer of free and full pardon through the merits of his death — the gift of the Holy Spirit — His work in sanctifying the heart of man and preparing us for heaven — the resurrection of the body — the last judgment, and an eternity of rewards and punishments; are just so many facts of which we have a knowledge, not by any process of reasoning upon abstract principles, but simply by believing the testimony which God has been pleased to give regarding them. But if our religion be a religion of facts, and if it be by the belief and practical realization of these facts as facts, that we obtain the benefits which that religion offers, what comes of the argument founded upon the na- ture of Christianity as a supposed religion of doc- trines in favour of the opinion that the apostles must have announced that religion in the shape of a creed? Why should persons who had only a few great facts to announce to men, have done any thing else than tell men these facts, demonstrate the au- thority upon which they were announced, and press them upon the attention of their hearers as matters in which they were deeply interested ? Nor is this all. Experience amply teaches us, that no sooner do men come to regard a religious truth in the light of a mere doctrine, and not in that of a substantially existing fact, than they cease to be in any salutary manner, or to any great extent, influenced by it. 40 THE ORAL TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES How many, for instance, willingly admit and defend the doctrine of the Divine existence, who, in every possible manner, are all the while showing that the fact of the Divine existence has no place whatever in their minds, and no hold whatever over their conduct ! The same thing is exemplified in regard to all the other truths of religion. Now, seeing this, would not the apostles have been unfaithful to their trust, and unwise for their professed object, if, in- stead of laying before men the ever-living and all- constraining facts of their message, they had only taught them the stiff and dry details of a doctrinal creed ? It must be obvious that, taking this view of the matter, which I maintain is the only correct one, the probabilities are all against the allegation, that the teaching of the apostles was exhibited in the form of a systematic statement of mere doctrinal principles. When, from these general reasonings, we come to such actual historical notices of the preaching of the apostles as have come down to us, the view I have just expressed is most fully borne out. Let us look, for instance, at the account which the apostle Paul gives of his first preaching to the Corinthians, as re- corded in the commencement of the fifteenth chapter of his first epistle to that church : — " Moreover, brethren," says he, " I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, and wherein ye stand ; by which also ye are saved, I NOT IN THE FORINI OF A CREED. 41 if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scrip- tures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures ; and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve : After that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep," &c., ver. 1 — 8. Here we have Paul's own account of what he taught the Corinthians; and of what, I ask, did his preaching consist but of a simple statement of facts and of the evidence upon which they were worthy to be received ? And for what purpose did the apostle state these facts ? Was it merely to in- terest the feelings and to enlarge the conceptions of those who had already embraced the doctrines of Christianity? No; Paul himself expressly states, that he thus preached to them that they, hy retaining in their memories what they heard, might he saved. If Paul's authority, then, in this matter, is to be al- lowed that weight which is its due, we must admit that, in his case at least, apostolic teaching was not , the deliverance of a creed, but the publishing of the facts concerning the life and death of Christ, — those facts which comprise " the gospel," and of which we have the record in the Scriptures of the New Testa- ment. But what is thus true of Paul must be true 42 APOSTOLIC PREACHING. also of all the other apostles; for as thej had re- ceived one commission, and were under the guidance of one and the same Spirit, and had entrusted to them one and the same message, it would be pre- posterous to suppose that any substantial difference could exist as to the manner in which they would discharge the duties of their office. All the notices, moreover, which we have of their public addresses in the Acts of the Apostles and in their Epistles, tend to the conclusion that, like Paul's, their preach- ing consisted of a statement of facts, and that if they urged principles of doctrine or duty upon their dis- ciples, it was rather in the shape of inferences from the facts already received, than in that of primary truths, in the light of which these facts themselves were to be considered and comprehended.^ For this first assumption, then, on which the doc- trine of the traditionists rests, I do not see that they possess the shadow of evidence. On the contrary, all the evidence we have goes to establish a directly opposite conclusion, by confirming us in the opinion that the preaching of the apostles was, like their writings, an unsystematic detail of the facts of Chris- tianity, with continued practical applications of these to the circumstances and necessities of their hearers. This is as might have been supposed ; for it would ' Compare the account of Peter's semion on the day of Pentecost, Acts ii. 14 — 36, and his address to the i)eoi3le in the temple, Acts iii. 12—26. See also 2 Pet. i. 12—18: 1 John v. 10—13. \ NO CREEDS IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCHES. 43 be strange indeed had the apostles, in their extem- pore discourses, been formal and dogmatic, while, in their written treatises, they followed a free style of address, partly narrative, partly inferential, and partly practical. SECTION II. ALLEGED EXISTENCE OF A SYMBOLICAL STANDARD IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCHES. The second assumption on which the inference of the traditionists rests is, that there actually did exist a formulary of Christian doctrine in the primitive churches, by which all opinions of a religious nature were to be tried, and which formed the religious standard and guide of these communities. That such a formula existed, it is affirmed, cannot be de- nied, inasmuch as distinct allusions are made to it in the apostolic writings. The passages chiefly re- ferred to as containing such allusions are the follow- ing :— 1 Tim. vi. 20, " Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust," (r^v Tra^aKocra&mv, the deposit,) &c. ; 2 Tim. i. 18, 14, " Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed to thee keep by the Holy Spirit that dwelleth in us;" 1 Tim. vi. 12, " Fight 44 THE GOOD DEPOSIT the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses ;" 2 John 10, " If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed." From these passages it is argued that there was in the early churches some statement of doctrines which went by the name of " the form of sound words," or "the deposit," — that this was committed to the first preachers, to be by them taught to their hearers, — and that this was professed by these preachers, before competent wit- nesses, at their ordination to office. Whether these inferences from the passages quoted be correct or not, can be ascertained only by a careful examina- tion of each passage by itself And, first, with regard to the good deposit which was entrusted to Timothy, and whidh he was charged by Paul to keep through the Holy Ghost. " This," says Mr Keble,^ " was the treasure of apostolical doc- trines and church rules, — the rules and doctrines which make up the charter of Christ's kingdom;" and in support of this, he argues at considerable length, that such must be the meaning of the words in this connection, partly because the apostle so ur- gently commands Timothy to " hold it fast," but chiefly because it is placed by the apostle in opposi- 1 Sermon, p. 20. COMMITTED TO TIMOTHY. 45 tion to " vain and profane babblings, and opposi- tions of science, falsely so called." With regard to the former of these reasons, it may suffice to remark, that it becomes of weight solely on the supposition, that a set of doctrines and rules formally drawn up and disposed into a creed, is the 07iltj thing in the shape of religious instruction which Timothy could be enjoined to keep or hold fast. But why so ? May not an unsystematic detail of facts and principles, such as we find in the written Scrip- tures, be kept by us as well as a creed ? May not the great fact, that salvation is solely through the atonement of Christ, be held by us without forming one of the articles of a symbolical formulary ? And may not all that the apostle (supposing him to speak of truths, which, as I shall presently endeavour to show, is by no means certain,) means to enjoin upon Timothy, be simply the faithful retention of a pure gospel, an uncorrupted announcement of " the glad tidings of great joy which are unto all people?" What confirms this remark is, that Paul uses the same expression in enjoining upon the Corinthians the faithful retention of the gospel which he had de- clared to them, and which, as we have already seen, consisted in the great leading facts concerning our Saviour's death and resurrection. As to the latter of these reasons, I shall consider it first on the admission that there is such an anti- thesis in the apostle's statement between the deposit 46 THE GOOD DEPOSIT committed to Timothy, and the profane and vain babblings against which he cautions him, as Mr Keble's argument supposes. For this purpose we must suppose, that the objects contrasted belong to the same order of things, though of a different class in that order ; in other words, that both belong to the order of things taught, but that the one consisted of truth, the other of falsehood. Now, admitting for the sake of argument, that such is the case, it does not appear to me to follow necessarily from such a con- trast that the former is a set of doctrines and rules put together in the form of a creed. Can nothing, I ask, be set over against " profane and vain babblings," except the dogmatical announcements of a creed? How was it, for instance, that Paul himself met those heretical doctrines which had crept into the churches of Galatia, Colosse, and Corinth ? or that John encountered those which at a later period were found in the very churches of which Timothy at this time had the charge ? Was it not by a process of reasoning and deduction from the fundamental facts of Christianity ? And if this was found the most suitable weapon in the hands of these apostles, is it not at least probable that it is the same which the former of them in this passage recommends his dis- ciple Timothy to use ? This leads to the conclusion that the deposit here referred to, was simply the gospel, — the glad news concerning the incarnation, life, and death of the Son of God. Of this the I COMMITTED TO TIMOTHY. 47 apostle himself says elsewhere, that it had been com- mitted to him ; ^ and I see nothing in the language used by him to Timothy to forbid a similar inter- pretation here. This is on the assumption that we must view " the deposit" in this passage as relating to what Timothy was enjoined to teach. For my own part, however, I greatly prefer the interpretation which explains this word as referring to persons and not to truths, and which views the apostle as enjoining upon Ti- mothy, not so much a careful preservation of pure doctrine, as a watchful anxiety for the salvation of the flock entrusted to his charge. In support of this interpretation, I observe, first. That it is that to which the proper meaning of the word used naturally leads. The word in question means anything entrusted to a person by one who may resume the trust when he pleases. So it is used, for instance, in the LXX translation of Lev. vi. 2, where, in the words of our version, it is said, " If a soul sin and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep," (ra Tr^og rou '7r'kri(Tiov h Troc^a^ri^cy) ; and again, in verse 4, — " He shall restore that which was delivered to him to keep," &;c. Here the word plainly means something committed to a person's use for a time, with the intention of its being required again at that per- 1 Gal. ii. 7 ; Tit. i. 3. 48 THE GOOD DEPOSIT son's hands. ^ This being the meaning of the word, it is obvious that it could with infinitely greater pro- priety be used of a number of Christian souls en- trusted to Timothy by the great Head of the church, to be trained for glory, honour, and immortality, that so Christ might receive his own at his coming, than of a formula of doctrine which Timothy had received to teach, and which could in no sense be given hack to him from whom it was received. Secmidly^ In the immediate context of one of the passages under examination, this very word is used in a connection which plainly excludes the idea of a set of truths, and necessitates that of a person. " I know," says Paul, " in whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep what I have committed to him, (Toc§a(}yjpcr}v [jbov)^ against that day."^ Now, what was it that Paul had deposited with Christ ? — a set of doctrines and church rules ? No, assuredly, but the well-being of his own soul. This was what the apostle had placed in the keeping of that faithful Saviour whom he elsewhere describes as 1 The same idea is conspicuous in tiie usage of the term by the classical writers, as may be seen from the examples collected by Ste- phanus in his Thesaurus, sub vac, Hesychius and SuiJes explain the word by Uixv^ov, a pledge. The passages collected by Stepha- nus also show how frequently the word was employed by the classi- cal writers in reference to persons. Plato, for instance, speaks of " orphans as a very great and most sacred deposit." De Legg. xi. p. 027, C. 2 2 Tim. i. 12. See Whitby's instructive note on this passage. L COMMITTED TO TIMOTHY. 49 " the Shepherd and Bishop of souls." But if this be the meaning of the word as employed by the apostle concerning himself, is it not using unjustifiable free- dom with his style to suppose that in the very next verse but one he should, in speaking of that with which Timothy had been entrusted, employ the same word in a meaning so totally different ? Shall we not rather say, that the idea in Paul's mind was this, that as Jesus Christ, like a true and faithful Shepherd, would keep every soul committed to his care, so it behoved his servants, as under shepherds of his flock, to keep with constant and conscien- tious fidelity, that portion of it entrusted to them ? ^ Thirdly, This interpretation agrees better with the context than the other. In the former of the two ■| 1 Compare the use of the word here rendered " deposit," with the ^^Puse of it by Eusebius in that exquisite story of the apostle John and the robl)er, contained in the twenty-third chapter of the third book of his Church History. " * Come/ said the apostle to the bishop, to whom he had entrusted the care of the youth who had turned robber, * return to us the deposit, {jnt Ttx,^xxa.Toc6nxnvy) committed to thee, O bishop, by the Saviour and me, as the church over which thou pre- sidest can attest.' At this demand the bishop was struck with amazement, supposing some one had represented him to the apostle as receiving money which he had not received, and being neither ahle to account for what he had not, nor willing to discredit John. When, however, the latter said, * It is the young man and the soul of my brother I demand of thee,' the old man groaned, and weeping, replied, * He is dead.' * How and by what death ?' asked John. * He is dead to God,' was the reply. . . . Then the apostle, rending his garment, and smiting his head, with a mighty wail exclaimed, * Truly to an excellent keeper {(pvXetxa) of the soul of my brother have I left him,'" &c. The close resemblance between the language here used and that of Paul to Timothy, cannot fail to strike every reader. i 50 THE GOOD DEPOSIT passages in which it occurs, (1 Tim. vi. 20,) it follows close upon a warm exhortation to Timo- thy, to be faithful to those who were placed under his care, especially " charging the rich not to be high-minded, nor to trust in the things of earth ; but to lay up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come ; that they might lay hold on eternal life." After such an admonition, what more natural, than that Paul should conclude his epistle with an earnest entreaty to Timothy to be faithful to his trust, and to keep the flock committed to him ? On the other hand, what more unlikely than that he should follow up such an admonition with a command to keep pure the creed which he had received to teach ? It is true, that close upon this Paul exhorts Timothy to ** avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." But why were these to be avoided ? Obviously, because, as the apostle himself adds, some, by " professing these, had erred concerning the faith." It was to prevent the risk of any apostatizing from Christianity, therefore, that Timothy was to avoid these babblings and opposi- tions of science; in other words, it was, that he might keep his flock from being scattered, injured, or lost. Does not all this go to confirm the idea, that the deposit intrusted to him was not a set of doctrines, but the souls of those who looked to him as their spiritual teacher, and of Avhom he would I COMMITTED TO TIMOTHY. 51 have to give account at last to the great Proprietor of the whole ? With regard to the latter of the two passages, in which this word occurs, viz. 2 Tim. i. 14, I have already said, that the use of the word immediately before by the apostle, in reference to his own spiritual interest, renders it extremely probable that it is in reference to objects of the same class that it is used here. This conclusion is further favoured by the circumstance, that in the next verse Paul proceeds to refer to some cases of apos- taey which had occurred among the professed dis- ciples of Christ, — a reference which seems viery natural, on the supposition, that by " the good deposit" mentioned in the preceding verse, Paul means the flock of which Timothy was shepherd ; but which produces a somewhat forced transition, if by that we are to understand the creed which Timothy had to teach. All this, however, it may be said, is more than counterbalanced by the words of the 13th verse, where we read, "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus;" after which immediately follows the admonition now under consideration. From this conjunction it is concluded, that " the good deposit " was none other than the " form of sound of words," which " form," it is also concluded, was none other than the creed which Paul had taught Timothy. This is, at best, \ but precarious reasoning. Granting for the moment, i 52 THE FORM OF SOUND WORDS that the form of sound words here mentioned, was a system of truth, how does it follow, that the good deposit was the same ? Is it customary with the apostle thus unnecessarily to repeat his injunctions ? On the contrary, does not the circumstance, that after enjoining upon Timothy to hold fast the form of sound words, the apostle deems it necessary to command him also to keep the deposit, naturally lead to the inference, that the latter is something different from the former ? At any rate, this con- clusion is as probable as the other, so that no solid argument can be drawn from the mere juxta-posi- tion of these verses, in favour of the catholic inter- pretation of the latter of them. It still remains, that we enquire particularly what is meant by the phrase, " the form of sound words," which Paul enjoins upon Timothy to keep. In the preceding observations I have, for argument's sake, proceeded on the assumption, that by this phrase is intended a formulary of doctrine, for the purpose of showing, that even on that supposition it would not follow that the good deposit afterwards mentioned means the same. This phrase, however, is adduced, not only for the purpose of explaining the other, but also as affording an independent evidence of the existence, in the apostolic churches, of a creed, with which the bishops were entrusted, that they might keep it and teach it to all. On this I have simply to remark, that its whole weight, as an argument. NOT A CREED. 53 rests on the assumption, that the word rendered in our version by form, is equivalent to formulary or symbol. Were this the case, the passage would unquestionably show that there did exist in the apostolic churches some synopsis of Christian doc- trine, which was familiarly known as the formulary of sound words. Before this can be granted, how- ever, two difficulties must be surmounted by those who maintain the affirmative side of the question. The former of these is the absence of the article before vTrorvTrooaiv, the word translated " form " in our version, a circumstance quite irreconcilable, I think, with the assumption, that by this phrase is intended the formulary of doctrine in the apostolic churches.^ The latter is, that the word v'TroTV'Tiruffig nowhere occurs with the meaning which would thus be affixed to it. It is found only once besides in the New Testament, in 1 Tim. i. 16, where the apostle says, that he himself was set forth as a pattern or specimen of the long-suffering of God, for the benefit of those who should afterwards believe. This seems to be the proper meaning of the word ; and in this sense there are two interpretations which may be given to the passage under notice. The one is, that Timothy was always to have before him a model or 1 It may perhaps be said, that the article lies virtually in the relative Jv, and is by it thrown back on its antecedent. True ; but what is its antecedent ? Not l-Tcoru'^ucnv, but >.oyuv. So that the pro- per rendering is, not " the form of sound words which," &c, ; but " a form of the sound words which," &c. 54 THE FORM OF SOUND WORDS. conception of that sound teaching which the apostle had instilled into him. The other is, that he was always to exhibit a pattern, in his own personal con- duct, of the wholesome effects of the truths which he had learned from the apostle, and which he him- self taught to others. The former of these interpre- tations, is that given by Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Theodoret, and adopted by Heinrichs and others among modern interpreters.^ The latter is favoured by the parallel expression in Rom. vi. 18, where the " type," or form " of doctrine," (rvTrog h^^x^g,) seems to mean the model prescribed by the doctrine which had been taught, and into conformity with which the true Christian is moulded.^ Without, however, pausing to determine between these two interpreta- tions, it is sufficient to observe, that neither of them aifords any solid support to the argument built by catholics on this passage. If we take the latter, the allusion of the apostle is not to doctrine at all, but to personal conduct. If we prefer the former, though we shall regard the apostle as alluding to doctrine, it is to doctrine as conceived of in the mind, and that for the purpose of serving as a model on which to frame a system of instruction, not as em- bodied in a creed to be used as a standard of faith and conduct; in other words, that the disciple, in communicating instruction to others, should have a 1 See Appendix, Note F. 2 See Calvin and Grothis on this passage. I timothy's good profession. 55 lively conception before his mind of the wholesome words he had himself heard from his preceptor in Christ. It is obvious, that to keep this, no more means necessarily to retain a formulary of doctrine, than to preach after the model of any distinguished minister of the gospel, means necessarily to repeat his discourses. I come now to the last of the passages alleged from the Epistles to Timothy, to prove the existence of a creed in the apostolic churches, that, viz., in which Paul reminds his disciple of the good profes- sion which he had made before many witnesses. This " good confession," says Mr Keble, " can only mean the apostle's creed, or some corresponding formula recited at baptism."^ But why so? Can " a good confession " mean nothing else than the repetition of a creed? And is it only at baptism that a man can make such a confession before many witnesses ? In Timothy's case, this latter supposition is peculiarly unfortunate, for, so far as we know any- thing about him, he was never baptised at all, unless it was in his infancy. But on this point I need not farther dilate, for Paul, in this case also, as in the preceding cases, has most providentially so used the phrase rendered " good profession," in the context, as to show, that it cannot mean a creed. At verse 13th, he speaks of Jesus Christ as having " witnessed ^ Sermon, p. 16. 56 timothy's good profession. a good confession before Pontius Pilate." Will Mr Keble stand to his explanation here ? Will he say, that this can mean nothing else than some creed or formula, recited by our Saviour before Pilate ? Or if this be felt to be too absurd, will he tell us how he is so confident, that the very same phrase used in the verse immediately preceding, must mean a creed or formula recited by Timothy ? To an un- biassed reader, the expression would naturally appear to bear the same meaning in both cases. In the case of our Lord, beyond all question, the reference of the apostle is to that avowal which he made of himself as the King of Zion before Pilate, and which he made "good," by dying in vindication of his claims. Taken in connection with this, there seems little room to doubt, that the profession to which Paul alludes in the case of Timothy, was simply his avowal of himself as a missionary of the cross, and a servant of Jesus. This he had made before many witnesses. It was good in itself; and the apostle would have him prove it good, in relation to his own motives and character, by the faithful and per- severing discharge of those duties which the office he had thus assumed entailed upon him. Such an injunction is surely far more worthy of the character of both parties, than if we were to understand the apostle as speaking of a creed which Timothy was to remember that he had once on a time recited. It has often, I must say, struck my mind with timothy's good profession, ^^^j 57 ^ ^ some degree of surprise, that those who regarc passages just considered as referring to some formulaT of doctrine with which Timothy had been instructed, should not have felt the incongruity of such an interpretation under the circumstances of the case. To retain such a formula in his memory, and to keep it entire and pure, was surely no such difficult duty to an intelligent and upright man, as to require to be so frequently and so urgently enjoined upon him. In this point of view, how much more suitable to the character and relations of both parties is the supposition, that that to which Paul thus earnestly called the conscientious attention of his friend, was the care of the flock committed to his charge, and of his own conduct as a professed servant of Christ ! " Who is sufficient for these things ?" and in what way can the wisdom and the love of Christian friend- ship more appropriately show itself, than in exhort- ing those on whom such a charge has been laid, to be steadfast under those manifold difficulties and temptations to which they are exposed, — difficulties which the strongest cannot of himself surmount, and temptations under which the holiest and most devoted will sometimes sink ? To my mind, this view of the apostle's design gives to his words a weight, a dignity, and an appropriateness, of which, by the others, they are totally deprived. I come now to notice the only remaining passage on which the traditionists lay stress as affording evi- 58 THE TEST OF CHRISTIANITY dence of the existence in the apostolic churches of a creed. It is contained in the 10th verse of the Second Epistle of John, " If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God's speed." This, taken in connection with the injunctions to the Christians in the First Epistle concerning the abid- ing within them of that which they had heard from the beginning, (ch. ii. 24,) and the confession " that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh," (chap. iv. 2, 3,) is viewed by the catholics as proving that " the church was already in possession of the substance of saving truth in a sufficiently systematic form by the sole teaching of the apostles."^ If by this nothing more is meant than that the Christians to whom John wrote were already in possession, by means of oral instruction, of a measure of acquaintance with sav- ing truth sufficient to bring them under the power of Christianity, and enable them to detect any false doctrines that might be taught among them, the in- ference is one from which it would be absurd to dis- sent. But, if the writer means to affirm that these passages in the Epistles of John authorise the con- clusion, that the knowledge which the Christians addressed by him, possessed of saving truth, was embodied in the form of a creed which they recited at baptism, (and this his main argument requires 1 Keble's Sermon, p. 23. I PROPOSED BY JOHN. 59 him to affirm,) it must be obvious to every candid reader that the basis is utterly inadequate to sup- port the superstructure which he would thus erect upon it. A simple reference to the passages he has adduced will show that the apostle is writing con- cerning the plain elementary facts of the gospel, — the real humanity of our Lord, and all the other facts connected therewith, — not of such a systematic and formal arrangement of these facts and of the doctrines involved in them, as is found in a sym- bolical standard. If any shall hint that the mere general statements of the gospel cannot form such a standard of appeal as John here obviously has in view, I would remind them of what the apostle Paul says to the Galatians, " if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."^ The gospel which Paul here consti- tutes the standard by which the Galatians were to try all other doctrines was, he tells them in the pre- ceding verse, that which he had preached unto them. Now, what that was we have already seen. It was not a formal enunciation of dogmatical prin- ciples ; it was a free narration of the events connect- ed with the life and death of our Lord, with a state- ment of the meaning and intent of these. And if this was sufficient to form a standard of belief to the Galatians, why suppose it other than suffi- 1 Chap. i. 8. 60 GROUNDS ON WHICH CONVERTS cieiit for the same purpose to those whom John ad- dressed? I have now gone through the examination of the scriptural evidence adduced in favour of the assump- tion, that the apostolic churches were in possession of a formal creed which they used as a standard of religious sentiment, and have shown, I trust, that that assumption is not borne out by the passages adduced in support of it. A few general remarks in farther support of the negative side of this ques- tion, shall conclude this section. 1. We find from the sacred writings that, on the reception of a convert into the church, the profes- sion of faith required of him w^as of the briefest and most informal character. It consisted in nothing more than an acknowledgment that Jesus was the Christ the Saviour of the world. ^ Less than this it was impossible to ask, unless individuals had been received into the church without any profession whatever ; and more than this there is no evidence that there was in any case required. The ground on which the apostles received men into the churches over which they presided was that of their simple Christianity, If they understood enough of divine truth to enable them to say sincerely that they believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, they knew enough for salvation and enough for the enjoyment 1 Compare Matt. xvi. 16 ; Acts viii. 37 ; 1 John iv. 2, 3, &c. I WERE RECEIVED BY THE APOSTLES. 61 of Christian fellowship. A profession of this, there- fore, was all that was demanded of them; and so far as any information we possess serves to show, they seem to have made such a profession each in his own words and after his own form. It would not, perhaps, be safe to conclude from this, that no stat- ed formula of profession existed in the apostolic churches ; but it must be admitted that, supposing such to have existed, it is altogether unaccountable that no instance should be recorded of its having been used, whilst in every instance where we might have expected it to have been used a mere extem- pore and informal confession alone was made. 2. If there was a creed in the apostohc churches which all were taught, and by which scripture itself was to be explained, is it not strange that such a document should never have been committed to writing, or preserved to us in an authoritative form? If, without such a creed, scripture be unintelligible, or liable to dangerous misconception, it seems as if, in preserving to us scripture, whilst that which alone can enable us to understand scripture has been allowed to perish, the great Head of the church has acted unkindly by his followers. He has, on this supposition, placed them in the position of persons Iwho have a chart sufficient indeed to guide them through the mazes of their journey, but to whom this advantage has been rendered nearly worthless by their being denied the light in which alone that I 62 NO CREED OF APOSTOLIC chart can be easily or correctly perused, — a conclu- sion derogatory alike to his wisdom and to his gface. That no creed is now extant justly claiming to be regarded as the composition of the apostles, is a fact too well known to require to be proved. What goes commonly under the title of the apostles' creed has no demonstrable antiquity higher than the end of the fourth century or the beginning of the fifth. It is mentioned for the first time in one of the writings of Ruffinus, presbyter at Aquileia, who died some- where about the year 410, and though he tells the story of its having been prepared by the apostles at Jerusalem before they separated to preach the gos- pel in different countries, yet he at the same time adduces this not as his own conviction, but as a pro- bable tradition of his predecessors. What degree of weight is to be attached to this assertion of Ruffinus may be inferred from the circumstance, that no allu- sion to this creed is made by any of the Fathers of the first four centuries, not even Eusebius, whose careful assiduity in mentioning all the genuine re- mains of the apostles is well known. There can be little doubt but that the creed was manufactured in Rome, and having been given forth as the Symbo- lum Apostolicum, or formula of apostolic doctrine, the story of Ruffinus was got up, either from a mis- apprehension of the meaning of this title, or because such a title formed a convenient cover under which such a fine story could be palmed on the multitude. I AUTHORSHIP NOW EXTANT. 63 The Romish origin of the creed is attested not only by its being continually called, by the Fathers, Sym- bolum Romanum,^ but also by the frequently attest- ed fact, that it was the peculiar possession of the Romish church, and by the indignant exclamation of the Greek bishops at the council of Florence, when the authority of this creed was urged on them as apostolic ; " we neither have, nor do we know any creed of the apostles."^ If, then, there be no document extant entitled to claim the honours of a creed of apostolic authorship, the traditionists seem to me to be reduced to the al- ternative, of either relinquishing their position that such a creed existed in the primitive church, or of maintaining that the gift of the Scriptures, apart from that which can alone explain them, is little better than a mockery of our wants. I know of no way by which they can escape from this dilemma, but by maintaining that though we have not the whole primitive creed, we have, in the remains of Up 1 " Credatur symbolo apostolorum, quod ecclesia Romana intem- eratum semper custodit et servat." Ambrosii, ep. 81. " Roma, et antequam Nicena synodus conveniret, a temporibus apostolorum usque ad nunc ita fidelibus symbolum tradidit." Vigilii Thapsens. adv. Eutychen, lib. iv. ^ ri/Jt,Ui ovTt i;^ofiiv, ohri u^of/,tv ffvfifhoXov rav 'A^oirroXaiv. Ap. Suiceri Thes. Eccles., in v. trufifioXov. On the subject of the Apostles' creed the reader may consult with advantage this article by Suicer, King's History of the Creed, Lond. 1702 ; Tentzelii Exercitationes'Selectae, Lips. 1692. Exercit. I. Walchii Antiquitates Symbolical, Jen. 1772. I 64 NO APOSTOLIC CREED NOW EXTANT. the early church, as Mr Keble tell us, " not a few very precious and sacred fragments"^ of it. How far this assertion is historically correct will form subject of immediate inquiry; in the mean time, let the reader observe in what position Mr Keble, by ad- ducing it, puts himself He tells us, that to the primitive churches was given an authoritative stan- dard of divine knowledge, without which scripture is not intelligible ; but he admits that so little care was exercised in the preservation of this, that it now exists only in fragments scattered over the wide surface of the remains of the Christian writers of the first six centuries. Now, both of these positions can scarcely be true. If a whole creed was necessary for the primitive Christians, it is no less necessary for us. If only " fragments" of that creed remain, something of that must be lost without which scrip- ture cannot be fully understood ; without which, therefore, Christianity cannot be fully taught, nor the church fully edified. What shall we say to these things ? Can we suppose, for a moment, that such things are true ? Shall we say that our Saviour has been unfaithful to his own promises to his church ? What else can we say if he thus has allowed to perish part (and who knows how much ?) of that without which the church cannot receive its necessary sup- ^ Sermon, p. 32. I NONE KNOWN TO THE EARLY FATHERS. 65 plies of spiritual food ? Let Mr Keble take his choice. He must either impeach the love and vera- city of his Master, or he must give up his assertion, that there was an authoritative standard of Chris- tian doctrine and biblical interpretation in the pri- mitive churches. 3. I observe, in conclusion, that the existence of an apostolic creed in the first age of the Christian church is a mere hypothesis of later disputants. No such thing is mentioned by the early Fathers, all whose appeals are made directly to scripture in sup- port of what they advance ; a circumstance which could not have occurred had they grown up under the discipline which the use of an authoritative creed common to all Christians would impose. The same thing is evident from the fact, that many of the early Fathers, both in addressing friends, and in their controversies with the heretics or the heathen, have gone to the trouble of composing creeds or summaries of divine truth, each for him- self, and all differing more or less from each other. ^ This was plainly a work of very idle supererogation, nay, of very self-sufficient presumption on the part of these Fathers if there was already extant an autho- rised creed of apostolic authorship. Such a docu- ^ Vide Ignatii Ep. ad Trail, c. 9 ; Justin. Mart. Apol. I. p. 11, ed. Thirlb. ; Ibid. p. 30, 81 ; Apol. II. p. 114, 115 ; Irenaei adv. Haer. i. 10 ; lb. iii. 4 ; TertuUiani de Viiginibus Velandis, c. 1 ; Adv. ^Praxean, c. 2 ; De Praescript. Haeret. c. 13 ; Origen. Praef, in Opus ^^■fe Originibus, § 4. I 66 OPINION OF DU PIN. ment must, of course, have been infinitely preferable, both for accuracy and authority, to any they could frame for themselves; and (especially in their conflicts with heretics) it is impossible to conceive a greater or more gratuitous relinquishment of a fair contro- versial advantage, than for them to substitute for what must have carried divine authority with it, a statement of their own, which, being their own, could carry with it no authority to which an anta- gonist would be disposed for a moment to yield. So convincing is this fact in reference to the subject now under consideration, that Du Pin, catholic though he was, considers it decisive of the question at issue. " In the second and third ages of the church," says he, " we find as many symbols as authors, and even the same author announces the symbol differently in different parts of his works ; a clear evidence that there was not at that time a symbol which was believed to be of apostolic origin, nor even any authoritative and established formula of belief at all."^ On the whole, therefore, we may affirm that the assertion of the existence, in the primitive church, of an authoritative ci^eed derived from the teaching of the apostles, is one utterly unsupported by any competent historical evidence. 1 Nouvelle Bibliotheqiie, torn. i. p. 10. USE AND AUTHORITY OF TRADITION. 67 SECTION III. USE AND AUTHORITY OF TRADITION AS PRESERVED IN THE WRITINGS OF THE EARLY CHURCH. The observations in the preceding section, if well founded, must be regarded as overturning the rea- soning of the traditionists, in so far as it is depend- ant on the assumption of the existence and use of an authoritative symbol of doctrine in the apostolic churches. This might seem to render it unneces- sary to extend our inquiry to their third position, in which they affirm the possibility of recovering from the remains of Christian antiquity the greater part, at least, of the creed supposed by them to have been given to the primitive Christians ; for if there be no evidence that such a creed existed, it may ap- pear preposterous to inquire whether any parts of it yet remain. As it is of importance, however, to show that in no part of their argument do they stand upon a solid basis, I shall now endeavour to prove that, even supposing an apostolic creed to have been possessed by the primitive churches, such a do- cument can be nothing to us, having long since been irrecoverably lost. In other words, I shall now seek to show, that what Mr Keble calls the " very pre- cious and sacred fragments of the unwritten teaching 68 ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE of the first age of the church," have no substantial claim to be so regarded. This inquiry is the more important from the fact that, apart from the hypothesis of an apostoUc creed, the authority of these fragments may be urged upon us on the ground of their containing apostolic doc- trine. It may be said that they contain the sub- stance of what the apostles taught, in whatever form that teaching was conveyed; and that, in conse- quence of this, they are entitled to be received by us as authoritative guides in the formation of our religious opinions, and in the interpretation of scrip- ture. The reasoning on which this doctrine is advanced may be stated thus : — In the remains of the early church we perceive a wonderful harmony of opinion and statement on certain points of Christian doc- trine and ritual. Fathers of different ages and countries ; the confessions of different churches ; the decrees of councils having no immediate connection with each other, are found to agree in maintaining exactly the same sentiments on certain important elements of sacred truth. In this consent of so many different parties, we have an assurance that the tenets consented to must have formed part of the apostolic doctrine, and consequently are furnished with a sufficient guarantee for regarding such tenets as certainly true, and certainly to be found in scrip- ture. APOSTOLICITY OF TRADITION. 09 It will be seen that this argument is simply an application of the rule of Vincent of Lerins already noticed in a former section. The examination of the soundness of it leads us necessarily to an inquiry into the degree of respect due to the writings of the ancient church in the formation of our religious views. Now, to the fact assumed in this argument of an universal consent on certain points of Christian truth among the early Christian writers, I do not mean to demur. It is one which I think must be admitted ; and it is one also which is well deserving of consi- deration on the part of all who are concerned to arrive at full and correct views of scriptural truth. It is true, on the other hand, that there are many points on which these writers differ, and these have been very sedulously collected by some, who appear to have thought that by so doing they were completely undermining the foundations of the traditionists. But this surely is labour in vain. Had the catholics maintained that emry thing in the Fathers is true and divine, then the pointing out of differences of opinion among them would have been fatal to the dogma, for it would have landed those who main- tained such a dogma on the horns of a dilemma, compelling them either to adopt the absurdity that two contradictory opinions could be both true, or to relinquish the ground which they had assumed as to the authority of the Fathers. But in truth, no such I 70 OBLIGATIONS WHICH WE OWE ground has ever been assumed by them. All that they have maintained is, that where the Fathers are agreed we have in that agreement an evidence of the apostohc origin of the doctrine or institute which they concur in advocating. Now, that such agree- ment does exist among the Fathers on certain points cannot be doubted, and with this fact it is incumbent upon us to deal fairly, and to allow it such weight as it deserves. It must be admitted farther, that to the writings of the Christian Fathers we stand indebted for very much that we venerate as useful, and indeed indis- pensable, in Christianity. There has been amongst protestants a great deal of foolish talking, and much jesting that is anything but convenient upon this subject. Men who have never read a page of the Fathers, and could not read one were they to try, have deemed themselves at liberty to speak in terms of scoffing and supercilious contempt of these vener- able luminaries of the early church. Because Cle- ment of Rome believed in the existence of the Phoenix, and because Justin Martyr thought the sons of God, who are said in Genesis to have inter- married with the daughters of men, were angels who for the loves of earth were willing to forego the joys of heaven, and because legends and old wives' fables enow are found in almost all the Fathers, it has been deemed wise to reject, despise, and ridicule the whole body of their writings. The least reflection TO THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 71 will suffice to show the unsoundness of such an infer- ence. What should we say of one who, because Lord Bacon held many opinions which modem science has proved to be false, should treat the No- vum Organum with contempt? or, of one who should deem himself entitled to scoff at Richard Baxter because in his Saint's Rest that able and excellent man tries to prove the existence of Satan by quoting instances of his apparitions and of his power over witches ? There is no man, however good or great, that can get quite beyond the errors and creduli- ties of his age. It becomes us, therefore, in dealing with the writings of a former generation, to take care that in rejecting the bad we do not also despise the good ; and especially that we be not found avail- ing ourselves of advantages which have reached us through the medium of these writings, whilst we ignorantly and ungratefully dishonour the memories of those by whom these writings were penned. The obligations under which we as Christians lie to tradition may be briefly enumerated thus: — In the first place, we stand indebted to this source for the canon of sacred scripture. What books were considered sacred by the Jews, and what writings were left by the apostles and other inspired servants of Jesus Christ, we know only by the concurrent testimony of the Jewish and Christian writers of the early centuries of the Christian era. For this, there- fore, which lies at the basis of all our reasonings in 72 OBLIGATIONS WHICH WE OWE support of the divine authority of scripture, we must ever acknowledge our deep obligations to these writers, ^dly. We owe, in a majority of instances, to the Christian Fathers and to creeds of the early church t\ie/brm in which the fundamental doctrines of our religion are held by us. In the Bible we find hardly any formal statements of doctrine. The truths which it unfolds to us are conveyed by general al- lusion, or as involved in certain facts, rather than by direct and systematic announcement. What we call the doctrines of Christianity are not so much parts themselves of the Bible, as expressions or announce- ments of the results which we obtain from the com- parison, one part with another, of what the Bible states. God's part, strictly speaking, in the Bible is like his part in creation, — the unfolding to the view of his creatures certain great facts and phenomena belonging to himself and to his government. Man's part in theology is like man's part in philosophy, — to analyse and compare these phenomena so as to arrive at the general principle, doctrine, or law which is involved in them. As creation is divine whilst the philosophy that interprets it is human, so the Bible is divine whilst the theology that interprets it is human. When, therefore, I say that we are indebted to the records of the early church for many of the doctrines of our theology, I do not of course mean the substance of these doctrines but the /arm of them. Nor do I intend to convey the idea that, had these L TO THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 73 I records never been written, we should not have been able of ourselves to discover these doctrines in Scrip- ture, any more than I would affirm that had Sir Isaac Newton never lived men would for ever have remained ignorant of the doctrine of gravitation. What I say is this, that just as we value the works of Newton and revere his name because, in point of fact, he was the man who put us in possession of the fact of gravitation in the shape of a doctrine or law of nature, so are we bound to respect the writings and honour the memories of the Christian Fathers because, in point of fact, they have been the first to put us in possession of certain facts of revelation in the shape of doctrines or laws of divine truth. ?tdly. From the writings and usages of the early church we have obtained many institutions which are nowhere ex]pressly prescribed in the New Testa- ment ; but which we find to be not only in accord- ance with its spirit, but implied at least in its state- ments, if not also sanctioned by apostolic usage. Such are the observance of the first day of the week as a day of public worship, the weekly observance of the Lord's supper, the ordinance of water-baptism, the manner of conducting our public worship, by praise, prayer, and preaching, and a few other things of the same note. Regarding these no man will, I think, affirm that they are prescribed in the New Testament. All that we can say concerning them is, that we can trace them up through the early church 74 OBLIGATIONS WHICH WE OWE to the days of the apostles ; that in the writings of the apostles we do not only not find anything against them, but a great deal in their favour; and that, in respect of some of them, we have such authority as we are entitled to borrow from apostolic usage in support of them. For the first step of this process, however, we are obviously indebted to the Fathers, and in so far as their writings thus help us to the attainment of scriptural teaching on such points, they demand and deserve our respect. Lastly, To the writings of the Fathers we stand indebted for some of those standard interpretations of scripture which have been handed down from generation to genera- tion, which are found in all the commentaries, and the truth and propriety of which strike the mind as soon as they are announced. I do not mean to affirm that these interpretations would nemr have been given had they not been first given by the Fathers; all that I say is, that, in point of fact, they hax)e been first given by them, — that all subsequent critics have borrowed them from them, — and that, therefore, in so far as they are valuable and true, our gratitude is due, in the first instance, to those by whom they were first proposed. Nor is this all that may be affirmed on this head. In reading the homilies, and other expository discourses of the Fathers, we shall frequently find them anticipating opinions and inter- pretations of Scripture which have been thought the original discoveries of recent times, and for discover- TO THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 75 ing which certain writers have obtained considerable reputation amongst us. If justice were done to all parties in this matter, I suspect that it would be found, that as we owe some of our best hymns to un- acknowledged translations from the Roman breviary, so some of the most favourite theological tenets of recent schools are to be found in the writings of the Fathers. Let it be conceded, then, to the catholics, that, in these respects, we are under deep obligations to the early church, and that a certain degree of respect is due by us to the unanimous teaching of that church. The only question between us will then concern the degree of respect which we ought to pay to this. On this subject I shall first briefly state my own views, and then proceed to examine those of Dr Pusey and his followers. Let us suppose, then, that we have ascertained that a given opinion was held, or a given institution observed everywhere, always, and by all in the early church, what effect should this knowledge produce upon us ? Obviously, to create, in our minds, a pre- sumption in favour of its apostolic origin. The fact of such an agreement amongst good and honest men, widely separated from each other, both in space and time, very decidedly points to a common source, as that from which their views had been derived by them ; and as the source most obviously common to all was the teaching of the apostles, it is to be pre- 76 RESPECT DUE TO sumed, with some degree of probability, that the opinion or institute in question has the sanction of apostolic authority. It is for us, therefore, to go to the recorded teaching of the apostles in the New Testament, and examine carefully, and without pre- judice, what they teach upon the subject. To illustrate this by an example, let us suppose a person who has had some doubts upon the subject of water-baptism as a standing ordinance in the church, to be informed that this ordinance, of which he doubts, has at all times, and every where, existed in the Christian church ; that it can be traced up to the earliest ages of the Christian church, so that no time can be mentioned in the history of the church, when it was not known to exist ; we should certainly experience some surprise were he to reply, " Then, I think, the church has all along been in error; for it seems to me very improbable, not to say impossible, that Christ should have instituted such a merely ex- ternal ordinance for his church." To such a state- ment the instant reply would be, " It is not for us to pronounce what it is probable and what it is not probable for our Saviour to have done in any ease. The only question for us is one of fact, and all that we have to ask is, not what ought to be, but simply what is f It is for us, therefore, to allow all due weight to this remarkable circumstance of the union of all Christians, in the early ages of the church, in the observance of this ordinance, and under that I CATHOLIC TRADITION. 77 impression, to proceed to the careful study of the teaching of Scripture upon the subject."' ^This, as it appears to me, is the course which a proper sense of our own infirmities, and a due regard for truth, would dictate. Assuming, then, the fact that there is a consent of the Fathers and the early church upon certain points of importance in Christianity, I admit that this consent affords a presumption in favour of the truth of the opinion or rite thus consented to ; and where it is one of which we are not already convinced, it becomes our duty to proceed imme- diately to the touchstone of Scripture, and thereby very carefully and cautiously to satisfy ourselves whether this presumption be correct or not. This admission, however, comes very much short of the ground assumed by the catholics in this matter. Not only do they view this unanimous consent of the early church as affording a probability that the point consented to may be true, but they contend that all things thus assented to rnust be true, that they must be found in the Scriptures, and that Scripture is always to be interpreted on the presumption that it does teach such things. As this opinion rests on the assumption that the universal consent of the early church to any doctrine necessarily, by the weight of its own authority, proves that doctrine to have been apostolic, it will be sufficiently refuted by showing the untenableness of this assumption. On i 78 CATHOLICITY NOT NECESSARILY this point I solicit the reader's attention to the fol- lowing series of remarks. 1. The argument most commonly used in support of this assumption is, that there is no other way of accounting for this unanimous consent of the early churches, but by supposing the existence amongst them of an apostolic tradition, and that consequently their doctrine is to be received as apostolical. Now, on this argument, I remark, 1^^, That even suppos- ing there was no other way of accounting for this fact, it does not thereby follow that we are bound to receive all the doctrines which the ancient church unanimously received, as necessarily true. When we say that there is no other way of accounting for a fact, all that we mean is, that relatwely to out know- ledge there is no other way of accounting for it ; in other words, that we know of no other way of ac- counting for it. Now, in certain eases, this may be a very convincing mode of reasoning, as, e, g,, where we are sure that we knov\^ all the facts of the case, as in the inductions of natural science, or where, as in mathematics, the conclusion affirmed can be demon- strated to be the only one possible in the given case. But where the thing to be accounted for is an histo- rical fact, and where we may be in possession of only a very partial or one-sided view of the events which have led to it, such a mode of reasoning as to its cause can be allowed, at best, only a very qualified authority. It still remains for any one to say, — A PROOF OF APOSTOLICITY. 79 " Though no other cause besides the one mentioned can be supposed by us to have existed, how can we be sure, absolutely, that no other cause actually did exist ?" It is true that, with regard to the majority of historical questions, such scepticism would be felt to be unreasonable ; but this arises from the circum- stance, that on the majority of historical questions no momentous interests hang suspended, and there- fore we are content to accept a possible solution of them when one more certain cannot be got. But this is not the case with the question before us. On the solution of it proposed by the catholics is to be built a demand upon our religious faith and obedi- ence ; and this is too serious a matter to concede upon evidence whose whole weight is hypothetical. The ground I take here is very obvious, and I think very easily kept. I can yield up my conscience only to what I know to be divine. Let this be proved to me, and my scruples must end ; in such a case, to retain them one moment longer would be pro- fane. But for this purpose the evidence must termi- nate in proof, not on a mere slender probability. It must be shown that the doctrine in question cannot but be divine, — not merely that we cannot account for all men knowing it on any other supposition than that it is divine. Our inability to account for this in any other way may be the result only of our igno- rance and weakness, and no proof therefore of the strength of our conclusion. In such a case I repeat, 80 UNANIMITY OF THE EARLY CHURCH I must have proof, direct and convincing proof, of the agency of Deity in the matter before I can yield full assent to the position/ But, ^dly, I deny that we have even this inferen- tial probability in favour of the opinion in question. I deny that there is no other way of accounting for the universal prevalence of certain opinions in the early church but by supposing these to have flowed from oral tradition, handed down from the days of the apostles. It appears to me that, without any great exercise of ingenuity, several other modes of accounting for this fact may be suggested. If, for instance, the doctrine consented to be really true and authorised by scripture — say the doctrine of the Trinity — what is to forbid the supposition that that doctrine actually was drawn by each Father who taught it from the study of the written word ? All these ancient Fathers possessed the written word; all of them were students and teachers of its con- tents ; and all of them, therefore, for any thing that we have a right to say to the contrary, arrived at the knowledge of its truths by the same process by which we, in the present day, may arrive at the same.^ ^ See Appendix, Note G. 2 Athanasius expressly informs us, in speaking of the much de- bated term Homoousion, in the council of Nice, that ** its sense or import (t^v 'hia.votav) was gathered out of the Scriptures." De Dec. Nic, Syn. 20; quoted in Hampden's Hampton Lectures, 2d ed., Introd. p. xxxix. In this the members of that council only acted up to the injunctions laid upon them by the Emperor in his opening TRACEABLE TO MERE HUMAN CAUSES. 81 The mere fact of unanimity in their case, mider these circumstances, no more proves the possession by them of divine knowledge, independent of scripture, than it would in our case. What is in scripture may surely be got out of scripture by ordinary diligence and study ; and therefore, unless we mean to deny to the early church the possession of those faculties which we claim for ourselves, I cannot see why their unanimity on points actually revealed in scripture should be held to argue their possession of a teacher independent of scripture itself With regard to those points in whicK the Fathers agree, but which are not revealed in scripture, at least not clearly, their agree- ment by no means necessarily proves these points to have formed part of the apostolic teaching, for we find the same unanimity of opinion on points which are, on all hands, held to be absurd and false. There was at all times, in the early church, a strong dispo- sition to receive doctrines or institutions proceeding from any venerable source ; and these, once received, spread with great rapidity, especially after the system address. " The gospels aud apostolic books," said he, " as well as the oracles of the ancient prophets, plainly teach us what we should think concerning God. Wherefore, laying aside all hostile strife, let us secure a solution of the points in question from the inspired word." Theodoriti Hist. Eccles., lib. i. c. 7. Augustine gives the same account of the composition of the Apostles' creed, as it is usu- ally caUed. " These words," says he, after recapitulating it, " which ye have heard, are scattered through the divine writings, but have been thence collected and brought into one," &c. De Symb. ad Catechum. cap. 1. F 82 INFLUENCE OF INDIVIDUAL FATHERS of the catholic church was framed. We can easily conceive, therefore, that the early suggestion of any sentiment, or of any interpretation of a passage of Scripture, proceeding from some influential name in the early church, might receive what appears to us universal acceptance ; and were this, consequently, to be held as necessarily proving the apostolic charac- ter of the sentiment or interpretation, we should be constrained to fasten upon the New Testament many doctrines utterly foreign to its spirit, if not incom- patible with its inspiration. Of the universal extent to which an early blunder came to be propagated, we have an instance in one case already referred to, I mean Clement's doctrine that the Phoenix supplies an illustration of the resurrection. This is derived from him by almost all the Fathers, and may be viewed as the doctrine of the early church ; so that here is one instance, at least, of the possibility of an opinion becoming catholic which is yet neither apos- tolic nor true. Another is the mistake into Avhich Tertullian and Cyprian fell concerning the New Tes- tament doctrine of virginity. Founding upon cer- tain sayings of our Lord and the apostle Paul con- cerning the expediency, in certain cases, of abstain- ing from marriage, and concerning the praise that was due to those who, for the kingdom of heaven's sake, denied themselves the comforts of the married life ; and transferring to celibacy itself the commen- dations bestowed by the apostle on the motives I IN PRODUCING CATHOLICITY OF DOCTRINE. 83 which, in such cases, led persons to practise celi- bacy, these Fathers taught that virginity was, in and by itself, a more holy state than matrimony, and so commended it to the admiration of the believers, that this doctrine became ere long the doctrine of the catholic church. These two instances are suffi- cient, I think, to show the possibility of opinions be- coming universal in the early church which had an origin subsequent to the time of the apostles. There is, therefore, a way of accounting for the con- sent of the Fathers besides the supposition of an apostolic tradition, and consequently, the argument which would infer the existence of such a tradition from the fact of such consent, is deprived of its basis, and must fall to the ground. 2. Another argument often urged by the tradi- tionists in support of their deference to the early church is, that from the circumstances of that church, its proximity to the age of the apostles, the use, by many of its members, of the language in which the New Testament is written as their vernacular tongue, and other things of the same kind, they may be sup- posed to have been more favourably situated than we are now for correctly ascertaining the meaning of the New Testament. With this we may conjoin the ar- gument urged by Mr Newman, that the fit inter- preter of Scripture is " the collective church, where, what is wanting in one member, is supplied by ano- ther, and the contrary errors of individuals elimi- I 84 THE FATHERS COMPETENT WITNESSES nated by their combination." ^ Now, the Jads assumed in these two arguments might be questioned ; but I have classed them together because we may concede the assumed fact in each, and answer both in the same way. The answer I give is very brief, viz., that neither of them is to the point. They both go to prove what has been already conceded, viz., that where the Fathers, or any great body of good and intelligent men agree upon any point of doctrine, it becomes our wisdom to attach such weight to their concurrence as that we shall not rashly conclude them in error until we have very carefully examined the whole doctrine of scripture upon the subject ; and farther, that in forming our own opinion it is of advantage to take into view the opinions of others, that so any oversights or errors on our part may, by their correctness, be remedied. But surely the proving and the conceding of this com6s very far short of the proving and conceding of the position, that where the Fathers consent they 7nust be in the right, and that to conclude, even from Scripture, against them, must be presumptuous. 3. On these arguments, therefore, I do not en- large, but pass on to that which, if not the weighti- est, is certainly the favourite argument of the party against which I am contending. This argument is an appeal to our consistency, and may be thus stated : — 1 Prophetical Office of the Church, p. 190. FOR THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 85 '* You admit," it is said, " the authority of the early church as sufficient to settle the canon of scripture ; with what reason, after such an admission, can you refuse to admit its authority in the interpretation of scripture ? In other words, you receive certain writings as apostolic upon the authority of tradition, why then do you refuse the interpretation of these which the same authority sanctions?" Now, this argument, no doubt, appears at first sight plau- sible and specious, but like many other specious de- fences of error, it will be found, on examination, nothing better than specious. In order to perceive the fallacy of it, we have only to distinguish between the evidence proper to an historical fact, and the evi- dence proper to a doctrine or opinion. The former is the concurrent testimony of competent witnesses ; the latter is argument and reasoning. We can never prove a historical fact by mere reasoning ; and as little can we prove a doctrine by mere testi- mony. Let this distinction, then, be made, and all the apparent force of this much vaunted argument melts away. The authorship of the New Testament is an historical fact, which, like all other such facts, is to be proved by testimony : the proper meaning of any part of the New Testament is a matter of opi- nion, which is to be made out by reasoning. Now, who does not see that one may, with the most per- fect consistency, receive implicitly the concurrent testimony of the early church to the fact, and yet 86 BUT NOT FINAL JUDGES refuse it to the opinion ? In the one case the evi- dence adduced is proper and competent; in the other it is not. The apostolic authorship of the New Testament was a matter of public notoriety in the days of the early church, and all that we receive from its members is the attestation of this fact. If to this they add the deliverance of their opinion as to the meaning of the New Testament, that is a thing which we may take or reject as we please, for we have the New Testament before our eyes, and can judge in that matter for ourselves. So plain a matter hardly, perhaps, needs to be illustrated; but a simple illustration may be bor- rowed from the practice of our courts of law. Supposing a question brought into court respecting the will of an individual deceased, and upon that will two points are raised, viz. 1, Is the signature ap- pended to this will the bona fide signatm*e of the party to whom it is ascribed ? and, 2. Does a given clause of this will bear a certain interpretation? Now, here are two points, the one of fact, the other of opinion. In support of the former, say ten per- sons are called, who had competent opportunities of judging of the handwriting of the deceased, and that they all unanimously attest the signature in question to be his. Their testimony is received as valid, and the court admits the will to be genuine. But suppose each of these, in giving his testimony to the fact, had chosen to favour the court with his opinion as to the I OF THE MEANING OF SCRIPTURE. 87 meaning of the controverted clause, would their statement have been received with the same defer- lence? Assuredly not. Thej would have been at once reminded that that was a matter in which the court could judge for itself, as the document was before it ; that all that was wanted from them as witnesses was a deposition to the fact of the genuineness of the signature, and that though they were quite entitled to their opinion, and though the judge and jury might attach some weight to it, be- cause of their connection with the deceased, yet it could not go into evidence, or be treated as their simple testimony would be. Of the justness of such a difference every one must be at once aware in such a case. Now, it is exactly the same in the case be- fore us. We bow implicitly to the testimony of the Fathers in regard to the historical fact ; but, in re- spect of their opinions, we take liberty to judge for ourselves. In this there is no inconsistency ; it is accordant with every-day custom, and with common sense. 4. There is only one argument more which I have to notice on this part of my subject. It is one which goes upon the practice of our courts of justice in regard to the common or unwritten law of the realm, which is held by those adducing the argu- ment to be analogous to the unwritten tradition of the church. This argument has been stated with 88 ANALOGY BETWEEN TRADITION much clearness and ingenuity by Mr Keble in the following paragraph : — " If a maxim or custom can be traced back to a time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary ; if it pervade all the diflferent courts, established in different provinces for the administra- tion of justice ; and thirdly, if it be generally acknowledged in such sort, that contrary decisions have been disallowed and held invalid : then, whatever the exceptions to it may be, it is presumed to be part and parcel of our common law. On principles exactly analogous, the church practices and rules above mentioned, and several others, ought, we contend, apart from all scripture evidence, to be received as traditionary or common laws ecclesiastical. They who contend that the very notion of such tradition is a mere dream and extrava- gance ; who plead against it the uncertainty of history, the loss or probable corruption of records, the exceptions, deviations, interi-up- tions, which have occurred through the temporary prevalence of tyranny, heresy, or schism ; must, if they would be consistent, deny the validity of the most important portion of the laws of this, and of most other old countries.''^ Now this argument, it must be admitted, is both well put and exceedingly plausible. There can be no doubt of the fact assumed in it, that in our courts of justice, any thing that can, by the tests specified by Mr Keble, be found to be part of the common law, is allowed to be of equal authority with the statute law of the realm. But when the argument passes from this fact, to infer an equal authority in church law, as belonging to the unwritten traditions which have always and everywhere prevailed in the church, the transition is made by the bridge of a false analogy. For in proving any custom part of ^ Sermon, p. 33. AND THE COMMON LAW OF THE REALM. 89 the common law, what do we affirm ? Why this ; that as in all states, before a formal legislature is set up, people will legislate and arrange for themselves, so in regard to the custom in question, we show that it is one of those things on which the people in this country agreed anterior to the existence among them of written laws. The point proved here, then, is, that the law in question was one of the people's own making antecedent to the existence or opera- tion of the authority which has made the statute law. But is this what Mr Keble wants to prove in regard to the traditionary institutes of the early church ? If it be, his labour is superfluous ; for his opponents never doubted the power of tradition to inform us of what institutes the early church made for itself, , But this is not what Mr K. wants to prove. He wants to show that these institutes were not made by the people, but though unwritten, are yet part of the statute law of the kingdom. That is, he twists his analogy so that he would have it to prove the very opposite of what it does prove. His argument, rightly understood, is all upon the opposite side. Here, let us suppose, is a custom which the ad- vocate pleads with the judge to preserve. The judge replies, that it is not mentioned in the written law, and therefore has not been prescribed by the authors of that law. " True," says the advocate ; " but it was made by the people for themselves, before they had any formal lawgiver, and has been preserved 90 DIFFICULTIES IN THE FATHERS ever since." " Then," replies the judge, " it must stand ; for a law made by the people for themselves anterior to legislation, is of equal authority vi^ith one made for them by their legislators." Now all this is very well in human courts of law, but it will not do in matters of Christian law. The legislation of the Christian church lies at its very foundation. To prove any institution in it, therefore, to be not of statute, but of common law, is to prove that it arose (ifter^ and not before the statutes were completed ; in other words, to prove that it is a mere human de- vice, engrafted upon the divine stock, but forming- no part of that stock, and having no element of di- vinity in it. Let Mr Keble keep to his analogy. Let him prove, if he can, that his favourite doctrines concerning the church, the priesthood, and the sa- craments, are part of " the common law" merely of the church. This to me would be sufficient proof of their unsoundness. For by the very act of show- ing that they were authorised only in this way, he would prove that they formed no part of the statute law of the Christian kingdom ; and no part, there- fore, of that code, which having alone received the sanction of the great Head of the church, is alone binding on any of his faithful subjects. I have now gone over the principal arguments which I find in the books of the Anglo-catholics in support of their views concerning tradition as the witness for the truth and the standard inter- GREATER THAN IN SCRIPTURE. 91 preter of scripture. The result of the inquiry is, I hope, such as to satisfy the candid reader that no confidence whatever can, in a matter of such im- portance, be safely placed in the apostolical autho- rity, or even in the certain orthodoxy of the tradi- tions of the early church ; and that so far from its being wise in us or binding on us to defer implicitly to these in expounding scripture, to do so might in many instances lead us into serious, if not ruinous error. In farther support of this conclusion, I sub- join a few remarks of a general nature. L 1. The ground on which the Anglo-catholics rest their appeal to tradition fe, that the Bible needs an interpreter, because the truths it teaches are no- where formally and systematically announced, but rather diffused throughout its pages. I shall in- quire afterwards how far this ground is tenable ; but supposing for a moment that it is, does it not seem extremely preposterous to propose the works of the Christian Fathers as furnishing such an inter- preter, when in them the very evil thus complained of in scripture is augmented a thousand fold? It needs but a very slender acquaintance with their writings to satisfy any one that such is the case. The greater part of their compositions consists of what we should now call " occasional treatises," written, perhaps, hastily, with hardly in any case even the pretension of systematic arrangement, con- taining many allusions to persons and circumstances, 92 IMPRACTICABILITY OF THE of which from other sources we know nothing, and presenting truth in that incidental, partial, and one- sided aspect, which is common to all compositions of that order. On this account, to construct a sys- tem of patristic theology, must be regarded as one of the most Herculean of all literary toils, requiring for its successful accomplishment a degree of patient effort, calm reflection, acute discrimination, and pro- found learning, which in very few cases it is our happiness to see combined. Nothing surely can be more manifestly absurd than to prescribe such a task, as the necessary preliminary in every case to the study of scripture, atid that especially on the ground that scripture is too unsystematic to be easily understood. " Let the scriptures be hard," exclaims Milton, in reference to this subject ; " are they more hard, more crabbed, more abstruse than the Fathers ? He that cannot understand the sober, plain, and unaffected style of the scriptures, will be ten times more puzzled with the knotty Africanisms, the pampered metaphors, the intricate and involved sentences of the Fathers; besides these fantastic and declamatory flashes, the cross jingling periods, which cannot but disturb and come athwart a settled devo- tion, worse than the din of rattles and bells."^ 2. To make the unanimous consent of the early church the criterion of divine truth, is to erect a ^ Of Reformation touching Church Disciplme. AVorks, vol. i. p. 2o. ANOLO-CATHOLIC RULE OF FAITH. 93 standard to which only a very limited portion of the race can appeal. Before an individual can satisfy himself on this head, what must he do ? First he must make himself master of the Greek and Latin languages ; for very few, comparatively, of the re- mains of Christian antiquity have been accurately translated into our vernacular tongue. Then he must procure a complete set of the works of the Fathers ; and as it is desirable that these shall be in the best editions, this will require the outlay of a very large sum of money.^ The next step is to make himself master of all the difficult questions, critical, historical, and personal, connected with these works and their authors. He must then set himself to the careful perusal of their contents, contending as he best may with their manifold obscurities, accurately dis- criminating those points on which the various writers agree from those on which they differ — anxiously separating the dogmas of the heretical from those of the orthodox Fathers — solicitously discerning what any who may have lapsed from the catholic faith taught before, from what they taught after their change, and then cautiously, patiently, and judi- ^^^ciously weighing the grand result of the whole. ^■For such a work we must, on the most moderate ^^computation, allow an average of twenty years' assi- 1 On a very moderate estimate, from L.150 to L.200. " Every bookseller's catalogue tells the same tale ; in fact, it is a regular argumentum ad crumenamP Brit. Crit. for April 1841, p. 332. i 94 IMPRACTICABILITY OF THE duous toil ; after which the patient student, having doubtless succeeded in gathering those " precious fragments" of which Mr Keble speaks, may indulge the hope of being permitted to open and attempt to understand the statements of that book, which alone reveals to him how he is to be saved ! The announcement of such a proposal is a sufficient exposure of its utter unreasonableness and absurdity. Mr Keble, indeed,^ seems to make very light of the matter ; and perhaps to men of his and Dr Pusey's learning and leisure, toil like this may have been but a gymnastic pastime, though I think it would not be very difficult to turn to passages in the works of the Fathers, in which even they would admit a " dignus vindice nodus." ^ But what is to become of the my- riads who have neither learning nor leisure for such researches, but whose interest in the truths of divine revelation is not second to that of the most learned scholar ? For such there seems, on the principle of the traditionists, no resource but either to relinquish all hopes of understanding the Bible, or to follow implicitly the teaching of those who have, or who say they have, perused the writings of the fathers, and gathered thence the catholic creed. I know not which side of this alternative is the worse. To adopt the former would be deliberately to deprive ourselves of all spiritual illumination whatever ; to concede the 1 Sermon, pp. 40, 41. 2 gee Appendix, Note H. I ANGLO-CATHOLIC RULE OF FAITH. 95 latter, would be to place ourselves under the guidance of parties who, saving that they themselves tell us that the light they furnish us is the true one, may, for aught we can tell, be mere " wandering stars," leading us to destruction. One hardly knows which most to denounce in such a proposal, the cruelty which would place the mass of Christians in such a wretched predicament, or the folly of expecting that any man of sense and seriousness, would, with the Bible within his reach, submit to be so placed. I I am not ignorant of the device under which the catholics endeavour to conceal the ofFensiveness of their proposal thus to subject the faith of all men to the dictation of the clergy. Repudiating with appa- rent horror the idea of asking men to submit impli- citly to individual clergymen, they betake themselves to that mysterious abstraction, " the church," and claim the submission of the people to the teaching of their ministers, not as to what these have by their own efforts learned, but what the church in her ma- rnal wisdom and faithfulness has committed to them. As I shall have occasion subsequently to examine more fully the catholic doctrine concerning the church, I shall content myself at present with observing, that this subterfuge, so far from serving obviate the objection above advanced, only en- ables me to repeat it with increased force. Sup- posing it granted that we are bound to defer to the IKieaching of the clergy of the catholic church as to I ||kb: OG CONDUCES TO AUGMENT UNDULY the teaching of the church herself, it still remains for us to inquire in each csise, first, Whether the in- dividual clergyman we are required to listen to be a tme minister of the catholic church; and, second, Whether his teaching be realli/ such as the church catholic has sanctioned. Now, for the solution of these two questions, not one man in a thousand has either the necessary time, or the requisite learning and skill. Before the former can be answered, on what catholics themselves maintain to be sound prin- ciples, we must be able to trace the regular succes- sion of bishops from the time of the apostles down- ward, through which the clergyman in question has derived his orders, — an inquiry full of uncertainty and perplexity ; and with regard to the latter, it re- solves itself into the identical investigation of which I have above stated the hopeless difficulty to all ex- cept very learned and laborious men. It is obvious, therefore, that to refer the people to the authority of the church for their religious opinions, is only in another form to refer them to the authority of indi- vidual clergymen ; for whither are they, circum- stanced as they necessarily are, to go for information as to what is the church, and as to what the church has taught, but to the man who tells them that the true church has sent him to be their teacher ? or when they are told that they are altogether unable to understand and interpret Scripture for themselves, and must consequently listen to the teaching of the THE POWER OF THE CLERGY. 07 church, what can they understand by the admonition, but that they are implicitly to receive and believe all that their spiritual teacher inculcates upon them ? This system, then, of making tradition the inter- preter of scripture, seems fraught with danger to the best interests of liberty and religion. Its ten- dency is to build up the sacerdotal power, by foster- ing a spirit of abject dependence in religious matters on the will of the clergy. It is a scheme for sapping the foundations of all intelligent conviction of divine truth, by persuading men to rest their hopes for eternity not on the word of God, not even on the una- nimous consent of the church, but on the mere word of an individual who, for aught that his hearers can tell, may be himself profoundly ignorant as well of what tradition teaches, as of what Scripture proves. ^ 3. The necessity of referring to tradition as the in- terpreter of Scripture, is pleaded on the ground that by this means alone can Christians in later times have an approximation to the same advantages for understanding scripture as were enjoyed by the early Christians, from the existence among them of an apostolic standard of belief distinct from but harmonious with the written word. Now, were the assumption on which this argument is based correct, we should naturally expect to find in the writings of 1 See Appendix, Note I, G 98 STATEMENTS OF THE FATHERS CONCERNING the Fathers, if not unerring accuracy in the explana- tion of scripture, yet traces of confidence in the suffi- ciency of that divine key to the meaning of the writ- ten word, which in this case they must have pos- sessed, and continual appeals to tradition as an au- thoritative standard in all questions affecting the sense of the sacred oracles. Every one must feel how reasonable is such an expectation; but if any were to proceed to the study of the Fathers with such an expectation, he would soon find himself destined to be disappointed. I venture to say, that an appeal to tradition for the explanation of scripture is one of the rarest pheno- mena in the writings of the early church. In per- using these, nothing seems more obvious, than that their authors found just the same sort of difficulties in scripture which we find now, and sought their re- moval by the same processes which are familiar to us. It would be easy to multiply quotations in sup- port of this assertion, but the following may suffice. Iren^US. — " Now, if we cannot solve all the dif- ficulties that are found in scripture, let us not seek another God beside him who already is, for no im- piety can be greater than this. Rather ought we to entrust such things to God who made us, rightly knowing that the scriptures are indeed perfect, having been uttered by the word and Spirit of God, whilst we, inasmuch as we are but little, and as of yesterday, need, on this account, the knowledge of L THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 99 his mysteries from his word and Spirit. Nor is it surprising that such should be the case with us in regard to things spiritual, heavenly, and that need to be revealed, since, even in regard to those things which are before our feet — the things I mean in this part of creation which we both see and consume, and which are with us — much escapes our knowledge, and this we commit to God. ... If, then, in creation some things are known only to God, whilst others come within the sphere of our cognition, where is the harm, since all scripture is spiritual, if of its contents some things we can solve by the grace of God, whilst others we must leave to God himself, and that not in this world only but also in that which is to come ; so that God may ever teach, and man be ever a learner." ^ The same writer, after telling us that some things in scripture are plainly and unambiguously stated whilst others are couched in figures, exhorts us to compare the latter with the former, adding, " for he who thus interprets, interprets safely, and thus figu- rative passages receive the same explanation from all, and by truth, and the apt coherence of its mem- bers, and the absence of concussion, the body abides entire. On the other hand," he continues, " to com- ^bine those things which are not plainly stated and placed before our eyes with such explanations of 1 Adv. Hseres. ii. 47. 100 STATEMENTS OF THE FATHERS CONCERNING figurative passages as each may choose to invent, is to deprive all of a standard of truth, and to make as many truths, mutually opposing each other and esta- blishing contrary dogmata, as there are authors of these explanations. In this way man would be for ever inquiring yet never attaining to the truth, be- cause rejecting the proper rule of investigation. . . . What is this but, instead of openly building our house on the firm and enduring rock, to erect it on the shifting sand where it may be easily overturn- ed?"^ Origen. — " Divinely inspired Scripture is, on ac- count of its obscurity, like a house with many apart- ments, the keys to which are not fitted each to its own lock, but are dispersed throughout the building, so that it is a most difficult work to find the keys and apply them each to the door it is designed to open. In like manner, the difficulties of Scripture can be removed only by means of other passages scattered throughout the volume, which contain in them that by which these may be explained. And I think the apostle suggests such a mode of under- standing the divine word when he says, ' which things we speak not in the words which man's wis- dom teacheth but which the Spirit teacheth, com- paring spiritual things with spiritual.' " ^ Chrysostom. — " Of all difficulties in Scripture 1 Adv. Hares, ii. 46. 2 Philocal, cap. ii. p. 22, ed. Spencer. I THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 101 til I the context affords the best solution ; for when one knows the scope of the speaker, and whom he is addressing and of what he speaks, a distinct and orderly view of his words will be obtained."^ Athanasius. — " For the sound investigation and true knowledge of the scriptures, there needs a good life, a pure spirit, and the virtue which is according to Christ, that guided thereby the intellect may be able to attain and possess what it craves, in so far as it is competent for human nature to learn of the word of God. For without a pure disposition and the imitation of such a life as the saints lead, no one can apprehend the divine word." ^ These extracts, which are taken from writers widely separated from each other, may be taken as a specimen of the way in which the Christian Fathers speak of the difficulties of scripture and the means of surmounting them. They plainly show, I think, that these writers viewed this matter much in the me way as we do now ; and that so far from feeling hemselves possessed of an infallible guide to the meaning of scripture, they knew that they had no other resource in attempting to solve its difficulties but such as patient inquiry, honest effort, pure mo- ives, and constant prayer for divine aid could sup- 1 Opp. torn. V. p. 790 ; Ap. Suiceri Thes. Eccles. i. p. 793, ubi ^»|>lura. ^B- ^ De Incarnatione, i. 57. I 102 OPINIONS OF THE FATHERS ply. In what respects, then, were their advantages so much greater than ours that we must be content to receive the law at their mouth, and hold ourselves privileged in being able, after a life-long study of their writings, to collect a few fragments of a creed which they either seem never to have possessed, or possessing to have treated as unnecessary or unser- viceable ? 4. If the rule of Vincent of Lerins be followed as the test of truth, this dogma of implicit deference to tradition must be rejected, for it has not in its fa- vour the universal consent of the Fathers. That in the writings of the early church many passages occur in which apostolic tradition is spoken of in the most reverential terms is not to be denied. But before these passages can be adduced as evi- dence that their authors support the dogma in ques- tion, it must be clearly shown that the tradition of which they thus speak is the same thing which now passes under that name; and even after this has been successfully done in certain cases, the argument would be very far from being complete, for there would still remain the opposing sentiments of others of the Fathers to show that the doctrine was not held every where and by all. When the Fathers speak of tradition, they often intend thereby the apostolic ivritings, using the word in the same sense in which it is used by Paul in CONCERNING TRADITION. 103 2 Thess. ii. 15.^ In other cases, they affix the term '* apostolical tradition " to any doctrine commonly regarded in the church as sanctioned by Scripture, without thereby intending to convey any idea of its having been handed down orally from the apostles ; just as we, in the present day, speak of " apostolical doctrine," meaning thereby doctrine which is com- monly received by Christians as in accordance with the statements of the divine word.^ After every de- duction, however, has been made of passages in which the word is obviously used in one or other of these senses, there will still remain sufficient evi- dence, that by many of the Fathers a high degree of importance was attached to the unwritten traditions preserved in the catholic church. Now, it is not at all necessary for my present ar- gument, that I should inquire minutely what degree of importance these Fathers assigned to tradition.^ I am willing to allow that they took the same ground on this subject with the catholics of more 1 See this copiously shown by Suicer, Thes. Ecclesiast. in voc. Tot^dha-is. Compare also Bennet's Congregational Lecture for 1841, p. 95—105. 2 So Jerome speaks of " Traditiones apostolicas sumptas de Vetere Testamento.''^ Ep. ad Evagrium. 0pp. torn. i. p. 329, ed. Basil, 1537, fol. 3 The reader who wishes to see this part of the>ubject discussed, will find much satisfaction from Conybeare's Bampton Lecture for 1840 ; Lect. V. and VI.; Hampden's Lecture for 1832, Introd.p.xxxv., 2d edit. ; Stillingfleet's Grounds of the Protestant Religion, part i. ch, 6 ; Whitaker's Disputatio de Sacra Scriptura contra Papistas, &c., Quaest. vi. c. 12, Lond. 1588. 104 OPINIONS OF THE FATHERS recent times; for what I am now concerned to show is not that none of the Fathers were traditionists, but that all of them were not. For this purpose it is only necessary that I should adduce passages from their writings, in which they implicitly or expressly repudiate the authority of tradition, either as the teacher of truth, or the interpreter of scripture. Not to weary the reader with many quotations, where a few will suffice, I shall content myself with the following, which I have selected chiefly for the authority of their authors' names. PoLYCARP. — " Neither am I, nor is any like me, capable of following the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who being among you, in the presence of the men of that day, taught accurately and surely the doctrine of truth, and who, after he was gone, wrote to you an epistle, by bending your attention on which ye shall be able to edify yourselves in the faith which has been given to you."^ This language is the more valuable that it occurs in an epistle ad- dressed to a church which is regarded by catholics as one of the primary conservators of apostolic tradition; that it was written at a time when the oral teaching of Paul might easily have been pre- served in the church had that been deemed neces- sary; and that its author, specifying both Paul's spoken and written instructions to that church, dis- ^ Ep. ad Pliilippcnses, § iii. CONCERNING TRADITION. 105 tinctly limits the use of the former to those who were Paul's contemporaries {rojv rore kv&^u'Trojv), while he refers to the latter, as the permanent source of instruction to all of a later age. Irenaeus. — " The only persons through whom we know the scheme of our salvation are those through whom the gospel has come to us. This, in- deed, they at first preached, but afterwards, by the will of God, handed it down to us in the scriptures, as the foundation and pillar of our faith."^ Origen. — " All who believe, and are sure that grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, and who know Christ to be the truth, as he himself said, re- ceive that science, which has to do with the regula- tion of life and manners, from no other source than the words of Christ himself, I say the words of Christ himself, by which I mean not only those which he uttered when he became man, and taught whilst he was in the flesh, for long before this Christ was the word of God in Moses and the pro- phets; for without the word of God how could they have prophesied concerning Christ ? After his ascension into heaven he spoke by his apostles, as Paul indicates in these words, — * Do ye, indeed, seek a proof of Christ speaking in me ?"'^ Cyprian. — " It is said that nothing should be introduced except what has been delivered {traditum ^ Adv. Haer. iii. 1. 2 Praef. in opus de Principiis, § 1, 106 OPINIONS OF THE FATHERS est). Whence, then, is this deliverance {traditio) ? Has it descended with the authority of our Lord in the Gospels, or comes it from among the injunctions and Epistles of the apostles ? For those things are to be done wJdch are written, as God testifies and en- joins upon Joshua the son of Nun, saying, — ' This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do all things that are writ- ten therein.' (Josh. i. 8.) So also the Lord, on sending forth his disciples, commands that nations should be baptized, and taught to observe all things which he had enjoined. If, then, either in the Gos- pels, or in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles, this be contained, let it be observed as a divine and sacred tradition When we revert to the head and origin of divine tradition, human error ceases, and whatever lay concealed under the gloom and cloud of darkness, comes forth into the light of truth. If a pipe which formerly sent forth a free and copious supply of water were suddenly to fail, should we not go to the fountain-head, there to ascer- tain the cause of the failure, whether it arose from the spring being dried up at the source, or from the water, after issuing plentifully thence, being arrested in its mid course, that, if through any stoppage or leakage in the pipe, the water was prevented from flowing continuously, this might be remedied, and the citizens be supplied again with water for drinking m CONCERNING TRADITION. 107 and other uses, with the same copiousness with which it proceeded from the source ? So also it be- hoves us, the priests of God, who keep the divine precepts, when in any one the truth nods and wavers, to revert to the source, — our Lord's tradition, evangelical and apostolic, that our mode of acting may arise whence both our order and our origin sprung."' AuGUSTiN. — " We ought not to esteem the dispu- tations of any, be they what they may, even catholics, and men of repute, as we do the canonical scrip- tures ; as if it were not allowed us, without detract- ing from the honour due to such men, to condemn and repudiate aught in their writings which we may have discovered contrary to truth, as that has been understood through the divine aid, either by others or ourselves. Such is my course with the writings of others, and such I wish to be the course of those who attend to mine."^ Id. — " Who knows not that holy canonical scrip- ture, as well of the Old as of the New Testament, is contained within certain bounds of its own, and that it is to be so put before all the later writings of bishops, that there can be neither doubt nor discus- 1 Ep. 74, ad Pompeium, pp. 223, 228; Ed. Goldhorn Lips. 1838. See also the G3d Ep. (ad Caecilium), especially § 14, p. 164. 2 Ep. Ill, ad Fortimatianiim. 108 CONCLUDING INFERENCE. sion affecting it as to the truth or rectitude of what- ever stands therein written."^ To these testimonies it would be easy to add what would fill a volume from the writings of Chrysostom alone. The above, however, are more than suffici- ent for our present purpose, as they prove incontes- tibly that the Anglo-catholic doctrine concerning tradition was not at any time the universal doctrine of the early church. Here, then, is a dilemma, out of which I see not how the advocates of that doc- trine can escape. Either they must give up Vin- cent's test of true doctrine, or they must give up the truth of their own doctrine concerning tradition. In either case they give up their entire system; for, in the former, they leave themselves without any test of truth distinct from scripture; in the latter, they relinquish the guide by whose aid alone they tell us scripture can be understood. 1 De Bapt. cont. Donat. ii. 3. RIGHT OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 109 SECTION IV. RIGHT OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT IN INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE, Hitherto I have been occupied in endeavouring to expose the unsoundness of those positions which the advocates of tradition assume in defence of their views. I turn now to the still more important task of offering some remarks in support of the antagonist loctrine, that it is the duty and privilege of all who lave the Bible in their hands to study it for them- jlves, — to gather from its statements the truths it )ntains, according to the best of their own judg- lents, — and, by the conclusions at which they thus Lve, to regulate their religious opinions, feelings, tnd conduct. The question here at issue has been so clearly ;tated by Archbishop Whately, in one of his ad- lirable essays, that I cannot do better than cite lis words. " The question, when plainly stated," says le, " is not whether men should follow the guidance )f inclination and fancy; nor, again, whether they should reject all human teaching, and refuse all as- jistance in their inquiries after religious truth" [the [writer had previously shown the error and folly of juch assumptions] ; " but, supposing a man willing 110 REASONABLENESS OF to avail himself of all helps within his reach, and divest himself of all prejudice, is he ultimately to decide according to the best of his own judgment, and embrace what appears to him truth ? or, is he to forego the exercise of his own judgment, and re- ceive implicitly what is decided for him by the authority of the church, labouring to stifle any dif- ferent conviction that may present itself to his mind?"^ When the question is stated in this way, there seems no room for hesitation as to the answer. It is surely not unreasonable that a being endowed with intelligence should claim the right of determin- ing for himself, after the use of all suitable means for arriving at a satisfactory conclusion, whether any given doctrine be accordant or not with what is admitted to be an infallible standard of truth. On the other hand, nothing appears more absurd than to demand of such an one that he should re- linquish any view which he believes to be sanctioned by that standard ; that he should endeavour to stifle convictions which have grown up in his mind as the results of careful observation and reflection; and that he should adopt, not only without conviction, but in the face of conviction, sentiments which he believes that standard to condemn, simply because 1 Ess9,ys on some of the Dangers to Christian Faith which may arise from the teaching or the conduct of its Professors, Lond. 1839, p. 179. SUCH A CLAIM. Ill they come recommended by the authority of certain ancient and venerable names in the Christian church. It may be fairly questioned, indeed, whether this be not demanding of men what no one is physically ca- pable of rendering; for it is by no means certain that we have the power of dismissing or receiving convictions at the mere bidding of others, however much we may venerate their character, or respect their superior attainments. The judgment may be swayed by reason, but it can hardly be constrained by authority ; so that the utmost that can be hoped from denying men the right of judging for them- selves in the matter of religion, is to produce an uniformity of profession throughout the church, without either securing, on the one hand, that the doctrines professed shall really be understood and believed, or, on the other, precluding the possibility of doctrines utterly opposed to these having posses- sion of the mind. To such reasonings the reply usually given is, that they are of force only on the assumption, that the opinions authoritatively imposed on men have not been shown to be necessarily accordant with Scripture, and that they are of no weight as opposed to the claims of tradition, which can be shown to be [of necessity unanimous with Scripture, having pro- ceeded from the same divine author.^ To this it 1 See Review of Arnold's Sermons in the British Critic for Octo- )ex 1841, p. 336, fF. 112 REASONABLENESS OF might be enough to reply, by referring to the pre- vious investigations in this chapter, which, if accu- rate, go to show that there is no good reason for concluding that tradition is necessarily in accor- dance with scripture ; but, not to insist upon this at present, let us meet the traditionists upon this ground to which they invite us, and let us see what effect the assumed accordance of tradition with scrip- ture will produce on the reasons above stated in favour of the necessity of private judgment. We shall suppose a person to go to the study of scrip- ture with this persuasion on his mind, and at the same time, with a full understanding of what it is which tradition teaches. He reads attentively, pas- sage after passage, endeavouring to obtain from each a clear and precise meaning in accordance with what he has been taught to believe. For a while he meets, we shall suppose, with no interruption, all that he reads appearing to harmonize with what he had been taught ; but at length (as the very assumption that tradition is necessary to explain scripture sup- poses that there is much in scripture not, at first sight, in accordance with all that the church has prescribed,) we may conceive he will meet with difficulties in the shape of statements which he can- not, on any principles of interpretation, reconcile with his creed, or the harmony of which with his creed he cannot perceive. Now, what in this case is he to do ? He has been assured that " tradition I SUCH A CLAIM. 113 teaches, and scripture proves;" but here is a case in which the teacher says one thing and the autho- rity to which that teacher appeals, seems to say another thing. Is he, then, to bow to the former and despise the latter? or is he to do his best to ^^ believe that the two are in harmony, though, as far ^r as he knows any thing of the matter, he is sure that they are not? If the latter be affirmed, we are brought back to our original inquiry. Whether such a thing be reasonable or possible ? and that exactly under the same circumstances with the assumption of a harmony between tradition and scripture, as without that assumption ; so that this assumption in no degree helps those who insist on its being made. If the former be maintained, the ground originally assumed by the Anglican catholics must be deserted for that of the Romanist, and tradition be raised from the place of a mere interpreter of scripture to the rank of a superior to scripture. From such a position as tliis there are many of the Anglican party who will, I trust, recoil, incompatible as the retention of it is with their avowed doctrine con- cerning tradition and scripture. But if they shrink from this position, I earnestly intreat them to re- flect whether their doctrine of a creed, as the au- thoritative interpreter of scripture, leaves them any alternative but to maintain that, unreasonable and impracticable as it may appear, it is nevertheless the duty of all men to distrust their own judgments, 11 114 ALLEGED OBSCURITY and, in spite of the strongest evidence to the con- trary, to believe themselves in error when they think they have discovered in scripture any doctrine that appears to them inconsistent with the traditionary teaching of the church. When we look into the writings of catholics for reasons in support of a doctrine so extravagant and apparently so preposterous, we find them enlarging much on the obscurity of scripture, and on man's proneness to err in his attempts to understand its statements, if he be not guided in his inquiries by the teaching of an authoritative standard. In reference to the alleged obscurity of the scrip- tures, the writer of one of the Tracts for the Times affirms, that " if scripture contains any system at all, it must contain it covertly, and teach it obscure- ly, because it is altogether most immethodical and irregular in its structure."^ This, it must be allow- ed, is not the most suitable language in which to write of the words which the Holy Ghost hath taught ; but, passing this, the substance of the affir- mation contained in the concluding clause of this extract may be admitted, for it must be obvious to all, even without so lengthened an illustration of the matter as the author of this tract has given, that the truths of scripture are not presented to us in the form of a dry catalogue of dogmas, but are 1 Tract No. 85, p. 35. OF SCRIPTURE. 115 brought forward, as it were, incidentally and in con- nection with their fundamental facts and their prac- tical bearings on the character, hopes, and conduct of men. In this respect the word of God resembles his work in creation, where the principles of every na- tural science may be found, but where nothing is arranged in systematic order and stiffness. And the difficulty thence arising to the student of scrip- ture is just the same as the student of nature has to contend with in the multitude and variety of the facts which he has to collect and arrange before he can safely determine any natural law. But if the difficulty in the one case resemble that in the other, so does the advantage arising in both from the very circumstance which originates the difficulty. What human being, to facilitate the attainment of philoso- phical knowledge, would desire to see the world thrown out of its present form into the rigid orderli- ness of scientific arrangement, — its minerals classified according to their chemical ingredients, — its animals pent up after the fashion of a museum, — and its herbs and flowers planted out with the formal accu- racy of a botanical conservatory? As little is it to be desired that scripture were more systematic than it The same wisdom and goodness which has made the absence from the natural world of a scientific trrangement of its phenomena to minister to man's lappiness, whilst it stimulates to philosophical in- [uiry, has been employed to secure for the readers 110 ALLEGED OBSCURITY of the divine word increased advantage by a disposi- tion of its contents which sustains the interest, whilst it stimulates the researches of the reader. A dry lifeless system of truth, learned by rote, is apt to lie in the memory as a mere inert form, — to be- come bed-ridden in the mind, as Coleridge phrases it;^ whereas, truths presented to the understanding, — not " immethodically and irregularly," which cannot surely be affirmed of any of God's works, — but with that freeness of arrangement which the Bible exem- plifies, are found to possess a freshness of interest which makes the repeated study of them attractive. " Not in vain," exclaims the pious Augustine, ad- dressing God, " hast thou willed that the shadowy mysteries of so many pages should be written ; nor are these woods without their harts who betake them- selves unto them again and again, watching and feed- ing, lying down and ruminating. Lord, perfect me, and unfold these to me. Lo, thy voice is my joy, thy voice more than affluence of pleasures."^ In another part of his writings the same idea is unfold- ed, if not so poetically yet more clearly; " God hath in the scriptures covered his mysteries with clouds, that the love of truth in men might be inflam- ed by the very difficulty of apprehending it. For were there in them only what we could very easily apprehend, there would be on our part neither 1 Aids to Reflection, p. 1. 2 Confess., ]ib. xi. § 8, p. 207, ed. Pusej. Oxon. 1838. OF SCRIPTURE. 117 studious investigation nor the sweetness of finding truth."' Whilst, however, it is admitted that the want of systematic formality in the statements of scripture is a source of difficulty in the study of its contents, I cannot admit the cogency of the reasoning which would deduce from this the conclusion, that it is not desirable that each man should be left free and unfettered to study them for himself. It is to be observed in the outset, that even catholics themselves do not pretend that the difficulty lies in ascertaining the sense of each passage of the sacred volume. In the words of the writer above quoted, it is "the system " of truth contained in scripture which alone it is difficult to unfold or ascertain. Respecting separate statements, especially the general state- ments of Christian doctrine and duty in the Bible, there can be no sort of question that they are as intelligible to any person of ordinary intellect in the form in which they stand in scripture, as when the truths they announce are embodied in a creed. The only point on which it is pretended that insuperable difficulty is to be encountered, is in the attempt to assign to these separate statements their proper place in the system of divine truth which the Bible unfolds. Now, it is worthy of inquiry here, how far a I 1 De vera Relig., c. 17 ; quoted by Dr Pusey in the notes to his rdmirable edition of Augustine's Confessions. 118 ALLEGED OBSCURITY knowledge of the system of the Christian theology, as a system, be necessary for the great interests of man as a sinner in the sight of God. Supposing it proved, that it is hopelessly beyond the reach of the mass of readers to construct, each for himself, a cor- rect system of theology, in what way, and to what extent, is this a misfortune ? Does it go the length of interfering with the individual's hopes of salva- tion? Or does it merely prevent his reaping the advantages which a systematic view of any science always confers upon those who are concerned in the application of its principles to practical ends ? I can hardly conceive that the former part of this alterna- tive will be maintained, for it would go to exclude from all hope of salvation many who, like the thief on the cross, are not in circumstances to receive a systematic detail of Christianity, as well as multi- tudes whose limited faculties, or unfavourable men- tal habits, positively incapacitate them from grasping a systematic view of any science. But if the latter be adopted, it follows, that the sole use of authorita- tive teaching in the church, is to help men to such an acquaintance with their Bible, as may enable them to become not good Christians, so much as good theologians. If this latter result be thought desirable, by all means let it be recommended and aimed at ; but let it not be confounded with the for- mer, nor let the discipline which may be thought requisite for this, the more difficult attainment, be I OF SCRIPTURE. V^M ''-^^^ pleaded as a barrier in the way of the other, trfeS^^-l^;^ easier, but unspeakably more vuluable of the two. But I am not prepared to admit, save for the sake of argument, that the difficulty of arriving at a satis- factory conclusion regarding the system of truth re- vealed in the Bible, is so great as to preclude any man of sound judgment and common industry from attaining this advantage. Let there be an honest desire to discover truth ; let the inquiry be prose- cuted with care and perseverance; and let devout prayer ascend continually to God for the enlighten- ing influences of his Holy Spirit, and I am bold to say, there is nothing in scripture to prevent any man of intelligence from arriving at as full and clear an apprehension of its truths, not only in themselves, but in their relative order and harmony, as could possibly be conveyed to him through the medium of any creed that has been, or may yet be penned. The task is not so unspeakably difficult that we should despair of its being accojnplished if the con- ditions above specified be complied with. If pas- sages be taken in the obvious sense which their grammatical construction, and the context in which they stand require, — if one passage be compared with others relating to the same subject in other parts of the sacred volume, — if the aid which judi- cious commentaries and notes on scripture supply be wisely used, — and if the light be faithfully reflected upon scripture which may be borrowed from the 120 ALLEGED OBSCURITY practical experience of the people of God, as recorded both in the inspired narratives, and in the biogra- phies of Christians of more recent times, — it seems hardly conceivable that any person of ordinary in- telligence, who looks for the assistance of the Divine Spirit in the study of the Bible, should ultimately fail of attaining a satisfactory acquaintance with its contents.^ Nor are we left in this matter to mere conjecture. Holy men there are, and pious women not a few, even in the humbler walks of life, whose studies of the sacred page have made them wiser than their teachers, and given them to understand more than the ancients. With such it has been my privilege often to meet ; and comparing what I have heard from them of the meaning of God's word with what I have learned in the same department from the writings of the Fathers, I have no hesitation in saying, that the latter against the former is but " as the small dust in the balance." To talk of the hope- less obscurity of the scriptures if they be not inter- preted by creeds, seems to me the mere cant of sacerdotal assumption. That book which Timothy, ^ " If the sense of the scriptures, as to any important point, may fairly be doubted by honest and sensible men, it seems to me no better than a mockery to call them the rule of faith ; and it is im- puting an obscurity to God's revelation, such as attaches to the works of no philosopher and no human legislator ; for where is the philosopher whose main principles are not to be made out by his own disciples ? where is the law whose main enactments are diversely interpreted by those who honestly study them ?" — Arnold's Ser- mons, vol. iii. Introd. p. xxviii. f OF SCRIPTURE. 121 whilst but a child, could know so as to be made wise thereby unto salvation, — that book which it forms part of the business of every pious parent to expound to his household around the domestic hearth, — that book over whose choicest treasures thousands of the poor, the illiterate, the despised, are rejoicing, not only in this country, but in lands which but a few years ago were covered with the gross darkness of heathenism, — that book whose most hidden depths have been explored and expounded by men on whose minds the light of tradition never dawned, — that book can be " hopelessly obscure " only to those who are either too idle to study it, or too proud to learn what it inculcates. It is usual to meet such arguments by referring to the fact that great diversity of sentiment prevails among those who call themselves Christians, and that this affords evidence of the necessity of an au- thoritative creed to guide men to the truth. To this it may be sufficient to reply very briefly as follows : In the Jirst place, experience has amply shown that this expedient is utterly inefficient for the produc- tion of the desired result, the greatest disparity of sentiment being found in the bosom of both the Romish and Anglican churches, as well as of other sects which make use of authoritative forms of be- lief 2dli/, There seems no natural adaptation in a creed to produce uniformity of opinion among Chris- 122 CREEDS NOT ADAPTED TO tians. Aristotle justly remarks/ that there are two things which the mind seeks before satisfactory con- viction can be produced concerning any object : the one in answer to the question, What is it ? the other in answer to the question, W/i?/ is it ? Now, a creed only meets one of these conditions. It only tells us what is to be believed ; it says nothing as to wh^ this is to be believed. The utmost it can effect, there- fore, is to inform us of what the author of the creed believed to be true ; it can never convince us that his belief in this respect is correct. Conviction must, after all, be the result of a personal study of the evi- dence afforded by scripture on the subject ; and this, as already observed, opens the way for a diversity of sentiment just as much with a creed as without one. In Jine, that accordance of sentiment which creeds cannot produce is found to exist independent of such expedients. In support of this, I may appeal to the substantial agreement of all the great formularies of Christian doctrine which have been issued, whe- ther by churches or individuals professing to draw their sentiments from Divine 7'evelation alone. This fact proves clearly that creeds are not needed to pro- duce uniformity of sentiment; that existed before these creeds were composed : for the reason why these creeds agree thus substantially is, that their 1 Analyt. Post. Lib. ii. cap. 1. PRODUCE UNIFORMITY OF OPINION. 123 authors, studying scripture each one for himself, came respectively to the same conclusion. The uni- formity of sentiment was produced by the uniform teaching of scripture, and of this the accordance of the creeds is but the result and manifestation. All this points to the conclusion that it is not to for- mularies of doctrine that we are to look for the pre- servation of the unity of the faith, but to the free, honest, and devout study of the word of God. " The meek will he guide in judgment, and the meek will he teach his way." If Christians generally would obey the apostolic injunction, and " laying aside all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, receive with meekness the engrafted word which is able to save their souls," it would be found more easy than it is sometimes thought " for all to come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ."^ When we look into the Bible, we find the most ample support given to the position now in defence. To the careful personal scrutiny of its contents all are encouraged, entreated, commanded to come, each man for himself The man, we are told, whose " de- light is in the law of the Lord, and who meditateth in that law day and night, shall be like a tree plant- ed by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit ^ James i. 21 ; Ephes. iv. 13. 124 STATEMENTS OF SCRIPTURE ON THIS HEAD. in his season, and whatsoever he doth shall prosper. — The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul ; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. — To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word there shall be no dawn to them : but they shall pass through the land, distressed and famished.— Search the scrip- tures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life. — These [the Bereans] were more noble than those of Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, of honourable women who were Greeks, and men not a few. — Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom ; teaching and ad- monishing one another. — Prove all things ; hold fast that which is good. — Blessed is he that readeth and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein, for the time is at hand."^ Such are a few of the statements scat- tered through scripture respecting the use to be made of its contents. Could such statements have found a place in its pages, had it not been the will of God that all into whose hands it came should study it for themselves ? The doctrine thus set forth in Scripture seems to 3 Ps. i. 2, 3 ; xix. 7 ; Is. viii. 20 [as translated by Dr Henderson in his valuable work on Isaiah, Lond. 1840] ; John v. 39; Acts xvii. 11, 12; Col. iii. 16; 1 Thess. v. 21; Rev. i. 3. OPINIONS OF THE FATHERS. 125 have been heartily acknowledged and advocated by the most distinguished teachers of the early church. Whilst they admit that there are difficulties in scrip- ture, they nevertheless exhort and encourage all Christians to grapple with these difficulties, and to judge for themselves of what scripture teaches. Lactantius reproaches the heathen with their defer- ence to antiquity as unworthy men of reason and intelligence, and advocates most strenuously the duty of each man's judging for himself in a matter of so much importance as religion. " Let each man," he exclaims, " trust to his own judgment, and lean on his own faculties, for the investigation and estima- tion of truth, rather than be deceived by believing another's errors as if he were himself destitute of reason. God hath given to all, man by man, wisdom as their portion, that they may both investigate what is unknown and estimate what is known." ^ Origen felt himself called upon in advocating Christianity against the attacks of Celsus, to defend the scriptures against the charge that they were written with too much homeliness (iureXsiocg) of style, and this he does upon the ground that " Jesus and his apostles were intent upon a mode of address which not only should express the truth, but at the same time be capable of guiding the many, {rovg 'TroXkovg, the mass of men,) that being converted and drawn they might, each ^ Div. Instit. Lib. ii. c. 7. 126 OPINIONS OF THE FATHERS according to his ability, {ezcccrrog fcocroi ^vmijjiv,) appre- hend the deep mysteries announced in the appa- rently homely words."* — " All inspired scripture," says Basil, " is also profitable, being written by the Spirit for this end, that as in a common laboratory (iocr^sicif) all of us might select, each for himself, the medicine suited to his ailment."^ — " It becomes those hearers," says the same Father, " who are taught in the scriptures to prove thereby the things spoken by their teachers, to receive what accords with the scrip- tures, and to repudiate what is opposed to them, as well as very earnestly to refrain from the society of those by whom such dogmas are held."^ — " I always advise," says Chrysostom, " and shall never cease to advise and call upon you all not only to attend to what is said here in the church, but also to be dili- gent in reading the divine scriptures at home. Nor let any one allege the usual frivolous excuses, ' I am engaged in public affairs, or I have a trade, and a wife and children to take care of; in a word, I am a secular person, it is not my business to read.' So far are these things from making out a valid or even tolerable excuse, that upon these accounts, and for these very reasons, you have the more need to read the scriptures."^ — " Respecting the divine and holy 1 Adv. Cels. Lib. vi. sub. init. p. 275, ed. Spencer. 2 Proem, in Psalmos, sub. init. ed. Basil. 1551, fol. 3 Ascet. 71, sect. 3. 4 De Lazar. Horn. iii. torn. i. p. 737, cited by Conybeare in his Bampton Lectures, p. 48. I ON THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 127 K mysteries of the faith," says Cyril of Jerusalem, " it behoves us neither to deliver without regard to the divine writings what may occur, nor to be carried away by mere plausibility and craft of words. As little should you merely believe me telling you these things unless you receive the evidence of the things said from the divine writings ; for this is the safety of our faith, that it is not from invention of words but from demonstration of the divine writings."^ But it is unnecessary to multiply quotations here after those which have already been given in this section from the most eminent of the Fathers, expressive of their feelings respecting scripture. A desire to with- hold the word of God from the people is not one f the sins which can be justly laid to the charge of hese writers. It was not until the clergy became ambitious of " lording it over God's heritage" that a different tone was adopted, and men were taught that the Bible was for them a sealed book, which only the priesthood were able to unfold. In the pure light of scripture pretensions to authority over men's consciences cannot stand, and therefore it became ecessary to discourage the people from attempting draw their opinions solely from its pages. This ttained, it was easy to follow it up by inculcating pon the enslaved minds of the multitude any dog- as that tended to favour the power, pride, and 1 Cateches. Quart, de Sp. Sanct. 128 DEFERENCE TO TRADITION avarice of the clergy. When the light of the sun is withdrawn, the task of seducing the traveller from the right path becomes as easy as it is tempting to those who are to be profited by his errors. It will be found I believe almost invariably the case, wherever men are persuaded to regard the Bible as a book which they can understand only through the teaching of the church, that they yield far more deference to the formulas in which that teaching is embodied, than to the inspired word it- self This is only what might have been expected, for the natural tendency of such a conviction is to lower the Bible in the estimation of those by whom it is entertained, whilst it unduly elevates in their view the human composition to which they are, in the first instance at least, indebted for their religious views. The Bible claims to be not only d^fidl but a i^er- feet revelation of God's will to man. This claim the advocate of creeds as the authoritative interpreters of scripture professes to admit ; but what he admits in words, he denies in effect. For, what do we mean when we say that scripture is 'perfect as a revelation of God's will to man ? We mean surely that all truth necessary for our salvation is therein made known to us in the manner best adapted to be ap- prehended by us. But if this be the meaning of the assertion, is it less than a contradiction in terms to maintain that the truth thus perfectly made known I PRODUCTIVE OF DISRESPECT TO SCRIPTURE. 129 to US cannot be known by us without the aid of the church's authoritative teaching ? It is impossible for the mind to receive both these propositions. If an astronomer were to tell us that the atmosphere is a perfect medium for the transmission of the sun's rays to our organs of vision, and at the same time to as- sure us that to this perfect medium must be added another of stained glass before we could perceive the light, we should conclude at once either that he was labouring under some strange hallucination, or that he was attempting to amuse himself at our expense, ■toothing can prevent the mind from concluding that that can be no perfect medium of illumination to ^te^hich something needs to be added before it can il- ^■uminate ; and as little can that be a perfect vehicle ■fof truth which teaches nothing except to those who P have already learned its lessons from another source. It is thus that Scripture is depreciated in the esti- mation of men by this doctrine of the need of an authoritative interpreter to unfold its meaning. It Hps thus that men are brought imperceptibly but surely to think far less of the divinely constructed medium of illumination, than of the fragment of co- loured glass, without which they have been taught to believe that that illumination could not have reached them. t Perhaps in reply to this, it may be said, that the ecessity of an authoritative interpreter does not rise from any defect in scripture, but solely from 130 DEFERENCE TO TRADITION man's weakness as a fallen creature. But what is meant by such an assertion ? Not surely that man in consequence of his fallen condition is 'physically unable to comprehend a statement of divine truth ; for if this were the case, it would furnish as strong an argument against the teaching of the truth by tradition, as against the use of scripture. Nor can it mean simply that man is disinclined to receive the truth which scripture teaches, for on the assumption that the truths taught by tradition are identical with those taught by scripture, this would apply as much against the utility of the former as against that of the latter. If the assertion have any meaning at all, it can only mean, that though scripture professes to be addressed to man in his fallen condition, for the purpose of conveying to him God's message of mercy, it is so little adapted to this end, that it cannot be safely entrusted to the unfettered perusal of the mass of mankind, lest it should mislead rather than guide them. What is this but in effect to deny the claim of scripture to be reverenced, as a perfect revelation of God's will to man ? Further, if this doctrine be embraced, it is apt to lead men to ask, Of what use after all is the written word ? The answer which is given to this by those who contend for the authority of tradition is, that scripture proms that which the creeds of the church teach. Now, in one sense, this is assigning to scrip- ture a real and valuable use ; in another, it is put- PRODUCTIVE OF DISRESPECT TO SCRIPTURE. 131 ting it in a position little elevated above that of some of the works of man. If by the teaching of the church be meant merely ht/potheticaltesLchmg, i.e. the j assertion of certain dogmas to be true, provided they I be supported by scripture, I cannot see that the due honour of scripture is infringed by this assertion, though I should prefer for other reasons that it should be left to teach as well as to prove its own lessons. But if by the teaching of the church be in- tended the assertion of certain dogmas as true, on the authority of the church, and of which the details H^d corroboratory evidence may be found in Scrip- ture, the conclusion to which every reflective mind must come, I think, is that whilst tradition is t/ie great authoritative teacher, to whose words we must render unquestioning reverence, the Bible is a book which renders to our religious belief much the same service as is derived from an able exposition and defence, from the pulpit or the press, of the prin- ciples of our creed. Now, the latter meaning is that to which the traditionists, to be consistent with their principles, must stand. According to them, the teaching of the church is authoritative, not hypo- thetical. It carries the evidence of the truth of its own assertions within itself It needs no appeal to any higher source of authority for what it inculcates. Its relation to scripture is not that of a subject to a sovereign, but that of one sovereign to another, of equal rank. Whilst, therefore, the Anglican ca- 132 INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. tholics denounce the Romanists for avowedly placing tradition on a par with scripture, their own system seems implicitly to lead to the same conclusion. In both cases, the melancholy effect is to turn away the reverence of the people from the all-perfect word of God, and fix it upon the uncertain and unauthorised doctrines of men. It is true that many who have received the teach- ing of tradition, nevertheless engage professedly in the interpretation of scripture. But upon their principles, what does this exercise become ? Not the inquiry of a devout and submissive mind into the meaning of God's words, but the putting upon these words, by a mind already in its own esteem enlight- ened, of the ideas which it has been taught to be- lieve must be there. This, strictly speaking, is not to interpret scripture, it is to dictate to scripture what its words ought to mean ; and can hardly co- exist either with an honest love of truth for its own sake, or with that deep and reverential regard which is due from an ignorant and guilty creature to the word of the omniscient God. " He," says Hilary, " is the best reader who rather looks for the under- standing of what is said from the words themselves, than imposes a meaning on them, receiving from them rather than bringing to them, and who does not force on the words the appearance of containing what before he read them he presumed must be in- tended. When therefore the discourse is of the CONCLUDING SUMMARY. 133 things of God, let us yield to God the knowledge of his own, and wait on his words with pious re- verence." * On a review of what has been advanced in this chapter, it will I trust be found that the following things have been substantiated : — 1. That there is no evidence whatever of the exis- tence in the apostolic church of a formula of reli- gious belief by which the written scriptures were to be interpreted. 2. That supposing such a document to have exist- ed, it is now irrecoverably lost, and therefore alto- gether unimportant to us. 3. That the deference to be rendered to the una- nimous consent of the early Christian Fathers upon any point of doctrine, is not different in kind from that which is due to the concurrence of any large body of enlightened Christian men. 4. That the claim of all men to read and interpret the Bible for themselves is reasonable, necessary, and scriptural, and that the conscientious exercise of this right is alone compatible with due reverence for the word of God, and due regard to our own proficiency in divine truth. I 1 De Triiiit. lib. i. 134 ADVANTAGES OF If these conclusions be admitted, a point of first- rate importance is gained against the advocates of Catholicism. The question between them and us be- comes henceforward simply one of " What saith the scripture ?" The " dark, bushy, tangled Forest" of Antiquity, in which, to use the words of Milton,^ " they would imbosk," must be exchanged for " the plain field of Scripture," where we shall behold them in their real proportions, and meet them upon terms, from which neither party, if conscious of a single desire for truth, needs to shrink. The conclusions above announced are valuable also, as they tend to impress upon us the duty of personally using as well as vindicating the right of private judgment in the matter of religion. It be- hoves every man to be satisfied in his own mind, " for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." If the Bible be of divine authorship, — if it contain all truth ne- cessary for our salvation, — if it address its doctrines to us individually, — and if it be our privilege each one for himself, to use it " as a light to his feet and a lamp to his path," it becomes us to reserve our sub- mission in religious matters to it alone, to repudiate all attempts to fasten upon us the chain of human authority, and (if I may without offence use again the strong but picturesque language of our great poet,) to count that both to ourselves and to it " we ^ Of Reformation touching Church Discipline in England. Works, vol. i. p. 26. Lond. 1806. THESE CONCLUSIONS. 135 do injuriously in thinking to taste better tne pure evangelic manna by seasoning our mouths with the tainted scraps and fragments of an unknown table ; and searching among the verminous and polluted rags, dropt overworn from the toiling shoulders of Time, with those deformedly to quilt and interlace the entire, the spotless, the undecaying robe of Truth, the daughter not of Time but of Heaven, only bred up here below in Christian hearts, between two grave and holy nurses, the Doctrine and the Discipline of the Gospel."^ 1 Of Prelatical Episcopacy. Works, vol. i. p. 67. CHAPTER III. THE HOLY CATHOI.IC CHURCH. " Wherever Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church." — Ignatius in Ep. ad Smymceos, cap. 8. " Ubi Ecclesia ibi et Spiritus Dei ; et ubi Spiritus Dei illic Ecclesia et omnis gratia." ** Where the Church is there also is the Spirit of God ; and where the Spirit of God is there is the Church and all grace." — Iren^us in Lib. 3, Adv. Hcer, Jlav'/iyv^U io'Ti ^yiVju,aTixyi h 'Exxy.'/iffia tov Siov. " A spiritual convocation is the Church of God." — Chrysostom, in Horn. 32, in Genes. Every person who is even slightly acquainted with the writings of catholics, whether Romanist or Anglican, must be aware of the important place assigned in their system of opinions to the doctrine of " The Church." Around this doctrine, in fact, as around a nucleus, all their peculiar views cluster ; upon it their manifold assumptions of au- thority and supremacy rest. Within their commu- nion it is the great watch-word of their confederacy; without their communion it is the chosen war-cry with which they rush to the assault of all opposing I A CHURCH AND THE CHURCH. 137 w systems, whether of infidelity or of what " they call eresy." All this renders it the more necessary that we should scrupulously examine how far their doc- trine concerning the church is correct, by an appeal to scripture for the purpose of determining from its unerring statements what ideas may justly be in- cluded under this phrase, and what have been erro- neously and injuriously forced upon it. My readers are requested at the outset to bear in mind that I am not now about to enter upon any question of internal church order or government. To do so would be altogether aside from my present purpose, which is to examine a doctrine that does not depend for its foundation necGssarily upon any particular form of church polity. I am about to inquire not " what is, or what is not, a church?" but " what is the church?" Every reader of the New Testament must be familiar with this distinction. We read there of churches at Jerusalem, at Antioch, at Corinth, at Rome, &;c.; but no person for a mo- ment confounds such language with that for instance in Eph. i. 22, or Coloss. i. 18, or imagines that what is there called " the church," is nothing more than one of these local communities. The body referred to in these passages is plainly something more com- prehensive in its extent and more imposing in its nature than any single church ; and though the same term is applied to both, yet it is in such a manner as causes no confusion or difficulty to the intelligent 138 DOCTRINE OF THE ANGLO-CATHOLICS reader.^ Leaving out of view for the present, then, all consideration of the peculiar constitution of these local churches — allowing each reader to hold his own opinion concerning them, according as he may think them to have been episcopalian, presbyterian, or congregational in their basis — the object on which I would concentrate my remarks is The Church, that which is in these passages said to be " the body of Christ," and " the fulness of him who fiUeth all in all" The question between the catholics and their op- ponents on this subject has been stated in one of the Tracts for the Times in the following words : — " Now what do we conceive is meant by the one Catholic and Apostolic Church ? As people vaguely take it in the present day, it seems only an assertion that there is a number of sincere Christians scattered through the world. . . . Doubtless the only true and satis- factory meaning is that which our divines have ever taken, that there is on earth an existing Society, Apostolic as founded by the Apostles, Catholic because it spreads its branches in every place, ^. e.y the church visible, with its Bishops, Priests, and Deacons."^ The concluding words of this extract might lead some to suppose that the government of the church by bishops, priests, and deacons, was held by this writer to be an essential element in his conception of the ^ See Appendix, Note J. 2 Tract No. ii. p. 2. I COXCERNING THE CHURCH. 139 church. That this is not the case, however, but that all he means by the latter clause is, that duly ap- pointed officers should preside over the church, (which officers he of course as an episcopalian be- lieves to be bishops, priests, and deacons,) is obvious from the following passage in a subsequent tract. After quoting the words of our Lord, " Who then is a faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household,"^ &;c., the writer adds, " Now, I do not inquire who in every age are the stewards spoken of, though in my own mind I cannot doubt the line of bishops is that ministry," &;c. Again, after quoting the passage, " Obey them that have the rule over you,"^ he says, " I do not ask wlio these are, but whether this is not a duty, however it is to be fulfilled, which multitudes in no sense fulfil." And he sums up the whole statement of his case thus : — " You will observe I am not ar- guing for this or that form of Polity, or for the Apos- tolical Succession, but simply for the duties of order, union, ecclesiastical gifts, and ecclesiastical obedi- ence."^ By " the church," then, these writers under- stand a great visible incorporation placed under proper rule, and comprehending within its jurisdic- tion all who can legitimately call themselves Chris- tians. With regard to the statement of opinion on the 1 Matt. xxlv. 45. 2 jjeb. xiii. 17. ^ Tract No. xi. pp. 6, 7. 140 PROTESTANT DOCTRINE ON THIS HEAD. opposite side, contained in the passage above-quoted, it does not appear to me so much incorrect as defec- tive. By the phrase " the church," we mean not merely that there are a number of sincere Christians scattered through the world, but that all such stand in a common relationship to Christ as the great Head of the church, and in connection with each other as members of the same spiritual body — brethren in the same holy family. Nor do we confine the term church to the body of believers still on the earth. Such we regard as only one part of the church, the other part being composed of those who have already gotten the victory over the world, the devil, and the flesh, and entered into the glory and the joy of the heavenly state. This great community of the faith- ful of all times, and from all countries, appears to us alone worthy of the title of the Holy Catholic Church of Christ, or, to use scriptural language, " the general assembly and church of the first-born, whose names are written in heaven. Now, it needs but a glance at these two statements of opinion to satisfy any one that the whole substance of the controversy between them must turn upon one point, viz., whether " the church''' he a visible or an invisible community; in other words, whether, when we affirm the existence of a body called the church, we use the term body and the term church to denote an actual^ perceptible^ and definite incorporation of persons, or only as signifying a multitude of indi- MAIN POINT OF DIFFERENCE. 141 viduals, so linked together by common principles, feelings, and duties, as to be capable of being thought of by us as if they were an incorporation. Abstracting from this consideration, a series of propositions em- bracing the whole doctrine concerning the church, might be laid down, to which both catholics and anti-catholics Avould assent. Both agree that the church has an actual existence ; both speak of it as a body; both maintain its sanctity, its unity, its ca- tholicity, its security, its permanency ; and both de- clare it to be the place of order, of peace, and of subordination. It is not until we introduce the ele- ment of visibility into the question that we find that these two parties, though agreeing in words, have all the while been thinking of two totally different things, and consequently, have agreed only in ap- pearance and not in reality. On this point, then, the hinge of this controversy turns; and to this, therefore, it behoves us in the first instance to bend our attention. In proceeding to this investigation, I gladly accept the challenge of the writer from whom I have already quoted. " Let us join issue," he says, " on this plain ground, whether or not the doctrine of the church, and the duty of obeying it, be laid down in scripture. If so," he justly adds, " it is no matter as regards our practice, whether the doctrine is pri- mary or secondary, whether the duty is much or lit- tle insisted on. A Christian mind will aim at obey- 142 THE VISIBLE CHURCH. ing the whole council and will of God."^ These are admirable sentiments, and need only to be fully acted on to bring to a speedy conclusion the greater part of the controversies which divide Christians. In the present case it will, I think, be no very difficult matter to ascertain on which side the authority of scripture lies. The phrase, " the visible church," is one which men of all parties are in the habit of using, without, perhaps, very carefully inquiring what it means, or upon what authority it rests. In the case of the ca- tholics, a sufficiently clear and definite idea is attach- ed to the word; but it has always appeared to me that consistency requires those who are not catholics to banish this expression from their ecclesiastical phraseology, I find it difficult to conceive what meaning can, in the case of the latter, be justly affix- ed to the phrase. It cannot mean the aggregate of all the denominations of Christians throughout the world, because in no sense whatever, divided as they are into separate communions, can they be called the msihle church, i. e. a body whose unity and fel- lowship are externally perceptible by all. On the other hand, it will not do for such to restrict the appellation to the members of their own denomina- tion, for this would be to proceed on the principle of the catholics, with whom the visible church is synony- 1 Tract No. xi^ p. 2. MEANING OP MATT. V. 14. 143 mous with their own communion, beyond which they cannot recognise any as members of the true church of Christ on earth. I cannot help thinking that, in this case, as in some others, protestants too generally have, unconsciously to themselves, been nursing in their bosoms the germ of Catholicism, and from not persisting in bringing every thing to the infallible test of scripture, have become so that " they cannot see afar off, and have forgotten that they were purged from their old sins."^ When scripture is appealed to on this point, it will perhaps surprise many to find how little there is in the New Testament that has even the semblance of giving support to this doctrine of the visibility of Christ's universal church on earth. Beyond a few passages which I shall proceed to examine immedi- ately, the whole tenor and spirit of the New Testa- ment is opposed to this doctrine, and goes rather to show that the church of Christ is a spiritual and not an outward incorporation — an invisible and not a visi- ble society — an union in short of regenerated souls as souls y and not of persons merely professing to be rege- nerated. I shall take the passages adduced by catholics in support of their doctrine in the order in which they occur in the New Testament. The first is Matthew V. 14, " Ye are the light of the world; a city that 1 2 Pet. i. 9. 144 MEANING OF MATT. V. 14. is set on an hill cannot be hid." Now, no one can deny, that here it is expressly taught, that Christians are to be conspicuous as the lights of the world, and as a city built on a hill, which cannot be hid. The question, however, still remains, How are they to become thus conspicuous ? By what means is their light to be displayed ? Is it by forming themselves into a great confederated body, that shall draw to it the notice, and perhaps the fear of the rest of man- kind ? Of this the context gives no hint. Is it, then, by each individual Christian in his own sphere pre- senting to those around him a living embodiment of those purifying truths, which, as a Christian, he pro- fesses to believe, and a bright exemplification of those features of character which, as a follower of the sinless Jesus, he ought continually to exhibit ? This surely is the more probable interpretation of the passage ; and it is that which the context, I ap- prehend, directly sanctions. , What says Christ him- self in explanation of his own words ? Continuing his discourse, he says, at ver. 16, " Let your light so (ovtm) shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." In these words our Lord himself announces to us the way in which we are to be the light of the world, viz. by exhibiting individually our good works to the view of men, that they may see and admire our consistency, and glorify our Father who is in heaven. Instead, then, of in any degree authorising MEANING OF MATT. V. 14. 145 the doctrine of the necessary visibility of the church, this passage of our Lord's discourse is only a striking exhortation to the duty of individual purity, piety, and consistency on the part of his people.' It may perhaps occur to some, however, to argue from this passage thus : " If it be the duty of each individual Christian to make his Christianity conspi- cuous, does not this necessarily involve the conspi- cuity of the whole, as one combined mass of light, seeing that all are truly united as members of the same family?" Now, at first sight this reasoning may appear to be conclusive ; but a little reflection will, I think, serve to render manifest the fallacy which it involves. It is to be observed, that to affirm that the whole number of Christians are per- sons of illustrious character, is not the same thing as to affirm that they are illustrious as a whole. Each member of a society may be conspicuous in the view of the world for certain features, and yet the society itself, as a society, be utterly private, in- visible, unknown. Or, to keep by our Lord's own illustration: Each planet in our solar system is a visible luminary ; but the solar system itself which these planets compose is invisible. We all see the planets, and we may conceive to ourselves an idea of ^ When it suits their purpose, catholics themselves can perceive that this is the meaning of the passage. " Loquitur dominus," says Bellarmine, " de luce exemplorum probitatis et morum, voluit enim apostolos esse quaedam exempla sanctitatis omnibus hominibus ad imitandum proposita." — De Verba Dei, iii. 2. K 146 MEANING OF MATT. XVI. 18. the whole system as such ; but to see it is impos- sible to any one resident on this earth, or on any other of the planets. So is it, I take it, with the Christian church. Each believer is a star, a light in the world ; and the whole body forms one glorious system. Of each of these, or of each small company of them, we can take cognizance ; but of the system, of the body, of the whole, as such, we can take no cognizance. That stands patent to the Omniscient eye of the Father of the family alone. The next passage to be considered is Matt. xvi. 18, where our Lord thus addresses Peter : " And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, [or rock], and upon this rock will I build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Now, in remarking on this passage, I shall lose no time in disputing the meaning of those parts of it which do not essentially concern the present subject of in- quiry. Let it be conceded that the rock upon which Christ says he should build his church was the apostle Peter, in whatever sense such a declaration may be legitimately understood. Let it be conceded also, that the church so built is to endure for ever, undestroyed by all the assaults of its most deter- mined enemies. It still remains for us to inquire, what it is of which our Saviour thus speaks as his church : Whether is it an outward visible institution, or an invisible, spiritual association? The former seems to be very generally taken for granted, as a MEANING OF MATT. XVI. 18. 147 thing about which there can be little dispute. But why so ? What is there to Jia^ our Lord's words to this meaning ? Shall it be said that it was in this way that the prediction was actually fulfilled ; and that as the fulfilment of a prediction affords always the best illustration of its meaning, we are bound to attach the meaning in question to our Lord's words on this occasion ? I reply, that admitting the soundness of the principle of interpretation here laid down, I question the accuracy of its alleged applica- tion in the case before us. Is it quite certain that it was by the erection of an outward visible society that our Lord's prediction concerning Peter was ful- filled ? Let us inquire when and where this society was formed. According to the Romanist view, it was when Peter became the acknowledged primate of the apostles, and head of the catholic church ; that is, at a period which never has yet been dis- covered, and on the occasion of an event which can- not be shown ever to have occurred.^ The protes- tant view, on the other hand, assumes the fulfilment of the prediction on the day of Pentecost, when, by Peter's preaching, so large a multitude was convert- ed to Christ. This, I have no doubt, is the correct view of the matter ; but where, I ask, is there in this any authority for the supposition, that in our Lord's prediction to Peter it was of an externally 1 See Barrow on the Pope's Supremacy. Works, vol. vii. p. 207. (Hughes' ed.) 148 MEANING OF MATT. XVI. 18. visible confederacy, and not merely of the invisible spiritual church that he spoke ? It cannot be denied, that by the preaching of Peter on the occasion re- ferred to, the interests of the church spiritual were greatly promoted ; whilst, on the other hand, there is not the shadow of evidence that any institution was then set up at all answering to the idea of the visible catholic church. It may be even doubted whether a church of any kind, formally constituted, had at that time existence. All that we learn from the history is the simple fact of a number of con- verts being made from Judaism to Christianity, who naturally associated together for mutual advantage and influence. Subsequently, indeed, in the same chapter, we read of the church as that to which God added those who were saved ; but it remains to be proved that this was a visibly organized body, still more that it was an institution possessing the cha- racter and the pretensions ascribed by catholics to the visible church. To my mind, the phraseology, " the Lord added daily to the church the saved,"^ conveys the idea of an increase, not to any visibly existing institution, the more especially as none such had been previously mentioned, but to the mass of ^ 'O ^t Kv^tos f^offirihi rovs iru%ofJi.ivovs xaff vfti^av rri ixxXuffia. Acts ii. 47. There are considerable variations of reading in the diflPerent MSS. in regard to this clause. Some, including the important Codex B., and many of the ancient versions, omit ry \»KXfiuld be an apostle, he must have seen Christ, and Tsonally received his commission from him.^ As witness of Christ's resurrection, it was necessary fhat he should have had personal knowledge of the Lct that the same Jesus who was crucified and mried rose again and dwelt upon the earth/^ The en- dowments of the apostles were such as to place their lims beyond any doubt or question: they were baptised with the Holy Ghost ;'^ and their word was >nfirmed by God himself " bearing them witness, >oth with signs and wonders, and with divers mira- ;les and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his )wn will."^ To men who were invested with such ^an office, and in whom such qualifications were ^demanded, there could be no successors by an act of lelegation. The maxim of the canon law, that " a )ersonal privilege doth follow the person, and is extinguished with the person," applies here most fully. The privilege of the apostles was purely per- [sonal. It rested on the fact, that the men, Peter, I^James, Paul, and the rest of them, had, with their own eyes, seen the Lord, and with their own ears rheard his words, and in their own persons received 1 Luke vi. 13; Matt, xxviii. 19; comp. the frequently recurring phrase in Paul's epistles, " An apostle by the will of God," &c. 2 1 Cor. ix. 1. 3 Acts i. 21, 22. * John xx. 22. TIeb. ii. 4, comp. Mark xvi. 20; Acts xiv. 3; 2 Cor. xii. 12. 218 ALLEGED INTEGRITY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHAIN. authority from him to tell to the world what they had heard and seen, as well as power to work mira- cles in attestation of the truth of their pretensions. That such a privilege could be transmitted by deriva- tion from age to age, is simply impossible; and the possession of it by persons in whom not one of the qualifications essential to the enjoyment of it exists, is what — to use the strong but just language of Barrow — "no man, without gross imposture and hypocrisy, could challenge to himself"^ III. I come now to the examination of the third fact asserted by the advocates of apostolical succes- sion, viz., that from the days of the apostles down- wards, there has been an unbroken descent of bishops, through which each clergyman, who has received episcopal ordination, can trace his spiritual lineage up to the apostles themselves. On this head let us first hear one of the Oxford Tractarians : — " As to i\iefact of the apostolical succession, i. e., that our present bishops are the heirs and representatives of the apostles by successive transmission of the prerogative of being so, this is too notorious to require proof. Every link in the chain is known from St Peter to our present metropolitans.'^ Whether this boastful language be designed to re- press or to encourage inquiry, I know not; but pre- 1 Treatise on the Pope's Supremacy. Works, vol. vii. p. 203. (Hughes's edit.) 2 Tract, No. 7, p. 2. VALUE OF THIS IF TRUE. 219 suming it to be the latter, let us look at the evidence ' on which this " notorious fact " rests. Before doing so, however, it may be worth while j to remark, that even supposing " every link in the j chain," from Peter to the present heads of the [ church of England, substantiated on good and unim- \ peachable evidence, it would still be very far from having been proved, that the " present bishops are i the heirs and representatives of the apostles." This ! depends upon its being shown, that the line of suc- cession is one along which the powers and preroga- ! tives of the apostles were destined to run. As the honours to which the representative of a noble house is entitled in virtue of his descent, depend entirely on the terms of the original patent of nobility granted to his ancestor, and not upon any dignities which that individual might, during his life, have chanced to sustain; so in the case before us, even admitting a regular descent from the apostles on the part of the bishops of the present day, this would entitle them to claim nothing more than they can show from the New Testament to have been con- ferred by the supreme source of spiritual power upon the apostles, for the purpose of being trans- mitted to their successors. This, as we have already seen, is what they are unable to do, and therefore their boasted lineage avails them nothing. The glory and power of their pretended ancestors is a mere historical fact, on which they can found no 220 THE TRUTH OF IT SUSPECTED. claim. The apostolic dignity was personal, not hereditary; it is not specified in the patent on which these, the professed descendants of the apostles,! found; it is, therefore, as much beyond their claim: as the office of prime minister of the British empire | is beyond the claim of any of those who can trace | their descent from the Walpoles or the Chathamsj by whom that office has in former years been sus- tained. Even supposing, then, the links of the chain of apostolic succession to be as notoriously complete asi catholics affirm them to be, little would be gained thereby to their cause in default of any evidence, | that those by whom that succession has been con- tinued, have any claim in right to the honours which the parties, from whom they profess to have de- scended, enjoyed. But what if the links be not all sound and firm ? What if there be certain breaks in the chain which it is impossible now to supply ? What if some of the links that appear firm are in reality composed of spurious metal, and are incap- able of transmitting the virtue which is supposed to pass through them ? What, in short, if this " fact, too notorious to require proof," be in truth no fact at all; but merely one of those " fables and endless genealogies," which, so far from being matter of universal assent, only " minister questions," and produce divisions in the church ? In this case, " the confident boasting " of the writer above quoted will EXISTENCE OF SOME OF THE PARTIES DOUBTFUL. 221 turn out to be only the " great swelling words of vanity " which his party are so fond of using, and by which they seek to allure to their standard those with whom boldness of assertion goes a greater length than soundness of argument. When the advocates of Catholicism are called upon to produce evidence in support of the alleged un- broken descent of their bishops from the apostles, they are wont to reply by placing before us a very orderly, imposing, and lengthy catalogue of names which they affirm to be the designations of the parties through whom the line of this descent has passed. All this is well enough so far as it goes; but when they would have this to decide the ques- tion as to the fact of apostolic succession, it becomes necessary to submit their catalogue to a somewhat closer scrutiny. 1. When this is done, it will appear, ^r^^, That of the names in the catalogue a great many are those of persons who possess no historical existence. They have " a local habitation " in the catalogue, but no- where else. Over the circumstances of their births, baptisms, consecration as bishops, spheres of labour, deaths, burials, there hangs the cloud of a hopeless oblivion. Mag7ii stant nominis umhrce, — their names are the whole of them. Where, then, is the evi- dence that such persons ever lived ? Are we to be- lieve this on the mere faith of a catalogue ? This can hardly in reason be required. Every person 222 CONFUSION OF TDE EVIDENCE knows how easily a mere set of names may be fabri- cated. No gap is so easily supplied as a gap in a genealogical roll, where no evidence is demanded of the genuineness of the name by which it is filled up. Even the portraits which the Romanists profess to ^ furnish of the successors of Peter in the papal chair, can be allowed no weight in such a question; for portraits, no less than names, can be forged.' What alone can substantiate the integrity of such a succession, is competent historical evidence of the actual existence of the parties said to compose its successive links; and until this is done, we are bound to hold all claims based upon it as unfounded and fictitious. 2. In the case of several of the parties specified, the evidence of their being entitled to the place assigned to them in this alleged chain of descent from the apostles is so uncertain as, in a question in- volving a claim of prerogative, to be unworthy of credit. This, for instance, is the case with those who occupy the most important place of all, viz., those who stand at the head of the list. The order in which these are commonly placed is the follow- ^ In the palace of Holyrood there is a series of the portraits of the Scottish kings, reaching up to a period higher than the Christian era ! And a picture dealer told the writer of this some time ago, that he had got an order from a rich parvenu to supply him with a set of ancestors, in the shape of portraits of mailed knights and stately dames, by which he might delude others, and please himself, with the flattering fiction, that he was the last link in a noble suc- cession ! I RESPECTING THE ORDER OF OTHERS. 223 ing: — St Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clement, Anacletus, Euarestus, &;c. Now, respecting the apostle Peter, it remains doubtful whether he ever was at Rome ; it is all but certain he was not there for any great length of time ; it is as certain as any thing of the kind can be, that he never was bishop of the church in that city.^ Then, as to his alleged successors, the order in which they appeared is involved in hopeless uncertainty. It is, to use the words of Stillingfleet, " as muddy as the Tiber itself; for here TertuUian, and Rufinus, and several others, place Clement next to Peter ; Irenaeus and Eusebius set Anacletus be- fore him ; Epiphanius and Optatus both Anacletus and Cletus; Augustine and Damasus, with others, Anacletus, Cletus, and Linus all to precede him. What way," he justly asks, " shall we find to extri- cate ourselves out of this labyrinth ?"^ Well might Stillingfleet feel this perplexity, when even Euse- bius himself, writing in the fourth century, com- plains that, being the first to venture upon an in- quiry into the successions of the apostles, he felt like one who was " attempting a desart and untrodden path," and that he was utterly unable to find even " the bare traces of those who had gone before him, save here and there some slight marks dis- cernible like signals from afar."^ It is true that afterwards he says, that he hopes " to be able to ^ See Barrow's Treatise on the Pope's Supremacy. 2 Irenicum, part ii. ch. 6, p. 322. 3 Hist. Eccles., lib. i. c. 1. 224 WANT OF EVIDENCE THAT preserve the successions, if not of all, yet of the most eminent of the apostles ;" but with what success we may infer from his own acknowledgment in a later part of his work, where, speaking of the labours of Peter and Paul, he admits that he knows nothing of the persons who laboured with them, especially in Asia, except what may be learned from Paul's epistles.^ It must be allowed to be not a little surprising, that what was so dubious in the fourth century should, in the nineteenth, have be- come " too notorious to require proof" 3. Even supposing that the line of succession, by which it is affirmed that apostolic power has been transmitted to the bishops of the Anglican church in the present day, were to be historically substan- tiated, it would remain for the advocates of that opinion to show that each of the individuals com- posing that line, stands perfectly exempt from the influence of any of those circumstances which, in the estimation of catholics themselves, disqualify a man for sustaining the office of bishop, and vitiate all acts of an official nature which such an one might perform. It must be apparent to every one that this is absolutely necessary to make their claims of the slightest value ; for if, in the case of any one of the parties in this succession, there was such a defect as prevented the transmission through him of 1 Lib. iii. c. 4. I THE ALLEGED SUCCESSION IS PURE. 225 the mysterious virtue supposed to be propagated along this chain of descent, it is obvious that, in his person, this virtue was arrested, and that to none of those who are supposed to have derived it from him * can it have been conveyed. The task, then, which the Anglican clergy have to perform in this respect, is to exclude, by competent historical evidence, all doubt as to the sufficiency of the channel through which their orders have descended to them. This is a task of no trifling magnitude. Even were we to grant to them that the only line along which eccle- siastical orders have been transmitted in this coun- try, is that which passes through Augustine, the missionary of Pope Gregory to the Anglo-Saxons, it would be still more than a wise man would willingly undertake to prove that, in the case of every indivi- dual of those composing that line, all the conditions required to render his official acts valid had been complied with. But this more limited task cannot be allowed. We know that the line referred to was not the only channel of episcopal influence in Bri- tain. We know that bishops existed in this coun- try before the arrival of Augustine. We know that Christianity must have been introduced into Eng- land by some who sided with the Eastern church in matters in which that church differed from the church of Rome. We know that some of the early English bishops were ordained by missionaries from Scotland. And we know that at all times during 226 WAYS IN WHICH THE SUCCESSION the reign of popery foreign episcopal influences were permitted to affect the integrity and purity of the succession in the Anglican church. Now, here are many chains to be accounted for, and of these each separate link must be vindicated and proved genuine ; for if in any one of them there be a flaw, no person can tell how far or how fatally that may have affected the apostolical succession in this country. The task, then, which the Anglo- catholics have to achieve, before the claims which they found on the alleged transmission to them of official power from the apostles through an unbro- ken succession of bishops can be admitted, is to prove that, of all the hundreds of persons through whom the orders of the Anglican clergy have been conveyed to them, not one was affected by any of those canonical informalities, the existence of which is admitted by themselves to be sufficient to neu- tralise and nullify all official acts performed by the party in whose case it may have occurred. To perceive the utter hopelessness of such a task, it is only necessary to consider those circumstances which are held by canonists as disqualifying for the \ episcopal office. These are such as the following : | — being unbaptised ; being unordained, or not hav- ! ing passed through the subordinate offices ; being un- ! consecrated ; being consecrated by only one bishop ; being under age ; having obtained the see by [ simony; being ordained by the bishop of another | MAY BE CORRUPTED AND BROKEN. 227 province ; entertaining heretical opinions ; being 1 given to gambling and intoxication ; having been I elected by force ; and others such like.^ Now here i are ten distinct ways in which at least the apostolic virtue might be nullified in the case of those who are said to have dispensed it. Who shall be bold enough to maintain that, in the thousands of cases by which the orders of the Anglican clergy are affected, not one of these disqualifying circumstances existed ? " To know this one thing," we may say to the Anglicans as Chillingworth said to the papists, " you must first know ten thousand others, whereof not any one is a thing that can be known, there being no necessity that it should be true, which only can qualify any thing for an object of science, but only at the best a high degree of probability that it is so. But then, that of ten thousand probables, no one should be false; that of ten thousand requisites, whereof any one may fail, not one should be wanting, this to me is extremely improbable, and even cousin- german to impossible. So that the assurance hereof is like a machine composed of an innumerable mul- titude of pieces, of which it is strangely unlike but some will be out of order ; and yet if any one be so the whole fabric will of necessity fall to the ground: 1 The reader will find authority for these in the following books : — Andreae Synops. Juris Canonici, Lovanii, 1734. Caranzae Summa Conciliarum, Duaci, 1679. Beveregii Pandectae Canonum S. S. Apostoll. et Concill., 2 vols, folio, Oxon. 1672. Justelli Bib- liotheca Juris Canon. &c. 2 vols. fol. Lutetise, 1661. 228 THE PRESENT STATE OF THE CHURCH and he that shall put them together, and maturely consider all the possible ways of lapsing and nullify- ing a priesthood in the church [catholic], I believe will be very inclinable to think, that it is a hundred to one, that, amongst a hundred seeming priests, there is not one true one."^ To this it is usual for catholics to reply that it presents a grossly exaggerated statement of the dif- ficulties of their case. They maintain that we have no reason to regard the regular and canonical trans- mission of orders, from age to age, as so extremely improbable as to be next to impossible, for that, as we see no possibility of any fatal irregularities oc- curring in the church now, there is sufficient reason to infer that none such have been possible in the times that are past. But in this reply a great deal more is assumed than can be conceded by any one who has respect to truth. Even were it certain that no irregularities could occur in the present day, there would not be the shadow of a reason in this for in- ferring that none could have happened in any of the preceding ages through which the church has passed. There have been seasons in her history of great pub- lic confusion, when all social order has been " turned upside down," and when it is to the last degree im- probable that the minutiae of ecclesiastical order could be attended to. There have been seasons of 1 Religion of Protestants, &c., ch. 11. § 68. Works, vol. i. p. 249, 8vo, Lond. 1820. NO SAFE CRITERION OF THE PAST. 229 fiery trial through which the church has had to pass, during which the believers have been glad to snatch such fragments of spiritual sustenance as they could reach, without having either inclination or opportu- nity to scrutinise very narrowly the canonicity of the medium through which it was conveyed to them. There have been times too of great moral declension and corruption in the church, when all laws, human and divine, have been made to bend to the unbridled indulgence of lust, ambition, and avarice on the part of the clergy. As a fair specimen of the state of things during such seasons (and of such were the greater part of the centuries preceding the Reforma- tion), it is utterly preposterous to take the state of things in the present day, and in this country, where order is established, law respected, good morals in- culcated, all clerical appointments made in open day and under the salutary control both of the civil ^ower and public opinion. The just inference from H comparison of the times preceding the Reformation Hrith the present would be, that as now we see eccle- siastical order secured by the authority of law and the influence of good manners, so, in former times, the absence of these causes could only be produc- tive of irregularity, confusion, and mischief in the church. But it is not upon the balance of conflicting pro- babilities merely that this question depends. We Kve the testimony of indisputable facts in support 230 GROSS IRREGULARITIES HAVE of the assertion that innumerable irregularities, and these of the grossest kind, have occurred in the go- vernment of the church at different periods. As early as the end of the third century, we read of one who obtained consecration as a bishop by inveigling " three bishops, rustic and very simple men," into bad com- pany, where they got intoxicated, and whilst " in a crapulous state" were constrained to lay hands on him.^ In the account of the proceedings of the council at Nice, mention is made of one Melitius who, after being deposed by his superior, went about conferring ordination, and whose ordinations the council agreed to admit, on condition that those by whom they had been received should occupy a sort of second place to those who had been catholically ordained.^ In the 4th century, we find Jerome complaining of the profligacy, the avarice, and general corruption of the clergy of all ranks.^ Gregory of Nanzi- anzum complains bitterly and frequently of the same thing; telling us in one place that "bishop- rics were obtained not by virtue but by craft, and were the perquisite not of the worthiest but of the strongest f in another place denouncing some who could be " Simon Magus to-morrow, though to-day 1 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. vi. ch. 43. Compare the note of Vale- sius in loc. Ed. Heinichen, torn. ii. p. 271. 2 Socratis H. E. Lib. i. ch. 9. Sozomeni H. E. Lib. i. ch. 24. 3 In Ep. ad Tit. i. 8. Ep. 84, ad Nepotianum. Ep. 18, ad Eusto- chium. See the originals in Gieseler's Kirchengeschichte, B. i. s. 589, &c. * Orat. 43 in laudem BasiL c. 26, ap. Gieseler 1. c. ■ PREVAILED IN THE APPOINTMENT OF BISHOPS. 231 Simon Peter," ^ and in another informing us of one who, though unbaptised and unconverted, was forced by the populace to assume the office of bishop.^ This happened also in the case of Ambrose bishop of Milan, who describes himself as not " nursed in the bosom of the church, but snatched from the courts of law," and compelled to be a bishop.^ The case of Synesius bishop of Cyrene was analogous ; he tells us that he would have rather died a thousand deaths than be- come a bishop,^ laments the loss of his hunting estab- lishment and pursuits, acknowledges himself a sceptic on some points of the Christian religion, and claims the privilege of deceiving the people, on the ground that as darkness is good for those afflicted with ophthalmia, so a falsehood is advantageous to the mob, whilst truth may be noxious/ Sulpicius Severus tells us that in his day " every thing was thrown into confusion by the discords of the bishops," and that by their vices all was rendered corrupt.^ During the middle ages things became worse and worse. Amid the obscurity which overhangs the church in her passage through that period little in- deed is discernible, except irregularity and corrup- tion. ** We read," says an eloquent writer referring ^ Carm. de se ipso ver. 430 ibid. 2 Orat xix. cited in the notes to Hampden*s Bampton Lectures, p. 401. 3 Ep. Ixiii., ibid. p. 400. * Ep. xi. Presbyterio. 5 Ep. cv. Fratri. fi Hist. Sacr. Lib. ii. c. 61. 232 FLAWS IN THE SUCCESSION to this period, " of sees of the highest dignity openly sold — transferred backwards and forwards by popular tumult — bestowed sometimes by a profligate woman on her paramour — sometimes by a warlike baron on a kinsman, still a stripling. We read of bishops of ten years old — of bishops of five years old — of many popes who were mere boys, and who rivalled the frantic dissoluteness of Caligula — nay, of a female pope. And though this last story, once believed throughout all Europe, has been disproved by the strict researches of modern criticism, the most dis- cerning of those who reject it have admitted that it is not intrinsically improbable."^ The prevalence of irregularities such as these, so widely, and for so great a length of time, in the church, is utterly in- compatible with any well-grounded confidence in the integrity of the chain of apostolical succession. But this is not all. In the catalogue of the Ang- lican bishops itself there are flaws sufficient to over- turn all claims framed on its supposed completeness. To begin with Augustine himself, what a tissue of informalities do the few notices we possess of his history exhibit ! His very mission to this country was an act of schismatical interference with the im- munities of a church already existing. Of his con- secration as a bishop we have no certain record : Bede says he was consecrated by Aetherius bishop of Edin. Rev. for Ap. 1839, p, 265. IN THE ANGLICAN CHURCH. 233 Aries, ^ but Du Pin shows that no bishop of that name was then in possession of that see ;^ this much only is certain that he was not consecrated by the only parties who were canonically entitled to do it — the bishops already in Britain. His own acts in the consecration of bishops were most irregular, and though permitted by Pope Gregory, upon condition that in due season he should return to canonical order,^ (as if a return to order could remedy the breaches caused by previous irregularity !) they can- not be viewed in any other light than as entirely unauthorised upon any sound principle of canon law. Nor can his personal character be defended success- fully against the charge of cruelty, extortion, and bloodshed, in his treatment of those of the British clergy who refused to submit to his sway.* I When we come to more recent times we encounter cases of canonical irregularity, enough to shake the t 1 Hist. Eccles. Lib. i. c. 27, sec. 58. 2 Eccles. Hist. v. 90. ^ 3 Bsde, H. E. Lib. i. c. 27, sec. 64. ■* Jortin calls Augustine " a pretended apostle and sanctified ruffian." Eccl. Hist. vol. iv. p. 417. Waddington says this is " pas- sionate and unjust abuse," Ch. Hist. ch. x. The language of Jortin is indeed coarse, but it will not be easy to exempt Augustine from the charge which it involves. The massacre of the monks of Bangor to the number of 1200, must, I fear, be laid at his door. Waddington says " it is, on the whole probable, that the event took place after the death of St Austin." This is doubtful, but even granting it was the case, still there is no getting over the distinct testimony of Bede, the eulogist of Augustine, that the latter had threatened the British clergy with death for their obstinacy, (" fertur minitans prsedix- isse . . . . . ultionem essent mortis passuri,") and that the massacre of the Bangorian clergy was " the fulfilment of his presage." — Lib. ii. ch. ii. 234 FLAWS IN THE SUCCESSION confidence of all but those who are determined to believe, at all hazards, in the integrity of orders transmitted through the Anglican bishops. If we look to the time of the Reformation we see Henry VIII. assuming to himself the right of compelling all bishops to take out their commission from him ;^ and in the reign of his successor, we find that " the obe- dience of the clergy was enforced by the adoption of the principle that the appointment of bishops, like every other, was determined by the demise of the crown, which compelled all prelates to receive their bishopricks by letters-patent from the king, during good behaviour."^ Are the advocates of apostolical succession in the Anglican church perfectly at ease, as to all that transpired affecting the bishops at the time of the Revolution ? Have they, for instance, settled the troublesome question of Bancroft's depo- sition from the see of Canterbury, and the appoint- ment of Tillotson in his place, on which, as Burnet tells us, there was at the time " a great deal of angry reading brought out on both sides to justify or condemn the proceedings."^ Nor is this the only difficulty in the case. Is it certain that Tillotson was not an unbaptised heretic, and an unordained pretender to holy orders, as well as a schismatical intruder into the office of another ? As the son of 1 Burnet's History of the Reformation. 2 Macintosh's Hist, of England, vol. ii. p. 251. 3 Burnet's History of his own Times, bk. v. an. 1694. IN THE ANGLICAN CHURCH. 235 an anti-psedobaptist it is next to impossible that he was baptised in infancy, and no record whatever ex- ists of his baptism subsequently ; as little is there any evidence that he ever received deacon's orders ; and his priest's orders were obtained at the hands of Sydserfe, one of the Scottish bishops, who in this case went beyond his province, and whose ordinations were, as a whole, anything but regular, for Burnet tells us that he " did set up a very indefensible prac- tice of ordaining all those of the English clergy who came to him, and that without demanding either oaths or subscriptions of them ;" a practice which the his- torian imputes to a desire to obtain a livelihood by the " fees that arose from the letters of orders so granted, for he was very poor." ^ One of Tillotson's successors in the see of Canterbury, Seeker, was the son of a dissenter, and was baptised by a dissenting minister. This was the case also with the great Butler bishop j^of Durham ; so that these two had only this small ^^■idvantage over Tillotson, that whilst he had no bap- ^^pism at all, they had only such as persons whom catholics view as unauthorised intruders into the sacred office could give. Besides these irregularities there are, since the Reformation, about a score of the Anglican bishops of whose consecration no record is extant.'' And Dr Whately assures us that, " even in 1 Burnet's History of his own Times, bk. ii. an. 1661. 2 The names of these are given in a valuable article on this ques- tion in the Presbyterian Review for April 1842, p. 30. 230 UNCERTAINTY OF ALL CLAIMS the memory of persons living, there existed a bishop concerning whom there was so much mystery and uncertainty prevailing, as to when, where, and by whom he had been ordained, that doubts existed, in the minds of many persons, whether he had ever been ordained at all."* When to all this we add the multitudes of cases in which men of corrupt lives, of loose, heretical, and semi-infidel principles, or through the most unworthy and simoniacal prac- tices have occupied the Anglican sees, one cannot but pity those who are so infatuated as to rest all ministerial standing and character on the imagined integrity of a chain, so many links of which are in all probability fictitious and not one of which can be proved to be sound. My readers will now, I trust, see reason to con- clude that what the author of Tract No. 7 calls " a fact too notorious to require proof," is really one of the most dubious and uncertain positions on which a claim of prerogative was ever based. What should we think of a man who should claim a dormant peer- age on such pretences as those on which the Angli- can clergy claim spiritual descent from the apostles, — whose genealogy, when it came to be examined, was found to contain the names of persons who ap- parently never existed, of persons of whom it was not known which was the father and which the son 1 Essays on the Kingdom of Christ, p. 178. BASED ON THIS ALLEGED SUCCESSION. 237 — one document averring that Richard was the son of John, and another that John was the son of j^teichard, while a third omitted the existence of ^^fcichard altogether — of persons of whose legitimacy ^■lere was no competent evidence, and of persons who seem never to have belonged to the family at all ! Such a claim would be at once cast aside as ridicu- lous ; and yet it is just upon such evidence as this that the successionists rest their claim to an official descent from the apostles, and demand, for that shadowy Eidolon which they have set up, the reli- gious homage of " all people, nations, and lan- guages." " I am fully satisfied," says Bishop Hoadly, " that till a consummate stupidity can be happily establish- ed, and universally spread over the land, there is nothing that tends so much to destroy all respect to the clergy as the demand of more than can be due to them; and nothing has so effectually thrown con- tempt upon a regular succession of the ministry as the calling no succession regular but what was unin- terrupted; and the making the eternal salvation of Christians to depend upon that uninterrupted suc- cession, of which the most learned must have the least assurance, and the unlearned can have no no- tion but through ignorance and credulity." Such is the opinion of apostolical succession, entertained by one of the very men who form the chain by which it is pretended that this succession has come down 238 THE SUCCESSION ESSENTIAL TO CATHOLICISM. from St Peter to the metropolitans of the Anglican church in the present day. Similar declarations might be produced from the writings of Jewel, Stil- lingfleet, Whately, and others, who have occupied a similar place in this pretended chain. When prelates themselves thus doubt or deny the existence of that power of which they are declared to be the sole in- heritors and transmitters, it may be permitted to us, without exposing ourselves to the charge of pre- sumption, to regard the whole of this pompous claim as the mere *' baseless fabric of a vision." And yet it is not surprising that the catholics should cling to this doctrine of apostolical succession, and endeavour to support it by confident assertion in lieu of argument and evidence; for, in truth, it is up- on this doctrine that their system mainly rests. De- prived of this, I know not that there remains any thing peculiar to their system for which they would be careful very anxiously to contend. On this the validity of their clerical orders rest ; for, if they can- not trace these up to Christ as their source, in what respect do they, as ministers of Christ, differ from others who have the same title ? On this rests their doctrine of an universal visible church ; for it is through the regular succession of the bishops that the perpetuity and unity of the catholic church can be alone demonstrated. On this rests their claim to be considered priests; for, as they themselves are ready to tell us, in the words of Paul, — " No man m ordination; Vv 239 taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is c^ed of God, as was Aaron;" and as they do not pretei to have received individually a personal call from God, it is essential to their claim that they be able to trace their spiritual lineage up to Him who had such a call, to Christ himself. Under these circum- stances it is clear that the apostolical succession is a doctrine which their system cannot want. To inva- lidate it is to remove the corner-stone of their tem- ple, and cast their idol in the dust. Whether the nail on which they have thus chosen to hang all the glory of their house be fastened in a sure place, I leave it with the reader to judge. SECTION IL ORDINATION. Pursuing the course already indicated, the next point which comes under our notice is the assertion of the catholics, — an assertion in which all consis- tent episcopalians unite, — that the only legitimate way in which a man can become a minister of the Christian church, is by being ordained to that office by the imposition on him of the hands of a hyper- presbyterial bishop. In meeting this assertion, one might deny the existence in the primitive churches I 240 ORDINATION. ^ of any such functionary as a bishop, who was more than a presbyter or pastor of a church; and if this point were made good, it would, of course, overturn the position now under consideration, inasmuch as if there were no such bishops in the primitive church, there either must have been in those days no ordination to the pastoral office at all, or it must have been performed by other functionaries than hyper-presbyterial bishops. On this line of objec- tion, however, it is not my intention to insist; for as I am not now concerned immediately in the exami- nation of any opinions but those of the catholics, I wish to keep as free as possible from all questions not essentially involved in their doctrines. This, as has been already intimated, I consider to be the case wdth the question of the existence of diocesan bishops in the primitive church ; for though it were proved that such functionaries had place there, it would by no means follow, that they possessed the exclusive privileges, and mighty spiritual powers, which, in the catholic system, are ascribed to them. Without, then, stopping at present to pronounce upon this much canvassed point, I proceed at once to enquire, whether scripture sanctions the opinion, that no man can be a legitimate minister of Christ, unless he has received ordination to that office by the communication to him, through the hands of the bishop, of a divine power. I can conceive of no means better adapted to the attainment of this end, I DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTUBE ON THIS HEAD. 241 than to state briefly what the New Testament seems to indicate regarding the ordination of ministers in Christian churches. 1. It is distinctly prescribed, that qualification for the office shall constitute an indispensable pre-requisite to the reception of it. There is nothing in the New Testament to indicate, that even in the days of mira- culous agency there was any such thing as consti- tuting, by any ritual act, a man competent for the pastoral office, who was not in himself, and inde- pendently of all such acts, already qualified for its duties. Personal piety, unblemished reputation, holy zeal, and aptness to teach, are repeatedly set forth as qualities to be required in every one who desires the office of a pastor.^ The notion that a man might want all these qualities, and yet be a compe- tent minister of the New Testament notwithstanding, through the magic influence of episcopal ordination^ is one of which the New Testament bears no traces. [t is one of which, we may say, the churches even )f the second and early part of the third centuries ^ere quite ignorant. " He," exclaims Clement of Jexandria, " is a presbyter indeed of the church, 'and a true minister of the will of God, who does and teaches the things of the Lord; not ordained by men, nor deemed righteous because he is a presbyter, but enrolled in the presbytery because he is righteous."^ 1 See the Epistles to Timothy and Y\ivi^ passim. 2 Stromat. Lib. vi., cap, 13, siib. init. Q 242 CHOICE OF THE PASTOR It was reserved for a later age to teach, that though a minister may be " himself deficient and untaught, so that his sermons shall exhibit a wrong system of doctrine;" nay, may be a person of such unholy cha- racter, that, in his case, " the sacraments may be administered by hands which seem impure enough to sully their sanctity," he may, notwithstanding all this, by means of a single act, become a true minis- ter of Jesus Christ, — "a messenger from the God of the whole earth," — by whose words and offices a Christian congregation may be "instructed and nourished, though, in the main, the given lesson be falsehood, and the proffered sustenance little better than poison,"^ Compared with the sober, yet solemn declarations of the New Testament concerning the pastoral office, such language seems little better than the ravings of insanity. 2. It does not appear from any direct statement of the New Testament, with whom the power of origi- nally/ selecting the person who was to sustain the pasto- ral office in a church, was lodged. That the people had a voice in the matter, may be inferred from the circumstance, that in the choice of other office- bearers and functionaries of the church, their suf- frages were taken; but beyond this there is no direct evidence of any kind to substantiate their right to be consulted in the choice of their pastor. Hence our views in regard to the initiative in this matter 1 Melvill's Sermoius, vol. i., serm. 2. I VESTED IN THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH. 243 will depend almost entirely on the view we take of the constitution of the early churches. A consistent episcopalian will naturally infer, that the right of nominating the person to occupy any vacant cure should be vested in the bishop of the diocese, with the advice, perhaps, of his council. A presbyterian, on the other hand, will be led by his peculiar views to suppose this right lodged in the presbytery, or supreme court of the church. And finally, the inde- pendent, believing that there existed no ecclesiasti- cal power in the early church above that vested by Christ in each individual society of his people, will be led to maintain the right of the people to choose, freely and without any limitation, their own spiritual president and teacher. To this last view I, as an individual, subscribe; and I believe the more the subject is investigated, the more it will be found that it accords with all that can be gathered relating to this subject from the New Testament, and from the records of early ecclesiastical history. It is un- deniable, in the first place, that in the New Testa- ment there is nothing against this opinion. No pre- cept, no principle, no practice, of which we have notice there, militates against the assumption, that the people had the free and unfettered choice of their own pastors, — that they could select whom they pleased, and from whatever class they pleased, — always, of course, under the condition, that those Ilected were men possessing the qualifications speci- 244 CHOICE of the pastor fied by the apostle. Even of this also it would ap- pear, that none other than the members of the church themselves were entitled to be the judges. The only cases in which any thing like prescription occurred, were those in which God himself, by means of his inspired servants, was pleased to ap- point whom He would have the people to choose, — cases which, as they never can occur in modern times, can form no rule in this respect for us. Secondly^ As it is allowed on all hands, that in the primitive churches the support of the pastor was provided by the people of his charge, it seems only reasonable and necessary, that they who supplied the resources should have full liberty to choose the individual by whom these were to be enjoyed. Some, I know, will reply, that this was only a temporary arrange- ment, not designed to be binding beyond the con- tinuance of a peculiar emergency. This opinion, however, is not only purely gratuitous, but it is inconsistent with the principle, that the order pre- scribed by the apostles in the churches which they planted, is that which Christians in all succeeding ages are bound to follow, — a principle, the mainte- nance of which is indispensable to all who would place their church polity on any other basis than that of a fluctuating and uncertain expediency. Besides, \ki^fact still remains, that for the first three centuries after Christ, the churches supported each its own pastor; and with this remains the legitimacy I VESTED IN THE MEMBERS OF THE CHUBCH. 245 of the inference deducible from the fact as to the right of the people in these churches to choose their pastor. Thirdly^ Supposing the choice to rest with the people, it is easy to account for the absence from scripture of any direct precept or information on the subject; whilst this silence is not so easily accounted for on any other supposition. In the absence of divine prescription upon this subject, the choice falls, in the nature of things, upon the people. Each of them has a conscious interest in the matter; and in them as a body the right of selecting the individual by whom their spiritual and eternal interests may be Katerially affected, is, strictly speaking, inherent, f no other person or body, however, can this be lid. The interest which persons who are not members may have in any church is not personal; the right which such may have to regulate the affairs of that church cannot be inherent. It must, therefore, in order to exist at all, be matter of pre- scription; and where it cannot be shown to be pre- scribed, it cannot be shown to exist. My argument, then, is this: As no passage from the New Testa- ment can be adduced, authorising any man or body of men to dictate to a Christian church as to their choice of a pastor, there is no person or body by whom such power can be lawfully claimed; so that it devolves upon the people themselves, whose right, being natural and inherent, needed not to be prescribed. Lastly, The voice of ecclesiastical his- 246 CHOICE OF THE PASTOR tory is clear and decisive as to the fact, that for several centuries after our Lord's ascension, the right of electing their pastors was claimed and exercised by the people. The evidence of this position has been so often stated, and is so easily accessible in a variety of works, that I shall not occupy space by detailing it.^ Suffice it to remark, that if this was the practice of all the churches for the first three centuries after Christ, it must either have been instituted by the apostles, or it must have grown up as the corruption of a later age. Should any adopt the latter opinion, it will be incumbent on them to show about what time, and by what means, this corruption began to manifest itself, as well as to account for the strange circumstance, that whilst all other corruptions in the government of the churches tended to the aggrandisement of the power and in- fluence of the pastors at the expense of the people, there should have occurred this solitary instance of the people's usurping a power which, fully exercised, would have neutralised all the unrighteous authority of their pastors, and preserved the due balance of power between both parties in the church. 1 See especially King's Inquiry into the Constitution, &c. of the Primitive Church, chap. ii. ; Bingham's Antiquities of the Christian Church, bk. iv., ch. ii., sec. 2, 3, 4, &c. Suiceri Thes. Eecles., sub voce i-TiffKO'Toi ii. 1, a; Blackmore's Summary of Christian Antiqui- ties, vol. i. p. 3; Rheinwald's Kirchliche Archaeologie, sec. 17; Gieseler's Kirchengeschichte, bd. i., s. 298; Mosheim, de reb. Christ., saec. i., sec. 89, 45 ; Waddington's Church Hist., chap. ii. ; Bennet's Congregational Lecture for 1841, p. 244. VESTED IN THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH. 247 These considerations derive unqualified support from the fact admitted now by all our best ecclesias- tical historians, that the primitive churches stood independent of each other, and of all external autho- rity in regard to the management of their affairs. This is stated as an incontrovertible fact by Mo- sheim, Neander, Gieseler, Waddington, and Camp- bell; and I know not indeed any of our really learn- ed historians who pretend to doubt it. Now, as- suming this fact, there can be no further doubt as to the question now before us. If the early churches were independent communities, each managing its own affairs, the choice of the pastors must have been vested in the members of each church; for in that case there was no other quarter in which we can suppose this power to have been lodged. 3. When the people had selected their pastor, it was usual fm' him to be ordained, or set apart to office by a solemn act of devotion, accompanied with the laying on of the hands of persons al- ready invested with office in the church. This seems to have been the customary mode of desig- nating any individual who had been previously se- lected to occupy a particular sphere of labour, or dis- charge some official function. Thus, when the mul- titude in the church at Jerusalem had chosen the seven deacons, the apostles " prayed and laid their hands on them."^ The same was done by the pro- ^ See Appendix, Note Q,. i Acts vi. 6. 248 INAUGURATION TO OFFICE phets and teachers in the church at Antioch to Paul and Barnabas, when they were separated to the work whereunto God had called them.^ And when Ti- mothy was chosen by the apostle Paul to be his companion and assistant in preaching the gospel, he presented him to the presbytery of the church at Lystra, by the laying on of whose hands, as well as those of the apostle, he was set apart for his work.^ In these cases the principle of procedure plainly was, that where God did not himself appoint, the right of selecting the functionary lay with those who had the deepest personal interest in the duties he was selected to discharge ; but that over and above this, there was an act of inauguration, or setting apart, performed by persons already invested with office, and consisting in the offering up of prayer for the individual, and the imposition on him of their hands. By some this imposition of hands has been re- garded as connected solely with the communication to the party of miraculous power, and not, therefore, proper to be used when no such power is conferred. This, however, is obviously a mistake; for, in the first place, there is no instance in which it can be shown that this act, when exercised in the way men- tioned, i. e. in the setting apart with prayer of per- sons selected to fill office in a Christian church ever communicated spiritual gifts; and, secondly, in one, 1 Acts xiii. 3. ^ 1 Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6. BY IMPOSITION OF HANDS. 249 at least, of the cases above noticed, — that of Paul and Barnabas at Antioch, — this could not have been the design of the act, as probably both of them, one of them certainly, already possessed the power of work- ing miracles. The imposition of hands seems to have been nothing more than a ritual solemnity, employed in all grave cases where blessing was invoked, or re- ligious designation implied ; and in such cases as the ordination of a church officer serving an end analo- gous to that which in civil affairs is served by the coronation of a prince who already is the rightful possessor of the throne, or the installation of a public officer who has already been, by the suffi'ages of his countrymen, constituted possessor of the dignity with which he is invested. That the practice followed in the cases of the seven deacons, in that of Paul and Barnabas, and in that of Timothy, was followed also in the appoint- ment of men to the office of pastor, is apparent from the brief, but not indistinct notices affecting this point which occur in the New Testament. Thus in the account of the proceedings of Paul and Bar- nabas, we read that " they ordained them elders" (literally, stretched out the hand upon elders for them, i. e. the people,^) " in every church." In 1 X£/^aTov>i(r«rvT£f tX a.lro7s -r^iff^vTi^ovs. Acts xiv. 23. The verb here used is employed also in chap. x. ver. 41, to denote the appointment by God of the apostles as witnesses for Christ. Tliis shows how untenable is the opinion of those who would understand by this verb, in all cases, " electing by a show of hands." 250 TO WHOM DOES THE POWER 1 Tim. V. 22, Paul charges his young representative, after speaking of the case of elders, to " lay hands suddenly upon no man." And to Titus he had given the charge when he left him in Crete, to " ordain elders in every city." Putting these passages toge- ther, and remembering that they are the only pas- sages in the New Testament which bear upon the subject, it would surely argue a very unreasonable degree of scepticism were we to doubt or deny the fact, that in the primitive churches the usual, the orderly, the becoming, (though circumstances might prevent its being the invariable) method of settling a pastor in his charge, was by a solemn act of prayer, accompanied with the imposition of hands. A question which has been more keenly agitated than this, however, is: By what class of officers in the church was the power of officiating at the or- dination of ministers possessed ? The answer which a survey of the passages already referred to, and which form the whole of those bearing upon this subject, enables us to give to this question, is very brief When the act of ordination was not perform- ed by apostles or evangelists, it was performed by ordinary pastors, teachers, or elders, as in the case of Paul and Barnabas, or by them in conjunction with an apostle, as in the case of Timothy. From this the natural inference is, that as the extraordi- nary officers of the early churches no longer exist, this duty devolves exclusively upon the ordinary OF ORDAINING BELONG? 251 pastors and elders. The inference drawn by epis- copalians from the part taken by the apostles and evangelists in ordinations, in support of their opinion that this duty belongs exclusively to the bishops, is utterly untenable. It rests exclusively on the as- sumption that bishops are the official successors of the apostles — an assumption already disproved, and one which, even were it established, would only go to show that bishops might share with presbyters in this act, as Paul shared with the presbytery of the church at Lystra in the ordination of Timothy. As to the argument founded on the cases of Timothy and Titus in favour of exclusive episcopal ordination, it is obviously a mere petitio principii. Ordination, say those who urge this argument, is the peculiar function of a bishop, because Timothy and Titus, who were bishops, discharged this function without the co-operation of any other parties; and then when challenged to prove that Timothy and Titus were bishops, their readiest argument is, that they performed the act of ordination, which, they say, can be performed only by a bishop. Thus they argue in a circle, making a thing the reason of itself, and by a process of subtracting equals from equals, leaving nothmg as the result. From these considerations it appears that whilst there was in the primitive churches a ceremony of ordination at the settling of a Christian pastor over a church, it was nothing more than a mere decent 252 CONCLUDING REMARKS. and solemn form of introducing the individual to his office, for which he was previously qualified and of which he was already in possession, performed by parties who had no authority to communicate to him, and implying on their part nothing more than a cordial approbation of the choice of the church, a fraternal regard for the individual chosen, and a readiness to co-operate with him in all that concerned the interests of their common cause.^ These simple views of this ordinance seem to have continued for a considerable time after the age of the apostles ; at least, we find no trace of any others till towards the middle of the third century, when the gradual engraft- ing upon Christianity of ideas borrowed from the ritual of the Jews, had accustomed the minds of the Christians to regard, their ministers as belonging to a distinct order from themselves, and invested with sacerdotal power.^ To this the action of laying on hands in the setting apart of the ministers doubtless contributed; for as that action was used by the apostles in communicating spiritual gifts, as well as in the ritual of ordination, it would be very easy for 1 "The imposition of hands on the minister, when all is done, will he nothing hut a designation of a person to this or that office, or em- ployment in the church. 'Tis a ridiculous phrase that of the canon- ists, conferre ordines. 'Tis cooptare aliquem in ordinem; to make a man one of us, one of our numher, one of our order.'' Selden, Tahle Talk, p. 104. Edinburgh 1819. Comp. Fuller's Works, vol. v. p. 280. London 1832. 2 See Gieseler's Kirchen Gesch., hd. i, s. 187, 296. Bennot's Congregational Lecture, Lect. iv. CONCLUDING REMARKS. 253 the bishops, when they came to call themselves the successors of the apostles, to persuade the multitude that that act, as practised by them in ordination, had the same effect as when practised by the apostles for the purpose of endowing men with miraculous intelligence and power. Certain it is, that from the time referred to, it became common to ascribe very mysterious efficacy to this act in episcopal ordina- tion. By means of it, men who had been before ignorant, or weak, or even heathen and profligate, suddenly were transformed into priests of the Most High God — the keepers of the spiritual interests of the church, — and the accredited intercessors between God and his worshippers. The length to which these absurdities were carried in the 4th and 5th centuries would be almost incredible, did we not see opinions of the same sort abundantly avowed in the present day. Amidst all this tide of clerical pretension, how- ever, it is consolatory to think that the stream cannot be traced back to the fountain-head of Christianity — that it had its rise from a source which has in it nothing perennial, — and that, consequently, we may confidently indulge the hope that in due season the hasty torrent will be exhausted, and that men will turn for refreshment and strength to the noiseless but copious stream of regenerating truth, — ^that river which has its source on Calvary, and whose life-giving waters shall never fail. 254 PRIESTHOOD OF THE CLERGY. SECTION III. PRIESTHOOD OF THE CLERGY. Those who regard episcopal ordination as con- ferring peculiar gifts upon the Christian pastor, do not content themselves with affirming this in merely general terms, but are careful also to specify the nature of that power with which he is thus invested, by claiming for him the rank and authority of a priest. It is not intended by them, in applying this title to the Christian minister, to speak figuratively or analogically, as if nothing more were meant by it than that such a functionary sustains to the people of his charge, a relation which, in regard to its import- ance, its eminence, and its sacredness, might be con- pared to that which the ancient priests bore to the people of Israel. The term is understood by them literally, and without a figure. Whatever of dignity surrounded the Levitical priesthood, with whatever awful responsibilities its members were charged, whatever of submission to their words and depend- ance on their offices they demanded from the people, and whatever of divine virtue they were empowered to convey to those who submitted devoutly to their ritual, is represented as having been transferred, whole and undiluted, nay, with considerable additions, to I UNLIKELINESS OF THIS. 255 those ministers of the New Testament, who have re- ceived ordination from the bishops of the catholic church. They, and they alone, it is affirmed, are true ministers in the Christian temple, because they alone have been called of God to be priests, as was Aaron. I The imposing nature of these pretensions, and the j confidence with which they are advanced, render it necessary that we should enquire carefully into their soundness and scriptural authority. I. Now, at the outset, it must appear to every one who is accustomed to the study of the apostolic I writings, that it is extremely unlikely that under the I Christian dispensation such an arrangement, as the I existence of priestly mediators between God and his people, should be found. It cannot have escaped the i attention of the most cursory reader of these writings, I that their authors continually represent the priest- hood of Christ as the fulfilling of all that was typified in the priestly office among the Jews, the sacrifice of Christ as the one great and all-sufficient atonement for sin, and the intercession of Christ as the sole medium through which the sinner has to seek accept- ance with God. In connection with these announce- ments, it must also have been observed that the apostles distinctly teach that through this medium a free path of access unto God lies open to all, and to all alike ; that it is the duty and privilege of each man who hears these good news to draw nigh unto God, through this new and living way ; that prayers, alms, 256 UNLIKELINESS OF THIS. ^fts, and all other appropriate expressions of gratis tude to God, are the sacrifices which the believer is enjoined to lay upon the altar of devotion in the name of Christ;^ and that, in accordance with this, all true Christians are represented as priests unto God, " i holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices, accep table to God through Jesus Christ/'- Now, with thestj truths obtruded upon us throughout the apostoli^ writings, one is at a loss to conceive what place ther< can be, or what occasion for, an official priesthood ii the church. K Christ's sacrifice be such as to super sede all others ; if Christ be the Great High Priest o his church ; if his intercession be a sufficient mediun of access for all men unto God; and if all may, an^ ought through him, to approach unto God, and offel to him such sacrifices as alone are acceptable in hii sight, — what possible necessity can there be foi another priest between God and the Christian, or ho> is such an one to discharge any priestly functioi without trenching upon the prerogative of Christ o the one hand, or on the privileges of his people upo; the other ? At first sight it certainly does appea that such an oflBcer, as a human priest in the churcU is a sort of superfluity — an awkward and incongruouf appendage to the system, that looks as if it had bee ' * Sec the reasoning of the aposOe in the Epistle to the Hebrew* ch. TiL — ix. 2 Hebrews x. 19—20 ; 1 John ii- 1, 2 ; Romans xii. 1 ; 1 Peter i 4—10. LfeTORS XEVEB CALLED PBIE8T8 IN SCBIPTURE- 25^ I ■prced upon it for some purpose or other, without having been at all contemplated in the original design. Let us not sav the thing is impossible ; — ^it mav be ; if the Xew Testament savs so, it must be ; Pt one may afl&rm it seems to the last degree un- :ely, and not to be admitted, save on the fullest d most incontrovertible scriptural evidence, n. ^Tien we proceed to examine the Xew Testa- ment on this subject, the first thing which must strike the enquirer is, that if the apostles meant to teach it the Christian ministry is a priesthood, it is pass- :: strange that though freelv using sacerdotal Ian- :age to express their ideas on manv points, thev i.ave not, in one single instance, employed such language to designate the office or functions of a Christian pastor! Amongst the numerous names which this officer receives in the Xew Testament that oi priest does not once occur, and in no instance are the duties of the office described by the most dis- » tant allusion to the temple service. Can this &Lct be accounted for on the supposition that the ministers of * Christ are priests ? Why this careM neglect of the name, this scrupulous avoidance of anything like sacerdotal phraseology, in speaking of ministers, if they are in reality priests, and have to discharge priestly functions ? It was not so under the ancient dispensation, when the ministers of the sanctuary were priests. Injthe Old Testament, the term priest is that most commonly used to designate them, their R 258 THE POWER OF BINDING AND LOOSING sacerdotal character and functions are often enlarged upon, and the most distinct instructions are given to the people to avail themselves of their services, as the only appointed medium of access to God. Why should it be otherwise in the New Testament, unless it be because the ministers whose office it sets forth are 7iot priests ? III. But it may be said, that though the New Testament does not directly use sacerdotal language in reference to the office of Christian ministers, the language which it does use is such as to imply the possession by such of sacerdotal functions. In sup- port of this, reference is made to such passages as the following: — " And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." " Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." " Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God,"^ &c. From these passages it is argued, that Christ invested his ministers with sacer- dotal power, and that the apostle claims this pow^er when he calls himself and those associated with him " stewards of the mysteries of God." Now, on this reasoning, I have to remark, 1st, That of these pas- 1 Matt. xvi. 19; John xx. 28; 1 Cor. iv. 1. K GRANTED TO THE APOSTLES ALONE. 250 sages the first two were addressed exclusively to the apostles. It was to Peter that Christ gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and it was on the whole body of the apostles that he conferred the power of remitting or retaining sins. Whatever dignity or power, then, these passages may ascribe to the par- ties to whom they relate, it does not surely follow that the same belongs to any other party to whom we may choose to apply them. What w^as true of an apostle is not necessarily true of one who is not an apostle. If, indeed, it could be shown that the clergy are the successors of the apostles, such a transference of words used concerning the office of the one to the office of the other might be possible. But this, we have already seen, is not the case ; so that even were it admitted, that in these passages the possession of priestly power by the apostles is indicated, it would not follow^ that to such power the clergy of the catholic church have the least claim. But, 2dl7/, It may be asked, Do these two passages really prove, that on the apostles priestly power was conferred ? Is the power of binding and loosing, or as it is explained in the other passage, the power of forgiving or retaining sins, a power belonging pro- perly to the priestly office ? This it will not be easy, I apprehend, to prove. Under the Old Testament economy the priests evidently had no such power. It was their business to make atonement and inter- ssion for the people; but it was a settled principle I 260 THE PO>VER OF BINDING AND LOOSING in Jewish theology, and one which was often cast in the way of our Lord himself by the Jews, that no one can forgive sins but God only. If, then, the apostles had the power of forgiving sins, it must have been in virtue of the new commission they had received. This was a peculiarity of their apostolical office, and not an engrafting on that office of an old priestly function. Whatever of power, then, or dig- nity this might confer upon them, it affords no evi- dence that they were constituted priests, any more than it affords evidence that they were constituted kings. And as their successors (supposing such to exist) cannot, in virtue of descent from them, claim an office which they never held, it is plainly illogical and absurd to found upon these passages any argu- ment in favour of the doctrine, that the clergy, as the alleged successors of the apostles, are priests. ^dly. There appears to be no evidence whatever that the apostles understood these words of our Lord as conveying to them personally the power of for- giving or retaining the sins of individuals. Had they done so, they would, doubtless, on some occa- sion or other have exercised the power with which they were thus entrusted; and as certainly would such instances have been recorded for the instruction of succeeding ages. Of this, however, there is no trace in their subsequent history and writings. We read of their teaching, commanding, and working miracles in the name of Christ; but not one instance GRANTED TO THE APOSTLES ALONE. 261 occurs of their pronouncing absolution of sins over any person. On the contrary, their continual doc- trine to men was, that it was God, and God only, that could forgive their transgressions; and they ceased not to exhort their hearers to ask forgiveness, each one for himself, in the name of Christ. Now, how is this to be accounted for, on the supposition that Christ had given them power personally to for- give sins as they saw meet ? We dare not say that they were neglectful of the gift Christ had given them; for this were to charge them with the gravest offence of which, as apostles, they could be guilty. As little may we affirm, that they were afraid to exercise so awful a power; for this were to charge them with being afraid to do what Christ had em- powered them to do, — conduct of which it is difficult to say whether the unfaithfulness or the cowardice be most reprehensible. How, then, is their conduct to be explained? May it not with justice be affirmed, that this fact IHt-that the apostles never, on any occasion, so far as we know, even apparently assumed to themselves the power of personally absolving men from their sins — throws an interpreting light over the words of Christ, and suggests a meaning entirely different from what has, by catholics, been ascribed to them ? Does it not, at least, favour the conclusion, that in using them the Saviour did not confer any power on the apostles over individuals; but spoke simply of the I 262 THE APOSTLES STILL HAVE THIS POWER. authority with which, as his commissioned ambassa- dors, they were empowered to announce to men gene- Tally the terms of salvation^ — the conditions on which sin would be forgiven, and on which it would be retained?^ This charge they fulfilled when they preached unto .men " repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." And having done this once by their inspired writings, they have done it once for all. The ambassador has communicated his message; and there it lies, that each may inspect it and follow it for himself. After this no new em- bassage is needed. The terms of admission into the kingdom of heaven are already fully and clearly specified. It is for each man to accept of them and enter, so that his sins may be forgiven; or to reject them, and so have his sins retained. Thus it is, that by the words which they spake and wrote, the apostles do still bind and loose, forgive and retain. In their hands are the keys of the kingdom of heaven. By their message may each man deter- 1 In Lightfoot's note on Matt. xvi. 19, in hi&Horae Hebraicae, the reader will find most abundant evidence in proof of the position laid down by that great scholar, " that the phrase to bmd and to loose, which was very much used in the Jewish schools, had a reference to things, and not io persons, as, indeed, in this very passage, and in chap, xviii. 18, the use of the neutre relatives o and oV«, would indicate." After giving thirty instances from Jewish writers of the use of the phrase, he gives the result as follows: — " 1. It is used in teaching, and in judging regarding things lawful and things not lawful; 2. To bind is the same as to forbid, or declare a thing forbidden; to loose is to permit, or declare a thing permitted" See also the Notes of Calvin and Whitby on the passages. " STEWARDS OF THE MYSTERIES OF GOD." 263 ine for himself his spiritual condition and destiny. e that believeth their words shall be saved; he at believeth not shall be damned. In these passages, then, our Lord announces to e apostles their peculiar duty as the unfolders, by ipecial authority, of his religion to the world. As this they neither needed, nor could have succes- irs, these passages prove nothing respecting any rt either of the claims or functions of the pastoral ►ffice. Athl?/, With regard to the other passage above quoted, in which the apostle speaks of himself and ^lis associates as " ministers of Christ and stewards ^f the mysteries of God," it is admitted that it can- iiot be shown to apply exclusively to the apostles, for ^^Vaul evidently includes ApoUos along with Cephas ^^Bnd himself (see iii. 22) in the number of those of ^^prhom he here speaks, (if, indeed, we are not to re- gard him as speaking generally of all who act the part of teachers in the church.*) As little, however, ^^■an it be turned to favour the opinion that Christian ^ninisters are invested with the office of priests. The ground on which this is attempted is the assertion, that by " the mysteries of God" here spoken of are intended the sacred rites which a clergyman is alone iititled to perform, and by which he materially in- aences the spiritual destinies of his flock. Whether I 1 This is the opinion of Calvin, Estius, Pott, Krause, Olshausen, id most of the interpreters^ 264 " STEWARDS OF THE MYSTERIES OF GOD." this, even were it granted, would prove Christian ministers to be priests in the Bible sense of that terra, and not rather a sort of spiritual exorcists or magicians, may admit of question ; but waiving this, let us see how far such an interpretation of the lan- guage of the apostle will bear the test of examina- tion. The due decision of this point depends on our rightly ascertaining what those things are to which the New Testament writers apply the term " mys- tery;" and in no way can this be done satisfacto- rily but by a careful examination of each passage in which the word occurs. When this is done, (and I must request each reader to do it for himself, as it would occupy too large a space to attempt it here,^) it will be found, 1. That the word " mystery" is al- ways used in the New Testament of something which is to be taught and learned, never of anything which is to be done and ea^perienced ; and, 2. That it is never applied to anything hidden, dark, or unrevealed, but always means something which, though beyond the reach of man's natural powers of discovery, and per- haps as to its mode of existence incomprehensible by man even when revealed, has been made manifest, so as that it may be known and believed by all. Now, if such be the usage of the word in the New Testament generally, upon what principle can a different mean- ing be pleaded for as attaching to it here ? If a mys- ^ See Appendix, Note R. I" STEWARDS OF THE MYSTERIES OF GOD." 265 ry be not something which is done on us, but some- thing which is to be announced, taught, or preached to us, what affinity can it have with a set of outward rites, the w^hole efficacy of which must consist in their being performed by a suitable functionary who is supposed to be endowed with power through them to influence those who submit to them ? That any man should be possessed of such a power may in the conventional sense of the word be mysterious enough ; but that it is to this the apostle alludes in the pas- sage under notice there is not the shadow of evi- dence. The only conclusion to which sound principles of interpretation will allow us to come is, that by mysteries here Paul means revealed truths, and espe- cially that great cardinal truth of Christianity which he elsewhere calls the " great mystery of godliness," — " the mystery of the faith," — " the mystery that had been kept secret since the world began, but is now made manifest and known unto all nations for Hbe obedience of faith." ^ Of this the ministers of Hlhrist may justly be called " the stewards or dis- ^B 1 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; ibid. ver. 9 ; Rom. xvi. 25. In support of the view above taken, I cannot do better than quote the note of Estius on the passage: — " Hysteria quidam interpretantur sacramenta novae legis, i. e., sensibilia signa ad sanctificationem nostram a ChristoDo- Imino instituta, quorum primum est baptismus. Sed cum ipse Paulus serit Imo capite: Non misit me Christus baptizare, sed evangeli- re; rectius est ut mysteria Dei intelligantur fidei nostrse dogmata a 50 revelata. Quae quidem mysteria dicuntur, quia secreta sunt, et aosque Dei revelation^ cognosci nequeant. Ea mysteria sunt incar- nationis, passionis, et resurrectionis Christi, redemptionis nostrae, vo- cationis gentium et cetera, quse complectitur evangelica doctrina.'* 266 IF CHRISTIAN MINISTERS ARE PRIESTS pensers," (6mov6(jbovg,) for it is their official duty to " feed the flock of God," " rightly dividing the word of truth." ^ As good servants of Christ, they are bound to dispense to the members of his household " their meat in due season ;" and as the only food by which the people of God can be spiritually sustained is that which is provided for them in the gospel of Jesus Christ, it must be by dispensing to them of this that ministers are to prove themselves faithful as " stewards of the grace of God." To substitute for this a set of mere ceremonies which are expected to operate like a charm upon the people whether they understand their meaning or not, is to give them little better than the fare of the prodigal, or to in- flict upon them the curse which God denounced against ancient Israel, when he said he would " feed them with wormwood, and give them water of gall to drink."^ IV. The apostle, in speaking of the functions of the priestly office, says, (Heb. v. 1,) " every high- priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins." The closing words of this verse clearly specify what is the peculiar and appro- priate duty of a priest. As the representative of those for whom he is set apart, he must offer gifts and sacrifices for their sins. If, then. Christian 1 1 Pet. V. 1 ; 2 Tim. ii. 15. 2 jer. ix. 15. THEY SHOULD OFFER SACRIFICE. 267 ministers be priests, it is of necessity that they pre- sent offerings to God on behalf of their people, that through these they may procure for the parties in whose name they appear the divine favour and for- giveness. The question, then comes to be, — Is this the function of the Christian pastor? Is it his to offer sacrifice for the sins of his flock? Does he possess the privilege of appearing for them in the presence of God, and, through the power of his gifts and intercessions, propitiating the Divine Majesty on their behalf? To these questions there are few who, in the pre- sent day, will be hardy enough to give a direct an- swer in the affirmative. The testimony of scripture is so plain and explicit as to the sole and absolute sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ for the pardon of sins, that any man who should now seriously propose to offer sacrifice for sins, would be looked upon either as a heathen or as mad. Avoiding, then, any direct answer to these inquiries, the catholics are in the habit of meeting them by pointing to the sacra- mejits, as they call them, which it is the office of the clergy to administer; and by attributing to these a saving power in and by themselves when duly admi- nistered, they ascribe a powerful influence over the eternal destinies of men to those by whom alone they believe that these can be rightly dispensed. Now, this, be it observed, is a virtual giving up of the priesthood of the clergy. It is admitting that, as 268 ALLEGED CONNECTION BETWEEN they have no gifts or offerings to present, they are not, strictly speaking, priests. In this case, their assumption of the name of priests can be regarded in no other light than as the offspring of superstiti- ous ignorance, or as a bait to delude the unwary. But (not to insist too much on a word) though the privilege of administering the sacraments cannot constitute those by whom it is possessed priests, see- ing these are not true and proper sacrifices, it must nevertheless be admitted, that if by means of these rites the clergy have power to influence the spiritual destinies of men, they are invested with power of the most awful kind — with power such as none of the Jewish priests ever possessed, for the utmost effect of their office reached only to " the purifying of the flesh,'" i, e. the removal of outward ceremo- nial defilement, the rest depending entirely upon the use which each individual made of the great spiritual lessons thus taught, — with power, therefore, which it would be in the last degree unwise to concede to any class of men, unless they can adduce the clearest evidence that it has been conferred upon them by God. A better opportunity for examining into the na- ture and uses of baptism and the Lord's supper, will be found in the two following chapters, where we shall be occupied with inquiring into the way in 1 Heb. ix. 13. kCRAMENTAL EFFICACY AND PRIESTLY POWER. 269 ich the blessings of Christianity are to be enjoyed by men. At present I shall confine myself to a few general remarks on the alleged spiritual power lodg- ed in the hands of the clergy, in virtue of their being the appointed administrators of these ordinances. ^m 1. When the supposed efficacy of the sacraments ^S adduced in support of the high pretensions of the Catholic clergy, the reasoning seems to partake very much of the nature of an argument in a circle. It cannot be denied that, as respects the mere external act, baptism and the Lord's supper may be adminis- tered, as well by a presbyterian or a congregation- alist, as by an episcopalian clergyman. Are these ordinances, then, equally valid in the former case as in the latter ? and, if not, wherein consists the differ- ence ? The reply to this is, that, in the latter case alone are they valid, because an episcopally ordained clergyman is alone competent to administer them. Then it is the official status of the administrator which gives these ordinances their value. But if so, how can the mere fact of his being the administrator of them prove him to be invested with priestly or quasi-priestly authority ? Let it be shown that the sacraments are valid in themselves by whomsoever administered; and let it be shown that episcopally ordained ministers are alone authorised to administer them; and no one could object to the inference that the latter are thereby invested with great spiritual power. But to argue the authority of the clergy 270 ALLEGED CONNECTION BETWEEN from the validity of the sacraments, and then the validity of the sacraments from the authority of the clergy is mere child's play. It is a pitiful begging of the question. It is affirming that the clergy are invested with spiritual authority, just because they are invested with spiritual authority. 2. Assuming that there is a connection, such as that affirmed, between the priestly office of the clergy and the saving power of the sacraments, one would naturally expect to see it manifest itself in its effects. Let us suppose, for a moment, that among the Israelites an individual not called of God, as was Aaron, had taken it upon him to offer sacrifices, and make intercession for the people. In such a case, would there not have been some manifest token of the Divine displeasure with his conduct? We can- not doubt but that there would. Should we not look for something, then, of the same kind under the Christian dispensation, if its ministers be priests also? Must not God protect his own ordinance ? and if men, unauthorised by him, presume to administer what he has appointed his priests to administer, is it not to be expected that he will manifest the differ- ence between the one and the other, if not by pu- jj nishment inflicted on the presumptuous schismatic, f yet by rendering his services of no avail to those 1 who receive them ? It cannot be, that ordinances f administered by one who has no right to administer them, can possibly be equally efficacious with those I SACRAMENTAL EFFICACY AND PRIESTLY POWER. 271 administered by one who has been divinely qualified and appointed for this purpose. This brings the question before us to an appeal to facts. Let this appeal then be made. Let the results of ministerial labour in the catholic church be compared with the results of ministerial labour among the different bodies of evangelical Christians. Let it be asked whether a different result follows baptism in the one case, from what takes place in the other; whether all, or nearly all baptised by the priest, grow up re- generated and sanctified characters; whilst those baptised by ministers not episcopally ordained alone display the innate depravity of our nature when they become capable of acting for themselves. Or, let the effect of the observance of the Lord's supper, as administered by sacerdotal hands, be compared with the effect of it as administered by those of others. Let it be asked, Are those who partake of what they believe to be a sacrifice which the priest has consecrated, one whit more purified, comforted, strengthened thereby, than the humblest congre- gation of believers who sit down to the table of the Lord with no other view than that of commemo- rating his dying love ? Let this comparison, I say, be made. Let it be made as extensively and mi- lutely as possible. And if it be found that, in the le case, where a priest is the administrator, the romised effect is produced in the regeneration of le baptised, and the sanctification of the communi- 272 ALLEGED CONNECTION BETWEEN cant; whilst, in the other, little or no benefit accrues to any party from these ordinances, something worth the having will have been got to support the doctrine of priestly consecration. But if it be otherwise — as otherwise it certainly is — if it be — as all experience testifies — that children baptised by the priest are not one whit more holy than those baptised by one who makes no such pretension, and that the Lord's supper administered to pious persons is as comforting when received at the hands of a minister, as when received at the hands of a priest, whilst, to those who are not pious, it does no good, but much harm, by whomso- ever administered — if this be found, then let it be remembered, that the only fair conclusion is, either that God's institution of a priesthood is a great fail- ure, or that no such institution has been appointed by God in the Christian church. I leave with confi- dence the choice in this alternative to the reader's own judgment. Lastly, If there be such an intimate connection as is affirmed between the power of the sacraments and the efficiency of the ministry, how comes it to pass, that so little is said in the New Testament concern- ing the administration of these by ministers. Of all the instances recorded in the Acts of the success of the apostles and other leaders of the church, not one is ascribed to the power of the sacraments, but all to the preaching of the word. Of the claims of the ministry upon the respect, the love, and the liberali- SACRAMENTAL EFFICACY AND PRIESTLY POWER. 273 ty of their flocks, not one is rested on their supposed possession of any mysterious sacerdotal power, but all on their zeal and diligence as the teachers and rulers of the church. And as respects their doctrine, whilst they are exhorted to preach, and teach, and set a good example before their flocks, there is not one passage directly enjoining them either to baptise or administer the Lord's supper; and it is only from the general spirit of the New Testament, and the few examples scattered throughout it, that we learn that to administer these ordinances is a duty of the pas- toral office at all. Now, if any of my readers are inclined to the doctrine of the connection between sacramental efficacy and the priesthood of the clergy, I beg them to look at this fact, and account for it if they can on that hypothesis. According to that theory. Christian ministers have no function so pecu- liarly their own as administering the sacraments: This is what they are chiefly to do, for this they are chiefly to be had in " religious veneration," and it is by this their office is chiefly to be fulfilled. And yet in all the injunctions given to them in the New Tes- tament, not one word is said of this part of their du- ties, and it is only probable, but by no means cer- tain, that this forms a part of their peculiar duties at all ! Is not this unaccountable? does it not clearly indicate that no such notion of the power of the sacraments in priestly hands was entertained by the apostles ? 274 FUTILITY OF THE CLAIMS If these observations be correct, it appeals that what we set out with affirming to be improbable, is in reality so utterly unsupported, that hardly the shadow of scriptural evidence can be adduced in its favour. The claims of the catholic clergy to be re- verenced as priests, must, in this case, however strongly supported by Fathers, and councils, and bishops, be classed with those " lying wonders" by which the Man of Sin has from the first sought to uphold his unrighteous sway over the consciences of men. Were it not for that unhappy tendency, so common to our fallen family, towards " a vicarious religion" — a religion which enables the sinner to en- joy composure of mind whilst still wedded to his sins, on the fancied security of the church's offices on his behalf, — such a baseless claim as this would never have been tolerated by any who were capable of thinking or judging for themselves. Let those who advance the claim be entreated to see to it, that they be not in this respect acting, not as the ministers, but as the foes of Christ, by serving the interests of that arch-deceiver, whose works the Son of God came to destroy. Satisfied of the utter futility of those high preten- sions which the catholic clergy advance, I fall back upon the simple institutions of the apostles regard- ing the pastoral office, and claim for all who, accord- ing to these institutions, have the oversight of Chris- tian congregations, whatever of dignity, authority, and OF THE CATHOLIC CLERGY. 275 respect belongs to the Christian minister. Did we Kt know the strong bias of the human mind to- trds what is outward and carnal in preference to lat is spiritual, we should deem it strange that any should be found inclined to add to that office authority and sanctions of the kind we have been endeavouring to invalidate. To occupy the first place in a congregation of Christian men — to be entrusted with the oversight of their individual and collective spiritual interests — to be looked up to by them as their instructor in the truths of the Bible, their adviser in questions of duty, their leader in every good, virtuous, and holy enterprise — to be confided in as their friend and director in the hour of difficulty, adversity, or danger — to be appealed to as the arbiter of their differences, or the composer of their quarrels — to be a privileged partaker in al- most every occasion among them of domestic happi- ness, a welcome sympathiser in every occasion of domestic grief — to be in many cases the first hu- man being to whom the soul, stricken with a sense of sin, unfolds its anxieties, and prefers its entreaty for counsel — to be the last to whom, in many cases, the departing spirit reveals its feelings, and the tongue that is soon to be silent for ever tells its thrilling tale of triumph or dread; — to be all this is surely enough for ambition, if it be not more than enough for responsibility. To an office such as this it can bring no additional importance that the per- 276 TRUE DIGNITY OF THE CHRISTIAN PASTOR. son who sustains it should be surrounded by the trappings of sacerdotal pomp, or venerated as the awful possessor of an invisible and spiritual power. By all such additions, the entire character of the office is altered, its real dignity impaired, and its main usefulness destroyed. A vague feeling of awe conies in the place of that intelligent respect with which the people should regard their minister; a slavish and demoralising dependence on the office of the priest is substituted for enlightened and puri- fying submission to the lessons of the instructor; whilst the pastor himself sinks from the honourable place of the friend and counsellor of his flock, to that of a mere religious martinet, whose business it is to see that they go regularly through their appointed dis- cipline, and whose grand aim is to maintain a domi- nion over their superstitious fears, which, after all, he must be content to share with the fortune-teller and the conjuror. CHAPTER V. JUSTIFICATION UNTO LIFE. HfiiTs S/a B-iXrif^a-roi ocurou Iv X^ierrS Inirou xKfi^ivns, ov ^i iavruv ^ikcu- vfiiSoi, ovTi ^ta, riis rifAiTi^ccg ffor symbol to that spiritual baptism, — that " repen- i/ance unto life" which it is the grand design of I Christianity to confer. |, If these remarks be just, we have supplied by Ihem an important guide in our attempts to esti- 1 Acts xi. 15, 18. 298 MEANING OF JOHN III. 5. mate the degree of support which the Anglo-cathohc doctrine of baptismal salvation derives from those passages in the New Testament which are adduced by its advocates. The presumption is, that these passages do not refer to the rite simply as a rite, even in those cases where a reference to water- baptism may be admitted to be involved in the general statement; so that before any one of them can be concluded to favour this doctrine, it must be proved against this presumption, that it is ritual baptism per se that is spoken of, and that nothing but ritual baptism can be intended by the writer in the passage under discussion. If these two points cannot be established, the passage obviously fails the cause it is adduced to support; whilst, on the other hand, if it can be shown, that in that passage it is real, and not merely ritual baptism or purifica- tion that is designed, the whole weight of the pas- sage passes into the opposing scale. Let us now take a brief survey of the passages on which Dr Pusey has laid the chief stress, as favour- ing his views ; following the order in which he him- self has adduced them. The first that he urges is John iii. 5 — " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." By "water" in this passage, he understands our Lord to mean bap- tismal water ; and in this light he quotes our Lord's words, as containing a decided declaration as to the MEANING OF JOHN III. 5. 299 regenerating power of baptism. On this I observe, 1^^, That even admitting the catholic interpretation of this passage, I do not see that it will greatly serve the object for which it is adduced. The point to be proved is, that outward baptism has power to re- generate those to whom it is applied; that is, that a properly qualified person has only to administer the baptismal waters in order directly, i'pso facto, to re- generate the party receiving the rite. Now, where is the countenance given to this doctrine in the pas- , sage before us ? Our Lord does not say that water, by itself, without the Spirit, will regenerate; nor does he intimate that the application of water to the person secures the agency of the Spirit on the mind. He simply affirms that both water and the Spirit (supposing them different) are necessary to regene- ration. Now, one might logically enough infer from this, that, on the catholic explanation of the word water, baptism is essential to salvation; but to infer from it that baptism will of itself save is clearly ille- gitimate. If I were to say — ** Except a man under- stand and believe the gospel he cannot be saved," it would be a just inference from my words, that the understanding of the gospel is essential to salvation ; but if any were to explain my statement as affirming that a mere understanding of the gospel was enough to save a man, I should justly complain that my meaning had been perverted. I conceive the case before us to be quite analogous. If by " water," our 300 MEANING OF JOHN III. 5. Lord, in this passage, mean baptism, he certainly teaches that, without that rite, there is no regenera- tion, but he does not teach that that rite has, in itself, the power of regeneration. 2dlt/, It may be questioned whether our Lord, in using the word " water" on this occasion intended any allusion what- ever to baptism. Let it be remembered that, at the time he spoke thus, the commission to his disciples to baptise men into the name of the Trinity had not been given, and that the person for whose instruc- tion he was speaking was a Jew, to whom the mean- ing of such an allusion, couched in such terms, would be hardly perceptible. There was another meaning, however, which, to the mind of one who was " a master in Israel," would naturally occur. In the ancient scriptures, the cleansing of the soul from pollution is not rarely spoken of under the figure of water applied to the person. "I entered into a covenant with thee," says God to the Jewish church, " and thou becamest mine; then washed I thee with water." " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you," says he again, with reference to the times of the Messiah, " and ye shall be clean, from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh, and I will put my Spirit within you," &;c. " In that day," says he again, speaking of the same MEANING OF JOHN III. 5. 301 period, '* there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncieanness." With these and simi- lar passages there can be no doubt but that Nicode- mus was well acquainted; and this being the case, it seems almost inconceivable that our Lord's words, literally identical as they are with the expressions used in the second of the above quotations, should have led away the mind of the ruler from the ideas of internal purification, which, in connection with these passages, they suggest, to a mere outward rite, and one which, in its proper character, as a Chris- tian institute, did not, at the time they were uttered, exist. Surely, if in this solemn declaration, our Lord meant to teach the necessity of baptism to sal- vation, he would have condescended to use towards one whom he showed such a gracious desire to in- struct, language of a nature less likely to mislead his hearer, ddli/, It is worthy of remark, that, in what follows in our Lord's discourse, it is only of the birth hy the Spirit that He speaks ; this he repeatedly mentions, while no further allusion is made by Him a birth by water. Now, this seems greatly to fa- rour the opinion, that, in this 5th verse, he makes je of a hendiadys, and that, by " water and the Spirit," he only means the Spirit which cleanses like rater, the purifying or cleansing Spirit. This figure of frequent occurrence in the New Testament, and le example of it is so exactly parallel to the words S02 THE APOSTOLIC COMMISSION. before us, as almost to require for them the interpre- tation just given. I allude to the words of John the Baptist concerning Christ ; " He shall baptise you with the Holy Spirit and with fire," words which can bear no other meaning than that the baptism of the Spirit should purify like fire. Why should not the same principle of interpretation be resorted to in the case before us ? If a hendiadys be admitted in the one case, why not in the other? Are not the two exactly parallel ? In fine, it may be observed, that Dr Pusey cannot object to the principle of this interpretation, for his own, if I do not misapprehend his meaning, proceeds upon the supposition of a hendiadys in this passage. He understands the passage as if it read — " Except a man be born of water, operating with the power of the Spirit," &c. The only question, then, between him and us is, whether the water qualifies the Spirit, or the Spirit qualifies the water; in other words, whether our Saviour, to explain the mysterious agency of water, compared it to the Divine Spirit; or, to explain the operation of the Spirit, compared it to water. Between these two there cannot surely be much hesitation in our choice, when we remember that with all correct speakers it is usual to illustrate spiritual objects by material, not material objects by spiritual. Following Dr Pusey's guidance, the next passage that comes under consideration is our Lord's com- ' mission to his apostles immediately before his ascen- THE APOSTOLIC COMMISSION. 303 sion. This, as given by the evangelists Matthew and Mark, runs thus : — " Having gone into all the world preach the gospel to every creature ; make disciples of all the nations, [by] baptising them into (or for, •g/V) the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, instructing them to keep whatsoever things I have enjoined on you. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be condemned. And lo ! I am with you always, even to the end of the world. Amen."^ From these words it appears that our Lord commissioned his apostles to make men disciples by two means — by baptising them, and by teaching them ; and that consequently men are to become disciples by the correspondent acts of being baptised and believing what they are taught. We also learn from them that both belief and baptism are required for salva- tion; but there is certainly no intimation in the whole commission to the effect that baptism of itself will save,^ still less that faith without baptism will not save. The main stress is evidently laid on the believing, which leads to the conclusion that baptism is here said to be essential to salvation only in the same sense in which a public profession of attach- 1 Matt, xxviii. 19, 20; Mark xvi. 15, 16. 2 Strange to say, Dr Pusey himself admits this in his comment on this passage. " Baptism without faith undoubtedly would save none." Is it only, then, when it accompanies faith that it is effica- cious? If so, how comes it to be efficacious to infants? 304 THE APOSTOLIC COMMISSION. ment to Christ is elsewhere said to be essential/ viz., as an outward index or symbol of the faith within with which it stands associated. I understand our Lord's words, then, as virtually meaning that every one who believes and duly professes that belief, shall be saved. That such was the interpretation put upon them by the apostles themselves may be infer- red, I think, with considerable certainty from their subsequent practice, in the history of which we find no trace of their attempting to baptise any but such as they had previously taught. It is worthy of re- mark also, that Paul, speaking of his apostolic com- mission, says, " Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the gospel;"^ language which by no means intimates that the apostle considered the adminis- tration of baptism as no part of his duty, but which very clearly teaches that he regarded it as altogether subordinate to the great work of announcing to men the message of salvation through Christ. Against this view of the apostolic commission, Dr Pusey urges that it is incompatible with the due interpretation of the phrase " baptising them into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." These words, he contends, are full of very deep and mysterious meaning. They imply, he tells us, " no mere profession of obedience, sovereignty, ' Rom. X. 9; Luke xii. 8, &c. 2 i Cor. i. 17. THE APOSTOLIC COMMISSION. 305 jlief, but (if one may so speak) a real appropria- ion of the person baptised to the Holy Trinity, a ransfer of him from the dominion of Satan to Them ; insertion of him within their blessed Name ; and easting the shield (to speak humanly) of that Al- \ighty Name over him,"^ ho,. This language is not rery intelligible; but I suppose the author means |:by it that baptism into the name of the Trinity tjneans an actual and not a mere professed submis- ♦sion to God, and embracing of the gracious benefits which he is pleased to bestow. Now, that wherever lere is such a profession, it ought to be accompanied dth the reality there can be no doubt, but that the )hrase " to baptise into the name of God" implies anything more than to introduce by means of bap- ^sm to the profession of God's service and worship, ill not easily admit of proof Happily for the due inderstanding of such phraseology, it is not only of the Divine Being that it is employed in scripture. ^aul asks the Corinthians, " Were ye baptised into khe name of Paul ?" and again, in the same epistle le says of the Israelites, that " they were all bap- tised into Moses by ilv) the cloud and by the sea."^ In both these passages the phrase in question can imply nothing else than ewternal profession ; in the case of the Corinthians of submission to Paul, in the case of the Israelites of submission to Moses. Upon what grounds, then, can it be argued that it has a 1 Tract, pp. 72, 73. 2 1 Cor. i. 13 ; x. 2. U 306 MEANING OF TITUS III. 5. different meaning in our Lord's commission to his apostles ? The only other passages adduced by Dr Pusey as proving by their direct testimony the efficacy of out- ward baptism, are Tit. iii. 5, and 1 Pet. iii. 21. In the former of these, God is said to save us " according to his mercy by the washing of regeneration and of renewing of the Holy Spirit." Such is the rendering of the passage which Dr Pusey himself gives, and which will, I think, be admitted on all hands to be correct. Now, what is the idea intended to be con- veyed to us by such a peculiar combination of words as this ? All these genitives depend from the word Xovrgov, rendered " washing," and consequently are all explanatory of it. The washing here spoken of is the washing of regeneration, and of renewing of the Holy Spirit. Can this mean anything else than the regenerating and renewing washing of the Holy Spirit? in other words, the moral cleansing which the Spirit effects on the mind ? If so, this passage says nothing about outward baptism (except it ma?/ be in the way of dim and indistinct allusion), while what it does say, so far from favouring the notion of bap- tismal efficacy, leads rather to the conclusion, that as it is not by any works of ours (and ritual baptism is surely a human work) but by the direct agency of the Divine Spirit that we are regenerated and re- newed, it is to the latter and not to the former we should look as alone efficacious in our salvation. I MEANING OF 1 PETER III. 21. 307 As respects the statement by the apostle Peter, that baptism, as an antitype to the flood, now saves us, whatever difficulties may, in other respects, attach to the passage, there can be none in deter- mining of what sort the baptism is of which the apostle speaks; for he himself expressly tells us, that it is not outward, but moral purification to which he refers; " not," he says, " the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God." Here again, then, there is nothing about water-baptism, except it may be in the way of distant allusion; the saving power being ascribed solely to the moral cleansing which is effected by the Divine Spirit. And with this ac- cords fully the context of the passage, which, indeed, only on this view receives, as it appears to me, any consistent interpretation. In the preceding verse, Peter, speaking of the flood in the days of Noah, says that the salvation of the patriarch and his family by water was a type of the salvation of Christians by baptism. In this comparison the water of the flood answers to the baptism of which the apostle speaks, as type to antitype. But what is the relation of type to antitype ? Is it that of one material object or act to another ? or is it not that of a material object or act to something spiritual and invisible ? If we are to be guided by the case of the Mosaic types, the latter is the decision to ■ 308 MEANING OF 1 PETER III. 21. which we must come. The entire system of Mosaic types was composed of outward symbols of unseen and invisible things; and the correspondence between them and the system of Christianity is not that of act to act, or person to person, but of acts, persons, offices, times, and places, to the great spiritual truths which Christianity unfolds.^ When, therefore, Peter says here that baptism is the antitype to the water of the flood, the analogy of typical interpretation leads us to infer, that it is not the material baptism — the baptism with water — that is spoken of, (for this would be to make water the type of water,) but spiritual baptism, real cleansing, or, as the apostle himself expresses it, " the answer of a good conscience toward God." In this point of view, the comparison which he institutes admits of easy expla- nation; for as Noah and his sons were saved from temporal death by those waters which purged away the impurity of the old world, so are Christians saved by those purifying influences which are be- stowed upon them " through the resurrection of I Christ." By this last expression, used by the apostle in the close of the verse, the view above taken of the whole is confirmed, for it directs our thoughts to that great event in connection with which the apos- 1 For an illustration of this, the author begs to refer to his Lec- tures on the Connection and Harmony of the Old and New Testa- ments. Lect. viii. p. 383. I MEANING OF ACTS II. 38. 309 ties represent our Saviour as having received the promise of the Spirit whereby he shed forth blessings on his church. From those passages in which, according to his view, baptismal efficacy is taught directly, Dr Pusey passes to such evidences of the same doctrine as he thinks may be drawn from the practice of the apos- tles as recorded in the Acts. And first he calls our attention to Peter's exhortation to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, — " Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." ^ The consideration of this passage need not detain us very long. The whole weight of it as an argument on Dr Pusey's side, rests on the assumption, that it was by baptism that Peter told his hearers they were to obtain the remission of their sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost. In making this assumption, however, it is forgotten that Peter says " Repent," as well as " be baptised;" and that it is as consequent upon this change of mind, as well as of profession, that the gift of the Spirit was to be enjoyed. Had Peter said simply, " Be baptised and ye shall receive the Holy Spirit," or, " Be baptised that ye may repent," or, " By bap- tism your sins shall be forgiven," the case would have been one clearly in Dr Pusey's favour. But I 1 Acts ii. 38. 310 MEANING OF ACTS 11. 38. as the passage stands, it shows, that repentance was to precede baptism, and that repentance followed by baptism into the name of Christ was the divinely appointed way of obtaining the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. If it be said that this still proves the necessity of baptism to salvation, though it does not prove that baptism can of itself save, I reply, that even this does not necessarily follow from the passage. Is it not quite possible for two things to go to the orderly completion of an act of which only one, nevertheless, shall be essential to that act ? May not one maintain, for instance, that the minister of a Christian church should be both called and ordained to the office which he holds, and yet regard it as by no means fatal to the valid exercise of the functions of that office by any individual that in his case ordination had been omitted ? May not one say, that by receiving and avowing Christianity a man is saved, and yet not be understood by any person as ' meaning that the avowal of the man's faith is as essential to his salva- tion as the faith itself? And may we not, therefore, justly regard the apostle here as teaching, that a change of mind, accompanied by a submission to the rite of baptism, in other words, by a solemn profes- sion, in a peculiar and appointed manner, of that faith by which the change has been effected, is the way for men to obtain the remission of their sins, without necessarily meaning to affirm, that the I BAPTISM OF PAUL. 311 tier is essential in the same sense as the former ? hat seems clearly to show that such is the correct ew of Peter's words is, that in a subsequent ad- ress to the same class of people, he omitted all reference to baptism, and merely exhorted them to " repent and be converted, that their sins might be blotted out."^ If baptism be essential to the remis- sion of sins, it is quite plain, that in this latter in- stance Peter came short of his duty, and failed to set before his hearers " the whole counsel of God." We come now to the case of the apostle Paul, of whose baptism we have an account in Acts xxii. 16, fWhere he himself tells us that Ananias addressed im thus: "And now, why tarriest thou? arise, ,nd be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." This language is adduced, by the advocates of baptismal salvation, as showing that it was by baptism that Paul was exhorted to wash away his sins, and the inference they would draw from this is, that it is by the same means that sins are to be washed away in every case. Now, respecting the justice of this inference there can be no dispute, supposing the premises on which it is based to be established. But, before this is con- ceded, let the following things be duly pondered. In the first place, from all that we know of Paul's history at this time, he must be regarded as really I Acts iii. 19. 312 BAPTISM OF PAUL. a Christian before Ananias was sent to him. He had seen Jesus by the way, he had been humbled and softened by the sight, he had spent the three days following in deep and anxious meditation, he had received a special message of encouragement from God, and God himself assured Ananias of his real conversion, by the declaration " Behold he prayeth," an assurance which Ananias seems fully to have understood in this sense, for immediately on approaching Paul he addresses him by the term by which the Christians were wont to address each other, " Brother."^ Whatever effect, then, baptism was intended to produce on the apostle, it could not be designed to produce in him conversion, or to con- vey to him the Divine favour, as of these we have accredited proof that he was already possessed. 2. The words, " thy sins," are assumed by the catholics to refer to the whole of Paul's previous offences against the divine law. But may it not, with justice, be doubted whether this be a correct interpretation of these words ? Paul had, before his conversion to Christianity, been a pious Jew, and doubtless had both sought and found forgiveness of his sins, through the same channel by which, to the saints before Christ's appearance, that blessing had flowed. In this case his conversion can hardly be regarded in any other light than that in which those of the " devout men," * Compare Acts ix. 10 fF ; and xxii. 16 ff. BAPTISM OF PAUL. 313 on the day of Pentecost, of Lydia, and of other pious Jews must be regarded — not as a change from un- godliness to piety, so much as a change from the prejudices and imperfect illumination of Judaism to the full light and truth of Christianity. But Paul though a devout Jew had committed great offences by his ignorant and mistaken zeal against Christ. He had been " a blasphemer, a persecutor and inju- rious," and had brought by this a grievous stigma upon his character in the estimation of the Chris- tians. To remove this was desirable, as well as to obtain the forgiveness of his sins from God ; and it is to the former, perhaps, rather than to the latter, that the words of Ananias here refer. 3. What seems to confirm this is, that Ananias adds a specifi- cation of the way in which this is to be done ; — " wash away thy sins (by) calling upon the name of the Lord." The participle here has plainly the gerundial force which the Greek participle often has, especially after the imperative of active verbs,^ and specifies the way in which the action of the verb with which it is joined is to take effect. From this it appears that it was not by being baptised that Paul was to wash away his sins, but by calling upon the name of the Lord. What this implied we see at once by referring to Acts ix. 21, and 1 Cor. i. 2, where this phrase is plainly used as equivalent with 1 Matthise Gr. Gr., § 666. Eng. tr. Kiihner, Ausfuhrliche Gram- matik, § 668. 314 BAPTISM OF PAUL. being an avowed disciple of Christ. The purport of the exhortation of Ananias, then, to Paul, I take to be that he should no longer delay, but having already found mercy and obtained the forgiveness of his sins through the merits of Christ, that he should arise, and by the open avowal of his change and of his attach- ment to Christ, wash away those stains which his con- duct as a persecutor had brought upon his reputation. If this view be rejected, and if it be thought that the sins spoken off by Ananias were the whole of Paul's transgressions against the Divine law up to this period, still it w^ill not follow that it was by baptism that these were to be remitted, for, in the first place, as the passage stands, the exhortation to wash away his sins is parallel to the two other exhortations, to arise and to be baptised, so that, for aught that ap- pears to the contrary, one might as well say that Paul was to be baptised by arising, as that he was to wash away his sins by being baptised ; and secondly, as already noticed, Ananias distinctly specifies " the calling upon the name of the Lord" as the medium of washing away his sins, which precludes the sup- position that it was by baptism that this was to be done. To the other cases to which Dr Pusey calls atten- tion, as recorded in the Acts, it is unnecessary that I should proceed, as they prove nothing more, even on his own showing, than that the apostles attached so much importance to the rite of baptism, that they BAPTISM INTO CHRIST'S DEATH. 315 l... ^,... sion. This, of course, proves nothing as to the de- sign which they expected the ordinance to accom- plish. Having now gone over the passages on which the advocates of baptismal salvation lay the chief stress, I am unwilling to occupy space by entering at large upon any of those which are regarded by them rather as implying than as directly teaching this doctrine. I cannot, however, altogether pass over those pas- sages in which, as already remarked, a connection is intimated as existing between baptism of some sort and the personal enjoyment by believers of the bene- fits of Christ's work. Of these the chief are Rom. vi. 1 — 4; Gal. iii. 27; Col. ii. 11. After the most anxious consideration I have been able to give these portions of the word of God, I cannot come to any other conclusion than that they affirm the baptism to which they refer to be the medium whereby men become partakers of the benefits of Christ's work. When the apostle says that it is " through the bap- tism unto death" that we have been buried with Christ, (Rom. vi. 4,) what can he mean but that this baptism unto death is the medium through which Christians are buried with Christ ? When, again, he says, " as many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ," (Gal. iii. 27,) it seems quite plain that he affirms baptism into Christ to be the way in which these Galatians had put on Christ. 316 BAPTISM INTO CHRIST'S DEATH. And when he tells the Colossians that it is by bap- tism they have been buried with Christ, and by bap- tism that they have been raised through belief of the energy of God who raised Christ from the dead, I must despair of understanding any part of Scripture, if by these words we are not taught that the bap- tism of which the apostle speaks is the medium through which we become partakers of the burial and resurrection of Christ.^ This much, therefore, whatever it may cost, I feel myself bound to concede to the advocates of bap- tismal salvation. Why, then, do I not adopt that doctrine ? Simply because I believe that it is not of ritual but of real baptism that Paul is in all these cases speaking. In the context of Rom. vi. 4, the apostle is speak- - I am aware that in adopting this view I depart from the ordi- nary interpretation of these passages. Almost all the writers on baptism, as well as the commentators, regard the baptism of which the apostle speaks as water-baptism. What seems to me fatal to this view is, that it makes the apostle, especially in the passage in Romans, rest the proof of a Christian doctrine on the mere profes- sion of that doctrine by Christians. His position is, that the believer is dead to sin: his proof is, that the believer has been baptised into Christ*s death. Now, if baptism into Christ's death mean a mere ritual profession of faith in Christ's death, as it is commonly inter- preted, we have the apostle, as I say, resting the proof of a Chris- tian doctrine on the mere act of a Christian man in professing that doctrine. This surely is to make Paul guilty of very unsound logic; whereas, if we understand by baptism here the baptism of the Spirit, i. e.y real regeneration, his argument becomes sound and con- vincing. Christians are then shown to be dead to sin because they have been renewed by the power of divine grace. See American Biblical Repository for July 1841, p. 28, fF. BAPTISM INTO CHRIST'S DEATH. 317 ing of the renovated condition of the Christian as delivered from the power of sin. This he describes by instituting a parallel between the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord viewed as actual events, and the death, burial, and resurrection of the believer figuratively, as realised in his emancipation from the power of sin ; a mode of representing this fact by no means uncommon with Paul, (comp. Eph. i. 19 — 23; Phil. iii. 10 — 21, &;c.) Now, respecting the believer's death and burial to sin, these are attained, the apostle tells us, " through the baptism into the death," be- cause he contends that all " who have been baptised into Christ have been baptised into his death;" i.e., as he explains it in ver. 5, into " the similitude (ofjuotctf- (jbocrt, something analogous to or comparable with, see chap. v. 14,) his death." What, then, is this baptism through which the believer dies a death analogous to that of his Lord ? Is it an external rite, or is it a spiritual change? Dr Pusey concludes for the former, but without oifering any proof in support of his conclusion. Now, it must, I think, be admitted that it is upon his side that the onus pro- bandi in such a case as this lies ; for the presumption is surely against the probability of a spiritual change so great as that of death to sin being brought about by a mere external act, the more especially as it is admitted by Dr Pusey himself that the power of sin remains so strongly even after baptism, that a man though baptised may nevertheless be lost. Could 318 THE BAPTISM WHICH PUTS ON CHRIST. he, indeed, succeed in proving by other passages that water-baptism is God's appointed medium of conveying regeneration, his explanation of this pas- sage would be unimpeachable; but in the absence of such proof he cannot fairly adduce it as an independ- ent evidence in support of his position. The same train of remark substantially is applicable to the other two passages above mentioned. In Gal. iii. 27, the apostle says, that " As many as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ." To " put on Christ" is obviously to become in disposition, cha- racter, and conduct like Christ, (comp. Rom. xiii. 14; Eph. iv. 24 ;) and the question just returns. Is it by an outward rite, or by an inward influence, that a sinful man is brought into a state of moral resem- blance to the sinless Saviour ? If it be replied, that it is by the outward act securing the inward power, I ask where is the proof that any such connexion subsists between the two ? If, on the other hand, it be said that it is by the inward influence symbolised by the outward act, I answer, this may be very true, but how is it got out of this passage ? Paul says plainly that it is " by being baptised into Christ" that men " put on Christ." The baptism here referred to may be the Spirit's baptism, or it may be mere water-baptism ; our choice lies between these two ; but I cannot see on what principle we can be en- titled to combine both until we have proved that both always go together. In regard to the passage in CATHOLIC VIEW OF BAPTISM IMPROBABLE. 319 Col. ii. 12, the opinion, that it is spiritual baptism of which Paul speaks, is greatly strengthened by his expressly describing it as " a circumcision not made with hands in putting off the sins of the flesh," words which can only apply to what he elsewhere calls " the circumcision of the heart in spirit and not in letter"^ — the real, genuine renewal of the heart in the sight of God, and not the mere formal profession of renovation. I trust I have now satisfied my readers that there is no satisfactory ground for regarding the water of baptism as possessed of a saving efficacy; but that, wherever baptism is spoken of in connection with salvation, it is either to the baptism of the Spirit, or to that avowal of attachment to Christ, which is re- quired of all his followers, and which baptism, as being the commencement of it, is employed to de- signate, that the reference is made. It would, in- deed, have been strange had the apostles taught the doctrine which the catholic church holds on this head. They would thus have made Christianity a more carnal system than Judaism, for they would, while teaching that " circumcision is not of the flesh but of the heart," and that " he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, but he who is one inwardly," have taught that a rite, as purely external as circumcision, is sufficient to make a man a Christian, and that he 1 Rom. ii. 20. 320 STATEMENTS OF PAUL REGARDING BAPTISM. who is thus a Christian outwardly, is ipso facto a Christian inwardly and in heart. By such teaching also, they would have given occasion for questioning their own Christianity; for who can show that any of the apostles, except Paul, ever received Christian baptism with water? The probability is, that they were not baptised save by Christ's breathing on them the Holy Ghost, after which, it is to be remem- bered, he instituted Christian baptism as a rite to be administered by them; so that if it be water bap- tism which saves men, by what, I ask, were the apostles saved ? They have also recorded the cases of Paul, of Lydia, of the jailor at Philippi, and of others, all of whom appear to have been truly con- verted persons before they were baptised ; as well as the case of Simon Magus, who, though baptised, re- mained " in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity." In addition to all this, how striking is the language of Paul in regard to his own practice in the baptism of converts! " I thank God," says he, in writing to the Corinthians, " that I baptised none of you but Crispus and Gains ; lest any should say that I had baptised in my own name. And I baptised also the household of Stephanas ; besides I know not whether I baptised any other. For Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the gospel."' Is this, I ask, the language of one who believed that 1 1 Cor. i. 14—17. I STATEMENTS OF PAUL REGARDING BAPTISM. 321 it was by baptism that men were to be united to * Christ, and to receive through him the remission of sins? Can we suppose for a moment, that had the apostle really believed that doctrine, he would have refrained from administering baptism — that is, would have refused to convey to men salvation, lest some evil-minded persons should make a sinister use of his doing so ? that he would have thanked God that he had only baptised two persons during his long residence at Corinth ? that he would have affirmed that, commissioned as he was to teach men all that Christ had enjoined, he had been sent not to baptise, but to preach the gospel ? and that he would have thought so little about the matter as really to be at a loss to remember how many he had baptised in the church at Corinth ? What a contrast is there in this respect between Paul and the clergy of the catholic church! While they make baptism every thing, and the preaching of the gospel next to no- thing, he elevates the preaching of the gospel to the first place, and allows to baptism only a very subor- dinate rank among the means of grace. While they think themselves successful as ministers of Christ in proportion to the number of persons they baptise, he thanks God that, in a large city, and out of a large church, he had only baptised one or two. And whilst they claim " religious veneration" from their flock on the ground of the mysterious virtue they are supposed to convey in baptism, he abstain- 322 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF ed from administering the rite altogether, except in a few instances, lest he should seem to be seeking * honour for himself Would that all who call them- selves Paul's successors had the same high views of the spiritual nature of Christianity, and the power of the preaching of the gospel which dwelt in him ! Failing to substantiate their doctrine of salvation by baptism, the catholics leave the great question of a sinner's salvation unanswered. Man, as a trans- gressor of the Divine law, stands guilty before his Almighty Judge ; from that guilt the waters of bap- tism cannot purge him: how, then, is he to escape the wrath to come ? To this all-important inquiry the Bible enables us to give a clear and definite re- ply, the substance of which it may be useful now to state briefly in a few sentences. • 1. First, then, as already noticed, the sole merito- rious ground of a sinner's salvation is found in the propitiatory sacrifice of the Son of God. By that God manifests himself to us as " a just God and a Saviour," upholding, on the one hand, the majesty of his government and the authority of his law ; and on the other, extending favour and blessing even to the chief of sinners. 2. The atonement of Christ being of unlimited suf- ficiency, is set forth in Scripture as a ground on which all may stand and receive blessing at the hand of God. Hence the offer is made to all men of JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 323 salvation through the blood of the cross. " The Spirit and the bride say come, and whosoever will let him come and take of the waters of life freely."^ 3. This gracious truth is embodied in a testimony contained in Scripture, and called there '' God's tes- timony concerning his Son."^ Hence before any man can or will accept the offer of salvation through Christ, he must believe the testimony in which it is embodied. He must believe that such an offer is made, — is made to him, — is made to him by God. If he believe not these, the truths of the gospel can- not be truths to him, and, therefore, it is no wonder that such an one should treat them as idle tales. But let these truths be believed by any man, and the natural consequence will be, his acceptance of the offered salvation. Thus it is, that through means of faith, or, as it is elsewhere said, through means of the true word of the gospel,^ a man comes to be pardoned, justified, and accepted in the sight of God. Strictly speaking, his faith does not save him; it is Christ's atonement that saves him. Nor is it his faith even that gives him an interest in that atonement; that is obtained by the act of accepting God's offer, to which faith naturally leads. But as this will not take place without the belief of God's testimony, the scriptures lay great stress on faith as that without which there can be no salvation.* I 1 Rev. xxii. 17. ^ i John v. 9. 3 Col. i. 5. * Appendix, Note S. 324 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 4. When we say that a man is justified by faith, we mean that he is then and thenceforward treated by God on terms not of bare justice, but of free favour. In other words, as respects his past sins they are all blotted out, and as respects the sins he may still commit, God stands ready to forgive them freely on his penitence and reformation. I cannot say that I am prepared to adopt the common phra- seology employed respecting justification, viz., that " it is an act of God's grace whereby he pardons our sins," &c. By act, in such language, must be meant judicial sentence, for that is the proper act in forgiv- ing a transgression. Now, when, where, and to whom is this sentence pronounced by God in respect to the sinner ? Where is it recorded ? In whose hearing is it uttered ? Or what scripture tells us that such a thing takes place? Such phraseology has arisen, I think, from overlooking the fact that in scripture God is often said to do a thing, when he acts as if he had done it. Thus he is said to be angry, to repent, &c., when all that is meant is, that he acts as if he were angry, and as if he had repented. So in the case of the sinner's justification. When a man believes the gospel there is no formal sentence of acquittal pronounced on him by God ; at least scripture tells us nothing of any such sentence, but points us rather forward to the closing scene of all — to the final judgment, as the period when the sentence shall be pronounced in open court, and when the followers of JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 325 ^^Christ shall " find mercy of the Lord." But as God pleased, so to speak, to anticipate that sentence, id even in this world to treat the believer as if it '^ere already past, so scripture speaks of such an one even now justified, and having therefore peace dth God. I must protest also against the doctrine sometimes taught by the advocates of salvation by grace, that on the belief of the truth a man receives the pardon of all his sins at once, — past, present, and to come. For this I can find no warrant in the Bible. Sins committed after justification are, upon the principles it inculcates, just as much sins as if they had been committed before justification, and must be washed away by repeated applications to the grace of God through Christ. Sin unrepented of is sin unforgiven ; sin indulged and fostered after justification acquires an additional enormity in the sight of God ; and for any one to take comfort whilst practising sin, from the idea that he is at peace with God, is to la- bour under a delusion alike dishonouring to God, and pernicious to himself 5. When a sinner has, by being justified through the belief of the truth, been received into the family of God, he is, at the same time, made fit to be a member of that family, by being renewed in the spirit of his mind. His principles, his tastes, his emotions, are all purified and elevated. His mind is brought into a state of accordance with the mind of 326 REAL RELATION OF BAPTISM God. The gift of God's Holy Spirit is conferred upon him, to dwell within him, to carry on in him the work of sanct'ification, and to ripen him for the full enjoyment of the heavenly world. In this way, he who, by the reception of the gospel, passes from death unto life, is enabled to go forward in the divine life, and is in God's appointed time and way made meet to be a partaker of the inheritance of the saints in light. 6. Having, in this chapter, referred so much to the subject of baptism, I cannot conclude without offering a few remarks on the relation in which that ordinance stands to the doctrine of salvation as just stated. That a connection of some sort exists be- tween these two may be regarded as indisputable; the only question respects the nature of that connection. The catholics, as we have already seen, represent the connection as that of means and end, regarding rege- neration as produced by baptism. Repudiating this notion, there are two others between which to choose. The one is that baptism is the sig7i or token of rege- neration ; the other is that baptism is the symbol of regeneration and the memorial of the truths thereto pertaining. According to the former of these opin- ions, evidence must be first sought of an individual's conversion, and then baptism is to be administered to him in token of this fact. According to the latter, the personal conversion of the party receiving the rite may or may not be signified by it, according to TO REGENERATION. 327 circumstances, whilst in either case the rite itself, as such, has its proper design, which is simply to in- dicate the general truth that man stands in need of purifying, and that the religion of Jesus is one which can and does purify. If the party baptised be in circumstances to couple with the reception of the rite a profession of his conversion to God, his bap- tism may be regarded as a token of his conversion; but this, according to the latter view, is a mere acci- dent, and not an essential of the ordinance. This seems the preferable view, as the other makes bap- tism what no rite ever was before. The true idea of a rite is that it is a visible symbol of invisible truth, and it can become a sign or token of a fact, only from the accident of its being administered in a par- ticular way. Thus, the Lord's supper is a symbol of spiritual participation of the benefits of Christ's death, and it becomes a token of any individual's actually so participating, only from the accident of such an one's professing to have such participation in the act of observing it. The ordinance itself betokens nothing except the great truth that there is remission of sins through Christ's blood. So is it, I apprehend, with baptism. In itself baptism is a mere symbol of re- generation — a mere declaration that man needs cleansing, and that in the religion of Christ the means of such cleansing are provided. It can be- come a token that any individual is so cleansed only by being accompanied by his profession that he is so. 328 REAL RELATION OF BAPTISM Whether such a profession is in this case, as in that of the Lord's supper, indispensable to the right ad- ministration of the ordinance is another question on which I do not here enter further than to assume, for reasons which might be stated, that it is not. What I am concerned about at present is the deter- mination of the essential meaning of baptism in its relation to the doctrine of salvation. Baptism, then, may be said to stand associated with regeneration in this way : When it is adminis- tered, whether on a child or an adult, it announces the great truth of the regeneration of man through the work of Christ. It is a sermon, so to speak, by symbol, just as a discourse from the pulpit is a ser- mon by words. And exactly as a discourse may or may not benefit those who hear it, baptism may or may not benefit those who witness it. In neither case can a child receive any benefit directly. In the case of baptism the child is itself part of the sermon intended for the benefit of others ; and such benefit as can accrue to him comes derivatively through the effect produced by the ordinance on his parents. If any shall think that by this doctrine I lower the importance of this ordinance, I offer my reply in the words of the late excellent Bishop Shuttle worth : " It can be no derogation from the value of the sacramental institutions of our Saviour, to say of them, that whilst they rank foremost among the means of grace vouchsafed to us by our Maker, their TO REGENERATION. 329 efficacy still consists in their reference to a higher principle which they typically represent^ and from which they derive their entire value. We cannot be too grateful that we are allowed to be partakers of them ; but it is because they point directly to the expiation made for sin by the sacrifice of our Re- deemer, and lead on and fix our thoughts in that direction, that they are endued with that spiritual potency which every Christian must believe them to possess. As memorials and types of the atonement, they stand foremost in the catalogue of Christian ordinances ; but their excellence is still merely deri- vative, and depends entirely upon that one great truth which constitutes the fundamental doctrine of our religion, and without which they would be without meaning, and consequently unproductive of benefit."^ ' Three Sermons on Justification by Faith, &c., p. 41. The same view of the nature and use of the sacraments is given in the Apology for the Augustan Confession, vii. p. 200 : " Corda per verbum et ritum movet Deus, ut credant et concipiant fidem. Sicut enim verbum incurrit in aures, ut feriat corda ; ita ritus ipsa incurrit in oculos, ut moveat corda. Idem efFectus est verbi et ritus, sicut praeclare dic- tum est ab Augustino, sacramentum esse verbum visibile, quia ritus oculis accipitur et est quasi pictura verbi, idem significans, quod verbum." I CHAPTER VI. THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 'A^;^;;*) fjtXv -Tiffris, riXoi Ti otyKTrr to. Tt ^vo iv hoTriTi yivof^iva B-iov itrriv, to, \i etXXee. ^dvrot, l/j xaXoxayocS'iccv a.x.oXov6a, Iffriv. '* The beginning is faith, the end love; and these two being in unity are of God, and all other things conducing'to 'perfect virtue are consequent." — Ignatius in Ep. ad Ephes. § 14. AvTvi xv^iui Z,urt OTTuvixa T^o? t»)v afjt,cc^Ttix,v itrf/,\v vix^oi. " This is life, indeed, whenever we are dead__to sin." — Theophy- LACT. Comment, in Ep. ad Mom., cap. 8. Having already inquired how a man may enter upon the Christian course, we have now to consider what are the characteristics of the course itself, and what duties devolve upon those who would prose- cute it aright. The topics belonging to this in- quiry may be conveniently arranged under three heads; of which the first respects the grand design of the Christian life; the second the general charac- ter of that life; and the third, the means, by the use of which its character may be best preserved, and its design best secured. On all these points we shall have occasion to observe a marked and melan- choly discrepancy between the doctrines of the Ox- ford Tractators, and those authorised by the state- ments of the New Testament. DESIGN OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 331 SECTION I. DESIGN OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. The opinion of the catholics as contrasted with that of their evangelical opponents concerning the purpose or design of the Christian life, may be brief- ly stated thus: — Both set out with the assumption, that when a man becomes a Christian, all his previ- ous sins are forgiven and taken away, and both ad- mit that, notwithstanding this, through temptation, infirmity, and remaining corruption, the Christian is continually falling into sin; but whilst the latter hold that forgiveness is to be obtained for each sin, even now, through the blood of Christ, and exhort the Christian to seek such forgiveness by repentance and prayer, so that at last he may be found to have walked worthy of his profession; the former forbid him to look for forgiveness before the day of judg- ment, and admonish him, in the mean time, by deeds of penitence, humiliation, mortification, and charity, to so strengthen the grace of God that is within him, that at last he may obtain acquittal and ac- ceptance with God. Both thus speak oi justification as the end at which the Christian is to aim; but with the one party the justification is that which consists m forgiveness, with the other it is that which 332 ANGLO-CATHOLIC VIEW INCOMPATIBLE WITH consists in approval. In other words, the one aims at justifying himself as a sinner, the other aims at justifying himself as a saint; the one seeks to live so that the judge may say to him at last, " Thy sins are forgiven thee;" the other so as to receive the verdict, " Well done good and faithful servant .... enter thou into the joy of thy Lord." In bringing these conflicting views to the stand- ard of scripture, for the purpose of attempting to arbitrate between them, I shall, passing over a num- ber of minor considerations, endeavour to show, 1. That the catholic view is incompatible with the scripture doctrine of salvation through Christ alone; and, 2. That it is not supported by the doctrine of scripture concerning justification by works. 1 . The scripture doctrine concerning the salvation of man through Christ is briefly this, that because of what Christ has done, all who come unto God through him receive remission of their sins, and are treated by God as if they had not sinned. On the ground of his Son's propitiatory work, God gives blessing to the unworthy, the rebellious, and the vile, when they turn from sin, and sincerely suppli- cate his grace. It is on that ground alone, how- ever, that this is done. " Other foundation," says the apostle, " can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus." " By grace are ye saved through faith ; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." " This is the record that God hath SALVATION THROUGH CHRIST'S MERITS ALONE. 333 fiven to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." our sinful state is set forth under the emblem of a ite of debt, it is Christ who has paid our debt, and thereby secured our freedom. If, because of depra- r'ltj, we are represented as sold under sin, and en- slaved to Satan, it is Christ who has paid the price )f our redemption, and who sets us at liberty. If, like sheep, we have gone astray, it is he on whom our iniquity has been laid, and wh#, as the Shepherd and Bishop of souls, recovers us from our wander- ings. If, in our folly and guilt, we have wandered from God, it is Christ who brings us back by his blood. If through sin we are dead, it is Christ who gives us life. Christ, in short, in the matter of our salvation, is all in all, the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last.^ Now, it can hardly bear a question, that whatever leads a man to think that his acceptance with God depends, in any degree, upon something which is over and above the work of Christ as already finish- ed, comes into direct collision with the doctrine thus taught in scripture. If any thing more be required as a ground of our final forgiveness than the death of Christ, then there 7nust be another foundation on which we have to build besides that which is already laid. If any part of our debt remain uncancelled, beyond all question Christ has not already paid all 1 1 Cor. iii. 11; Eph. ii. 8; 1 John v. 11; 1 Tim. ii. 6; 1 Pet. i. 19; Is. liii. 6; Col. iii. 4, &c. 334 ANGLO-CATHOLIC VIEW IMCOMPATIBLE WITH that is required for our acquittal. These two state- ments are not only irreconcilable, they are abso- lutely destructive the one of the other. The force of this as an argument against the popish doctrine of absolution, is fully felt, and strongly urged by Dr Pusey and his friends. According to that doc- trine, it is by the sacrament of penance, as it is called, that the sins of Christians are to be remitted, and in virtue of inherenlf holiness, that they are accepted of God at last. Of the former of these notions, Dr Pusey justly remarks, that, in connection with the other doctrines of Romanism, with which it stands associated, especially the distinction between venal and mortal sins, it " favours the corruptions of car- nal men, stifles the misgivings which might awaken them from their security, lowers the tone and stand- ard whereat they are to aim, and throws them on the church, to whom the dispensation of those trea- sures are committed, rather than on Him in whose name she dispenses them.'" The latter of these notions is denounced by Mr Newman, as tending " to fix the mind on self, not on Christ,"^ and to represent " the influences of grace as a something to bargain about, and buy and traffic with."^ All this is perfectly just; and as regards the censure pronounced on the former of these notions, the judge may be regarded as having come to give 1 Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, pp. 86, 87: 2 Lectures on Justification, Lect. viii. p. 220. ^ Ibid., p. 216. I SALVATION THROUGU CHRIST'S MERITS ALONE. 835 his verdict with clean hands, for there is nothing in the Anglo-catholic system that corresponds to the Romish doctrine of present absolution through pen- ance. The same, however, cannot be said of the sentence pronounced on the latter of these doctrines, which seems to me substantially involved in Mr Newman's own views. The Anglo-catholics appear to hope to protect their doctrine concerning the final justification of the Christian from the charge of being incompatible with the scripture doctrine of salvation through Christ alone, by studiously maintaining, that the ground of that justification is not any inherent good- ness in us, but solely the indwelling presence of Christ in the soul. They regard our obedience as " the condition, not of our acceptance or pardon, but of the continuance of that sacred Presence which is our true righteousness, as an immediate origin."^ As to this theory of the source of our justification in the sight of God, I have already said that it is either meaningless and so far harmless, or unscriptural and inconsistent with its author's own admissions. With this, however, at present we have nothing to do; the point to be considered here is, whether the continuance of Christ's Spirit in the Christian, in consequence of his obedience, can be regarded as the ground of his final justification, without impeach- ing the doctrine of acceptance through Christ alone. 1 Newman on Justification, Lect. viii. p. 214. 336 ANGLO-CATHOLIC VIEW INCOMPATIBLE WITH And here I observe in the Jirst place, that the presence of Christ by his Spirit in the soul of the Christian is no part of our Saviour's propitiatory work. It is a blessing resulting to the believer from that work, — the greatest and best of the blessings so resulting, — ^that which is the earnest of his future glory and joy even whilst on earth; but it is not itself any part of that work. If, then, we are to be accepted of God at last on the ground of Christ's Spirit being in us, we are to be accepted, not on the ground of the work of Christ as a ^ propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the world, but on the ground of something which flows out of that work, viz., the gift of the Spirit to dwell within us. What is this, but almost in so many words to deny the scrip- ture doctrine of acceptance through Christ alone ? In the second place, I confess I cannot discover any great practical difference between this doctrine and that of the Romanists. The latter say that we are to be justified at last on the ground of goodness in- herent in ourselves, produced in us by God's grace, and fostered by our acts of obedience. The An- glicans, protesting against this as a blinding error, say that we are to be accepted on the ground of the presence within us of the Divine Spirit, which makes us holy, and whose continuance within us is secured by our obedience. The only difference between these two systems is, the one makes the goodness effected by the Spirit in us, and the other makes SALVATION THROUGH CHRIST'S MERITS ALON "0 the Spirit which effects the goodness, the ground o our acceptance with God. But this difference, prac- tically, amounts to nothing ; for Mr Newman tells us that the continuance of the divine gift in the soul depends upon our acting as God enjoins, so that it is OKT own conduct, after all, which must form the ground of our confidence before God at last. Ac- cording to this view, if we live holily and virtuously as we ought, a growing measure of the justifying presence will be conveyed to us, whilst, on the other hand, if we act so as to grieve and quench the Spirit, his presence will be withdrawn, and we shall be left to meet the Judge of all without any justifying grace. Of such a doctrine, I confess, I can make nothing practically, but just what Mr Newman, in the words already quoted, makes of the Romish doctrine, that it represents " the influences of grace as a something to bargain about, and buy, and traffic with." Salva- tion is, on this theory, as plainly a case of mere bar- ter between man and God as can well be conceived. Man gives obedience for his part, and God gives the Spirit for his ; and the final result is determined by striking a balance, as it were, between the degree in which the Spirit, thus earned, has been given on the one hand, and the extent of man's ill-desert as a sin- ner on the other. Of such a doctrine it were below the truth to say that it is no better than that of the Papists ; it is worse — greatly worse, for whilst the Papist only aims at meriting forgiveness through 2^f^;2^^ 338 SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF assisting grace, the teacher of this doctrine would have men to believe that the gift of God — the assisting grace itself — may be purchased by human obedience. 2. Whilst the Anglo-catholic opinion, that the design of the Christian life is to work out our acceptance in the sight of God, thus comes into collision with the scripture doctrine of justification by grace, it receives no support, as its advocates contend it does, from the scripture doctrine of justification by works. This doctrine is most fully unfolded to us by the apostle James, in the second chapter of his Epistle, from the 14th to the 26th verse. It is not, however, peculiar to him. Our Lord himself repeatedly taught the same doctrine whilst he was on earth. " A good man," said he on one occasion, "out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things ; and an evil man, out of the evil treasure, bringeth i forth evil things. But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give ac- count thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."^ On another occasion he de- clared that none should enter into the kingdom of Heaven but he "who should do the will of his Father."^ And in all his references to the future judgment, he distinctly brings forward the truth that it is by our works that we are to be judged^ — a truth 1 Matt. xii. 35-37. ^ ibid. vii. 21. 3 Ibid, xxv., &c. JUSTIFICATION BY WORKS. 339 which both the Old Testament and the New, else- where, abundantly conspire to teach. There can be no doubt, then, that in some sense men are to be tried by their works, and that there is a justification to be attained in this way. The only question that can be agitated respects the design of this trial, and the nature of the justification thence resulting. On these two points the catholics pronounce un- hesitatingly that the design of the trial is to deter- mine whether the party have that in him which shall entitle him to acceptance with God, and that the justification to be obtained by the true Christian, con- sists in his being actually so accepted. In opposition to this, evangelical doctrine teaches that the design of our being tried by our works at last, is the mani- festation of the fitness of the believer, on the one hand, and the unfitness of the sinner, on the other, for the heavenly inheritance : and that the justifica- tion of the believer by his works, consists in the de- claration which shall thus be given of his sincerity, steadfastness, and fidelity as a follower of Christ. In order to determine which of these views is the correct one, we have only to look carefully at the passages already referred to. Let us take, in the first instance, our Lord's teaching, concerning the rule of the final judgment. This rule, he says, is the con- duct of the man, both by word and deed, whilst on earth. But what^ I ask, does he show us is to be 340 DOCTRINE OF OUR LORD AS TO tested by this rule ? Is it the man's degree of desert in the sight of God ? Is it the extent to which he has retained the gift of the Spirit? Of these things there is no mention in any of the passages in which he speaks of this subject. In every case it is the sincerity of the man's profession as a child of God, or the reality of his ungodliness as a child of Satan, which our Saviour announces as the thing to be manifested by this appeal to the individual's works whilst on earth. In the passage where he says " by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned," the previous context shows that the point to which the sentence of justi- fication or condemnation refers, is not, whether the man deserve God's grace or not, but simply whether professing to be a good man, he did so order his speech as to bring out of the treasures of his heart good things, and thereby 'prove^ as every good man will do, that his profession was sincere. Again, when he says, " Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven," he is not surely to be understood as stating the grounds on which his people shall enter heaven, but, as the whole context shows, is pointing to good works as the characteristic fruits of connection with the kingdom of heaven-^the appropriate indications of meetness for its full enjoyment. And, finally, when our Lord refers to the procedure which He, JUSTIFICATION BY WORKS. 341 as Judge of all, will follow at the day of judgment, especially in that detailed account of the whole which we have in Matt. xxv. 31-46, it seems perfectly obvi- ous that the appeal which he describes himself as making to the good deeds of the righteous, on the one hand, and to the evil deeds of the wicked, on the other, is not for the purpose of establishing a ground on which the former may be acquitted, whilst the latter are condemned, but solely for the sake of clearly manifesting that the former were really and sincerely devoted to Christ, and therefore fit for that place which had been prepared for his people, whilst the latter were in heart opposed to him, and there- fore fit only for that place where his great adversary reigns. Unless this view be adopted, it will not be easy to account for our Saviour's referring only to deeds of charity, as if these, and not much rather deeds of penitence and self-mortification, were the proper means of attaining that justification which, as catholics teach, we have to work for whilst on earth. It will be difficult, also, on any other view to say why our Lord should attribute to the righteous feelings of astonishment — feelings which the words put into their mouths plainly bespeak — at the commendations bestowed upon them ; for, if the good works done by them, are the ground of their acceptance by Christ at last, why should the putting of these to their account be viewed by them as in any way surprising, since this is only using these works for the very purpose 342 DOCTRINE OF JAMES ON THIS HEAD which those who performed them intended them to serve ? There does not then seem to be any foundation for the catholic doctrine of justification by works in the teaching of our Lord. Let us now turn to that of his apostle James, who, as already remarked, has entered with much explicitness upon this subject. It would be preposterous in such an inquiry as the present, to attempt anything like a review of the many opinions which have been advanced for the purpose of explaining the passage in the Epistle of James, and reconciling its statements with those of Paul concerning justification by faith alone.^ With- out making any such attempt, I shall content myself with briefly stating my reasons for regarding the apostle as speaking of the justification not of sinners as such, but of professing saints as such, before God. 1. It is to be observed, that the case which James has in hand, and in reference to which all his state- ments are uttered, is that of a man " who says he has faith, and has not works," verse 14. The case, then, is not that of a sinner as such seeking pardon ^ The reader may study with much advantage the following trea- tises on this subject: — F. Turretini Exercitatio Theol. de Concordia Pauli et Jacohi in Articulo Justificationis. 4to. Lugd. Bat. 1696. G. Chr. Knappii de dispari formula docendi qua Christus, Paulus, atque Jacobus de fide et factis disserentes usi sunt, &c., in Script, var. argumenti, p. 411. Wardlaw's Sermons, serm. v. Edin. 1829. Neander's Paulus und Jacobus, die einheit des Evangelischen geistes \\\ verschiedenen formen. Kleine Gelegenheitschriften, s. 103. Ber- lin, 1824. Frommann uber das verhaltniss zwischen Jacobus und Paulus. Theologische Studien und Kritiken. Jahrg. 1833, s. 84. I IN HARMONY WITH THAT OF PAUL. 343 for his sins, but that of a man seeking to maintain the character of a saved person by a mere profession of faith without works. Now, this case is one to- tally different from that which the apostle Paul handles in the Epistles to the Romans and the Gala- tians, where he insists so much on justification by faith alone. The parties against whbm he there writes, were persons who sought pardon by a meri- torious obedience. The parties against whom James writes were persons who sought to be accounted Christians on a profession alone, unsupported by obedience. Both these parties were in error, but the ground they occupied was so opposite, that in assailing them from the middle point of truth, the one apostle, as it were, had to turn his back upon the other. The proper answer to the one party was, that the justification they sought, viz. that of pardon, was procurable not by works but by faith alone. The proper answer to the other was, that the justification they sought, viz. that of approval, was not to be attained by saying they had faith, but by showing they had faith by their works. In this way, all collision between the doctrines of the two apostles is avoided. The statements of both arc true in relation to the parties respecting whose views they wrote ; and they are in perfect harmony with each other, so long as we do not take the state- ment of the one and apply it to the case of the other. The reasoning of Paul would be quite inap- 344 MEANING OF THE WORD JUSTIFY. propriate in the case of those with whom James argues, for they were persons who started from the very point Paul is labouring to prove ; they said they had faith, i.e, they professed to have obtained justi- fication by faith. No less inappropriate would be the reasoning of James, in the case of those whom Paul opposed; for they, instead of depreciating works, were inclined to attach to them an undue and a dangerous importance. Viewing the words of James, then, in their relation to the case on which they were designed by him as the organ of the divine Spirit to bear, we must regard him as teaching that good works are necessary not for procuring forgive- ness of sins at last, but for justifying before God and before men the profession of those who say that they have faith. 2. Lest any should imagine, that to understand the word justi/i/ in the sense thus attached to it, is to force a meaning on this word which it does not naturally bear, I beg to remark, that the meaning thus given to the term is quite legitimate. The word htPcccioM rendered in our version hjjusti/i/, is a foren- sic term, and expresses the act of pronouncing a fa- vourable sentence on the party at the bar. Now, a man may appear in a court of justice in two very different characters : He may stand there as a crimi- nal to answer some charge against him ; or he may appear there as the claimant of some ho7iour or privi- h'cje which he considers as belonging to him. In ei- THESIS WHICH JAMES MAINTAINS. 345 ther case, the judge, in pronouncing sentence in his fa^Your, justifies him, in the one^case^^om the charges laid against him, in the other case, in the claim which he prefers. The use of the word justi/^, there- fore, to express the sentence of approval pronounced upon the consistent follower of Christ at last, is per- fectly legitimate. His case, in receiving that sen- tence, is analogous to that of the person who ap- pears before a judge as the claimant of some right, and receives an award in his favour ; not, indeed, that the Christian can claim heaven as his right, but that, having in Christ obtained a possession there, he can justify his pretensions through grace, to enter upon the enjoyment of that possession, by show- ing that he has been " made meet to be a partaker of the inheritance of the saints in light." 3. The correctness of the view thus taken of the apostle James's doctrine in this passage, will be best evinced by observing the course of illustration which he himself pursues in support of his position. That position is contained in the 14th verse, the pur- port of which is, that for a man to say that he has faith whilst he has not works, is fruitless ; the faith which he thus sa?/s he has, cannot save him. * This thesis the apostle proceeds to illustrate by various examples, some by analogy, and others directly tend- 1 This is evidently the force of h rlims, « the faith," in the second clause of this verse, as compared with Tla-nvj without the article, in the preceding clause. 346 CASES ADDUCED BY THE APOSTLE ing to show, that while real faith justifies itself by corresponding deeds, the faith which has no other sign of existence than the mere profession of the party who says he has it, is a dead faith ; in plain language, no faith at all. The case first adduced by James, is that of a man using to a suffering brother the language of charity, whilst he puts forth no effort for the relief of that brother's wants. In regard to such a piece of con- duct, the apostle repeats the question, " What doth it profit ?" and then adds, " Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead, being alone." Now, where is the point of comparison between the two cases which are thus, by the words " even so," brought into this relation with each other ? Is it not obviously in this, that as a profession of charity, which is followed by no corresponding acts of beneficence, is a mere empty pretence, so a profession oi faith, which is followed by no corresponding works, is nothing bet- ter ? And is not the inference which James means us to draw just this, that in point of fact, as in the former case there is no charity, so in the latter there is no faith ? In the 18th verse, the apostle goes on to chal- lenge those whom he is opposing, to adduce any evi- dence of the existence of that faith of which they boasted. " Thou hast faith, and I have works," says he ; " show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works." Here the IN ILLUSTRATION OF HIS THESIS. 347 apostle speaks as one who had both faith and works, and valued the latter as the fruits and evidences of the former ; and being thus prepared to show the reality of his faith, he challenges his opponents to do the same. The force of such a challenge is plainly tantamount to a declaration that they had no faith to show. If they had faith, they had a reality, and that reality they might exhibit ; not, indeed, by works, such as the apostle displayed, but in some other way appropriate to a faith which had not works. In that case, the triumphant challenge of the apostle would be without meaning or use. The man who had the faith without the works, instead of being silenced by such a demand, would only have to come forward and show the faith he had, to turn the apostle's words into a mere empty bravado. They can be viewed as " the words of truth and soberness," only on the supposition that his chal- lenge could not be met, — that the man who said he had faith without works, could not show this faith, because he had no faith to show. In further illustration of his position, that real faith always manifests itself by appropriate elFects on those who possess it, James says in the 19th verse, " Thou believest that there is one God ; thou dost well; the devils also believe and tremble." Now, what is the bearing of this on the subject which the apostle is discussing ? Does he mean to teach, as some would have us to believe, that the 348 CASES ADDUCED BY THE APOSTLE faith of those whose doctrines he is controverting, is no better than that of devils ? Manifestly not ; for he expressly says, that they do well in believing that, the belief of which makes devils tremble. What the apostle evidently teaches is this, that real faith is an energetic principle, producing effects on those in whom it dwells, appropriate to the peculiar bearing of the facts it embraces upon their individual in- terests. Thus the belief of the same fact, that, viz. of the divine existence, promotes the well-being of man, and fills the devils with fear. To the former it affords an impulse towards good ; to the latter it conveys only a certainty of punishment. But whilst the results thus produced by the belief of this truth are so very different in these two cases, the principle of operation is identical in both. It is faith which in both cases produces the result ; and this is what the apostle wishes to show, as bearing on his position that faith without a corresponding result is no faith at all. In the following verses, James adduces the case of Abraham as that of one who was justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar. Re- specting the meaning of this declaration concerning Abraham, there can be no doubt, whether we con- sider the account given by Moses of the transaction referred to, or look at what James himself says re- garding it in this context. The sole question now before us is, In what way was Abraham justified by offering his son on the altar ? Was he justified as a IN ILLUSTRATION OF HIS THESIS. 349 sinner from guilt? or, as a professed believer in God, was his profession sustained by this act, and he justified thereby in making that profession? On this point neither Moses nor James leaves room for hesitation. By neither is the least reference made to Abraham's obtaining pardon and acceptance as a sinner through that transaction, whilst both unequi- vocally state, that by his obedience on that occasion he vindicated his character, manifested his faith, and justified his profession. " l!>l ow I know " said Jeho- vah unto him, " that thou /barest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me."^ The trial of the patriarch on this occasion was a trial as to the soundness of his profession that he feared God, and the result was a full proof of his sincerity. Hence the apostle says, " Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect ?" Abraham was a believer : he claimed to be esteemed the servant and the friend of God. But he did not content himself with merely saying he had faith. He allowed his faith full scope and development. His faith and works co-operated. Faith in him had its perfect work. Justified from sin through faith, (for, says this very apostle, " he believed God, and it was counted to him for justifi- cation,") he justified his faith by his works, and thus became a memorable example and illustration of ^ Gen. xxii. 12. 350 CASES ADDUCED BY THE APOSTLE the truth, that not by faith only, but by works also, must the true child of God be justified. The last ease adduced by the apostle is that of Rahab, who received the Israelites who had been sent to spy out the land of Canaan, hid them from the people of the land, and at length despatched them in safety. In this James tells us, she was justi- fied by works. Now, how was she justified ? Was this action deemed meritorious in the sight of God, and put to her account as so much in her favour at the great reckoning ? Of this there is not the slight- est hint in the narrative as given by Joshua. Nay, it is more than probable, from her conduct as a whole, that she was not at this time a woman who feared God, and therefore not one, according to ca- tholic views, who was in a condition to work for final acceptance with him. From the history of the transaction, however, we find that she made a pro- fession to the spies, of her confident belief that the Israelites should ultimately occupy the land of Ca- naan. Now, this might have been made merely to decoy them, in order the more easily to give them up to the power of those who sought their lives. But Rahab's belief was sincere. She had seen how in every other case the Israelites had proved victo- rious over those who sought to withstand their pro- gress. She had no doubts that ultimately they would be masters of the land of Canaan. This in- fluenced her in her conduct to the spies, and led her. IN ILLUSTRATION OF HIS THESIS. 351 at the risk of her own life, to preserve theirs. Her deeds thus justified her profession, and rendered her case another illustration of the apostle's principle, that where faith in any thing really dwells in the mind, it will manifest itself by corresponding works. Having recapitulated these cases, the apostle, in verse 26, draws the general inference which he would have his readers to deduce from the whole, viz., that, " as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." A body deprived of the principle of life may retain much of the out- ward symmetry of the living form, but it is, notwith- standing, a mere useless mass, nothing else than the mere appearance of a man ; and so in like manner faith that does not show itself by its works affords no evidence that it has any life-principle in it ; it is but a dead body so far as any one can see ; it is therefore useless, and to all real intents and pur- poses has no existence. From this survey of the train of illustration pur- sued by the apostle in this passage, it must, I think, be evident that, so far from his teaching any thing in the slightest degree inconsistent with the doctrine of justification by faith alone, his grand design is to preserve that doctrine from abuse, and to show that whenever a man has really obtained acceptance with God through Christ, he will manifest this by " a walk and conversation becoming the gospel." His design is to remind professing Christians that 352 CONCLUDING REMARKS. mere profession will not stand the test at last, — that Christianity is a religion of living, operative, sanc- tifying power, — and that those alone can be regard- ed now, or will be regarded at last, as true sons of God, who prove that they are so by doing the works of God. His doctrine is neither beyond nor beside that of Paul, but in full accordance with it. He in fact only follows in the train of Paul, when, after establishing the doctrine of justification by faith alone, that apostle proceeds to inculcate so urgently upon the Romans the duties of practical religion, exhorting them not to " let sin reign in their mortal bodies that they should obey it in the lusts thereof, but as made free from sin, and having become servants of God, to have their fruit unto holiness and the end everlasting life." ^ Assuming the soundness of the reasonings on which the preceding inquiry has proceeded, it fol- lows that the catholic view of the design of the Christian life is not only unauthorised by scripture, but stands opposed to some of its leading doctrines. That salvation is to be obtained by guilty man solely through the merits of the work of Christ, already finished on the accursed tree, is the foundation of the Christian edifice ; and whatever interferes with this is corrupting and pernicious error. With this, the opinion that Christians are here to perfect their 1 Rom. vi. 12, 13. p CHARACTER OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 353 triumph over the devil, the world, and the flesh, to approve themselves genuine servants of God, and to grow in meetness for heaven, is wholly harmoni- ous. But to represent this their probation as in- tended to secure, in any degree, their acceptance with God as sinners, by the forgiveness of their sins at last, is to pervert the gospel, to confound the cause with its effects, and to imbue the minds of the multitude with a spirit of bondage, self-righteous- ness, and delusion. SECTION II. CHARACTER OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. I pass on to consider the view which the Anglo- catholics take of the general character of the Chris- tian life. On this head there are several points of accor- dance between them and evangelical Christians. Both, viewing the present state of believers as one of probation, concur in representing its general cha- racter as one of watchfulness, labour, and prayer. In the estimation of both, the Christian has many wicked lusts to subdue, many temptations to evil to resist, many virtuous habits to attain, many purify- ing trials to pass through. By both, his position is regarded as one of difficulty and of danger ; to 354 STATEMENTS OF DR PUSEY maintain which successfully he must ever be as a soldier on the field fully armed and anxiously on the watch, or as a racer on the course, stripped of every impediment and, with his eye fixed on the goal, straining every nerve to reach it with success. The very different views, however, which these two parties entertain respectively regarding the design of this probationary course, cannot fail mate- rially to influence their opinions concerning its general character. We find, accordingly, that whilst the one, believing that the pardon of sins is to be obtained by the Christian exactly in the same way after his conversion as before it, represent his state as one of predominating peace, joy, and spiri- tual triumph ; the other, conceiving that no offence committed after baptism can be pardoned before the day of judgment, view the Christian here as called to rest under a continued load of unforgiven guilt, and, thus burdened, to go mourning all his days. That this latter is the opinion of Dr Pusey, the following extracts from his tracts on baptism will show : — " The fountain has been indeed opened to wash away sin and un- cleanness, but we dare not promise men a second time the same easy access to it which they once had ; that way is open but once ; it were to abuse the power of the keys entrusted to us, again to pretend to admit them thus ; now there remains only the * baptism of tears,' a baptism obtained, as the same Fathers said, with much fasting and with many prayers. — Tract 68, p. 59 " * We are then [in baptism] washed once for all in his blood ' . . . ON THIS HEAD. 355 * if we again sin, there remaineth no more such complete ablution in this life. We must bear the scars of the sins which we have con- tracted ; we must be judged according to our deeds.' " — lb. p. 63. To the same effect are the following strictures on the evangelical system, in his Letter to the Bishop of Oxford. " It used to be said that ' the Romish was an easy religion to die in ;' but even the Romish, in its corruptions, scarc*ely offered terms so easy, at all events, made not a boast of the easiness of its terms ; if it had but the dregs of the system of the ancient church, stale and unprofitable as these often were, they had yet something of the strength or the bitterness of the ancient medicine; they at least testified to a system, when men made sacrifices for the good of their souls, humbled themselves in dust and ashes; practised self-discip- line ; * accused and condemned themselves, that so they might find mercy at their heavenly Father's hand for Christ's sake, and not be accused and condemned in that fearful judgment;' felt *the remem- brance' of their past sins to be * grievous unto' them, * the burthen' to be * intolerable ;' * were grieved and wearied with the burthen of their sins;' * turned to God in weeping fusting and praying;' ' be- wailed and lamented their sinful life, acknowledged and confessed their offences, and sought to bring forth worthy fruits of penance ;' and in cases of notorious sin, were * put to open penance, and pu- nished in this world that their souls might be saved in the day of the Lord.' " *' Our church, my Lord, here as elsewhere, appears to me to hold a distinct line, however she has not been able as yet to revive the * goodly discipline* which she feelingly deplores. Romanism, as well as Ultra- Protestantism, practically frees a man from his past sins ; our church bids him confess that he is * tied and bound with the chain' of them, and to pray Him that ' the pitifulness of His great mercy may loose us.'" On these statements I beg to submit the following remarks: — 1. Nothing can be more arbitrary than the dis- tinction maintained by the catholics between sins committed before, and sins committed after baptism. 356 ARBITRARINESS OF HIS DISTINCTION It is true, that sin in a Christian is more aggravated and flagrant than in one who makes no profession of Christianity; but whilst this is a strong reason for watchfulness on the part of the believer, that he be not betrayed into sin, it furnishes no ground what- ever for pronouncing his sin unpardonable in the present world. The apostle tells us, that "the blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God cleanseth from all sin;"' and unless it can be shown that there is some peculiarity in sin when committed by a Chris- tian which renders it an exception, we must hold that the blood which cleansed away all his past sins when he became a Christian, will no less avail to cleanse away the sins into which he may fall in the course of his subsequent life. What is there in scripture, or the reason of the thing, to tempt any to think otherwise ? Why should the fountain which has been opened for sin and for uncleanness be avail- able only for once, when in this world there is no man who liveth and sinneth not ? On what ground is it pretended, that a prayer for pardon, proceeding from a man just converted, will be answered, while one presented by a Christian of longer standing can- not be heard ? If these things are so, let the scrip- ture evidence in proof of them be adduced. In a matter of so much importance, let the voice of God be heard before we are called upon to believe. 1 1 John i. 7. BETWEEN SINS BEFORE AND AFTER BAPTISM. 357 Until that is done, the barrier thus attempted to be drawn between the penitent Christian and that puri- fying fountain from which he has already found peace to his guilty conscience, can be regarded in no other light than as one of those instruments of oppression by which a human priesthood too often seeks to subjugate the minds of others to its sway. 2. The notion that forgiveness is not to be ob- tained by the penitent Christian in this world, is opposed to the express doctrine of scripture. That God is ever ready to forgive all who sincerely turn from their sins and ask forgiveness of him, is a truth so frequently stated in scripture, that the difficulty is to know where to begin our citations in support of it. Let the following passages suffice: — "If my people which are called by my name shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sins. Rejoice the soul of thy servant, for unto thee, Lord, do I lift my soul. For thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive, and plenteous in mercy to all that call upon thee. It may be, that the house of Judah will hear all the evil I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way, that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin. Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage ? He retaineth not his anger for ever, because he 858 SCRIPTURE TEACHES THAT ALL SIN delighteth in mercy. He will turn again; he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniqui- ties; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. In whom (Christ) we have (s%ojM/sv, not shall have, or have had) redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. We have not an High Priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in every time of need. If we confess our sins, he (God) is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." ^ Let these passages of scripture, selected alike from the Old Testament and the New, be duly considered, and it can hardly admit of reasonable doubt, that the doctrine they teach is, that whosoever forsakes sin, turns unto God, and asks forgiveness, shall obtain it through the merits of Christ. The same doctrine is involved in all the directions given to the early Christians for the proper treat- ment of offences between brethren. In these the ^ 2 Chron. vii. 14; Psalm Ixxxvi. 4, 5; Jer. xxxvi. 3; Mic. vii. 18, 19; Col. i. 14; Heb. iv. 15, 16; 1 John i. 9; ii. 1, 2. MAY BE FORGIVEN THROUGH CHRIST. 359 foundation principle is, that we are to " forgive one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven us."' But if our forgiveness of erring brethren is to be as God's forgiveness of us, it follows conversely, that God's forgiveness of us must be according to the rule which he has laid down for our forgiveness of each other. And what is that rule ? We have it from the lips of our Lord himself, in these words: " If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent, thou shalt forgive him."^ The meaning of this is plainly, that as often as our brother repents, and turns again to us professing repentance, we are to forgive him. Comparing this with the statement of the apostle above quoted, can we resist the conclusion, that as often as we turn unto God, and sincerely say to him, " I repent," He will, and does forgive us ? What else but this is the tenor of our Lord's ex- planation of his act in washing the feet of his dis- ciples?^ Peter, ignorant of the meaning of that act, no sooner heard that it was designed to symbolize the communication of cleansing efficacy from Christ to his disciples, than, passing from the extreme of false modesty to that of over-zeal, he exclaimed, " Not my feet only, but also my hands and my 1 Eph. iv. 32. 2 Luke xvii. 3, 4. ^ John xiii. 10. 360 THE CHRISTIAN LIFE head." Our Lord's reply is, — " He that is washed needeth not, save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all." This conclud- ing expression is used not to limit the cleanness, but the number of those of whom our Saviour asserted that they were clean. From this number Judas was excluded; " for," adds the evangelist, " he knew who should betray him; therefore said he ye are not all clean." With this exception, however, the disciples were all clean ; they had been washed, and, in consequence of this, needed not such ablu- tion as Peter desired. What can such a statement be designed to teach if not this, that though, by con- nection with Christ, they had been cleansed of their sins in the laver of regeneration, yet as, in leaving a bath, the feet will come into contact with the defil- ing soil, and so need to be cleansed anew, so they, in like manner, living in this polluting world, had ever need to betake themselves unto Christ, by whom they had been cleansed at first, that each new stain might be thereby washed away ? And if this he the meaning of our Saviour's words on this remarkable occasion, is not the whole transaction calculated to teach us that the fountain of his blood is ever open to his people, and that they have only in sincerity, in penitence, and in faith, to come to it, to receive forgiveness and cleansing according to their need ? 3. The view given by Dr Pusey of the general cha- NOT ONE OF GLOOM AND DREAD. 361 racter of the Christian life, as one of sorrow, anxiety, and dread, is directly opposed to the whole tenor of scripture on this subject. Whilst the sacred writers do not cease to remind us, that, in the present world, there is danger to our spiritual interests from the many powerful and assiduous enemies that surround us; whilst they, therefore, cease not to ex- hort Christians to watchfulness, to resistance, and to prayer ; and whilst they ever teach us to look upon sins into which we may have fallen with shame, hu- miliation, and abhorrence, they, at the same time, and in the clearest manner, announce to us, that the spirit of Christianity is one of liberty, that the course of the Christian should be one of triumph and assurance, and that it is not only his privilege, but his duty to " rejoice always." When the angel announced the birth of Christ to the shepherds, he said, " Fear not : for behold I bring you good tid- ings of great joy which shall be to all people ;" and the multitude of the heavenly host which suddenly appeared after this announcement had been made, followed it up by " praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace and good will towards men." With this the whole tenor of our Lord's teaching accords : witness his parting discourse to his disciples, as recorded by John in the 14th, 15th, and 16th chapters of his 1 Luke ii. 10, U. 362 THE CHRISTIAN LIFE Gospel, especially these touching words, — " Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you ; not as the world giveth give I unto you ; let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." In the Acts of the Apostles, we find continual mention made of the joy which the reception of the gospel inspired in those who believed, adding a new charm to the common pleasures of life, whilst it opened up a fountain of felicity such as all the ills of life could not exhaust.^ In the Epistles language of the most exulting kind is employed in reference to the happi- ness of the Christian's life. " Ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear," says Paul to the Romans, " but the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba, Father." " We joy in God," says he again, " through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." To the Philippians the same apostle says,—" Rejoice in the Lord, and again I say unto you rejoice," adding, in reference to the spiritual dangers to which they were exposed, " And the peace of God which passeth all understanding shall keep your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus." ^ The apostle John declares that his design in writing his first epistle to his brethren was " that their joy might be full;" and for this purpose he dilates on the confidence which they have in Christ as their advocate with the Father, and the propitia- ^ Comp. ch. ii. 46; viii. 8, &c. 2 Rom. viii. 15; v. 11 ; Phil. iv. 4, 7, &c. NOT ONE OF GLOOM AND DREAD. 363 tion for their sins, on their elevated privileges as the sons of God, and on the power of love in which " there is no fear" to "cast out that fear which hath torment."^ It seems hardly possible to read such passages as these (and the Bible is full of them), without being convinced that well-founded peace and holy joy are blessings which it is the purpose of God to secure to his people, even in this world, through the gospel of his Son. A system which, instead of this, teaches Christians that their position here is one of unre- lieved toil, perplexity, and penance, must be de- nounced as no less unscriptural than it is repulsive, disheartening, and bewildering. 4. The view which Dr Pusey gives of the Chris- tian life is not so favourable to virtue and holiness as that which he opposes. On no argument do the Anglo-catholics, and Dr Pusey in particular, lay more stress, than on the superior tendency of their views to produce in the mind hatred of sin, and an ardent aspiration after holiness, as compared with the views held by evangelical Christians. They complain of the " easiness" of the evangelical system of salvation, as tending to heal slightly the wound of an awakened conscience, and as being in this respect practically more unfavourable to personal holiness than the system of priestly absolution in the church 1 Ch. i. 4—9; ii. 1, 2; Hi. 1 ; iv. 18; v. 14, &c. 364 THE ANGLO-CATHOLIC DOCTRINE of Rome. This is only the old objection against the doctrine of salvation by grace, of which the apostle Paul disposes in the 6th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, where he most powerfully shows, that as the believer who is pardoned through Christ, is thereby brought under law to Christ, he is placed under greater obligations, and laid under immensely stronger motives to abstain from sin and follow after holiness, than if he had to trust to his own good deeds for acceptance with God. The conclusion at which the apostle arrives is, that Christians, " being made free from sin, and having become servants unto God, have their fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life," and that end not as of reward, but of grace ; " for the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Such a decision from such a source must be held as authoritatively settling the question respecting the practical tendency of evangelical views of salvation as through free grace, — ^grace which needs but to be devoutly asked in the name of Christ to be obtained. What the reasoning of the apostle thus establishes, experience and the knowledge we have of the laws of the human mind amply confirm. The question is simply one between the power oifear and the power of lorn, as predominating principles of virtuous ac- tion in the mind of a Christian. According to both parties in this controversy the duty of the NOT FAVOURABLE TO HOLINESS. 365 Christian is to abstain from all sin, and to follow after all holiness ; but the one contend that he will be most effectively constrained to this by an inces- sant dread of being rejected of God at last as un- worthy, while the other maintain that a far more powerful motive than this is furnished by that abid- ing sense o^ gratitude under which the reception of a gratuitous forgiveness lays the Christian. There seems hardly room for serious hesitation on the part of any candid and reflective person between these two opinions. Who does not know that gratitude for favours already experienced is ever more power- ful over the mind of man than the dread of losing advantages which are yet prospective? The one emotion has all the urgency of a felt reality, the other has more or less of the feebleness of a remote contingency. The spirit of the latter is to render tardy, penurious, grudging obedience, on the prin- ciple of paying no more for the desired boon than will just suffice to secure it ; the spirit of the former is to yield ready, generous, overflowing service, under the spontaneous impulse of honourable and ardent feeling.^ It is so in the ordinary relations of life; and as the nature of the human mind is not changed by the reception of the gospel of Christ, there is no reason to suspect that it should be other- I ' 'E« ya,^ ItuXu rag ^oi^traii, it fnff^eu ivu^y'tTtif ev^ttg av ot/^ev o(p'uXiiv avrco ivofiiftV aXk' 01 'T^otxa iv •nTov^orts ouret au tj^ias vTnpiTovfft rS ivi^yiri^y kui ^t'ori tS i'jrctSov, xai ^I'ori ^^otTiirriv^v