3 m \A*flr\: THE * D I V I N E RULE OP FAITH AND PRACTICE ; OR, A DEFENCE OF THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE THAT HOLY SCRIPTURE HAS BEEN SINCE THE TIMES OF THE APOSTLES THE SOLE DIVINE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE TO THE CHURCH, AGAINST THE DANGEROUS ERRORS OF THE AUTHORS OF THE TRACTS FOR THE TIMES, AND THE ROMANISTS, AS, PARTICULARLY, THAT THE RULE OF FAITH IS " MADE UP OF SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION TOGETHER;" &c. IN WHICH ALSO THE DOCTRINES OF &e Apostolical jfcuccugjston, t&e SEucfjartgttc &acvifir*, $rc, ARK FULLY DISCUSSED. BY WILLIAM GOODE, M.A. OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE ; RECTOR OF ST. ANTHOLIN, LOND'ON. Haeretici quum ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scrip- turarum, . . . quia varie sint dictae, et quianon possit ex hisinveniri veritas ab his qui ne- sciant Traditionem. Non enim per litteras traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem. J UK.V .KI-S. Qavcpa fKirrwcrts Triffrews KCU inrfpr] p>27> X PREFACE. tone of doctrine and thought is essentially antichristian." 1 The reader will observe, that the term used in these denunciations is no longer, as at first, " ultra- Protes- tantism," but (with a candour which we should have been glad to have seen from the commencement) " Pro- testantism." The present feelings and objects of the Tractators have been clearly set forth by themselves in the following words. " By clinging to the authority of these reformers, as indi- viduals," they say, " are we not DEALING UNFAIRLY both with Protestants and other branches of the Catholic Church ? Are we riot holding out false colours to the former, and drawing them near us, only in the end to be alienated from us more completely than ever ? On the other hand, are we not cutting ourselves off from the latter, (who are our natural allies,) by making common cause with A SET OF WRITERS WITH WHOM, IN SUCH MEASURE AS WE HAVE IMBIBED THE TRUE CATHOLIC SPIRIT, WE CAN HAVE NO SORT OF SYMPATHY ? Meanwhile, to the unprejudiced inquirers after truth (a large and growing number) are we not, until we have shaken off such auxiliaries as these, exhi- biting a very distorted and unreal representation of the Catholicism to which we desire to attract them ; holding before them a phantom which will elude their grasp, a light which will cheat their pursuit ; unsettling their early prepossessions, without affording a complete and satisfactory equivalent ; disquieting them in their present home, without furnishing them even with a shelter? This should be well considered. It ought not to be for nothing; no, nor for anything short of some very vital truth; some truth not to be rejected without fatal error, nor embraced without radical change ; that persons of name and influence should venture upon the part of ' ecclesiastical agitators; 1 intrude upon the peace of the contented, and raise doubts in the minds of the uncom- plaining ; vex the Church with controversy, alarm serious men, and interrupt the established order of things ; set 1 lb. p. 29. PREFACE. XI the ' father against the son,' and the mother against the daughter;' and lead the taught to say, ' I have more understanding than my teacher.' ALL THIS HAS BEEN DONE ; and all this is worth hazarding in a matter of life and death ; much of it is predicted as the characteristic result, and therefore the sure criterion, of the Truth. An object thus momentous we believe to be the UNPROTES- TANTIZINO (to use an offensive but forcible word) of the national Church ; and accordingly we are ready to endure ) however we may lament, the undeniable, and in them- selves disastrous, effects of the pending controversy. . . . We cannot stand where we are, we must go backwards or forwards; and it will surely be the latter. It is absolutely necessary towards the consistency of the system which certain parties are labouring to restore, that truths should be clearly stated, which as yet have been but intimated, and others developed, which are now but in germ. AND AS WE GO ON, WE MUST RECEDE MORE AND MORE FROM THE PRINCIPLES, IF ANY SUCH THERE BE, OF THE ENGLISH REFORMATION." l Such is the language now held by the Tractators, in their organ the British Critic. Now if by " we" in this passage they mean themselves, it is only what all who really understood their principles fore- saw from the commencement of their career. But if by " we" they mean the English Church, then we trust that they will find that there is much difference between the temporary impression produced by taking men by surprise under " false colours" and that which is made by the power of truth, accompanied by the blessing of God. That the English Church is to go " forwards" with the Tractators into all the false doctrines and mummeries of Popery now openly advocated by them, even to the pri- mary false principle, that the Church ought to assume the appearance of one great spiritual monarchy, with the Pope at the head of it, 2 is, we trust, a prediction that has little probability of being realized. I l British Critic for July 1841, pp. 44, 45. \ a " Of course, uiiion of the whole Church under one visible government is Xii PREFACE. It is, if possible, still more painful to contemplate the fact, that these remarks were published by those who pro- fess the highest possible regard for the authority of their spiritual rulers, and not long after one of the heads of the party had, with many professions of submission to the wishes of his Diocesan, consented to close the series of the " Tracts for the Times ;" while he is here identified with " ecclesiastical agitators," ready to use every effort, and brave every difficulty, and throw the Church into confusion, to the setting of " father against son, and mother against daughter," for the purpose of effecting the design of " unprotestantizing" the Church! Such is . the practical influence of their inordinate views of Church authority. The reader will observe that in their use of the word "Catholic," the Tractators are directly opposed to our Reformers. Our Reformers were so far from thinking that Protestantism and Catholicism were opposed to each other, that one ground for their supporting the former was, their conviction that it best deserved the title of the latter. Bishop Jewell believed that it was the Reforma- tion that restored the " antient religion" (to use the re- viewer's phrase) to our Church. And both he and, I be- lieve I may say, all the more learned Reformers claimed the name " Catholic," as belonging more peculiarly to themselves, than to those who, both in the Western and Eastern Churches, had corrupted the pure faith and worship of the primitive Church. The Tractators, therefore, like the Romanists, are at issue with the Reformers as to what is " Catholicism," and the " antient religion." This the reader ought carefully to bear in mind, lest he be deceived, as too many suffer them- abstractedly the most perfect state. We were so united, and now are not. And the history of this great struggle for religious independence . . is, in any case, the record of the origin and progress of that deplorable schism. . . . We talk of the * blessings of emancipation from the Papal yoke,' and use other phrases of a like bold and UNDUTIFUL tenour." Brit. Crit. for July 1841, p. 2. PREFACE. Xlll selves to be, by words and phrases. And the same caution mnst be given as to the Tractators' repudiation of the charge of holding Romish tenets. Their repudia- tion of it is grounded merely upon their rejection of cer- tain more gross impositions and practices of the Church of Rome ; while, upon various most important points and leading features in that vast system of religious priest- craft, they are altogether in agreement with her. There is a previous question, then, to be determined, before their repudiation of the charge can be of any practical use, viz. What is Romanism? If, as our Archbishop Whitgift tells us, their doctrine on the rule of faith is " the ground of all Papistry" their verbal disclaimer of Papistry is mere idle talk. But unfortunately, to the or- dinary reader, this equivocal use of terms throws the whole subject into inextricable confusion. It is very hard, he will say, that those should be accused of holding- Romish doctrines, who have expressly repudiated and even abused Romanism. And is it not most desirable that we should hold " Catholic" doctrines and the " antient religion?" On these points, however, this is not the place to enlarge, as they will more properly come under our consideration in a subsequent page. With these facts and statements before his eyes, the reader will not be surprised to learn that the Romanists are loudly hailing the efforts of the Tractators, as directly tending to the re-establishment of their doctrines, as the doctrines of the Anglican Church. " We may depend," says Dr. Wiseman, 1 " upon a willing, an able, and a most zealous co-operation [i. e. on the part of the Tractators] with any effort which we may make towards bringing her [i. e. the Anglican Church] into her rightful position in catholic unity with the Holy See, and the Churches of its obedience in other words, with the Church Catholic." (p. 11.) And among other proofs of the truth of this, he remarks, " It seems to nie impossible to read the works f ' A Better on Catholic Unity, to the Earl of Shrewsbury, by Nicholas, /Bishop of Melipotamus. xiv PREFACE. of the Oxford divines, and especially to follow them chronologically, without discovering a daily approach towards our holy Church, both in doctrine and in affec- tionate feeling. Our saints, our popes, have become dear to them by little and little ; our rites and ceremonies, our offices, nay, our very rubrics, are precious in their eyes,/ar, alas ! beyond what many of us consider them ; our monastic institutions, our charitable and educational provisions, have become more and more objects with them of earnest study ; and everything, in fine, that concerns our religion, deeply interests their attention Their admiration of our institutions and practices, and their regret at having lost them, manifestly spring from the value which they set upon everything Catholic ; and to suppose them (with- out an insincerity which they have given us no right to charge them with,) to love the parts of a system and wish for them, while they would reject the root and only se- cure support of them the system itself is to my mind revoltingly contradictory." (pp. 13, 14.) " Further proof of the view which I present, is this ; that general dissatis- faction at the system of the Anglican Church, is clearly expressed in the works of these authors : it is not a blame cast on one article or another, it is not blemish found in one practice, or a Catholic want in a second, or a Pro- testant redundancy in a third : but there is an impatient sickness of the whole ; it is the weariness of a man who carries a burthen, it is not of any individual stick of his faggot that he complains, it is the bundle which tires and worries him ... the Protestant spirit of the Articles in the aggregate, and their insupportable uncatholicism in specific points, the loss of ordinances, sacraments, and liturgical rites; the extinction of the monastic and ascetic feeling and observances ; the decay of * awe, mystery, ten- derness, reverence, devoted ness, and other feelings which may be specially called Catholic' (Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 26.) ; the miserable feeling of solitariness and separa- tion above described, these are but a portion of the grievances whereof we meet complaints at every turn, the removal of which would involve so thorough a change in the essential condition of the Anglican Church, as these writers must feel would bring her within the sphere of attraction of all-absorbing unity, and could not long with- hold her from the embrace of its centre." (pp. 16, 17.) Still further proof is justly found in the statements of Mr. Warde, who deeply regrets our Church's " present corruption and degradation," hears with pain the words " pure and apostolical" applied to her ; thinks that " the mark of being Christ's kingdom" " is obscured and but faintly traced on the English Church ;" and speaks of " those sisters in other lands from whom she has been so long and so fatally dissevered" and of her restoration to " active communion with the rest of Christendom ;" in terms, the meaning of which cannot be misunderstood, (pp. 18, 19.) As might be expected, the endeavour to pervert our Articles to a Tridentine sense, is eagerly caught at, as smoothing the way to a full and complete re- turn to Popery. '* A still more promising circumstance," he says, " I think your lordship w-ith me will consider, the plan which the eventful Tract No. 90 has pursued ; and in which Mr. Warde, Mr. Oakley, and even Dr. Pusey, have agreed. I allude to the method of bringing their doctrines into accordance with ours, by explanation. A foreign priest has pointed out to us a valuable document for our consideration, ' Bossuet's Reply to the Pope,' when consulted on the best method of reconciling the fol- lowers of the Augsburg Confession with the Holy See. The learned Bishop observes, that Providence had al- lowed so much Catholic truth to be preserved in that Confession, that full advantage should be taken of the cir- cumstance : that no retractations should be demanded, but an explanation of the Confession in accordance with Ca- tholic doctrines. Now, for such a method as this, the way is in part prepared by the demonstration that such interpretation may be given of the most difficult Articles, as^ill strip them of all contradiction to the decrees of /the Tridentine Synod." (p. 38.) This instructive passage XVI PREFACE. the reader will do well to ponder. Notwithstanding " the Protestant spirit of the Articles in the aggregate, and their insupportable uncatholicism in specific points," the magic wand of an " explanation" will " strip them of all contradiction to the decrees of the Tridentine Synod" itself, and the statements for which Rome has so often made thousands pay the penalty with their blood, are now found to be nothing more than what are easily recon- cilable with the statements of Trent itself. It may not be known to many that a very similar at- tempt to reconcile our Articles with the doctrines of the Romish Church was made two centuries ago by an English convert to Popery, named Christopher Daven- port, but who is better known by his Romish name of Francis a Sancta Clara. The work is entitled " Deus, Natura, Gratia/' 1 and was written for the purpose of ex- plaining many of the most important of the Thirty-nine Articles, so as to make them conformable to the Triden- tine statements ; and he adds, at the end, a " paraphrastic exposition" of the rest of them, proceeding upon the same principles, wherein he maintains that they need only a befitting gloss to reconcile them all to good sound Po- pery. And for learning and ingenuity, our modern Re- conciler is not to be compared to him. But, in all the most important points, the similarity between the two is remarkable. Thus, when it is said in Art. xi. that " we are justified by faith only," here, gaith Mr. Newman, " faith, as being the beginning of perfect or justifying righteousness, is taken for what it tends towards, or ultimately will be. It is said, by anticipation, to be that which it promises ; just as one might pay a labourer his hire, before he began his work" &c. &c. (No. 90, 2d. ed. p. 13.) So Francis a Sancta Clara says that, " because faith is the foundation 1 Deus, Natura, Gratia. Sive Tractatus de Praedestinatione, de Meritis et peccatorum remissione, seu de Justificatione et denique de Sanctorum In- vocatione. Ubi ad trutinam fidei Catholicse examinatur Confessio Angli- cana, &c. Accessit paraphrastica Expositio reliquorum Articulorum Confes- sionis Anglicae. 2a. ed. Lugd. 1634. 8vo. PREFACE. XV11 of our justification and spiritual life" therefore justifica- tion, and the salvation of man, is attributed to faith." Justification is often attributed to faith; "because faith is the gate and foundation of it, and the whole spiritual structure." 2 " If you say that justification is acquired through faith, by means of an application or apprehension of the merits or righteousness of Christ, I think that it may bear a sound and Catholic sense ; because, in good truth, we, through faith, . . by believing the promises of God in Christ, or the merits of Christ's sufferings, by praying, by loving, &c. at length obtain, through Christ, our righteousness. This is their doctrine and ours ; nor do they give more to faith than the Council of Trent, in the matter of justification, if they are cautiously explained ; namely, in the way just mentioned. But the point in dis- pute is, what faith we are to understand. . . . They themselves attribute it, not to that special kind of faith, but to the faith of Christ, as we do. For, in the Articles of the English Confession, no faith is specified, but the faith of which the Apostles everywhere speak. Therefore there is no difference between us on this point. But what is added in the Homily parenthetically, ' This would be to attribute justification to a habit or act in us,' seems to deny inherent righteousness; but, in truth, nothing was less meant, for it is immediately added, * But it is God who justifies' .... Behold, therefore, we clearly and fully agree." 3 Again, on Art. xii. on works before justification, which states that " works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God," and do not " make men meet to receive grace, or deserve grace of congruity," &c. ; Mr. Newman tells us that though it would be " Pelagianism" to say that those who are in utter destitution of grace, can do anything to gain justification, yet there is " an intermediate state" between being " in a state of Christian justification," and utterly p. 19-2. a p. 196. 3 pp. 202, 3. XV111 PREFACE. destitute of divine aid ; and that so, notwithstanding this Article, " it is quite true that works done with divine aid, and in faith, before justification,^ dispose men to receive the grace of justification, such were Cornelius's alms, fastings, and prayers, which led to his baptism." 1 So Francis a Sancta Clara says, that it would, indeed, be the Pelagian heresy to say that, from the acts of free will, done without any aid from God, we could merit jus- tification of congruity ; 2 but, nevertheless, " with the aid of the first bestowed grace preceding, we can, by seeking and striving, obtain further aids, and in some way deserve of congruity the first habitual justifying grace"* and thus the alms of Cornelius merited the faith of Christ ; 4 and that, in this Article, " it is manifest that such works only are excluded, as it regards merit of congruity, with respect to our justification, as are done before the faith of Christ; nay, before the first actual grace, or the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (as they say) ; since, therefore, the exception proves the rule as it respects the opposite, as lawyers say, it follows that other works, namely, those done from faith, can in some measure lead to and deserve of congruity the grace of justification." 5 Further on Art. xxii. that " the Romish doctrine con- cerning purgatory, pardons, worshipping and adoration, as well of images as of relics, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing, &c." Mr. Newman says, " the first remark that occurs on perusing this Article is, that the doctrine objected to is ' the Romish doctrine.' . . Accordingly the primitive doctrine is not condemned in it. ... Now there was a primitive doctrine on all these points, &c." 6 " And further, by the ' Romish doctrine,' is not meant the Tridentine statement . . . there are portions in the Tridentine statements on these subjects which the Article, far from condemning, by anticipation approves as far as they go." 7 And what he considers condemned, is " the 1 pp. 15, 16. * p. 152. p. 159. 4 p. 160. * p. 170. p. 23. 7 p. 24. PREFACE. XIX received doctrine" among Romanists, or " the doctrine of the Roman schools ;" but how determined, he does not tell us. So Francis a Sancta Clara says of this Article, "The words, as they stand, are doubtless very harsh. But it is to be observed that the force of this Article is not directed against invocation of saints simply, or in itself, as is evident, but the Romish doctrine of Invoca- tion." And to see what was meant by " the Romish doc- trine," he says, we must observe how it is described by Protestants ; and having (like Mr. Newman) extracted some honest representations of it from Protestant writers, he adds, that it is not to be wondered at that such a doc- trine was condemned ; they themselves condemned it ; and he points to the Tridentine statements as showing this. " The conclusion," he says, " is, that the Anglican Confession has determined nothing against the truth of the faith ; it has only exploded the impious and heathen doctrine falsely imputed to the Church." 1 " In the same way evidently, and by the same mode of speaking," he adds, " they reject, in the same Article, not Purgatory, Indulgences, the adoration of images and relics, in them- selves, but, as before, the Romish doctrine on all these points; that is, the doctrine falsely imputed to us ;" 2 pro- ceeding to show that the Article did not condemn good sound Tridentine doctrine. " Here, therefore," he con- cludes, " there will be peace altogether with the An- glican Confession, if only all things are weighed as they deserve, without party spirit, and with only a regard to truth." 3 These, with similar explanations of other Articles, occur in the body of the work. In the " Paraphrastic Exposi- tion of the other Articles," at the end, the same course is adopted. We will compare those on Art. xxviii. on Tran- substantiation, and Art. xxxi. on Masses. "What is here opposed as ' Transubstantiation,'" says Mr. Newman on Art. xxviii., " is the shocking doctrine ' pp.349, 50. 2 p. 351. 3 p. 353. XX PREFACE. that ' the body of Christ,' as the Article goes on to express it, is not * given, taken, and eaten after an heavenly and spiritual manner, but is carnally pressed with the teeth ;' that it is a body or substance of a certain extension, &c. . . . whereas we hold that the only substance such is the bread which we see." (p. 47.) " In denying a ' mutatio panis et vini,'" it is not "denying every kind of change." (p. 51.) But it is " literally true" that " the consecrated bread is Christ's body" (p. 58.) ; his body is spiritual, and hence it may be " that Christ's Body and Blood are lo- cally at God's right hand, yet really present here, pre- sent here, but not here in place because they are spirit." (pp. 55, 6. See the whole of pp. 47 58.) So Francis a Sancta Clara says that the authors of our Articles " only condemned, in this Article, the antient error of the Ca- pharnaites, namely, a carnal presence of Christ ; that is, as if Christ was present here in a natural or carnal mode, and was pressed by our teeth ;" and that the bread should undergo such a change, is repugnant to Scripture, " as the Article rightly affirms ;" and that when the Article de- nies a change of the bread and wine, it only denies such a change as this ; and not that which " the Church'' means, &c. &c. (pp. 38890.) Again, on Art. xxxi. on Masses, Mr. Newman says, " Nothing can show more clearly than this passage, that the Articles are not written against the creed of the Roman Church, but against actual existing errors in it ;" " the * blasphemous fable' is the teaching that masses are sacrifices for sin, distinct from the sacrifice of Christ's death." " The Article before us neither speaks against the Mass in itself, nor against its being an offering, though commemorative, for the quick and the dead, for the re- mission of sin." (pp. 59, 60, 63.) So Francis a Sancta Clara says, that " there is nothing here against the sacri- fices of the Mass in themselves, but against the vulgar or cftmmon notion respecting them, namely, that the priests in their sacrifices offer Christ for the quick and the dead, PREFACE. XXI for remission of sin and transgression ; so as to be able, by virtue of this sacrifice offered by them, independent o/the sacrifice of the cross, meritoriously to procure for the people remission, &c." (p. 400.) Such was the attempt made, two centuries ago, to re- concile our Protestant Articles with the dogmas of Po- pery. But at that time the nation had been but too recently emancipated from the Papal yoke, and her tra- ditional remembrances of Popery were too fresh, to admit of her being so easily beguiled by fine words and plau- sible phrases. And it so happens that we have ARCH- BISHOP LAUD'S own testimony to his having "absolutely denied" permission to the author to have the ivorh printed in England. For, it being one of the charges against him at his trial that he had " harboured and relieved divers Popish priests and Jesuits, namely, one called Sancta Clara alias Davenport, a dangerous person, and Fran- ciscan Friar, who hath written a Popish and seditious book, entitled Deus, Natura, Gratia, &c., wherein the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, esta- blished by Act of Parliament, are much traduced and scan- dalized ; the said Archbishop had divers conferences with him while he was in writing the said book," &C. 1 , the Archbishop tells us 2 that his reply was, that the author of this work, having come to him to ask his licence for printing it, and having communicated to him its sub- stance, " / found the scope of his booh to be such as that the Church of England would have little cause to thank him for it, and so absolutely denied it" The object which the Tractators and the Romanists have in view in thus putting our Articles upon the rack to make them consistent with their views, is, from the fore- going extracts, sufficiently clear, namely, the more easy reduction of our Church, as a whole, to its former union with the Romish See, when the explanation, having served 1 Canterbury's Doom, or Prynne's Account of Trial of Archbishop Laud, p. 34,ag^iuoted in Wood's Ath. Oxoii, 385, XX11 PREFACE. its purpose, would be, with the Articles themselves, indignantly thrown overboard, to make way for a truly "Catholic" exposition of the faith, dictated at Rome. And then I suspect the poor remnant of the despised Protestants might sigh in vain for a " Catholic" confes- sion sufficiently indulgent to include an " uncatholic" meaning, thankful as they would be to be indulged only with life. And if perchance the new light of another age should enable some gifted Protestant to show how easily Pope Pius's creed might be understood in a good Protestant sense, let us hope that Rome also would see in a new light her duty to her neighbour. May God in his infinite mercy avert from us the evils which threaten us. It would be difficult to overrate the responsibility rest- ing at the present time upon the heads of our Church. There are those within the Church who, so far from being affectionately attached to her doctrines and practices, think that the very " mark of being Christ's kingdom " is " but faintly traced on her," mourn over her Articles and services as framed by persons of a thoroughly unca- tholic spirit, and framed " for the establishment " of a system which they believe to be even Antichristian, " the religion of corrupt human nature;" and avow themselves " ecclesiastical agitators," purposing to avail themselves of every means of overturning that system, and " unpro- testantizing " the Church. There are others who, having adopted, with all the ardour of youth and inexperience, the same views, are seeking to enter our Church, that they may add their efforts to the accomplishment of the same end. All the oaths, declarations, and subscriptions required by the Protestant restorers of our Church as safeguards against the re-introduction of those doctrines and practices to which these persons are attached, form, in their view, no impediment to their either remaining or seeking to become ministers of a Protestant .Church, for the purpose of " unprotestantizing" it ; the righteous end sanctifying, I suppose, (according to the well-known PREFACE. XX111 " Catholic " doctrine) the unrighteous means. This is no question, then, of high or low Churchmanship, of Cal- vinism or Arminianism, of this or that shade of doctrine, in which a latitude may justly be allowed. No, as the Tractators themselves tell us, " very vital truths " are concerned in the change they desire to effect in our Church, even " matters of life or death" * It becomes not me to say more, than earnestly to pray that wisdom may be given to the rulers of our Church in this crisis in her history. But it may be said, Surely there is some mistake in all this, for the Tractators have put forth their system as peculiarly entitled to the name of Anglicanism, and repre- sented their doctrines as those of the great majority of our most illustrious divines, ever since the Reformation, and presented us with various " Catenas," containing extracts from the writings of those divines in proof of this. This is one of the most extraordinary and painful features in the whole case. That such representations pervade the Tracts and works of the Tractators, is but too true ; and too true is it also, that upon the strength of such state- ments they have gained a footing in our Protestant Church, which they could never otherwise have obtained. One great object, therefore, which I have kept in view in the following work has been to show, that so far from having the support they claim in the writings of our great divines, they are refuted and opposed in the most deci- sive way by all the best even of their own chosen witnesses ; and that their appeal to those writings as in their favour is one of the most unaccountable, and painful, and cul- pable (however unintentional) misrepresentations with which history supplies us. The fact is, that almost the only witnesses to whom they could properly refer as at all supporting their system, are a few individuals, such as Brett, Hicks, Johnson, and others, forming a small and 1 See extract from British Critic, p. x. above. PREFACE. extreme section of a small and extreme party in our Church, namely, the Nonjurors; and even among these it would be difficult to find one who agreed with their sys- tem as now developed. Their extracts from the works of our divines generally will be found to be, for the most part, general and loose and indefinite passages, whose meaning depends altogether upon the context, and which are applied by the Tractators in a sense which the views of the writers, gathered from their works as a whole, alto- gether repudiate. Is this fair and ingenuous? Was there not a more candid course open to them ? Might they not have said, There is much in the Church of England that we love, much in the writings of her great divines that we approve ; but in the Articles and services of the one, and in the writings of the other, there are also various things of which we disapprove, conceiving them to be opposed to antiquity. We will not quit her communion till we see what effect a statement of our views may have upon the minds of her members, though ultimately, if such changes are not made, we shall be compelled to do so. For such a course an apology might perhaps be found. It might not, indeed, have gained for them so many adherents, but it would have been far more likely to have produced a permanent effect than their present conduct. In the place of this they have chosen to wiredraw a Protestant confession of faith, so as to make it appear to support Anti-protestant views, to publish extracts from staunch Protestant writers, to convert them, in the eye of the public, into opponents of Protestant principles ; in a word, to represent our Church as being what it is not, in order to effect more easily the change they desire to bring about in it from what it is. Almost equally incorrect and fallacious are their refer- ences to the early Fathers, of whose writings one might suppose, from the language they have used, that their knowledge was most accurate and extensive. I must be permitted to say, that the blunder Mr. Newman has made in the interpretation of a common phrase in a passage of Athanasius, the meaning of that phrase being a turning- point in the bearing of many passages with relation to the present controversy, 1 shows a want of acquaintance with the phraseology of the Fathers, which ought to make us receive his citations with considerable caution. Nor can I at all account for various other erroneous representa- tions and allegations of passages from the Fathers, (to some of which I give a reference below, that the reader may at once see that there is ground for the remark, 2 ) but upon the supposition that much has been taken on trust from other and even Romish writers. And if the heads of the party are not free from such errors, it is not surprising that there are others among them still more deeply involved in them. Since public attention has been more directed to antiquity, we have been inundated with papers, and letters, and remarks, especially in the periodical publications, laying down this or that doctrine with all the calm dignity of an oracular response, as what everybody always everywhere in the primitive Church from the beginning proclaimed and maintained with one consent, and showing nothing more than that their authors need to go to school on the subject on which they would fain be teachers of others. One might suppose, from the tone of some of these writers, that all that has been done or said in all past ages of the Church was to be ascertained without the smallest difficulty or uncer- tainty, and could even be gathered second-hand from the notices of a few modern divines. For my own part, I freely confess to being in no small degree sceptical as to the possibility of any man knowing what " everybody always everywhere" in the primitive Church thought on any 1 See vol. i. pp. 7376. 2 See vol. i. pp. 6576 ; also the remarks of Mr. Keble respecting the Council of Nice, compared with the statements of those from whom he has himself quoted, noticed vol. ii. pp. 327 et seq. ; also the citation from Chry- sostom, prefixed to Tract 34, in a sense which no one reading the context could for a moment dream of, noticed vol. ii. pp. 444, 445. XXVI PREFACE. point ; even from a careful perusal of the records of anti- quity themselves that remain to us. Indeed, though I can quite conceive a monk in his cell getting together the works of some few dozen authors of great name, and fancying himself able hence to vouch for the sentiments of " every- body always everywhere," I feel a difficulty in under- standing how men of judgment and experience can allow themselves to be so deluded. But still less are such representations to be taken from those who have not even made themselves acquainted with those sources of infor- mation that are open to us. It would be amusing, were it a less important subject, to see the way in which, under the much-abused name of " Catholic" mistakes and corruptions are recommended to public attention, almost as if our salvation depended upon them. State- ments, indeed, more uncatholic than some that the Trac- tators themselves have made, as for instance that of Dr. Pusey, that " to the decisions of the Church Universal we owe faith," 1 were never uttered. We appeal for proof to the writings of the early Church. For myself, I make no pretensions to any superior knowledge of antiquity, nor desire to set up my own judgment of its verdict as a standard for others to go by, but only to place before the reader the testimonies upon which his conclusions should be formed. And though it is almost impossible to suppose that where so many re- ferences occur, there should not be some errors, I trust that the impartial reader will find that no labour has been spared to avoid them, and that the representation given of the sentiments of the Fathers is a fair, and, upon the whole, a correct one. The success of the Tractators has been to many a sub- ject of surprise, and among others, as it seems, to them- selves. 2 For my own part, when I reflect upon the tem- porary success that has often attended heresies and delu- Letter to Bishop of Oxford, p. 53. Brit. Crit. for July, 1841, p. 28. PUEFACE. XXVII sions of the most extravagant nature, I cannot participate in such feelings. For the partial and temporary success that they have met with in the inculcation of their doc- trines there are, I think, beyond the fact of novelty, several reasons, and I trust and believe many also that may be assigned, for the hope that, under the Divine blessing, that success may be but partial and temporary. Such trials from internal and external foes are the Church's predicted portion in this world, and the purer any Church is, the more may she expect that her great enemy will thus afflict her. If, however, she be upon the whole found faithful to her God, such trials will as- suredly be overruled for her good ; and there is perhaps nothing more inimical to her real welfare than a state of long and uninterrupted calm and prosperity. One principal cause, then, of the temporary success of the movement made by the Tractators, has evidently been, that it fell in with the current of men's feelings in the Church at the time. At the period when they com- menced their labours, the Church was beset with dangers. The various sects that have separated themselves from her communion had (with one honourable exception) risen up against her with all the bitterness and jealousy of a sordid spirit of worldly rivalry, and had avowed that nothing would satisfy them but her complete overthrow as the National Church, and the extinction of all her peculiar privileges. A Ministry which, if not directly hostile, was made so by its dependence upon the enemies of the Church, a hostile House of Commons, a country kept in agitation for party purposes, and from various causes excited against all its constituted authorities and antient institutions, combined to menace her welfare. Such events had made all her friends anxious for her safety. That which might perhaps have been a permis- sible relaxation of principle in the conduct of her mem- bers towards the dissenters became so no longer, when it was clearly seen that the leading object of those dissenters XXV111 PREFACE. as a body was to deprive the Church of all her peculiar privileges and opportunities for the promotion of Chris- tianity throughout the land. Co-operation with bodies influenced by such views was no longer an act of Christian charity, but a direct breach of Christian duty. The ship was in a storm. Her existence was at stake. Every- thing conspired to show the importance, the necessity, of union, order, regularity, subordination, obedience to constituted authorities. In a word, the dangers that beset the Church, and the conduct and nature of the foes that assailed her, combined to lead all those who knew anything of Church principles, and had any regard for the Church, to serious reflection. There was in conse- quence a healthy reaction in favour of those principles. At this time, and under these circumstances, the Tracta- tors commenced their labours. A more favourable mo- ment could hardly have been found. Events had so completely prepared the way for them, that in the minds of many there was a strong predisposition in their favour. Their professions were those of warm friends of our Pro- testant Church. All that they blamed was "ultra-Pro- testantism." They claimed the support of all our great divines without exception. Antiquity was, beyond con- tradiction, wholly with them. Their language was cautious and plausible, and full of that self-confidence that is so influential with the popular mind. Is it surprising, then, that they should have pleased many ears, and gained many hearts, and that while they fell in with the current of feeling created by events, they should have succeeded in giving it an additional impetus in its own direction, tending to carry it to an unsalutary extreme ? So far, alas! they have indeed succeeded, and thus in many cases have converted a healthy reaction into one which threatens to carry away its victims, and has indeed carried away se- veral, into the bosom of Rome itself. The circumstances of the times had evidently much in- fluence upon the Tractators themselves in leading them to embrace the views they have taken up. 1 They saw that the influence of the Church over the public mind was not such as it had been in former times, and might reasonably be expected to be. And, apparently, the great problem which they thought they had to solve was, how that influence might be restored. They have not unnaturally (whether wisely or not is another ques- tion) found the hope of regaining it in the assertion of those Church-principles which form the foundation of Popery. The abuses caused by the liberty of conscience and free use of private judgment, conceded by Pro- testantism, are to be cured by a re-establishment of the iron grasp with which Popery holds its votaries in subjection. And I must add, that their works bear such constant and manifest traces of their having been imposed upon and misled by Romish writers, that one can- not but fear that they suffered themselves to be prejudiced in favour of that system of doctrine to which the circum- stances of the times had given them a favourable bias, before they had well studied the subject in a way which alone could have entitled them to assume the office of re- formers and correctors of the Church. I am much mis- taken if their "Catenas" do not show either an unfair- ness, which I should be indeed pained at being obliged to charge them with, or a great want of acquaintance even with the works of our own great divines. And hence, instead of keeping within the bounds of that sound moderation that has always characterized the Church of England, they have, while rejecting some of the most offensive practices in the Romish church, adopted almost all the doctrines and principles which have hitherto distin- guished us as a body from that corrupt Church, and seem gradually progressing to the reception of the whole sys- tem ; witness the remarks that have been more than once published by them in favour even of the fopperies of monkery itself. We have Dr. Hook's authority for say- Newman's Lect., p. 1 4, Kehle's Serm. pp. 5 7. XXX PREFACE. ing that the extreme of high Church principles is Popery. We beg the reader to ask himself whether those princi- ples can well be carried further than they are stretched in the works of the Tractators. And it must be added, (and this is another reason for their success,) that in the inculcation of their views they came upon those who were generally, and, as a body, unprepared by previous study for an impartial and ju- dicious view of the subject. The low state of ecclesias- tical learning among us for many past years is a truth so generally acknowledged and lamented, that it would be a waste of words to offer either an apology or a proof for the assertion. The consequences of such want of in- formation could not fail to be seen under such circum- stances. The slightest appearance of learning carried with it a weight which, in other times, would hardly have been conceded to that which had tenfold claims to it. And under the abused name of " catholic," by the aid of Romish sophisms, and partial and inaccurate cita- tions from the Fathers, the corrupt doctrines and prac- tices of which our truly learned Reformers were, by God's blessing, enabled to purge the Church, are urged upon us as veritable parts of that Divine revelation delivered to the world by the Apostles. And herein, be it observed, the Tractators are at issue with those whose learning it would be idle to dispute, not merely as to the foundation upon which their system rests, the authority of patristical tra- dition, but as to the fact whether that tradition, whatever its authority may be, is in their favour. Our reformers contended that the name catholic, and the support of the great body of the Fathers, belonged to that system of doctrine and practice which, from its opposition to the corruptions of Romanism, was called Protestantism. And as to any of the attempts hitherto made by the Tractators or their adherents to pluck the laurels from the brows of the Reformers, and to show the inaccuracy of their alle- gations from the Fathers, such as that of the British Critic in the case of Jewell, it reminds one but of the PREFACE. XXXI puny efforts of a dwarf to espy holes in the armour of a giant. We may add also, as a still further reason for their suc- cess, that their doctrines are such as will always, as long- as human nature remains what it is, attract many to them ; of the clergy, from the power they give them over the minds of men ; of the laity, from their greater suitability to the notions and feelings of the natural mind. To the clergy particularly such views will always be attractive. The system of the Tractators is a far more easy and simple one to work; likely also to produce more extended and visible results. Only bring men to acknowledge the authority thus claimed for the Church and the Clergy, and their instrumentality in the work of human salvation, and you wield a power over the minds both of the religious and the superstitious almost irresistible. But address a man merely as a witness for the truth, acknowledging your fallibility, and appealing to his judgment, " I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say," and your personal in- fluence over him is not to be compared with that which exists in the former case. The truth is left to work its way by its own intrinsic power, and faith is, as it ought to be, the result of a conviction of the heart. But the cases where such conviction is wrought wilt be much fewer than those in which a nominal adherence to the truth will be professed under the former system of teach- ing. And even were it not so, the personal influence of the clergy over their respective flocks in the two cases will not bear a comparison ; in the one case, the voice of the pastor is almost like the voice of God himself, for an in- spired messenger could hardly demand greater deference ; in the other, the pastor himself merges his own claims in that of the message, and sends his hearers to search for themselves in the book of God, whether the things that he preaches unto them are so. It cannot be a question, then, which system is naturally the most attractive to the clergy. Nay, a zealous, earnest minister of Christ, who desires nothing more than to promote the best interests XXXII PREFACE. of mankind, may be so attracted by the influence given by the former, purposing to use that influence only for the good of his fellow-creatures, as to have at once a secret prejudice in its favour, which blinds his eyes to the base- lessness of the claims upon which it rests. All these causes have operated in favour of the Tracta- tors. But there are at the same time not a few reasons also for hoping that, in the mercy of God, their success may be but partial and temporary. There are encouraging symptoms of a prevalent desire among us to search into the matter, especially since the recent publications of the Tractators have shown more fully their real views and aims. Now it is impossible for this desire to be carried into effect without their being de- tected in such inconsistencies, misrepresentations, and mis- takes as will infallibly alter their position very materially in the eyes of many who may have been originally in- clined to favour them. To some of these I have already alluded, and it would be easy to add to the list. While I am writing, my eye lights upon one in a late number of the British Critic (a number, by the way, which, for its flippant impertinences and gross personalities upon men who had the highest claims to at least respectful treat- ment, is unparalleled in such a work), made with all the coolness and confidence of one who is uttering an incontrovertible truth. For the sake of disparaging the Reformation, it is said, " Nothing is more remarkable in the theology of the Reforming age (to speak generally) than the deficiency of all writings of a devotional, or even a practical cast." (Brit. Grit, for July 1841, p. 3.) Now the writer of this is either profoundly ignorant of the ecclesiastical literature of that period, or he has misre- presented it for the sake of his party, and in either case is deserving of no little censure for thus misleading his readers, of whom few probably (speaking comparatively) would have the means of judging of the truth of his remark. Considering the character of the period, and the compa- PREFACE. XXX111 ratively limited number of original works then published to what there are now, it is surprising how many prac- tical works issued from the pens of our reformers and early divines, engaged as they were in the struggle with Popery. These things give reason to hope that such writers will ultimately find their level. Men do not like to be de- ceived, especially by those who put forth kigh claims to wisdom and learning. Their " quiet, self-complacent, supercilious language," as an able writer in the British Magazine has justly called it, 1 will be doubly offensive when found to be wanting in that which alone could afford the shadow of an apology for it. Their misrepresenta- tions, in particular, of the sentiments of our great divines, by a few loose and indefinite extracts from their writings, though for a time they have (as might be expected) de- ceived many, can ultimately only recoil upon themselves. The disingenuousness also with which Articles of religion, drawn up by Protestant divines, " for the establishment," as is confessed, " of Protestantism," are tortured to an Antiprotestant sense, in order to enable Antiprotestants to retain their places in our Church, is so utterly irrecon- cilable with those common principles that hold society together, that it cannot fail ultimately, as indeed it has done already, to estrange the minds of simple and upright Christian men from such teaching. Indeed it is impos- sible not to see that it is a mere temporary expedient, which cannot long satisfy even those who have availed themselves of it, a hastily constructed refuge within the walls of our Church for those who are seeking to gain possession of the citadel, and who suppose that they have better opportunities to do so within the walls than with- out, but whose avowed objects make it clear that the pre- sent state of things cannot last, that one party or the other must give way. And when this becomes clearly appreciated by the Church at large, may we not justly hope that many who have been attracted to their stan- 1 Biit. Mag. for May, 1839, p. 518. XXXIV PREFACE. dard while they were holding out, according to their own confession, " false colours," will, when they come to see the real state of the case, look upon them only as be- trayers, and that their very best defences, their " Catenas," and high pretensions to learning and wisdom, antiquity and Catholicism, will only be sources of moral weakness to their cause, and tend more than anything else to its over- throw. That such a controversy should have arisen in our Church is deeply to be regretted. The agitation of such questions necessarily produces disunion and party spirit, the great causes of weakness, disorder, and ruin to any community that is afflicted by them. The powers of the Church are thus paralyzed, her energies spent in useless, and worse than useless, contentions ; her friends are dis- couraged and perplexed, her enemies triumph ; her God is displeased, and her strength departs from her. How great the responsibility of those who have raised such a strife within her, and made it a duty incumbent upon those who have any regard for her preservation, to arm themselves against their brethren for the defence of her very foundations ! But when matters of such moment are at stake, when the question is, whether the true Catho- licism of our reformers is to give place to a system of doctrine and practice altogether unsound, and the cor- ruptions from which our faith and worship have through the mercy of God been purged, are to be reintroduced into our Church, it would be culpable indeed to remain a neutral, a silent, or an indifferent spectator. It becomes the duty of all to do what may be in their power to pre- vent such a result. The zeal, and earnestness, and per- severance with which Popish views and principles are urged upon the public mind, under the abused name of Catholicism/" must be met with correspondent efforts to unmask their unsoundness and dangerous tendency. In a word, if the cause for which our martyrs laid down their lives was one worthy of their blood, it is the duty of those who have succeeded to the possession of privileges PREFACE. so dearly purchased, to contend with similar dcvotedness for their preservation and transmission unimpaired to their children. And we may humbly hope that He who out of evil oft educeth good, may grant that even this con- troversy may not be without its good effects. The real principles of our Church will be better known arid ap- preciated, even among its own members and ministers. The foundation upon which it stands will, we are con- vinced, bear examination, and therefore, if God's blessing rest upon it, we fear not for the result. I am aware that it may be said, and with truth, that in the present day the majority need no arguments to in- duce them to slight human authority, and are scarcely willing to pay deference to any other guide than their own self-will. This I fully admit, and believe that judicious works, calculated to show the danger of such a disposition of mind, might, under the Divine blessing, be of essential service to the community, both as it respects their spi- ritual and temporal interests. But I see no reason hence to suppose that unfounded claims to their obedience would counteract the evil. Such doctrines as those of our opponents appear to me calculated to do anything rather than become a cure. I deny not, indeed, that to many minds they are likely to appear plausible, and cal- culated to act as a remedy for the evils which internal dissensions have produced in the Protestant body. The liberty obtained by the Reformation has no doubt been in some cases abused. And the panacea for the evils so caused may appear to many to be the re-establishment of the iron tyranny under which the minds of men were held previous to that event. I believe this to be a growing impression in the minds of many both in this country and elsewhere, and Rome is largely availing herself of it. But whatever may be in store for this or other countries as a temporary dispensation, as a punishment for their sins, we trust that the substitution of a system in which " the Church" and "the priest" are thrust almost in to the place of God and Christ, for the everlasting gospel, will c2 XXXV111 PREFACE. have surrendered to Rome the principles upon which that vast system of religious fraud and imposition is built, and while they give themselves out to be the opponents, nay the best opponents, of Romanism, though limiting their opposition to a few of her most crying sins and practical abuses, they are in fact paving the way for her by upholding those first principles of Popery, upon which her dominion over the minds of men 'principally rests. In the prosecution of the work, I have spared neither time nor labour in endeavouring to place before the reader the facts and arguments upon which his conclu- sions ought to rest, and further, to put him in possession of the views of the best and most able and pious writers upon the subject, both of the primitive Church and of our own. That more might have been done in this respect I freely own. But it was not composed in the calm quie- tude of the College, with every literary aid at hand, but (I may say it emphatically} amidst the cares and trials of active life. For the proper execution moreover of such a work many things are required ; facilities of which the great body of the parochial clergy are destitute. Those who know what opportunities such have of supplying them- selves with the original sources of information, will under- stand the difficulties to be encountered in the perform- ance of such a task. I trust, however, that the work will be found, upon the whole, to contain a fair and correct representation of the facts upon which the question rests, and of the sentiments of those referred to ; and that if there are some slighter inaccuracies, they are such as will not be found to affect the main argument of the work, a circumstance which those who are in search of truth will appreciate, when drawing their conclusions upon the points at issue. And here I would, once for all, acknowledge my obli- gations to those who have laboured in the same field before me, for many references to the Fathers, of which 1 have freely availed myself, when I have found them, on PREFACE. XXXIX viewing them in their context, to afford good proof of that for which they are cited. The authorities our earlier divines have adduced in their works against the Roman- ists have no doubt enabled me to push my researches much beyond what my own unassisted labours would have enabled me to do. I may be permitted to say, however, that I have endeavoured to explore the ground again with more attention to the original sources of information than has usually been paid to them here of late years, and trust that by so doing I have been enabled to add somewhat to what has been done by previous labourers in the same field. Of the replies already published to the writings of the Tractators, I have abstained almost wholly from the perusal ; the principal of them, indeed, I have not seen ; any similarity, therefore, of views or statements is wholly accidental. I appear before the public as the advocate of no parti- cular party or system, but that of the Church of England itself. As far as human infirmity (to the effects of which no man ought to shut his eyes) may permit the remark to be made, truth has been my only object, and I have fol- lowed where it appeared to lead me. And but for the establishment of great and important truths, I trust I shall never be found upon the field of controversy. It is one which nothing but a sense of duty should ever induce me to enter. In conclusion, I would express my sincere hope that there is nothing in the tone, or spirit, or language of the following work, of which my opponents can justly complain. If there is, I most sincerely regret it. On such important points as are there discussed, one cannot but feel warmly, and he who feels warmly is apt to ex- press himself warmly. I must beg pardon, however, for saying, that there are some circumstances in the present controversy which appear to me to justify, and indeed to require, strong language. There are many points in the XI PREFACE. system itself of our opponents, which it is impossible too strongly to denounce and reprobate. The means also by which that system has been enforced and recommended, are such as to require grave reprehension. Our oppo- nents appear to me like men who, thinking that a great change is needed in the views and practices of their Church, endeavour, by explaining away its formularies, and bringing forward a few isolated passages from the works of some of its great divines, to persuade people that it is no change at all ; for while they admit and bewail the fact, that their system has been nowhere and at no time put in practice in our Church, they persist in calling it the Anglican system. They must not then be surprised if this (however well intentioned) is not considered plain and fair dealing. Nor can I help adding, that the anony- mous publications of the party more particularly are, many of them, characterized by a self-complacent spirit, and scornful tone towards their opponents, such as inti- mate, more plainly than words could do, that the only possible reason for men not holding the views of the Tractators must be sheer ignorance ; a spirit and tone which, I will venture to say, the degree of learning and research shown in those productions renders worse than ridiculous. These are circumstances that would well jus- tify strong language. We are far from disputing the piety or the learning of the Tractators, but (let us not conceal from ourselves the fact) neither can we dispute the piety or learning of many others who have at various times misled portions of the Church. Such recommenda- tions, then, are wholly insufficient as proofs of the truth of their doctrines. These evidences are to be found with many different parties. The question, therefore, must be determined by an impartial investigation, in which all pre- judices derived from such sources must be laid aside. To enable the reader to conduct such an inquiry, is the object of the following work ; and thankful indeed shall I be, if it shall tend to bring back into the old paths of our PREFACE. xli Church any who have been misled, or preserve any who are in danger of being misled, by the specious arguments and plausible statements of the Tractators. I commend it humbly to His blessing who alone can make it instru- mental to the good of His Church. WILLIAM GOODE. London, November 20, 1841. P. S. A sudden and severe domestic affliction occur- ring since the above was written, arid while these sheets were passing through the press, must be my apology for a short delay in the appearance of this work beyond the time for which it was announced. Dec. 3, 1841. TABLE OF CONTENTS TO VOL. I. I'llKFACE . . . ' : . !,-,. . Vli CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS .'; : . . I 22 Principal Contents. All divine revelation demands our implicit faith and obedience . . 1 in a revelation of truths above our comprehension, demanding our faith, we are bound to require sufficient evidence of its divine origin 1, 2 This we must do individually, because we are to be judged as in- dividuals . . . . . . * Hence importance of ascertaining what divine revelations we possess, as being our rule of faith . .... - _..._ ,-,-.. . 3, 4 Rule of faith defined . -.,->- - . Bl4 . 4 The same our only divine rule of practice : .- ' : ' v" ' . ' .4 Distinction between rule of faith and rule of practice . . 4, 5 Belief of divine origin of any testimony professing to be divine re- velation must be on grounds satisfactory to reason . . -5 Our present inquiry is, what is the divine rule of faith and practice . 5 The chief question in this inquiry on the present occasion is, whether we have any certain witness of what the Apostles delivered orally . 6, 7 What is called "tradition" put forward as such by the Tractators . 7 Observations respecting the meaning and use of the word " tradition" 7 15 Wide distinction to be drawn between the value of the testimony of the Fathers as to doctrines and the oral teaching of the Apostles, and that of their testimony to facts that came under their own im- mediate cognizance . . . '. ' ".' . 15 ly When speaking of Scripture as the sole Rule of faith, &c. we are speaking in the strict sense of the terms, not as excluding other things as useful guides to religious knowledge ; though much mis- represented on this point v " ". ' i ', , " , 1820 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Our argument will be almost wholly an a posteriori argument . . 20 22 Great object of work is, to demonstrate that Holy Scripture is our sole and exclusive Divine Rule of faith and practice . .22 CHAPTER II. THE DOCTRINE OP DR. PUSEY, MR. KEBLE, MR. NEWMAN AND THE " TRACTS FOR THE TIMES," ON THE SUBJECT OF PATRISTICAL TRA- DITION AND POINTS CONNECTED THEREWITH, WITH SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THEIR STATEMENTS . . . 23 - 78 Principal Contents. Extracts from Mr. Newman ... . . 24 29 Extracts from Mr. Keble . . . 2934 Extract from Tract 85 .... . . 3537 Summary of the doctrine of the Tractators on the subject . . 37,38 Dr. Pusey's doctrine on the subject . . .38 Vanity of the distinctions attempted to be drawn between the doctrine of the Tractators and that of the Romanists on the subject . . 39, 40 Extracts from Mr. Newman, illustrating the doctrine of the Tractators on the kindred subjects of Church authority and private judgment 41 51 Extracts from the Homilies on the subject . . . 51, 52 Remarkable inconsistency of the statements of the Tractators . . 53 55 Instances of misstatements and mistakes Respecting the Article on the Church in the Creed ..... 5558 Respecting the views of Protestants ........ 5865 Respecting the Creed called " the Apostles' Creed" ..... 65, 66 Respecting a passage of Athanasius, with remarks illustrative of his use of the word tradition ........... 6G 70 Respecting another passage of Atlmnasius ....... 7073 Respecting a third passage of Athanasius, which, by a remarkable want of acquaintance with the meaning of the phrase " the Evangelical tradition," Mr. Newman has quoted as supporting hU views, but which is altogether opposed to them, with proofs from the Fathers of the meaning of the phrase ...... . : . ...... 7376 Further mistranslation of the same passage ....... 76 Practical meaning of the Tractatore when they speak of " Cfitholic consent" . . . . V 77, Extraordinary statements of the Tractators respecting the nature of the Christian's faith and the evidence on which it rests . . 77, 78 CHAPTER III. COMPARISON OF THE DOCTRINE MAINTAINED IN THE WORKS ABOVE MENTIONED ON THE SUBJECT OF PATRISTICAL TRADITION WITH THAT OF THE ROMISH CHURCH ' ''.' . ' ' . . 79 108 Principal Contents. Comparison of the doctrine of the Tractators and that of the Ro- manists on ihc first of the five propositions, in which the doctrine of TAT5LE OF CONTENTS. the former in ay be summed up ; namely, That consentient patristical tradition, or " catholic consent," is an unwritten word of God, a divine informant in religion, and consequently entitled, as to its substance, to equal respect with the Holy Scriptures . . . 80 86 Comparison of the same on the second proposition,namely, That such tradition is consequently a part of the divinely-revealed rule of faith and practice ' -'^'i ' . . 86, 87 Comparison of the same on the third proposition, namely, That it is a necessary part of the divine rule of faith and practice, on account of the defectiveness of Scripture, for that (1 ) though it does not re- veal to us any fundamental articles of faith or practice not noticed in Scripture, Holy Scripture containing, that is, giving hints or notices of, all the fundamental articles of faith and practice, it is yet a necessary part of the divine rule of faith and practice as the interpreter of Scripture, and as giving the full developement of many articles, some of which are fundamental, which are but im- perfectly developed in Scripture ; and (2) it is an important part of that rule, as conveying to us various important divinely-re- vealed doctrines and rules not contained in Scripture . . 8795 Comparison of the same on the fourth proposition, namely, That pa- tristical tradition is a necessary part of the divine rule of faith and practice, because of the obscurity of Scripture even in some of the fundamental articles, which makes Scripture insufficient to teach us even the fundamentals of faith and practice . . .95, 96 Comparison of the same on the fifth proposition, namely, That it is only by the testimony of patristical tradition that we are assured of the inspiration of Scripture, what books are canonical, and the genuineness of what we receive as such . ' ".' . 96, .97 Remarkable similarity, and in some parts coincidence, in the state- ments of Mr. Newman on " Tradition," and those of a celebrated Roman Catholic dissertation on Irenaeus on the same subject . .98 103 Further proofs of the identity of the doctrine of the Tractators and the Romanists from our own Dean Field, from a Roman Catholic speaker at the Downside Discussion, from Dr. Hawardine, &c. . 103 108 CHAPTER IV. THAT THERE ARE NO WRITINGS EXTANT ENTITLED TO THE NAME OF APOSTOLICAL TRADITIONS BUT THB CANONICAL SciU'PTURES . 109 156 Principal Contents. Introductory remarks . . , . .. . . .'. . . 109,110 That no precise form of words was left by the Apostles as the Christian creed . . '.' . 111119 TABLE OF CONTENTS. That there was no such definite summary of the chief articles of belief given by the Apostles to the Christian Church as " the Creed ;" and that what is called " the Apostles' Creed" is merely the antient Creed of the Church of Rome, and no more entitled to the name than any other of the antient Creeds . . .119131 That which is called " the Apostles' Creed" gradually attained its present form, and that two at least of the Articles it now contains were not inserted in it before the fourth century . . . 131 140 That the Creeds of the primitive Church were derived originally from the Holy Scriptures .... 141 146 Consequently, That none of the antient Creeds can be considered as an Apostolical production .... 14C 14f) The question discussed, Whether the Creed is a selection of the fun- damental articles of the Christian faith . . . 148 155 What we are to understand by the name " Rule of Faith," applied by the early Fathers to the Creeds which they delivered ? . 1 5G CHAPTER V. THAT PATRISTICAL TRADITION is NOT A " PRACTICALLY INFALLIBLE" WITNESS OF THB ORAL TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES, NOR RECEIV- ABLE AS A DIVINE INFORMANT .... 157 461 Principal Contents. SECTION I. Preliminary remarks ..... 157167 SECTION II. No degree of consent, the knowledge of which is attainable, is worthy of being considered a certain witness of the oral teaching of the Apostles, or receivable as a divine informant . . .167 187 SECTION III. The inadequacy of the records that remain to us of the primitive Church, to be taken as anything like a sufficient and indubitable representation of the faith of the whole Church . . 1 87 220 From their paucity . . 188101 From their being such only as the ruling party in the Church has from time to time allowed to be preserved . . ... 192 108 From the works of the Fathers having been mutilated and corrupted, and works forged In their name . . 199220 SECTION IV. The witness of patristical tradition, even in the writings that have been preserved, is of a discordant kind, and that even in funda- mental points . . . ". .220368 TABLE OF CONTENTS. xlvii Tha statements of Irenreus, TcrtulHan, and Orlgcn considered . . Tlie witness of patristical tradition, as it respects the divinity of the Holy Spirit ........ Do. as to the doctrine of the divinity and generation of Christ . Do. as to the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son . . '. . ' , Do. as to the doctrines connected with the Nestorlan, Eutychian, and Pelagian errors ....... Do. as to the doctrine of the intermediate state Do. as to the sense of Scripture, instanced particularly in Pror. viii. 22. John x.30. Johnxiv. 28. Phil. ii. 6. . . . . The Fathers at variance, even in points called by some of them Aposto- lical traditions, instanced in (1) the doctrine of the Millennium ; (2) the disputes respecting the time of observing Easter ; (3) the question re- lating to the re-baptization of those baptized by heretics ; (4) various minor points .... . . The Fathers at variance on various points, maintained by some of ihem to be doctrines of " the Church" ..... The Fathers at variance, even in their Conciliar decisions Collateral proofs that there is no such consent as our opponents suppose in the writings of the Fathers .... Liability to mistake in fancying consent of Fathers, shown by some of the very cases referred to by our opponents aa undoubted instances of consent . . ... . . Concluding remarks . . . . \. . . . , . SECTION V. 240245 245- 286 287, 288 288291 345351 351356 3603(53 363 3C8 Consent, even in the writings that remain to us, not to be expected 368375 SECTION VI. The uncertainties and difficulties with which even that small and partial consent, which may sometimes be attainable, and is called by our opponents " Catholic consent," is embarrassed . . 375 390 SECTION VII. The rival appeals made to patristical tradition in antient times, on several of the most important points, grounded upon testimonies, many of which we do not now possess, much reduce the value of any partial consent we may find on such points, in the works that remain to us 390409 SECTION VIII. What the Tractators call " Catholic consent," is not treated by themselves, in many cases, as affording any sufficient proof of the doctrines so supported . . . . 409 425 SECTION IX. The doctrine of the Tractators founded upon suppositions which arc contradicted by facts '/ . . . ' .426441 SECTION X. Reply to objections, and concluding remarks . 441-461 xlviii TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER VI. PAGE ON THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE DOCTRINE RESTS THAT SCRIPTURE IS THB WORD OF GOD ..... 462 522 Principal Contents. An influential belief in this doctrine, the work of the Spirit of God 462 46. 1 ) Patristical tradition no sufficient proof of the doctrine of the inspira- tion of Scripture ..... 4GG 471 A proof of the divine mission of our Lord and his Apostles, will prove that the Scriptures of the Apostles are to be viewed as the word of God .... 472-475 Nature of the proof for the genuineness and incorrupt state of the Apostolical Scriptures ..... 476484 Nature of the proof for their authenticity and credibility . 484, 485 Nature of the proof for their inspiration . . .486491 The case of the three books written by Mark and Luke distinctly considered ...... 491496 General remarks ..... 497508 Summary view of the argument for the inspiration of the New Tes- tament ...... 508510 Extraordinary statements of Mr. Newman, and Tract 85, on this subject, discussed and controverted . . 510 522 CHAPTER VII. THAT HOLY SCRIPTURE is OUR SOLE DIVINELY-REVEALED RULE OP FAITH AND PRACTICE, AND SOLE INFALLIBLE JUDGE OF CONTRO- VERSIES IN RELIGION, AND IS CONSEQUENTLY IN THE CREDENDA OF RELIGION THE SOLE AUTHORITY WHICH BINDS THE CONSCIENCE TO BELIEF IN WHAT IT DELIVERS .... 523 648 Principal Contents. Preliminary remarks, in which it is shown that this follows from what has been already proved .... 523 530 On the true nature and extent of the truth, that Scripture is the sole divine Rule of faith and practice .... 530 536 The additional arguments by which the view here taken may be es- tablished, with a reply to the objections by which it is assailed . 536 591 (1) The arguments and objections derived from Scripture itself . . 536 552 (2) The arguments and objections which may be derived from the nature and character of the Scriptures of the New Testament, a* it respects the object for which they were written . , - . 552 5C(J (3) The arguments and objections which may be derived from other general considerations ..... 566591 On the true meaning and extent of the assertion, that Holy Scrip- ture is the sole infallible Judge of controversies respecting the truths of revelation . . , . . 59 J, 592 A consideration of the arguments and objections which may be ad- vanced respecting this truth ' . . ' . 592644 (1) From Scripture itself . . . , . . 592-595 (3) From general considerations . . . . 5!)5 644 ERRATA AND ADDENDA. VOL. I. P. 16. 1. 20 and 25. For " fact " read " question of fact." 1 9. 1 3. After " admit " add " as a matter of fact." 35. 37, For "sturcture" read "structure." 38. 4. For " the " read " that." -5. After " important " add " divinely revealed." 70. 33. Add," The treatise from which this passage is taken, is indeed placed by the Benedictines among those of doubtful au- thorship, but on very indirect grounds. At any rate, those who have quoted the passage against us, as Bellarmine and others, may be content to receive it back again in its right meaning." 89. 1. 30. For " Chalmers" read Watt." 122. Note 3. For tryewjre, ayevinjTov, yewr\rou, (which are the readings of the Cologne edition,) read ayfirrrre, aywrirov, yfvrjTov, as in the Benedictine ; and in the translation accordingly for unbegotten and begotten, read uncreated and created. That the latter reading is the correct one, is, I think, proved by the remarks of Athanasius De deer. Nic. Syn. 28. vol i. p. 234. ed. Ben. 208. 1. 8. After " confirmed by," add, " Bishop Patrick in his Answer to the Touchstone and " 493. 1. 21. To the word " testimony" append the following note. ' See Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. ult., and lib. vi. c. 14." 558. 1. 30. Before " faith" insert " necessary." 566. 1. 1 . For " revealed truth " read " the rule of faith." 585. 1. 7. After " this " add, " (as far as it can be a guide)." VOL. II. 47. note 1. 24, 5. For " revertenes," read " revertentes." 331.1. 9. Add as a note, In accordance with this statement of Atha- nasius, it is said by Phaebadius, " Quid egistis, O beat as memoriae viri, qui ex omnibus orbis partibus Nicaeam con- gregati, et sacris voluminibus pertractis perfectam fidei Ca- tholicae regulam circuminspecto sermone fecistis." Phajbad. Contra Arian. lib. i. . 6. Bibl. Patr. V. 251 . ed. Galland. 603. 1. 11, 12. For " authoritative teacher of " read " our authoritative teacher in." CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. THE word of God, however conveyed to us, binds the conscience to the reception of whatever it may deliver. Every statement that has competent evidence of its divine origin, written or unwritten, demands our faith and obe- dience. There is no room in such a case for doubt or inquiry. All that we have to consider is, What is de- livered? and what is delivered is to be received upon the affirmation of its Divine Author. It is evident, then, that in the case of a revelation that includes much that is mysterious and beyond the power of man fully to comprehend, this implicit belief in the doctrines it reveals, involves a complete surrender of the mind to the truth so delivered, such a surrender as is due only to divine revelation, and not to be given to anything that comes under that name without sufficient evidence of its divine origin. The higher the authority conceded to divine revelation, so much the more does all that comes to us under such a designation demand our investigation as to the evidence for its divine origin. The more com- pletely we are left to lean upon the intrinsic value of the divine testimony as the alone ground of our belief, from the mysteriousness of the truths revealed, the more are we bound to sift the evidence for its being a divine testi- mony. For in such matters we are very easily misled. In the VOL. T. B 2 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. doctrines of religion we have no internal monitor able to discern truth from error. And hence he who is willing to receive as divine that which comes to him under such a name, but with insufficient evidence of its divine origin, is at the mercy of every impostor or enthusiast he may meet with. Moreover, if God has given us a revelation, and re- quires of us as individuals a reception of the truths and precepts he has revealed for our everlasting salvation, then does it especially concern us as individuals to look to the evidences of that which comes to us with the profession of being his word, that we may separate the wheat from the chaff, and not be misled in matters affecting our eternal interests. This, I say, it becomes us to do as in- dividuals, because we are to be judged by God individually ; and if we have possessed the opportunities of knowledge, it will be no plea in bar of judgment that the church or body to which we belonged taught us error, for even death may be awarded us under such circumstances, though our blood be required of those who have misled us. (See Ezekiel iii. 18, 20. &c.) This our responsibility to God as individuals, it is most important for us to keep in view, because it shows us the indispensable necessity of ascertaining, to the satisfaction of our own minds, that it is divine testimony upon which we are relying in support of what we hold as the doc- trines of Christianity. Then only are we safe, for if our reliance is placed upon anything else, we immediately lay ourselves open to error. He who embraces even a true doctrine on insufficient grounds, exposes himself to the admission of false doctrine on similar grounds. And it is more easy and pleasant to build on a false foundation than the true one, for the former has no certain limits, which the latter has. The whole superstructure of Romanism 1 has been erected on a few false principles admitted as the 1 I use the words Romanism and Romanist, Popery and Papist, without any wish to speak offensively to those so designated, and see no reason why they who practically identify the Church of Rome with the Catholic Church, and INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 3 foundation. And belief founded upon a false foundation or insufficient'grounds is generally but weak and wavering ; and if it be shaken, true and false doctrines fall together. Hence it is of essential moment to us to ascertain what we possess that can be called divine revelation on the subject of religion, for to it, whatever it may be, our rule of faith must be limited. We here take the phrase, " Rule of faith" it will be observed, as referring only to " the faith once delivered to the saints," the truths of Christianity, the Christian re- ligion, which is its usual meaning in theology. Other matters may be objects of faith, as to cite the most important example that the Scriptures are the word of God ; but these do not enter into " the faith." And I make the remark here, in order to put the reader upon his guard against the cavil that the Scripture is not the com- plete rule of faith, because it does not testify of itself as a whole that it is the word of God ; whereas this is a matter totally distinct from that which we are considering, viz. whether " the faith," the Christian religion, is not fully contained in the Scripture, and that the Scripture is our only divine informant respecting it. The rule of faith, then, may be briefly described as that which God has delivered respecting religion ; and if we inquire as to the extent and limits of that rule to us, we have simply to determine the extent and limits of that which we have sufficient grounds for believing to be divine revelation on the subject. For the doctrines of re- ligion, excepting those which are made manifest by the works of God, can be known only by divine revelation : none but God has a right to be heard in this matter. Faith in them, therefore, must have what it believes to be testimony that has a divine source and authority as a foundation to rest upon. They are not matters that are to be proved by argument, but to be received from God. Faith in a mathematical truth may be produced by argu- make the Pope Christ's Vicar, should be offended at such terms. I use them merely for the sake of brevity. B2 4 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. ment, and rests ultimately upon certain self-evident truths. Faith in the inspiration, &c. of Scripture may rest upon grounds which derive their force from approving themselves to human reason. Faith in the doctrines of Christianity rests upon the word of God. The Christian religion is a revelation from God. Faith (as connected with our pre- sent subject) is a belief in that revelation, and a belief in it on the authority of Him who has revealed it. And therefore the sole object of faith is that which is revealed to us, be it more or less ; and any abstract inquiry as to what must be the necessary extent of such revelation is both out of place and irreverent, for all we have to do is thankfully to accept what God has given us. OUR rule of faith, therefore, is the whole of that tes- timony we possess respecting religion which we can prove to have a divine source and authority. By that testimony our faith is to be directed and measured ; and therefore it is properly called our rule of faith. I need hardly add, that the same testimony, being our only divine testimony, must be our only divine rule of prac- tice in our religious duties, though it must be observed that in the two cases there is this difference, that while all the doctrines of religion must have express divine testimony to rest upon, so that the rule of faith is strictly limited to that which has such testimony, inasmuch as no human witness on such a point is a sufficient foundation for faith, there may, nevertheless, be religious duties prescribed by human authority under that power which God has given to the church in his word for the decent ordering of his service. Such at least is the doctrine of our church, and in this she differs from most of the sects who have departed from her communion ; which does not, however, prevent her from admitting, that those only are intrinsically necessary that are prescribed by the divine rule itself. And in the exercise of this power our church wisely retains many of those rites and usages which ecclesiastical tradition has handed down to us as having been very generally ob- served in the church in primitive times, thinking, as INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 5 Hooker says, when speaking of those " traditions" which our church receives, " that traditions ecclesiastical are not rudely and in gross to be shaken off, because the inventors of them were men." l In matters oi' faith, therefore, the divine rule is our sole authoritative rule ; in matters of practice there may be added to those which are prescribed by the divine rule, by the authority which Christ has left with his church for the direction of its rites and services, such as are necessary to the maintenance of peace and order. Moreover, belief as to the divine origin of any testimony claiming to be received as a divine revelation must be grounded upon evidence satisfactory to our reason. For faith, if it be worth the name, must have sufficient ground to rest upon. And therefore, as faith in the truths delivered by what is acknowledged to be divine revelation has the best of all possible grounds to rest upon, even in those that are above human reason, viz. the Divine Word, so be- lief that Scripture is a divine revelation has ample evi- dence to rest upon, such as commends itself to human reason, and leaves him inexcusable who does not receive it in that character. This, then, is our present subject. We are inquiring where the divine, or divinely revealed, rule of faith and practice is to be found, and what are the extent and limits of that rule ; that is, in fact, what are the extent and limits of that which we have sufficient ground for considering to be divine revelation? In the future consideration of the subject we shall direct our attention more particularly to that part of it which concerns the rule of faith, that not only being the most important, but in fact to a considerable extent including the other in its determination, for in both cases the sole question to be determined is, what certain depository or infallible teacher of divine revelation we possess ; adding, in the course of the inquiry, whatever may seem requisite on the latter point. ' Eccl. Pol. book v. c. 65. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. It is admitted on all hands, by all who bear the Christian name, that the first and great revelation of the doctrines of Christianity was made by our Lord and his apostles, and that what they delivered on the subject of religion is to be received as a divine revelation. I will venture to add, that it has been the general belief of the best and purest part of the church in all ages, that our Lord and his apostles could alone be looked upon as the certain and publicly accredited organs through which any divine revelation has been received by us on the subject. There are no doubt dissentients to this doc- trine. There have been in the church, at various times, enthusiasts, who have pretended to have received addi- tional revelations of divine truth. There are those who consider that the decrees of certain councils of the church, at which a great number of bishops have been present, are to be received as beyond doubt the determinations of the Holy Spirit, binding the conscience of every man to belief as an immediate divine testimony. But these are notions with which on the present occasion we need not concern ourselves. Our task lies with those who embrace the notion that, with the exception of course of the Old Testament, all doctrines claiming our belief must be traceable to our Lord and his apostles. This is held to be the case by most of the Romanists themselves. Thus the Jesuit Fisher, in his answer to White, says " The church, even to the world's end, must be founded on the apostles, and believe nothing as matter of faith besides that which was delivered of them." (Re- joinder to White, p. 51.) And the same is stated in the strongest terms by Holden.* We have, then, to determine the limits of the divine re- velation we can ascertain to have come down to us from them. Here, again, it is generally admitted that the most sacred record of this revelation is to be found in the Holy Scriptures. 1 Div. fid. Aiialys. lib. i. c. 8, lect. iii. 2, p. 95. Paris, 1767. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 7 But it cannot be denied that when the apostles were delivering to men that divine revelation with which they were charged, they delivered it by word of mouth as well as in the writings that have come down to us, and that they first delivered it orally, and afterwards penned the writings they have left us. The question, then, for our determination is this, Whether we have any record or wit- ness of their oral teaching, such as can be received by us as a divine revelation supplementary to, and interpreta- tive of, the writings they have left us." This is, in few words, the question we are now about to discuss. A small party has lately arisen in the Church of Eng- land who have, with the Romanists, asserted the affirma- tive of this question, and maintain that we have, in the work.s of those who came after the apostles, a certain record in many points of the substance of their oral teaching, and that such is the doctrine of the primitive Fathers, and of the Church of England. We maintain the negative, and maintain our view to be that of most, to say the least, of the primitive Fathers, and of the Church of England to which we belong, and which we venerate and revere as the apostolical church of this country. This, I say, is the main question we have to discuss here, though, as will readily be conceived, there are other im- portant questions connected with it, and arising out of it, which necessarily enter into the discussion. This supposed supplementary record of inspired teach- ing is called by the somewhat loose and indefinite name of tradition, or sometimes apostolical tradition, a name which is very calculated to mislead the uninitiated reader, who is ready to suppose that he who refuses to receive " apostolical tradition" must be wanting in the respect due to the apostles. Nay, the charge is made by those from whom one might least have expected it. We shall there- fore make a few remarks upon the word tradition before we proceed further, in order to show the diverse and arbitrary senses in which it is used by theologians, and 8 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. remove, if possible, the difficulties thus created in the way of the general reader. This word literally means only a delivery, or thing de- livered, from one person to another, and that in any way ; so that it is equally applicable to what is delivered in \vriting as to that which is delivered orally, as Bellarmine himself states, 1 and so it is used in the Scripture ; 2 and also by the Fathers. 3 But at other times it is used by the Fathers, 4 as well as modern writers, to signify that which was delivered orally, in contradistinction to what was delivered by writing. It has also been used to signify a report that has passed through several hands from one to another of that which was delivered orally by its first author ; 5 and this is the sense a sort of arbitrary technical sense in which it is used by our opponents, and is indeed in common use, to 1 Nomen traditionis generate est, et significat omnem doctrinam sive scrip- tarn sive non scriptam quae ab uno communicatur alteri. BELLARM. De verb. Dei. lib. iv. c. 2. 2 " Hold the traditions (rus irapaSoffeis) which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." 2 Thess. ii. 15. 3 Thus Gregory Nyssen uses the words, " the evangelical and apostolical traditions," (tvayyf\iKais rt KCU uiroffTo\iKais irapaSoffefft,} to express the books of the New Testament. De Virg. c. xi. ed. 1615, tom.ii. p. 579. So Tertul- lian, after referring to various passages of the New Testament which Marcion wished to expunge, says, " Believe what is delivered (tradited)." Crede quod traditum est. De carne Christi, c. ii. ed. 1664. p. 308 ; and so elsewhere he says, " An et traditio nisi scripta non debeat recipi." (De. Cor. c. iii. ib.p. 101 ). So Hippolytus the Martyr, after having quoted various passages from the New Testament, and pointed them out as amply sufficient to teach the truth he was inculcating, says, '' Let us therefore, my dear brethren, believe accord- ing to the tradition of the apostles, (Kara vr\v vapaSoffiv ruv AirooroAcw).'' Contr. Noet. . 17. ed. Fabr. vol. ii. p. 18. Many others might be added ; but we shall have occasion to refer to this point again. 4 Twy fi> Ti) E/c/cA?jIS BASIL. M. De Spir. S. c. 27. ed. Bened. vol. iii. p. 54. Ta ptv (V ypwpeus, ra Se fv irapa$o A.irocrTi>\iKriv 7rapa()o)." De incarn. Verbi Dei, init. The whole passage is well worthy of notice, not only as showing the patristical use of the word tradition, but also as showing the different view which Athanasius took of the use of Scripture to that which Mr. Newman advocates. The sum and substance of this passage is, that it is the duty of the man of weak intellect to go to Scrip- ture, the scriptural tradition, and keep the faith as THERE delivered to us. There is also another passage where both Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble have allowed themselves to follow an alteration slipped without notice into the punctuation of the text of Athanasius by the Benedictine Editors, where the sense is materially changed in favour of Romish doc- DOCTRINE OF THE TRACT ATORS. 71 trine, and, moreover, the construction of the sentence un- warrantably tampered with. The passage is in the letter to Epictetus, and relates to those who were propagating the Apollinarian heresy, and is thus translated by Mr. Newman, " They ought to receive this answer and nothing- bey ond, ' It is enough that these are not the doctrines of the church nor of the Fathers.' " (p. 887.) Mr. Keble's translation is in effect precisely the same. (p. 128.) And then the passage is adduced as a proof of the sufficiency of church-tradition to satisfy the mind of the truth of a doc- trine. Now the passage as it stands in all the editions preced- ing the Benedictine reads thus; Ta yapourw ^avepw? enc-. rv/Aeva 0au\a, yu/.ivaeip CTTI vXetov Kai 7repiepyae(rdai ov Set, ii'ii fit) TOiq <[>i\oveiKOv That which has been observed in the whole church, and in all past times, is justly considered to have been instituted by the apostles, although it is of such a nature that it might have been ordained by the church. . . . The fourth rule is, When all the doctors of the church declare with one consent that anything descends from apostolical tradition, either when assembled in a general council, or writing individually in their works, that is to be considered to be an apostolical tradition The fifth rule is, That is to be believed beyond doubt to descend from apostolical tradition which is considered to be such in those churches where there is an entire and uninterrupted succession from the apostles." 1 It is hardly necessary to say that he adds the limitation* " We admit no tradition that is contrary to Scripture;" 2 " we never defend traditions that are at variance with Scripture." 3 1 De V. Dei. lib. iv. c. 9. 2 Nee ullam traditionem admittimus contra Scripturam. Ib. c. 3. 3 Nee enim traditiones cum Scriptura pugnantes unquam defendimus. Ib. c. 11. VOL T. G 82 DOCTRINE OF THE TUACTATORS The first four of these rules for ascertaining what is supposed to remain to us of oral apostolical tradition are in effect the same as those of Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble. That the fourth accords with the views of our opponents will not be questioned. And so does the first practically. For when Bellarmine speaks of the universal church holding this or that, he means not merely the pre- sent church, but the church as including the Fathers ; and both he and I believe, I might say, all the best writers of the Romish communion hold that the testimony of the Fathers in their writings is necessary for the establish- ment of anything as having proceeded from the oral teaching of the apostles. The examples given by Bellar- mine on this rule show this, being the perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord, and the number of the canonical books, for a proof of both which they would send us to the Fathers. And he says, "That is called unwritten doctrine, not such as is nowhere written, but that which is not written by its first author. As, for instance, the baptism of infants. That infants are to be baptized is called an unwritten apostolical tradition, because it is not found written in any apostolical book, although it is writ- ten in the books of almost all the antient Fathers." 1 And again, " Those rites only we receive as apostolical which we can prove to be apostolical by firm testimonies of the antients." 2 And one of his notes of the true church is "agreement in doctrine with the primitive church." And Cardinal Perron distinctly lays down the catholic consent of the primitive church as the test of truth in the way that our opponents have. "That then," he says, " shall remain truly universal and catholic that the most eminent Fathers of the times of the four first Councils have taught in several regions of the earth ; and against which none (except some persons noted for dissension in the church) hath resisted, or that the Fathers of those ages do testify to have been believed and practised by the whole church in their times. And that shall remain 1 De V - Dei. iv. c. 2. ' De v IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 83 truly antient and apostolic that the Fathers of those ages do testify to have been observed by the whole church, not as a thing sprung up in their time, but as a thing derived down to them either from the immemorial succession of former ages or from the express tradition of the apostles." And he takes the period of the four councils (he tells us) because, if the period taken be much shorter, " there remain so few writings of that date" that " the face of the antient doctrine and practice cannot evidently appear to be therein represented." (Letter to Casaubon, inserted at the beginning of his " Eeplique," &c.) So that the tradition of which these authors speak must derive its proofs from the writings of the early Fathers, and be, ui fact, as that of our opponents is, patristical tradition. I do not deny, but am well aware, that some writers among the Ro- manists have not apparently owned the necessity of find- ing the whole doctrine of the church in the Fathers, but have seemed to suppose that some part of the oral teach- ing of the apostles might yet be unwritten, and in the possession of the church, so that the church might at any time declare a doctrine not opposed to Scripture or what is called the unanimous consent of antiquity, to have come down by successive oral delivery from the apostles ; and that upon her testimony, she being the keeper of the oral teaching of the apostles, we are bound to believe such doctrine to be apostolical. But this is not the doctrine of such men as those we have quoted. They clearly held, at any rate in theory, with our opponents, that the oral teaching of the apostles was to be sought for in the writ- ten patristical report of it. And even in the case of the others, I suspect it would be generally found, that any apparent difference in their statements arose only from our affixing a different sense to the phrase oral tradition to what they did, and supposing it to mean a tradition that has never been put in writing, instead of a tradition not put in writing by its author. Hence it was said by Mr. Eyre, in his " Reply to the Rev. R.Churton," " Had you examined the expositions of G 2 84 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACT ATOR8 their faith as stated in councils, by universities, divines, &c. you would have learnt that the uninterrupted and com- mon consent of all ages was requisite to constitute tradi- tion a rule of faith." . . . "You do not seem to com- prehend what is meant by the unwritten word of God, or oral tradition. You suppose, if it be upon record (to use your own words) it ceases to be oral tradition or the unwritten word of God. No such thing. It is not called the unwritten word of God because it is nowhere com- mitted to writing, as I told you before, but because it is not written in the inspired books of Scripture. And though we should admit oral tradition in the sense you take it, yet .every discriminating article, either as to faith or morality, we can readily prove from tradition in the sense I have explained it." (pp. 121, 2.) And so it was said by one of the Roman Catholic speakers in the " Downside discussion," " Secure in these assurances [i. e. Matt, xxviii. 20 ; &c.] the church collates the writings of the Fathers, and judging by their morally unanimous testimony, it discerns true traditions from false." * And the Council of Trent enjoins 2 that no one shall interpret, Scripture contrary to the unanimous con- sent of the Fathers (contra unanimem consensum Patrum). And Pius IV. orders all the clergy and regulars of every order to take an oath that they will never understand nor interpret Scripture but according to the unanimous con- sent of the Fathers. 3 The fifth rule, understood with the limitation which of course was intended, viz. that the point established by it be not contradicted by other similarly obtained testimony, (for otherwise this rule would be contradictory to the pre- ceding,) is also in perfect accordance apparently with the views advocated in the works under consideration. I am not speaking of the use made of this rule by the Church 1 Downs, discussion, p. 70. s Sess. 4. 3 Nee earn [i. e. Scripturam] unquam nisijuxta unanimem consensum Pa- trum accipiam et interpretabor. Bull. Pii IV. sup. form. Juram. prefix, ad Catech. Concil. Trid. IDENTICAL WITH THE JtOMISH. 85 of Rome, who, boasting that she is the only church re- maining that has preserved the apostolical succession, sanctifies by this rule all her impositions, shutting out by her exclusive claims the possibility of contradiction ; but I speak of the rule in itself, and according to its fair ap- plication. And if I rightly understand the doctrine of " episcopal grace" as delivered in these works, it com- pletely establishes the truth of this rule. " Apostolical or episcopal grace," says Mr. Keble, " is by God"s ordinance the guardian of sound doctrine; the spirit abiding in Timothy is to watch incessantly the deposit or trust of divine truth left in his charge ; and where the one, the succession, fails, there, as this verse would lead us to expect, and as all church history proves, the other, the truth of doctrine, is immediately in imminent jeopardy." (p. 44.) But, however this may be, the theory of the two on the subject of tradition is evidently precisely the same; and the power which the Church of Rome in every age assumes of declaring what is and what is not an aposto- lical tradition, is a power limited in theory by these rules. It is true that in the application of these rules the Church of Rome may be " neglectful of antiquity" for the sake of maintaining some favourite doctrine or rite, as Mr. Newman justly charges upon her, but so may others also, and some think that the writers of the Tracts for the Times may in some points be included in the number ; nay, the Church of Rome may (as Bellarmine does for her in the passage we have been quoting) claim to be the only church remaining that possesses the apostolical suc- cession. But these matters are quite distinct from her doctrine of tradition. They may lead her into error in her application of that doctrine, but they are quite dis- tinct from and independent of it. The doctrine is pre- cisely the same as that advocated by the Tractators. Mr. Newman has devoted his second lecture to the subject of " Romanism as neglectful of antiquity." The charge is a just one, but I cannot think that Mr. Newman has there proved it ; for all which his observations go to prove is, that some individual members of the Church of 86 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS Rome have without difficulty conceived themselves to have found in the Fathers precisely what their prejudices led them to wish for. Now did it never strike him that if his own great argument is just, viz. that the meaning of Scripture must be uncertain and obscure, because it is quoted in support of opposite doctrines, this is one of the best proofs he could have given of the uncertainty and obscurity of pa- tristical tradition, that the Fathers can so readily be ad- duced in favour of contrary views ? In making these remarks, I would by no means be un- derstood to deny that practically the system of the Romish church is much worse than a faithful adherence to such a rule of judgment would produce. On the contrary, we are at issue with Rome, not merely as to her theory of tradition, but also as to her allegation that primitive anti- quity is on her side. We deny altogether that patristical testimony taken as a whole is in her favour, and claim it in behalf of the doctrines of our own church, and there- fore are opposed to Rome, as it respects the fact what doctrines and practices have the support of antiquity. And to this part of our controversy with her our oppo- nents would limit our whole controversy with her, and still further reduce even this part of it, by admitting doc- trines repudiated both by the authoritative documents and the best divines of our church, and claiming for them with the Romanists the support of antiquity. We may say of them, therefore, what both we and they agree to say of the Romanists, that their doctrines are worse than a faithful adherence to their own rule would produce ; ever remembering that besides this controversy as to the matter of fact, we have another and a more important with them, as to what is the sole divine rule of faith and practice. II. That such tradition is consequently a part of the divinely-revealed rule of faith and practice. In addition to the extracts given under the last head, I subjoin the following, " I assert," says Bellarmine, " that Scripture, although IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 87 not composed principally with the view of its being a rule of faith, is nevertheless a rule of faith, not the entire rule but a partial rule. For the entire rule of faith is the word of God, or God's revelation made to the church, which is distributed into two partial rules, Scripture and tradition." 1 And so the Tridentine Catechism says, "The whole of the doctrine to be delivered to the faithful is contained in the word of God, which is distributed into Scripture and traditions." 2 III. That it is a necessary part of the divine rule of faith and practice, on account of the defectiveness of Scrip- ture, for that (1) though it does not reveal to us any fun- damental articles of faith or practice not noticed in Scrip- ture, Holy Scripture containing, that is, giving hints or notices of, all the fundamental articles of faith and practice, it is yet a necessary part of the divine rule of faith and practice as the interpreter of Scripture, and as giving the full development of many articles, some of which are fundamental, which are but imperfectly developed in Scripture : and, (2) it is an important part of that rule as conveying to us various important doctrines and rules not contained in Scripture. The former of these two propositions includes two points ; the first, that Holy Scripture contains all the fundamental articles of faith and practice ; the second, that nevertheless it is to be considered as even in these only a part of the rule of faith and of the divine rule of practice, the other part being tradition as its interpreter, and as giving a sufficient development of those articles. On the first of these points, Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble both assert that it is not held by the Church of Rome. With how little reason the following extracts will show. " There are two things," says Bellarmine, " to be par- 1 De V. D. iv. c. 12. 2 Omnis doctrines ratio, qute fidelibus tradenda sit, verbo Dei continetur, quod in Scripturam tradition esque distributum cat. Cat. Trid. Praef. .xix. 88 DOCTRTNE OF THE TRACTATORS ticularly observed .... The first is, that there are some things in the Christian doctrine as well of faith as of morals, that are in themselves (simpliciter) necessary to all for salvation, such as is a knowledge of the Articles of the Apostles' Creed, likewise a knowledge of the ten com- mandments and certain sacraments. The rest are not so necessary, that without an explicit knowledge and belief and profession of them a man cannot be saved, if only he have a ready mind to receive and believe them when they shall have been legitimately propounded to him by the church Observe, secondly, that those things which are in themselves (simpliciter) necessary, the apostles were in the habit of preaching to all ; but of other things they did not deliver all to all men, but some of them to all, those, namely, which were of use to all, some to the pre- lates, bishops, and presbyters only * These things being observed, I assert, that all those things were written by the apostles which are necessary to all, and which they themselves had openly preached to all without dis- tinction ; but that of other things not all were written." 2 And further on he says, (going quite as far as, if not beyond, even our opponents themselves in his admissions on this point,) " I assert, that of all those articles which relate to the nature of God, there exist proofs (testimonia) in the Scriptures, and that we may be fully and clearly instructed concerning those articles from the Scriptures if we take them in their right sense. ' 3 And, like our opponents, he repudiates with indigna- tion the charge made against the Romanists by the Pro- testants, of undervaluing Scripture. " It is usual," he says, " with them, [i. e. the Protestants] to treat the matter as if they defended the Scriptures only, and we defended 1 This notion of there being a reserve observed by the apostles in the com- munication of religious knowledge, and of some matters having been committed by them more especially to the custody of the clergy, has also been embraced by our opponents, and an exhortation given by them to the present church to practise a similar reserve ! See Tract 80, " On reserve in communicating re- ligious knowledge." "DeV.D. iv. c. 11. Mb. IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 89 traditions only, nor cared whether traditions were agree- able to Scripture or contrary to Scripture. But it is not so: for we put a higher value on Scripture ( Scripturam pluris facimus) than they do ; nor admit any tradition against Scripture." a From the two former of these passages, then, it is evident that the more learned Romanists hold that all those doctrines the belief of which is essentially necessary to salvation, including particularly the articles in the Apostles' Creed, are contained in the Scriptures There is, indeed, an intimation that there must also be a willing mind to embrace those points which may be propounded for belief by the church, but then it must be recollected that the Church of Rome does not profess to introduce new doctrines, but only to inculcate those which are derived either from Scripture or that church-tradition which (like the Tractators) it receives as apostolical. That is, the concession here made that the Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation is accompanied by the requirement that that is also to be believed which the church propounds as an apostolical doctrine derived from tradition ; a demand which seems to me to be equally made by the Tractators. And when it is intimated that what is propounded by the church is a necessary article of faith, it is not meant that the matter of it is in itself a necessary article of faith, but that a direct rejection of what the church delivers from " tradition " as divine revelation is a mortal sin. As it is said by a " learned and esteemed writer " (as he is called by Chalmers) of the Romish communion, viz. Abraham Woodhead, 2 " Fundamental, indeed, they [the Romanists] call sometimes all points defined by the church's councils, and hold them necessary to be believed for attaining salvation ; but not necessary in such a sense as ratione medii necessary ; or absolutely extra quas 1 Ib. c. 3. 2 " Among thepolemic writers of the seventeenth century, few are more generally read or respected than the celebrated Abraham Woodhead." Charles Butler. 90 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATOUS (creditas) non est salus, but only necessary to be believed upon supposition of a sufficient proposal of them made to any person that they have been so defined .... because if after such proposal and sufficient notice given him of their being denned he believe them not, he now stands guilty, in this his disobedience to his supreme spiritual guides, of a mortal sin (unrepented of) destructive of his salvation." " The church's anathema in many of her canons seizeth on a person not so much for the matter of his error, though this not denied to some degree hurtful to him, and diminishing his perfection in the faith, as for the pertinacy of his erring, and the contumacy and per- verseness of his will, disobeying the church and his spi- ritual superiors, sufficiently manifesting the contrary truth to be her doctrine and a portion of the Christian faith." 1 And so strongly is this held by them that their learned Bishop Fisher, who Mr. Newman tells us 2 is " as fair a specimen of the Roman controversialist as could be taken," says, " The doctrine of purgatory being necessary to be believed, of all men, it is not credible but that it may be proved by Scripture." 3 Hence the Romanists do not deny the sufficiency of the doctrines contained in the Holy Scriptures for salvation, but holding that they possess an unwritten word of God in that which claims to be apostolical tradition, and that what they propound as a church from that source ought to be received as such by the faithful, they hold unbelief in such propositions to be a mortal sin, as being a deliberate rejection of a divine testimony, and so far that a belief in them is necessary to salvation. What the Romanists dny with respect to the sufficiency of the Scriptures in the fundamental points, is only that which our opponents deny concerning it in the second part 1 Account of doctrine of Roman Catholics concerning the Ecclesiastical Guide in Controversies of Religion. By R. H. Second Edition, 1673, 4to. (pp. 245, 8.) Lect. p. 90. 3 Cum doctrina purgatorii sit omnibus scitu necessaria, non est credibile, illam non posse probari ex Scripturis. Adv. Luth. Art. 18. See Up. Morton's Prot. Appeal, I. 2. . 13. p. 15. IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 91 of the position under consideration, viz. that in these points Scripture is to be considered the whole of the rule, being, as they think, only a part of it, the other part being tra- dition as its interpreter. " We assert," says Bellarmine as above quoted, " that there is not contained in the Scripture, in express terms (expresse) the whole necessary doctrine either concerning faith or concerning manners ; and therefore that beyond the written word of God is required also the unwritten word of God, that is, the divine and apostolical traditions." l " Scripture is very often ambiguous and obscure, so that unless it be interpreted by some one who cannot err, it cannot be understood ; therefore it is not sufficient ALONE. It is to be observed that there are two things in Scripture, the written words and the meaning contained in them Of these two the first is possessed by all the second is not possessed by all, nor can we in many places be certain of the second, but by the addition of tradition." 2 Comparing, then, these negative with the former affir- mative propositions, we find that what Bellarmine denies with respect to the Scriptures, as to the fundamental articles of faith and practice, is only that they contain them so expressly or explicitly 3 as to render unnecessary what is called the unwritten word. That is, there is as- serted to be an obscurity in Scripture which needs the aid of the unwritten word to clear it up. And this is all which the Romanists deny to the sufficiency of Scripture in the necessary points, as is more fully stated in the work to which I have just alluded. " As for the sufficiency or intireness of the Scriptures for the containing all those points of faith that are simply necessary of all persons to 1 De V. D. iv. c. 3. 2 Ib. c. 4. 3 The inference as to the necessity of tradition, shows that the word expresse must be taken to include both a formal and virtual expression of the doctrines in question. Words fairer to the Protestant view, therefore, might have been used, because the Protestant doctrine is that all such points are contained in Scripture either expressly OR virtually, in such a way as to be deducible thence by direct and necessary inference. <)'2 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS be believed for attaining salvation, Roman Catholics deny it not ; but only deny such a clearness of Scripture in some of those as Christians cannot mistake or pervert. Though Catholics maintain several credends that are not expressed in Scriptures necessary to be believed and observed by Christians after the church 's proposal of them as tradition apostolical, amongst which is the canon of Scripture; yet they willingly concede that all such points of faith as are simply necessary for attaining salva- tion, and as ought explicitly by all men to be known in order thereto, either ratione medii o^prcecepti, as the doc- trines collected in the three Creeds, the common precepts of manners and of the more necessary sacraments, &c., are con- tained in the Scriptures ; contained therein, either in the conclusion itself or in the principles from whence it is necessarily deduced. [He here refers for proof to passages in Bellarmine, Stapleton, F. Fisher, Thomas Aquinas, and Fr. a S. Clara]. Therefore the church from time to time defining anything concerning such points, defines it out of the revelations made in Scripture. And the chief tradi- tion, the necessity and benefit of which is pretended by the church, is not the delivering of any additional doctrines descended from the apostles' times extra Scripturas, i. e. such doctrines as have not their foundation at least in Scripture ; but is the preserving and delivering of the primitive sense and church-explication of that which is written in the Scriptures, but many times not there written so clearly ; which traditive sense of the church you may find made use of against Arianism in the first Council of Nice It is not the deficiency of Scripture as to all the main, and prime, and universally necessary-to-be- known articles of faith, as if there were any necessity that these be supplied and completed with other not written traditional doctrines of faith, that Catholics do question ; but such a non-clearness of Scriptures for several of these points as that they may be misunderstood, (which non- clearness of them infers a necessity of making use of the church's tradition for a true exposition and sense,) is the IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 93 thing that they assert I say then ; not this, Whether the main, or, if you will, the entire body of the Christian faith, as to all points necessary by all to be ex- plicitly believed, be contained there, [i. e. in the Scrip- tures] ; but this; Whether so clearly that the unlearned using a right diligence cannot therein mistake, or do not need therein another guide, is the thing here contested." (pp. 1369.) The Romanists therefore affirm, as we do, that Holy Scripture contains all things which are in themselves ne- cessary to salvation, but add, like the Tractators, that it contains them obscurely, and so as to render it necessary for us to have some other authoritative guide to point them out there; and they hold that we have such .a guide in " tradition," which is, they say, an unwritten word of God, and the authoritative interpreter of the written word, and that from it we also derive some supplemen- tary articles of faith and practice ; to which they add, that when these latter articles are legitimately pro- pounded to the faithful by the church, they are binding upon the consciences of men, which, if their views of " tradition " and " the church " are correct, is undeniable. Now whether the Tractators agree with the Romanists on this last point is a matter not worth considering here, because it is not relevant to our present subject ; but it is evident, at least, that in all other respects these views are precisely the same with those advocated in the works under consideration. Mr. Keble, therefore, is altogether mistaken in imput- ing to the Romanists that they hold " tradition of the sub- stance of doctrine independent of Scripture, and purport- ing to be of things necessary to salvation." (p. 71.) And Mr. Newman, in saying, " We differ from the Romanist in this, not in denying that tradition is valuable, but in maintaining that by itself and without Scripture warrant it does not convey to us any article necessary to salva- tion." (p. 370.) When the Romanists use the expression that Holy 94 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS Scripture does not contain all the articles of the Christian faith necessary to be believed, they are speaking not with reference to any supposed insufficiency in Scripture as to containing all the doctrines essentially necessary to salva- tion, but to the necessity of belief in that which they, as the church, pronounce to be an apostolical tradition, on pain of committing a mortal sin. If in this view of the extent of church-authority there is any difference between our opponents and the Romanists, yet nevertheless as to the place and value to be assigned to Scripture and tra- dition respectively, the views of the two are evidently identical ; and how near they approximate to each other on this very point of church-authority in enforcing tradi- tion, we may judge by the extracts already given from Mr. Newman in the former chapter. 1 And it is well worth the consideration of our opponents, and those who are disposed to agree with them, how far their charges against the Church of Rome for affirming things to be apostolical traditions which are not so, go to prove the uncertainty attendant upon all practically at- tainable declarations of " the church " in the present day, as to what are apostolical traditions, and still more upon such declarations when made by individuals. The second of the two propositions we are now consi- dering, viz : That patristical tradition is an important part of the divine rule as conveying to us various important doctrines and rules not contained in Scripture, Is thus advocated by Bellarmine. He remarks that tradition is necessary because there are many points which we ought not to be ignorant of, and which yet are not contained in Scripture, instancing, among the other ex- amples which he gives, the doctrines of the perpetual vir- ginity of the Virgin Mary, (the example mentioned by Mr. Newman,) purgatory, and the practice of infant baptism. 2 1 See pp. 41. et seq. above. a De Verb. Dei. lib. iv. c. 4. IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 95 Hence he says, " J affirm that Scripture although it was not written principally with a view of its being a rule of faith, is nevertheless a rule of faith not the entire but a partial rule. For the entire rule of faith is the word of God, or God's revelation made to the church, which is divided into two partial rules, Scrip- ture and tradition. And truly Scripture, inasmuch as it is a rule, has in consequence this property, that whatever it contains is necessarily true and to be believed, and what- ever is contrary to it is necessarily false and to be re- jected : but inasmuch as it is not the entire but a partial rule, the consequence is, that it is not a rule for all things, and moreover, that there may be something relating to the faith which is not contained in it. And in this way ought the words of St. Augustine to be understood. For he nowhere says, that Scripture is the only rule, but says, that Scripture is the rule by which the writings of the antient Fathers ought to be examined, that we may re- ceive those things which are agreeable to Scripture, and reject those things which are opposed to Scripture." * Now, I must say, that the estimate we should form from the remarks of Bellarmine in this place of the value of tradition as supplementary to Scripture, would fall below that derived from the observations of Mr. Keble on the same point, quoted pp. 32 34 above. The fourth position, viz : IV. That patristical tradition is a necessary part of the divine rule of faith and practice, because of the obscurity of Scripture even in some of the fundamental articles, which makes Scripture insufficient to teach us even the fundamentals of faith and practice, Corresponds with that of Bellarmine when speaking of the seventh use of tradition. " Seventhly," he says, " it is necessary not only to be able to read Scripture but also to understand it. But very often Scripture is ambiguous and obscure, so that unless it be interpreted by one who cannot err, it cannot be un- 1 Ib. c. 12. 96 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS dcrstood : therefore it is not sufficient alone. Examples are numerous. For the equality of the divine Persons, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son as from one original, original sin, the descent of Christ into hell, and many similar things are deduced indeed from the Holy Scriptures, but not so easily but that if we could contend for them on the ground of Scrip- ture testimonies only, controversies with froward oppo- nents would never be brought to an end. For it is to be observed, that there are two things in Scripture, the written words and the sense contained in them. The words are as it were the scabbard, the sense is the sword itself of the Spirit. Of these two the first is possessed by all, for whoever knows his letters can read the Scrip- tures ; but the second is not possessed by all, nor can we in many places be certain of the second, unless tradition come to our aid." l With this agrees also the quotation which we have given above from Woodhead. (See pp. 92, 3.) In correspondence with the fifth position, viz. V. That it is only by the testimony of patristical tradi- tion that we are assured of the inspiration of Scripture, what books are canonical, and the genuineness of what we receive as such, Bellarmine, in describing the fourth, fifth, and sixth uses for which tradition is necessary, maintains as follows ; " Fourthly, it is necessary to know, that there exist certain truly divine books, a truth which certainly cannot be ob- tained in any way from the Scriptures. For although Scripture may say, that the books of the Prophets and Apostles are divine, yet I cannot believe this for certain, unless I should previously have been brought to believe that the Scripture, which says this, is divine. For in the Alcoran of Mahomet we everywhere read that the Alco- ran itself was sent by God from heaven, and yet we do not believe it. Therefore, this so necessary article, namely, that there is some divine Scripture, cannot be sufficiently 1 Ib. c. 4. IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 97 proved from Scripture alone. Therefore, since faith is founded upon the word of God, (nitatur verbo Dei,) un- less we have an unwritten word of God, we can have no faith. . . . Fifthly, it is not sufficient to know that there is a divine Scripture, but it behoves us to know which it is ; a thing which cannot in any way be had from the Scriptures Sixthly, it behoves us also not cnly to knfcw which are the sacred books, but also in particular that those we have are those books . . . which certainly cannot be known from the Scriptures. ... If it be so, then Scripture is not sufficient alone. . . . For if it be left destitute of this unwritten tradition and the testi- mony of the church, it will be of little service. Moreover, if this tradition has been able to come down to us, why cannot others also have come down in the same way ?" x And hence one of the most common arguments with the Romanists, as with our opponents, is, that having re- ceived Scripture upon this testimony, we ought not to object to receive the doctrines that may come down to us upon this testimony. 2 I should add, however, that there are some few, even among the Romanists, who take a sounder view on this point, and believe the authority of the Scripture, independently of the judgment, of the church ; as, for instance, the learned Huetius, in his " Evangelical Demonstration." 3 Whether, then, we regard the nature and character of patristical tradition, the place and value to be assigned to the Scriptures, or the purposes for which that tradition is supposed to be necessary, the views advocated on all these points in the works under consideration, are pre- cisely identical with those of the Church of Rome. In some minor and unimportant points connected with this subject, there may be a little difference of opinion, as there is, in fact, among the Romanists themselves. For instance, some of the reasons given by Bellarmine (ch. 4) 'Ib. 2 See the " Guide in Controversies," by R. H. p. 366 ; Eyre's Reply to Churton, pp. 117 119; &c. 3 See Placette's Incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome, c. 2. VOL. T. II DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS in proof of the necessity of tradition, may not be adopted by the authors under consideration. But the doctrine of tradition, as it may be called, is evidently involved and comprised in the points we have just been considering, and in these there is clearly a perfect agreement between them and the Romanists. The doctrine, as above stated, is charged upon the Romanists, and refuted, in a Treatise which I wold strongly recommend to the notice of the reader, namely, Placette's " Incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome," translated and published by Archbishop Tenison, and in- serted by Bishop Gibson in his Preservative against Po- pery, where the author shows the insufficiency of all the various grounds on which the Church of Rome professes to rest her faith. 1 The general agreement between our opponents and the Romanists may be still further confirmed by a compa- rison of their views with a dissertation on Tradition, given in a Roman Catholic work, published a few years ago, on the Fathers ; 2 and the reader may observe not only a remarkable similarity in the views advanced as to the point now in question, but also some rather curious coin- cidences in the form of expression. If Mr. Newman had seen this treatise, it might have been well for him to have directed our attention to it, as containing, though mixed with some things respecting the Pope, in which, perhaps, he could not agree, a much more lucid statement of the matter than he has given us. In the treatise we find it placed before us in a clear and precise manner, as if the author was not afraid to let his readers fully see its length and its breadth ; so that any one who reads it sees at once what he is called upon to embrace ; whereas, in Mr. Newman's work it is so mixed up with such names as Stillingfleet, Butler, and others, and such expressions 1 Sec particularly cc. 2, 3, and 2027. 4 LUMPER Histor. Theol. Crit. de vita, &c. Patrum. Aug. Vind. 1783, &s. 13 v. 8vo. This work is a compilation from various works on the Fathers. The diasertation above alluded to is principally taken from Massuet. IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH., 99 of regard for the doctrine of the Church of England, and abhorrence of certain practices of the Romanists ; in a word, the poison is so spread out in infinitesimal portions through the work, and gilded with Protestant names, that the greater part of his readers would have but a very indistinct notion of what they had been imbibing, and still less of the consequences to which it must lead them. I will not say, however, that Mr. Newman has not herein judged skilfully of the means best likely to attain the end he has in view, of bringing the English Church to a reception of his doctrine ; and we find from Mr. Froude's " Remains," published by Mr. Newman, that the value of prudence in the mode of bringing forward their doc- trines, is fully estimated by at least some of our oppo- nents. I shall now give a few extracts from this dissertation, which is written more particularly on Irenseus. " That the sacred Scriptures are the words of God, and a certain and immutable rule of truth, to which nothing must be added, and from which nothing must be taken away, Irenaeus most rightly teaches. Nevertheless, that all the words of God are not expressly contained in them, but that the apostles, as the ambassadors and heralds of Christ, taught other things which they never consigned to writing, he not less clearly declares." And then, after having quoted some passages from Irenseus, (lib. 3, cc. 3, 45,) he adds," From which these things evidently follow; first, that the very worst of all the heretics acknowledged and confessed that the Scriptures were ambiguously expressed ; that is, were sometimes obscure, and admitted of several senses ; secondly, that the meaning of the obscure passages was to be sought from tradition, not that which was written, but that which was delivered orally. This. Irenaeus blames not, 1 nay, in what follows, approves of, as we shall presently see. 1 How far this is true we shall see hereafter, when we come to inquire into the sentiments of Irenaeus on this matter. (See c. 10.) H2 100 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACT ATORS Thirdly, that tradition is fuller than the Scriptures, and distinct from them, as being their interpreter But the medium, and as it were canal, through which the apostolical tradition has come down to us uninjured, is the succession of bishops lawfully ordained in the catholic church." And in a subsequent note (p. 348) he tells us, " If these traditions were uncertain, the genuineness of the books of Scripture would itself be uncertain. For whatever arguments the Protestants adduce for these are also of force to prove the certainty and stability of tradition" (Nam argumenta quaecunque quae Protestantes pro his adferunt etiam pugnant pro traditionis certitudine et firmi- tate.) Just as Mr. Newman tells us that, " whatever explanations the Protestant makes in behalf of the preser- vation of the written word, will be found applicable in the theory to the unwritten." (p. 46.) And in the latter part of the Treatise, we have the fol- lowing marks given us of apostolical tradition. First, the negative marks, that is, those that show a thing not to be an apostolical tradition, being, " (1.) Every tradition that is clearly opposed to Holy Scripture, is not divine. (2.) A tradition contrary to a tradition known to be divine, is not divine. (3.) Every tradition that is contrary to the common consent of the Fathers and the definition of the church, is not divine. (4.) A tradition, the origin of which was clearly subsequent to the times of the apostles, is not divine. (5.) A tradition, respecting which churches of like dignity are divided, is not indubitably divine." Secondly, the positive marks of divine tradition, being, " (1.) That which was always everywhere and by all believed as revealed, is most certainly a divine revela- tion. Although it cannot be sufficiently clearly, or by any convincing argument, derived from Holy Scripture, it must be considered as certainly flowing from divine tradition. In the first case, where the doctrine is con- tained in Scripture, but not sufficiently clearly or of necessity, it will be a declarative tradition. In the IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 101 second case, where it is either evidently not contained in Scripture, or at least cannot be derived from it by any convincing argument, it will be an oral tradition. " (2.) That anything should be considered as having been believed always, everywhere, and by all, it is not necessary that all individual churches should mathema- tically or physically agree ; but a moral consent of the churches is sufficient, and those the chief ones ; whence? if these agree together in stating any doctrine which can- not be derived from Scripture, it is most certainly to be held that it emanates from divine tradition. " (3.) The uniform agreement and uniform practice of the church of the fourth and fifth century, except this practice is known to have originated in the decree of the church or a council, is a certain sign that that which was then believed was always and everywhere believed as a divine revelation before the fourth and fifth century." Precisely according to the doctrine of our opponents, in Tract 85, sect. 8, pp. 102, &s. " (4.) When the universal church observes anything as pertaining to faith, religion, or manners, the institution of which exceeds human power, and which is not found in the Holy Scriptures, it is to be believed as certain that that was derived from divine tradition. " (5.) The doctrine which the universal church has de- fended in any age, although it be not clear that it pre- vailed in particular churches, if it has been always pre- served in the principal or apostolical churches, proceeded from divine tradition. " (6.) Whatever the church hath either defined in a general council, as a doctrine of faith or manners, or even universally professed without any decision of a general council, that, if it either clearly cannot, or at least cannot sufficiently, be proved from Scripture, is of divine tradition. " (7.) The uniform consent of the Fathers of the first five centuries bearing witness universally of any doctrine not contained in Scripture, affords a certain foundation 102 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS for considering that that doctrine is of divine tradition, although it is altogether speculative." And in a note on this mark he says, " It is not required for that consent that they should all of them have spoken just alike, and written so that none disagreed with the rest [i. e. it is not necessary to that consent that they should* all have consented] ; for that consent is not to be taken mathema- tically, but morally. But how many Fathers precisely may be sufficient and be required, cannot be generally denned, as always happens in those things which are to be judged of morally, and which are left to the judgment of persons of good sense" (Neque ad earn consensionem requiritur ut omnes illi prorsus idem dixerint scripserintque nemine discordante : ejusinodi enitn consensus non mathernatice sed moraliter accipiendus est. Caeterum quinam prsecise Patrum numerus sufficiat et requiratur, generaliter defi- niri nequit, ut semper contingit in iis quae moraliter aesti- manda sunt et prudentum judicio relinquuntur.) Which remarks are surely remarkably similar to the following observations of Mr. Newman : " The rule of Vincent," says Mr. Newman, " is not of a mathematical or demon- strative character, but moral, and requires practical judgment and good sense to apply it. For instance, what is meant by being ' taught always '?.... And does the ' consent of Fathers ' require us to produce the direct tes- timony of every one of them ? How many Fathers, how many places, how many instances, constitute a fulfilment of the test proposed? . . . What degree of application is enough, must be decided by the same principles which guide us in the conduct of life" &c. (pp. 68, 9.) " (8.) If the universal church observes anything which is found to have been observed in it in all past times, though the institution of it may not be beyond human authority, if its origin cannot be ascertained, it is deservedly thought to have been instituted by the apostles; but if ascending upwards, and inquiring into its origin, we find it, it is only a human ecclesiastical tradition." IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 103 And to these marks are appended the following " corol- laries." " (1.) To those divine traditions whose existence is proved by the foregoing marks, the assent of a divine faith is due equally as to Scripture. " (2.) The divine traditions of which we are certain, are a rule of faith. [To this all will subscribe.] " (3.) Tradition certainly and continuously diffused throughout the universal church, is the fittest mean for applying to us divine revelation. " (4.) Therefore Scripture is not perfect in the Pro- testant sense. For it does not suffice alone to prove con- vincingly all the doctrines of faith and precepts of man- ners of the church, either those that are necessary or those that are useful." " Therefore," adds the writer, " the complete rule of faith is Scripture joined with divine tradition, WHICH IF PRO- TESTANTS WOULD ADMIT, ALL THE OTHER CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN ITS AND THEM WOULD SOON CEASE." 1 There is only one point in which I conceive our oppo- nents can object to this statement as differing from theirs, and that is, that it does not distinctly state that all the fun- damental doctrines are contained in the written word ; but this was a point not in question, and nothing here stated opposes that view, and I have already shown that our opponents are totally mistaken in supposing that the Ro- manists do not hold this, that is, in the sense in which they themselves hold it, namely, that these doctrines are so con- tained in the Scriptures, that tradition is necessary to show that they are there. But certainly the Romanists hold- ing this view do not pretend to refer us to Scripture only for proofs of a doctrine which they think that we could not find in Scripture but by the aid of tradition, and herein are much more consistent than the Tractators. If more evidence were wanted of the views of the Ro- manists on this point, it would be easy to find it. One of our opponents' own witnesses, Dean Field, will tell them, 1 See Lumper, vol. iii, pp. 31862. 104 DOCTRINE OF.THK TRACT ATORS " For matters of faith we may conclude, according to the judgment of the best and most learned of our adversaries themselves, that there is nothing to be believed which is not either expressly contained in Scripture, or at least by ne- cessary consequence from thence and other things evident in the light of nature or in the matter of fact to be con- cluded " (Of the Church, bk. 4. c. 20, p. 377.) And for modern evidence, they will find it in the Downside discus- sion, where one of the Roman Catholic speakers says, " The catholic doctrine is, that all absolutely essential revelations are contained in the written word, but it cannot be proved that all the doctrines, all and every one of those truths which Christ came from heaven to reveal, and which he willed should be handed down to future ages, that all these are contained in the written word." (p. 172.) And again, " Protestants maintain that the Bible alone is the rule of faith : we maintain that all absolutely essential doctrines are expressed in the Scrip- tures ; either in the conclusions themselves, or in the prin- ciples whence they are deduced" And then, having quoted several authorities for this statement, he proceeds, " But whilst we hold that almost every doctrine of religion is contained in the Scriptures, yet we maintain that there are some few doctrines which are not expressly contained therein ; and that there are many others contained therein which are obscure. Of this we have a proof in the immense diversity of opinions which we find amongst those who make Scripture their only rule; We maintain, therefore, that Scripture is not the only rule of faith ; that there are some few doctrines handed down to us ex- clusively, and others more expressly manifested, by the un- written word, forming a part of the good tidings which Christ came from heaven to communicate ; and this is called tradition. These two parts complete the rule of faith of the catholic church" (pp. 27, 28.) Tradition forms a part of the rule which Christ left to his church, and as Protestants exclude tradition, they have not a complete rule of faith." (Ib. p. 118.) ' IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 105 It is difficult to conceive how our opponents can have fallen into a mistake so important, and one which, though no doubt inadvertently made, looks very strange, because it tends to make the reader suppose that there is an im- portant difference between their doctrine and that of the Romanists, when in fact they are substantially identical. If, however, our opponents have any doubts remaining about the mistake, I will supply them with several other references in confirmation of the preceding. 1 1 It is worthy of observation that we have had not long since in our own church a practical proof of what the principles of the Tractators on this sub- ject may lead to, and an acknowledgment of their identity with those of the Church of Rome of a very remarkable kind. I allude to the case of the Hon. and Rev. Mr. Spencer. It is quite true that this is not a proof of the identity for which we contend, but it is a practical argument in favour of it which wise men will not think lightly of. Thus writes Mr. Spencer himself on the subject. " I could hardly fail telling him that in becoming a Catholic I had come into the principles which Mr. Sikes and he himself held in common, and on which Mr. Sikes had done so much to endeavour to lead me to without effect ; because I used always to conceive the principles of church-authority, which when proposed to me by Catholics afterwards I embraced, qtu'te incon- sistent with the pretensions of the Church of England, and with the principles of the Reformation, to which both Mr. Sikes and I adhered. I have publicly stated that one step in my approximation to catholicity was owing to the con- versation of a Protestant clergyman with whom I happened to pass an evening a year before my conversion. This clergyman was the late Mr. Vaughan, brother to Sir Henry Halford, in argument with whom I was maintaining the principle which I held most strenuously of regarding nothing but the Scrip- tures as my guide. He made me observe for the first time, what it was strange enough I had never before observed, that the Scriptures were not the original rule of faith delivered as such by the apostles to the church, and he pressed me with arguments to show that the tradition of the church must be attended to, [that is, as part of ne rule of faith]. This part of his argument I took little notice of, because I was quite clear that in our hands the principle was untenable ; but I FELT EVBR AFTER, THAT I WANTED SOMETHING MORE EXPLICIT THAN THB SIMPLE SCRIPTURES TO GIVE ME AN ASSURANCE OF FAITH, AND I WAS THE MORE READY TO EMBRACE THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE ON THE RULE OF FAITH WHEN AT LENGTH IT CAME TO BE CONSISTENTLY PROPOSED TO ME I am convinced the argument you hold against the high churchmen of the Establishment is unanswerable." (British Magazine for May, 1840, pp. 530, 531.) No wonder that the Romanists are exulting in the success of the Tractators, and congratulating themselves upon a great and speedy addition to their ranks from those who have made such advances towards them ; among the many testimonies of which that might be quoted, I will content myself with the following from the " Catholic Magazine " for March, 1 839. 106 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATOR3 * Lastly, let the reader compare the doctrine of our opponents with the following summary of the Romish doctrine of the rule of faith, given by Dr. Hawardine, 1 in his Treatise on that subject. 2 Dr. Hawardine sums up the Romish doctrine on the subject in the following twelve rules. " First rule. The doctrine of Christian religion which the apostles delivered by word of mouth was of equal authority with their writings. Second rule. What directions soever the apostles were inspired to give for the exercise of religion were of equal authority with their writings. Third rule. The distance of the present age " Most sincerely and unaffectedly do we tender our congratulations to our brethren of Oxford, that their eyes have been opened to the evils of private judgment, and the consequent necessity of curbing its multiform extrava- gance. It has been given to them to see the dangers of the ever-shifting sands of the desert in which they were lately dwelling, and to strike theirtents and flee the perils of the wilderness. They have already advanced a great way on their return towards that church within whose walls the wildest imagination is struck with awe." &c. " We can we do forgive them, that, urged by the clamour of their opponents, many of them exhibit towards us an extreme de- gree of intolerance, by way of proving their abhorrence of such of our tenets as they do not as yet hold, and exhibiting themselves as good and true men to the eyes of their brethren.''' 1 "Some of the brightest ornaments of their church have advocated a re-union with the church of all times and all lands ; and the accomplishment of the design, if we have read aright the ' signs of the times,' is fast ripening. Her maternal arms are ever open to receive back repentant children; and as, when the prodigal son returned to his father's house, the fatted calf was killed, and a great feast of joy made, even so will the whole of Chris- tendom rejoice greatly when so bright a body of learned and pious men as the authors of the ' Tracts for the Times ' shall have made the one step necessary to place them again within that sanctuary, where alon* they can be safe from the moving sands beneath which they dread being overwhelmed. The consi- deration of this step will soon inevitably come on ; and it is with the utmost confidence that we predict the accession to our ranks of the entire mass." * The Tractators boast of having the great majority of our able and learned divines in their favour. Will they have the kindness to inform us when and where those divines were so addressed by members of the Church of Rome ? 1 " A person of consummate knowledge in all ecclesiastical affairs, scho. lastic, moral, and historical, and, to do him justice, perhaps the present age cannot show his equal." Dod. " Dr. Hawardine's works are distinguished for brevity, accuracy, clearness, order, and close reasoning." Butler. a The rule of faith truly stated. 1721. 12mo. Pt. 3, pp, 275 et seq. * pp. 175,6. IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 107 from that of the apostles is no just exception against the certainty and authority of apostolical tradition. Fourth rule. Some points of Christian religion are certainly known by apostolical tradition, which in particular are not plain in the Holy Scripture alone. Fifth rule. All the chief articles of Christianity are contained in the Holy Scripture." " This rule," he adds afterwards, " is I think beyond dispute." " Sixth rule. All the chief and most necessary articles of Christianity are plain in the Holy Scripture, if we consider it in that sense in which it is and always has been understood by the faithful. Seventh rule. Considering the Holy Scripture in that sense in which it was always understood by the faithful, all the articles of religion which it is necessary for every Christian to know are plain in it. Eighth rule. The Holy Scripture evi- dently contains in general all points whatsoever of Christian religion. Ninth rule. All points of religion may be solidly proved by arguments grounded on the Holy Scripture ; and by them all heresies may be solidly confuted. Tenth rule. Some controversies of religion may be decided by the Holy Scripture alone. Eleventh rule. The true church may be found out by Scripture alone. Twelfth rule. Whatever contains the chief and most distinguishing articles of Christian religion may be truly called the rule of faith" Such is the Romish doctrine of the divine rule of faith and practice, as given by Dr. Hawardine ; and his comment upon these twelve rules, which is too long to transcribe here, identifies his doctrine still more com- pletely with that of our opponents. The reader will not fail to observe that by the last of these rules it is contrived that Scripture shall be called " the rule of faith," but in a sense which makes it far from being really the rule. In his explication of the twelfth rule, he says, " Hence the Books of the New Testament may not improperly be called the rule of Christian religion." 1 The same remark is made, as we shall see hereafter, by Mr. Newman, and apparently for the same reason, viz. in order to explain 1 p. 30G. VOL. I. H 6 108 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS away some passages of the Fathers in which it is so called, and which therefore render it necessary that the name should in some way or other be admitted. It would be easy to multiply such extracts, and I may just refer the reader to the statements of the Roman Catholic opponent of the late Rev. Ralph Churton (no low churchman) on this subject as almost identical with those which are now, alas ! put forward by divines of the Church of England. 1 But having given sufficient to enable the reader to compare the doctrine of the two parties upon the subject, I pass on to the more important task of examining its pretensions. 1 See Reply to Rev. R. Churton, by F. Eyre of Warkworth, Esq. Lond. 1798, 8 vo. pp. 116 119; &c. 109 CHAPTER IV. THAT THERE ARE NO WRITINGS EXTANT ENTITLED TO THE NAME OF APOSTOLICAL TRADITIONS BUT THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES. IN entering upon the inquiry whether there remain to us any apostolical traditions besides the Scriptures of the apostles in the New Testament, the first point which we have to ascertain is, whether there are any writings ex- tant entitled to that name. That there are writings claiming to be so considered is well known. Such, for instance, are various apocryphal gospels and epistles, the apostolical canons, the apostolical constitutions, and various liturgies called by the names of the apostles. With respect to all these, however, it is so generally agreed that they cannot be considered the ge- nuine productions of the apostles, that it is unnecessary to notice them any further in this place. But besides these there is one relic of antiquity which has been contended for by some as a genuine relic of the apostles, and for which Mr. Newman evidently claims an apostolical origin and authority, namely, what is com- monly called the Apostles' Creed. Mr. Newman calls it "the formal symbol which the apostles adopted, and be- queathed to the church ;" (p. 270 ;) " a collection of definite articles set apart from the first ;" (p. 296 ;) and says that it " is of the nature of a written document,and has an evidence of its apostolical origin, the same in kind with that for the 110 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. Scriptures." (p. 297.) And upon such grounds he would make it part of the authoritative rule of faith. Now, however great may be the value to be attached to this venerable relic of the primitive church, such claims as are here made in its behalf are utterly without founda- tion. Indeed, to hear such a claim advanced for it in the present day is not a little remarkable. To say with Mo- sheim, " All who have the least knowledge of antiquity look upon this opinion as entirely false, and destitute of all foundation," 1 would perhaps seem inconsistent with the remarks which have dropped from the pen of one or two learned men on the subject ; but certainly I will ven- ture to say, that Mr. INewman will find an overwhelming majority of the learned divines of the last three centuries who have examined the subject, altogether against him. 2 As this matter is of some moment, I will enter some- what fully into it, and in proof of the statement just made will endeavour to establish the following positions. 1 . That no precise form of words was left by the apos- tles as the Christian Creed. 2. That there was no such definite summary of the chief articles of belief given by the apostles to the Christian church as the Creed, and that what is called " the Apos- tles' Creed" is merely the antient Creed of the Church of Rome, and no more entitled to the name than any other of the antient Creeds. 3. That what is called " the Apostles' Creed" gradually attained its present form, and that two at least of the articles it now contains were not inserted in it before the fourth century. 4. That the Creeds of the primitive church were de- rived originally from the Holy Scriptures. And therefore 5. That none of the antient Creeds can be considered as an apostolical production. 1 Eccl. Hist. Pt. 2. c. 3. Engl. transl. vol. i. p 103. " See Walch. Introd. in libr. symb. lib. i. c. 2. Budd. Tsag. ad Theolog. lib. i. c. 2. 2. King's Hist, of the Apostles' Creed ; Pearson ; Barrow ; &c. ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. Ill 1 . That no precise form of words was left by the apos- tles as the Christian Creed. On this point we naturally refer, first, to the canonical Scriptures of the apostles and disciples of our Lord. And considering the nature of those writings we might not unreasonably expect to find some notice of such a formula having been published by them, if so it had been. But for such a notice we shall search in vain. Mr. Newman, indeed, without any hesitation, but also without any proof, maintains the contrary, and silently assuming the correct- ness of his own private interpretation of one or two pas- sages that seem to him to favour his views, boldly tells us of St. Paul " quoting" the Creed, and even the name he gives to it. For after observing that history tells us the Creed was drawn up in the apostles' days, he adds, " In- deed St Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians so speaks of it, when quoting part of it, viz. as that which had been committed to him, and which he had committed in turn to his converts. (1 Cor. xv. 3.)" (p. 261.) " To guard and to transmit it, [i. e. the Creed,] not to remodel it, is her sole duty, as St. Paul has determined in his second epistle to Timothy" (p. 267.) " It is delineated and re- cognised in Scripture itself,where it is called the Hypotyposis, or ' outline of sound words' " (p. 297.) These cool assumptions are certainly very convenient, because they cut all knots at once, and by many readers are doubtless much preferred to the cautious and guarded statements of one who has well weighed his positions, and speaks only according to the evidence he possesses, but nevertheless must not be allowed to usurp the place of proof by one who wishes to know the truth. On what authority has Mr. Newman made these confident assertions of St. Paul quoting " the Creed ?" There is not a word about " the Creed" in either of the passages here referred to, nor, as it appears to me, would the ex- pressions lead to Mr. Newman's view of their meaning, even if we knew from independent sources, that a Creed 112 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. had been at that time drawn up. In the first passage the apostle says, " I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," &c. (1 Cor. xv. 3.) Now compare this passage with one just preceding it, in the eleventh chapter, " For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread," &c. (xi. 23.) The expressions are all but identical, and surely, therefore, the obvious mode of interpreting the passage in the 15th is by that in the llth chapter, where there is evidently no quotation from the Creed. And if anything further is wanting to show that the apostle did not " re- ceive" his faith from " the Creed," we have it in his own words in his epistle to the Galatians, where he says, " The gospel which was preached of me is not after man, for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. i. 11, 12.) So much then for this " quotation from the Creed." The next passage is an exhortation to Timothy, '* Hold fast the form (or, outline) of sound words which thou hast heard of me," &c. 'YTTO- rvirtiHTtv e^e vyiait'ovrtav \oyw', iitv Trap' eyuou ijKOvaaq. (2 Tim. i. 13.) Now the construction of these words in the ori- ginal completely overthrows Mr. Newman's interpretation. For the apostle does not say that Timothy had " heard from him" " an outline of sound words," but that he had heard from him sound words, of which he was to hold fast the outline, that is, the great characteristic features. The English reader will observe that the word " which" refers to the "sound words;" so that the meaning of the passage would be more accurately conveyed to the English reader by the following translation : " Hold fast the form (or, outline) of those sound words which thou hast heard of me." I admit that the passage has often been quoted in the sense which Mr. Newman has attributed to it, and a remarkable instance it is among the many that might be mentioned, of the way in which observations are handed ON THE ANT1ENT CREEDS. 113 down from one to another, and repeated on the mere authority of their having once been made. 1 I repeat, then, we shall search Scripture in vain for any even the slightest intimation that the apostles drew up a Creed for the use of the Church. And it is hardly to be credited that had the apostles drawn up such a for- mula, we should have had no notice of it in the Acts of the Apostles. Further ; if there was such a form of words where is it ? which form, among all the various ones which have come down to us, is that of the apostles ? The form called by us " the Apostles' Creed" is not to be traced higher than the fourth century. And the forms given in the early writers vary much both from this and among themselves. For instance, the earliest extant is in Irenaeus, who, having spoken of " the unalterable rule (KVWI/) of truth which he received by baptism," (ov Sta row /SaTrner^aroc et\7?0e) gives " the faith preached by the church" thus, "The church, though scattered over all the world from one end of the earth to the other, received from the apos- tles and their disciples the belief in one God, the Father Almighty who made the heaven, and the earth, and the seas, and all things that are in them ; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate for our salva- tion ; and in the Holy Spirit, who preached by the pro- phets the dispensations, and the advents, and the birth by a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Jesus Christ our Lord, and his advent from heaven in the 1 Another instance, I would humbly submit, is in the common application of Matt. xvi. 18. " The gates of hell (or, hades) shall not prevail against it." (ituriffxvffovffiv OUTIJS.) The idea is that of prevailing by superior strength to keep an adversary down. This text is almost always quoted as a promise that Satan shall never destroy Christ's church on earth ; and is so applied by Mr, Newman, (p. 249.) But what can the gates of hades have to do with the church on earth ? But viewing hades as the place of departed spirits, where they remain till the resurrection, the passage is clear, and the excellence of the promise at once seen. It is a promise that the church shall not remain always in that place of intermediate rest, but shall be ultimately delivered from it by him who " hath the keys of hades and of death." (Rev. i. 18.) VOL. I. I 114 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. glory of the Father to restore (avaKe^aXat^aadai) all things, and to raise all flesh of all mankind, that to Christ Jesus our Lord and God and Saviour and King, according to the good pleasure of the invisible Father, every knee should bow of things in heaven and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess to him, and that he may execute just judgment upon all ; that he may send the spirits of wicked- ness, and transgressing and apostate angels, and all impious and wicked and lawless and blasphemous men into everlasting fire; and to the just and holy, and those that have kept his commandments, and remained stedfast in his love, some from the beginning, others after repent- ance, having given life, may confer on them immortality, and put them in possession of eternal glory." 1 The same writer, however, having occasion again to refer to the rule of faith, which he now calls, "the order, or rule, of that tradition which the apostles delivered to those to whom they committed the churches," gives it in the following words, " Believing in one God, the maker of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them, through Christ Jesus the Son of God ; who on account of his extraordinary love for his creature, submitted to be born of a virgin, uniting man to God in his own person, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and being received in glory, shall come in glory as the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are condemned, sending the corrupters of the truth (trans- figuratores veritatis) and the despisers of his Father and of his advent into eternal fire " 2 Passing from Irenaeus to one who flourished shortly after him, viz. Tertullian, we have a " Rule of faith " delivered to us in quite different terms. Tertullian himself, indeed, gives it us in three different forms of words. In his book, " On prescription against heretics," he says, " The rule of faith, that we may now at once state what we believe, is that by which we believe that there is but one God, and no other beside, the maker of IRN. Adv. haer. lib. i. c.10. Mass. c. 2. Grab. * Adv. liter, lib. iii. c. 3. ON THE ANT1ENT CREEDS. 115 the world, who produced all things out of nothing by his Word which he sent forth first of all things. That that Word was called his Son, was seen at various times by the patriarchs under the name of God, was always heard by the prophets, and at last was brought down by the Spirit and power of God the Father into the Virgin Mary, and made flesh in her womb, and being born of her, lived in the person of Jesus Christ; that from that time he preached a new law and a new promise of the kingdom of heaven ; that he performed miracles, was crucified, rose again the third day, and being taken up into heaven, sat at the right hand of the Father, and in his stead sent the power of the Holy Spirit to guide believers ; and that he shall come with glory to take the saints into the fruition of eternal life and the heavenly promises, and adjudge the wicked to everlasting fire, having restored to life both the one and the other, and raised their bodies." " This rule," he adds, " instituted by Christ, raises no disputes among us except such as heresies introduce, or such as make heretics." * Again, in his treatise " On virgins being veiled," he says, " The Rule of Faith is but one, alone unchange- able and unreformable, namely, of believing in one God Almighty, the maker of the world, and his Son Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, raised the third day from the dead, received in the heavens, and now sitting at the right hand of the Father, who shall come to judge the quick and the dead by the resurrection of the flesh." 2 He refers to it again in his Treatise against Praxeas, where he states it thus ; " We believe indeed one God, nevertheless under this dispensation, which we call (eco- nomy, namely, that there, is also a Son of that one God, to wit, his Word, who proceeded from him, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made ; that he was sent by the Father into a virgin, and born of her man as well as God, the Son of man and the Son of 1 De Prsescript. adv. hseret. c. 13. 2 De virgin, veland. c. 1. 12 116 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. God, and called Jesus Christ ; that he suffered and was dead and buried according to the Scriptures, and raised again by the Father, and taken back again into the heavens, and now sits at the right hand of the Father, about to coine to judge the quick and the dead, from whence also he sent from the Father according to his promise the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, as the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and Son and Holy Spirit." And he adds, that " this rule had come down from the beginning of the Gospel." (Hanc regulam ab initio Evangelii decucurrisse.) 1 The passages we have just quoted are, as far as I can find, (and as is generally understood,) the only passages in the writings extant of the first two centuries in which we have a formal and succinct delivery of the chief articles of the Christian belief, the next occurring in the writings of Origen, who flourished towards the middle of the next century. It follows, therefore, I conceive, beyond doubt, that there was no form of words left by the Apostles as the Christian Creed; for had there been, that doubtless would have been quoted in these passages. Had there been such a form left by the Apostles, there can be no doubt that it would have been religiously preserved by the church, and recog- nized in such passages as those we have quoted. But for the first three centuries and more there is not the slightest indication given us that the Apostles left such a form. Each person who has occasion to give a summary of the chief articles of the faith, gives it in different words, and if more than once, does not himself give always the same form. The silence of the Nicene Council upon the matter is particularly observable, because then at least there would have been a recognition Q such a form had it ex- isted. There were then no difficulties in the way to pre- vent its being openly brought forward if there had been such a formula, for persecution had then ceased, and there could be no reason for concealing it, especially when they 1 Lib. adv. Prax. c. 2. ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 117 were about to promulge one intended for the same pur- poses as this is supposed to have answered. The rise of heresies might have rendered some addition desirable, but there would have been at least some respectful recogni- tion of the formula left by the Apostles had there been such. The silence of this council upon the subject appears to me conclusive against the idea. Further, the early Fathers apply themselves to prove the Articles of the Creeds they give, from the writ- ings of the Apostles, which obviously would have been altogether useless and absurd for one composed by the Apostles. Such a Creed would in fact have formed a portion of the Canonical Scriptures, and a portion of the highest authority, as sanctioned by the unanimous voice of the Apostles. If it is replied, from a misunderstanding of the words of Jerome, (quoted in the next page) that " the Creed " was not written but delivered orally from one to another, I an- swer, that this is evidently a misinterpretation of his words, for " the Creed " had been before that time delivered with- out hesitation in writing by Ruffinus, and so had been the Jerusalem form of it by Cyril, to- say nothing of the forms given by Irenseus and Tertullian, and therefore the mean- ing of Jerome, when he says, that " the Creed is not written on paper or with ink, but on the fleshly tables of the heart/' is, that true Christians, as a body, were to in- scribe it on their hearts, and not on paper, which would be useless; and perhaps there may be also an allusion to the fact that " the Creed" was not to be written by the bap- tized, lest the catechumens might peruse it before they were prepared to receive the faith it contained, as we learn from Cyril. 1 But such passages do not mean that " the Creed " was not to be anywhere written, for authors that make similar remarks have themselves left it in writing, as for instance Cyril and Ruffinus. 2 It is not till the close of the fourth century that we meet with the report of its being composed by the Apos- 1 Catech. 5. sub fin. ed. Milles. 7. p. 75. 8 Ruff, in Symbol, prope init. 118 ON THE ANT1ENT CREEDS. ties. We do not even find the name "the Apostles' Creed," (a name which might have been given to it on many other grounds than from the Apostles having been considered its authors) earlier than a letter of Ambrose, written about the year 389. 1 The first assertion of its having been composed by the Apostles is found in Ruffi- nus, who, in his Exposition of the Creed, written about the year 390, tells us that it was said to be written by them, 2 though he himself, in a subsequent part of the same Treatise, speaks in a manner that shows he at least felt doubts on the subject. 3 Jerome also speaks of the Creed as having been delivered by the Apostles, 4 and similar language is held respecting it by several writers in the fifth and sixth centuries, 5 and those that follow, 6 and hence for a time the notion gained credit that the Apo- stles were the authors of it. But the language of Jerome is not decisive as to what his own view of the matter was, for it may mean, as Du Pin supposes it to mean, merely that the Creed contained the apostoli- cal faith. And his great contemporary Augustine, not only has nowhere in his genuine works 7 even given to it the name of " the Apostles' Creed," but has expressly 1 Credatur symbolo Apostolorum, quod Ecclesia Romana intemeratum emper custodit et servat. Ad Siricium. Ep. 42. Ed. Bened. (Par. 1836, torn. iv. p. 338.) The earlier works to which reference has been made, are all long ago confessed to be spurious, as Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Jacob. Constit. Apostol. lib. vii. c.41. " Tradunt majores nostri," &c. Expos, in Symb. 2. 3 " Cautissime autem qui symbolum tradiderunt etiam tempus quo htec sub Pontio Pilato gesta sunt designaverunt." Ib. 20. Ed. Pamel. Col. Agripp. 1617. 4 In symbolo fidei et spei nostrae, quod ab Apostolis traditum non scribitur in charta et atramento sed in tabulis cordis carnalibus, post confessionem Tri- nitatis et unitatem eeclesise omne Christiani dogmatis sacramentum carnis resurrectione concluditur. Ad Pammach. adv. error. Jo. Hierosol. (written about the year 397.) Ed. Bened. torn. iv. col. 323. Vail. Ven. ii. 435. 4 Leo Magn. Ep. 13. Jo. Cassian. De incarn.Dom. lib. v. Venantius Fortu- natus, Expos. Symb. in Pnefat. Isidor. Hispal. Orig. lib. vi. c 9. Vigil. Taps- Adv. Eutych. lib. iv. Raban. Maur. De instit. cler. lib. ii. c. 56, and others. 7 Serm. 115 and 181 of his Sermones de Tempore are confessedly spurious and rejected by the Benedictines. ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 119 said, as we shall show presently, that it was compiled from the Scriptures. The account of Ruffinus is this, " Our Fathers say, that after the ascension of our Lord .... the Apostles .... went each to different nations. Therefore, being about to separate from each other, they settle among themselves beforehand a rule for their future preaching, lest perchance when apart from one another, they should preach to those who were invited to the faith of Christ doc- trines at all dissimilar. Therefore, being assembled all to- gether and filled with the Holy Spirit, they compose that short summary of their future preaching, putting together what each one thought fit to supply, and resolve that this should be given to the faithful as a rule." And the Author of the Sermon numbered 115 of the " Sermones De Tempore," of Augustine, kindly tells us what articles each apostle supplied, Thomas supplying the words, "he descended into hell," and Simon Zelotes, " the communion of saints," which articles, as is well known, were not in the Creed till some two centuries at least after the death of all the Apostles. A very pretty story, but coming rather too late in the day in the year 390, to make much impression, and withal not very complimentary to inspired men, that they should be so careful to confer with one another before they sepa- rated, lest they should preach different doctrines. We assert further, 2. That there was no such definite summary of the chief articles of belief given by the Apostles to the Chris- tian Church, as " the Creed ;" and that what is called " the Apostles' Creed" is merely the antient Creed of the Church of Rome, and no more entitled to the name than any other of the antient Creeds. In the first place; as we observed on the former head, Scripture is silent as to their having left any such sum- mary. That they required a confession of faith from candidates for baptism is doubtless true, but how far that confession 120 ON THE ANT1ENT CREEDS. extended we have at least no evidence in Scripture, and the only recorded confession is, I think, that of the Ethi- opian eunuch, " I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God," which was evidently accepted by Philip as a sufficient baptismal confession, and which might be said to include virtually a confession of the whole Trinity. (Acts viii. 37.) And a similar confession is spoken of on other occasions as involving virtually an avowal of the Christian faith. (See ch. xvi. 31.) So much, then, is of course freely granted, that the Apostles required a confession of faith previous to bap- tism, which might and probably did include several of the articles now in " the Apostles' Creed." But as to the ex- tent of that confession, or that it had any definite limits, there is at least no evidence upon which we can depend. Ingenious as are the conjectures which have been offered, founded upon the catechetical instructions of the Apo- stles, that such and such articles must have formed part of the baptismal Creed, they are but conjectures, and grounded upon a mode of argumentwhich would prove too much ; for if, as has been argued, the articles of the re- surrection of the dead and life everlasting are to be ad- mitted, because the Apostle mentions in one place the re- surrection of the dead and eternal judgment as doctrines belonging to the " foundation," on the same ground we must conclude that "the doctrine of baptisms and of laying on of hands" formed part of that Creed in the time of the Apostles. Moreover, had there been such a fixed and definite summary, there would not have been so great a variation in the confessions given by the early writers. Had there been a collection of certain definite articles made by the Apostles, and left with the church, on the understanding that those were the articles which should form the Creed, there would not have been this variation. Nor can there be any doubt that we should have had some reference to this fact in the Fathers of the first three centuries, and the proceedings of the Nicene ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 121 council. They would have told us, especially when de- livering " the rule of faith," that the Apostles had left a rule of faith consisting- of certain definite articles; but instead of this, when giving the Rule of faith, they vary in the number of articles given, and uniformly leave out some of those given in our present Creed. Nay, more, the summaries given by the same Father vary in extent, so as to show that the selection was made by the individual writer. And all that is stated merely amounts to this, that the summary so given was agreeable to the faith delivered by the Apostles, that the faith de- livered in it had come from the Apostles. To the argument, that unless there had been such a summary there would not have been the similarity we find in these Creeds, it is quite a sufficient answer to refer to the parting direction of our Lord to his dis- ciples, " Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," (Matt, xxviii. 19,) in which we find at once the rudiments of the earliest Creeds, and from which " the Creed" appears to have derived its origin. Such is the view taken of this passage by the great Athanasius. " Let us moreover," he says, " observe, that this was from the beginning the tradition and doctrine and faith of the catholic church, which the Lord gave, and the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. For upon this the church was founded, and he who falls away from this could not be, nor be called, a Christian. Therefore, there is a holy and perfect Trinity, &c. . . [proceeding to deliver the doctrine of the Trinity] . . . And that this faith is the faith of the church, let them learn from this, that the Lord, when he sent forth his disciples, commanded them to lay this foundation for the church, saying, ' Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' ; and the apostles went and taught thus ; and this is what is preached to every church under heaven. Therefore, 122 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. since the church has this as the foundation of its faith, let them tell us in reply, and answer whether there is a Trinity or a Duality," &C. 1 And so again; " This is the faith of the catholic church. For the Lord hath founded and rooted it upon the Trinity, saying to his disciples, ' Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' " 2 And again, speaking of the name Father as being more appropriate for the first Person of the Trinity than Unbegotten, he says, " Moreover, when teaching us to pray, he [i. e. our Lord] did not say, But when ye pray, say, O God, unbegotten, but, But when ye pray, say, Our Father who art in heaven ; and also he wished THE SUMMARY OF OUR FAITH to'lead likewise to this [name], where having commanded that we should be baptized, it is not in the name of the Unbegotten and the begotten, nor in the name of the Creator and the created, but in the name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost." 3 1 iSa/tcrSc dfjuasKal irposTOVTOis KM avrqv rijf e| apx^ irapa&oinv KM 8i5a, KM ol trarfpts TM, Kai 6 ravrtjs tKxi-KTuv OVT eu> fit), OUT' o.v eri \eyoiTO, Xpio-Tiufos. Tpias TOIVOV ayia KCU re\nu terror .... Koi ori a-sn) r) irurris TT/S E/ocArjfftas effrt, u.a&erta, UopfvQfvrts /ia07)TiroT6 TTUCTO raeOvq- pairTifrvrfS avrovs ety TO ovo/ta rov Tlarpos KM rov Yiov KO.I rov ayiov nvev/j-aros. 'Ot 8e ATTOO-TO\OI iropfvQfiTfs OUTWS fSiSu^av. K( TOVTO fffTiv tis vaffav TI\V far' ovpavov E/CKA.J;- ffiav ro KTipvypa. OVKOVV rovrov fx.ovo^s rr]s EK/cATjcrtos TOV 6efj.e\iov rrjs TTKT- recoj, ftiruraxrcw iraXiv Tjfitv tictivoi KM caroKpivaa-0(aa\cuov St TJS TTiffTfws r)fMav fis TOVTO avvrfivfiv 7}0f \rjffe, Kf- ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 123 Hence it is said in the " Catholic Letter" attributed to Athanasius, " The symbol, therefore, of our faith is the Consubstantial Trinity." 1 Hence, therefore, Tertullian, after giving " the Creed," adds, (in a passage already quoted, pp. 114, 15 above,) that " this rule " was " instituted by Christ." So Basil, after giving a summary of " the Creed," taken professedly from Scripture, adds, " Thus we believe, and thus we baptize into the Consubstantial Trinity, according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ, when he said, ' Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' "2 So in the Creed of Lucian, (quoted p. 133 below), these words of our Lord are referred to as the foundation upon which the Creed was built. Thus also Gregory of Nyssa says, " And afterwards he [i. e. our Lord] adds the words by which they [i. e. his disciples] were about to take captive as in a net the whole earth, and in which is contained the whole mystery of true religion; for he says, ' Go and teach all nations, bap- tizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all \fvos ra Tpia rr}v MovaSa tvpiffKeu/ vo^iru, a\\' tv TT) TpiaSi voeiTU TO tv, f)(a\aiov TTJS irtffTtcos ff TU jSaTrncr/iori KM sv Tats -rpiaiv ayiais ffs PaTTTifrfj.fi> fis TpiaSa ojj.oovffiov, Kara TT\V fvro- \f)i> avrov Toy Kupiov ri^w Irjffov XpiffTov enrovTos, iropevdfTes fj.a9r]TfvffaTf K. T. \. Serm.de fide. . 4. ed. Bened. torn. ii. p. 228. Par. 1C18. torn. ii. p. 255. 124 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. things whatsoever I have commanded you.' " 1 And so in another place he says, " We believe in accordance with that faith which our Lord set forth to the disciples, say- ing, ' Go and teach all nations/ &c. This is the declara- tion of the mystery by which, through the birth from above, our nature is changed from that which is mortal to that which is immortal." 2 And thus speaks Augustine : " Who can be ignorant that it is not Christ's baptism, if the words of the Gos- pel, in which the Creed is contained, have been there wanting." 3 Thus also Hilary: "To believers the word of God, which was transfused into our ears by the testimony of the Evangelist united with the power of its own truth, was sufficient, when the Lord says, ' Go and teach all nations, baptizing them,' &c. [Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.] For what is there which concerns the mystery of the salvation of man, which is not contained in it? Or what is there which remains to be said, or is obscure ? All things are com- plete, as from one who is complete, and perfect, as from one who is perfect ..... But we are compelled, through the sins of heretics and blasphemers, to handle points of which we have no permission to speak ; to climb the heights of divine truth ; to speak of ineffable mysteries ; to presume beyond what is revealed to us. ... Their infidelity carries us into the region of doubt and danger, 1 Keu firuptpti \OUTJV TO ^/IOTO 5(' &>v fj.f\\ov rt\v KM (v ols fffriv aaruv TO TIJJ evfft&etas /tt/oTTjpioc. UopevQfvres yap, r)ffi, rtvffare tcavra. TO efcrj, 0aTrTifrvTs K. T. \. De resurr. orat. 2a. (Par. 1638. torn. iii. p. 414. Par. 161518. torn. ii. p. 846.) 3 Tlurrfvonfv ow KaOus e^dero rots juo07jTa r]v iriariv 6 Kvpios b titrtav in iropfu6fvres /iaflrrrewraTt K. T. A. [Matt, xxviii. 19.] 'Ovros eariv 6 \oyos rov pwrrnptov, tv &> 810 TTJJ avcadtit ywvriffews jueTocr/ceuof TOI rifjuay r> Qvffis wro rov (ttiaprov *pos ro wpQaorov. Id. Contr. Eunom. Ed. 1615. orat. la. torn. ii. p. 2. Ed. 1638. orat. 2a. torn. ii. 3 Quia nesciat non ease baptismum Christi si verba Evangelica quibus sym- bolum constat illic defuerint. Aug. De bapt. contra Donat. lib. 6. c. 25. torn. ix. col. -176. There can be no doubt what the "verba Evangelica" mean, as he had said just before, " Deus adest Evangelicis verbis suis, sine (inibus baptismus Christi conseerari non poteoL" ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 125 when it is necessary to put forward anything concerning things so great and recondite beyond the heavenly rule. The Lord had said that the nations were to be baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The form (or, rule) of faith is certain; but as it regards the heretics, the whole meaning is in dispute." x And lastly, thus speaks Theodoret : " ' Go, said he, and teach all nations, baptizing them,' &c. And, accord- ing to this law, both the divine apostles, and the teachers of the church who followed them, teach those who come to them to believe in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and baptize those who are thus taught, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 2 The foundation of " the Creed," therefore, was laid in these words delivered by our Lord himself. Each bishop or church baptizing according to our Saviour's command, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, required first and principally a brief con- fession of belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the terms which they thought most suitable to the orthodox faith ; and this direction of our Lord was evidently consi- dered by the early Fathers as intimating that the sum and substance of the Christian faith consisted in such a con- 1 Sufficiebat credentibus Dei sermo qui in aures nostras Evangelistse testi- monio cum ipsa veritatis suae virtute transfusus est, cum dicit Dominus, ' Euntes nunc docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos,' &c. Quid enim in eo de sacramento salutis humanse non continetur ? Aut quid est, quod sit reli- quum aut obscurum ? Plena sunt omnia ut a pleno et a perfecto perfecta^ .... Sed compellimur hsereticorum et blasphemantium vitiis illicita agere, ardua scandere, ineffabilia eloqui, inconcessa prsesumere .... Horum infi- delitas in anceps nos ac periculum protrahit, ut necesse sit de tantis ac tarn reconditis rebus aliquid ultra prascriptum cceleste proferre. Dixerat Dominus baptizandas gentes in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Forma fldei certa est ; sed quantum ad haereticos omnis sensus incertus est. Hilar. De Trin. lib. 2. 1,2, 5. Ed. Bened. 2 HoptvOfVTes yap, erj, /jiadrtrevcrare Kara TOVTOV 8e TOV vo^ov KM ol Getoi AiroaroAot, KCU si per" eKetvovs TTJS e/cA?j(nas 8i8aa7caA.. Epiph. Anchor, sub. fin. Op. ed. Petav. v. 2. p. 123. 3 As Cyril calls tlie Creed which he gives of the Church of Jerusalem 'Ayia KO.I an-ooToAi/o) Triorts. Cat. 18. Ed. Milles. p. 274. VOL. I. K 130 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. Apostles as the authors of the formulae themselves, which, had it been the case, would have been stated by the Fa- thers in defence of them, and have rendered their proofs of the statements contained in them from the writings of the Apostles unnecessary. The Creed called by us " the Apostles' Creed," there- fore, has got that name appropriated to it with us merely through the partiality of some authors of repute in the Latin church at the end of the fourth century to the Creed of their own church, for it has clearly no more right to the title than the Creeds of the Oriental churches, of which the most antient extant are those of the churches of Csesarea and Jerusalem, 1 given respectively by Eusebius of Caesarea (as already quoted) and Cyril of Jerusalem, (both of them, by the way, more antient writers than any from whom we have the Creeds of the Latin church,) nor have any of those Creeds a better right to the title than the Creeds of the Councils of Nice and Constantinople. 2 Each of these Creeds is, in fact, an exposition by one or more pastors of the church, of the faith delivered by the apostles, (whether taken from their oral or written tradition is hereafter to be considered ;) an exposition gradually extended from that simple confession of faith required from the eunuch by Philip, (Acts viii. 37,) or that confession of faith in the Trinity, to which our Lord's directions for baptism (Matt. 1 I do not notice the Creed given by some writers as the antient Oriental Creed, derived from the Exposition of Ruffinus upon the Creed, because it is derived from thence merely by inferential reasoning. The Creed which he there gives is, as he himself tells us, the Creed of the church of Aquileia, but from his occasional notice of some discrepancies between that and the Creeds of Rome and the churches of the East, it has been taken for granted that these latter Creeds were precisely the same as that of Aquileia, which he gives, except in the passages he has noted. This may be so, but it is merely con- jecture. This Creed has in fact been called "the Apostles' Creed'' even in the Latin church, which may suggest the probability that this title was not always intended to imply that the Apostles had delivered the formula, but only the faith contained in it. In an antient missal in use in the Latin church about the year 700, it is said of this Creed, " Finite Symboh Apostolorum, dicat sacerdos," &c. Miss. ed. Argent. 1557, p. 41. See Usher, De trib. symb. p. 16. ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 131 xxviii. J9) would lead. And that which is commonly called among us " the Apostles' Creed," we might more properly name, with Dr. Barrow, the antient Roman Creed, to distinguish it from those of Jerusalem and Nice and others, which are equally entitled with it to the name of the Apostles Creed. And so, indeed, it is called by Rumnus. 1 In fact the appellation is merely due to the spirit in which the Church of Rome has acted from a very early period, 2 attempting to obtain currency for all her rites and usages, by calling them apostolical. It is maintained, 3. That what is called " the Apostles' Creed" gradually attained its present form, and that two at least of the Articles it now contains were not inserted in it before the fourth century. It will have been already observed that in the Creeds or confessions of faith just quoted from the works of Irenaeus and Tertullian, the faith is comprised in the articles relating to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, none of those which follow in our present Creed being introduced except that of the resurrection of the flesh, which is connected with the articles relating to the Son, nor that of the descent into hell. Such also is the case in all the Creeds down to that of the Nicene Council, that also included. For the satisfaction of the reader, I will here add them in the order in which they occur. Among them may be noticed the statement made by Origen at the beginning of his work, " On first princi- ples," wherein he lays down the doctrines maintained, as he conceives, by successional delivery in the churches from the time of the apostles, though this statement is hardly to be reckoned a brief summary of the chief articles of the faith, taking, as it seems, a much wider range. How- ever the reader will find it in the next chapter. There is, however, in a work attributed to Origen a delivery of such a summary as follows : " I believe that 1 See p. 140 below. 2 See Firmilian's Letter to Cyprian. K I 132 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. there is one God and Creator and Maker of all things, and God the Word derived from him, con substantial, eternal, who in the last times took upon him human nature of Mary, and was crucified and rose again from the dead. And I believe also the Holy Ghost, who is eternal." 1 This work, however, is not considered to be a genuine work of Origen. The next in order is the Creed of Gregory of Neocaesa- rea, commonly called Gregory Thaumaturgus, which he caused to be used in his own church, and which, if we be- lieve Gregory Nyssen's account in his life of him, was re- vealed to him in a vision from heaven. It runs thus : " There is one God, the Father of the living Word, the subsisting Wisdom and Power, and the eternal Image [of the Father]. A perfect Begetter of a perfect Being, a Father of an only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, one of one, God of God, the character and image of the God- head, the operative Word, Wisdom comprehending the system of the universe, and Power creative of the whole creation, a true Son of a true Father, invisible of invisible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and immortal of im- mortal, and eternal of eternal. And there is one Spirit, who has his existence from God, and through the Son was manifested to men, a perfect image of the perfect Son, Life, the Cause of those that live, the Fountain of holiness, Sanctity, the Author of sanctification ; in whom is mani- fested God the Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son who pervades all. A perfect Trinity, neither divided nor separated from one another in glory, eternity, or dominion. In this Trinity, therefore, there is nothing created or servile, nor anything introduced into it as not existing before and afterwards added to it. Never, there- fore, was the Father without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit, but the same Trinity existed always unchanged and invariable." 2 1 De recta in Deum fide sive Dial. Contr. Marcion, 1. Op. Orig. torn, i p. 804. 3 Gregor. Thaumat. Op. Ed; Par. 1622, p. 1, and Gregor. Nyss. Op. ed. Par. 1638, torn. 3, p. 546. Ed. 16151 8, torn. 2, pp. 978, 9. ON THE A.NTIENT CREEDS. 133 The next is the Creed of Lucian the Martyr, which is as follows : " We believe agreeably to the Evangelical and Apostolical tradition [i. e. the New Testament] in one God the Father, Almighty, the Creator and Maker and Administrator of the universe, of whom are all things. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son, who is God, by whom are all things ; who was begotten before the worlds of the Father, God of God, whole of whole, one of one, Perfect of Perfect, King of King, Lord of Lord, the living Word, living Wisdom, the true Light, the Way, the Truth, the Resurrection, the Shep- herd, the Gate, the inconvertible and unchangeable image of the Deity, the exact image of the essence, and wisdom, and power, and glory of the Father, the first-born of every creature, who was in the beginning with God, God the Word, according to what is said in the Gospel, ' And the Word was God,' by whom all things were made, and in whom all things consist ; who in the last days descended from on high and was born of a virgin, according to the Scriptures, and was made man, the Mediator between God and men, the Apostle of our faith and Giver of life, as he says, ' For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him who sent me ;' who suffered for us and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory and power to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost, who is given to believers for their comfort and sanctification arid per- fecting. As also our Lord Jesus Christ commanded his disciples, saying, ' Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,' to wit, of a Father who is truly a Father, and of a Son who is truly a Son, and of a Holy Spirit who is truly a Holy Spirit ; the names not being applied unmeaningly and to no purpose, but signifying precisely the proper hypostasis, and order, and glory of each of those named, that in hypostasis they are three but in consent one. Therefore holding this faith even from the beginning, and holding it to the end before God and 134 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. Christ, we anathematize all heretical false doctrine ; and if any one teaches contrary to the wholesome right faith of the Scriptures, saying, that there is or was a time or season or age before the Son was begotten, let him be anathema. And if any one says that the Son is a being created as one of created things, or procreated as one of things procreated, or made as one of things made, and not as the divine Scriptures have delivered each of the things aforesaid, or if he teaches or preaches anything else contrary to what we have received, let him be ana- thema. For we truly and reverently believe and fol- low all those things that are delivered to us from the divine Scriptures by prophets and apostles." * These are the only Creeds that remain of the period anterior to the Council of Nice. 2 In that Council, Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, who took so leading a part in it, gave the following as the antient Creed of the church of Caesarea, as we learn from his Letter to the inhabitants of Csesarea, respecting the acts of this Council, preserved by Athanasius 3 and others. 4 " The formula, therefore, proposed by us, which was read before our most pious emperor, and approved as sound, runs thus, As we received from the bishops that were before us, both in the catechetical instructions and when we were baptized, and as we have learnt from the divine Scriptures, and as we have believed and taught when hold- ing the office of presbyter and in the episcopate itself, so still believing, we lay before you our Creed ; and it is this ; We believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible ; and in one 1 The original of this confession is to be found in Athanasius, Epist. De Syn. Arim. et Seleuc. 23. and Socrat. Hist. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 10. A Latin trans- lation of it is given by Hilary in his book De Synodis, 29. who also vin- dicates its orthodoxy from the suspicion that had been attached to it from its having been referred to by the Arians, in which he is followed by Bishop Bull, (Def. fid. Nic. ii. 13. 6.) who proves that Lucian was the author of it, and Bingham, (Antiq. book x. c. 4, 6.) s I do not notice the Creed inserted in the Apostolical Constitutions, be- cause they are confessedly spurious, and of very uncertain age. 3 Athan. Epist. de decret. Syn. Nic. sub fin. 4 Socr. Hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 8 ; Theodorct. Hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 12; &c. ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 135 Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only-begotten Son, the first- born of every creature, begotten of the Father before all worlds, (or, ages,) by whom also all things were made, who for our salvation was incarnate, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended unto the Father, and shall come again in glory to judge the quick and dead. We believe also in one Holy Spirit, believing each one of these to be and exist, the Father to be truly a Father, and the Son truly a Son, and the Holy Spirit truly a Holy Spirit, as also our Lord when he sent forth his disciples to preach, said, ' Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.'" The Creed published by the Council of Nice (preserved to us in the letter of Eusebius just quoted and in other works ] ) was as follows ; " We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisi- ble. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, be- gotten of the Father, the only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, of one sub- stance with the Father, by whom all things were made both that are in heaven and that are in earth, who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate, having been made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and shall come to judge the quick and dead. And in the Holy Spirit. And those who say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, and that he was not before he was begotten, and that lie was made out of nothing, or those who say that he is of another hypostasis, or substance, or that he is a creature convertible or changeable, the Catholic Church anathe- matizes." Now in all these various forms it will be observed, that there is not one of them which includes more than the confession relating to the Trinity. And so the Creed is 1 Athanas. Epist. ad Jovian. 3. Theodoret. Hist. Eccl. lib. 4. c. 3. Socr. Hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 8. Basil. M. Epist. 125. Op. torn. 3. p. 215. Ed. Ben. &c. 136 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. often referred to by the Fathers, as consisting of belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Thus Cyril of Alexan- dria says; " For he [i. e. Christ] offers our confession, that is, our faith, which we are also accustomed rightly to make, saying, We believe in God the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ his Son, and in the Holy Ghost." 1 And again, " There is made by us the con- fession of the right faith in one God the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ his Son, and in one Holy Ghost." 2 There is also a passage in the writings of Tertullian, which seems very clearly to intimate that the earliest Creed or symbol was only a confession relating to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Speaking of the Holy Spirit as the " leader into all truth" he adds, " which, according to the Christian sacrament, is in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost." 3 The term sacrament we may observe is applied by other authors also to the Creed ; 4 and Ambrose compares it to the soldier's " sacra- ment (or, oath) of warfare." 5 It was therefore the opinion of Erasmus and Vossius, that the Creed for more than three centuries did not ex- tend further than that ; and their opinion is adopted by Bishop StillingHeet; 6 and certainly as it respects that col- lection of articles which the earliest Fathers have pointed out to us as comprising the chief points of Christian doc- trine, and called " the rule of faith," it is clear from the passages quoted above, that it did not extend further than that confession. 1 Itpovpyti yap fifuev TT\V djuoA.oyicu', rovrtffrt Tt]v Tturrw, ty ai op6us KareiOiff- /te0a -icoitiaGai, Aryovres. IltffTfvo/j.d' ets kva. &eov irarepa irai>TOKpa,Topu- KCU ets tva Kvpiov Iijo-ow Xpurrov TOV wov OMTOV KM ets TO Jli/eujua TO aytov. Cyrill. Alex. De recta fide ad Reg. Op. ed. Aubert, torn. v. P. 2. p. 148. 2 'H TTJS op0Tjsirjy opoXayia. irpaTrerai irpos TJ/JCW eis fva &eov, K. T. \. Id. ib. p. 158. * Deductorem omnis veritatis, quae est in Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto secundum Christianum sacramentum. Adv. Prax. c. 30. 4 As Euffinus in Apol. adv. Hicron. lib. i. 5. " sacramentuni symbol!" and Hieron. Ad Pummacli. adv. Joann. Hieros. (See p. 118.) 5 Militias sacrumentum. De virg. lib. 3. c. 4. 20. 6 Vindication of doctrine of the Trinity, pp. '225, (i. ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 137 But then this rule of faith was not during that whole period identical with the confession required to be made at baptism ; and it appears to me that the want of this dis- tinction has occasioned much of the disagreement which appears in the various accounts given of the history of the Creed. The Creed or Rule of faith, as given by the ear- liest Fathers, comprised only the articles relating to the Trinity, (if we except that on the resurrection of the flesh,) and in that state probably formed for some time the whole baptismal confession, that confession being, as we have seen, derived from our Lord's precept for baptism (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.) ; but it seems clear that from an early period there were generally added to that confession some other points, which though not at first inserted in the Creed, formed the subject of a separate interrogation at baptism. Thus Tertullian, in his Tract on baptism, says, " But when both the declaration of faith and the promise of salvation were pledged by the Three, there is necessarily annexed the mention of the church, since where the Three are, that is, the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, there is the church, which is the body of the Three." 1 And Cyprian still more clearly intimates that such was the case ; " If," he says, " any one starts this objection, that Novatian retains the same form of baptism which the catholic church holds, that he baptizes with the same Creed as ourselves, that he acknowledges the same God the Father, the same Son the Christ, the same Holy Spirit, and consequently that he may assume the power of bap- tizing, because he seems not to differ from us in the inter- rogation used at baptism, let such an one, whoever thinks to object this, know first, that there is not one and the same form of Creed to us and the schismatics, nor the same interrogation. For when they say, ' Dost thou believe the remission of sins and life eternal through the holy church?' 1 Quum autem sub Tribus et testatio fidei et sponsio salutis pignerentur, necessario adjicitur Ecclesise mentio, quoniam ubi Tres, id est, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, ibi Ecclesia, qua: Trium corpus est. De baptismo, c. 6. See also c. 11. ]38 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. they speak falsely in the interrogation, since they have not a church." l And again; " The very interrogation which takes place at baptism is a witness of the truth. For when we say, * Dost thou believe in eternal life and the remission of sins through the holy church,' we mean that remission of sins is not given but in the church." 2 In the first of these passages Cyprian clearly seems to distinguish between the symbol or Creed containing the confession relating to the Trinity from the interrogation relating to " remission of sins and life everlasting through the holy church," or at any rate his words imply that these points were the subject of a distinct and separate interro- gation. And by a passage in the letter of Firmilian, Bishop of Csesarea, to Cyprian, this matter is placed almost beyond doubt, where, speaking of a baptism performed by certain heretics, he says, " To which neither the Creed of the Trinity, nor the legitimate interrogation, and such as is used by the church, was wanting." 3 The points noticed in the above passages, then, were clearly subjects of interrogation at baptism at an early period, but they did not then form part of that summary which was called " the rule of faith," which, as derived from our Lord's precept for baptism, was at first kept distinct from these additions, and always held to be the most important part of the baptismal confession. 1 Quod si aliquis illud opponit, ut dicat, eamdem Novatianum legem tenere, quam Catholica Ecclesia teneat, eodem symbolo, quo et nos, bap. tizare, eumdem nosse Deum Patrem, eumdem Filium Christum, eumdem Spiritum Sanctum, ac propter hoc usurpare eum potestatem baptizandi posse, quod videatur in interrogatione baptismi a nobis non discrepare, sciat, quisquis hoc opponendum putat, primum non ease unam nobis et schismaticis symboli legem, neque eamdem interrogationem. Nam quum dicunt ; ' credis re- missionem peccatoram et vitam aeternam per sanctam Ecclesiam.' mentiuntur in interrogatione, quando non habeant ecclesiam. CYPR. Ep. ad Magn. 9 Sed et ipsa interrogatio, qua fit in baptismo, testis est veritatis. Nam quum dicimus, 'Credis in vitam seternam et remissionem peccatorum per sanctam Ecclesiam,' intelligimus remissionem peccatorum non nisi in Ecclesia dari. EJUSD. Ep. ad Januarium, &c. 3 Cui nee symbolum Trinitatis nee interrogatio legitima et ecclesiasticade- fuit Ep. 75, inter Cypriani Ep. ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 139 We may add also to the preceding testimonies that of Cyril of Jerusalem. For in his fourth Catechetical Lec- ture, he says, " But before the delivery of any comment upon the faith, it seems to me to be desirable now to give a compendious summary of the necessary doctrines, (ro;v avayratwv ^oyfiarwv)" He then proceeds to give the doctrines relating to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as in the Creeds already quoted, and then immediately adds, " Retain this seal, (or, symbol or mark, trQpayiSa,) ever in thy mind And after the knowledge of this venerable and glorious and holy faith, (or Creed, Trt^rewc,) know also thyself," &c. x Proceeding, however, in the subsequent. Lectures to comment upon the confession required at baptism, he says, that after the confession of faith relating to the Trinity, this followed. " In one baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, and in one holy catholic church, and in the resurrection of the flesh, and in the life everlasting." 2 So that even in the time of Cyril, in the middle of the fourth century, there was a distinction between the con- fession relating to the Trinity and that required at baptism. But from about this time the distinction appears to have been very much lost sight of, and the whole of the confession required at baptism was spoken of as the Creed, the Rule of faith. 3 Further; it appears from the Creeds we have already quoted, that even in thepart relatingtotheTrinity,an article which occurs in the (so called) " Apostles' Creed," viz. that relating to Christ's descent into hell, formed no part of the primitive summary of the articles of the faith. The first Creed in which it appears was one published by the Arians at the Council of Ariminum, A. D. 359, which had also been previ- 1 Cyr. Hierosol. Cat. 4. 2 and 12. pp. 46 and 56. ed. Milles. (Ed. Par. 1631, pp. 24 et 30.) 2 Id. Cat. 18. 11. p. 269. (Ed. 1631. p. 220.) 3 Since writing the above, I have found that Dr. Waterland favours the view taken above of the brevity of the original Creed, and its being distinct from the confession required at baptism. See his " Importance of the doctrine of the Trinity," c. 6. Works, vol. v. pp. 160, 161 . 140 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. ously exhibited by them at the Council of Sirmium. 1 It is also to be found in the Creed of the church of Aquileia, given by Ruffinus 2 towards the close of this century, who, however, alao tells us that this addition was not to be found in the Creed of the Roman church, nor in the churches of the East. 3 This article, therefore, was not introduced into the Creeds of the Roman and Oriental churches until after the fourth century. That it was a doctrine taught by the Apostles 4 and Fathers 5 there can be no doubt, but it was not inserted in the summary of the chief articles of belief for several centuries. Passing on to the consideration of the articles that follow that relating to the Holy Ghost, and consider- ing the Creed as we find it when including points not relating to the Trinity, we find not a little diversity in their phraseology and number in the earliest forms in which they appear. Thus in the article relating to the church, the most antient Creeds have only the words " holy church," the word " catholic " having been added by the Greeks. 6 And, what is more worthy of remark, the article of the " communion of saints" is not to be found in any Creed or baptismal confession of the first four centuries, nor in many of those of a subsequent date. Its earliest occur- rence, perhaps, is in the 115th and 181st of the Sermones de Tempore erroneously ascribed to Augustine. 1 Socr. Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 37. Kot s TO. Ka.ra.xQov ta KartMovra. And see lib. ii. c. 41 . a Expos, in Symb. Apost. 3 * In Ecclesiae Romans Symbolo non habetur additum, descendit ad in- ferna ; sed neque in Orientis Ecclesiis habetur hie sermo." Expos, in Symb Ap.20. 4 Acts ii. 27. Eph. iv. 9. 4 Cyrill. Hieros. Cat. 4. 8. p. 53. (Ed. 1631. p. 27.) Epiphan. Adv. Ha*, lib. iii. in Expos. Fid. Cath. 17 : Iren. lib. iv. 27. ed. Mass. c. 45. ed. Grab. And see Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. ult. where an account is given of the preaching of Thaddseus at Edessa, of which this article formed one topic. Others are mentioned by Pearson. 6 See Pearson in loc. ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 141 It is maintained, 4. That the Creeds of the primitive church were de- rived originally from the holy Scriptures. In proof of this I will point out, first, some internal indications of the earliest Creeds having been derived from Scripture. Thus, in the first Creed given above from Irenaeus, in addition to the fact observable at a glance, that the whole tone of the phraseology is remarkably scriptural, we have in one part a direct quotation from Phil. ii. 10, 11. The way in which it is made also, without acknowledgment, seems an additional proof how completely Scripture was the guide throughout, if, indeed, any other than the ge- neral phraseology were wanting. I subjoin the original below, with one or two references to Scripture in illustra- tion of the scriptural nature of the phraseology, and the language may in other parts, as any reader conversant with the Greek Testament will see, be easily traced to the same source. x 1 'H u.ev yap ~EKK\T]ffia, Kanrep Ka9' 6\vis TTJS oiKov(j.ffr)S etas trepartav rrjs yrjs Sieairap/j.fvr], ira,pa 8e Ttav KiroffToKtav /cat Tiav eKeivuv (j.adr]Twv irapa\a^ovffa Tt]v fis eVa eov Tlarepa iravTOKpcLTOpa. TOV ireiron)KOTU. TOV ovpavov /cat TT\V yrjv /cat Tas 6a\aaffas, /cat iravra ra ev avrois, [See Acts iv. 24 ' xiv. 15.] iriffTiv' /cat ets kva. XpiffTov Irjtrow, [See 1 Cor. viii. 6, which reference I give on the au- thority of the following passage in Ruffinus. " Orientis Ecclesise omnes ita tra- dunt, ' Credo in unum Deum Patrera omnipotentem ;' et rursum in sequent! sermone, ubi nos dicimus, ' Et in Jesum Christum, unicum Filium ejus, Do- minum Nostrum,' illi tradunt, ' Et in unum Dominum Nostrum Jesum Christum, Filium ejus. 1 Unum scilicet Deum et unum Dominum, secundum auctoritatem Pauli Apostoli profitentis." Ruif. in Symb. 4. and see 1 1. A remarkable observation this for onewho tells us elsewhere that the Apostles drew up the Creed.] -rov viov rov&fov, TOV ffapKeaOevra inrfp rrjs ^/nerepas crearripias' /cat ets Hfevfj.a ayiov, ro Sta TOW irpo^>-r\Tca> KfKr)pvxosras oiKovofjuas, /cat ras eAeutrets, cat Tt]v fK irapdevov yevfr), KanowaQos, /cat rr]v eyepcrtv eKvetcpufyKairriv evffap- KOV ets rovs ovpavovs avaXtptyiv TOV r]yaTrr)fj.evov Xpiffrov Irjcrou TOV Kvpiov r\^uav, /cat TI\V K ruv ovpavtav ev TI\ SO|TJ TOV Flarpos [Matt. xvi. 27 ; Mark viii. 38.] ira. povaiav avrov, em TO avaKftpa\attairaff6ai Tairavra, [Eph. i. 10.] /cat acacrrTjcrat iraffav ffapita, Tratnjs av6pcairoTi]TOS, Iva XpiffTtp \i\ffov TW Kvpica r^Loiv, /cat eat, /cat crcoTrjpt, /cat jSacrtAet, Kara Tt\v evSoKiav TOV Tlasrpos TOV aoparov, irau> yovv /ca/i^jj enovpaviuv /cat ftriyeiiav /cat /cara^floi'icw, /cat Tra/ra yXcacrcra f^o/j.o\ofr]fff]Tai avrca, [Phil. ii. 10, 11.] /cat Kpitnv St/catav ev TOLS iraai TrotTjoTrrar ra (J.ev irvevfjiaTiKa TTJS irovrtpias, /cat ayye\ovs irapaftefiriicoTas, /cat fv a-rroffTcunu yeyovoras, /cat TOVS acrc^Sets /cat aSiicovs /cat avofj.ovs, /cat P\a.T0ap- aiav Suptiffifrai, KO.I So^av ai(aj>tpu *VTOV ryfvfro ovSe li> 6 ytyovtv. (John i. 1, 3.) " Hunc passum, hunc mortuum et sepultum secundum Scripturas et resus- citatum a Patre." 3 Adv. Prax. c. 29. Also c. 15, of thesame Treatise, where it is said, "quern mortuum contestatur, [i e. Paulus,] secundum Scripturas." 4 The loss of the original Greek renders the similarity probably less striking, but the reader may compare the following, " Sicut per prophetas suos ante promiserat." (Acts iii. 18.) "Misit Dominum Nostrum Jesum Christum primo ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 143 direct quotation from Scripture, namely, in those words, " Who after he had ministered to the Father in the crea- tion of all things, for by him all things were made, in the last times humbling himself," &c., referring to John i. 3.* As it respects the Creed of Lucian the martyr, there can be no doubt of the way in which it was drawn up, as it not only professes throughout to be derived from Scrip- ture, but refers to the Scripture as the alone rule of faith, the alone source from which the faith was to be derived, and upon the authority of which it rested, and that not only as it respected the church as a body, but as it re- spected individuals in it, for this, be it remembered, is a Creed drawn up by an individual, and collected out of the Scriptures. From an inspection, then, of these, the earliest Creeds that remain to us, I think we may fairly conclude that the early church went to the Scripture as the source from which to form their " Creed." I do not, however, rest this conclusion upon sucli evi- dence alone, but upon direct testimony in favour of it, such as appears to me tolerably decisive. In the first place, Irenseus, when speaking of the mis- quotations of Scripture by which the Valentinians sup- ported their errors, observes, that " he who retains the rule of truth immovable which he received in baptism, will recognize the words, and phrases, and parables [re- ferred to by the Valentinians] as derived from the Scrip- tures, but will not recognize the blasphemous hypothesis as so derived." 2 Consequently, " the rule of truth" re- ceived at baptism, was either Scripture itself or a confes- quidem vocaturum Israel." (Acts iii. 26.) " Ante omnem creaturam natus" (Col. i. 15) se ipsum exinaniens." (Phil. ii. 7.) 1 Q,ui quum in omnium conditione Patri ministrasset, per ipsum enim omnia facto, sunt, novissimis temporibus se ipsum, &c. 3 IREN. Adv. hser. lib. i. c. 1 . sub fin. VOL. I. K 7 144 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. sion derived from Scripture ; and immediately after this passage follows the Creed or confession we have just referred to as given by Irenseus,and which by all authors whom I have yet seen is considered to be the " rule of truth" previously spoken of. 1 Further, Cyril of Jerusalem, speaking of the Creed of his church, writes thus, "For since not all are able to read the Scriptures, but some are prevented by want of learning, others by want of leisure, from obtaining a knowledge of them, that the soul may not perish through ignorance, we comprehend the whole doctrine of the faith in a few sentences And at a proper time obtain from the divine Scriptures the proof for each one of the articles contained therein, for the articles of the faith were not, as it seems, composed by men, but the most suitable passages having been collected together out of the whole Scripture, furnish one exposition of the faith" * This testimony is clear and explicit, and coming from such a quarter as It does, is upon such a point of no little weight. Nor does it stand alone. In the Latin Church we have first the testimony of 1 To my mind, however, the context seems rather to show that the " rule of truth" was Scripture itself, for I see not how the "words and phrases and parables" quoted by the Valentinians from Scripture could be re- cognized through the medium of any brief confession of faith ; in which case of course the argument from this passage for the scriptural origin of the Creed falls to the ground; but the passage becomes still more important in another point of view. * EireiSTj yap ov iravrts Swavrat ras ypcuj>as avayivwantfiv, a\\a rovs /ttev j8o>T(o TOI/S 5t off-xpKia ra /tiro8tf irpos rijv yvwaiv, inrep rov /j ti)v a^aflios airo\(T0ai, tv o\tyots rois argots TO vav Soypu TIJS iritrrews &avo(i.tv . . . EicScxov 8 Kara rov Sfoma Kaipov njv avo rwv 6fiuv ypwpwv wfpi 4/coffrov ruv tyKftfifvuv ffvffraxrw. Ov yap, is t8o{?y, avOpwirois ffwfrtOr) ra TIJS irurrtws, a\\' fit iraffrjs ypaifts ra Ka.ipuara.ra. ,ua rrjs a\-ijQfias. 1 Tim. iii. 15. N 2 180 PATRISTICAL TRADITION others of the Fathers apply the same phrases to the great men of the church. S. Basil (Ep.'62) useth the very same expressions concerning Musonius. S. Chrysostom (Horn. 148, torn. 5) calls the Apostles, ' the immovable pillars of the true faith.' Theodoret (De Prov. Orat. 10) saith concerning S. Peter and S. John, ' That they were the towers of godliness and the pillars of truth.' Gregory Nazianzen (Ep. 38) calls S. Basil, ' The ground of faith and the rule of truth ;' and elsewhere (Orat. 19, Ep. 29.) ' The pillar and ground of the church,' which titles he gives to another bishop at that time. And so it appears in the Greek Catena mentioned by Heinsius (in loc.) S. Basil read these words, or understood them so, when he saith, ' The apostles were the pillars of the New Jerusalem, as it is said, The pillar and around of the church' I forbear more, since these are sufficient to show that they understood this place as relating to Timothy, and not to the church." 1 Thus speaks Bishop Stilling- tieet, in a small work which I would earnestly com- mend to the perusal of our opponents, particularly the chapter from which I have quoted the above, where he undertakes to discuss the three following points. " First, whether Christ and his Apostles did establish such a standing judicature in the church, to which all Christians were bound to submit in matters of faith. Secondly, whether the primitive church did own such a judicature, and did accordingly govern their faith. Thirdly, Whether it be an unreasonable thing to suppose the contrary, viz. that Christ should leave men to JUDGE FOR THEMSELVES in matters which concern their salvation ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES." 2 But it may be said, We need not surely ascertain the faith of all Christians. It will be sufficient to know what everybody always everywhere among the pastors of the church believed. This, it must be admitted, contracts the extent of the rule within limits very much nar- 1 Vindication of the Answer to some late papers, pp. 32, 3. 9 Ibid, p. 30. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 181 rower than the words signify, so that if this is all that is meant, it is difficult to see why it should not be so stated. And although, for my part, I should be quite willing to admit the conclusiveness of a proof so ob- tained, I cannot pass it over without reminding the reader that there have been periods in the history of God's church which should make us very jealous of such admissions for any definite period. Who formed the Church of God in the time of Ahab, when Elijah only was left of God's ministers? Who formed the Church of God in the time of our Lord, when rulers, priests, and people, with the exception of a few humble and despised individuals, cried out, Away with him, crucify him. Never let it be for- gotten that it was by the catholic consent of his day that our blessed Lord was crucified. For the notion that such a handful of humble individuals as constituted his fol- lowers could be of any account in the matter, would have been scouted by the followers of " catholic consent" as an utter absurdity. Here were all the venerable inter- preters of the Scriptures and depositaries of the tra- dition of the church ranged on one side, in declaring that tradition, and the true meaning of Scripture as inter- preted by it, were altogether against the claims of Jesus Christ ; on the other a few obscure and unlearned indi- viduals, who pretended to interpret Scripture for them- selves. Could the followers of " catholic consent" doubt for a moment on which side the truth was to be found ? These cases very clearly show us how much we may be mistaken if we make the majority, or even the pastors of the church, the representatives of the true church of Christ, the sure witnesses of the orthodox faith. But granting all that is here asked, and it may, no doubt, be presumed that among the collective body of the faithful forming the true church, there are not wanting faithful pastors of Christ's flock, what do we gain by it ? How do we know what everybody always everywhere among the pastors of the primitive church believed? How should we be able to ascertain this even for the ge- 182 PATRISTICAL TRADITION neration now living? How much less, then, can we ascertain it for generations that lived ages since; of whom we know nothing, but from the writings of a few individuals who lived at the period, and who themselves were unable to trace it. Take the case of the Church of England alone at the present day, with her express and particular confession of faith branched out into points on which the public re- cords of the early church are altogether silent. In the belief of that confession, all her members profess to agree. But do they all hold in reality the same doctrine on all the points of that confession? Take the doctrine of jus- tification, for instance. Will the article give you the pre- cise doctrine held by all the members of the church ? No ; one interprets it in one way, others in another ; and he who reads it to know what is the view of our church upon the subject, may, if his inclination so dispose him, strain it to a third sense. And each will tell you the article is plainly on his side ; for it is as impossible to bind error by words, as by chains. It has been often bound with both ; and both have been broken through and burst asunder by it, and even turned to the promotion of its own purposes. How, then, I ask, even with this confes- sion of faith in our hands, shall we be able to tell what everybody everywhere in the Church of England holds respecting the doctrine of justification? Clearly as the article speaks, it does not show what precise views are entertained on the subject, by all who subscribe it. I can no more say, therefore, what are the precise views of all our clergy, because they have subscribed this article, than I can say what their views are, because they hold Scrip- ture to be the Word of God, and profess to believe all ,that it delivers. Even where there is so definite a con- fession of faith, therefore, there is some uncertainty as to the views of those who profess to hold it. Nay, let us hear what Mr. Newman himself says on this subject. " In the English Church we shall hardly find ten or twenty neighbouring clergymen who agree together, and NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 183 that not in the non-essentials of religion, but as to what are its elementary and necessary doctrines." (pp. 394, 5.) Now, then, let us go back to primitive times, and let our opponents show us of which of the primitive churches we have such evidence of the doctrine held by it, as we have in the case of the Church of England. No; we have not any such public confessions even of particular churches to guide us, much less of the Catholic Church. There is nothing, indeed, that could claim to be considered the voice of the Catholic Church, until we come to the Council of Nice. How is it possible, therefore, that we can undertake to say what all the pastors of the various churches, or even of all the Apostolically-founded churches, believed ? To take the few individuals whose writings happen to remain to us, as the representatives of this whole body, is as absurd as it would be a thousand years hence to take the writings of some half dozen indi- viduals of the last three centuries that may happen to have survived to that period, as the representatives of the whole church since the Reformation to this age ; and who, if they happened to be Romanists, would represent the whole Catholic Church as agreeing with them, and their only opponents to be a few contemptible sectaries. Nay, those individuals themselves could not tell what was the faith of " the church," when " the church" had not publicly defined it. And hence the Romanists them- selves make this apology for the errors of some of the Fathers on various points, that " the church" had not then determined it ; allowing that individuals might easily err, where there had been no public decision of the church ; while, nevertheless, the desire and purpose of such individuals must have been to retain the faith of the church, which, therefore, they must have supposed them- selves to do ; and would, therefore, in their writings, have maintained that they did. Hence, still further, suppose we were even to grant that the consent of the public confessions of faith of all the primitive churches for the first few centuries, might 184 PATRISTIC AL TRADITION be taken as indicative of such a catholic consent as ought to be considered a sufficient proof of the oral teaching of the Apostles, where can we find those confessions ? The utmost of the kind that we can find for the first three centuries, is in the remains left to us of three authors of the second and third centuries, who, in their controversies with some who were opposed to them, give us (as we shall see presently) a Creed shorter than what is com- monly called the Apostles' Creed, and consisting of articles which, in the present day, are not called in ques- tion ; for which they claim the consent of the churches founded by the Apostles. Now these Creeds are, no doubt, entitled to great respect. But when we recollect that these churches had no fixed and publicly agreed-upon formula or confession of faith to be judged by, and that even in the case of churches that have, the representation given of their doc- trine, varies with the private views of him who gives it, we cannot surely accept even these as infallible witnesses. These writers, to use the words of Doctor Barrow, " al- lege the general consent of churches planted by the Apostles, and propagated by continual successions of bishops from those whom the Apostles did ordain, in doctrines and practices opposite to those devices, as a good argument ; and so, indeed, it then was, next to a de- monstration against them." l Then the truth of the state- ment could be tested ; and doubtless their report of such agreement, is a strong argument in our day ; but one, the strength of which is greatly diminished to what it was then ; and that on several accounts. We cannot verify it. We have to trust to the report of two or three partial writers, who themselves must Lave judged greatly from report. And when we find, as we shall hereafter, how freely the name of the church was afterwards used for doctrines that had no pretence to claim such an authority, we can hardly consider these testimonies conclusive. We have not even the writings of those who were opposed to 1 Works, vol. vi. p. 198. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 185 them, to consult in the matter ; and who, we know, laid claim to apostolical tradition in their favour. Even in the few points mentioned in those Creeds, therefore, we believe that they were held generally in the primitive church, because we find them so clearly expressed in Scripture, not because we have any certain testimony of catholic consent in their favour. And lastly, those Creeds, if admitted, are open to almost all the errors which agitate the church, having been originally directed against those outrageous absurdities of the Valentinians and Marcionites, which, in the present day, are equally despised by all parties. Moreover, were we to suppose that what is called a General Council might be taken as an undoubted re- presentative of the whole church in its day, yet there was not a single Council of the kind for the first three centuries and more. Nay, if we speak of a Council truly general, faithfully representing the whole church, it may well be doubted whether there ever was yet such a Council. Bishop Stillingfleet, speaking on this subject, and showing the far better title which the Antient Coun- cils had to be called General than the modern ones of Rome so called, adds," I do not say, There was ever such a General Council as did fully represent the uni- versal church, which could not be done without provin- cial Councils summoned before in all parts of Christendom, and the delegation from them of such persons as were to deliver their sense in the matter of faith to be debated in* the General Council, and I have reason to question whether this were ever done." ] And suppose such a Council assembled, and having (which is all that would be practicable at any time) a few deputies from every church in existence, could we be sure that those deputies spoke anything more than the sense of the majority of the pastors of the church they repre- 1 Vindication of the Answer to some late papers, p. 53, and see Placette on the Incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome, c. 12. 186 PATRISTICAL TRADITION sented ? Take an instance. What do our opponents think of the representation made by the English deputies at the Synod of Dort of the doctrine of the Church of England? Let them honestly say, whether they believe that the doc- trine of the Church of England was truly represented there. If they do, what becomes of their subscription ; if they do not, they at once confess that such assemblies afford no proof of the doctrine of the churches there represented. Nay, it undeniably follows from this case, that it is only the majority that is represented, because it is notorious that there were those, as for instance Bishop Montague, in the Church of England, who took a very different view of the doctrine of our church to what was there given. On this whole subject, therefore, Archbishop Tenison, when discoursing of a guide in matters of faith, speaking of the pretensions that have been made by the Romanists to an infallible one, says, (and his words apply equally to the arguments of our opponents,) "This guide could not be the church diffusive of the first ages. For the suf- frages of every Christian were never gathered. And if we will have their sense, they must rise from the dead and give it us. This guide cannot be the faith, as such, of all the governors of all the primitive churches. The sense of it was never collected. There were antiently general Creeds, but such as especially related to the heresies then on foot; and who can affirm upon grounds of certainty, that each bishop in the world consented to each Article, or to each so expressed? This guide is not a Council perfectly free and universal. For a guide which cannot be had is none. If such a Council could assemble, it would not err in the necessaries of faith But there never was yet an universal Council properly so called .... In the Councils called general, if we speak comparatively, there were not many southern or western bishops present at them. It was thus at that first oecumenical Council, the Council of Nice; though in one sacred place, as Eusebius hath noted, there were assembled Syrians and Ciliciaus, Phoe- NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 187 nicians and Arabians, Palestinians, Egyptians, Thebaeans, Libyans, Mesopotamians, a Persian, a Scythian bishop, and many others from other countries. But there was but one bishop for Africa, one for Spain, one for Gaul, two priests as deputies of the infirm and aged bishop of Rome ; whilst, for instance sake, there were seventeen bishops for the small province of Isauria This guide is not the present church declaring to particular Christians the sense of the church of former ages. How can this declaration be made, seeing churches differ, and each church calls itself the true one, and pretendeth to the primitive pattern." J SECTION III. THE INADEQUACY OF THE RECORDS THAT RE- MAIN TO US OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH TO BE TAKEN AS ANYTHING LIKE A SUFFICIENT AND INDUBITABLE RE- PRESENTATION OF THE FAITH OF THE WHOLE CHURCH. WE now come to the consideration of the number and value of the writings themselves from which we have to collect the " catholic consent " of the primitive church. And, I think, it will be evident to every impar- tial reader, that if we include in our review the writings of the first three centuries, we are giving our opponents as long a period as they can with any shadow of justice re- quire. For the argument is, that we must go to the pri- mitive church to learn the doctrines of the faith, because, as corruptions came in by degrees, the nearer we get to the times of Christ and his Apostles, the more likely we are to obtain the truth unmixed with error. I know, indeed, that we are so far removed from the Apostolic age, that men who lived some three or four centuries after the 1 Discourse concerning a guide in matters of faith, pp. 14 18, or Bishop Gibson's Preservative. Tit. iv. c. 1 . p. 8, &s. and see the whole of Placette's " Incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome ;" and respecting General Councils, see Dean Sherlock's " Vindication of some Protestant Prin- ciples," &c. in Gibson's Preservative, vol. iii. p. 415. 188 PATRISTICAL TRADITION Apostles, are viewed by many as almost their contempo- raries. The Apostles and the Fathers of the first three or four centuries are to us in this respect like the stars. They are all so far off from us that they appear almost equidistant. The difference of their distances is so small in the comparison, that it is almost lost sight of. But if we allow ourselves to judge thus hastily, we may easily be deceived. It cannot be pretended that what is not found in the writers of the first three centuries can be proved to be the oral teaching of the Apostles by the testimony of subsequent writers, though subsequent writers may act as a check upon those of this period, and may also be included for a negative testimony, that is as negativing a doctrine by their silence ; for if a doc- trine is unknown to the Fathers of the first five centuries, there is still stronger reason to suppose it to be false, than if we could only say that it was unknown to the Fathers of the first three. The longer the period you can include for the negative argument, the stronger it becomes. And hence, we willingly give the Romanists the first five or six centuries from which to prove the doctrines in dispute between them and us. But for a positive testimony in proof of any doctrine the case is precisely the contrary. Here we want respectable proof of catholic consent at a period very near the apostolical times. Let us observe, then, on this head, First, and more especially, the paucity of the remains of the primitive church for the first three centuries. That there were many writers at all in the church com- pared with its extent, during the ages of persecution, is not probable. But when we come to view the records that actually remain to us, we shall find that we can hardly reckon upon having one witness for a million. For who are our witnesses for this period ? We have first, nine brief epistles to various churches by Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius. We have the works of Justin Martyr, IrenEeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen and Lactantius ; a few small Treatises by Athe- NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 189 nagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus, Gregory of Neocgesarea,Minucius Felix and Arnobius. These with a few fragments of some other authors preserved by subsequent writers, form the sum total of our witnesses for more than the first three hundred years. And almost all these works are written in reply, either to the heathen opponents of Christianity, or to heresies which in the pre- sent day would be equally despised by all parties, and consequently have a very indirect reference to any of the disputes by which the church is now agitated. These, then, are to be taken, according to our opponents, as the certain representatives of the whole church, as equivalent to everybody always everywhere during this period, and hence, as presenting us, where they agree, with a certain record of the oral teaching of the Apostles. Now, whether these writers do give a consentient testi- mony in behalf of any doctrine is a point which we shall discuss hereafter. But at present I would only submit to the reader whether such a claim in behalf of the few in- dividuals above named, namely, that their concurrent statements should be taken as a certain record of the con- sent of the whole church, and so of the oral teaching of the Apostles, is admissible. Consider the small number of those whom we are thus making the uncommissioned plenary representatives of the universal church for three hundred years. And that too when we know that they form but a very small pro- portion even of the writers of those ages. For the author of the " Synopsis of Scripture," attributed to Athanasius, having given a list of the canonical books of the New Testament, says, " Such are the books of the New Tes- tament, those at least that are canonical, and as it were the first fruits or anchors and props of our faith, as being written and composed by the Apostles of Christ them- selves, and those that associated with him, and were taught by him ; but afterwards, in accordance with their teaching, and in harmony with them, myriads of other books without number were composed by the Fathers 190 PATRISTICAL TRADITION who in their time were great and excelling in wisdom and taught by God." x And again, further on, he speaks of these writers as " very many and infinite in num- ber." 2 Is it not, then, absurd to make the testimony of the few individuals above mentioned equivalent to the " catholic consent " of the whole primitive church for the first three centuries ? For the whole of this period, be it observed, we have no recorded public confessions either of churches or councils to guide us. The utmost of this kind to be found among the records of this period are the brief con- fessions (already alluded to, and which will be considered more particularly hereafter) recorded by Irenaeus, Tertul- lian and Origen, and for which they claim the consent of the churches founded by the Apostles. It must be added also, that were we to include a longer period in our review, so as to take in some of the Coun- cils best entitled to the name of General, our opponents would gain nothing by it. For such Councils have proved themselves to be far from infallible witnesses of the faith of the true church by contradicting each other. If we come to consider what Councils we have that can make any pretences to being considered general, we shall find that the two which can make the best claim, namely, those of Nice and Ariminum with Seleucia, are entirely opposed to each other in a vital point, and that the latter, which Bishop Stillingfleet calls, "the most General Coun- cil we read of in Church history," 3 decided against the orthodox faith. 1 Toffavra KUI ra TTJS Katvrjs S.aOiy/fTjj ij8Ata, TO ye Kavovifrueva, KM rqs narttas ripMV olovti axpoQivia. rj ayKvpat KO.I fpfi(r/j.ara- us nap' avruv r- riav yptuptina KCU tKrtQtina. Eirfirot yt vtrrtpov Kara tt\v fKttvuv OKoKovQiav Ktu avitQuviav, a\Aa pvpta Kat eu/apifyojra i0Aia e&TrovTi&nffav into rtav Kara Katpovs nfya\an> /ecu aotptararuv QtoQoptav irartpuv. Synopsis Script. Sacr. 4 Inter Athan. Op. vol. ii. p. 131. ed. Bened. 5 Ua.i.Ltro\\uv Kat uopiffruv. Ib. 3 Vind. of Answ. to some late papers, pp. 53, 4. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 191 So that Augustine, when disputing with an Arian, vir- tually admits that, as far as the testimony of Councils is concerned, his opponent's argument from the Council of Ariminum -would be as good as his own from the Council of Nice ; and, therefore, that they must both betake them- selves to the Scriptures. 1 It is not a little strange, then, how our opponents can use the language they do as to the authority of the wit- ness given by General Councils respecting the faith, and even charge their doctrine upon our own church, because of its admission of the determinations of the first four General Councils as agreeable to the orthodox faith, when it is even made a ground of objection to us by well- informed Romanists, that we admit those Councils, not on the ground of any intrinsic authority in the nature of their witness, but because we judge their witness to be correct, when it might have been otherwise. 2 We may say to the Tractators, as it was long ago said by a learned writer among us to the Romanists, " If General Coun- cils cannot err, how come these gentlemen to be per- suaded that the Council of Ariminum, consisting of about six hundred bishops, which also was backed by a Synod of Eastern bishops at Seleucia, did not discharge the church of all obligation to quit [? hold] the belief and profession of the Son's being consubstantial with the Father ? The second Council of Ephesus had a general summons, and in respect of the number of bishops, it was as general as Councils sometimes were which are esteemed so, and yet we all say they erred with Diosco- rus. And many more instances there are of this na- ture." 3 1 Adv. Maximin. lib. 2. c. 14. torn 8. col. 704. 2 R. H.'s Rational Account of doctrine of Roman Catholics concerning Guide in Controv. Disc. 3. c. 4. 40. p. 174. 2d. ed. 1673. 3 Hutchinson and Clagett's Auth. of Councils, &c. pp. 7, 8 ; or in Bishop Gibson's Preservative, tit. 4. vol. 1. p. 143. The same doctrine is maintained by Dean Field. See his Treatise " Of the Church," p. 851. 3d. ed. And by Bishop Jer. Taylor, in his Liberty of Prophesying, 6. 192 PATRTSTICAL TRADITION Secondly, the view we have of antiquity, in the remains of it that are left to us, is & partial view. When estimating the title of the writings that remain to the character in which they are put forward by our opponents, we must pursue the inquiry, not as men who have already decided in favour of particular doctrines, not with a bias towards particular Fathers, but with a simple regard to the intrinsic value of their testimony, apart from any consideration of the doctrine which it supports; for otherwise our decision will be founded merely upon our own prejudices, and thus, though it may be very satisfactory to ourselves, will bring no con- viction to others, and forms no sufficient foundation for our own faith. The writings of the Tractators appear to me to be very open to censure in this respect. There is throughout them a tacit assumption that such men as Ignatius and Irenaeus, &c. were so excellent and ortho- dox, that we may well abide by their decisions in im- portant points, as representing to us the faith of the true church. And this is the secret which explains all their statements. But this is, in fact, an assumption of the very thing which we profess to be seeking, namely, the orthodox faith. How, I beg to ask, did we obtain this bias in favour of these men, but from finding that they agreed upon the whole in our view of the orthodox faith, as delivered by the Scriptures ? We must observe, therefore, that in the works which remain to us, we see antiquity through the medium of those records and writings only which the ruling party in the church has allowed to be preserved. Whatever, then, may be our private view as to the effect produced, whether it has been more or less favour- able to what we hold to be the orthodox faith, it is unde- niable that this fact greatly affects the value of those writings, as giving an impartial and certain representation of the faith of the whole church. It is certain that thou- sands of books published in the primitive church have perished ; and among these the works of all those who NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 193 were condemned by any conciliar decisions. Now this is, indeed, what might be expected. The influence of the ruling party would naturally prevail, especially at a time when books were not multiplied with the facility with which they now are, for the gradual extinction of the writings of those who had been publicly condemned. When Christianity came to be protected and supported by the state, we find the ruling party in the church, whichever it might be, enforcing strict prohibitions, and a rigid suppression, of the books on the other side, even though they might have been written long before by those who had died in the communion of the catholic church. Thus we find the fifth General Council (as it is called) anathematizing the books of three bishops, Ibas, Theodoret, and Theodorus of Mopsuesta, all of whom had died long before in the communion of the catholic church ; and on the case of one of whom, namely Ibas, the fourth General Council had expressly passed a dif- ferent decision. And in this Council (as " the seventh General Council and all the Greek historians testify" 1 ) the condemnation of Origen, who had been dead about three centuries, was pronounced ; and this condemnation is probably the reason why we have so few of his works remaining in the original Greek. And as the church became more corrupt, the effect of these anathemas and prohibitions, (whatever it may have been previously,) became proportionably injurious to the cause of truth, as we see remarkably exemplified in the canon of the second Nicene Council that decided in favour of image worship, which decreed, as Du Pin him- self represents it, " that all the works against images shall be put in the palace of the Patriarch of Constanti- nople, among the heretical books, and threatens to de- pose or excommunicate those that shall conceal them, 2 1 Du Pin, who, however, contends that it was " in the Council held in 540 under Mennas, which made a part of the fifth Council." See Du Pin, under fifth General Council. 2 Can. 9. See Du Pin under this Council. VOL. I. O 194 PATRISTICAL TRADITION which was in accordance with the letter of Pope Adrian to the Council, in which (as Du Pin says) he " establish- eth the worship of images, and affirms that the church of Rome received it by tradition from St. Peter ; and proves, by a false relation, that in St. Sylvester's time, St. Peter's and St. Paul's pictures were in the church;" 1 and accordingly his Legates required that all the books against images should either be anathematized or burnt. Daille, who mentions this case, justly remarks, 2 that it is probably the effect of this anathema that we have not the original Greek of the Epistle of Epiphanius to John of Jerusalem anywhere remaining, but only the Latin trans- lation of it by Jerome, which has been preserved to us among St. Jerome's own letters. And hence the want of the original has been taken advantage of by Dureus, Sanders, and Baronius, to deny that it is a work of Epiphanius. 3 Such is the progress of corruption in these matters. So, also, Pamelius confesses that the Greek Treatise of Tertullian on baptism was probably suppressed on account of his having there defended the opinion that the bap- tism of heretics was null and void. 4 Upon this principle the Church of Rome has acted ever since, particularly from the period of the Reforma- tion ; at the very dawn of which this principle of suppres- sing whatever might be contrary to her views, appears to have been, as far as was in her power, rigidly enforced ; for, at the tenth session of the fifth Council of Lateran under Leo X., in 1515, it was ordained, in the Third Con- stitution, that all books printed at Rome should be ex- amined by the Pope's Vicar, and Master of the Holy Palace, and in other places by the Bishop and Inqui- sitor, under a penalty against the printer of forfeiting the books issued without such examination, which were 1 Du Pin, ib. 8 On the use of the Fathers, Part i. c. 4. 3 See Coci Censura in Praef. 4 See Pamel. Annot. in Tertull. p. 650. ed. Col. Agripp. 1617. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 195 to be burnt, and paying a heavy fine ; a decree which applied to the works of the antients, as well as the mo- derns ; as appears from the fact, that when all the bishops present but one had assented to it, the remaining one remarked that he assented to it as respected new works, but not as to old. And as we are indebted almost wholly to the Romanists for all the earlier editions of the Fathers, the mischief that may have been done to their remains in this way is incalculable ; not merely by the suppres- sion of whole treatises, but more especially by their cor- ruptions of the works which they have given, which we shall notice presently. In the Council of Trent this decree of the Lateran Council was specially recognized and enforced. And from these decrees sprung the Prohibitory and Expur- gatory Indexes with which the world has since been favoured ; which have not spared even the works of the antients. Dr. James tells us that in the first two editions of the " Bibliotheca Patrum," x " there are many treatises which make rather against, than for them ; as well knew the Roman Index, which hath commanded them to be left clean out ; and according hereto, they are omitted in the last edition of Paris;" 2 namely, the third of 1609, 10. 3 It was originally designed that the Admonitions of Aga- petus should have been among the number; but this work seems to have been afterwards spared, on the con- dition of a marginal note being affixed to an obnoxious passage, which was this ; " The king hath no superior in the earth." 4 "Write in the margin," says the Roman Index, " Understand among secular and temporal dig- nities ; for the ecclesiastical dignity is superior to the 1 By M. de la Bigne, Paris, 15759, 9 vols ; and Paris, 1589, 9 vol. 2 James's Corruption, &c. Part 2. n. 19. p. 214. These two first editions, therefore, were prohibited. See James. Index Gen. Libr. Prohib. Oxon . 1627, 12mo, under "Bibliotheca." 3 The " auctarium" and " index" to this third edition, were also ordered to be expurgated in various parts. See James. Index Libr. Prohib. under " Bibliotheca." 4 Non enimhabet [i. e. Rex] in terris se quicquam excelsius. o 2 196 PATR1STICAL TRADITION kingly." 1 A gloss, which is not only contrary to the words, but directly contradicted by several other passages of the work; but which will be found duly inserted in the Bibliotheca. 2 We may here observe, also, that in the Roman Index of 1559, we find, among the prohibited books, Bertram on the body and blood of Christ, the Imperfect work on Matthew, attributed to Chrysostom, (of which their own Sixtus Senensis says that it had been " approved for ages by the common consent of the church," and which had been quoted by Gratian, Aquinas, the Rhemists, and other Romanists, as a genuine work of Chrysostom, 3 ) and " a Treatise on the true and pure church ;" " most falsely," says the Inquisitor, " ascribed to Athanasius." 4 As it respects the last of these, the prohibition appears to have been but too successful, as I can find no notice of it any- where else ; but, in the case of the two former, it has for- tunately proved but brutum fulmen. And doubtless these Prohibitory Indexes have been less injurious, than the tacit suppression of the works before publication ; for, when once abroad, the universal destruction of the copies was no easy task. Of this, the Romanists have been well aware ; and consequently have done their best to strangle obnoxious works in the birth. A curious case of this kind was brought to light by Archbishop Wake, which is throughout so illustrative of the Romish system in this matter, that I will here present it to the reader. In 1548, Peter Martyr, in his dispute with Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, concerning the Eucharist, pro- duced a passage from an " Epistle of Chrysostom to Cse- sarius," evidently overturning the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation, professing that he had copied the epistle from a Florentine MS., and placed it in the 1 Scribe ad marginem, Intellige inter saeculares et temporales dignitates, nam ecclesiastica dignitas sublimior est regia. Ind. Rom. p. 200. ' See James. Ib. pp. 213 &s. 3 James's Corruption, &c. Pt. 2. n. 2. p. 165. * Tractatus de vera et pura ecclesia, D. Athanasio falsissime adscriptus. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 197 library of Archbishop Cranmer. Bishop Gardiner, not being able to deny this, endeavoured to get over the diffi- culty as well as he could ; and ascribed the epistle to another John of Constantinople, who lived about the beginning of the sixth century. This answer was adopted by others : though, as the Archbishop observes, " still the argument recurred upon them ; forasmuch as this other John was in the beginning of the sixth age ; and tran- substantiation, by consequence, was not the doctrine of the church then ;" and accordingly, the copy in Cran- mer's Library being, of course, lost in the dispersion of his books, Cardinal Perron, in his Treatise of the Eu- charist, " flatly accuses Peter Martyr of forgery ; and uses abundance of arguments to persuade the world that there never was any such epistle as had been pretended." And so says Bellarmine. 1 Thus the matter stood till 1680, when Bigotius, having brought a copy of the epistle from Florence, printed it with his edition of Pal- ladius, and strengthened it, says Dr. Wake, " with such attestations, as show it to be beyond all doubt authentic." But, before the publication of the book, this part of it was interdicted and suppressed by the doctors of the Sor- bonne, and " the printed leaves cut out of the book;" and " of this, the edition of Palladius of that year remains a standing monument, both in the preface and in the book." 2 However, " the very leaves cut out by those doctors of Mr. Bigot's preface and the epistle rased out of the book," fell into the hands of Dr. Wake, by whom they were published in the appendix to his " Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against M. de Meaux," (pp. 127, &s.) The offensive pas- sage is this. I use Dr. Wake's translation. " Before the bread is consecrated, we call it bread ; but when the grace 1 Nihil ejusmodi umquam scripsisse Chrysostomum, neque enim in toto Chrysostomi opere ullus est liber vel Epistola ad Caesarium. De sacr. euchar. lib. 2. c. 22. 2 For the truth of which I can also testify, having a copy of the book ; which is not, indeed, of uncommon occurrence. 198 PATRISTICAL TRADITION of God, by the priest, has consecrated it, it is no longer called bread, but is esteemed worthy to be called the Lord's body, although the nature of bread still remains in it." 1 It only remained for the Romanists that came after, to maintain that the whole epistle is spurious ; which is ac- cordingly done, without any hesitation, by the Benedic- tines, in their elaborate edition of Chrysostom. It is with them "altogether spurious," (omnino spuria,) written by nobody knows who ; though they admit that it is quoted as Chrysostom's, by John Damascen, Anastasius the Presbyter, Nicephorus, and others. 2 Indeed, as Archbishop Wake says, " So many antient authors have cited it as St. Chrysostom's Epistle to Csesarius, such fragments of it remain in the most antient writers as authentic ; that he who after all these shall call this piece in question, may with the same reasonableness doubt of all the rest of his works ; which, perhaps upon less grounds, are on all sides allowed as true and un- doubted." 3 So much for the impartiality of the Bene- dictines, upon whom far too much reliance has been placed. It is impossible, then, to consider the remains we have of the antient ecclesiastical authors, as beyond doubt ex- hibiting to us all the variations of doctrine that were to be found in the primitive church ; and therefore we could not regard even the consent of those writings, as repre- senting the Catholic consent of the whole church. It is no aid to the cause of orthodoxy, to put forth such a claim. It looks like a confession of weakness ; a desire 1 Antequam sanctificetur panis, panem nominamus, divina autem ilium sanctificante gratia, mediante sacerdote,liberatus est quidem appellationepanis, dignus autem habitus est Dominici corporis appeliatione, etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit. Wake's app. pp. 156, 7. 2 See Chrysost. Op. ed. Bened. Tom. 3. Praf. 3. et Monit. in Ep. ad Casar. pp. 737, 8. 3 P. 145. This mode of getting rid of treatises in which passages occur opposed to their views, has long been in common use among the Romanists. See the Preface to Coci Censura. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 199 to entrap men into a belief of doctrines, for whose divine origin there is (as they will suppose) no sufficient foun- dation. Thirdly, the view we have of antiquity, in the remains of it that are left to us, labours under much uncertainty, from the way in which the works of the Fathers have been mutilated and corrupted, and works forged in their name. None have suffered so much in this respect as the Fathers. He who sits down to read the Fathers, in order to be guided by them to the true faith, will find himself encumbered at the outset with difficulties of the most formidable kind. For if he is to take them as the ground upon which his faith is to rest, it is very necessary that the works upon which he depends, should be really theirs ; and that they should be in the state in which their authors left them. But as to a vast number of these works, he will find not only that their authors are dis- puted, but that they are set down by many as the for- geries of mischievous or heretical persons ; and that many others have been grievously corrupted, (and how far the corruption extends, it is impossible to tell,) by the heretics in antient, and by Romanists in modern times. Thus above one hundred and eighty treatises, professing to be written by authors of the first six centuries, are re- pudiated by the more learned of the Romanists them- selves as, most of them, rank forgeries ; and the others not written by those whose names they bear ; though, be it observed, they have been almost all quoted over and over again by celebrated controversial writers of the Romish communion, in support of their errors against Protestants. l And any one who will consult the works that have been written by Cave, Du Pin, and others, on the eccle- siastical authors of antiquity, and particularly that of Robert Cooke on the spurious and doubtful works attri- i See James's Corruption of Fathers, &c. Part I. 200 PATRISTIC AL TRADITION buted to the Fathers, a will find three or four times as many more, noted as either shameless forgeries, or at least of very doubtful authority, and very uncertain authorship. So that before we commence our task, we must strike out of our list of patristical relics a whole mass of writings, which the criticism of an age removed a thousand years and more from the period when these writings profess to have been published, may command us to reject. This, it must be admitted, is not a very satisfactory commence- ment ; because we are naturally disposed to ask whether we can be quite sure as to the genuineness of those that remain ; and shall, in fact, find ourselves not a little puzzled to know the grounds upon which some have been eliminated, and others allowed to stand, not to say that our critics are sometimes grievously divided among themselves ; some contending stoutly for the genuineness of a piece, others as stiffly maintaining the contrary. But what is worse, we have also to guard against the corruptions introduced into the genuine works of the Fathers. This is an evil which it is still more difficult to remedy, especially as it is one which has been growing since the very earliest times. We have to deal with the corruptions both of antient and modern times. Of these interpolations we find many complaints in the Fathers themselves. Thus Augustine, speaking of a charge of cor- ruption brought against the works of Cyprian, says, " For the integrity and a knowledge of the writings of any one bishop, however illustrious, could not be so pre- served, as the canonical Scripture is preserved by the variety of the languages in which it is found, and by the order and succession of its rehearsal in the church ; against which nevertheless there have not been wanting those who have forged many things under the names of the Apostles. To no purpose indeed, because it was so in esteem, so constantly read, so well-known. But what such boldness could do in the case of writings not sup- 1 ROB. Coci Censura quorundam scriptorum, &c. Loud. 1614. 4to. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 01 ported by canonical authority, is proved by the impiety with which it has not even refrained from exerting itself against those that are supported by a knowledge so uni- versal." 1 This testimony is the more observable, because it shows that in Augustine's view, the Holy Scriptures stand upon very different ground in this respect to the writings of the Fathers, and that we may justly fear cor- ruptions in the latter to which the former are from the circumstances of the case in an infinitely smaller degree liable. " So great/' says Isidorus Hispalensis, " is the cun- ning of the heretics, that they mix falsehood with truth, and evil things with good, and generally insert the poison of their error in things that are salutary, that they may more easily insinuate their wicked error under the ap- pearance of the truth. The heretics generally indite their doctrines under the name of the catholic doctors, that being read without question, they may be believed. Some- times also they deceitfully insert their blasphemies in the books of our doctors, and corrupt the true doctrine by adulteration, namely, either by adding what is impious or taking away what is agreeable to the faith. We must cautiously meditate upon, and test with careful discrimina- tion, what we read, that according to the apostolic ad- monition we may both hold fast that which is good and oppose that which is contrary to the truth ; and so take instruction from the good as to remain uninjured by the evil." 2 1 Neque enim sic potuit integritas atque notitia litterarum unius quamlibet illustris episcopi custodiri, quemadmodum Scriptura canonica tot linguarum litteris et ordine et successione celebrationis ecclesiasticae custoditur, contra quam tamen non defuerunt qui sub nominibus apostolorum multa confinge- rent. Frustra quidem, quia ilia sic commendata, sic celebrata, sic nota est ; verum quid possit adversum litteras non canonica auctoritate fundatas etiam hinc demonstravit impiae conatus audaciae, quod et adversum eas quze tanta notitiae mole firmatse sunt sese erigere non praetermisit. August. Ep. ad Vincent. Rogat. ep. 93. vol. ii. col. 246, 7, ed. Bened. 2 Tanta est haereticorum calliditas ut falsa veris malaque bonis permisceant, sivlutaribusque rebus plerumque erroris sui virus interserant, quo facilius possint pravitatem perversi dogmatis sub specie persuadere veritatis. Plerum- 202 PATRISTICAL TRADITION So also it is said by Anastasius Sinaita, " The catholics of Alexandria told me, that after the times of the blessed Eulogius the Pope [i. e. Patriarch of Alexandria] there was a certain Augustalius [or, Augustan prefect] there, a follower of Severus, who for a long time had fourteen amanuenses of like mind with himself, to sit down at his command and falsify the books containing the doctrines of the Fathers, and especially those of the holy Cyril." l Of the partisans of Dioscortis it is said in the letter of the monks of Palestine, preserved by Evagrius, that they had frequently corrupted the works of the Fathers, and had attached the names of Athanasius, Gregory Thauma- turgus and Julius to many of the works of Apollinarius. 2 It would be easy to add other passages of a similar nature. But we will proceed to point out some particu- lar instances. Of the constitutions of Clement of Rome, it is com- plained by the sixth Council, that certain corruptions of the true faith had been introduced into them by heretical persons, which had obscured the beautiful character of the divine decrees. 3 The same is said of the " Recogni- que sub nomine catholicoram doctorum hseretici sua dicta conscribunt, ut in- dubitanter lecta credantur. Nonnunquam etiam blasphemias suas latenti dolo in libris nostrorum inserunt, doctrinamque veram adulterando corrum- punt ; scilicet vel adjiciendo quae impia sunt vel auferendo quae pia sunt. Caute meditanda cautoque sensu probanda sunt quae leguntur, ut juxta Apostolica monita et teneamus quae recta sunt et refutemus quse contraria veritati existnnt, sicque in bonis instruamur, ut a mails illaesi permaneamus. Lib. 3. Sentent. c. 12. Rom. 1802. torn. 6. 1 Aoryowro roivvv ruin 61 TT/S KoOoAi/CTjs fKK\i}5ptia, 6ri /jura TOVS xpovovs TOV [j.aKapu>v TZv\oyiov TOV Houra, ytyovev TIS AiryoucrraAJos evravQa 2,fvfpiavos, KCU eiri ucavovs XP WOVS (ff X e '*> Ka\\iypa(povs ffVfiQpovas avrov, /COT' fffiTpoirrjc OUTOU Kufiffrfufvovs, KCU (paXfffvovras ras /StjSAous raivSoy/J.arwv TWV iro- rtpav, KUJ. juaAiaro TOS rov ayiov Kvpi\\ov. Anastas. Sinait. Viae dux. c. 10. p. 198. ed. 1606. 8 Ko* yap KCU \oyovs irwrepuv iro\\a.Kis vtvodevKaffi, iro\\ovs 5e faroXivaptov \oyovs Ma.veunu> KCU rpyyopua ria a,v/j.a,TOvpyca KCU loi/Xieo Sto TOIV eiriypasf>ois, e| cuniypaxpuv apxauav, TUV irap' ijfj.iv, KM a7rAy 206 PATRISTIC AL TRADITION done." 1 He repeats this statement in his first and second letters to Succensus, in the former attributing the cor- ruption to the followers of Nestorius. 2 In the second of these letters to Succensus also, he cautions him that if any carried about a letter purporting to be written by that most pious presbyter of the Church of Rome, Philip, and intimating that the most holy Bishop Xystus was grieved at the deposition of Nestorius and assisted him, he was not to believe it , or if a letter was brought to him, purporting to be written by himself, (namely Cyril,) and intimating his regret at what he had done at Ephesus, he was only to laugh at it : 3 which evi- dently shows that such letters were being then circu- lated. That the works of Cyril were corrupted after his death we have several testimonies. Dioscorus, his successor in the See of Alexandria, is accused of having adulterated them by Leontius of Byzantium. 4 So Nicephorus Cal- listus tells us that ^Elurus, who forced himself into the See of Alexandria in the times of the Emperor Leo, " is said to have corrupted many of the writings of the divine Cyril, not published abroad, and to have inserted in them false doctrines." 5 The same is intimated, as we have exovruv, aTTfffTft\afj.fv TO, io~a TTJ art 6criorrfri. Epist. ad Johann. Antioch' Op. torn. v. Part. 2. Inter Epist. p. 109. 1 EinoTCOTOs FlauXos TTJS Efjucrrivuv .... SteirvvBavero fwv, KCU /j.a\a etnrot'- SatTfJ.evtoJS, (i ffvvaivw TOIS ypcupeiffi irapa TOV TTJS oo<8t/toi> /WTJ/UT/S KCU Tpiffpcuca,- piov irarpos ijfuav Mavaffiov irpos ETTIKTTJTO^ firiaKoirov TTJS ~K.opiv9uav. Eyca 8e ttyriv &TI, (TwfeTai irap' vfuv ov vevoOevp.evov TO ypap.fj.a' irapaireirojTjTa/ yap r JTCUTTJ re KCU waiTCM. 'O 5 irpos rovro (tycuTKfv, fX fl " l jifv K(u O-UTOS TIJV firiepro crv(iftu\t>, ijvpiffKe ravra vtvoOevfjifva' KCU irpoerpftyfv fK rtav trap' fifuv ftift\iuv icra. itoii\ffcu, ve/ji^cu rt TTJ Airrioxtuv (KK\r)ffia- 6 87; KCU ytyove. Epist. ad Acacium Melitanens. episc. torn. v. part. 2. Inter Ep. p. 120. 8 Ib. pp. 140 and 151. 3 Ib. p. 151. * De Sectia Act. 8. fin. 5 Aryercu fitv iroAAa rovrov 87jra TOV AiAot/pov TWV crvjypau.fictTwt' TOV Bfiov Ki/piXXou /X7pra> ficnr\a.Taf.iev, they had been in most copies altered, and he tells us, that in only one copy shown him by the Libra- rian at Alexandria, did he find the correct reading, the rest being all altered ; some reading Svo tyvoeiq jvwadat (papey, others, $vo rae tyvaeiq ewoeivdai u/nei>. Consequently, it may be doubted whether our reading^ in the present day, which is, Svo rae ^wapev rae eVwflettrae, 2 is the genuine reading, and if so, we have here an instance how easily we may be deceived in such a matter. The same Anastasius mentions a corruption in the works of Ambrose, where, for, " let us observe the differ- ence of the divinity and the flesh," had been substituted, " let us observe the difference of the reading." 3 The pas- sage as we now have it in the works of Ambrose, presents us with the true reading. 4 In the sixth Council, Macarius and his colleagues were convicted not only of corrupting the testimonies they brought from the Fathers, 5 but also of circulating corrupt copies of the Acts of the fifth Council. 6 And these forgeries appear to have been committed sometimes upon a large scale. Witness the book of Basil on the Holy Spirit, where it is justly suspected that the latter part, and that more than half of the whole, has been added by another. This was first noticed by Eras- mus, and in his judgment our two learned prelates Jeremy Taylor and Stillingfleet fully coincide, the for- mer stating that the last fifteen chapters " were plainly 1 See p. 202 above. J See Cyril. Op. ed. Aubert. torn. v. Part 2. Inter Epist. p 137. E. 3 Ami TOV, v\a vo/j.'ji> ffWTjyopowTfs KCU rovs ayye\ovs ffffifiv tiffriyovvro, drt 8' auTfav KCU 6 j'o/u.os eSodij. E/uewe Se TOVTO Kara ^pvyiav TO e9os, us KCU TI\V tv AooSi/ceta ffvvoSov vo/jua /cwXinrot TO Trpoaievcu ayyf\ois KU.L wpocrevxeffBou. A 8e u.i\ fiov\ou(va> TO ayiov irvtvu.a 8m TOU Xpwrrou yeyovevai, eirerai TO aytvvyTOv avro \eynv, oATjOrj TO, tv TW evayye\i rov ncM"pa, /cai TOV viov, KO.I TO ayiov wtvfjM, Kai ayovrfrov /tjjSev fTepov TOV TlaTpos eivai jrioTfvovrts, a>s fvat$tffrepov Kai a\f]des, vpoffiffifda TO, iravrwv 8m TOU Aoyou ytvofjifvtev, TO ayiov Wfvu.a iravruv tivai TifjuuTfpov, Kai Ta|t iravrwv TUV into TOV Flarpos 8m Xpj ' Tou &tov, fjiovov TOV ftavoyfvovs s Kiav KO.I Svffffeftcas SoypaTifa, inrofc- &r)Kevcu yap avro TT\S rov Tlarpos /cat 'Tiov airo. Tavra H.ev ovv TTJS KafloAi/ojs KM ayias f.KK\ri8e 7n> Sia rT)s tvvoia. BASIL. Ep. 159. torn. iii. p. 248. 2 De Spir. Sanct. c. 29. 73. torn. iii. pp. 61,2. 3 Ep. 9. torn. iii. p. 91. See the passage pp. 279, 80, below. 4 See 7 of this chapter, below. 24f) PATRISTICAL TRADITION Greeks" was written before his defection to the heresy of Valentinus. He speaks thus ; " God was in the be- ginning ; but the beginning we have understood to be the power of reason. For the Lord of the Universe being himself the subsistence of all things, 1 was, as it respects the non-existence of creation at that time, alone. But inasmuch as he was all Power, and was himself the subsistence of all things visible and invisible, with him were all things ; for with him through his power of reason the Word himself also who was in him subsisted. But by the will of his single-mindedness the Word comes forth ; but the Word not having proceeded from him in vain, becomes the first- born work of the Father. This we know to be the begin- ning of the world. But he [the Word] was produced by distribution not abscission. For that which is cut off is separated and taken away from the first ; but that which arises by distribution, having assumed an ceconomical condition, does not leave that from which it is taken des- titute of it. For as from one torch many flames are pro- duced, but the light of the first torch is not lessened by the ignition of many torches, thus also the Word having come forth from the power of the Father, did not leave him who begot the Word destitute of it. For also I speak and you hear. And yet I who address you do not by any means become destitute of my word through the transmission of it." 2 1 As Tertullian says, " Ipse sibi et mundus et locus et omnia." a cos r)i> fi> apxn, ri\v 8e apxtv \oyov Swafj.iv irapei\7i ytyt- VTi/j.fvriv iron\ffiv JMVOS fiv. KaOa 8e iracra Swa/uts, opartav re Kai aoparj/ OVK f\arrourui ro etc rrjs rov irarpos SvvafjLftas, OVK a\oyov jrrjroiTj/cf rov ytytvin/iKora. Kat yap avros fyea AaAw, Kai fyueis aKJverf, Kai ov Sr/ircu Sta TTJJ fj.fr a$affias rov \oyov Kfvos b irpo- NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 247 Here the Word seeins clearly represented to have been produced but just before the creation of the world, as a personal agent, and before his birth for the formation of the world to have existed only in the reason of the Father. This is a doctrine which several of the early Fathers whose writings remain to us have delivered, and particu- larly Tertullian as we shall see presently. But it is cer- tainly contrary to the doctrine of the co-eternity of the Son with the Father as Son, and as a personal agent. There are also other expressions in this passage not very agreeable to the orthodox doctrine, such as that the Word is "the firstborn work of the Father," and that the distri- bution (to use his own word) of the Godhead into three Persons was an oeconomical state of the Godhead; on which matter we shall have some further remarks to make when we come to consider the testimony of Ter- tullian. 1 The same doctrine is delivered by Athenagoras, who says of " the Son," that " he is the first-born of the Father, not as a created being, (for, from the beginning, God being an eternal mind had the Word Cor Reason) in him- self, being endued with reason from eternity,} but as having come forth to be the form and energy of all material things," &c. 2 And in the words immediately preceding, he says, that " the Son of God is the Father's reason (or word) in form and action." 3 So that the generation of the Son is the putting forth of the Father's reason in action, as a personal agent for the work of creation. ffofjLt\uv \oyov ywofuu. TATIAN. Contr. Graec. Orat. 5. Ed. Ben. pp. 247, 8. The words aw avrw yap are put by the Benedictine editors within brackets as of doubtful authority, but without any sufficient ground. I have interpreted \oyos, in the first place in which it occurs, reason, for which rendering see the observations on Tertullian. 1 In connexion with these remarks see the dissertation on Tatian at the end of Worth's edition. See also Cave, Hist. Lit. 2 nporrov yfwrifJLu eivai rca Hen-pi, ov\ us yevofj-fvov (e| apx*J$ yap 6 eos, vovs aiSios tav, ftx ev a - vros V fairrta rov \oyov, aiSiws \oyiKos &>v) oAA.' us Ttav v\tKuv v(jnravTcai> . . . i5ea Kai tvepytia ewai -npof^Btav. Athenag. Leg. pro Christianis. 10. Ed. Ben. p. 287. 3 EffTiv 6 vtos rov Qeov \oyos TOU Ylarpos tv iSecc /ecu 248 PATUISTICAL TRADITION So Theophilus of Antioch. " God, therefore, having his Word within him in his own bowels, brought him forth, having given birth to him with his wisdom, before all things. This Word he had as his minister in the creation of his works, and by him he made all things." l And again ; " The God and Father of the universe is not comprehensible within any fixed space, and is not found in any certain place. For there is no place of his rest. But his Word, by whom he made all things, being his power and wisdom, assuming the appearance of the Father and Lord of the universe, was present in Pa- radise in the form of God, and conversed with Adam. For the Divine Scripture itself also teaches us that when Adam spoke, he heard a voice ; but what else is this voice, than without doubt the Word, which is of God, who is also his Son ? not in the sense that poets and mytholo- gists speak of sons of Gods . . . but as truth declares, as the Word that was always laid up within in the heart of God. For, before that anything existed, he had this [Word] as his counsellor, being his mind and understanding; but when God wished to make the things he had resolved upon, he brought forth this Word as an external Word, born before the whole creation ; not being himself ren- dered destitute of his \Yord, but, after having generated the Word, being still always in communion with his Word." 2 1 EX&V ovv 6 &fos TOV kavrov hoyov fvSiaQfTov fv rois iStots air\ayxvois, tytv- vriafv UVTOV juertt TTJS eaurov aortas ffpfvanevos irpo TUV oXwv. TOVTOV TOV \oyov taX fV vvovpyov TUI> tnr* avrov yfyevTifiLevuv, /cot 6*' avrov TO, travra irtiron}Kfv. THKOPH. ANTIOCH. Ad Autol. lib. ii. 10. Ed. Ben. p. 355. a 'O fifv eos KCU IIciTA/p TWV b\\povi)o-tv ovru. 'OiroTf Se riQt\i]o-fv b &tos troiijcrai baa f&ov\fvaaTO, TOVTOV TOV fwyov tytwriae irpotpopticov, TTOCUTOTOKOV waaijs KTiaas, ov KfvwOeis avros TOV Auyov, uAAa \oyov ytvt>r)aas KOI TV Aoyu avrov Siavavros 6fni\wv. Ib. 22. p. 365. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 249 Here again it can hardly be maintained that the Aoyoc evfitaderoQ, the internal Word, when existing only as "the mind and understanding" of the Father existed as a person distinct from the person of the Father ; and the genera- tion of the Aoyoc Trpo^opicoc, the external Word, is traced to a voluntary act of the Father, taking place just before the creation of the world. And here I would observe that in all these statements, as in others which we shall notice presently, the genera- tion of the Word or Son, is represented as an act of the Father's will, contingent upon his conceiving the purpose of creating the world. l A similar generation of the Word is also asserted by Hippolytus, and in terms which seem clearly to indicate that before that generation, he had not a distinct and per- sonal existence. For, after speaking of this generation in terms very similar to those we have already quoted, he observes, " And THUS there was present to him [i. e. the Father] another. But when I say another, I do not mean two Gods, but as light from light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun." 2 It is quite true that Bishop Bull has attempted to re- concile these statements with the orthodox doctrine. Whether he has explained them correctly, I leave the reader to judge. But supposing that his interpretation of them is the right one, it does not appear to me to vindicate their orthodoxy. In whichever way we understand them, they appear to me to be irreconcileable with the orthodox doctrine. For if, as some think, and as the expressions used would cer- tainly lead me to conclude, these Fathers held that the Word or Son did not exist as a Person, until the genera- 1 That these statements are Platonic rather than Christian, is allowed by Le Quien and Lumper. See Lump. Hist. Crit. Patr. vol. 3. pp. 170, &s. 2 Ka( ovrois -irapia-raro avrto erepos. 'Erepov 5e \eyuv ov Svo eovs \eyw, aAA" us irapa ircunv biwXoyeiffQui, etj/at avrov 'tiov TOV fov KCU irpo TTJS Kara crap/fa yevvrjcrfcas. H5rj 5e 6 QfO(pi\es KCU fiaffiXetas att, /cat fftarripos, /cat Swa^et iraira OVTOS aei Tf KCU /cara TO. aura, /cat wffavrws exovros. Euseb.Epist. ap. Theodorit. Hist. Eccl. Kb. i. c. 1 1 . Op. torn. iii. pp. 781 , 2. 2 See as opposite testimony, Constantine's Letter to the Nicomedians against Eusebius and Theognis, and his letter to Arius in Gelas. Cyz. De Act. Cone. Nic. P. 3. 254 PATRISTICAL TRADITION were used by any particular Father must be determined by the views he has advanced elsewhere. I may here add also, that there seem to have been those who, though they anathematized the errors of Arius, scrupled to use such terms. The objection, in the case of many of them at least, was that such terms seemed equivalent to a denial of the generation of the Son, and made Him a Person originally self-existent in the God- head, 1 and not from their deny ing his virtual co-eternity, as the effulgence proceeding from light is virtually co- eternal with it. Their difference, therefore, in this respect, was a mere difference in words, because there were some at least who used these words, who did not mean to convey by them the idea of the Second Person in the Trinity being originally in the Godhead as an underived Person. Hence, perhaps, it was that the Nicene or Constanti- nopolitan Creed says of the Son, only that he was be- gotten of the Father before all worlds or ages, (vpo iravruv TWV atwviav). Here the direct affirmation goes no further than to maintain that the Son was begotten of the Father before all time, or was, as some of the Fathers express it, OXPOVOC, as the Arians themselves allowed. 2 Indeed, the very words of the Constantinopolitan Creed occur in a Creed given by Athanasius, as one of the numerous serni- arian formulae drawn up about the middle of the fourth century. 3 And certainly, as Dr. Burton says, " Our powers of abstraction will perhaps not allow us to have a more definite idea of eternal existence than this." (Testim. of Ante-Nic. Fathers to Doctrine of Trinity, pp. 146, 7.) It does no doubt imply eternity, and I suppose was intended to imply a virtual co-eternity with the Father by most if not all of those who annexed it to the Creed, though there might be others who used it in a lower sense. The Creed was so worded probably for the sake of those who would have scrupled the use of the 1 See ATHANAS. De Synod. 26. torn. i. p. 739. ed. Bened. 9 See ATHANAS. De Synod. 16. torn. i. pp. 729, 30. 3 ATHANAS. De Synod. 27. torn. i. p. 742. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 255 words co-eternal with the Father, though in reality hold- ing the full orthodox faith ; and as it often happens in such cases the words are open to a lower sense. x It appears to me, then, that all these Fathers held, That the Son is not as a Person even virtually co-eternal with the Father, his generation or prolation as a per- sonal agent taking place before any 'act of creation, but yet not from all eternity, and taking place for the par- pose of his acting in the work of creation, and contingently upon God's having conceived the purpose of creating the world. Is this orthodox doctrine? Bishop Pearson says, " The essence which God always had without beginning, without beginning he did commu- nicate, being always Father as always God." (p. 209.) It is quite true that it is not Sabellianism, because the Sa- bellians did not regard the Son as ever becoming a distinct Person, nor is it Arianism, because the Arians considered the Son to be created by the Father, and of a different essence to the Father, whereas these Fathers considered the generation of the Son to be only a prolation as a personal agent of that reason, or word, which was always and essentially in the Father, and which Son, therefore, they did not scruple to call without beginning, like the Father, and co-eternal with the Father, because that reason or word, which the Father, when he pleased, put forth as a personal agent, was without beginning in the Father, and co-eternal with him. But is it the orthodox doctrine? Is it not Semiarianism ? The best defence of what these Fathers have advanced, as it appears to me, would be that they probably thought that the work of creation was one of the first acts of the Godhead, and therefore that when they placed the gene- ration of the Son precedently to the work of creation, they 1 And in this lower sense they were'used by the Arians. See ATHANAS. De Synod. 16. torn. i. pp. 729, 30. and HIL. PeTrin. iv. 12. col. 833. 256 PATRISTICAL TRADITION in effect made the Son almost coseval with the Father. 1 And perhaps we should not be far from the truth in sup- posing this to be their meaning. This I say is the best defence I can see for their statements, and one that brings them nearer to the orthodox view than any other inter- pretation of their words, for the exposition of Bishop Bull seems to me to place them as far from orthodoxy as that of Petavius. The fact is, that, as it respects the original relation of the Second Person of the Trinity to the First, there was much diversity of opinion in the primitive church. "It must be confessed," says Dr. Waterland, " that the ca- tholics themselves were for some time pretty much divided about the question of eternal generation, though there was no question about the eternal existence: Whether the Aoyoc might be rightly said to be begotten in respect of the state which was antecedent to the rrpoeXeuo-tc was the point in question. Athanasius argued strenuously for it, (Contr. Arian. orat. 4.) upon this principle, that whatever is of another and referred to that other as his head (as the Aoyoc considered as such plainly was) may and ought to be stiled Son and begotten ; besides, the Arians had ob- jected that there would be two unbegotten Persons if the Aoyoc ever existed and was not in the capacity of Son, and the church had never been used to the language of two unbegottens. These considerations, besides the tes- timonies of elder Fathers, who had admitted eternal ge- neration, weighed with the generality of the Catholics, 1 There are some observations of Hilary on this point in his Treatise on the Trinity, (lib. 12. 3045. col. 112736. ed. Ben.) which are remarkable. " Natum semper esse," he says, " hoc est, seiisum temporum nascendo prse- currere neque intelligentiae patere aliquando fiiisse non natum." ( 30.) "Idcirco nunc Sapientia natam se ante sa:cula doceus anteriorem se non solum his quae creata sunt docet, sed aeternis coseternam, prceparationi scilicet c' avavyacrfiu 8e uv (puros a'ioiov, iravrws Kcuavros aiSios eariv. ovros yap ati rov ((KOTOS, SijAoi/ us tcrnv aft ro CMrairyaoyta' rovrw yap Kai bri ?j KCU icp^rov TWV Apxayyf\ai>. METHOD. Con- viv. decem virg. orat. 3a. 4. Bibl. Patr. ed. Galland. torn. iii. p. 686. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 271 and perfecting things ; because he is perfect in fore- thought, and reason, and power." * More may be found in him elsewhere to the same ef- fect. 2 It is useless to attempt to reconcile such statements with the orthodox doctrine, and so Bishop Bull admits. . Nay, what says Dr. Cave, who, perhaps, was as well entitled as any one to give a judgment in the case? " The errors which are observable in his writings con- cerning the divinity and eternal existence of the Son, con- cerning the pre-existence of souls and SL future state after this life, concerning the end of the world, and the thousand years reign, concerning the advent of Elias to turn many to the worship of God, and other points con- cerning which he has spoken obscurely, incautiously, and sometimes dangerously, will be excused by candid ob- servers on account of the ignorance of the age in which he lived about these things, the abstruse nature of the doc- trines not yet sufficiently clearly explained by theolo- gians, nor defined by conciliar determinations, and in which he had very many of the Fathers of the preceding ages in agreement with him" 3 Similar remarks respect- ing the Ante-Nicene Fathers are made by the learned Huetius in his Origeniana. 4 And to these I need hardly add the name of the still more learned Petavius. I shall not, indeed, undertake to 1 Cum esset Deus ad excogitandum prudentissimus, ad faciendum solertis- simus, antequam ordiretur hoc opus mundi : quoniam pleni et consummati boni fons in ipso erat, sicut est semper, ut ab eo bono tanquam rivus oriretur longe- que proflueret, produxit similem sui spiritual, qui esset virtutibus Dei Patris prseditus. Quomodo autem id fecerit, in quarto libro docere conabimur. Deinde fecit alterum in quo indoles divinae stirpis non permansit .... Hunc . . . Grseci 8ia0o\ov appellant, nos criminatorem vocamus. . . . Exorsus igitur Deus fabricam mundi ilium primum et maximum filium prsefecit operi uni- verso, eoque simul et consiliatore usus est, et artifice, in excogitandis, ornandis, perficieudisque rebus, quoniam is et providentia et ratione et potestate per- fectus est. LACTANT. Instit. lib. 2. c. 8. ed. Cant. 1685. p. 84. 3 See Instit. lib. iv. cc. 6, &c. Cave Hist. Liter, sub nom. " Lactantius," vol. i. p. 162. See also his Articles on Origen and Eusebius. 4 Lib. ii. q. 2. 10, 14 and 25. In Op. Orig. ed. Ben. torn. iv. 272 PATUISTICAL TRADITION defend all the observations made by him on this subject, and believe that his censures on the Ante-Nicene Fathers may have been too general, but I must also express my conviction that there is too much ground for many of his remarks, (in which, indeed, he is borne out by many other learned men,) and that it will be quite time enough for Mr. Newman to attack him as having " shown that he would rather prove the early Confessors and martyrs to be heterodox, than that they should exist as a court of appeal from the decisions of his own church," and having " sacrificed without remorse Justin, &c., and their brethren to the maintenance of the infallibility of Rome," (p. 74.) when he has exhibited one hundredth part of Petavius's ability, and learning, and acquaintance with the Fathers. What possible advantage, moreover, could 'the Romish cause gain by his showing that many of the antient Fathers were unorthodox, when Rome vehemently pro- fesses to interpret Scripture only acccording to the unani- mous consent of the Fathers, and to adhere to those tradi- tions which are to be found in their writings? Surely Mr. Newman must see that a proof of the errors of the Ante-Nicene Fathers is anything but a proof of the in- fallibility of one who professes to follow them. Nor is there any foundation for the somewhat similar insinuations of Bishop Bull. It is evident, indeed, that the Romish cause is on the whole as much injured by the proof of such a fact as that of our opponents, for it utterly overthrows the hypothesis upon which their whole system rests, namely, that there was a development of the truth as delivered in the oral teaching of the Apostles, and fuller than what we find in the Scriptures, handed down by all the catholic Fathers from the time of the Apostles. I will add one witness more, and that shall be one of the best of our opponents' own referees, Bishop Stilling- fleet. " Suppose," says the Bishop, " the question be not concerning the express articles of this rule of faith, but concerning the sense and meaning of them, how then are NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 273 we to find out the consent of antiquity ? For they might all agree in the words, and yet have a different notion of the things. As Petavius at large proves, (Dogm. Theol. torn, ii. in Prsef.) that there was an antient tradition for the substance of the doctrine of the Trinity, and yet he con- fesses that most of the writers of the antient church did differ in their explication of it from that which was only allowed by the Council of Nice. And he grants, (lib. i. c. 8. 2.) that Arius did follow the opinion of many of the antients in the main of his doctrines, who were guilty of the same error that he was before the matter was thoroughly discussed. Here now arises the greatest dif- ficulty to me in this point of tradition ; the usefulness of it I am told is for explaining the sense of Scripture ; but there begins a controversy in the church about the explication of the doctrine of the Trinity ; I desire to know whether Vincentius his rules will help us here? It is pleaded by S. Hierome, (Apol. c. Rufnn. lib. ii.) and others, ' That the writers of the Church might err in this matter, or speak unwarily in it before the matter came to be thoroughly discussed.' If so, HOW COMES THE TESTI- MONY OF ERRONEOUS OR UNWARY WRITERS TO BE THE CER- TAIN MEANS OF GIVING THE SENSE OF SCRIPTURE? And in most of the controversies of the Church, this way hath been used to take off the testimony of persons who writ before the controversy began, and spake differently of the matter in debate. I do not deny the truth of the allegation in behalf of those persons, but to my under- standing it plainly shows the incompetency of tradition for giving a certain sense of Scripture, when that tradition is to be taken from the writers of the foregoing ages ; and if this had been the only way of confuting Arius, it is a great question how he could ever have been condemned if Petavius or S. Hierome say true." l 1 Answer to several Treat, pp. 245, 6. Second edition 1674. Nor are his statements in his subsequent work on the doctrine of the Trinity contradictory to these remarks, for they are made with reference to those who looked upon VOL. I. T 274 PATRI8TICAL TRADITION Moreover, if we are bound to suppose that all the Ante- Nicene Fathers nominally belonging to the catholic church were opposed to the views of Arius, how is it that all the bishops of the church did not oppose his heresy when first promulgated, which we find was far from being the case? 1 And, although the favourers of his views were in a very inconsiderable minority at Nice, yet in a very few years we find them the triumphant party. Views quite as unorthodox were, as we have seen, promulgated by Origen without any recorded judgment, as far as we know, of the church of his time and long after against them. In fact, whatever errors might have arisen in the church, such an assembly as a General Council would hardly have been tolerated before, and when error was patronized by some able and influential bishop, as for in- stance Origen, a condemnation even in a local Council was hardly to be expected. For the judgment at Nice we are indebted entirely to the interference of Constantine, who hoped by that means to put an end to the dispute. And much are we indebted to the first Christian Emperor, for providing us with such a confirmation of the orthodox faith as is to be found in the recorded judgment, given at Nice, of so many learned and venerable prelates from all parts of the world. But that all the prelates and doc- tors of the nominal Christian church for the three preced- ing centuries were precisely of the sentiments of the majority of this Council, is a supposition utterly unneces- sary for any good purpose, improbable in theory, and con- tradicted by facts. In selecting the extracts given above from the Ante- Nicene Fathers, I have endeavoured to view the matter with an impartial eye, and to give those passages which should bring before the reader the real views of those Fathers on the point in question. Had it been my ob- ject merely to make out a case against them, it would Christ as a mere man, and do not assert any consent of Fathers for the full orthodox doctrine of the Trinity against Arian or Semiarian errors. 1 See Soxomen. Hist. lib. i. c. 14. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 275 have been easy to have made the charge appear still heavier. Nay, I will not hesitate to say, that without fully considering the circumstances of the times, and care- fully comparing their expressions one with another, so as to judge from them as a whole, as far as we can, what their views really were, it would be impossible not to suppose them to have fallen more deeply into error than is here laid to their charge. And hence it is that such a plau- sible case has often been made out against them, and even by those who were themselves on the orthodox side. But I readily admit, that many such charges have been made without a sufficient foundation. As it respects many of the passages quoted against them, though the words may be different to those which were afterwards used on the subject, and the expressions be even such as were afterwards carefully avoided by the orthodox, when it was found how they were wrested by here- tics to an unorthodox meaning,yet the meaning of those who used them must be judged of by their general doctrine on the subject. And further with respect to many others, there is a misunderstanding in the case arising from men not fully comprehending the true nature of the orthodox doc- trine. For instance, when the early Fathers speak of the Son ministering to the Father in the creation of the world, (using such words as vTrovpyeiv,) it is sometimes inti- mated that this is opposed to that doctrine, whereas it is capable of a very orthodox interpretation, though, in after times, such phrases might be rejected by some from the use which had been made of them by heretics. For as the Father is the Fountain of the Godhead, and alone self-existent and underived, so every act of the Godhead may be said to proceed originally from the Father, and to be performed through the ministration of the Son, who, as derived from the Father, may be said to minister to the Father in the performance of the act, as the stream dis- penses the blessings derived from the fountain, (an im- perfect but yet to a certain extent correct and useful similitude). And as the essence of the stream is the same T 2 276 PATRISTICAL TRADITION as that of the fountain, and all the goodness, virtues, and power residing in the fountain, are also in the stream, without any difference or inequality, so is it in the case of the Son compared with the Father. But few deny that as it respects the source and order of existence, the Father is prior to the Son. And according to this difference in the order of their existence, are we to contemplate the acts of the Godhead. With the Father, as the Source of the Godhead, originate all things. Hence it is said by Origen, that as it respects the Father, it would be said, all things were made V avrov, but as it respects the Son, that all things were made ' ayrov. And it would be un- just to accuse him of making the Son inferior to the Father by this, as it respects his essence. I have already stated my belief that, as it respects the divinity of our Lord, against the Socinians, the testi- mony of the catholic Fathers that remain to us is una- nimous, and I think their writings render it highly pro- bable that most of them held the doctrine of his con- substantiality, and his being generated from the Father as one of the same essence with him, and not as one created by the Father. But I must add that it is impos- sible to establish the latter point without a nice and la- borious critical investigation of the works of the Fathers, and an accurate comparison of the apparently discrepant statements often to be met with in the same Father, by which we may ascertain what in all probability his views really were. And with respect to some it is next to im- possible to arrive at any certain conclusion, or at least we must suppose that either their works have been altered, or that their views were different at different times. Such is the case with Origen, who was accused by many who lived near his own time of having spoken of the Son erro- neously. His orthodoxy, indeed, is a matter much dis- puted both in antient and modern times. And I must add that in my humble judgment the evidence against him overwhelmingly preponderates. And the same must be said of Eusebius. And with respect to some of them NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 277 there is no proof to be adduced either on one side or the other. And others must beyond doubt be given up. What becomes then, I would ask, of the notion of our opponents, that a correct report of the full orthodox doc- trine in all vital points, as delivered orally by the apostles, was handed down (so far as the subject is touched upon) by all the catholic writers of the primitive church ? In- stead of any such report, we find that very many of these writers spoke at least most unguardedly and incorrectly, and as if they had imbibed error. Did the Apostles speak so ? If not, how can we learn what the Apostles delivered from those who, even if their sentiments were orthodox, mangled and misrepresented the tradition they had re- ceived, so as to make their account of it look like error ? Surely it is both unfair and unwise to boast of the consent of all the Fathers as a necessary part of the rule of faith in vital points, when the fact is, that if your reader goes to verify your statements, so far from finding any such con- sentient delivery of them, he finds many of these Fathers speaking, to say the least, most unguardedly and incor- rectly, and others undeniably unorthodox. And yet notwithstanding this, we are directed to this supposed consent, a consent founded, as far as it is obtain- able, upon a nice critical examination of apparently discre- pant passages and incorrect and ambiguous statements, as the only clear delivery of the fundamentals of the faith, the necessary and infallible interpreter of the word of God. For my own part, so far from thinking that there is in these authors anything like a consentient delivery of the full orthodox doctrine in fundamental points, I believe there would be much danger in setting down one not well- grounded in the faith as delivered in the Holy Scriptures to learn the faith from these authors.; not from its not being delivered clearly in one or other of them, but from its being delivered by most imperfectly, and by others erroneously, and almost always mixed up with various strange notions and conceits. 278 PATRISTICAL TRADITION Moreover, where we cannot establish catholic consent for the first three centuries we cannot establish it at all. The testimony of even the Nicene Council could at most establish the consent of that age for the doctrine ; and not long after the Arian doctrine was affirmed by a General Council, where there were twice as many bishops present as were assembled at Nice. And how happens it, by the way, that we hear nothing of this latter Council when the General Councils of the church are enumerated? When Augustine was arguing with an Arian, he admitted that his opponent's appeal to the latter Council would be as good as his own to that of Nice, and therefore that they must go to some other quarter to decide the matter, and that quarter was Scripture. 1 It is quite true that large demands are made upon us for our belief that the Nicene Council and Athanasius claimed catholic consent for the doctrine established at Nice, and decided everything by it ; but with how little reason I shall show hereafter. 2 And if they had claimed it, their claim would have been a mere claim, for proof of it they could not have. But the fact is that they did not make any such claim. And this leads me to notice another fact which appears to me of considerable weight in this matter ; viz. that the Fathers of the fourth and succeeding centuries had no such scruples about calling in question the orthodoxy of earlier Fathers, though they died in the communion of the church, as some have now, which nevertheless they must have felt if they had entertained this notion of ca- tholic consent being part of the rule of faith. This is a fact, therefore, be it observed, which strongly affects two points. For it not only indicates that there was no such consent as is fancied, among the Fathers of the first three centuries, but also that the succeeding Fathers, who are appealed to by our opponents as supporting their views of tradition, held no such notions. It appears to me a 1 See August, contr. Maxim, lib. 2. c. 14. s See c. 10. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 279 proof of the latter point which it is utterly impossible to get rid of. And now for the proof that they did so speak of some of the earlier Fathers. With respect to Origen, it will not be denied that the orthodoxy of his views was almost universally denied by these Fathers, and that Jerome, though originally taking his part, became afterwards his violent accuser, which certainly looks but ill for Origen's cause. Nay, even Dionysius of Alexandria, whom we have quoted above, as having in one place expressed the orthodox doctrine very clearly, is strongly reprehended by Basil and Gennadius on this head, notwithstanding that they must have been well aware of his Letter in his own defence to Dionysius of Rome, when called upon for an explanation of some of his statements, which indeed is expressly noticed by Basil. Thus is he spoken of by Basil; " As it respects your inquiries concerning the writings of Dionysius, they have reached us, and that in great num- bers. But we have them not at hand, and therefore have not sent them. But our opinion is this. We do not admire all the writings of that man. And there are some which we altogether disapprove. For I might almost say, that of that impious heresy which is now so rife, I mean the Anomoean, he, as far as we know, was the first that supplied the seeds. But I think that the cause of this was not any error in his own views, but his vehement desire to oppose Sabellius. I am therefore in the habit of comparing him to a gardener straightening a young plant that is bent, and by drawing it back too much missing the middle and leading away the plant in the contrary direction. Something like this we find to have happened to this man. For opposing vehemently the impiety of the Libyan, he was unconsciously carried himself into an op- posite error by his vehement opposition; and when it was sufficient for him to show that the Father and Son were not the same subjectively, 3 and thus to gain the victory against the blasphemer, he, that he might most 1 Of TU.VTOV TO) VTTOKft/J.fl'ia IlOTTJp KttI I/IOS. 280 PATRISTICAL TRADITION clearly triumph and gain more than a victory, not only lays down a distinction of hypostases, but also a difference of essence, and degrees of power, and diversity of glory. 1 So that it thus happened, that he exchanged one error for another, and erred from correct doctrine. Thus, then, he is inconsistent in his writings ; at one time taking away the consubstantiality on account of him who used the term improperly so as to destroy the hypostases, at another time admitting it in what he wrote in his own defence to his namesake. 2 Moreover, concerning the Spirit also, he has uttered language by no means suitable to the Spirit, sepa- rating it from that Godhead that is to be worshipped, and numbering it among inferior beings with created and minis- trative nature. 3 Such is this man." * Such is the testimony of Basil ; and Gennadius of Mar- seilles calls him the fountain of the Arian heresy. 5 Can it be denied, then, that even Dionysius of Alexandria wrote respecting the Son, so as apparently to support error; and that such a fact shows us that, instead of find- ing in the early Fathers an accurate report of Apostolical doctrine, we have often, even in the case of those who may have been orthodox, language very much opposed \uovov ri> riBtrai, a\\a KO,I ouffius Statpopav, KCU Svya/j-ftas iKptffiv KO.I 8orjs irapa\\ayr]i'. TOI Kti.i TraiToSairos ftrnv fv rots ffvyypufjLfj.a,ffi>>, vvv p.ev avaipuv TO v, Sta TOV eir adtrrifffi TUV viroffTtufffuv KOKtas avru Kexprjutvov vvv tie tv bis &iro\oyenat irpos TOP opjtavvftov. 3 TIpos Se rovrois KCU wept rou Uvevfjiaros a7j4 PATBISTICAI. TRADITION extensive reading, and varied qualifications for pro- nouncing an opinion, are undeniable, 1 sitting down to give an account of the writings of the Fathers, which he possessed apparently to a much greater extent than are now extant, and accusing one and another of them of erroneous statements in the most fundamental points? 8 To attribute this to want of judgment and power of dis- crimination is out of the question. Against the practice of judging from insulated passages he particularly pro- tests. 5 To attribute it to partiality is equally unreason- able, for what object had he to gain by running them down? Xone. How, then, are we to account for it? Clearly from the feet that these Fathers hare expressed themselves most erroneously ; and if, in the judgment of charity, we can hope that they did not entertain the sen- timents they appear to have expressed, but that their expressions are to be set down to carelessness, or a desire of victory over their opponents, it is, as Photras says, but a very poor defence, 4 and certainly disqualifies them from being considered safe guides, and shuts out the possibility of catholic consent. To say the least, then, I would ask, When learned men, even on the orthodox side, are disagreed on the question of the orthodoxy of these Fathers, even in fun- damentals; when it is allowed by all to require much consideration, and a nice balancing of seemingly opposite passages, to arrive at the sentiments of these authors; when it is a common saying that the Fathers often thought more correctly than they spoke, 5 which is just the expression of a charitable hope, that though their Art. 19!. De Thngmnto, eoL 2. L 1653L arorant Doeti, fttaes i per. Hi*.Cnt.Patr. ToL3.p.l57. DIVINE INFORMANT. 285 writings seem to defend error, they did not mean to do so, and shows how little fitted their writings are to be a standard of appeal ; when it is allowed that some of them mast be admitted to hare spoken very indiscreetly and incorrectly, and some are altogether given up, is it not preposterous to talk of catholic consent as the neces- sary and infallible interpreter of Scripture, and even part of the rule of faith ? Is it not absurd to maintain that there is a consentient testimony in the Fathers on such points, delivering the faith more clearly than the Scrip- ture ? And it is worth remarking, that it was upon the testimony of these very Fathers that Dr. Clarke and Mr. Whiston grounded their unorthodox notions on this subject, and indeed from them they appear to have derived them. It is, I admit, a disappointment to find such inaccuracies and discrepancies, even in the highest points of faith, in the few remains that have come down to us of the earliest instructors of the Christian church. It renders the argu- ment from them, as far as those discrepancies extend, very different to what it would have been had we found them giving a clear consentient testimony to the full ortho- dox faith. Nor can it be justly urged that the unorthodox state- ments of a few of the Fathers are of no moment, because, compared with the small number that remain to us, they are an important part of the whole. It is easy to say that a few authors are as nothing compared with the sen- timents of the great body of the church ; but unfortu- nately we have only the testimony of a few authors as to what those sentiments were, and consequently a discre- pancy in the statements of those that remain leaves us altogether uncertain in the matter. Now I am quite aware that there will be some who will be very impatient at any attempt to show that there is no consent of Fathers even on points of the greatest moment. Of such I would merely beg to ask one ques- tion, Of what possible consequence can it be to us that 286 PATRISTICAL TRADITION out of some twenty or twenty-five authors that happen to remain to us of the primitive church, there are a few that seem very much to have misapprehended the truth in some important points? That it prevents our having anything that we can call an infallible rule by which to bind the consciences of men to believe more than Scrip- ture reveals, or to believe that any certain patristical interpretation of Scripture is infallibly true, is not to be denied. And this to those who love to wield the sceptre of authority over others, is no doubt irksome. But I can- not see any cause for alarm in it, or that it exposes the truth to any danger. Here are certain philosophizing Christians, converts perhaps from Paganism, speaking very incorrectly upon points connected with the doctrine of the Trinity. What then? Is it any matter for sur- prise? What may have passed upon the subject in the primitive church we know not. And if we did know, cir- cumstances may easily have precluded any general or even synodical expression of feeling on the matter. Why we should labour and toil to show that they did not mean what their expressions seem to imply, or that their writings must be corrupted, or why we should suppose the truth endangered by their errors, I know not. I think we may venture to affirm, that even in modern times very dangerous tenets may be propagated by writers without the church moving to condemn them. At any rate, my opponents cannot condemn me for quoting these passages, for their theory is, that the truth is delivered obscurely in Scripture, but clearly in the Fathers. They cannot surely then object to men being made acquainted with those clear expositions (as they think them) of the orthodox faith. If they are so clear they can do no harm, though quoted by one who is dull enough to misapprehend them. Having entered so fully into the evidence against any supposed consent of the Fathers in the very highest points, I shall be more brief as it respects the others I purpose noticing. To go through all the points on which even the Fathers NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 287 that remain to us are divided in sentiment, would be to go through almost all, if not all, the points of Christian doctrine, except perhaps such as are in so many words laid down in the Apostles' Creed. I will instance, how- ever, a few. And first, the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. It will not, I con- ceive, be denied, that to obtain any clear evidence in favour of this doctrine from the works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers is impossible, and that, with the exception of such passages as that of Origen quoted above, in which the Holy Spirit is represented as being one of the things made by the Son, 1 wherever the relation of the Holy Spirit to the other Persons of the Godhead is mentioned, the expressions used would rather favour the doctrine main- tained by the Greek Church of the procession from the Father only. And when the point came to be discussed, there was a great division of opinion on the subject, the majority apparently holding the doctrine of the proces- sion of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, but others, as Theodoret, maintaining that the Spirit pro- ceeded from the Father only. Thus Theodoret says, " That the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, if he [i. e. Cyril] means as of the same nature, and proceeding from the Father, we confess it too, and receive it as an orthodox saying ; but if he means it in the sense of his being from the Son, or as having his subsistence through the Son, we shall reject this as blasphemous and impious.'' 2 And it is maintained by the adherents of this doctrine in the Greek Church, that this is the true catholic doctrine of the church. Thus Michael Psellus, who wrote in the eleventh century, says, " The holy and catholic church 1 See p. 241 above. 2 loiov Se TO Tlyev/j,a, TOV 'fiov, fi fjitv is 6(wri, (rvvo{Jio\oyriffoiJ.fV, /cat us fvatfrr) 5e|o/ie0a n\v (fxcyTjV ei 5e us e| "fiov, 1} Si 'fiov TT\V wjrapiv fX ov t &* &\curriiMv rovro /cat &s Svfffftfles ccKoppuf/oufv. THEODORET. Repr. Anathem. Cyrill. adv. Anath. 9. Op. torn. v. p. 47. ed. Schulze. 288 PATRISTICAL TRADITION holds that the Spirit proceeds from the Father only, and not from the Son." ] And certainly as far as patristical testimony is concerned, it forms a strong negative argument in favour of those who deny the procession from the Son, that the Creed as agreed upon at the Council of Constantinople, had only the words, " who proceedeth from the Father ;" the words " and the Son" having been added long after by the Latins. 2 Others of the Greek Fathers appear to have ap- proached nearer the doctrine of the Latin church in this point than Theodoret, but hardly any of the antient Greek Fathers, as far as I am aware, held properly the procession from the Son. This surely is another proof that the notion that there was a full and correct report of all the important doctrines of Christianity handed down by the consentient testi- mony of the Fathers of each age is a mere dream of the imagination, completely disproved by the facts of the The same may be said of the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies. The defenders of these heresies stoutly maintained that the primitive Fathers were in their favour, as we shall hereafter show ; and this appeal, in the absence of the testimonies they adduced, it is but idle to treat as the mere falsehood of heretics. Nay, Theodoret, one of the most learned of the Greek Fathers, when denying the hypostatical union of the divine and human natures in Christ, which was the very essence of the Nestorian he- resy, says, " the hypostatical union we altogether reject, as outlandish and foreign to the divine Scriptures and the Fathers who have interpreted them." 3 1 'H 01710 KO.I Ka0o\tna EKK\i}ffia Soynarfei TO wvtvfj.a c povov rov Tlarpos eKwopevrov, a\\' ov%i tit rov 'Ytov. Cap. Theol. c. 10. p. 157. 9 See Pearson on the Creed, Art. 8, (pp. 486, 7. Dobson) and Burton's Testim. to Doctr. of Trin. p. 144. 3 TTJP Kaff viroffraaiv kvtaffiv Troana.ira.ffiv ayvoovpev, us ^fvriv KM a\\o(pv\ov Ttav Qeuav ypcupuv KCU rwv r&vras ripfi.-nvfvKOTuv irarfpuv. THEODORET. Repr. Anathem. Cyrill. Op. torn. v. p. 10. Schulze. And see the observations of Gamier, ib. pp. 464 and 478, &c. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 289 Let us next inquire whether these Fathers bore a con- sentient testimony on the points connected with what are now called Pelagian errors. So far from it, that we find many passages in them very pointedly in favour of those errors. Thus Clement of Alexandria, when disputing against the Tatianists, says, " Let them tell us where the newborn infant hath committed fornication, or how one who has done nothing hath fallen under Adam's curse," a where in effect the doctrine of original sin is clearly denied. As it respects the doctrine of freewill, it is notorious that the early Fathers have often expressed themselves most erroneously on the subject. It is satisfactory, how- ever, to be able to add that most of them have done so in- consistently with their own statements in other passages. On this matter I know not that I can do better than quote the following passage from the learned Bishop Morton, which probably contains a fair and just view of the case, and to which I the rather refer the reader, because Bishop Morton is not only an able judge on the point, but also one of our opponents' favourite witnesses. In his reply to the Romish Apologie, in which a sarcastic allusion had been made to the complaints of the Protestants as to the erroneous statements of some of the Fathers on this point, he speaks thus, " The censure which the judicious Pro- testants have passed upon antient authors is not an uni- versal taxation of all, but yet of many. Now, if the Apo- logists had not in this their opposition rather affected (as may be feared) seducement than judgment, they might have taught their reader from their own Sixtus Senensis, and from three of their principal Jesuits, that in the root of the doctrine of freewill, ' Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophy- lact, Euthymius, QEcumenius, Ammonius, and most of others, especially in the Greek church, did yield too much 1 A.eyercaa'ai' TIIJ.II>, irov eiropvevo'ti' TO yevvrjBev iraiStov, t\ irtas faro rt\v TOV A5u/x vTroire-rrrfoKev apav TO fji-riGev tvfpyrjffav. Strom, lib. iii. pp. 556, 7. ed. Potter. And if we are to suppose that the work called " Hypotyposes," attributed to him, and mentioned by Photius, waa really his, he is chargeable with state- ments far more unorthodox than this. VOL. I. U 290 PATRI8TIGAL TRADITION unto the power of nature in the freewill of man.' And in this and other doctrines of affinitie therewith did seem to have ' inclined, contrarie unto Scripture, unto the error of the Pelagians.' Wherein we easily perceive with what prejudice the Apologists have been transported thus to traduce Protestants as being injurious in that taxation, wherein by the judgment of their own Jesuits they stand justifiable unto every conscience of man. Nevertheless we do not so judge the Fathers as herein damnably erroneous , \)utsofar EXCUSE them, as we shall be able to show, that the censured Fathers were but inconstantly erroneous in their doctrine of Freewill, who did often deliver unto us concerning it most wholesome receipts. The Protestant, authors, viz. the Centurists and Scultetus in the places alleged by the Apologists, have particularly and by name observed that Justinus, Irenaeus, Clemens, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, and others, albeit MANY TIMES they pleaded for the freewill of the corrupt nature of man, yet were they SOMETIME reduced unto the more orthodoxal hold, writing thereof more commodiously.'' And he adds his belief that " the occasion of this difference" was " a whirlwind of contrary heresies," " for the overthrow of which some fathers did contrarily yield too much unto the power of the will" 1 This passage presents us, I believe, with the true state of the case, drawn by one inclined to take a charitable and fa- vourable view of what the Fathers have delivered, but never dreaming of the notion that their consent was part of the rule of faith, and a necessary guide to the right interpretation of Scripture, and therefore giving an impartial view of their statements. 2 And it is obvious that if this passage gives us at all a correct view of the case, it is absurd to think of deriving anything like a consentient testimony from 1 MORTON'S Catholique Appeal for Protestants, pp. 201, 2. a This view is abundantly confirmed by our learned Dr. Whitaker, in his Treatise, De peccato originali, lib. ii. c. 2, but Bishop Morton is one of our opponents' own witnesses for the doctrine of our church on this whole sub- ject. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 291 them in favour of the orthodox doctrine, when they have contradicted themselves in the matter, and some of them spoken more frequently in favour of the erroneous than of the orthodox doctrine. That there is a testimony in them in favour of the orthodox doctrine is a proposition for which we contend, but that there is a consistent and consentient testimony pervading the whole of them is what we wholly deny, and what is altogether opposed to the plain facts of the case. And thus again, in this most important point, instead of obtaining in them a sure inter- preter of Scripture and judge of controversies, we are compelled to make Scripture the judge of their contro- versies, and even the judge between the contradictory statements of the same individual. I will give one more example on this head, viz. the interesting and important question as to the intermediate state of the souls of the just between death and the re- surrection. And as it is a point which has been less fully discussed than those already mentioned, and which can hardly fail to be interesting to the reader, I will enter more at large into it, especially as it is a remarkable in- stance how clearly and strongly a doctrine may be laid down by primitive Fathers, and defended by a large body of them, which yet was not held by others, and conse- quently a proof how easily we may be deceived when con- cluding, that because a doctrine was held by those whose works happen to remain, that is, by those of them who have mentioned the subject, therefore, it must have been held by the universal church. On this point then viz. the intermediate state of the souls of the just between death and the resurrection We find Irenseus thus speaking ; " Since the Lord de- parted to the valley of the shadow of death [alluding ap- parently to Psa. xxiii. 4.] where the souls of the dead were, and then afterwards rose in the body, and after his resur- rection was taken up ; it is manifest that the souls of his disciples also, on whose account the Lord did these things, go away to the place [or, invisible place] appointed for u 2 292 PATRISTIC AL TRADITION them by God, and there dwell until the resurrection, awaiting the resurrection ; and then having had their bodies restored to them, and risen perfectly, that is, with their bodies, even as the Lord arose, shall thus come to the vision of God." l And in the context, he calls the opinion of those who supposed that the souls of believers enjoyed the vision of God immediately after their death heretical. The same doctrine is delivered by Justin Martyr, who in his Dialogue with Trypho, says, that " the souls of the pious remain somewhere in a better sort of place, and the unjust and wicked souls in a worse, awaiting the time of the judgment." 2 And he, like Irenaeus, classes the doc- trine that the souls of the just are immediately received into heaven among the notions of the heretics ; " If," he. says, " ye meet with some who are called Christians, who do not admit this, [i. e. the doctrine of the millenni- um] and who say that there is no resurrection of the dead, but that as soon as they die, their souls are taken up into heaven, you must not suppose them to be Chris- tians." 3 Here, doubtless, the gravamen of the heresy was in denying the resurrection, but nevertheless, the doctrine that the souls of the just are received at once into heaven, is part of the doctrine here reprehended as heretical. 1 Quum enim Dominus in medio umbrae mortis abicrit, ubi animae mortuo- rum erant, post deinde corporaliter resurrexit, et post resurrectionem assumtus est, manifestum est quia et discipulorum ejus, propter quos et haec operatus est Dominus, CM tyuxcu cartpxovrcu s TOV TOTTOV [invisibilem locum, Vet. Lat. int."] TOV wpia^fvov avrais airo TOV 0eov, KOKfi p.tx l rys avcurrcurtus s avcurrcurcu, rovTfffTi o-wuariKus, Kudus KCU 6 Kupios aveffnj, oureos eKtvaovrcu fis TT\V otytv TOV 0fov. IREN. lib. v. c. 31. (p. 331. ed. Mass.) There is also a passage, lib. v. c. 5. (p. 298.) which seems of similar import. 2 Tew utv TUV tvfffffav, &> Kpeirrovt iroi x (nevftv, ras Sf O&IKOVS KCU irovripas fv Xfipovi, TOV n}s Kpio-fws fKSexofifvas xpovov TOTC [wore Thirlb.] JUSTIN. Dial, cum Tryph. 5. p. 107. ed. Bened. 3 Et yap KCU erwj8oXere v/xeis run \(yo(t.fvois Xpurriavou, KCU rovro uij 6uo- \oyovo-iv, . . . ol KCU \tyovffi ui) eivcu VfKpwv avcurrcurttf, a\\a apa, ru> o.iroQvr)ff^ K(U> rus tyvxca avrtav (a>a\afj.flcu>fiovs avojroj, . . irpo Se iravriav avros 6 2o)T?jp irpoairavrq Sf^iovfuevos, s opeyeav. affKiov, aTravffTov. 6Sriytav eis TOVS KO\- irovs TOV flarpos, eis Tt\v aiuviov fiorjv, (is TI\V &curi\fiav TUV ovpavirorr)ra. avrou vofif. Adv. Eunom. lib. iv. torn. i. p. 293. ed. Ben. 300 PATRISTICAL TRADITION nius, 1 if the passage is applied to Christ at all, though the latter gives his opinion very decidedly against its being applied to Christ at all, though on account, as he says, of some of the Fathers having so applied it, the adoption of this meaning is not blameworthy, if only it be limited to the human nature; 2 and Basil is evidently inclined to the same opinion. 3 And the interpretation given by Hilary does not pre- cisely agree with any of these : for he explains the words as referring to the period when our Lord first assumed (as he supposes) a human form, to carry on intercourse with men, and appeared to Adam in Paradise, and after- wards to Abraham, &c. 4 (2.) John x. 30. I and my Father are one. This is a text in which, had there been any traditive interpretation of Scripture handed down by the con- sent of the Fathers, we might peculiarly have expected such a guide. But we find nothing of the kind. For by some of the Fathers the unity here spoken of is explained as being a moral unity, with reference to an agreement in will, and purpose, and views, while by others it is ex- plained as being a physical unity, with relation to the divine nature and essence. Thus Novatian says, " The oneness he speaks of has relation to their concord, and their having the same view, and their being united together in love, so that the Father and Son are properly one by agreement, and by love, and by affection." And he proceeds to illustrate it by the words of St. Paul relating to himself and Apollos, " he that planteth and he that watereth are one" (1 Cor. iii. 8.) 5 1 See the passage below, near the end of this section. a Ib. 3 Ib. 4 Creatus est in vias Dei a seculo, cum ad conspicabilem speciem subditus creaturae habitum creationis assumsit. De Trin. lib. xii. 45. Op. col. 1136- ed. Ben. * Unum quod ait, ad concordiam et eandem sententiam et ad ipsam chari- tatis societatem pertinet,utmerito unum sit Pater et Filius per concordiam et NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 301 Upon which Pamelius remarks, " In this he does not write with sufficient caution, in that he does not assert any communion of essence between the Father and the Son, imitating even in this Tertullian ; and, more than this, he brings also an example from the Apostle, 1 Cor. iii. which is as it were contrary to the unity of the essence, in which I am not afraid to say that he was certainly deceived." 1 A similar explanation of this text is given by Origen, who plainly says that the unity of will in the Father and Son " was the cause of the Son's saying, ' I and the Father are one.' " 2 To these might perhaps be added Tertullian 3 and Athenagoras, 4 as supporting the same view. And the same explanation is given by Eusebius, whose orthodoxy some have stoutly contended for ; though the Benedictines 5 more wisely have given him up. He says, " For as he said that he and the Father were one, saying, ' I and the Father are one,' so he prays that we all, in imi- tation of him, may partake of the same unity ; not that, as Marcellus thinks, the Word is united to God, and con- nected with him in essence.' " 6 Among the Ante-Nicene Fathers, I am not aware that there is any passage in which this text is interpreted as showing the unity of essence between the Father and the per amorem et per dilectionem . . . Denique novit hanc concordiae unitatem et Apostolus Paulus cum personarum tamen distinctione, &c. [1 Cor. iii. 8.] NOVATIANI De Trin. c. 22. 1 Pamelius in loc. z h-inov r\v rov \ryeii> rov viov, eyw Kai b varrip ti> ea/tej/. In Johann. torn, xiii. 36 ; torn. iv. p. 245. See also De Princip. lib. i. 8. torn. i. p. 56. and Contra Gels. lib. viii. 12. torn. i. p. 750. and in Ezek. horn. 9. torn. iii. p. 388. ed. Ben. 3 Adv. Prax. c. 22. 4 Leg. pro. Christianis, 10. p. 287. See Divinitas Christi, &c. pp. 579, &s. 6 Clffirep yap CUITOS, tavrov re Kai TOV irarepa ev eivai f\eye, fyaffucav, Eyu Kai 6 Tlari)p tv fffpev ovru Kai Travras riftas Kara TIJV avrov fjn^iriv ri)s fvorrjros TT/S avrov iifraffx*w fvxerai, ov Kara MapKf\\ov, rov A.oyov fixapfvov rca &eu Kai rr) ovffia. (rwa^aoyiiew;. EUSEBII De Eccl. Theolog. lib. iii. c. 1 9. p. 193.ed. Col. 1688. 302 PATRISTICAL TRADITION Son. But, in the disputes with the Arians, this text was constantly referred to in that signification ; as, for in- stance, by Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine, and others, 1 whose words I need not quote, because their view of the passage is well-known and admitted. (3) John xiv. 28. My Father is greater than I. On this important text, we in vain look for consent in the interpretations of the Fathers. Ireneeus says, that when Christ said that the Father, who communicates with the Son in all things, alone knew the day and hour of the judgment, he said so w that we might learn, through him, that the Father was above all things. For, saith he, ' The Father is greater than I ;' " 2 where it is evident that Irenaeus considered the words as applying to the divine nature of Christ ; though I suppose, from his orthodoxy elsewhere, only with reference to the order of the Persons in the Trinity, and not to their nature or essence. But, as it respects Novatian and Origen, they not merely apply the words to the divine nature of Christ, but seem to acknowledge a real inferiority of nature. Thus Novatian says, " For who will not acknowledge that the person of the Son is second after the Father, when he finds it said . . . ' He who sent me is greater than I.' " To which he adds, shortly after, " The Son affirms that he was sanctified by his Father. Since, there- fore, he receives sanctification from the Father, he is in- ferior to the Father. But he is consequently inferior to the Father, but nevertheless Son. For if he had been the Father, he would have given sanctification, and not received it ; but now, by affirming that he received sanc- tification from the Father, by this very thing by which 1 See Maldonatus or Larape in loc. 2 Si quis exquirat causam, propter quam in omnibus Pater communicans Filio solus scire horam et diem a Domino manifestatus est, neque aptabilem magis neque decentiorem nee sine periculo alteram quam hanc inveniat in praesenti (quoniam enim solus verax magister est Dominus) ut discamus per ipsum super omnia esse Patrem. Etenim Pater, ait, major me est. IKEN. Adv. ha?r. lib. 2. c. 28. ed. Mass. c. 49. ed. Grab. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 303 he proves that he is inferior to the Father, by receiving sanctification from him, he proves that he is the Son, and not the Father." * And Origen says, " Be it so that there are some among the multitude of those who believe and receive a different doctrine, who rashly maintain that the Saviour is the supreme God over all ; yet, nevertheless, we do no such thing ; believing him who said, ' The Father that sent me is greater than I.' We who say that the material world is his who created all things, clearly main- tain that the Son is not stronger than the Father, but in- ferior to him ; and we say this, believing him when he said, ' The Father that sent me is greater than I.' " 2 And the same view of this passage is maintained by him elsewhere. 3 Nor do I see how Tertullian can be explained other- wise than as affirming the same doctrine from this pas- sage, when he says, " The Father is the whole substance, but the Son a derivation and portion of the whole, as he himself professes ; ' For the Father is greater than I.' " 4 But by others of the Fathers, especially those engaged 1 Quis enim non secundam Filii post Patrem agnoscat esse personam, cum legat dictum, &c aut dum invenit positum, ' Quoniam qui me misit major me est.' (De Trin. c. 21.) Filius . . . sanctificatum se a suo Patre esse proponit. Dum ergo accipit sanctilicationem a Patre minor Patre est ; minor autem Patre consequenter est, sed Filius. Pater enim si fuisset sancti- ficationem dedisset non accepisset. Et nunc autem profitendo se accepisse sanctificationem a Patre, hoc ipso quo Patre se minorem, accipiendo ab ipso sanctificationem, probat, filium se esse non Patrem monstravit. Ib. c. 22. ed. Col. 1617. 2 Eorw Se Tivas ws tv TrArjflet iriffTfvovTai', Kai ^x^ vafj.ei' rov vlov OVK iff^vporepov rov Tlarpos, oAX' vrroSte a- rfpov, KCU TOUTO \tyofj.fv aura TTeidofiLfvoi enrovTi, K. r. \. Cont. Cels. lib. viii. 14, 15. torn. i. pp. 752, 3. 3 See his Comment, in Matth. torn. 15. 10. Op. torn. 3. p. 665., and Comment, in Johann. torn. 13. 25. Op. torn. 4. p. 235., and Ib. torn. 32. 18. p. 451. 4 Pater tota substantia est, Filius vero derivatio totius et portio sicut ipse profitetur, Quia Pater major me est Adv. Prax. c. 9. 304 PATRISTICAL TRADITION in disputes with the Arians, these words are explained as referring to the human nature of our Lord. Thus Athanasius says, "Whatsoever, therefore, the Scripture says as to the Son receiving, and the Son being glorified, it says this with respect to his humanity, not with respect to his divinity. And when he says, ' My Father who sent me is greater than I,' he says that the Father was greater than he, from his having become man. But as the Word of the Father, he is equal to him." 1 And Cyril of Alexandria says, " The word of God is above humanity as one who is by nature God and the Son ; but not disdaining to appear to be in subjection, on account of his having taken human nature. Therefore, at one time he said, ' He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father,' ' I and the Father are one ;' at another, on the other hand, ' My Father is greater than I.' For being not inferior to the Father as regarded identity of essence or anything else whatever, in which he could be com- pared to the Father, he says, that he is among things inferior on account of his human nature." 2 And so Augustine, 3 Ambrose, 4 and others have ex- plained it. Many, however, maintain the opinion that it refers to the divine nature of Christ, and is intended to show the priority of order in the Father as the Original from whom the Son was generated ; and, strange to say, this view is 'Offa ow \eyti i] ypacfrr), bri cAaei/ 6 vlos, KM. fSoa Ofon/jra. Kai ore Xryei, 6 Uarnp fwv 6 ire^as fj.e /xcigav fwv tffriv, eirei avOponros yeyovtv p-ufa avrov Aryei TOV Harepa. hoyos Se rj(T4 8e KOLI bri tv eQpovovv iravrts- ovS" ev rovrw bpuv, bri apX'riOev iff pi rrjv fv TOIS irTTiffTfVfj.evots Bfiots etvai &if)\wis e/fSox?)'' yeyovcun Sicupuii'iai r(.ou KO.I rtav WjU.ous Ttev Qav^aaavruv pfi> TI\V TOV \oyov apxyv, KivT]Q(VTiv 8' 6ircos TTOT' ow viro -rivtav Trteavorrrruf irpos Toy 4$ a\\ij\ovs $ia.cavias. Origen. Contr. Cels. lib. iii. 12. torn. i. p. 454, 5. 312 PATK18T1CAL TRADITION tures (as was likely) by these learned heathen, there arose various sects, and that he knew no such cure for this as a traditive interpretation of Scripture coming from the Apostles. The utmost he pleads for as coming from the Apostles by successional delivery, and which he evidently considers to be in Scripture as well and as clearly, is the summary of the elementary articles of the faith above quoted. For had he held the views of our opponents, he would have thrown the blame of those divisions upon their authors not having followed this traditive interpretation derived from the Apostles, whereas it is evident that he had no notion of the existence of this infallible guide, but seeing that men would come with all manner of precon- ceived views and prejudices to the revelation God had made of the truth in the written word, he held it to follow as a matter of course, that many different views would be taken of it, and that such variety of sentiment ought not to be laid to the charge of Christianity. If, then, there was no such interpretation having a claim upon men to be received as their guide in the earliest times of the church, how much less can there be anything having such pretensions at the present day. When, therefore, our opponents send us to the Fathers to learn from their consentient interpretation of Scrip- ture what is its true meaning, they are sending us to that which has no existence, and to a search in which, if it be not most laborious and extended, we are very liable to be misled in inferring consent from the testimony of a few, (as our opponents have been, as I shall show presently), and in which, after all, it is next to impossible to arrive at any certainty ; and yet this " consent" is proposed to us as part of the rule of faith, without which we cannot be sure what is^he meaning of Scripture, even on the most fundamental points. What, then, I would ask, must be the consequence, where their system is received, and men go to the Fa- thers truly and impartially to ascertain what they have delivered, and find that there is hardly a single doctrine NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 313 or text about which there is consent, even in the few that remain to us ? Clearly this, that men will feel that there is no certainty to be had with respect to any one doctrine of Christianity ; and thus he who begins with the Scrip- tures, as interpreted by the consent of all the Fathers? may end in neglecting both. Their system may look very well in theory, and may please very well those who are satisfied to pin their faith upon the representations of others, and accept a few quotations from four or five Fathers as proving the consent of the whole primitive church, but the moment you bring it fairly and fully to the test, its unsoundness is betrayed. It falls to pieces at once. And I will venture to add, that of those who have shown the most intimate acquaintance with the writings of the Fathers, there have been but few who have not practically confessed this to be the case. But it may be urged, that there are some cases in which the Fathers expressly claim to be considered as delivering the doctrine preached by the Apostles, and consequently that in such a case we are bound to believe their statements. It is, therefore, important to show further, that doc- trines, statements, and practices, were not unfrequently maintained by primitive Fathers as having come from the Apostles, and were called apostolical traditions, which were opposed by other Fathers, and which consequently, upon our opponents' own principles, cannot demand our belief as having proceeded from the Apostles ; from which we may safely conclude, as in the former case, that the testimony of a few of the primitive Fathers to such tradition, even though it be not opposed by the writings that happen to remain to us, is an utterly insufficient proof of its apostolicity. As instances of this nature I would notice, (1.) The doctrine of the Millennium. It is confidently delivered to us by the principal Fa- thers of the first two centuries and a half, uncoutradicted 314 PATRISTICAL TRADITION by the others we possess of that period, that the Apostles affirmed that at Christ's second coining there should be a resurrection of the just to a life of joy and happiness upon earth, where they should live with Christ for a thousand years, previous to the general resurrection and the final judgment. This, I admit, they attempted to prove, partly from Scripture; but they also claimed an Apostolical tra- dition in its favour. Thus Irenseus says, " The above- mentioned blessing belongs undeniably to the times of the kingdom, when the just shall rise from the dead and reign, when the creation, renovated and freed [from the curse], shall bring forth abundantly of all kinds of food, from the dew of heaven and the fertility of the earth ; as the Presbyters, who saw John the disciple of the Lord, have related that they heard from him in accordance with what the Lord taught concerning those times, and said, ' The days shall come in which vines shall spring up, having each ten thousand branches,' &c. . . . These things also Papias, a hearer of John, and who became the companion of Polycarp, a man of antient times, witnesses in writing in the fourth of his books ; for there were five books written by him." 1 And again ; " Then, as the Presbyters say, shall those who are worthy of dwelling in heaven depart thither; and others shall enjoy the delights of paradise ; and others shall possess the beauty of the city ; for everywhere shall the Saviour be beheld according as those who see him shall be worthy." ..." That this is the arrangement and classification of those who are saved, 1 Praedicta itaque benedictio ad tempera Regni sine contradictione pertinet, quando regnabunt justi surgentes a mortuis: quando et creatura renovata ct liberata multitudinem fructificabit universae escae, ex rore coeli et ex fertilitate terrae : quemadmodum Presbyteri meminerunt, qui Johannem discipulum Domini viderunt, audisse se ab eo, quemadmodum de temporibus illis doccbat Dominus, et dicebat : ' Venient dies in quibus vineea nascentur, singulae decem millia palmitum habentes,' &c. . . . Tavra 5e uai Hamas \usavvov jj.ei' o/couorrjs, HoXvKOfntov 5e fratpos ytyovws, apxcuos avijp, ryypucpais firi/j-aprvpfi tv tt\ re- rapTt) real' O.VTOV $t$\uv. eori yap avrw irfrrf &i0\ia ffWTfrayfjLfva. IREN. Adv. liter, lib. v. c. 33. (ed. Mass. p. 333.) NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 315 the Presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles, tell us, and that they advance through such stages ; and ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father ; the Son finally giving up to the Father his own creation, as also it is said by the Apostle." [referring to 1 Cor. xv. '25, 6.] 1 From these passages it appears, that this doctrine was delivered as an Apostolical tradition, not upon the autho- rity of Papias only, as is sometimes stated, but of others, who were also the immediate disciples of the Apostles- And as it respects Papias, there seems no reason why we should question his capability to transmit what he had heard more than that of any other of the Fathers. Let us hear what he says as to the means of information he had, and the use he made of them ; " I will not be backward," he says, " to set down in order for you, with the interpretations, those things which I formerly fully learnt from the presbyters, and well remembered, 2 con- firming the truth delivered by them. For I am not accustomed, as most, to delight in those that talk much, but in those that teach the truth ; nor in those that relate strange precepts, but in those that relate the precepts really given by the Lord, and that proceed from truth itself. And if anywhere I met with any one who had con- versed with the elders, I inquired diligently after the say- ings of the elders, what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip, or what Thomas, or James, or what John or Matthew, or any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and John the elder (or, pres- byter), the disciples of our Lord, say. For I thought 1 'fls of Trpefffivrepoi \eyovffi rare KOU ol p.ev Ka.Tat(a0einfs TIJS ef ovpavca Siarpi- /3rjs, e/ceicre x efffffOcu pera rt\v (K vfKpwv avao-rao~iv auu-arucvs ri\s TOV Xpiirrov /3ao8pa yap roi (ruiKpos uv TI\V vow, &s av (K riav av- rov \oyci>i> rfKfjLrjpafiievov fiirnv avrjcro/j.fVT], \oyov Sovvat, us ov KOffpuKT} per ovSf emyfios, eirovpavios tie KUI ayyf\iKr] rvyx atrfi i jr * ffw- Tf\eia rov auavos ytvi]aofj.fvr], oTrrjviKa e\Qwv tv Sof-rj icpivfi fcojras KCU vfKpovf, teat airoScixTfi tKUffTca Kara TO. eTriTTjSeujUctTa avrov. EUSEB. Hist. Eccl. iii. 20.) 2 EUSEB. Hist. Eccl. lib. vii. c. 24. ; and see lib. iii. c. 28. 3 HIERON. Comm. in Is. in Praef. ad libr. 18. 4 See the preceding page. s See EUSEB. iii. c. ult. HIERON. in loc. cit. et passim. THCODORKT. Hseret. Fab. lib. 2. c. 3. torn. 4. p. 330. ed. Schulze; &c. &c. VOL. I. Y 322 PATRISTICAL TRADITION doctrine is true or false, for that might seem to involve a determination of the very point in dispute; nor will I press the argumentum ad hominem against our opponents, as not receiving what has such witness in its favour, be- cause they may justly take refuge in the admissions of Justin and Irenaeus, that there were those among Chris- tians who did not embrace it, as showing that there was not catholic consent for it. But the conclusion (the, as it appears to me, irrefragable conclusion) that I draw from it is this, That a doctrine may be put forth as the indubitably correct interpretation of Scripture, and an Apostolical tradition, by a great number of the most esteemed Fathers, and consequently might bear to us the appearance of having the catholic consent of the early church in its favour, (judging, as our opponents do, by the few remains we happen to possess,) which was really but the view taken by a portion of the church ; and more- over, that what seems, if we are to judge with certainty from the few authors that remain to us, to have been the prevailing doctrine of the church for a long period, and received as one handed down by a successional delivery from the oral teaching of the Apostles, may afterwards have been so repudiated by the great majority, that you can barely find a supporter of it, and will generally see it loaded with obloquy ; and therefore either that it was not really the prevailing doctrine, or that the prevailing doctrine became corrupted at too early a period for us to know precisely, from the works that remain to us, what it was. To this case Mr. Newman has alluded ; and his mode of getting over the difficulty, is by assuming that " the early opinions concerning the Millennium," " probably in no slight degree" " originated in a misunderstanding of Scripture ;" l an assumption which, after the extracts given above, needs no reply ; and which, if true, does not help his cause in the least ; for though it was held to be supported by Scripture, it was handed down as also an 1 Lect. p. 203. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 323 oral Apostolical tradition ; and he thinks that at any rate " such local rumours about matters of fact cannot be put on a level with catholic tradition concerning matters of doctrine." * Now the notion is new to ine that a doctrine is more easily handed down than a fact ; and the point now under consideration is, as it appears to me, a doc- trine. It certainly was so propounded by Irenseus and Justin. And I would ask, what " matter of doctrine" has a tradition in its favour, during the earliest times of the church, so catholic as this ? Mr. Newman adds, " Cer- tainly in Egypt in the third century they seem to have had their origin in a misconstruction of Scripture. Euseb. Hist. vii. 24." 2 I can see nothing more, however, in this passage, than that those who supported the doctrine, sup- ported it, as Justin and Irenaeus did before them, by tes- timonies of Scripture ; believing those testimonies to be the proper proofs of all doctrines, even at that early period ; and I would particularly commend to Mr. New- man's observation the account there given us by Diony- sius of Alexandria of a disputation he held with some of those who were attached to this doctrine ; in which he tells us, in praise of his opponents, that they, " acting most conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open to God's view, fully received those things that were established by proofs and testimonies taken from the Holy Scriptures." 3 The two next cases I would notice, are instances of un- founded claims to Apostolical tradition, on points con- nected with the rites of the church ; namely, respecting the time of observing Easter, and the re-baptization of those baptized by heretics. I would point out, then, on this head, (2.) The disputes respecting the time of observing Easter. The account of this matter is preserved to us by Eu- sebius, who tells us that towards the close of the second 1 Lect. p. 203. 2 Ib. 3 Seethe passaqe quoted below, ch. 10. under " Dionysius of Alexandria." Y 2 324 PATRISTICAL TRADITION century " no small controversy being raised, because the churches (irapoiKiai) of all Asia supposed, as from a more antient tradition, that they ought to observe the fourteenth day of the Moon as the salutary feast of Easter, being the day on which the Jews were com- manded to kill the lamb ; and that they ought always on that day, on whatever day of the week it might happen, to terminate their fastings ; when, nevertheless, it was not the custom of the churches over the rest of the whole world to celebrate it in this manner, who observed the custom derived from apostolical tradition, and still pre- vailing ; viz., that they ought not to put an end to their fastings on any other day but that of the resurrection of our Saviour; upon this account synods and assemblies of bishops met. And all of them with one consent, did by their letters certify the brethren everywhere of the ec- clesiastical decree ; viz., that the mystery of our Lord's resurrection should never be celebrated on any other day but Sunday ; and that on that day only we should observe to terminate the fasts before Easter. There is at this time extant the decree (ypa^j?) of those who then were assembled in Palestine, over whom Theophilus, bishop of the church in Caesarea, and Narcissus, bishop of that in Jerusalem, presided. In like manner, also, another of those assembled at Rome concerning the same question, showing that its bishop at that time was Victor. Also of the bishops in Pontus, over whom Palmas, as being the most antient, presided. Also of the churches in Gallia, of which Irenaeus was bishop. Moreover, of those in Osdroena and the cities there, and a private letter of Bacchyllus, bishop of the church of the Corinthians; and of most others also ; all of whom having uttered one and the same opinion and sentiment, gave the same judgment ; and this we have mentioned was their unanimous deter- mination." l But, on the other hand, when this judgment was com- municated to the churches of Asia, they, as Eusebius tells 1 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. v. c. 23. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 325 us, " stoutly maintained that they ought to observe the custom that came to them by antient tradition;" 1 and their bishop, Polycrates, wrote back to Victor, bishop of Rome, as follows; "We therefore," he says, "observe the true day unaltered, having neither added to nor taken from [what has been delivered to us]. For in Asia lie the great seeds (vroixeia) [of the church], who shall rise in the day of the Lord's advent, in which he shall come from heaven with glory, and raise all the saints : viz., Philip, one of the twelve Apostles who died at Hierapolis, and his two daughters that lived to a great age as virgins, and his other daughter who possessed, during her life, the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, who rests at Ephesus. And moreover John, who reposed on the bosom of our Lord, who became a priest, and wore a golden plate, who was also a martyr and a teacher. He died at Ephesus. Moreover, also, Polycarp the bishop and martyr of Smyrna. And Thraseas, the bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who died at Smyrna. And why need I mention Sagaris, bishop and martyr, who died at Laodicea ? Moreover, the blessed Papirius also ; and Melito the eunuch, who enjoyed the peculiar gifts of the Holy Spirit during the whole of his life, who lies at Sardis, awaiting the visitation from heaven, in which he shall rise from the dead. These all observed Easter on the fourteenth day, according to the Gospel; transgressing in nothing, but walk- ing strictly according to the rule of faith. And I also, the least of all of you, Polycrates, [so act], according to the tradition of my relations, some of whom 1 have followed. There were, indeed, seven bishops related to me. And I am the eighth. And my relations always observed the day when the people [i. e. the Jews] removed the leaven. I therefore, brethren, being sixty-five years old in the Lord, and having had communication with brethren from all parts of the world, and having read through all the Holy Scriptures, am not alarmed at the threats directed against me. For those who are greater than I, have said, It be- 1 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. v. c. 24. 326 PATRISTICAL TRADITION hoves us to obey God, rather than men." And he adds afterwards, that he had called together very many bishops to give their opinion on the matter ; and that they entirely approved of what he had written. * And Irenaeus, in his letter to Victor, reminds him that Polycarp had thus ob- served the day ; and, that when he came to Rome, Ani- cetus, the bishop of Rome, who observed the contrary practice, could not induce him to forsake it ; " inasmuch," says Irenaeus, " as he had always so observed it with John the disciple of the Lord, and the rest of the Apostles, with whom he had been conversant." 2 And the difference, as we learn from Irenaeus, extended also to the previous fast ; for he tells us, that " some think they ought to fast one day ; others, two ; others, more." 3 And he thinks it probable that the difference might arise from some bishops being negligent, and allowing that to go down to posterity as a custom, which was introduced through simplicity and ignorance.* Here, then, surely we have a remarkable instance how easily even a practice might be introduced, under the name of an apostolical tradition, which had no such sanc- tion for it ; and this, as Irenaeus thinks, might arise, even in the second century, from the negligence of bishops al- lowing that to go down to posterity as a custom, which was introduced through simplicity and ignorance; and thus the name of Apostolical tradition be pleaded for that which was altogether abhorrent to the usages of the Apostles. And, be it observed, that in the case before us, the evidence (taking that which remains to us) appears to preponderate in favour of that usage which is not now followed. * So that our learned Dean Comber remarks on this 1 Euseb. H. E. lib. v. c. 24. a Ib. 3 Ib. Ib. * See further particulars relating to this matter, in Epiphan. Adv. hser. in hter. 70. 9, 10, and Athanas. De Synod. Arim. 5. p. 719. (ed.Ben.) and Ep. ad African. Episc. 2. p. 892, where Athanasius acknowledges that the churches of Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia, at the time of the Nicene Coun- cil, all celebrated Easter at the time of the Jewish Passover. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 327 matter, " Though Binius's notes brag of Apostolical and universal tradition, the bishops of Asia produced a con- trary tradition, and called it Apostolical, for keeping Easter at a different time ; which shows how uncertain a ground tradition is for articles of faith, when it varied so much in delivering down a practical rite through little more than one century." 1 Before we pass on, let us observe the way in which this whole dispute is spoken of early in the fifth century, by one whose "peculiar judgment and diligence" are praised both by Valesius and our own Cave, the historian So- crates. " I think it not unreasonable," he says, " to de- clare in short what comes into my mind concerning Easter. Neither the antients nor the moderns who have studiously followed the Jews had, in my judgment, any just or ra- tional cause of contending so much about this festival. For they considered not with themselves that when the Jewish religion was changed into Christianity, those ac- curate observances of the Mosaic law and the types of things future wholly ceased. And this carries along with it its own demonstration. For no one of Christ's laws has permitted the Christians to observe the rites of the Jews. Moreover, on the contrary, the Apostle has expressly forbid this, and does not only reject circumcision, but also advises against contending about festival days. Wherefore, in his Epistle to the Galatians, his words are these, ' Tell me, ye that desire to be under the Law, do ye not hear the Law?' [iv. 21.] And having spent some few words in his discourse hereof, he demonstrates that the people of the Jews are servants, but that those who have followed Christ are called to liberty. Moreover it is his admonition that days, and months, and years, should in no wise be ob- served. Besides, in his Epistle to the Colossians, he does loudly affirm that such observations are a shadow. Where- fore he says, ' Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of any holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come.' [ii. 1 Roman Forgeries, p. 33.; or in Bp. Gibsoh's Preservative, vol. 3. 328 PATR1STICAL TRADITION 16, 17.] And in the Epistle to the Hebrews, this very Apostle does confirm the same things in these words, ' For the priesthood being changed, there is made of ne- cessity a change also of the Law/ [vii. 12 ] The Apostle therefore and the Gospels have no where imposed the yoke of servitude on those who have approached the preaching of the faith, but have left the feast of Easter and the other fes- tivals to be honoured by their gratitude and benevolence who have had benefits conferred upon them on those days. Wherefore in regard men love festivals, because thereon they have a cessation from their labours, each person in every place according to his own pleasure has by a certain custom celebrated the memory of the saving passion. For neither our Saviour nor his Apostles have enjoined us by any law to observe this festival. Nor have the Gospels or the Apostles threatened us with any mulct, punishment, or curse, as the Mosaic Law does the Jews. For it is merely for the history's sake, in order to a publishing of the reproach of the Jews, because they polluted themselves with blood on their very festivals, that it has been recorded in the gospels that our Saviour suffered even on the days of un- leavened bread. Moreover it was not the Apostles' de- sign to make laws concerning festival days, but to intro- duce good life and piety. And it seems to me, that as many other things in several places have been established by custom, so the feast of Easter also had a peculiar ob- servation amongst all persons from some old usage, in re- gard none of the Apostles as I have said have made any de- terminate decree about it. Now that the observation of this festival had its original amongst all men in the pri- mitive times from custom rather than law, the things themselves do demonstrate." He then notices, as a proof, the great variety there was as to the time of observing it, and adds, " The Quartodecimans do affirm that the observation of the fourteenth day of the moon was delivered to them by John the Apostle. But the Romans and those in the western parts say, that the usage in force with them was delivered by the. Apostles Peter and Paul. Notwithstanding neither of NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 329 these two parties can produce any WRITTEN [or, SCRIPTURAL] TESTIMONY in confirmation hereof" And having hence taken occasion to notice " the dif. ferent usages of churches" respecting rites, particularly as to the time and mode of fasting, he adds, " And in regard no one can produce a command IN WRITING [or, SCRIPTURE] concerning this thing, it is manifest that the Apostles left every one to his own will and free choice in this case, to the end that no person might be compelled through fear or ne- cessity to the performance of what is good," Hence he proceeds to notice the variety in the time and mode of conducting their religious assemblies, and respecting divers ecclesiastical usages, the diversity of which according to the account he there gives is not a little remarkable, and thus concludes, " That there hap- pened many differences upon this account even in the Apostles' times, was a thing not unknown even to the Apostles themselves, as the book of the Acts does attest. For when the Apostles understood that a disturbance was raised amongst the faithful by reason of a dissension of the Gentiles, being all met together, they promulged a divine law, drawing it up in form of a Letter; whereby they freed believers from a most burthensome servitude and vain contention about these things, and taught them a most exact way of living well which would lead them to true piety, mentioning to them only such things as ne- cessarily ought to be observed For these are the express words of the Letter, ' It seemed good to the* Holy Ghost to lay upon you no greater burthen than these necessaries to be observed.' Notwithstanding there are some who, disregarding these precepts, suppose all fornication to be a thing indifferent, but contend about holy days, as if it were for their lives. These persons invert the commands of God, and mahe laws for themselves, not va- luing the decree of the Apostles, nor do they consider that they practise the contrary to those things which ' seemed good' to God." l 1 Socrat. Scholast. Hist. Eccles. lib v. c. 'i'l. I have given this passage 330 PATRISTICAL TRADITION Leaving this passage to the careful consideration of the reader, and of the Tractators more especially, I proceed to (3) The question relating to the rebaptization of those baptized by heretics. A controversy arose on this subject in the middle of the third century between Cyprian and Stephen, Bishop of Rome, and the question, says Eusebius, was, " whether it was proper that those who went over to the church from any heresy should be purged by baptism." 1 Stephen, Bishop of Rome, held that " from whatever heresy" any one should go over to the church, having been baptized by the heretics with whom he had been asso- ciated, he should be admitted by the imposition of hands, 2 including even such heresies as those of Marcion, Valen- tinus and Apelles. 3 Cyprian on the contrary held that those who had been baptized out of the church among heretics or schismatics ought to be baptized when they went over to the church, and that it was of little use to lay hands upon them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, unless they also re- ceived the baptism of the church. 4 The former opinion was defended by Stephen upon the ground of its being an Apostolical tradition. " If any one," he says, " shall have come over to us from any heresy, let no new practice be introduced, but that observed which was delivered (traditum), namely that there be imposition according to the English translation published with Eusebius, &c. Lond. 1709. fol. 1 Ei Seat TOVS e| otcurow alpefffus ejriffTptojna.s 8.a \ovrpov naJBaiptiv. EUSKB. Hist. Eccl. vii. 2. 2 Si quis ergo a quacunque haeresi venerit ad nos, nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est, ut manus illi imponatur in poenitentiam. Cit. a Cypr. in Ep. 74, ad Pompeium. 3 Cypr. Ep. 74, ad Pomp. 4 Eos qui sint foris extra Ecclesiam tincti, et apud hn'reticos et schisma- ticos profanse aquae labe maculati, quando ad nos atque ad Ecclesiam, quae una est, venerint, baptizari oportere ; eo quod parum sit eis manum imponere ad accipiendum Spiritum Sanctum nisi accipiant et Ecclesiae baptismum. Cypr. Ep. 72, ad Steph. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 331 of hands for repentance." 1 And we are told by Firmilian that he defended his opinion on the ground that " the Apostles forbade that those who came over from any he- resy should be baptized, and delivered this to posterity to be observed." 2 And to this no doubt it is that Cyprian refers when he says, on this subject, " Nor let any one say, we follow that which we have received from the Apostles, since the Apostles delivered that there was only one church and one baptism." 3 And Eusebius tells us, that the reason of Stephen's anger was, that he thought it was not right to introduce anything new and beyond the tradition that had been in force from the beginning. 4 The real state of the case was, that it was the custom at that time in Rome, and some other churches, and therefore was dignified, as every other custom of that church was and is, with the most unscrupulous audacity, with the title of an Apostolical tradition, such a name being well known to be with the multitude an immediate passport to its recep- tion ; but to which many of the customs so observed even in the third century, as Firmilian tells us, 5 had no right. Now it is commonly represented, that on the other side the charge of innovation was admitted, but that Cyprian, arguing from Scripture, followed a practice which he admitted might be new to the church. This notion, however, is altogether erroneous, as the state- ments of Cyprian and Firmilian, and others, fully show. Thus Cyprian says, that his opinion was " not new, but long before laid down by his predecessors, and observed 1 Vide supra. 3 Quantum ad id pertineat quod Stephanus dixit, quasi Apostoli eos qui ab haeresi veniant baptizari prohibuerint, et hoc custodiendum posteris tradiderint, plenissime vos respondistis. Firmil. Ep. ad. Cypr. Inter. Op. Cypr. Ep. 75. 3 Nee quisquam dicat, quod accepimus ab Apostolis hoc sequimur, quando Apostoli non nisi unam Ecclesiam tradiderunt et baptisma unum. Cypr. Ep. 73. 4 AAA' 676 2T6aws M Sfiv TI vtwrepov irapa rr)v Kpari\ffaffa.v apx^Oev irapa- 5offti> firtKu.ivorofj.fiv oiopivos, tin rovrw SiirywaKrei. EUSEB. Hist. Eccl. vii. 3. 5 See Firmil. Ep. ad Cypr. Inter Cypr. Ep. 75. 33*2 PATRISTICAL TRADITION by him" 1 And again; " It is not a new or suddenly introduced thing with us, that we should hold that those who come over to the church from heretics should be baptized, since it is many years and a long period since a great number of bishops, meeting under Agrippinus, a man whose memory is to be had in honour, decreed this ; and between that time and this many thousand heretics in our provinces being converted to the church," have been baptized. 2 And this decree of Agrippinus and the bishops who were assembled with him, Cyprian says he followed, as being " pious and legitimate and salutary, and agreeable to the catholic faith and church'' 3 And he clearly denies the antiquity of the custom pleaded on the other side. For he says, " They say that they follow in this antient custom, when among the antients were the first beginnings of heresy and schisms, so that they formed the heretics, who departed from the church, and had been previously baptized among us, whom when they returned to the church as penitents it was not necessary to baptize. Which we also observe at this day ; so that as it respects those whom we know to have been bap- tized in the church, and to have gone over from us to the heretics, if afterwards acknowledging their offence, and rejecting their error, they return to the truth and their mother, (matricem) it is sufficient to lay hands upon them for repentance." 4 1 Sententiam nostram non novam promimus, sed jam pridem ab antecesso- ribus nostris statutam et a nobis observatam. Cjpr. Ep. 70. Ad Januurium. 2 Apud nos autem non nova aut repentina res est, ut baptizandos censeamns eos qui ab hsereticis ad Ecclesiam veniunt, quando multi jam anni sint et longa aetas ex quo sub Agrippino bonse memoriae viro convenientes in unum episcopi plurimi hoc statuerint, atque exinde in hodiernum tot millia haeretico- rum in provinciis nostris ad Ecclesiam conversi non aspernati sint, &c ut lavacri vitalis et salutaris baptismi gratiam consequerentur. Cypr. Ep. 73. Ad Jubaian. 3 Quorum sententiam et religiosam et legitimam et salutarem fidei et Ec- clesiae Catholicae congruentem nos etiam secuti sumus. Cypr. Ep. 71. Ad Quintum. 4 Et dicunt se in hoc veterem consuetudinem sequi ; quando apud veteres haTCseos et schismatum prima adhuc fuerint initia, ut hi illic essent qui de NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 333 Such, also, is the testimony of every one of the eighty- seven bishops convened on this matter by Cyprian, in the third Carthaginian synod. They one and all declare that the baptism of heretics is altogether null and void ; and that not as men laying down any new rule on the subject, but merely as witnesses to what had been a principle of the Christian faith from the beginning. The testimonies of these bishops were given by each separately, and are still to be seen in the works of Cyprian. 1 The same testimony is borne by Dionysius of Alex- andria, the contemporary of Cyprian, who writing on this subject says, " I have learnt this also, that it is not the case that now at this time the Africans only have intro- duced this [as some appear to have represented it was], but that long ago this opinion was maintained by the bishops before us in the most populous churches and synods of the brethren at Iconium and Synada, and in many places, whose determinations I cannot allow myself to subvert, and throw them into strife and contention ; for it is said, Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmarks which thy fathers have set." 2 And lastly, Firmilian, who was Bishop of Csesarea in Cap- padocia, still more plainly says, " We to truth join also custom, and to the custom of the Romans oppose custom, but the custom of truth ; holding this to have been from the beginning which was delivered by Christ and the Apostle. Nor do we recollect that this had any beginning Kcclesia recedebant, et hie baptizati prius fuerant : quos tune tamen ad Eccle- siam revertentes et paenitentiam agentes necesse non erat baptizare. Quod nos quoque hodie observamus, ut quos constet hie baptizatos esse et a nobis ad haereticos transisse, si postmodum peccato suo cognito et errore digesto ad veritatem et matricem redeant, satis sit in pomitentiam manum imponere. Cypr. Ep. 71. Ad Quintum. 1 See Concil. Carthagin. De baptiz. hseret. inter Op. Cypriani. 2 Me/j.aOi]Ka KM rovro, drt /uij vvv ol tv Av fv \Kovua KM SwaSois KCU irapa iro\\ots TOVTO e8o|i/, iiv ras Pov\as avarpeiriav fis fpiv KOU OVK inrofj.fi'Q) On "yap fj.ercucivr]ffeis, Tos. Can. 19. Vide. Biblioth J. C. Vet. ed. Voell. et Justell. torn. i. p. 34. a Can. 8. Ib. p. 50. 3 Can. 7. Ib. p. 58. 4 See BASIL. Ep. ad Amphiloch. Ep. 188. (Op. torn, iii.pp. 268 70,) and Ep. 199. (ib. pp. 296, 7.) VOL. I. Z 338 PATRI8TICAL TRADITION tions by name in his first canon, and apparently as ap- proving their determinations even with respect to those baptized by schismatics, though as the custom was dif- ferent in different places, he holds it best that the custom of the place should be followed. And as to those bap- tized by heretics, he expressly says, " It has seemed good to the antients/rom the beginning, altogether to reject the baptism of heretics." l And Athanasius pronounces even the baptism of the Arians as well as that of the Manichees, the Phrygians, and the Samosatenians to be " altogether useless and un- profitable." 2 While the notion of Augustine (and which has been very prevalent in the Western Church since his time) seems to have been, that the baptism of heretics was not valid if not performed in the name of the Three Persons of the Trinity, but that if so performed, it was valid, whatever sentiments they might hold. 3 What now becomes of Stephen's " Apostolical tradi- tion" which, Mr. Newman tells us, " might by itself fairly be taken as a sufficient witness in such a point ?" And yet this very case is brought by our opponents as a proof of the safety of being guided by " Apostolical tra- dition," i. e. some patristical report of it. Be it observed, also, that Augustine, though he main- tains that the custom he followed was derived from Apo- stolical tradition, maintains this upon grounds that are not trustworthy, and is evidently conscious that his cause needed better support. For he affirms this on two grounds, one, that it was a custom maintained by the universal church, 4 which is abundantly disproved by the facts and statements referred to above ; the other, that a custom 1 E8oe TOIS t apx"ns TO fiev rcav alptfiKuv, [i. e. ySoTrritrjua] ircuntXws adf~ njo-eu. Ib. p. 269. naoreAtts Ktvov KCU. a\vffirt\fs. Orat.2.contr. Arian. 42. p. 510. ed. Ben. And see 43. pp. 510, 11. 3 Aug. Cont. litt. Petil. lib. ii. 57. torn. 9. col. 236. De unic. bapt. c. 3. ib. col. 529. 4 De bapt. contr. Donat. lib. v. c. 31. torn ix. col. 156. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 339 the institution of which could not be traced to those who came after the Apostles ought to be considered Aposto- lical, 1 on which evidence of Apostolicity (not to say that it was just as applicable to the practice of Cyprian and his party, if we may believe them, as to the opposite prac- tice) Bishop Taylor justly remarks in the last work he wrote, " which in plain meaning is this, we find a custom in the church, and we know not whence it comes, and it is so in this as in many other things, and therefore, let us think the best and believe it came by tradition from the Apostles ;" ~ and again further on ; " which kind of rule is something like what a witty gentleman said of an old man and an old woman in Ireland, that if they should agree to say that they were Adam and Eve, no man living could disprove them . . . This rule is but a precarious pitiful presumption, since every antient custom that any succeed- ing age hath a mind to continue, may for the credit of it and the ignorance of the original, like new upstart gentle- men, be entitled to an honourable house. ' Every one be- lieves the commandments of his ancestors to be traditions apostolical,' said St. Jerome ; and that these came in by private authority, and yet obtained a public name, we have competent warranty from Tertullian. (De cor. mil. c. 4.) " 3 In another part of the same work, 4 Augustine has put these two requisites together, as forming jointly a suffi- cient proof of Apostolical tradition ; in which case the whole argument drops at once from the want of universa- lity in the practice. Nor does Augustine, while in his controversial zeal against the Donatists he opposes the sentiments of Cy- 1 Ilia consuetude quam etiam tune [i. e. tempore Cypriani] homines sur- sum versus respicientes non videbant a posterioribus institutam, recte ab Apostolis tradita creditur. De bapt. contr. Don. lib, iv. c. 6. torn. ix. col. 126. 2 Diss. from Popery, Ft. 2. 3. Works, vol. x. p. 433. 3 Dissuasive from Popery, Pt. 2. 3. Works, x. 445. 4 Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nee conciliis institutum sed semper reten- tum est, non nisi auctoritate apostolica traditum rectissime creditur. De bapt. contr. Don. lib. iv. c. 24. torn. ix. col. 140. z2 340 PATRISTICAL TRADITION prian, and espouses the cause of his opponent Stephen, seem to remember that his own view was not the same as that of Stephen, and therefore that he must either give up Stephen too, or the apostolicity of his own prac- tice ; and in all ways the apostolicity of his own practice was not only destitute of proof but against evidence. It is manifest, also, that Augustine himself felt the ne- cessity of supporting his cause by some better proofs, and by showing that Scripture was on his side. " Lest," saith he, " I should seem to treat the matter with human arguments, since the obscurity of this question drove great men, in former times of the church, before the schism of Donatus, and men endued with much Christian cha- rity, episcopal Fathers, to differ from one another, &c. .... I produce from the Gospel certain proofs, by which? the Lord helping me, I prove how rightly and truly, according to the Divine will, it has been ordained," &C. 1 And so it appeared to Bishop Taylor, who, after the observations quoted above, adds, " But it seems himself was not sure that so little a foundation could carry so big a weight ; he therefore plainly hath recourse to Scripture in this question : ' Whether is more pernicious, not to be baptized, or to be rebaptized, is hard to judge ; neverthe- less, having recourse to the standard of our Lord, where the monuments of this are not estimated by human sense but by Divine authority, I find concerning each of them the sentence of our Lord' (Contr. Don. lib. iv. c. 14, &c., 17 and 24), to wit in the Scriptures." 8 And this reference to Scripture proof is repeated in many other parts of the same treatise. Are we to be told, then, that Cyprian erred because he rested upon the authority of Scripture? 1 Jam enim ne videar humanis arguments id ajrere, quoniatn qua-stionis hujus obscuritas prioribus Ecclesiae temporibus ante schisma Donati magnos viros et magna caritate prseditos patres episcopos ita inter se compulit salva pace disceptare, &c ex Evangelic profero certa documents quibus Domino adjuvante demonstro quam recte placuerit et vere secundum Deum, &c. De bapt. contr. Donat. lib. i. c. 7. torn. ix. col. 84. Works, vol. x. p. 434. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 341 There is one more remark, also, which the considera- tion of this case suggests, viz. how little we can trust the reports given by many of the Fathers with respect to such matters. For in the case before us, we are told by Eusebius that Cyprian was the first to introduce the prac- tice he followed. 1 Nor are the statements of 'Augustine free from similar error. 2 But the Monk of Lerins has, as usual, settled everything without hesitation to his own liking, and thus faithfully chronicles this matter. " This," saith he, " hath ever been usual in the church, that the more religious a man hath been, the more readily hath he always resisted novel inventions ; examples whereof everywhere are plentiful, but for brevity's sake I will only make choice of some one, which shall be taken from the Apostolic See, by which all men may see most plainly with what force always, what zeal, what endeavour, the blessed succession of the blessed Apostles have defended the integrity of that religion which they once received. Therefore, in times past, Agrippinus, of venerable me- mory, Bishop of Carthage, the first of all mortal men, maintained this assertion against the divine Scripture, against the rule of the universal church, AGAINST THE MIND OF ALL THE PRIESTS OF HIS TIME, AGAINST THE CUSTOM AND TRADITION OF HIS FOREFATHERS, that rebaptization was to be practised. Which presumption of his procured so great hurt to the church, that not only it gave all heretics a pattern of sacrilege, but also ministered occa- sion of error to some Catholics. When, therefore, EVERY- WHERE ALL MEN exclaimed against the novelty of the doc- trine, and all priests in all places, each one according to his zeal did oppose, then Pope Stephen, of blessed memory, Bishop of the Apostolic See, resisted, in common indeed with the rest of his fellow bishops, but yet more than the rest, thinking it, as I suppose, reason so much to excel 1 Ilparros Tore (or, ruv Tore) Kvirpiavos TTJJ Kara ou5' a\\ws TJ Sitt Aovrpov irporepov TTJS Tr\avr)s airoKO&ripafjievovs irpotrifffOai yytiTo. EUSEB. Hist. Eccl. lib. vii. c. 3. * Vide August. De bapt. contr. Donat. lib. iv. c. 6. torn. ix. col. 126. 342 PATRISTICAL TRADITION all other in devotion towards the faith, as he was superior to them in authority of place. To conclude, in his Epis- tle, which then was script to Africa, he decreed the same in these words ; That nothing was to be innovated, but that which came by tradition ought to be observed. For that holy and prudent man knew well, that the nature of piety could admit nothing else, but only to deliver to our children all things with the same fidelity with which we received them of our forefathers, and that we ought to follow religion whither it doth lead us, and not to lead religion whither it pleases us ; and that it is proper to Christian modesty and gravity not to leave unto posterity our own inventions, but to keep that which our prede- cessors left us. What, therefore, was the end of that whole business? What but that which is common and usual, to wit, antiquity was retained, novelty exploded. But perhaps that very invention of novelty lacked patrons and defenders ? To which I say, on the contrary, that it had such pregnant wits, such flow of eloquence, such number of defenders, such show of truth, such testimonies of divine Scripture, but understood evidently after a new and naughty fashion, that all that conspiracy and schism should have seemed unto me invincible, had not the sole cause of such turmoil, THE VERY PROFESSION ITSELF OF NOVELTY, so taken in hand, so defended, so recommended, left it without support. To conclude, what force had the council or decree of Africa? By God's providence none, but all was abolished, disannulled, abrogated, as dreams, as fables, as superfluous. And, O strange change of the world! the authors of that opinion are judged to be catholics, but the followers of the same heretics; the masters discharged, the scholars condemned ; the writers of those books shall be children of the kingdom, but hell shall receive their maintainers. For who is so mad as to doubt but that that light of all saints, bishops and mar- tyrs, the most blessed Cyprian, with the rest of his com- panions, shall reign with Christ for ever ? And contra- riwise, who is so wicked to deny that the Donatists, and NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 343 such other pests, which vaunt that they do practise rebap- tization by the authority of that Council, shall burn for ever with the devil ?" 1 I leave this passage to the reader's reflections, only re- marking, that we have here very sufficient evidence how far this writer is to be trusted in his accounts, and also an exemplification of what his " all men everywhere" practically means. The excuse of ignorance may be his ; for, as Basil tells us, the Western church often neither knew the true state of affairs in the Eastern, nor went the way to learn it ; 2 but this is but a poor apology for one who professes to know what " everybody always everywhere " thought about the matter, and to ground his determinations thereon ; and, indeed, cannot, after all, fully account for the statements he has here made ; which I suppose no candid mind can read but with disgust. (4) Even in points in which one might have expected " tradition " to have preserved the truth for some time at least, we find it fail. Thus as to the duration of our Lord's public ministry, we are told by Clement of Alexandria that he preached only one year, 3 and by Origen that he preached a year and a few months. 4 Irenseus, on the other hand, shows how contrary this notion is to the testimony of the Gospels themselves, but with equal error asserts that our Lord was forty or fifty years old at the time of his death, for which he refers to Scripture, 5 and tradition, asserting that all the elders who had been acquainted with St. John in Asia, 1 Vine. Ler. Commonit. 6. I give it in the translation lately published at Oxford. 3 Ovrf iffwri Ttav Trap' V" fi\ v u^Ofiav, ovre rr\v 65ov 8* i)s aa> fiavdavotfv KaraSexovTai. BASIL. Ep. 239. ad Euseb. torn. iii. p. 368. ed. Ben. 3 Evtavrov futvov. Strom, lib, i. p. 407. ed. Potter. And see other similar testimonies in the note of Potter on this place. 4 Eviavrov irov /cat jurji/as oKiyovs eSiSalej/, Philocal. c. 1. In his Commen- tary on Luke iv. he makes the time one year. See Potter not. in Clem. Al. p. 407. 5 Adv. hicr. lib. ii. c. 22. ed. Mass. c. 39. ed. Grab. 344 PATRISTICAL TRADITION testified that he had delivered this to them ; some of whom had seen other Apostles, and heard the same ac- count from them. 1 I do not understand, therefore, what Mr. Newman can mean when he tells us that this state- ment of Irenaeus is one of the things which " improperly go by the name of traditions," and " make out no claim to be considered Apostolical" 2 And were we to proceed to a general review of the rites and customs of the church, we should find many in- stances of claims made by various Fathers to the sanction of Apostolical tradition for rites and customs which no one in the present day would affirm were ordained by the Apostles ; as, for instance, the trine immersion in baptism, which Athanasius, Jerome, Augustine, and Ambrose, all call an apostolical tradition. 3 So that even in matters of fact, and ecclesiastical rites and ordinances, we find the Fathers that remain to us very insufficient witnesses to assure us of what is or is not an Apostolical tradition. A fortiori, then, is their testimony insufficient in doctrinal points, where the liability to mis- apprehension and mistake is so much greater. There is one remark, however, which I would here make to prevent being misunderstood, viz. that I am not here questioning the competency or fidelity of the Fathers as witnesses to those facts and practices of which they were themselves cognizant; or the value of their testimony in these matters. Thus, for instance, their testimony to Episcopacy, infant baptism and the observance of the Lord's day, as usages in force in their time, is invaluable 1 TlavTts 01 irpfarflvTfpoi fiaprvpovffiv, ol Kara ri\v A.ffitu> luavvr) ro> rov Kvpuw /uoto/nj o-y/t/3f/3A.7jKOTs, jrapo58coKe/ai raura rov \wa.vvj]v. Ilape/iejj/e yap aurois /teXpi rtav Tpcuavov xpovtav. Quidam autem eorum non solum Joannem sed et alios Apostolos viderunt, et hsec eadem ab ipsis audierunt, et testantur de hujusmodi relatione. Ib. The Greek is preserved by Euseb. H. E. lib. iii. c. 23. 2 P. 203. 3 Another instance may be seen in Epiphan. User. 28. G. torn. 1. p. 114, on which see the remarks of Whitby in hisComm. on I Cor.xv. 29. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 345 as giving us an important confirmation of the correctness of our interpretation of those passages of Scripture which show us the apostolicity of those usages. But that we have any patristical testimony which of itself is sufficient to assure us what was the oral teaching of the Apostles, either in a matter of doctrine or practice, we altogether deny. 1 When taunted therefore, as our opponents sometimes seem inclined to taunt us, with despising "Apostolical traditions," we say with their own chosen witness, Bishop Patrick, " This is a downright calumny ; for we have ever owned that Apostolical traditions, if we knew where to find them in any place but the Bible, are to be received and followed, if delivered by them as of necessary obligation. BUT WE DO LIKEWISE SAY, THAT WE KNOW NO SUCH TRA- DITIONS." (Answ. to Touchst. p. 27.) Moreover as the sanction of Apostolical tradition was thus groundlessly pleaded by some of the Fathers in favour of various points, so also is their testimony not fully to be depended upon when claiming, as they not unfrequently do, the sanction of the church. We have already seen in a former page how Origen's predilections influenced him in this respect, and that ac- cording to Jerome he made his own fancies mysteries of the church. " And the reader of the Fathers will find this to be con- stantly the case. Their own views are often unhesitatingly stamped by them with the authority of " the church" when 1 The degree of deference due to the rites and customs of the primitive church is a question which it would be out of place to discuss here, but I would observe that the remarks made above must not be taken as denying that they have a claim upon our respect and regard. Of him who claims more than this in their behalf I would ask, how it is that all parties have for ages given up many that were esteemed of necessary observation in the pri- mitive church, as, for instance, standing at public prayers on Sundays, and from Easter to Whitsuntide, ordered by the Council of Nice, of the non- observance of which Tertullian says, nefas ducimus. (De Cor. c. 3.) But on this subject we shall have to speak more at large here-after. (See chapt. 8.) * See p. 232 above. 346 PATRISTICAL TRADITION to impartial observers it is evident that such a claim is wholly unfounded. Thus Jerome, in more than one place, 2 maintains it to be the doctrine of the church that the souls of infants are created by God, and transfused into them before their birth ; and he is exceedingly indignant at Ruffinus for venturing to express a doubt on the matter, and to say that though he had read much on the subject on all sides, he still felt ignorant as to the origin of the soul. " Do you wonder," saith he, " that the reproaches of the bre- thren are raised against you, when you declare that you are ignorant of that which the Churches of Christ profess to know?" 3 And what makes this more remarkable is, that he admits elsewhere that Tertullian, Apollinaris, and the greatest part of the Western ecclesiastics maintained that the soul was ex traduce. 4 a Cain et Abel, primi ex primis hominibus, unde habuere animas ? Omne deinceps humanum genus quibus animarum censetur exordiis ? Utrum ex traduce juxta bruta auimalia, ut quomodo corpus ex corpore sic anima gene- retur ex anima ? An rationabiles creaturae desiderio corporum paulatim ad terrain delapsae, novissime ctiam humanis illigatae corporibus sint ? An certe, quod ecclesiasticum est, secundum eloquia Salvatoris, Pater meus usque modo operator, etegooperor ; [Jo. 5. 17,] et illudlsaise [? Zech. xii. 1.] Qui format spiritum hominis in ipso ; et in Psalmis, Qui fingit per singulos corda eorum [Ps. xxxii. 15], quotidie Deus fabricatur animas. Ad Pammach. adv. error. Job. Hierosol. 22. torn. ii. c. 427. ed. Vail. Ven. Ep. 38. torn. iv. p. 2. col. 318. ed. Ben. Quaeris a me quid ipse de animabus sentiam ; ut cum pro- fessus fuero statim invadas. Et si dixero illud ecclesiasticum, Quotidie Deus operatur animas, et in corpore eas mittit nascentium, illico magistri tendiculas proferas, et, Ubi est justitia Dei ut de adulterio incaestuque nascentibus animas largiatur ? Adv. Ruffin. lib. iii. 28. torn. ii. c. 557, ed. Vail. Ven. torn. iv. p. 2. col. 464. ed. Ben. 3 Miraris si contra te fratrum scandala concitentur, quum id nescire te jures quod Christi Ecclesise se nosse fateantur ? Adv. Ruffin. lib. ii. 10. torn. ii.c. 500. ed. Vail. Ven. torn. iv.p. 2. col. 399. ed.Ben. 4 Super animas statu memini vestrae quaestiunculae, immo maxim 33 ecclesi- asticae quaestionis, Utrum lapsa de caelo sit, ut Pythagoras philosophus, omnesque Platonici et Origines putant, an a propria Dei substantia, ut Stoici Manichaeus et Hispana Priscilliani haeresis suspicantur ; an in thesauro habe- antur Dei olim conditae, ut quidam ecclesiastic! stulta persuasione confidunt ; an quotidie a Deo fiant et mittantur in corpora secundum illud quod in Evan- gelic scriptum est, ' Pater meus usque modo operatur et ego operor ;' an NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 347 The same assertion, however, was made by Theodoret and by Gennadius. Thus Theodoret says, " The church .... believing the Divine Scripture, affirms that the soul is created to- gether with the body, not having its origin from man, but brought into existence after the formation of the body by the will of the Creator." l And Gennadius reckons it among the doctrines of the church, that the soul% of men are not derived from their parents, but that the body only is thus propagated, and that after the formation of the body the soul is created by God and infused into it before the birth. 2 But that this claim to the sanction of the church for this doctrine was wholly unfounded we have abundant proof. For Origen expressly tells us, as we have already seen, 3 that with respect to the origin of the soul there was no clear testimony preserved in the church. This also clearly follows from the words of Jerome himself in the last of the passages we have quoted from him above. Augustine openly professes that he could not make up certe ex traduce, ut Tertullianus, Apollinaris, et maxima pars Occidentalium autumant ; ut quomodo corpus ex corpore sic anima nascatur ex anima, et simili cum brutis atumantibus condition e subsistat. Super quo quid mihi videretur, in opusculis contra Ruffinum scripsisse me novi, &c. Hieron. Ep. ad Marcell. et Anapsych. Ep. 126. ed. Vail. Ven. Inter August. Ep. 165. Op. Aug. torn. 2. col. 582. 1 'H 8e E/c/cA.7j(Tto . . . TTJ Oeia iretQo/j.vri ypcupvi A7, rijv tyvxyv ffvySrifj.iovp- yeiffBai rca ffw/Mrt, owe eK TTJS uArjs rov ffirepfj-aros exovffav ri\s Srifuovpyias ras aop[j.a.s, aAAa T>J /}ot>\7j rt)v fyvffiv. (TXTj/itoTjf'ouo'J 8e ras o^/ets trpos TO xpVffWov Ttav bpuvruv. THKODORET. In Dan. xii. 7. torn. ii. p. 1298. ed. Schulze. 5 'Optovrai 8e avrwv ov\ at pfj.aToi at vorfrai J> 362 PATRISTICAL TRADITION army with royal liberality." 1 And Andradius says, " I am of their opinion who affirm that Melchizedek did refresh Abraham and his soldiers with bread and wine." 2 Again, Mr. Keble's allegation that catholic consent and the constant agreement of the early Church assure us, " that Wisdom in the book of Proverbs is a name of the Second Person in the Most Holy Trinity," is equally un- founded. His proof is, " the disputes on the text, Prov. viii. 22. at the Nicene Council are sufficient to prove agree- ment on this point." A very small foundation surely for such a large superstructure as a claim to catholic consent. Now let us hear what Epiphanius says on this matter. Having referred to this very text, he says, " And the Scripture has not at all any where confirmed this passage, nor has any one of the Apostles mentioned it, so as to apply it for a name of Christ. So that consequently it does not at all speak concerning the Son of God. . . . For the word itself [i. e. wisdom] does not at all compel me to apply it with reference to the Son of God. For he [Solomon] has not signified this, nor has any of the Apostles mentioned it, nor the Gospel either." 3 And having proceeded to observe that some " dared " 4 so to apply the passage, he adds, that it must not be considered as spoken of his divinity but only of his humanity, 5 and that after all it was quite optional with us to suppose it to be spoken of Christ at all or not, 6 and that though 1 Lassum et famelicum exercitum regia liberalitate refecit. As cited by Morton, Cath. A pp. p. 395. 2 Ego cum illis sentio, qui lassos Abrahae milites et diuturna pugna fractos Melchizedechum pane et vino refecisse aiunt. Def. Cone. Trid. lib. iv. fol. 371. b. as cited by Morton, Cah. App. p. 395. 3 Kai ov iravrws TTOV efiffiaicafff ypcupri, ovSe efj.vrtff0ri ris TO>V AwoffTO\, ovSe TIS TWV KirocrroXiav eu.vi)[no- vfvffev a\\' GIT* TO Evayye\iov. EPIPHAN. adv. haeres. in h. 69. adv. Arian. 20, 21. torn. i. pp. 743, 5. 4 ToAjtwo-J Tires eiri TOV fiov TOU &eov TOVTO ^epeij/. Ib. p. 745. 5 Ib. p. 745. 8 OvSfts T]ij.as avayKcurete iravrcas irfpi TOV Xpi&Tov \eyeiv TO firj/Ma TOVTO. Ib. 24. p. 748. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 363 " some orthodox Fathers " had so interpreted the pas- sage, 1 and that it was " a sense consistent with piety, because some great Fathers had so understood it," yet that it was optional with all to receive this interpretation or not as they pleased. 2 And the same was evidently the opinion of the great St. Basil ; for (when meeting the objections of Eunomius, derived from this passage,) having said that it was neces- sary to apply this passage to the human nature, he adds, " It is open also to any one to say that Solomon spoke these things concerning that wisdom which the Apostle mentions when he says, ' When in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God.' " 3 And in his homily on Proverbs he has himself thus interpreted the passage. 4 Now I do not deny, but on the contrary maintain, that very many, probably the majority, both of the antient writers that remain to us, and also of the moderns, have affirmed that this passage in the book of Proverbs refers to Christ, but this only shows us the more how easily we may be deceived in inferring catholic consent from the testimony of a great number of writers. Hence if we adopt the views of our opponents, we may call that one day an Apostolical tradition, and consequently a divine revelation, which we find the next, by happening to meet with some other remains of an- tiquity, to be nothing of the kind. It is evident, then, that the notion that there is con- sentient testimony to the doctrines of revelation even among the authors that remain to us, is a mere dream of the imagination, and that even as it respects the very highest points of faith. 1 Tires Ttav -na-rfpuv T^UV KOI opOodocav aireSccKaf TOVTO fts TTJC evffapxov irap- ovaiav. Ib. 2 Meya\oi irarfpes TOVTO vtyriyriffcu'TO. /cat ftj ns /SovhrjBeii) rcav opOo$ov, irpoQafffi fitv rov /XT; Kararo\fi.av, us airpoffiTtav' ri) S a\rjdfia vntp rov (pevyav rov avrwv f\tyxov TTJS oiKftus KOKoSofjew. Euther. Serm. 2. Inter Theodor. Op. ed. Schulze, torn. v. p. 1126. 3 Lucifugae isti Scripturarum. Tertull. De resurr. carnis, c 47. p. 354. 3 Tovro yap avrois aft eamv eirt/xeAes, /; fK r ffo. Clem. Al. Strom, lib. vii. p. 900. (ed. Potter.) 3 KaOmrep 6 BotnAetSijs, KO.V T\avKtav tiriypcupriTui SiScwncoAov, ws avxovffiv oirrot, rov Tlerpov ep/uTjyea' &s avrcas 5e /cat Ova.\fvrivov eoctaSt OKrjKofvcu (leg. OtoSa StTj/cTj/coej/at, Potter et al.) tytpovaiv yvuptpos 5' oinos fyryovti TIa,v\ov. Lib. vii. p. 898. 4 Ma0rjcrrj yap, eov SiSotnos, e|rjs /cat TT\V TOVTOV apxw Tf Kat ytwriaiv, aiov- /j-evri TIJS ATroffToAiKTjs TrapaSoffftas, rjv e/c StaSo^Tjs /cat ^/ueis TrapetAjj^ayusc, /uera /cat TOW /caiwtfrai iravras rovs \oyovs Ti) rov Swrrjpoj StSacr/caAta. Ptol. Ep. ad Floram, ap. Epiph. Adv. hser.h. 33. 7. p. 222. ed. 1622. * Filii sumus sapientium qui ab initio doctrinam nobis apostolicam tradide- runt. Ilieron. Comm. in Is. c. 19. torn. 4. c. 293. ed. Vail. torn. o. c. 184. ed. Ben. fi Ib. 396 PATRISTICAL TRADITION vertheless, it is evidence to an opponent, as far as it goes, against the universality of the orthodox doctrine ; and evidence which it is not fair altogether to keep out of sight, and say that the heretics did not dare to appeal to tradition, for that it was altogether against them, and rested upon interpretations of Scripture, which they ac- knowledged to be new. The cause of truth gains nothing by such statements. % And these claims must be judged by us, in a measure, upon their own merits ; because, though the testimony of a few contemporary authors, whose writings we possess, affords very strong evidence against them, this evidence is not conclusive. What we want is divine testimony ; and when professing Christians are divided among themselves as to what is the truth, it is useless to attempt to affix the title of a divine informant to the testimony of any one portion of them, however large it may be. But still further ; the appeals of the heretics to patris- tical tradition, were not all of this kind, but often of a more general nature ; and especially in those questions which arose at a later period of the church, and with which alone almost we are concerned at the present day, I mean those connected with the Arian, Nestorian, Pe- lagian, and such like controversies. From a fragment of a writer on the orthodox side, who wrote as early as the commencement of the third cen- tury, (the fragment is preserved to us by Eusebius,) we find that the followers of Artemon, who denied the divi- nity of our Saviour, claimed " all the antients and the Apostles themselves as in favour of their views ;" and main- tained that their doctrine, which they call " the truth of the Gospel," was "preserved until the times of Victor." 1 We have already quoted the passage more at length above, and have seen how the claim was met by their orthodox opponent ; and in dealing with the opponents of the orthodox doctrine, should remember with him that our Euseb. H. E. v . 28. Routh, Reliq. Sacr. vol. 2. pp. 7, 8. See p. 236 above. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 397 evidence on the contrary side, is only evidence of the same nature ; that is, resting upon the testimony of a few indi- viduals ; and not be hasty in stopping the mouths of our adversaries with a claim to a divine informant. I believe that the claim of these heretics was an impudent asser- tion, diametrically opposed to the facts of the case ; but one great reason why I believe it. to be so, is from the fact that Scripture clearly maintains the opposite doc- trine. The similar claims of succeeding heretics were of a still more plausible kind, being connected with questions which had not previously been the subjects of public dis- cussion ; and on which, therefore, the earlier Fathers had not in general spoken clearly and determinately. Thus Arius and his party confidently appealed to pa- tristical tradition as in their favour. In the Letter to Alexander, written by Arius and his earliest followers, they call his doctrine " the faith which we have received from our ancestors." ] And in a frag- ment preserved by Athanasius, Arius uses the following- language ; " According to the faith of the elect of God, those to whom God hath given intelligence, holy children, orthodox, and who have received the Holy Spirit of God, I have learned these things from those who are partakers of wisdom, polished, taught of God, and in all things wise. Being of the same mind with them, I have closely fol- lowed their footsteps," &c. 2 Two of these are mentioned by their orthodox oppo- nents, in order to exculpate them from the charge of sup- porting Arianism ; viz., Origen 3 and Dionysius of Alex- andria. 4 The defence of the latter by Athanasius, 5 is 1 'H iriffris fi/JMV ri /c irpayovwv. Epiphan. Adv. haer. h. 69. 7. torn. 1. p. 732. ed. 1622. * Kara irioTW fK\fK-rtai> &(ov, ffwerwf &tov, iraiSuv ayiuv, opQorofuav, aytov @eov irvtv/M Ka&avT' yiuav u.iroSeiKi'vuevois e^evorrtt. EfiNOM. in BASH,. Adv. Eunom. lib. ii. 18. torn. i. p. 2/>3. ed. Ben. 400 PATRISTICAL TRADITION So the Semi-Arians at the "Synod of Antioch in 341 say, " We receive no other faith than that which was pub- lished from the beginning ;' ?1 and at their Synod at Sardica in 347, they use such language as the following ; " It is our constant prayer, beloved brethren, first that the holy and catholic church of the Lord, free from all dissensions and schisms, may everywhere preserve the unity of the Spirit and the bond of love by a right faith. . . . Se- condly, that the Church's rule, and the lioly tradition and judgments of our fathers may remain for ever firm and unmoved," 2 &c. And again, "Since therefore we can- not depart from the tradition of our fathers* . . . neither do we ourselves receive the aforementioned [i. c. Athana- sius and Marcellus] to the honour and dignity of the Church, and we justly condemn those who do." 4 And so they speak of themselves afterwards as " adhering to the laws of God and the traditions of their fathers.'' 5 And at their Synod at Ancyra in 358, they speak in the same strain still more strongly, " We entreat you, ve- nerable Lords and fellow-worshippers," they say in their synodical epistle, " that having read these letters, ye will embrace firmly the faith delivered to us from our fathers, and that you will signify that our faith is agreeable to yours ; that those who dare to introduce this impiety, being fully assured that we preserve the faith which we have re- ceived from the Apostolical times through the Fathers that have intervened down to our times, as our patrimony, may either through shame be turned to the truth, or persist- ing may be cut off from the church." 6 1 Cure OAA.IJI/ viva, trumv irapa rr\v c| apxjs fKreOeiffav e8ea/ie0a. SOCR. H. E.ii.7. 2 Ut ecclesise regula sanctaque parentumtraditioatquejudiciain perpetuum firma solidaque pennaneant. 3 Quamobrem quoniam a parentum traditione discedere non possumus, &c. 4 Hilarii Fragm. in Op. col. 1308 and 1319. ed. Bened. * Adhaerentes legibus Dei traditionibusque paternis. Ib. 6 no^aKaAou.utf u/xas Kvpioi T/iwraTot opT]6fines of r\\v UUTTJV f-Kfitraftiv NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 401 Similar language is usual at the other Arian Councils. 1 The same claims we find to be made by the Aetians and Macedonians, who accused the orthodox of intro- ducing novelties into the Christian faith ; 2 an accusation met by Gregory Nyssen by an appeal to Scripture as the judge. 3 And when at the Council of Constantinople, at its ses- sion in 383, it was proposed by the Emperor, at the sug- gestion of one of the orthodox party, that the matters in dispute between them and the heretics present, viz. the Arians, Eunomians and Macedonians, should be deter- mined by an appeal to the writings of the Fathers, these heretics asserted their reverence for the Fathers as their " masters" and many of them were desirous that the points in dispute should be so determined, though others objected to such a course. The account given by Socrates is as fol- lows. The Emperor asks the heretics, " if they respect and receive the writings of the doctors that lived before the division of the church ; and they having not denied that they did, but on the contrary affirming that they alto- gether honoured them as masters, 4 the king again enquired whether they would follow them as trustworthy witnesses of the Christian faith. The leaders of the sectaries and the logicians among them, for there were many among them well fitted for disputation, doubted what to do. For there was a division among them, some saying that the king's proposal was a good one, and others that it was not suitable to their object. For they were differently ro\nuvres, 6rt KO.Qa.nep K\7]pov TWO. rr)V e/c real/ AuwroAtKcov XP OVO>V $ M r(av fv rw fj.eff(a axf 1 Kal ^P-">v Hareptav ujro5ea/teiw vurriv tfuAacnro/xfj', i\ aurxwdfirfs SiopOcadriffovTai, 77 ftn/j.fvovTfs airoKripvxOuffi TTJS EKK\T)(TJUS. Epiph:in. adv. Haer. h. 73. 2. torn. i. p. 847. 1 See Socrat. Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. cc. 19, 30 and 37. 2 NewTepOTTOiot/s ?ijuas KU. Kaivoronovs /cat ftpevperas ^/jjuaroic KOU rt yap oi/x 1 errovefiiffTuv airoKaKovaiv. BASIL, de Sp. S. c. 6. 13. torn. iii. p. 10. And GRKGOK. Nvss. De Trin. prope init. torn. ii. pp. 439, 440. ed. 1615. 3 Greg. Nyss. ut supra. We shall notice the passage more particularly hereafter. See c. 10. 1 ncwu rifj.av avrovs dis KaBriyifras. VOL. I. D D 402 1ATRISTICAL TRADITION affected towards the books of the antients ; 1 and they no longer agreed one with the other, and they were divided, not only some sects towards others, but those of the same heresy among themselves ;" and he proceeds to say that in consequence of this diversity of opinion the Emperor ordered each party to present their creed to him. 2 The appeal to the Fathers therefore, though declined by some, was by others willingly accepted. And we are told by the learned Henry Wharton, that " Eunomius, the heretic, in his Apology, extant in MS. in St. Martin's Library, everywhere pleadeth the tradition of precedent ayes, and professeth to follow that as his only rule of faith. ' It is necessary,' saith he, ' for those who treat of matters of faith, setting before them the holy tradition which hath all along obtained from the times of the Fathers, as a rule and canon, to make use of this accurate rule to judge of those things which shall be said.' 3 Afterwards proposing his blasphemous opinion about the Holy Ghost, he introduceth it with this Preface, 4 'Exactly following the doctrine of the Holy Fathers, and receiving it from them, we believe,' " &c. " This, then," he adds, " was the artifice and practice of the ancient heretics. What the practice of the Catholic Fathers was in op- posing these heretics, or establishing any necessary arti- cle of faith ; that they accounted Scripture to be the only adequate rule of faith, and to contain in express and plain words all things necessary to be believed ; that they rejected all articles which could not be thence deduced as spurious and false, or at least uncertain and unnecessary ; and always asserted the sufficiency of Scripture, I will not here 1 AAAoi oXXws ti\ov Trtpi ra (j8\x ruv iru\aiwi>. 2 Socr. Hist. Eccl. v. 10. ed. Read. torn. ii. p. 273. 3 At/aytcatov 8' HTWS TOWS irept TOVTWV \oyous iroiovptvovs . . . TI\V KpaToixrav avitiQfv K TUV irarfpuv euovs OKpifat TOUT-CO ffvyx u P f ^ XpT) ff(>al KptTrjpiw -itpos TT\V T(av \tyop.fviav fiti- npiffiv. Apologetic, in fine Prolog! . 4 Tifv row aytwv tv aircurt povr)fj,a.Tos ex?rai, (TOVTO yap 8ia TroAAcov /cat Kotvcav Turret, /cat TIJ fvayyt\iKTr) /cat airoeyvuv rov noKaptov Kvpt\\ov (cat TUV NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 405 And in his Letter to Pope Leo, after his condemnation at this Synod, he strongly urges the testimony of the Fathers in his favour. So, also, in his Petition to the Synod (or rather, Council) of Ephesus, in 449, he says, " I hold all the holy Fathers equally with your holinesses as orthodox and faithful, and have taken them as my masters ; anathematizing Manes, Valentinus, Apolinarius and Nestorius, and all the heretics up to Simon Magus." 1 And at this Synod, where the confession of Eutyches was received as orthodox, Dioscorus, the president, who favoured Eutyches, admonished the bishops present, at the commencement of the proceedings, that they were to consider whether the views advanced by the Eutychians, were agreeable to what had been ordained by the holy Fathers.* And when the monks who sided with Eutyches were asked by Dioscorus, " respecting the presence of the Saviour in the flesh, Are your views the same as those of the blessed Athanasius, and the blessed Cyril, and the blessed Gregory, and all the orthodox bishops ?" 3 their leader, Eleusinus, replied, " We are all of the same mind with both the holy Fathers that met at Nicsea, and those who were assembled here [i. e. at Ephesus, at the Third General Council]." 4 And in the Council of Chalcedon, Carosus, and the a\\cav ira.'Ttpwv KCU rov a/yiov Adavcurtov, 6ri fK Suo fJLfV Qvffecav eivov irpo TJJS tvwfffws, fuera Se TT\V tvcaffiv KCU Tt\v aaptaaffiv ovKtri Svo jTT)07?p cu, /cat i]/j.as SoKtpctffou et ffwcaSa, TU7x al/ol " T ' T0ts opHr9ets AOuva- ffios /cat 6 paKapios K.vpi\\os KCU 6 jta/captos rprryoptos /cat travrfs ol opOo5ooi fTTio-Kowoi Ib. col. '279,282. 4 Flaires ovru tppovovpev, us KCU ol w Nt/cata ffweXQovvts KM ol (mav6a awti- \eyfji.fvoi aytot iraTepes. Ib. col. 282. 406 PATHIST1CAL TRADITION other Eutychian leaders, declare individually ; " My faith is that of the three hundred and eighteen bishops that were at Nicaea, in which I was baptized. I know no other." 1 To these we might add the case of the Pelagians, who notoriously claimed the support of primitive Fathers. 2 Nay, Lactantius tells us that all heretics reckoned themselves to be the best Christians, and their own church to be the catholic church. 3 And Salvian, speaking of heretics, says, " They are he- retics with us, not in their own estimation. For they so completely reckon themselves to be catholics, that they decry us as heretics. What, therefore, they are with us, that we are with them." 4 It is quite clear, then, that all these heretics considered that patristical tradition was in their favour. And there- fore I doubt whether it was wise in Dr. Waterland (to whose learned and valuable labours in proof of the great preponderance of the evidence in favour of the ortho- dox faith, we are deeply indebted,) to bring forward the charges of novelty made by some of the orthodox against the Arians, and while he is altogether silent as to the similar charges made on the other side, quote these as an undeniable PROOF that Arianism was a complete novelty, 5 especially when he must have been fully aware that even a worse heresy, on the same point, had long before found its defenders among Christians. 6 1 Ti)f Ttav rpioKOfftcitv SeKaoKTtn roiv fv Niicata ytvofievov iraTtpwv trur-riv, tv TJ Kut ejSajrriaftji/, 0180' ere ft tyo> uX\i\v Triartv owe S roA/trjffti ft-irew. Dial, cum Tryph. 60. p. 157. ed. Ben. (p. 283. ed. Col. 1688.) a 'Tiro o\Aou TOV (v rots inrtpovpaviois aft /j.fvovros, KM ovSfvt ofyQtmos t] 6/xi- \ijffayros 5' eaurov trort, bv TronjTuv ruv 6\u>v KCU irarfpa voovfifv. Dial, cum Tryph. 56. p. 150. ed. Ben. (ed. Col. p. 275.) The same view is also ex- pressed still more strongly in 127. p. 220. (ed. Col. pp. 356, 7.) 3 Apol. la. 63. p. 81. ed. Ben. (ed. Col. Apol. 2a. p. 95.) 4 See p. 248 above. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 413 the patriarchs, " sometimes spoken of as an angel, some- times as Lord, sometimes as God. For it is impious to suppose that the God of the universe is called an angel." 1 So Tertullian observes that the God who appeared at various times to men from the beginning, could be no other than the Word who was about to become flesh, 2 and ridicules as an absurdity the supposition that the omnipotent invisible God, whom no man hath seen nor can see, 3 should have walked about in Paradise, adding with his usual vehemence, that these things were not to be believed concerning the Son of God if they had not been written, and perhaps not to be believed of the Father even though they had been written. * And, not to multiply authorities unnecessarily, the same view is laid down in the same peremptory terms by Novatian 5 and Eusebius. 6 I would ask then, Do our opponents consider them- 1 Tlore fj.fv ws ayye\os, irore 8e us Kvpios, irore Se eos (j.aprvpovfiei>os. TOV /xej/ yap eov TWV b\o>v urrffifs ayye\ov vofjuffat Ka.\fio~6cu. Syn. Antioch. adv. Paul. Samos. in Routh. Beliq. Sacr. vol. ii. p. 470. 2 Non alius potuit quam sermo qui caro erat futurus. Adv. Prax. c. xvi. p. 509. 3 Deus omnipotens ille invisibilis quern nemo vidit hominum nee videre potest. Ib. p. 510. 4 Scilicet et hsec nee de Filio Dei credenda fuisse si scripta non essent, for- tasse non credenda de Patre licet scripta. Ib. p. 510. And see hia "treatise Adv. Jud. c. 9. med. 5 Ecce idem Moyses refert alio in loco, quod Abrahae visus sit Deus. At- quin idem Moyses audit a Deo, quod nemo hominum Deum videat et vivat. Si videri non potest Deus quomodo visus est Deus ? Aut si visus est, quomodo videri non potest ? Num et Johannes, Deum nemo, inquit, vidit umquam. Et Apostolus Paulus, Quern vidit hominum nemo nee videre potest. Sed non utique Scriptura mentitur. Ergo vere visus est Deus. Ex quo intelligi potest, quod non Pater visus sit, qui nunquam visus est, sed Filius. De Triu. c. 26. See also c.25. 6 See his Demonstr. Evangel, lib. v. c. 9. p. 234. (ed. Col. 1688.) and cc. 13, 14. pp. 239 41, &c. If any passage can be produced from the Ante-Nicene Fathers opposed to this view, (and I shall not undertake absolutely to deny the possibility of such a passage being found,) I have only to observe that its sole effect will be to shift this example to the previous head, but I suspect that it will be difficult to do so. 414 PATRISTICAL TRADITION selves bound so to interpret Scripture ? If they do, it is more than Augustine did, for he held that it was probably the Father who appeared on some occasions ; * and evi- dently considered, as many others have done since, that the view we have shown to have been taken by the Ante-Nicene Fathers was an Arian view of the subject. 2 (2.) The doctrine taught by the Fathers as to the re- appearance of Enoch and Elias hereafter on earth from the place to which they are translated, (which Irenaeus tells us, as from apostolical tradition, is the Paradise in which Adam was) to wage war with Antichrist. " The Presbyters who are the disciples of the Apostles," says Irenaeus, " say that those who were translated, were translated thither, [i. e. to the Paradise in which Adam was]." 3 " Enoch and Elias," says Tertullian, " are translated, neither is their death found ; that is, it is delayed ; but they are reserved to die at a future time, that they may extinguish Antichrist with their blood." 4 So Hippolytus tells us that Enoch and Elias are the two witnesses spoken of in Rev. xi., who are to prophesy 360 days clothed in sackcloth. 5 1 See Augustine, De Trin. lib. ii. cc. 710. ed. Ben. torn. viii. 2 Contr. Maximin. Arian. lib. ii. c. 26. torn. viii. col. 734 et seq. 3 IREN. adv. Har. lib. v. c. 5. See also lib. iv. c. 16. ed. Mass. (c. 30. ed. Grab.) Augustine intimates the same, De Peccat. Mer. et Remiss, lib. i. c. 3. torn. x. col. 3. et Op. imperf. contr. Julian, lib. vi. c. 30. torn. x. col. 1360. but elsewhere speaks doubtfully, De pec. orig. c. 23. torn, x.col. 264. Chry- sostom intimates that the place where Enoch is, is not known. In Gen. c. 4. horn. 21 . 4. torn. iv. p. 1 87. 4 Translatus est Enoch et Helias, nee mors eorum reperta est ; dilata scili- cet ; ceterum morituri reservantur ut Antichristum sanguine suo extinguant. TEHTULL. De anima, c. 50. p. 301 . See also c. 35. p. 291. * MJW fJitv ow e|88o;ua5a eruv TT\V e avrov irapfSwice yfVTjffofif- vov, fiiruv KO.L HA.(cw fKevfffffOai. /cat ^ue' tie KOU ftcftvo JVjnjirai, Ei d Avrixpurros epxerat /cot 6 HAtas epxerat, nus brav \fyeaffiv, etprjirj Kai acrepuAeia, Tore avrois airpviSios o\(6pos ecpurraTai ; TOUTO yap OVK atTj, Te/c/iTjpta ovra TTJS irapovffias at/TTjs. Chrysost. in Ep. la. ad Thess. c. 5. horn. 9. 2. torn. xi. p. 488. 'Or' cu> pey yap etTTTj, <5rt HAtos ^.tv epxrrai Kai aTro/caTaoTTjcret iravra, UVTOV H\iav Tore fffo/jLf^ijv iiiiv lovSaiui' Tri(rTpo(bT)v' 6r' ca> Sf enrrj, dri 6 (*.\\a>v fpXfffOai Kara TOV rpoirov TTJS SiaKovias Icoavvrjv H\tav /caAct. * . . aioTrep yap fKftvos TTJS SeiTepav ea-rcu irapouarias, OUTUS ovros TTJS irportpas eyevfTO wpoSpofMS. ID. In Matt. xvii. 10, horn. 57. 1. torn. vii. p. 577. 3 Ko 6rt p.tv HAtaj rj|t 6 irpo^)7)TT)s 5ij\ot>, irpoayopevffafftis TTJS ypai)$ Sia MaAaxtoi; . . . ITept 8 rov E.vo>x fiaprvpiui> (lev bffov irpos TTJV irapovffiav OTTO TTJS ypntpT}s OVK exofiff, ir^v TOV Sia fteradfcrfcas airaQavaTifffhivai. \oyos tie (beptrai fK TrapaSofffws tponuv TTJ fKK\i)s, ARETH. c. 30. Comm. in Apoc. c. 1 1. pp. 7 13, 4. ed. 1631 . 4 Constans est Patrum omniumque consensu probatissima et receptissima Ecclesise opinio. Not. in Orig. Comm. in Matt. torn. xiii. In Op. Orig. torn. iii. p. 572. * InMatth. xi. 14. 6 Works, pp. 98, 9. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 417 sire in such a case, that it Avas declared by the unanimous consent of the Fathers; while Mr. Mede, though he " thinks that the opinion hath some matter of truth in it," adds, " as for Elias the Thisbite's coming, I find no ground at all, but the contrary" 1 Now, I would ask, Is this to be received as " revela- tion ?" With respect to Enoch particularly, I might ask, how this is to be reconciled with the declaration of Scripture, that Enoch was translated that he should not see death. (row ,u7j idetv Oavarov,) (Heb. xi. 5.) I might raise other difficulties to the reception of these statements. But I content myself with putting the question to my oppo- nents ; Do you yourselves feel bound to believe this as you would if you found it stated in Scripture ? If not, then by that very fact you prove that you do not consider " catholic consent," in such points at least, as a certain witness of what the Apostles delivered. (3.) The doctrine of the Fathers as to the absolute un- lawfulness of an oath to a Christian. Irenseus says, that our Lord " hath commanded us not only not to swear falsely, but not to swear at all." 2 Justin Martyr, that he has commanded us " not to swear at all." 3 So Clement of Alexandria says, that Plato's precept against an oath agrees with our Lord's prohibition of it. 4 " I say nothing," says Tertullian, " respecting perjury, since it is not lawful even to swear." 5 Basilides the martyr, when required to take an oath, 1 Ib. p. 99. 2 Non solum non perjurare sed nee jurare praecepit. IREN. Adv. hser. lib. ii. c. 32. ed. Mass. c. 56. p. 187. ed. Grab. 3 Flepi Be rov pi) on.vwa.1 b\, Sta TO irpos avrov ^.avQa- vfiv jui)8e ofivwai 6\ow. Prsep. Evang. lib. i. c. 4. p. 12. ed. Col. 1688. See also his Demonst. Evang. lib. i. c. 6. p. 23. 7 Ev TO) Euayyf\tca Travrt\(as awriyopfirrai, Horn. Prim, in Psalm, xiv. 5. ed. Ben. torn. i. App. p. 356. See also his Epist. 199. Amphiloch. Can. 29. torn. iii. p. 294. 8 f.vvai. Hser. 19. Ossen. 6. torn. i. p. 44. ed. Par. 1622. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 419 that the Christian religion requires us not to swear either truly or falsely, but to say yea, yea, nay, nay. 1 Chrysostom speaks at large to the same effect, in his homily on Matt. v. 27 37, saying, that it was allowed in the Law of Moses, only " on account of the infirmity of those who received the Law ; " 2 and elsewhere he says, " Let the Christian altogether avoid oaths, attending to the saying of Christ . . [Matt. v. 34.] . . Let no one there- fore tell me, ' I swear in a just cause/ for it is not lawful to swear, either in a just or unjust cause." 3 And again, in a still more remarkable passage, " But if you reve- rence nothing else, yet at least reverence the book which you hold out to swear by, and open the gospel which you take into your hands, and command men to swear by ; and having heard what Christ there says respecting oaths, be alarmed and desist ... I do not weep and lament so much at hearing of men being murdered in the high- ways, as I weep and lament, and am horror-struck, when I see a man approaching to this table, and placing his hands upon it, and touching the gospels, and taking an oath When you are about to adjure any one, restrain thyself, and prevent it, and say to him who is about to swear, What shall I do to you ? God hath commanded me not to adjure; he now restrains me. This is sufficient, both for the honour of the Lawgiver, and for thy safety, and to inspire fear into him who is about to swear. For when he sees that we thus fear to adjure others, he will be much more afraid to swear rashly." * 1 Mr) O/J.VVVM opKov, prjTf ev a\riOeia, fn/jre ev tyevSet" a\\a vat, vcu, KCU ov, ov \tyew. Hser. 59. Cathar. 7. p. 499. a Tijs curdeveias TUV Sx/ uej ' WJ ' TOUJ fof^ovs. Horn. 17. in Matt. 5. torn. vii. p. 229. See the whole of 5, 6, 7- pp. 228233. 3 Tous opmvs Sf iravre\ws (pevyeru cucovuv TTJS airoQaffeas rov Xpiffrov . . . [Matt. v. 34.] . . . Mi7 roivvv /tot \eye, 6rt ri 5i/cat o/wu/ir owe <{e cu$tff6Trri 6 irporeivfts fis opitov, KM TO fvayye\iov, b /xera X ei P as ^ap.ftowuv Kf \fveis o^vvvai, wmrrv^ov, KM OKOV- ffas ri repi &pK(av b Xpurros fKei Sia\fjfTM, a\fiai> ffyv, Kai (is ofjLvini, rrjs SiojSoAi/CTjs ovra. ffvupoptas. Quast. in Genes, q. 37. Op. ed. Schulze, 1769. torn i. p. 48. 3 ' O fJ.ff ira\atos airayopfvi ro tyevtios, b Se yt vtos KCU rov OOKOV. Haeret Fab. lib. v. c. 16. tom.iv. p. 436. 4 Tlepi 6pKo>v vofjLovs rtOfis, Kai avrovs airayopfvei rovs opKovs, airoxpilf \tytav ro Nat, Kai ro Ov, irpos ryv ra>v Xfyoptvuv fitfiauaffiv. Graec. Affect. Cur. disp. ix. torn. iv. p. 946. See also his Dialog. 1. Immutabilis, tom. iv. p. 34. and Kp. 78.tom.iv. p. 1134. * ETTaATai rjfiiv Trapa rov 2wT7jpos Xptffrov IJL-T\ o/iotrat. Acta Concil. Constant. Act. 1. Inter Act. Cone. Chalc. Conci). tom. iv. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 421 Now I would ask both the Romanists and our oppo- nents, whether on account of this consentient testimony of the Fathers they consider themselves bound to believe this doctrine, and interpret Scripture accordingly, or whe- ther they do not consider themselves at perfect liberty, as far as that testimony is concerned, to admit or reject it, and whether they have not in fact wholly rejected it. If so, then it clearly appears that practically they admit this consentient testimony where they like it, and reject it where they dislike it, dealing with it in fact as with any other determination of " a number " of fallible men. Away, then, with their pretence of considering themselves bound to interpret the Scriptures according to the unani- mous testimony of the Fathers. If their notion is good for anything, it is a principle by which we must abide, and receive all things so proved. But if they themselves reject this testimony when it displeases them, it is de- ceiving men to tell them that they are bound to believe this or that doctrine or interpretation of Scripture, be- cause there is a consentient testimony of the Fathers in its favour, when there are other doctrines and interpreta- tions, having the same support, which they themselves either wholly disbelieve, or at least hold doubtful. (4) Standing at prayer on Sundays, and during the period between Easter and Whitsuntide. The author of the " Questions and Answers to the or- thodox," in the works of Justin Martyr, gives the follow- ing question and answer : " Why on Sundays, and from Easter to Whitsuntide, do they not kneel when pray- ing? And whence was this custom introduced into the churches ?" The answer is, that we are to stand at those times, as a sign of the resurrection ; and it is added, that " the custom commenced from apostolical times, as the blessed Irenaeus, martyr, and bishop of Lyons, suys." > 1 Aia TI ev rats Kvptcucuis ^epais, KCU OTTO rov iratTxa f yaw ov KXivovaiv ol evxopevoi ; irodtv 5f KCU ij roiaurTj tv rais ewArjo-itus ft avotrroXiKiav xpovwv rj roiaurij o-WTjfleia eAae rijv afXW KaOtos (prifftv 6 fj.aica.pios Etprjvaios o paprvs /cat fwiaKOiros hovytiowou. Quaest. 115. Inter Op. Just. Mart. ed. Ben. pp. 489, .00. 422 PATRISTICAI. TRADITION Now let us hear Tertullian ; " We account it a crime to kneel at prayer on a Sunday." 1 Lastly, we have the determination of the great Council of Nice ; " Since there are some who kneel on the Sun- day and at Whitsuntide, in order that all things may be observed alike in every diocese, the Holy Synod decrees that they shall offer their prayers to God standing." 2 Can our opponents get better testimony in the Fathers to the apostolicity and the importance of any custom of the primitive church than we have here ? But the Ro- manists themselves have wholly rejected this custom. (5) The threefold immersion in baptism, which is wit- nessed to by Tertullian, 3 Jerome, 4 Cyril of Jerusalem, 5 Ambrose, 6 and writings passing under the names of Dio- nysius Areopagita, 7 Athanasius, 8 Augustine, 9 and Basil. 10 (6) Infant communion, or the giving of the eucharist to infants. On this point I need only refer to the learned work of Mr. Bingham on the antiquities of the Christian church, who has fully given the authorities on this subject, and whose opinion is, that " it is beyond dispute " that this was the practice of the church for many ages, and esteemed to be necessary by divine command ; u and even the Romanist Maldonat, in the face of an opposite deci- sion of the Council of Trent, " asserts roundly that the 1 Die Dominico jejuuium nefas ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare. Tertull. DC Cor. Mil. c. 3. p. 102. ed. 1664. 2 EirfiSri rivfs eiffiv ec rrj Kvpiaxr) jovv K\ivovres, Kai fv rats TTJS irevrri- KOffrrjs ijpfpais, \nrep rov Travra tv Tratrr/ -rrapoiKia 6/j.oiws (j)v\aTTfff6ui, effrcaras 5o|e rr) ayia awoSta ras ei/xas airoSiStwai rca &eta. Can. xx. Justell. Cod. torn, i. p. 34. De Cor. Mil. c. 3. p. 102. Adv. Lucifer. 8. Op. torn. ii. col. 180. cd. Vail. Venet. Cat. Mystag. ii. p. 286. ed. Milles. De Sacram. lib. ii. c. 7. De cedes, hierarch. c. 2. Quaest. in Psalm, q. 92. tom.ii. p. 327. Senn. 40. In App. (al. De temp. 201.) torn. v. App. col. 79. 10 De Spir. Sanct. c. 27. torn. iii. p. 55. 11 Bk. xv. c. 4. 7. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 423 antients, and particularly St. Austin and Pope Innocent, did believe that infants could not be saved without par- taking of the eucharist," and that this was the practice of the church for the first six centuries. 1 And hence Bishop Stillingfleet, after noticing the points which had been adduced by his Romish antagonist, as instances of cases in which we depend upon " tradi- tion" for the knowledge of them, and which, I need hardly say, are most of them the same that are relied upon by our opponents, as infant baptism, the observance of the Lord's Day, &c., which the bishop shows are suffi- ciently deducible from Scripture, adds, " But methinks an author who would seem so much versed in Augustine, might, among all these instances, have found out one more, which would have looked more like a doctrinal tradition than most of these, which is the necessity of the eucharist to baptized infants. The places are so many and so express in him concerning it, that it would be a needless task to produce them. I shall only, therefore, refer you to your Espencaeus (De Eucharist, ad Orat. 1. ii. c. 12.) who hath made some collection of them. When you have viewed them, I pray bethink yourself of some convenient answer to them, which either must be by asserting that S. Augustine might be deceived in judging of doctrinal and apostolical traditions, and then to what purpose are your eight instances out of him ? or else that might be accounted an apostolical tradition in one age which may not in another . . . which leaves us in a greater dispute than ever what these apostolical traditions 1 BINGHAM'S Antiq. ib. See also ZORNU Historia Eucharist, infant, c. xi. 3. et passim. MORTON'S Cath. App. ii. 25. 10. p. 325. DALL. De usu Patr. i. 8. WHITBY Dissert, de S. S. interpret, sec. Patr. pp. 212, &s. in Job. vi. 53. WATERLAND has attempted to show that Augustine could not have considered it absolutely necessary, but seems to me only to prove that some other passages of his works appear somewhat inconsistent with such a notion, which, however, cannot outweigh his clear statements on this subject. (See Waterland's Works, vol. ix. pp. 473, &s.) See Daille and Zornius, c. 12. 2. 424 PATRISTICAL TRADITIOX are, when the church in several ages doth so much differ concerning them." 1 Now with respect to all those points we have men- tioned, I would ask any impartial reader whether the tes- timonies we have quoted are not at least as good evidence of patristical consent for them as the Tractators are accus- tomed to rely upon, and as can practically be obtained for any doctrine, interpretation, or practice. Again, then, I ask our opponents, Do they hold that we must receive them ? Will they affirm that these are part of the " precious Apostolical relics ? " If not, how are we to find such relics ? But if it be said that these are not vital points, and therefore that even consent of Fathers is not sufficient to establish anything respecting them, then let it be clearly understood that consent of Fathers is only a valid proof of Apostolical tradition in matters of vital moment and fundamental importance, which will cut off a large num- ber of Mr. Keble's " precious apostolical relics," espe- cially the new ones to which he has alluded, when he intimates that he may be " so happy as to find more " than those hitherto brought to light. And if it must be first determined whether a point is of fundamental importance or not, before we can trust even the testimony of a whole host of Fathers, then how is this to be known but by Scripture telling us that this or that doctrine is necessary, and so informing us of the very point in question ; for I suppose it can hardly be left to the Fathers to determine what is and is not necessary and fun- damental, or at any rate if it is, I know not where we are to find their decision upon the point ; and if our opponents refer us to the formulae they have given as " the Creed," or " Rule of Faith," as containing the complete list of fun- damentals, then (not to repeat the objections we have already urged against such a notion 2 ) we get from the earliest Fathers a list of fundamentals, comprising less 1 Rational Account, &c. pp. 166, 7. 2 See pp. 148 et seq. above. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 425 than is contained in " the Apostles' creed ; " and more- over, the assurance that all the points thus enumerated are clearly and plainly laid down in Scripture. And if we seek to get beyond even the LETTER of this brief elementary summary of the faith, we shall find the Fa- thers all at variance on the highest points. There is one more remark, also, which I would make upon the reply (if offered) that catholic consent is not, in such points as these, a sufficient proof of Apostolical tra- dition ; which is this, that this admission annihilates the best, if not the only ground, upon which such consent is put forward as a proof of Apostolical tradition in any case, viz., that such consent proves a common origin for the doctrine so delivered, and that it was derived from a quarter to which the whole church looked up for instruc- tion. It is said, how can we account for such consent, but by supposing that the doctrine was originally deli- vered by those from whom the whole church learnt the faith ? This argument, then, is as valid for the points we have just been considering, as for the highest points of faith. If " consent," as it is called, proves derivation from the Apostles in one case, so does it in the other ; and though the points are of very different, importance, yet if they are both the subjects of " revelation," they have an equal claim to our belief, as the Word of God. It is, therefore, justly remarked by Bishop Taylor, " It is not excuse enough to say that singly the Fathers may err, but if they concur, they are certain testimony ; for there is no question this day disputed by persons that are willing to be tried by the Fathers, so generally at- tested on either side, as some points are, which both sides dislike severally or conjunctly; and therefore it is not honest for either side to press the authority of the Fathers as a concluding argument in matter of dispute ; unless themselves will be content to submit in all things to the testimony of an equal number of them, which I am certain neither side will do." 1 1 Lib. ofProph.8. 426 PATRISTICAL TRADITION SECT. IX. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS POUNDED UPON SUPPOSITIONS WHICH ARE CONTRADICTED BY FACTS. The system of our opponents rests upon two hypo- theses ; First, That there was a steady permanent suc- cessional delivery, from one to another, for several ages, throughout the whole catholic church, of all the important doctrines of Christianity, derived from the oral teaching of the Apostles, and in which the teaching of all in com- munion with that church agreed; Secondly, that the whole catholic church was so united together as one body, and discipline so rigidly enforced throughout it, that no parts or individuals belonging to it could publicly maintain any errors of importance, without being excommunicated, or at least censured, by the church, and so as that such censure must have come down to us. These two propositions are tacitly assumed by our op- ponents, and are, in fact, the foundation upon which their system rests; but both of them will be found, upon inves- tigation, to be contrary to facts. They are the Trpwra -&evdr], the primary false principles upon which their arguments are founded. In reply to them, I shall endeavour to show, First, That from the very beginning there were many heresies, errors, and false doctrines prevalent among the professed followers of Christ ; and secondly, that such errors were maintained and propagated among those who formed what was called the catholic church. Our Lord has aptly compared his nominal church to a field in which tares and wheat grow together ; and such, he tells us, will be its character, even to the end ; for he forbids his angels to separate them, lest they might inadvertently or by mistake root out or injure the wheat. Both are to grow together until the harvest. Such, then, is the state of the nominal Christian church. It contains within it tares sown by Satan, intermingled with the NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 427 wheat, the produce of the good seed, who are alone in reality the children of the kingdom. And I suppose it will readily be admitted, that the tares represent as much those that maintain false doctrine, as those that are in- volved in corrupt practice. But was it so, it may be asked, from the beginning? Was there not a time when the church contained wheat only ? The Apostolical Scriptures clearly prove that, even when they were being written, the tares were already mingled with the wheat ; the tares not merely of orthodox but inconsistent professors, but also of men altogether un- sound in the faith ; and that, too, among the professed teachers of the faith. There were, from the very first, "false Apostles," (2 Cor. xi. 13.) ; there were those that preached " another gospel," and " perverted the gospel of Christ ;" and so successfully, as to draw over the Galatians to their doc- trines, (Gal. i. 6, 7.) ; there were " false brethren, unawares brought in," (Gal. ii. 4.) ; there were some who " preached Christ, of envy and strife ;" whose doctrine, therefore, as derived from anything but divine teaching, would vary with the prejudices of the preacher (Phil. i. 15.); there were even among the brethren " enemies of the cross of Christ.'' (Phil. iii. 18.) Still more, there were those whose teaching was calculated to " spoil" Christians, " through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Col. ii. 8.) There were those who would forge letters in the name of an Apostle, to promote their views. (2 Thess. ii. 2.) In fact, " the mystery of iniquity" was " already working." (2 Thess. ii. 7.) " Some, having swerved, had turned aside unto vain jangling, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they said, nor whereof they affirmed." (1 Tim. i. 6, 7.) There were those who, " concerning faith, had made shipwreck," and "blasphemed." (1 Tim. i. 19, 20.) There were those that addicted themselves to " profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called," and had, conse- 428 PATRISTICAL TRADITION quently, " erred concerning the faith." (1 Tim. vi. 20, 21. See also vv. 4, 5.) There were those that taught that the resurrection was then already past. (2 Tim. ii. 18.) There were " many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers," who " subverted whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake." (Tit. i. 10, 11.) There were those who, when they " ought to have been teachers, had need that one should teach them again which were the first principles of the oracles of God." (Heb. v. 12.) There were " unlearned and unstable" persons, who wrested the Scriptures unto their own destruction. (2 Pet. iii. 16.) There were already "many false prophets gone out into the world," and the people were to " try the spirits whether they were of God;" for which St. John gave them not a direction to follow the catholic church or catholic consent, or submit themselves to certain earthly guides but a doctrinal test. (1 John iv. 2; and see 2 John 710.) Such was the condition of the church, even in the Apostolical times ; and the warnings given on this point with respect to the future are clear and decisive. " I know this," says St. Paul to the elders of Ephesus, " that after my departing, shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away dis- ciples after them." (Acts xx. 30.) " There were false pro- phets also among the people" [of the Jews], says St. Peter, " even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways, by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of." (2 Pet. ii. 1,2.) That these prophetic announcements, moreover, were fully accomplished, even in the next generation after the Apostles, we have very decisive evidence. Thus we are told by Eusebius, that Ignatius, when on his way to Rome to suffer martyrdom, (where he was put NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 429 to death about the year 116,) admonished the churches of Asia, as he passed through, " to take especial heed of the heresies that were then first springing up and increasing." 1 So Papias, who flourished in the year 110, intimates that there were those in his time who delivered strange and spurious precepts. 2 Again, Hegesippus, who flourished about the year 170, and is said by Eusebius to have been in the first succes- sion after the Apostles, 3 arid by Jerome to have bordered on the Apostles' times, 4 tells us (according to Eusebius) that until the time of Trajan 5 the church remained a pure and uncorrupt virgin, those that endeavoured to corrupt the wholesome doctrine of the gospel of salvation, if there were any, remaining till then concealed ; but when the sacred company of the Apostles were in different ways extinct, and the generation of those who had been thought worthy to hear the words of divine wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then the conspiracy of impious error took its rise through the deceit of false teachers, who, inasmuch as not one of the Apostles was left, openly and confidently attempted to inculcate their miscalled knowledge in opposition to the preaching of the truth. 6 1 EJ/ irfxarois nakiff-ra irporpv\a,TTeff6ai ras atpeffets, aprt rare irptarov avatpv- furas Kai rj7roAafbii> yevop-tvos Sia5oxi?s. ID. ib. ii. 23. 4 Vicinus Apostolicorum temporum. De Script, c. 22. 5 Dr. Routh thinks that the words of Hegesippus refer to even an earlier period than the times of Trajan. See his Reliq. SS. Patr. vol. i. pp. 233, 4. 6 For this passage we are indebted to Eusebius, who speaking of Hegesippus says, 'O O.VTOS avrip Sirijo^fj-et'os ra KUTO, rous SijAou/iepoi/s, firi\eyti' &s apa. fttxpt TUV rore \povwv irapOevos Kadapa KO.I aSta rj EitK\r)ffia, tv aSTjAco TTOV ffKorei iJ.fviav, TriviKavra, TTJS aQtou irAtu^js TT)V apx-riv eAojU/Swej/ ^ ffvaracris, Sia rr)s ruv frepoSiSoffKa\u>' uirarris^ol Kttl 076 /XljSfcWS Tl T01V ATTOOTOAWI' \fl1TOp.fVOll, yvp.vtl \OIWOV T/5?) T7J Kp OAJ, Ti> TOV per i/ofMV KM TOVS icpotyvTM TO jurjSej/ Tjyovnevwv, KO.I IS fvayye\iots eirfffQcu irapeinow, KCU ras riav airoffTo\av- DioNYs. COR. in Eu;>EB. Hist. Eecles. vii. 24. 2 Tuv irapa, ro cwcpijSes, us fixos, Kparowruv, Tt\v KU.& air\on]Ta Kat iSiWTMr/toc ffvvnOfiav eis ro pfTfirfira, ireiron\KOTo>v. IREN. Ep. ad Victor, in EUSKB. Hist. Eecles. v. 24. 3 Eos autem qui Rom sunt non ea in omnibus observare, quse sint ab engine tradita, et frustra Apostolorum auctoritatem pratendere, scire quis etiam inde potest quod circa celebrandos dies paschse, et circa multa alia divinae rei sacra- menta, videat ease apud illos aliquas diversitates, nee observari illic ouini;i auqualiter quse Hierosolymis observantur. FIRMIL. Ep. ad. Cypr. Inter CvpR/Ep. 75. VOL. I. F P 434 PATRTSTICAL TRADITION novations were widely spread, (and if they were cor- ruptions suitable to the times or the bias of human nature, they were sure to spread quickly,) then the remains of purer doctrine or practice were proportionably condemned, and as far as possible extirpated. It needs no great acquaintance with history or human nature to see how easily such corruptions might spread in the church. To inquire at large into the causes leading to such cor- ruptions would here be out of place, where we are prin- cipally concerned with facts. But we may just observe that there were many such. One of the most fruitful sources of such corruptions was the philosophizing spirit of learned heathen converts, who looked upon the simple truths of divine revelation as they would upon the oracles of Pythagoras, of that which was plain making mysteries suitable to their own imaginations, and, resolving that to them there should be no mysteries, boldly declaring the meaning of everything really mysterious or but partially revealed. Another was a love in many for those oral reports of Apostolical tradition which in the earliest age of the church were of course abundant. Instances of erroneous notions which thus became prevalent have already been given in a former part of this chapter. Another was the influence of individuals who, from their eloquence or any other cause, became celebrated through- out the church. Who can calculate the mischief which must have been caused in the church by the wild and unorthodox notions of Origen, who in his time was looked up to as a prodigy throughout the church? The early church,accustomed to look up to the Apostles for guidance, seems afterwards to have been too much inclined to allow eminent individuals to take their place and to follow human guidance. Such indeed is the natural disposition of men in general. They want a leader, a great name, under which to enlist themselves. One is of Paul, another of Apollos, another of Cephas. Hence the almost incredi- ble effect which may be produced by one or two able, zea- lous, and influential individuals, nay even by one, witness NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 435 Augustine ; a truth to which Mr. Keble himself has borne testimony ; l and to such influences the early church was of course much more exposed than we are at this day. And one great cause of this, as far as doctrine is concerned, is that men are not satisfied with what is delivered in the Scriptures. However clear and plain the Word of God may be in all vital points, it is not sufficiently full and distinct in its revelations to satisfy the curiosity of man ; and hence in all ages men have been anxious to be wise above what is written, the fruitful source of most of the heresies with which the church of Christ has been afflicted. The authorities above cited, then, show that from the very beginning errors of various kinds gradually crept into the church, and that complaints of such corruptions are to be found in the earliest records of the primitive church we possess. True, such corruptions cannot reasonably be supposed to have been universally received throughout the church but nevertheless we know that their effects were in some cases widely felt, and they cannot but operate in all im- partial and judicious minds to the prejudice of what comes to us on the authority of a few individuals. It is both unfair and unwise to demand assent to such testimony as a certain and infallible record of the faith of the whole catholic church and the oral teaching of the Apostles. And were we to pursue the inquiry further, so as to include the fourth and fifth centuries, we should find the progress of error still greater, and more fatal in its effects. So far are those centuries from presenting to us, as the Tractators have intimated, a perfect model of the Chris- tian church, that during them the church was given up as a body to one of the worst heresies by which it has yet been afflicted, namely, Arianism : 2 contradicting herself 1 Pref. to Hooker, p. liv. 2 See Hieron. adv. Lucifer. ; Liberii Epist. ad Ursac. Valent. et Germ, in Oper. Hilarii Pict. Fragm. 6. col. 1338, 9, et Ep, ad Vincent, ibid. col. UMO ; Gregor. Nazianz. orat. 21 ; Vine. Lir. c. (>. F F2 4:56 ATR1STICAI. TRADITION on this point, in the two most General Councils we read of in ecclesiastical history ; l to say nothing of those nu- merous other heresies by which so many of her members were misled ; and even those that remained orthodox, are found countenancing divers errors, far removed from the spirit of the gospel ; as, for instance, the lawfulness of persecution, and the forced celibacy of the clergy. It forms, indeed, one of the strongest arguments against the peculiarities of the Romish system, that they are almost all, if not all, doctrines so new and corrupt, that not even among the incorrect and unorthodox statements to be found scattered among the works of the Fathers, or the errors which began to pervade the whole church in the fourth and fifth centuries, can they find any substan- tial evidence in their favour. 2 And this leads me to the second point, viz , to show more distinctly, Secondly, That such errors were from the beginning maintained and propagated among those who formed what was called the catholic church. The notion that what was called " the catholic church" was always so united together as one body, and discipline so rigidly enforced throughout it, that no communities or individuals belonging to it, could publicly maintain any errors of importance, without being excommunicated, or at least censured, by a judgment of the whole church, and so as that such censure must have come down to us, is one altogether contradicted by facts. We may find a proof of this, even in the Apostolical churches mentioned in Scripture. Thus St. Jude, in his Catholic Epistle, warns the churches, that there were " certain men crept in unawares ;" " ungodly men, turn- ing the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ," that were " spots in their feasts of charity, when they feasted with them;" words which show that they were in the corn- 1 See p. 190, 191, and 351, 352, above. 2 Sec Jewell's famous challenge to the Romanists, in his sermon. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 437 munion of the churches, (Jude vv. 4, 12 ) Again ; in the church of Pergaraos, there were those that held the doc- trine of Balaam, and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, (Rev. ii. 14, 15.); in the church of Thyatira, whose " works, and charity, and service, and faith, and patience" are praised, the false prophetess, Jezebel, was suffered to teach, and to seduce the servants of God. (Rev. ii. 19, 20, 24.) Sardis, though enjoying the same " name and pre- tensions to spiritual life" as the others, as an Apostolical church, was, as a church, dead; and had but " a few" faithful servants of God. (Rev. iii. 1, 4.) Laodicea, an Apostolical church in name, like all the rest, was altogether corrupt, spiritually "poor, and blind, and naked. (Rev. iii. 14 18.) Once more ; over the church in which Gaius was, to whom St. John addressed his third Epistle, presided Dio- trephes; and of him and his conduct, the Apostle says, " I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not . . . and not content therewith, neither doth he himself re- ceive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church" (3 John 9, 10.) Now suppose a man who had never enjoyed the benefit of personal converse with the Apostles, endeavouring, some fifty years only after their death, to ascertain the orthodox doctrine, by the testimony of " the church." It will, of course, be admitted, as, indeed, it is a known fact, that the heretics generally pleaded as much for their doctrine being Apostolical, as the orthodox did. The pas- sages above quoted, indee 1, would alone prove that they endeavoured to shelter themselves under the authority of the Apostles. And by this time such churches as Sardis, Laodicea, and that over which Diotrepb.es presided, spiri- tually alive in name, and spiritually dead in fact, would naturally have increased ; for here are three specifically pointed out to us in the Scriptures that became so, even under the very eye and superintendence of the Apostles. Now, 1 beg to ask, how is the enquirer to determine which are the Laodicean, and which the orthodox churches? For 438 PATRISTICAL TRADITION mark, here is an end at once to the notion of there being catholic consent in all important points in all the Aposto- lical churches. There has evidently been no such thing, even from a period previous to the death of the Apostles. What, then, would have been his best and only sufficient test to judge by, in the absence of the only inspired teachers of the faith ? Would he not naturally say, Have the Apostles left any written record of the faith behind them ? Yes, would be the reply, Here is a large and full record of the faith, acknowledged, with hardly an excep- tion worth naming, as authoritative, on all sides. What will a wise man, individually responsible to God for em- bracing the true faith, do under such circumstances? Will he not take those Scriptures into his hands, and by a dili- gent perusal of them, united with prayer for the promised guidance of that Divine Spirit that indited them, judge by them what is the true faith, and which the true followers of Christ? As time passed on, such a course would be still more necessary ; for as we see, from the passages already ad- duced under the former head, the supporters of false doc- trine within the catholic church progressed with the ad- vance of time in boldness and in numbers. " I wish," says Origen, " that those only who are without the church were deceived ; it would be easy to avoid the seduction. But now they who profess to belong to the church are deceived and misled, even on the necessary points, as their dissension is a witness ; since even those who are within the church are misled." * Nay, we require, surely, no further testimony than the passages adduced from Origen himself and others, in a former part of this chapter, to show that errors on the most important points might be openly taught and pro- mulgated by those who were all their lives in the commu- nion of the catholic church, and were even followed, ad- mired, and honoured members of it ; of which Origen is a most remarkable and undeniable instance ; whose writings 1 See p. 432 above. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 439 were not condemned by the church till long after his death. Were it necessary, we might point out many other in- stances of erroneous statements on important points in the works of Fathers who died in the communion of the church, and altogether free, as far as we know, from ec- clesiastical censure ; but the task is both ungrateful and unnecessary. The fact that there are such statements, is undeniable. The Fathers, therefore, may have erred on vital points, while, nevertheless, they remained in the communion of the church ; and were not, as far as we know, publicly censured for want of orthodoxy. From whatever cause this might be, whether from their hap- pening to be screened by circumstances, or from the ele- vated position they held in the church, or from the lack of any constituted authority to take cognizance of the matter, or from their condemnation not having come down to us, the fact is indisputable. Now this appears to me to be fatal to the system of our opponents ; for it is a necessary hypothesis for the sup- port of their scheme, that had there been unorthodox notions in the writings of any Fathers in the communion of the catholic church, there would have been a condem- nation of them by the church remaining to us. For this is the only reason for limiting ourselves to those of the catholic church, namely, the supposition that in their pro- fessed union with that church, we have a check against their being supporters of error, under the idea that the church would have rejected them, or condemned their errors, had they delivered unorthodox doctrine ; and such a check, to a certain extent, we no doubt have ; but, as might be expected, it is an insufficient one. To such instances of error in the Fathers, however, our opponents immediately reply with an answer, which, to those who are willing to be deceived by fine words, looks very plausible; namely, that they " have no weight at all, one way or other, in the argument from catholic tradition" (Newman, p. 66.) Which would be very true, if we had 440 PATRISTICAL TRADITION really catholic testimony for our " catholic tradition ;" but when we are sent to some half a dozen or dozen authors as the ground for claiming " catholic tradition," then the erroneous statements of individuals of great name are comparatively of great weight in the account, and seem to me to afford a strong argument that there was no catholic tradition in such matters, none, that is, that pervaded and was received generally throughout the whole catholic church. Here, however, I would observe, that I do not notice these errors (as some have done) as if they lessened the authority of " catholic consent," even supposing it to ex- ist on any point ; for, on the contrary, they would appear to me rather to strengthen it ; for patristical consent, un- der such circumstances, would be a still stronger evidence of the truth of what the Fathers did give a consentient testimony to, than if they had been more free from such imperfections. But they incontrovertibly show that there was not that consent in the catholic church, on all the important doctrines of the faith, which our opponents maintain there was, and the supposition of which is es- sential to their system. The errors that we have shown to have been openly maintained by those who were in the communion of the church, without, as far as we know, their incurring ecclesiastical censure, clearly prove that the catholic church was not that exclusively orthodox and united body our opponents suppose it to have been, and that it is vain to look for " catholic consent." Moreover, where is our " catholic tradition " for any point, even in the authors that remain to us, for erroneous statements are to be found in one or other of them upon almost all points ? How, indeed, was it to be expected that a vast number of distinct and independent communities far distant from one another, having no common tribunal or court of appeal, and maintaining but an occasional, and precarious, and slight communion with each other by the epistolary intercourse of their prelates, should remain for two or NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 441 three centuries precisely of one mind in all the important points of the faith ; and still more, all the teachers of all those various communities? Were there none to follow the example of Sardis and Laodicea? And when corrup- tions had been introduced, where was the tribunal com- petent infallibly to decide which had retained, and which had corrupted, the true faith ? Where for instance was the tribunal competent to cut off the churches of Sardis, or Laodicea, or others similarly corrupted, from the catholic church, or that ever attempted to make such a separa- tion ? As far as appears, there was nothing of the kind ever set up in the primitive church. Nay, let us once again advert to the case of our own church, and I would ask whether even here, with that full and explicit confession of faith to be found in her articles, the writings and teaching of all those who have died in her communion without any public censure, have been in all cases strictly orthodox even in fundamental points. It would be invidious to allude to individuals. I will therefore leave the inquiry in this general form. But can there be a doubt as to the answer which must be given in this or any similar case of a regularly constituted church having a public confession of faith by which all her members profess to abide? How much less, then, could consent be expected where there was no such con- fession of faith ? The fact is, as any one who will take the trouble im- partially to study the works of the Fathers themselves, will at once see, there is the greatest possible diversity of sentiment among them even on the highest points, as in the former part of this chapter we have attempted to prove. SECTION X. REPLY TO OBJECTIONS, AND CONCLUDING REMARKS. I now proceed, in the last place, to reply to the objec- tions that have been urged against the views we advocate. 442 PATRISTICAL TRADITION One of these has been already disposed of in the former part of this chapter. It has been objected that the posi- tion we maintain is just that of all the antieut heretics, who always declined the testimony of tradition. I have already abundantly shown l that this is altogether a mistake, and that the heretics were in the habit of ap- pealing to the testimonies of preceding Fathers, and call- ing their doctrines the doctrines of the catholic church, as much as the orthodox. But it may be said, If Scripture is our only divine informant, then if there nad been no Scriptures we should have had no divine informant. But would it not have been the duty of men to believe the traditionary notices of religion they would have possessed, and may not therefore what comes to us now under the name of " tradition" have a claim upon our belief? I reply, that God has not so left us, and therefore we cannot reason upon such a supposition, because the only ground for supposing that it would nave been necessary to consider those traditionary notices a divine informant, arises from the hypothesis that otherwise there would have been no divine informant. Now it may be that God has given us the Scripture for the very reason, that with- out it tradition would not have preserved the truth and been a divine informant. It is further objected, 2 however, That for more than two thousand years from the crea- tion men were actually left to " tradition." A more unfortunate argument never was urged, for, in the first place, the example shows how utterly insufficient such a mode of transmitting truth is, when it failed even to perpetuate the knowledge of the one true God, the whole world having soon lapsed into polytheism and idolatry ; and the few cases of true believers that are left See Sect. 7 above. Newman, p. 330. Bellarm. De Verb. Dei, iv. 4. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 443 on record, being such as were favoured with some pecu- liar and extraordinary divine manifestations. Moreover, if " tradition " was sufficient, why was the law given through Moses so carefully written ? Nor were men left previously to depend upon such a broken reed as " tradition." They had conscience and the light of nature to direct them ; insufficient guides doubtless to lead men to the knowledge of more than a few of the most elementary principles of religion, but nevertheless, all for the possession of which they are called to account in Scripture; for when the Apostle rebukes the heathen world for their iniquities, he does so, not because they disregarded " tradition," but because God's eternal power and Godhead may be clearly seen and understood from the works of creation, (Rom. i. 19, 20,) and he intimates that the Gentiles may " do by na- ture the things contained in the law," and be " a law unto themselves,'" and "show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another." (Rom. ii. 14, 15.) And thus the Fathers themselves tell us, that before the writing of the law, the bulk of mankind were left to the light of nature. Thus Justin Martyr says that those among the heathen, such as Socrates and Heraclitus, who lived according to the dictates of reason, were Christians, though they might be reckoned atheists ; l of the orthodoxy of which passage (as of others quoted below} I say nothing, but it shows his view on the point now in question. Thus also Irenseus identifies the decalogue with " those natural precepts which God from the beginning implanted in the hearts of men." ~ 'Ot jusra Aoyou uo o'tov tv fj.ev Sco/cparTjs /cat HpaK\firos /cat ol 6/iowt avrois. Apol. '1. 46. p. 71. ed. Bened. (ed. Col, Apol. 2. p. 83.) - Nam Deus primo quidem per naturalia praccpta, qiite alt initio injia-a 444 PATRISTICAL TRADITION And Clement of Alexandria tells us, that " before the coining of Christ philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness;" that " God is the cause -of all good things, of some immediately, as of the Old and New Tes- tament, of others mediately, as of philosophy. But per- haps it [i. e. philosophy] was then given by him to the Greeks immediately, before that the Lord had called the Greeks; for this, as a schoolmaster, led the Greeks to Christ, as the law did the Hebrews. Therefore philoso- phy prepares beforehand, and makes ready the way for him who is perfected by Christ." * Thus Tertullian says, that " before the law was written by Moses, the Fathers observed that which nature taught them," and that by this Noah and others were considered righteous. 2 Eusebius, that " before the written laws of Moses, many of the earlier Fathers were adorned with the virtue of piety, through the right use of their reason." 3 Theodoret, " that the Abrahamic race received the divine law, and enjoyed the blessing of prophecy, but the Governor of the universe led the other nations to piety through nature and creation" * dedit hominibus, admonens eos [i.e. Judseos,], id est, per Decalogum (quae si quis non fecerit, non habet salutem), nihil plus ab eis exquisivit. IKEN. Adv. bar. iv. 15. ed. Mass. c. 28. ed. Grab. 1 Hv pels ovv irpo rys TOV Kvptov irapovfftas fts oiKaioa-ui>r)i> EAA.T/OW nvay- Kata (pi\oo~o(pia .... iravrcav fifv yap atnos ruv Ka\wv b &eos' u\\a rwv fj.ev, Kara irpo^yov^vov, &s rys re SioOrjKrjs TTJS iroXaios Kat TTJS yeas' ruv Se, Kar' eiraKo\ou6r)fia, &s TTJS s 6 VO/JLOS rovs Efipaiovs fts Xpurrov. Upoira - paffKfva^fi roivvv T\ (pi\offoia, TrpooSoirotovtra rov VJTO Xpiffrov rf\ftov/j,fvov. CLEM. ALBX. Strom, lib.i. p. 331. ed. Potter (al. p. 282.) * Ante legem Moysi scriptam, quse uaturaliter intelligebatur et a Patribus custodiebatur. Nam unde Noe Justus inventus, si non ilium naturalis legis justitia prsecedebat ? unde Abraham amicus Dei deputatus, si non de aequitate et justitia legis naturalis ? &c. Adv. Jud. c. 2. p. 184. ed. 1664. 3 IIpo r yap a&paiMatov yevos, KCU vofaov dfio>> e^f^aro, Kat Trpo(p^TtKr]s XKI\- NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 445 Now whatever may be thought of these passages in other respects, it is at least clear from them that their authors did not hold that those who preceded Moses were left to the guidance of " tradition" but to that of reason and conscience. The traditionary notices they might possess on the sub- ject of religion had not, as traditions, any definitive claim upon their belief. They were not binding upon the con- science, on the ground of their having been transmitted to them by their ancestors. The uncertainty of the mode of conveyance made it necessary for them to test those notices by some independent standard of judgment. And that standard was the light of nature and the works of creation. Look at the present state of the heathen world. There are evidently some remains of primitive tradition among them. But have they anything which can be called the word of God, any Divine rule of faith ? Are they bound to receive the traditionary notices of religion that have come down to them from their ancestors ? Or rather, are they not bound, strictly speaking, to exercise the light of their natural reason and conscience, and reject those tra- ditions, as opposed to the voice of conscience and the testimony of creation ? Such, also, had we been left to " tradition," would have been the case with us. There would have been a vast number of traditionary doctrines, some of them having their origin in Divine revelation, though perhaps much corrupted from their original purity, and the greater number probably having their origin altogether in the dreams of the human imagination, and all of them coming down to us clouded with the doubt and uncertainty inse- parable from the mode of conveyance by which they were transmitted ; and we should have been left to the guidance OfOffepeiav ruv bKwv b irpvravts. THEODORIT. Graec. affect, curat. Disput. 1. prope fin. Op. ed. Schulze,toin. iv. p. 725. 446 PATRISTICAL TRADITION of our natural reason and conscience, to find our way among them as well as we could. Now I need hardly remind the reader, that though the practical truths of Christianity are such as might be admitted to carry evidence with them of their divine origin, many of the doctrines of the Christian faith are not such as the natural reason and conscience would thus recognize as divine. We need very direct proof of their revelation to convince us of their truth. Such proof we cannot have in " tradition," and therefore it pleased God to commit them to writing, that we might have a sure testimony to the truth in all ages to the end of the world. In that which " tradition" delivers, the uncertainty of the mode of conveyance makes it necessary for reason to judge of the nature of the doctrine delivered. In that which Scripture delivers, our reason judges not of the doctrine delivered, but only of the grounds for believing Scripture to be the word of God ; and having ascertained Scripture to be the word of God, reason arid conscience have only to accept the revelation there made with an humble and implicit faith. We do not, then, think it necessary to deny, that " tra- dition " might hand down to us a report of some truths that have a divine origin ; but we maintain, that coming from such a source such truths have not in themselves a claim to our belief. They must be judged by reason and conscience, and in our case by the light of that which we know to be a divine revelation ; and whatever may be our individual feeling respecting them, never be laid down as part of the authoritative rule of faith for mankind in general. Nor is it any argument against this that some of the early Christians believed, upon the testimony of those who gave only an oral report of the gospel. For it will be allowed on all hands that such oral report could not in itself have any authoritative claim upon the faith of NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 447 the hearers. But it was generally accompanied in those times with some external signs, manifesting its divine nature, or otherwise it was still more effectually impressed upon the heart by the Spirit of God, through the ministrations of those who preached with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, rendering the more abundant testimony we possess to its divine origin un- necessary. Lastly, as our opponents think so much of the autho- rity of the Fathers, we may add that Chrysostom ex- pressly refers the knowledge of the truths of religion enjoyed by the patriarchs before Moses to the revelations made directly to them. " We ought not," he says, " to have needed the aid of writings, but to have lived so purely, that the grace of the Spirit might have supplied to our souls the place of books ; and as these are inscribed with ink, so our souls by the Spirit. But since we have driven away this grace, let us set sail afresh upon that second course of navigation that is open to us. For that the former was better, God hath manifested, both by what he hath said and by what he hath done. For to Noah and Abraham, and their descendants, and to Job and Moses, he did not speak through writings, but he himself addressed them, finding their mind to be pure. But when the whole nation of the Hebrews fell into the depth of iniquity, then it was necessary that there should be for the future writings and tables, and the remembrance of things be preserved through these. And this happened, we may observe, not only with the saints of the Old Testament, but also with those of the New. For God did not give any writing to the Apostles, but instead of writings he promised that he would give them the grace of the Spirit. For ' he,' saith he, ' shall bring all things to your remembrance.' .... But when, in process of time, they erred, some on account of doctrines, others in life and manners, [which shows how soon Chrysostom believed such errors to have 448 PATRISTICAL TRADITION prevailed] there was again need of writings to preserve a remembrance of the truth." 1 Theophylact, as usual, follows with precisely the same remark. Again, it is objected, That the promises of Christ ensure to the Church Catholic freedom from error in fundamental points, and therefore that in such points at least the testimony of that church must be equivalent to a divine informant. But, as we have already seen, 2 Mr. Newman himself admits that all the promises of Christ to the Church would be fulfilled by the existence of a succession of indi- viduals in the church holding the true faith. The pro- mises of Christ, therefore, ensure only the existence of a body of true worshippers in all ages. Now certainly the testimony of this select body might be considered a sure witness of the truth. But how are we to obtain it? To gather the suffrages of all Christians is an impossibility. To select those by whose judgment we will abide is to constitute ourselves the judges, and make any appeal to others a mere self-deception. On this point, however, we have already spoken in a former page. 3 1 E8i (i.fv 11/J.as jurj5e SfiffOai ri)S avo riav ypafj.fj.aruv jEJorjfleteW a\\' ovrca PIOV 7ropex 6c /cai rw A- Ppaafj. Kai rois yovots TOIS fKfivov, KCU rw IcojS, *cai rta Maivcrti $f ov ota ypafj./j.a- rtav Sif\fyfro, aAA' avros St' tatnov, Ka.6u.pav fvpunuav avr rt\v Siavoiav. EireiSij Sf fts avrov TTJS KOKIOS eveitftre rov irv0fj.eva uiras rtav E&pauav o STJ/MJS. avo.-yKu.iws \onrov ypafifnaru Kai ir\aKfs, KCU rj Sta rovrwv \nrofjnniais. Kaj rov- TO, OVK e-jri ruv ev ry ira\aia ayttiiv, a\\a Kai ri rtav fv n\ KM.VI\ ffvpftav 8oi TJS of. OvSf yap rots airoTI ypafj./j.arwv r-rjv rov Tlvfvfiaros iniyyfi\aro 5cao~ftv yupiv. Exewus yap i//j.as wa/wijcret, r]o-fs. Chrysostom. in Matth. horn. 1. mil. torn. vii. pp. 1,2. 3 See pp. 49 and 173, &c. above. J Ibid. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 449 Further, it is objected that " tradition " is like that unwritten law of custom, which is admitted by all states as binding. Mr. Newman, speaking of the theory of the Romanists on the subject of tradition (and the theory, as we have shown, both he himself and Dr. Pusey accept) observes, " By tradition they mean the whole system of faith and ordinances which they have received from the generation before them, and that generation again from the genera- tion before itself. And in this sense, undoubtedly, we all go by tradition in matters of the world ... At this very time, great part of the law of the laud is administered under the sanction of such a tradition ; it is not contained in any formal or authoritative code, it depends on custom or precedent .... When the Romanists say they adhere to tradition, they mean that they believe and act as Christians have always believed and acted ; they go by the custom, as judges and juries do." And this custom, " when traced back, has no beginning short of the Apostles of Christ, and is in consequence of divine, not of human authority, is true and intrinsically binding, as well as ex- pedient. If we ask, why it is that these professed tradi- tions were not reduced to writing, it is answered that the Christian doctrine, as it has proceeded from the mouth of the Apostles, is too varied and too minute in its details to allow of it . . . . If, again, it be objected that this notion of an unwritten transmission of the truth being supposed, there is nothing to show that the faith of to-day was the faith of yesterday, nothing to connect this age and the Apostolic, they maintain, on the contrary, that over and above the corroborative, though indirect, testimony of ecclesiastical writers, no error could have arisen in the church without its being protested against, and put down on this [? its] first appearance ; that from all parts of the church a cry would have been raised against the novelty, and a declaration put forth, as we know was the practice of the early church, denouncing it." * 1 Newman, pp. 38 tO. vni. T G G 450 PATRISTICAL TRADITION Thus does Mr. Newman countenance the delusive statements by which Rome has gained over so many to her communion, that would represent the catholic church as having always been a compact united body, keeping her communion free from the taint of heresy, and handing- down, from age to age, with scrupulous fidelity, a full and complete code of doctrine and rites, delivered to her by the Apostles, a representation as far as possible from the truth, and which it is difficult to conceive how any one that has looked with an impartial eye into the re- cords of the church can for a moment entertain. It is a notion which even the writings of the third century repudiate. Mr. Keble follows in the same path, and contends, that on principles exactly analogous to those on which certain customs are received as part of the common law, certain " church practices and rules" " ought, apart from all Scripture evidence, to be received as traditionary, or common laws ecclesiastical;" adding, that "they who contend that the very notion of such tradition is a mere dream and extravagance . . . 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." 1 The argument is, as usual, supplied by Bellarmine. 2 These remarks of Mr. Keble I must confess myself unable to understand ; for why it should follow that because I deny that we have sufficient evidence of any oral traditions of the Apostles, and consequently the binding nature of anything which may profess to be derived from them, therefore, to be consistent, I must deny the validity of the common law of this country, I cannot comprehend. I can only say, that when Mr. Keble has traced up any custom to the Apostles with the same certainty as would be required in tracing up a cus- J P. 33. 2 De verb. Dei, iv. 8. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 451 torn beyond the period of legal memory, to make it bind- ing in a court of common law, I shall be quite prepared to receive it as Apostolical. Be it observed, also, that this argument affects merely the customs, and not the doctrines of the church, not- withstanding Mr. Newman's attempt, in the extract given above, to make it include the latter as well as the former. But, after all, where is the similarity of the two cases, or what does the argument prove ? Customs that have prevailed for several centuries are received by most states as an unwritten law ; so that if a custom can be clearly traced up beyond a certain period, it is ordained that, however it may have arisen, it shall be considered binding. But as it respects the church, there is no tribunal or government authorized to enact such an ordinance ; and if there were, it is obvious that the two cases are wholly different, because the rites of the church are connected altogether with the worship of God, for the regulation of which, customs, casually or voluntarily introduced, are a most insufficient guide. Moreover, such rites only are binding upon the whole church, as were laid down for its observance by our Lord and his Apostles. True, it may be, and no doubt is, necessary for the church to have rules and customs beyond what are laid down in the Scriptures, and it is wise to innovate as little as possible in such matters; and the duty incumbent upon her members of observing such rules, as long as they are not inconsistent with the declarations of Scrip- ture or their duty to God, is not here disputed. But the question is, whether such rules and customs are to be enforced as having been ordained by the Apostles, for which the evidence we have for that professed apostolical sanction is wholly insufficient. Trace them to the Apostles with the same certainty that customs are traced beyond the period of legal memory before they are allowed to have the force of law, and we will at once admit them to have apostolical authority. c G 2 452 PATRISTJCAL TRADITION Lastly, a very favourite argument with our opponents, as with the Romanists, is, that as we are satisfied to take the hook of the Scriptures from the early church, so we cannot reasonably object to take the meaning of those Scriptures from her, for that if we can trust the Fa- thers in the one case, so can we in the other. There is a very true remark in one of the " Tracts," that " anything has been ventured and believed in the heat of controversy, and the ultimate appeal is to the common sense of mankind" (Tr. 85. p. 79.) To that " common sense " I leave the above argument. Let me, however, give an illustration of it. Mr. New- man, we will suppose, delivers a Treatise on Justifica- tion, rather obscurely penned, (for so must we suppose to preserve the similarity of the two cases in Mr. New- man's view of the matter,) to a brother clergyman, to whom also he delivers orally an explanation of its mean- ing. The book travelling through many hands, accom- panied in each transfer with an attempted repetition of the oral comment, comes at last into my hands, and the deliverer gives me also the oral comment. Now I shall get the book safe enough, but shall I be sure to get the explanation safe? If, in controverting the book, I should remark that this or that passage, though obscure as it stands in the book, certainly has such a meaning, because Mr. Newman in his oral comment, which came to me through only a dozen successive de- liveries, declared that such was its meaning, might not an opponent reasonably say, My friend, you ought not to be so positive in the matter, for recollect how liable an oral communication is to alteration in passing through so many hands, and would not the rebuke be a very just one? Nay, who knows not how liable a sermon or speech is to be misreported even in its first transit, so that we hold any man to be unjust who condemns an- other upon such evidence. And mark whither such a principle would lead us. We receive the books of the Old Testament from the NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 453 Jews. Therefore, according to this argument, we are bound to receive the meaning of them from the Jewri. Therefore we are bound to reject the New Testament and Christianity altogether. " We can never be assured," says our learned Henry Wharton (in his Preface to an old treatise by Bishop Pecock on " Scripture the rule of faith," .republished by him in the great Popish Controversy at the end of the 1 7th century,) " that any articles were invariably and entirely without any addition or diminution conveyed down to us by tradition ; since it hath been in all times and ages observed, that matters of fact, much more of belief, not immediately committed to writing presently degenerated into fables, and were corrupted by the cap- ricious malice or ignorance of men. Nothing can exempt the tradition of the Christian religion from this fate, at least from our reasonable suspicions of it, but the infal- libility of that society of men which conveys down this tradition. But the latter can never be known till this certainty of tradition be first cleared and presupposed, since the belief of this supposed infallibility must at last be resolved into the sole truth and certainty of tradition. In the next place, tradition cannot certainly and invari- ably propose the belief of Christianity to all private per- sons. For from whence shall this tradition be received ? From a Pope, or a Council, or both, or from none of these, but only the Universal Church? In every one of these cases infinite difficulties will occur, which will singly ap- pear insuperable. As, Who is a true Pope, What his intentions in defining were, Whether he acted cauoni- cally, In what sense he hath defined. What Councils, whether (Ecumenical, Patriarchal, or Provincial, may be securely trusted? What are the necessary conditions and qualifications of a general Council ? Whether all these con- ditions were ever observed in any Council ? What these Councils are, what they have defined, what is the true sense and intention of their definitions ? From whom must we learn the belief of the Universal Church, if Popes 454 PATRISTICAL TRADITION and Councils be rejected ? From all Christians, or only from the clergy ? If from the latter, whether the assent of every member of the clergy be required ? If not, how great a part may safely dissent from the rest ? From whom the opinion of the major part is to be received? Whether from the writings of doctors or the teaching of living pas- tors? If from the latter, whether it be sufficient to hear one or a few Parish Priests, or all, or at least the major number, are personally to be consulted? All these diffi- culties may be branched out into many more, and others no less insuperable be found out ; which will render the proposal of religion by way of tradition, if not utterly impracticable, at least infinitely unsafe. Thirdly, tradi- tion is so far from being independent on other articles of the Christian faith, that the belief of all other articles must be presupposed to it. For since all sects propose different traditions, and the truth of none of them is self-evident, it must first be known which is the true church before it can be determined which is the true tradition. Now, the knowledge of the true church can be obtained only two ways, either from the truth of her doctrines, or from the external notes of the true church. If the first way, then it must first be known what are the true and genuine doctrines of Christianity, the stedfast belief of which cause th this society to become the true church. But if the true church be known only from some external notes, these notes are either taught by Scripture, or found out by the light of reason. If taught by Scripture, then the knowledge of the Divine authority of Scripture is ante- cedent to the knowledge of the true church, and conse- quently independent on it. For otherwise Scripture will be believed for the authority of the church, and the church for the authority of Scripture ; which is a manifest circle. .... Lastly, if the notes of the church may be found out by natural reason, then to pass by the infinite con- tradictions which would arise from such a proposition, these notes can be no other than antiquity, universality, perpetuity, and such like ; every one of which doth some way NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 455 or other presuppose the hnowledge of the true doctrines of Christianity, as well as those of the present church. For the end of these notes is to compare the former with the latter, and consequently both of them must be first known." 1 Such is the testimony of one of our most learned divines. It would be easy to multiply such testimonies, and considering the confident claims made by our oppo- nents to the suffrage of all our great divines in their favour, and which have justly contributed more than any- thing else to the support of their cause, such testimonies are of considerable importance. But as a future chapter will be set apart for them, I will here only add one more, namely, that of Placette in his " Incurable scepticism of the Church of Rome," as translated and published by our learned Archbishop Tenison. I have already quoted more than once from this treatise, but there are some valuable remarks on the notion of grounding our faith on the " consent of doctors," of which I will here present the reader with the substance ; and in which, we may observe, he distinctly maintains that no such consent has been ob- tainable in any age of the Church. " That it cannot be learned from the consent of doctors what is to be believed," is clear, he says, " 1. Because it doth not appear who those doctors are. 2. Because those doctors whosoever they are do not always agree ... It doth not appear who are those doctors whose consent is required [that is, as he explains, whether they are bishops only or all the clergy] . . . But neither would that suffice, if it were of faith. Somewhat else would be yet necessary, viz. to know certainly whether to give assent to the doctrine of these pastors and doctors, whosoever they be, it be required that all should consent in their doctrine every one of them, which they call all mathema- tically ; or whether the consent of all morally, that is 1 Pref. to " A Treatise proving Scripture to be the rule of faith, writ by Reginald Peacock, Bishop of Chichester, before the Reformation, about the year 1450." Loud. 1688. 4to. 456 FATRISTICAL TRADITION almost all will suffice : again, who they are exactly that may be called all morally, and how great a part of the whole may dissent without prejudicing the infallibility of the rest, whether the third, or the fourth, or the tenth, or the hundredth, &c. who shall define this ? If all ma- thematically must consent, God would have appointed a rule which never existed ; for so absolute a consent never was among the governors of the church. But he which shall say, it sufficeth that almost all consent, ought not only to affirm but also to prove what he says. But how shall so obscure a thing be proved 1 or what certainty can be had in it ? Yet grant it can be had, it is still to be defined when almost all can be said to have consented ; for that hath a certain latitude wherein some men will think that number to be included which others hold excluded. But not to seem too scrupulous, let our adversaries de- fine this as they please, and almost all be accounted to have consented when only a tenth, twelfth, or twentieth part shall dissent. Let all this be as certain, as it is indeed doubtful and uncertain. I ask, whether that con- sent which it shall have pleased our adversaries to define necessary is always to be had ? If any one think so, he must be a stranger to all ecclesiastical history, and never have heard of the prevailing heresies of Arius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, not to mention others. But you will say, they were heretics, whereas we require only the consent of catholics. Right ; but it did not sensibly appear they were heretics ; rather that was then the question, who were heretics and who orthodox. For the Arians, Nestorians, and Eutychians took to themselves the name of catholics, and branded the rest with the imputation of heresy. Now if this question, which was certainly a matter of faith, was to be determined only from the consent of doctors, it could never have been determined to the world's end, since that consent was never to be found. But to deal liberally with our adversaries, have not those often dissented whom themselves acknowledge catholic ? In the second and third age the Asiatics dissented from the Europeans NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 457 about the celebration of Easter. In the third age, all the Africans, and many of the Asiatics, from the rest about the rebaptization of heretics. In the fourth age, the fol- lowers of Theophilus, Epiphanius, and St. Hierome from the favourers of Origen about his condemnation," &c. &c. " That the consent of doctors, even when it can be had, is more difficult to be known than that we can by the help of it attain to the knowledge of the truth. . . . This consent, if it could be had, is not so manifest and obvious as a rule of faith ought necessarily to be, which by the confession of all must be clear, evident, and easy to be applied. This Duvall assigns for ' an essential condition of a rule of faith,' and acknowledgeth that ' if a rule ob- scurely proposeth the mysteries of faith it would thereby become no rule.' And for this reason our adversaries so much exaggerate the obscurity of Scripture that they may thereby show it could not be given by God for a rule of faith. To which end Gr. a Valentia layeth down this axiom, which he afterwards applieth to the Scripture, ' The sentence of that authority which is to judge of all matters of faith ought to be manifest, that it may be easily understood by all the faithful. For if that authority doth not teach perspicuously and plainly, it will be of no use to that end.' So he, and with him many others. If, there- fore, I shall show that the consent of pastors about mat- ters of belief is so obscure and difficult to be known that even the most learned, much more illiterate, men cannot avoid error in searching it out, I shall thereby prove that it could not be given to us by God as a common rule of things to be believed. This obscurity and difficulty ariseth from three causes. The first is the amplitude of the church diffused throughout the whole world, which permits not the faith of all pastors to be known unless we travel through all those regions wherein they are dis- persed The second reason of the difficulty of knowing the common consent of other doctors, is the obscure knowledge which is in the church of some points concerning which no disputation hath been yet raised. 458 PATRISTICAL TRADITION For nothing is more true than that opinions are illus- trated by controversies We proceed to the third reason, which consisteth in this, That some opinions are often divulged in the church as revealed by God and ap- proved by the church and are everywhere taught, which at last are found out and known to be false," &c. " That it doth not suffice, it be known that anything is taught unanimously by the governors of the church, unless it ap- pear that it is taught to be of faith ; but that this is most uncertain . . . Not whatsoever they unanimously affirm is to be received as the revelation of God, and the doc- trine of the church, but only what they unanimously maintain to be of faith. This Canus and Bellarmine plainly insinuate .... Before we believe therefore the doctrine of the Governors of the church, we must consider how they teach it, whether as of faith ; if not, we must suspend our assent. Now bishops parsons and preachers are wont to teach what seems true to them and agreeing with divine revelation ; but very rarely to admonish whether what they teach be of faith or *a consequent of faith, whether expressly revealed or coherent to things revealed. This Holden acknowledged!, * We never heard,' saith he, ' that the church in delivering the Christian doctrine exhibited or composed a Catalogue of revealed articles and divine institutions, whereby those articles of divine faith might be separately and distinctly known from all others, which are either of ecclesiastical institution, or not immediately founded upon divine reve- lation, but taught all together confusedly and indistinctly! Hence even those divines who agree in the truth of any article often differ in judging whether it be of faith." 1 These remarks, though made with a more especial re- ference apparently to the particular age of the church in which the inquirer may live, are yet more forcible with regard to the system of our opponents, for the difficulties here mentioned as operating against the possibility of ob- taining consent of doctors are such as would be greater in 1 See cc. 20, 21, 22. NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 459 the latter than in the former case. And we may say the same for the remarks which follow these against the pos- sibility of finding any sure ground for our faith in the consent of the universal church, including clergy and laity, respecting which he proceeds to prove (as quoted in a former page) "that there is nothing whereon the faith of all private Christians can less rely ; 1 . Because it doth not appear what is that universal church whose faith is to be the rule of ours. 2. Because it is not known what is the faith of that church. 3. Because it is not manifest, whether the faith of any church assignable be true," 1 on each of which points he adds some valuable remarks which I would commend to the notice of the reader. 2 It is worth remarking that the scheme of our opponents has been a favourite notion with some of the irenical writers, who, feeling the want of some court of appeal by which the differences dividing the several parties of the Christian world from one another could be decided, have fancied like the Tractators that they could find such an arbitrator in the consent of the Fathers of the first few centuries. Such seems to have been the notion of the Ro- manist Cassander, who in his irenical exposition of the articles of the faith professes to have scrupulously followed that consent as his guide. 3 Such also was the view ex- pressly advocated by the Lutheran George Calixtus and others in the 17th century, who entertained the hope of thereby effecting a reconciliation between the Romanists and Protestants, and bringing the whole church to a state of peace and amity, 4 a consummation worthy of any labours and efforts for its accomplishment, but little likely to be brought about by such means, or indeed by any 1 See c. 24. 2 See cc. 2427. 3 See Cassandri Consultatio prope finem. 4 Eo devenerunt [i. e. G. Calixtus, Conr. Horneius et Christ. Dreierus] ut Scriptura; Sacrze consensum Ecclesise aut Patrum, praesertim quinque priortim saxmlorum adjungerent, contenderentque in rebus dubiis consensum ilium ceu veritatis regulam amplectendum, et quidquid isto consensu niteretur, hoc solum creclitu ad salutem ease necessarium, nee adeo Aiudamentales crrores ex- 460 PATR1STICAL TRADITION human means. But " consent of Fathers" is indeed a broken reed to depend upon for such a purpose. I conclude with one remark, viz., That my object in this chapter has not been to withdraw from the Fathers that respect that is due to many of them, but to show that the notion put forward by our opponents respecting their claim to our belief, as an authority binding upon the conscience, is utterly without foundation. In doing this, it has been impossible to avoid an exposure of their mis- takes and infirmities, which one would willingly have been spared the necessity of making. If a near and dear relative were to be set up by a party in the Christian church as an infallible expositor of the Divine word, having authority over the consciences of men, and a right to our implicit faith in his decisions, the nearness of the relationship would doubtless render the task of exposing the absurdity of such a notion, one which we could not undertake without considerable pain. Infinitely rather would we have had the task of commending his good qua- lities to others, and exhorting them to follow him, as he followed Christ. But are we, therefore, to acquiesce in the notion, and be parties to the delusion ? Very similarly circumstanced are we in the treatment of our present subject. Certain Fathers of the Christian church, viz., those whose writings remain to us, have been placed before us by a party in the church, as the in- fallible expositors of the Divine word and doctrine. Now, of such men it is painful to speak but with re- gard to those points in which we may justly respect and follow them. It is an ungrateful task to point out their infirmities and dissensions. But when their claims upon us are magnified to an extent to endanger the very foun- dation upon which our faith is built, however painful the probrari illis posse, qui cretlereut quae cum isto Patrum consensu convenirent. Hoc nimirum illud ipsum erat, quod Vincentium Lerinensem docuisse an tea observavimus, quern et ducem hie se sequi ipsimet profilebaniur. Budd. I sag. ad Thcolog. lib. ii. c. 3. vol. i. p. 511. See also Walch. Biblioth. vol. ii. pp. 498 && NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 461 task may be, it is one of which duty to the church re- quires the performance. It is the natural and inevitable consequence of their having been exalted by our oppo- nents to a seat of authority, which does not belong to them. As men of talent and piety, and connected with an early period of the Christian church, their statements are of considerable value, both from the character of their authors, and as witnesses of what was held by some portion of the primitive church in their day. As wit- nesses to facts coming under their own observation, their testimony is invaluable. But to set up their consent as a practically infallible reporter of the teaching and tra- ditions of the Apostles, is not only to give their witness an authority over our consciences to which it has not the shadow of a title, but is, in fact, to make an appeal to that which neither ever had any existence, nor, if it had, would be ascertainable by us. GROUNDS FOR BELIEF CHAPTER VI. ON THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE DOCTRINE RESTS THAT SCRIPTURE IS THE WORD OF GOD. IT is a remark continually in the mouth of our oppo- nents and the Romanists, that if we do not allow the claim they set up for patristical tradition, we take away the foundation upon which rests the doctrine that Scrip- ture is the Word of God ; for that upon the testimony of patristical tradition, rests altogether the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture. This, I hope to show, is very far from being the case ; and that however insufficient the testimony of the patris- tical tradition we possess may be, to be a certain witness of the oral teaching of the Apostles, or to be considered a divine informant, the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture stands unmoved, and on a firm foundation. This is the subject of ihejifth of the positions we have noticed above (pp. 37, 8) as embodying the doctrine of our opponents on the question we are discussing, and to it I think it desirable to direct the attention of the reader, before we proceed further. It will not, I hope, be denied that a saving belief in Scripture being the Word of God, must be the work of the Spirit of God upon the heart ; and that such a faith might be produced under that influence, even though the external evidence should be in itself weak and insuffi- THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 463 cient ; and that such a faith is of the highest and most perfect kind, including all and more than all, which can be produced by a faith wrought by the force of evidence alone ; and that any other faith, as long as it stands alone, is, in fact, useless. Here, however, I cannot but remark, that when our opponents are speaking on such subjects, there is a re- markable and lamentable lack of reference (to use the mildest phrase) to the necessity of this spiritual influence in the hearts of individuals to produce true Christian faith. For, as their favourite Archbishop Laud will tell them, it is "God's Spirit who alone works faith and belief of the Scriptures and their divine authority, as well as other articles ;" our assent to this truth is " by the operation of God's Spirit." " The credit of Scripture to be divine, re- solves, finally, into that faith which we have touching God himself, and in the same order. For as that, so this hath three main grounds, to which all other are redu- cible. The first is, the tradition of the church ; and this leads us to a reverend persuasion of it. The second is, the light of nature . . . The third is, the light of the text itself, in conversing wherewith we meet with the Spirit of God, inwardly inclining our hearts, and sealing the full assurance of the sufficiency of all three unto us. And then, and not before, we are certain, that the Scripture is the Word of God, both by divine, and by infallible proof;" * from which latter passage (and many similar and stronger occur in the context) we may see how far the Archbishop was from the sentiments of our opponents on the point which forms the subject of this chapter. True Christian faith, then, in Scripture being the Word of God, rests ultimately upon a testimony of a much better kind, than the witness of man can supply in any case. To the question, How shall we undoubtedly know the Scriptures to be the Word of God ? " I answer," says Dr. 1 Reply to Fisher, 16. sub fin. ed. 1686. p. 74. 464 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF Chaloner, " that we may know them to be so, partly by the light of the Word, that is, the divine notes and cha- racters therein imprinted, and partly by the enlightening and persuading grace of God's Spirit, enabling us to see, and moving us to believe what we see." l And he re- marks, " The former, (which is the word itself, and the notes thereof,) cannot be denied by an ingenuous Papist, to be there found ; for howsoever some of them, by a just judgment of God, for being injurious to the Scriptures, in branding them with obscurity, imperfection, Sfc., have been so blinded by the Prince of Darkness, that, (setting aside the judgment of the Church,) no reason to them hath ap- peared wherefore ./Esop's Fables should not as well as the Scriptures themselves be thought canonical, yet others, as Bellarmine, Greg, de Valentia, Gretser, &c., do knowledge these distinguishing notes to be in their kind argumen- tative, and to shine in them, as the excellency of the doc- trine, concord, efficacy, and the like, whereby may be ve- rified of the whole Book of God, what the officers sent by the Pharisees and Priests said of our Saviour, John vii. Never man spake like this man. Nor is the latter (which is the inward testimony of the Spirit) denied, by the learneder sort of Papists, to possess another chief place in the dis- c6very of the Scriptures. For although in popular air they seem to vent the contrary, yet when they are called to give a more sober account in writing, they utter the same in effect which we do." 2 Be the case, then, as it may in this respect, with that which patristical tradition delivers to us, Scripture at least has a testimony to the fact of its being a revelation from God, far higher and more influential than any human witness. Hence the conclusion of the Tractators, that because there is (as they suppose) as good testimony in the Fathers for the apostolicity of certain doctrines and rites, as for the apostolical origin of the Scriptures, therefore if we 1 Credo Sanct. Eccles. Cathol. ed. 1C38. p. 104. 2 Ib. pp 98100. THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 465 believe the latter, we must also believe the former, is altogether groundless and unwarrantable. For even supposing that the patristical testimony for the two should be equally strong (which we altogether deny) this is but one, and the least persuasive portion of the evi- dence for the divine origin of Scripture. The Fathers may bear equally strong testimony to two things, one of which is true, and the other false ; and of which, there- fore, the former only has the witness of the Spirit in its favour. And that more 'influential witness of the Spirit is, we may hope, enjoyed by every humble-minded enquirer after the truth ; for if they who are evil, as our blessed Lord reminds us, know how to give good gifts unto their children, how much more shall our heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him. Nor will it be any cause for scepticism to a mind thus taught, if it should even happen that the external evidence for the divine ori- gin of that Word which he venerates as the Word of God, is less strong than it might be. How, indeed, is a conviction of the divine origin of Scripture to be produced otherwise in thousands who are unable to investigate the external evidence ? To those who know not what that evidence is, or are unable to appreciate it, it cannot be a sufficient foundation for faith. And shall we deprive Christianity of its greatest glory, as being the Dispensation of the Spirit, and leave the poor and illiterate either to grope their way among the records of antiquity to find a foundation for their faith, or to pin their faith upon the affirmation of a few individuals, when Scripture offers such gracious promises of assistance to the sincere enquirer after the truth ? To make historical testimony the only ground for belief in this truth, is equivalent to admitting that nine-tenths of mankind have no sure foundation for their belief in it; for however valid that testimony may be, they neither know what it is, nor are able to appreciate its value. Thus much, then, we have felt it necessary to premise VOL. i. H H 4OO GROUNDS FOR BELIEF on a point, which, alas ! the Tractators seem altogether to have overlooked. Further, to make the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture rest upon the bare affirmation of the Fathers, (as our opponents do,) is equivalent to saying that our be- lief in the divine origin of Scripture is founded on no better evidence than the belief of Mohammedans in the divine origin of the Koran. For the chief and vital point in this doctrine is the divine origin of the revelation con- tained in Scripture, for which the 'belief of any number of individuals is no sufficient foundation for faith. Let us observe that it is not a mere matter of fact which is here involved, not what could ever be the object of knowledge to any individual, but a doctrine which, in all cases, could only be an object of faith. Moreover, it is a doctrine standing upon a foundation peculiar to itself. For even granting that patristical tradition might be a safe medium for the conveyance of the oral teaching of the Apostles, the concession proves nothing for the vali- dity of such tradition, as a proof of the inspiration of the Apostles ; for it is not the assertion of any number of in- dividuals, or of the Apostles themselves, that can be any sufficient proof to us of their inspiration. Nor does it help us to take such tradition as indicating that strict catholic consent which we may suppose from the promises of Christ to ensure freedom from error, for supposing that we had such catholic consent it could prove nothing in the point about which we are now in- quiring, because its supposed authority rests upon the very truth in question. Catholic consent, to one who is yet unconvinced of this truth, is but the consent of a cer- tain number of individuals, and he who says that he be- lieves the divine mission of our Lord and his Apostles on such a ground, does in effect say that he believes tho Christian religion because a certain number of persons believed it eighteen centuries ago, which would be as good a reason for believing any form of Paganism or Mo- hammedisui. THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 467 This, therefore, is a truth, the proof of which extends over a much wider field than patristical tradition, and re- quires a much broader foundation than such tradition can supply it with. We may, indeed, be indebted to patristical tradition as one and a necessary witness of the facts upon which the external evidence for Scripture being the Word of God is founded, but no assertions of Christian writers that the New Testament is a divine revelation can be of themselves any more a sufficient proof that so it is, than the asser- tions of Mohammedan writers that the Koran came from God. As this matter is of no little importance, let us consider it a little more carefully. We are to believe this doctrine, say our opponents, on the testimony of ecclesiastical tradition. Nay, they tell us that we cannot prove it, but by such tradition. Now, as we have already observed, our belief in ecclesiastical tradition is claimed on two grounds, first, as a faithful witness of what the Apostles delivered orally, and se- condly, on the ground that the promises of God forbid the supposition that the whole church should be in error on an important point. Take, then, first, the case of an unbeliever, and suppose him to be told that he is bound to believe this truth on the evidence of ecclesiastical tradition. You, therefore, in effect tell him that he is bound to believe this truth, because those of whose character and inspiration he is in doubt affirmed it, (which by the way he could learn as well from their writings as from tradition,) and because in that very book whose divine origin is in question it is pro- mised that Christians shall not universally err in such a point. A wonderfully convincing argument this truly ! The absurdity of the attempt to prove the true character of our Lord and his Apostles, upon which the inspiration of the New Testament depends, from that church-tradi- tion, whose value as a teacher in the doctrines of religion H H 2 408 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF has no foundation but that character to rely upon, is transparent. Hence, perhaps, it is that the lovers of tradition are so lukewarm (to say the least) as to the distribution of the Scriptures to such. For it must be admitted that he who endeavours to teach men from the Scriptures (which, blessed be God, is the great principle of Protestantism) must be prepared to prove that they are the word of God upon grounds that include much more than the Church's testimony in their favour. And here is observable the great difference between the mode of teaching men advocated by our opponents and the Romanists, and that which corresponds with the great principle of Protestantism. Our opponents anxiously urge upon us the doctrine that we are to go to patristical tradition for what we teach men, and that after we have so done, Scripture is to be resorted to as a parallel revela- tion to confirm us in the views derived from tradition. The Fathers, however, to whom they are so fond of appealing, certainly took a different course, for they ap- pealed to the Scriptures as the great teacher of mankind, and urged upon unbelievers the various evidences upon which their claim to divine authority rests, herein mani- festly dissenting from our opponents, and showing that they regarded those evidences as sufficient to prove that divine authority. The process of spiritual education, then, according to the notions of our opponents is this, The learner is to be taught by the representative of the Church the traditions of the Church upon the subject of religion, and then when he has embraced the truths of Christianity upon the tes- timony of the Church, the Church delivers to him certain writings composed by those from whom she has originally derived the faith, and the learner having beforehand be- come a believer in the faith and a faithful disciple of the Church, receives those Scriptures as divine upon the testi- mony of the Church. THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 469 " When we say therefore," our opponents may urge, " that it is church-tradition by which alone we know that Scripture is the word of God, we are speaking of those Avho have been brought up in the bosom of the Church, or at least have been instructed by her," i. e. in short (whe- ther they proceed to so distinct an admission of the fact or not) believers, for men must be either believers or un- believers, that is those who already believe in the divine mission of our Lord and his Apostles, and consequently that the revelation made by them came from God. Now there can be no doubt that in the very earliest times of the Christian Church many did become acquainted with the revelation now contained in the Scriptures through the medium of that instruction which they re- ceived from ministers of the Church, who communicated to them the true unadulterated doctrine delivered by our Lord and his Apostles. But even they did not believe its divine origin on the sole ground of church-tradition. Their belief was founded partly upon the internal evidence afforded by the power and excellence of the revelation, and partly upon those external testimonies which in- cluded much more than the teaching of the Church. But to assume, what is taken for granted in the rea- soning of our opponents just alluded to, that the true and unadulterated doctrine delivered by our Lord and his Apostles has been perpetuated in the Church by tradition to the present time, so that her pupils are instructed in that doctrine from tradition and not from Scripture, is to assume the very point which is in dispute, viz. that tradi- tion is a safe medium for the conveyance of doctrinal matters. We deny the truth of this position, and main- tain that had the truth been left to church-tradition for its perpetuation, it would have required a miraculous in- terference on the part of God to have preserved it, and consequently that where the teaching of the Church is agreeable to Scripture, it is to Scripture that we are in- debted as the means of its preservation, and that where 470 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF that teaching goes beyond Scripture, no claim can be justly made for it as inspired teaching on account of the uncer- tainty of tradition. We deny, therefore, the truth of the assumption here made, that the Church where she teaches the truth teaches from tradition. Church-tradition has not preserved the truth. The Scriptures have preserved it, and the Church, through the Scriptures, has been enabled to retain it. We consequently deny the inference here drawn from that assumption. And, in fact, the main question upon which the inspira- tion of Scripture depends still recurs. For how, I would ask, was the pupil of the Church convinced that the religion preached to him by the Church came from God ? The chief and necessary mean for that conviction was the power of the Spirit of God impressing it upon his heart and conscience, and this united with the internal evidence in its favour, is all of which nine-tenths of man- kind would be capable. Have they not, then, equal proof in every respect for the divine origin of the same religion when they meet with it in the pages of Scripture ? Is the teaching of the Church so superior to the teaching of the Apostolical writings, that the Christian religion com- mends itself to the consciences of men more in the for- mer than in the latter ? The evidence, then, whatever it be, which would induce men to receive the orthodox teaching of the Church as divine, is the evidence upon which they believe the divine origin of the religion de- livered to us in the Holy Scriptures. How, indeed, were many of the heathen in early times brought to a knowledge and belief of the Chris- tian religion by the first Christian Missionaries, if the internal testimony united with the work of the Holy Spirit on the heart is not sufficient to produce faith in it ? And if that testimony is sufficient, then the witness of Scripture does not absolutely require the evidence of history to produce faith in its declarations being a divine THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 471 revelation. For surely the testimony of the Apostles in the New Testament is as efficient a preacher as any un- inspired man can be. True, it may be objected that even a proof of the divine origin of the truths delivered to us in the Scriptures does not strictly prove that those Scriptures were indited by inspired authors, but not to say that under the circum- stances of the case it goes a long way towards it, the great and only essential point is, whether the truths de- livered in it are of divine origin, whether the authors of those revelations contained in it were inspired. In a word, the great point in the question of the inspiration of Scripture is, whether the religion delivered in it is from God. And though the proof of this will not demonstrate the inspiration of the Scriptures, it is the most necessary part of the evidence for the proof of that truth, and the only thing necessary for salvation. The testimony, therefore, of the church or patristical tradition falls at least far short of a proof of the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture. But although the internal evidence, united with the operations of the Spirit of God upon the heart, may be with the generality the great and almost sole proof, and with all a necessary part of the proof, of the divine origin of the religion delivered to us in the Scriptures, and con- sequently of the inspiration of the Scriptures, yet no doubt there is also powerful external evidence to this truth ; and to the unassisted mind this external evidence is a necessary part of the proof of the inspiration of these particular writings, and an important part of the proof of the divine origin of the revelation contained in them, though not perhaps absolutely necessary when we con- sider the force of the internal evidence, which, I think, facts show us, is the great inducement to men to embrace the Christian faith. Now, this external evidence to the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture and to the question of the ex- tent of the inspired writings rests upon certain facts, the 472 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF knowledge of which must be conveyed to us by the tes- timony of others. Here, then, patristical tradition neces- sarily comes in as an important part of that testimony. But even here it forms only a part of the testimony. Let us now, then, proceed to observe what is the evidence we have, apart from the witness of the Spirit, to the in- spiration of the Scriptures, a question which of course includes that of their canonicity, genuineness, and uncor- rupted preservation, as we shall see in the course of the inquiry. I will take the case of the New Testament only, as that is the one more particularly concerned in this contro- versy, and the inspiration of the New Testament being proved, the inspiration of the Old Testament easily fol- lows. I would observe, then, on this head, first, that it must be admitted that if we can establish the divine mis- sion of our Lord, and the inspiration of his Apostles, it follows, that their instructions on the subject of re- ligion are to be considered as the Word of God. I am quite aware that this position will be disputed by some, who, in order to enhance the value of " tradi- tion," do not regard it as a sufficient proof that a book is inspired, that it was written by an inspired Apostle, and therefore hold the necessity of " tradition," for assuring us that these particular productions of the Apostles were inspired. But I would ask, how was the distinction made between their inspired and uninspired productions? By what authority did they who formed the canon of Scripture decide that these productions only of the Apostles were inspired. Will it be said that there were other writings of the Apostles on the subject of the Christian religion which were not inspired, or was it not the sole question with the Church, when admitting books bearing the Apostles' name into the canon, whether they were genuine? All that the Apostles delivered on the subject of religion, being delivered by persons divinely inspired, may be con- sidered as the Word of God ; and all that the primitive THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 473 church ever imagined to be necessary to prove respecting the writings of the Apostles, when determining the extent of the canon, was their genuineness. Suppose a work not included in the canon could be proved to have been written by one of the Apostles after the day of Pentecost, would any man who fully believed that it was written by an inspired Apostle, venture to say that he would not receive it because the Apostle might not have been inspired in writing it ? This question, as it appears to me, is one of prime im- portance in this matter. For if it be not admitted that all that the Apostles wrote on the subject of religion was divinely inspired, then what evidence have we that those particular productions of the Apostles included in the New Testament were inspired ? We want, in that case, divine direction as to what productions of the Apostles were inspired, and what were not ; and how is this to be obtained? The Romanists will reply, from " tradition " and the authority of the Church. But if by " tradition" they mean the oral teaching of the Apostles, I reply that we have not the slightest evidence that the Apostles ever did claim for those particular productions of theirs any greater authority than for the rest of their instructions ; and that the internal testimony of their writings shows that they entertained no such idea. It is quite true that they spoke sometimes by permission, and not by com- mandment, and gave advice for which they did not claim the direct sanction of the Holy Spirit ; but this is no proof that they were not at all times guided by that Spirit when formally delivering the doctrines and pre- cepts of Christianity. Moreover, the language of the Fathers clearly shows that they considered it to be only necessary to prove that a book or doctrine came from an Apostle, to prove its inspiration and authority ; J and that, when determining 1 See Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. cap. 24 and 25. (ed. Vales.) See also ch. 38, where the canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews is evidently sup- posed to be proved if there is reason to think that it was written by St. 474 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF the canon of Scripture, the sole question with them was what writings they had, composed by the Apostles, or at least under their immediate superintendence and sanction ; and, as I shall prove hereafter, that they re- garded no books as of authority but those that were so composed. And if you say it is from the testimony or authority of the Church, you claim for the Church a degree of inspira- tion greater than that you allow to the Apostles, for you can only attach certainty to the decision of the Church by supposing that the Church is permanently inspired to deliver the truth, while you allow not such permanent inspiration to the Apostles. It may be a matter for consideration how far that inspi- ration extended, and we know from facts which they have themselves stated, that it did not ensure them infal- libility in all respects and all matters, but we are now considering them merely as instructors in the Christian religion. The common objection derived from the re- proof given to Peter by Paul, is well disposed of by Tertullian. 1 Observe, also, in what situation it places their favourite doctrine of " tradition," if they say that, to prove the inspi- ration of the Scriptures, it is not sufficient to prove the inspiration of their authors. For then how are we assured that that which the Church professes to derive by " tradi- tion " from the oral teaching of the Apostles was in- Paul ; and particularly the language of Serapion (lib. vi. c. 12.) where, speaking of some writings falsely ascribed to Peter, he says, " we receive Peter and the rest of the Apostles as we would Christ, but we reject the writings falsely ascribed to them." And this clearly follows from the way in which the books that were to be received as of authority in the Christian church are constantly mentioned by the early Christian writers, who describe them as the Gospels and the Epistles of the Apostles, the Evangelical and Apostolical Scriptures. And so Jerome says of St. John, that he was " both an Apostle, an Evangelist, and a Prophet ; an Apostle in that he wrote to the churches as a master," &c. (Joannes et Apostolus et Evangelista et Propheta. Apostolus quia scripsit ad Ecclesias ut magister, &c. Adv. Jovinian. lib. i. 26. torn. ii. col. 279. ed. Vail. Yen.) 1 Adv. Marc. lib. iv. c. 3. and De Prsescr. cc. 23, 24. THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 475 spired ? It is not sufficient evidence in this case for the authority of such tradition, even to suppose that it is an infallibly true report of what the Apostles delivered ; but we must suppose that there is also some evidence or authority somewhere to assure us, that those particular instructions of the Apostles, which patristical tradition is said to have handed down to us, were delivered by inspira- tion, and I would ask where that evidence or authority can be found. There was certainly no claim made by the primitive Church to distinguish between the, doctrines or instructions delivered by the Apostles, so as to decide which was delivered by inspiration and which not. If the Apostles are not always safe guides in their instructions on the subject of religion, where are we to look for such guides? for I suspect that most men will be disposed to think, that if the Apostles were not always to be trusted in their instructions, neither is the Church ; for certainly, neither the promises made to the latter, nor its history, give stronger ground for confiding in it than the promises made to the former, and their history do for confiding in them. As far, then, as concerns the books of the New Testa- ment which we can prove to have been written by the Apostles, a proof of the divine mission of our Lord, and the inspiration of his Apostles, will equally prove that the Scriptures of the Apostles are to be viewed as the word of God. And this I take to be the only way of proving the inspiration of all that they have delivered on the sub- ject of religion ; for it is evident that the inspiration of each sentence could not be separately proved by any application of internal and external evidence, and can only be deduced from a proof of the inspiration of the author, that is, his being recognized as a teacher commis- sioned and empowered by God to instruct mankind in true religion. Besides the Scriptures of the Apostles, three books only, viz. the Gospels of Mark and Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles by Luke, have been admitted into the canon 476 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF of the New Testament. Their case we shall consider dis- tinctly ; our present inquiry relates only to the writings of the Apostles. It is affirmed, that many ages ago there appeared on earth those who professed to be authorized by God to instruct mankind in the nature of true religion. We inquire, then, what evidence is producible in favour of this claim, in order that if it be a just claim we may guide ourselves by their instructions. The first question, then, will surely be, what was their doctrine, what the nature of their instructions? The internal evidence may be an insufficient witness, standing alone, to prove the divine origin of their doctrine, but its witness is material to rational beings. The answer to this question we shall naturally look for in those writings which have come down to us, attributed to them, and professing to give an account of their doctrine ; and our first inquiry must of course be, are these writings genuine and incorrupt ? It does not, of course, enter into my design here to point out at length the whole of the evidence on these and other points connected with our present inquiry, as such a discussion would be both out of place and unne- cessary, after what has been already published on the sub- ject, 1 and would require a volume to do any justice to it; but chiefly to point out the character of the evidence we have on these points, in order to show where and how far church-tradition comes in. On what grounds, then, may we receive these writings as genuine, that is, as written by those whose names they bear? We have, first, the internal evidence afforded by the writings themselves. It cannot be denied, that from the language, style, and general character of the contents of these writings, we have strong evidence in favour of their being genuine. 1 See the works of Leslie, Addison, Jenkin, Stillingfleet, Lardner, Paley, and others, and especially Mr. Home's very valuable " Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures." THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 477 We have, secondly, the external evidence. And here we naturally look, first, to the testimony borne in their favour by the Christian writers, or, in other words, to patristical tradition. There has been a series of writers in the Christian Church from the earliest times, who have all acknowledged the genuineness of these writing* ; i. e. with some exceptions, to which we shall advert presently ; and considering the way in which these writings have been handed down from one to another, this is a strong argument in their favour. Here, however, let me caution the reader against a state- ment of Mr. Keble, that as long as the canon of the New Testament was incomplete, the doctrinal " tradition" ex- isting in the Church of the oral teaching of the Apostles, was " divinely appointed in the Church as the touchstone of canonical Scripture itself." (p. 27.) This statement he attempts to prove by the admonition of St. Paul to the Galatians, " Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be anathema," (Gal. i. 8.) ; and from 1 John ii. 7; 20, 21, 27 ; iv. 1 ; 3. 2 John 9. Here is another instance of what our opponents are so fond of, an assumption of the very point in question. The warnings here given are against the hearers of the Apostles themselves believing anything contrary to the doctrine which they had been taught by the Apostles themselves (and who ever denied that their oral teaching was of authority ?) Therefore, says Mr. Keble, tradition, i. e. the report of that teaching handed down from one to another, was " divinely appointed as the touchstone of canonical Scripture," and adds to this extraordinary non- sequitur the following as extraordinary flourish about it. " This use of apostolical tradition may well correct the presumptuous irreverence of disparaging the Fathers, under plea of magnifying Scripture. Here is a TRADITION so highly honoured by the Almighty Founder and Guide of the Church, as to be made the standard and rule of his own Divine Scriptures. The very writings of the Apostles 478 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF were to be first tried by it before they could be incorporated into the canon. Thus the Scriptures themselves, as it were, do homage to the tradition of the Apostles ; the despisers therefore, of that tradition [as if any one did despise the oral teaching of the Apostles, and that the question was not merely whether we have got that teach- ing or not] take part inadvertently or profanely with the despisers of the Scripture itself." (p. 28.) Solemn words these, certainly, and as our friends across the Atlantic say, " important if true ; " but all their apparent force arises from his having confounded the real tradition or teaching of the Apostles with the report of it by others. And then, adds Mr. Keble, " on the other hand, it is no less evident, that Scripture, being once ascertained, became in its turn a test for everything claiming to be of Apostolical tradition." And so tradi- tion having been in one generation the touchstone of Scripture, the obligation was returned in the next, by Scripture saying this or that is tradition ; and thus they mutually assisted one another. But it would be worth knowing why, if tradition could be so depended upon in one generation as the touchstone for ascertaining what was Scripture, there should be any need in the next of Scripture to point out what was tradition. This looks very much as if there was a lurking consciousness that, after all, tradition stood upon a somewhat slippery footing. But enough of such statements. How stands the real state of the case ? The writings of the Apostles were either given in person or sent by trusty messengers to the converts of the writers. In the latter case (though it can hardly even then be said that the oral teaching of the Apostles was " the touchstone" of such a writing) no doubt the writing would not have been received if it had contained anything clearly contrary to the oral teaching of the Apostles. But there, at least, their office of judg- ing ended, and the question of the genuineness of the writings was set at rest, and determined by those who were, contemporary with the Apostles, and had heard them THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 479 preach, and were in fact their own converts. And it ap- pears from 2 Thess. iii. 15, that St. Paul adopted a par- ticular mode of signature to his epistles that might be a mark of their genuineness. " The salutation of me Paul," he says, " with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle, so I write." And the writings thus admitted and acknowledged as genuine (and the originals of most, if not all of them, long preserved in the archives of the Aposto- lical churches) were handed down from one to another, and hence found their way into the universal church as writings of acknowledged authority. 1 And if, in after times, a question arose about any particular book or books professing to come from the Apostles, the inquiry was, Can it be traced up to the Apostles through the testi- monies of those who have preceded us, 2 and a comparison was instituted between it and the undoubted writings of the Apostles. 3 If the book could be plainly traced up to an Apostle, there was an end of the question. If it could not be so traced up, even though it might not be contrary to Apostolical doctrine, its canonicity would be proportion- ably doubtful. And hence it was that doubts were en- tertained by some in the primitive church as to the ca- nonicity of some of those books which were afterwards admitted into the canon by, generally speaking, the uni- versal church; admitted evidently not by "the touch- stone" of tradition, for I suppose that tradition was, at least, not more certain, or definite, or authoritative, at the close of the fourth century, when the first canon of any General Council, giving a catalogue of the canonical books, was passed at Laodicea, 4 than it was in the earlier periods of the church, nor could a Council make that ca- tholic consent to which alone authority is ascribed where it did not find it, but because it was generally considered that the evidence for their genuineness was such as to 1 See Tertull. De Prsescr. c. 36 and adv. Marc. iv. 5. 2 See Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. cc. 3 and 25. 3 See Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 25, and Tertull. adv. Marc. iv. '2. Denique,&c. < This Catalogue included all that we receive but the Book of Revelation. 480 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF entitle them to a place in the canon. And I must say that the recollection of those early doubts (though un- warranted doubts) might have saved Luther from the op- probrium sometimes cast upon him by those who love to bark at the reformers for doubting at one time as to the canonicity of a book about which some in the early church also doubted. The notion, therefore, of any Father, or collection of Fathers, setting themselves up in the purer times of the church to judge of the canonicity of writings professing to come from the Apostles by the touchstone of a doctrinal " tradition" is utterly unwarranted. Now, to return to our subject, this testimony of Chris- tian antiquity to the genuineness of these writings is both important and necessary. Its absence indeed would be fatal. But is it all we have, or is it even alone sufficient ? If the heretics, and the Jewish and heathen adversaries of Christianity had all from the beginning denied the genu- ineness of these books, would it have been a satisfactory state of things ? We must inquire, then, what their testi- mony was, and we find a still stronger proof of the genuine- ness of these writings in the testimonies of the heretics and the Jewish and heathen adversaries of Christianity. I do not mean to say that all the heretics universally admitted the genuineness of all the books of the New Testament as we now have them, because some of them rejected some books and others other books. But taking them as a body, the argument derived from their testi- mony to the genuineness of Scripture, even in parts op- posed to their notions, is a very strong one, and as such it was applied long-ago by Irenaeus, "So great certainty is there," he says, " with regard to these Gospels, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and every one of them endeavours to confirm his doctrine out of them. For the Ebionites who use the Gospel of Matthew only, are by that very Gospel refuted as in error re- specting the Lord. And Marcion, who mutilates the Gospel of Luke, is proved a blasphemer against the one true God by those parts which are retained by him. And THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 481 they who separate Jesus from Christ, and say that Christ did not suffer but that Jesus suffered, preferring the Gos- pel of Mark, may be convinced of their error by reading that with a love of the truth. And the Valentinians using the Gospel of John entire in order to prove their conjunctions, may be proved by it to be in error, as we have shown in the first book. Since therefore they who oppose us give their testimony to these [i. e. the four Gos- pels] and use them, our proof derived from them is firm and trustworthy" l From this passage, then, it is evident that even at that early period Irenseus considered that patristical tradition was but a part of the proof for the genuineness, &c. of Scripture, and that an important part of it consisted in the testimony of others, of those who might be considered more independent and impartial witnesses. Moreover, that the testimony of the heretics as a body was in favour of Scripture as a whole follows from the very complaint so frequently made by the Romanists and our opponents, a complaint no doubt justified to some extent by fact, and supported by the Fathers, that, the heretics were in the habit of appealing to Scripture in support of their views. We have next to inquire whether these writings as we now possess them are in an incorrupt state. Here, again, it is natural to observe, first, the care of the church with regard to them. The early Christians would no doubt be exceedingly solicitous to preserve these writings incorrupt. The originals seem long to have been preserved with great care in the custody, not of any private individual, but of the archives of the churches, and copies were taken by persons approved by the church. Moreover, the earliest preachers of Christianity took great care to have copies dispersed everywhere and left with their converts. " And numerous translations were 1 Iren. adv. ha:r. lib. iii. c. xi. Ed. Grabe, p. 2'20. Ed. Mass. torn. i. pp. 189,190. a See Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 37. VOL. I. J * 482 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF made in very early times, 1 some of which remain to this day. But church-tradition strictly speaking has nothing to do with the matter. We want only fidelity and accuracy in copying, and handing down these writings themselves in an incorrupt state to the next age, and this a deaf and dumb person could do as well as any one else. It is ob- viously a very different thing to hand down to posterity certain written documents and to hand down reports of oral teaching. Written records left in the keeping of a Bishop, and handed down by each to his successor (as the Scriptures were in early times) must surely be looked upon in a very different light to oral reports of what this or that former Bishop of the Diocese had preached. And over and above this we have still stronger testi- mony in favour of the incorrupt state of these writings in various other ways ; viz. in the number and antiquity of the copies and their being found in all parts of the world, all agreeing with each other in all essential points, in the antient versions, in the similarity of their contents to the accounts given of them by the earliest Fathers, and the quotations from them in those Fathers, and also in the testimony borne to them by the great body of the heretics, whose evidence tends to substantiate, some one part, some another, of the sacred volume, and lastly in the quotations and references made by the enemies of Christianity. But notwithstanding we have all this evidence (of the strength of which we can form no idea without following- it put into its details) in favour of the genuineness and incorrupt state of these writings, and that the question as to the preservation of written documents is essentially different to that which respects the preservation of oral teaching, Mr. Newman coolly tells us, that " whatever explanations the Protestant in question makes in behalf of the preservation of the written word will be found ap- 1 Aug. De doctr. Christ, lib. ii. c. 5. ed. Ben. torn. iii. p. 1. col. 21. Chrys. in Job. horn. ii. (al. 1.) ed. Ben. torn. viii. p. 10. Theodoret. De cur. Grac. affect, lib. v. ed. Schulze, torn. iv. pp. 839, 840, THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 483 plicable in the theory to the unwritten." (p. 46.) As well might it be said, that one who heard a report that had passed through a multitude of hands of a discourse orally delivered was as likely to be accurately informed respecting it, as he who had had delivered to him through the same number of hands a written copy of the discourse actually delivered. Even were it true that we depended solely on patristical tradition for the incorrupt state of the sacred books, that would not afford the slightest proof that such tradition was to be depended upon for accurate information as to the oral teaching of the Apostles. The argument is as usual taken from the Romish armoury. " They," says the Jesuit Fisher, " that can de- liver by uniform tradition a false sense, why may they not also deliver a false text as received from the Apostles ? an argument convincing and unanswerable." To which our learned Bishop White thus replies. " The Jesuit imagineth that this argument is invincible. But let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off .... The argument reduced to form will discover its own weakness. ' If the text of the Scripture may as easily be corrupted as the sense, then all they which can deliver by uniform tradition a false sense may also deliver a false text. But the text of the Scripture may as easily be cor- rupted as the sense. Ergo, all they which can deliver by uniform tradition a false sense may also deliver a false text.' The assumption of this syllogism, which although it were concealed by the Paralogist, yet it must be added to make the argument perfect, is apparently false, and the contrary is true. The text of the Scripture cannot so easily be corrupted as the sense, and therefore it is not necessary that they which following human tradition or their own invention may deliver a false sense shall like- wise deliver a false text. First, the text of the Scripture is contained in records and books which are dispersed throughout the whole Christian world, and preserved in all churches, and the copies and transcripts of them are innumerable .... Secondly, when God Almighty would i i 2 484 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF have the knowledge and memory of things to be perpetual he commanded that they should be committed to writing. Exod. xvii. 14, and xxxiv. 27. Deut. xxxi. 19 Thirdly, experience of all ages testifieth that the text of the Scripture hath been preserved inviolable even among Jews and heretics Fourthly, whereas the Jesuit com- pareth unanimous tradition of the sense of Scripture with the written letter and text of the Scripture, unless he equi- vocate in the name, terming that tradition which is collected from the Scripture, such uniform tradition as he boasteth of is very rare ; for it must be such as in all ages and in all orthodoxal churches hath been the same. Now the most undoubted and uniform tradition of all other is concerning the number and integrity of the books of holy Scripture, and yet in this difference hath been between one church and another, and the later Roman church disagreeth with the antient." 1 And so elsewhere he says, " It is not necessary that they which truly deliver the text shall also truly deliver the Apostolical sense, and on the contrary a lying sense may be delivered by them which retain the true and incorrupt letter of the text, as appeareth by the Pharisees, Arians, Donatists, and many other heretics." 2 And so Augustine points out, in a passage already quoted, on what a different ground the Holy Scriptures stand in this respect to any other writings, and conse- quently to the sources whence our opponents' traditive statements and interpretations are derived ; the writings of no bishop, however illustrious, being capable of being preserved as the canonical Scripture is preserved, on account of the number of languages in which it is found, and its being constantly rehearsed in the church, which rendered any attempt at corruption or forgery useless. 3 It may be well to inquire in the next place, what evi- dence we have that these writings are authentic ; that is, 1 Reply to Jesuit Fisher's Answer to certain questions, pp. 123 5. 2 Ib. pp. 120, 121. Bishop White is one of the divines of the " Anglc- Catholic Library." 3 See pp. 200, 201 above. THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 485 that the facts related in them, really took place. A con- sideration of this evidence will lead the mind more easily to the great point which we have to consider afterwards, the great truth sought to be established. We have, then, for this truth, first, the internal evi- dence of these writings themselves. The facts related are not such as men are likely to have feigned ; they are fre- quently injurious to the character of the writers ; there was no reasonable motive for such a fiction, for it led the authors only into temporal calamities and death ; and many similar weighty considerations conspire to show the truth of the facts stated. We have next the external evidence ; first, that derived from the church. But this is not church-tradition, but merely the fact of the belief of these books by so many, at a time, when, if the events recorded in them had not been true, they would have obtained no credit ; secondly, that derived from the witness of heretics, and also from the numerous and direct testimonies afforded by the Jews and heathen, the enemies of Christianity, that the chief events here recorded did really happen. To these evidences may be added further those consi- derations which show us the credibility of the statements of Scripture ; such, for instance, as prove the credibility of miracles, remove apparent contradictions, and show that there is nothing in these writings contrary to reason ; none of which, however, as is evident, can be derived at all from church-tradition. In all these preliminary points, then, there is one only in which patristical tradition, properly speaking, can aid us; and that is, on the question of the genuineness of the Scriptures ; and there, though important and necessary as part of the proof, we have other and still more unexcep- tionable testimony. Supposing, then, that the Scriptures we possess are genuine, incorrupt, authentic, and credible, we have next to inquire what evidence we have that they may be reck- oned the word of God ; which, as we have already ob- 486 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF served, is tantamount to the inquiry what evidence we have of the divine mission of our Lord, and the inspira- tion of his Apostles ; or at least a proof of the latter will equally demonstrate the former. Let us begin with the divine mission of our blessed Lord. Now to go to church-tradition for any direct proof of this, or of the inspiration of the Apostles, is obviously absurd ; for if there were no foundation for these truths, any, even the highest, degree of catholic consent, would have no real weight ; for all the value that can be ascribed to it in this case, rests upon the supposition that these are truths. The only weight, therefore, which church-tradi- tion can have in these points, is from its being the repre- sentation of the opinion of a vast number of individuals, who, from the time of the appearance of our Lord to this, have held that these are truths, which may reasonably be an introductory motive * to belief in them, rendering their truth in some degree probable, but nothing more ; for the same evidence is afforded to Mohammedism and Pa- ganism. The truth we are now seeking to establish, rests upon two sorts of evidence, external and internal. The external consists chiefly of the evidence derived from the four following sources. (1) The voice from heaven at our Lord's baptism, and at his transfiguration. (2) The miracles he wrought ; especially as connected with the character of his doctrine. (3) The prophecies of the Old Testament fulfilled in him, and his own recorded in the New Testament. (4) The power and success of the Gospel, notwithstand- ing its opposition to the feelings and desires of the natural mind. To enlarge upon these points, and show the demonstra- tive nature of the proof derived from them, is not now our object. It has been done over and over again, far more 1 See Laud's Conf. with Fisher, and Stillingfleet's Grounds, &c. pp. 187, 8. THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 487 ably than we could hope to do it. But we have to point out upon what testimony this external evidence rests, and to show how little church-tradition has to do with it. For the first, then, we have the testimony of the Apostles in their writings (already shown to be genuine and authentic) recognized by Celsus, the great enemy of Christianity. This affords at least some probable evidence of the divine mission of our Lord. For the second, that is, our Lord's miracles, we have the testimony, not only of the Apostles, but what is more, of his great enemies, the Jews ; and that not merely as re- corded by the Apostles, but by their own writers, and also of heathen writers. For the third, we have for the existence of the prophe- cies fulfilled in him, long previous to his incarnation, the irrefutable evidence of the books of the Old Testament, then and still in the keeping of his great enemies, the Jews ; and for those uttered by him, the testimony (already proved to be authentic) of his Apostles, and for their ful- filment, as regards the Jews, the universally-received at- testations of history, as well as the evidence of their pre- sent state. For the fourth, we have the testimony, both of friends and enemies, and of our own senses. The reader may at once see, then, how far we have to depend upon church-tradition for this evidence. The internal evidence is derived from the excellent nature and effects of the doctrine which our Lord taught. The appeal here is to the hearts and consciences of man- kind ; and however those who have been accustomed from infancy to enjoy its light, may slight the evidence which its brilliancy affords of its divine origin, it was looked upon at its advent, by those who could appreciate it, in a very different light. By the early teachers of Christianity, this was the great evidence put forward in proof of its divine origin ; an evidence, of which time cannot weaken the force, and which, as it appears to me, still remains the most powerful inducement to men to embrace the 488 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF Christian faith, the most convincing argument of its di- vine origin. It is quite true that the prepossessions of the natural mind may often lead it into error, when so judging ; but that is due, not to the character of the evi- dence from which the judgment is formed, but to the cor- ruption of our fallen nature. It is no more a proof that Christianity does not show its origin by the internal evi- dence it carries with it, than heretical misallegations of Scripture show that Scripture does not bear a clear testi- mony in favour of the orthodox faith. There is one observation, however, I would make re- specting it ; and that is, that it appears to me to be appli- cable only in proof of the divine mission of the Founder of our religion ; because that religion, when once intro- duced, might be preached by many who were entirely destitute both of inspiration and divine commission to do so. The evidence of the internal witness of Scripture to its divine inspiration, is, I conceive, of this kind; viz., that the revelation made, taken as a whole, is so excellent in its nature and effects, as to bear a powerful witness to its divine origin, and consequently to the divine mission of Him who first delivered it to mankind ; not that the in- ternal evidence can be a sure criterion as to any parti- cular book to establish its inspiration; though it may, in some cases, be sufficient to negative it. Thus, then,- do we establish the divine mission of our Lord ; and consequently the truth that what he delivered was the word of God. But then it becomes necessary to inquire what were the qualifications of those who have delivered his doctrine to us. Though we may suppose that they were honest and faithful narrators of events, have we any assurance that they were preserved from error in delivering that doctrine to us, and still more in enlarging upon, and ex- plaining, and adding to that doctrine? If, indeed, we agreed with the Romanists and our opponents, that fal- lible men could convey to us a " practically infallible" report of doctrinal truths, we need not, as far as our THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 489 Lord's teaching was concerned, have made any further inquiry ; but (and I shall leave to our opponents to give the reason) it certainly appears that even as to this, we have not been left to the teaching of mere fallible men. We have proof that the Apostles were inspired ; and this fact, which may be proved by their miracles connected with the character of their teaching, may show that when we assumed in the proof of the divine mission of our Lord that their writings were authentic, we had not merely the proof of it already given, but a stronger in their inspi- ration. Assuming, however, that the evidence adduced on the former points has been conclusive, we ground the doc- trine of their inspiration, on the following evidence. (1) The promises of our Lord. (2) The affirmations of the Apostles in their writings. (3) The miracles they wrought, especially as connected with the character of the doctrine they preached, showing that they were to be depended upon. (4) The prophecies they delivered. In the first of these, I refer to such promises as that recorded in John xvi. 13, that the Spirit should guide them into all truth, and see John xx. 21, 22 ; in the second, to such declarations as that of St. Paul, when he says to the Thessalonians, " When ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which effec- tually worketh, also, in you that believe ;" (1 Thess. ii. 13.) and those of St. Peter, where he says to the Christians of his day, that the gospel had been preached unto them with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, (1 Pet. i. 12,) and exhorts them to be " mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the com- mandment of us, the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour," (2 Pet. iii. 2,) arid ranks St. Paul's writings with the "other Scriptures," (2 Pet. iii. 16;) and generally to the tone of authority in which thfcy speak, as infallible expo- sitors of the doctrines of Christianity. 490 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF To give weight to the evidence derived from these two sources, we must, of course, assume the divine mission of our Lord, and also that the Apostles were not impostors ; for which we must refer back to the proof of the authen- ticity of their writings ; or we may ground it upon that which we have now to notice as The third, and an independent and still stronger testi- mony to their character, viz., the miracles they wrought, especially when we consider the nature of the doctrine they preached. These may not perhaps be a direct proof of the inspiration of all which they delivered on the sub- ject of religion, but they certainly show their true cha- racter, and are a divine attestation to the truth of their claim to be considered divinely-appointed teachers of mankind. By these God bare witness to them. (Heb. ii. 4.) Now the testimony upon which we believe these mi- racles to have been wrought, is derived first, from the account left us in writing by one of the followers of the Apostles ; I mean the book of the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke, of which the genuineness, authenti- city, &c. may be established, as in the case of the Aposto- lical Scriptures ; and secondly, from the admissions of Jews and heathens, who were compelled to resort to the charge of magical practices against them, to account for the mi- racles they performed. The fourth ground is that afforded us by the prophe- tical spirit vouchsafed to them, the evidence of which we see not only in the Scriptures, but in events confessedly subsequent to their times. On these grounds, then, we believe that the Apostles were inspired, and being thus divinely preserved from error, and instructed in the truth, were both infallible witnesses of the doctrine taught by our Lord, and infal- lible instructors of mankind in religion. We thus establish, then, the truth in question, viz. the divine mission of our Lord, and the inspiration of his Apostles, and consequently that the Scriptures of the Apostles arc the word of God. And whenever a strict THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 491 proof of this truth is sought, it must be of this kind and nature. And, as is evident, the sole use of church-tradi- tion in it is to bear witness to us, who live at a consider- able distance of time from the period in which Christi- anity was first promulgated, of certain facts cognizable by the senses of mankind, matters which in the first instance were not objects of faith but of knowledge, not revelations of doctrine in which fallible men are so likely to make mistakes, but facts such as neither friend nor foe, if honest, could make any mistake about ; and further, the tradition of the church is only a part, and not the strongest part, of the proof of those facts and events having taken place. There now remains, then, for consideration, the case of those three books, the authors of which were not Apostles, viz. the Gospels of Mark and Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles by Luke. 1 And here I wish to draw attention to a fact which appears to me to have almost if not quite escaped obser- vation, but which the general language of the Fathers on the subject, and particularly a passage of Tertullian, seem clearly to prove, namely, that the rule by which the canon of the New Testament was formed was this, that such works only should be admitted into it as were either written by Apostles or directly commended to the Church by them for its guidance and instruction. The passage of Tertullian to which I allude is one in his 4th book against Marcion, where being about to prove that the Gospel received by Marcion was spurious and of no authority, he says, " We lay it down in the first place that the vo- lume containing the authoritative records of the Gospel, (evangelicum instrunientum) has the Apostles for its au- thors, upon whom this office of publishing the Gospel was imposed by our Lord himself; if besides these it admits Apostolical writers, it admits not such in their own cha- racter alone, but as associated with the Apostles, and as 1 If the Epistle to the Hebrews is not allowed to be St. Paul's, (though there is as appears to me satisfactory evidence that it is,) it must be added to the above. 492 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF inferior to the Apostles, since the preaching of the disci- ples might be suspected of being influenced by the desire of glory if the authority of the masters should not be affixed to it, or rather the authority of Christ which made the Apostles masters. In fine, John and Matthew of the Apostles instil the faith into us, Luke and Mark of apo- stolical men renew the faith already imparted," &c. ( J ) And further on he adds, " If the teacher himself of Luke, [i. e. St. Paul,] sought the authority of those that were Apostles before him, both for his faith and preaching, [alluding to St. Paul's going up to Jerusalem soon after his conversion to see the Apostles,] how much more should I require that authority for the Gospel of Luhe which was necessary for the Gospel of his Master?" (?) Nothing I think can be more clear than that these passages fully show that, in the opinion of Tertullian, nothing was to be received into the canon of the New Testament, but that which had an Apostle for its author, or had received direct Apostolical sanction. And this is very much con- firmed by what Jerome says in the passage quoted from him a few pages back ; that John was " an Apostle, inasmuch as he wrote Epistles to the churches as a master." The fancy, therefore, of some persons, that the early dmrch, that is, a certain number of its rulers, took upon themselves to decide whether this man or that, this work or that, was inspired, has no place but in their own imaginations. (') Constituimus in primis, Evangelicum Instrumentum Apostolos auc- tores habere, quibus hoc munus Evangelii promulgandi ab ipso Domino sit impositum. Si et Apostolicos, non tamen solos, sed cum Apostolis et post Apostolos. Quoniam praedicatio discipulorum suspecta fieri posset de glorias studio, si non adsistat illi auctoritas magistrorum, immo Christi, qui magistros Apostolos fecit. Denique nobis fidem ex Apostolis Johannes et Matthaeus insinuant, ex Apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instaurant. TERTULL. Adv. Marc. iv.2. Ed. 1664. p. 414. ( 2 ) Igitur si ipse illuminator Lucae auctoritatem autecessorum et fidei et pra-dicationi sans optuvit, quanto magis cam Evangelic Lucae expostulem quse Evangelio magistri ejus fuit necessaria ? ID. ib. THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 493 Such was the principle, then, upon which the primitive Church acted in forming the canon ; and accordingly we find in the Fathers a recognition of this principle, in their having taken care to inform us that these books received Apostolical sanction. Thus of St. Mark's Gospel it is said by Tertullian, that it may be considered as Peter's (Petri adfirmetur,) whose interpreter Mark was ; 1 by Eusebius, that the hearers of Peter, at Home, " earnestly entreated Mark, Peter's fol- lower, whose gospel is extant at this day, that he would leave with them some written record of that doctrine they had heard ; neither did they desist till they had pre- vailed with the man ; and thus they gave the occasion of writing that gospel which is called the Gospel according to Mark. When the Apostle Peter understood by the revelation of the Holy Spirit what was done, he was much delighted with the ardent desire of the men, and confirmed that writing by his authority, that so thencefor- ward it should be read in the churches ;" 2 which account Eusebius gives from Clement of Alexandria, and says that Papias had borne the same testimony. The same thing is stated by Origen, 3 Jerome, the author of the Synopsis attributed to Athanasius, Cosmas Indicopleustes, Nicephorus, and Eutychius of Alexandria. 4 And there is a passage in the Second Epistle of Peter, which seems strongly to indicate an intention of leaving behind him some written record of the gospel he had preached, where he says, " I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remem- brance." (2 Pet. i. 15.) Of St. Luke's gospel it is said by Tertullian, that it was " customarily ascribed to Paul; 5 and in the passage 1 Tertull. Adv. Marc. lib. iv. c. 5. p. 416. 2 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 15. 3 Euseb. H. E. vi. 25. 4 See these testimonies in Lardner's Suppl. to his Credibility. Works, vol. v. pp. 332, &s. s Lucfe digestum Paulo adscribere solent. Adv. Marc. iv. 5. p. 416. 494 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF quoted above, that it owed its authority to Apostolical sanction ; and by Origen it is called " the gospel com- mended by Paul ;" * and by Eusebius it is said, " They say also that Paul was wont to mean the Gospel accord- ing to Luke, when, speaking as it were of his own gospel, he says, 'According to my Gospel ;' " 2 and by Nicepho- rus, that it was published by the direction of Paul, and by the author of the Synopsis attributed to Athanasius, that it was dictated by Paul. 3 Of both these Gospels, also, it is said by Eusebius, that they, together with that by St. Matthew, were shown to St. John, who " approved of them, and confirmed the truth thereof by his own testimony." 4 The gospel of St. Luke particularly needs some such tes- timony to it to give it authority, as St. Luke himself only professes (as it appears to me) to give the accounts that had been furnished him by others who had been eye wit- nesses and ministers of the Word. 5 With respect to the Acts of the Apostles, we have not the same express testimony to its having received Apo- stolical sanction, excepting in the Synopsis attributed to Athanasius, where it is said to have been dictated by Peter; 6 and as it seems probable that both his Gospel and the Acts were written nearly about the same time, and while Paul was at Eome, (whose companion and disciple more especially Luke was,) it is not improbable that the former part of the Book of the Acts might be Peter's dictation, though not the latter, which relates to scenes witnessed not by Peter, but by Paul and Luke himself. The principle, however, being established by the passage of Tertullian above quoted, that the works of Apostolical men needed the sanction of an Apostle to establish their canonicity, it is not absolutely necessary Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 25. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 4. (ed. Val.) See Lardner as above, pp. 352, &s. And see Iren. lib. iii. c. 14. Emeb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 24. Luke i. 13. Synops. Script. Sacr. n. 76. Athan. Op. torn. ii. p. 202. cd. Bened. THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 495 for us to have direct testimony to the fact, knowing the principle upon which the primitive Church went in recog- nizing its canonicity. And still further, we have in St. Augustine a very clear though indirect testimony, that such was the ground upon which all these three books, the Acts included, were admitted into the Canon. For speaking of the Gospel of St. Luke, he says, " But he [Luke] has not only brought down his narrative to the resurrection and ascension of the Lord, so as to have a place worthy his labour among the four authors of the Evangelical Scripture, but also afterwards so wrote the things that were done by the Apostles, those things, that is, which he considered to be sufficient for establishing the faith of those who read or heard them, that his book alone was considered trustworthy in the Church, in its account of the acts of the Apostles, all those being re- jected who dared to give an unfaithful account of the acts and sayings of the Apostles. Because (quippe) Mark and Luke wrote at a time at which they could be sanc- tioned, not only by the Church of Christ, but also by the Apostles themselves yet remaining in the flesh" 1 Such, then, being the principle upon which the ca- nonicity of these books was admitted by the primitive Church, we, admitting that principle, have only to inquire whether we have sufficient testimony to induce us to believe that the Apostles did commend them to the Church for its guidance and instruction ; and for this we have the fact of their admission into the canon by the universal Church from the earliest times, as books that had received that sanction (for this, as we have shown, was considered necessary for such admission) united with the direct testimony borne to their having received that sanction by many of the Fathers of the Church. And after we have received the writings of the Apostles as 1 Iste autem non solum, &c. . . . Eo quippe tempore scripserunt Marcus et Lucas, quo non solum ab Ecclesia Christi, verum etiam ab ipsis adhuc in carne manentibus Apostolis probari potuerunt. August. De consens. Evan- gelist, lib. iv. c. 8. torn. iii. P. 2. p. 155. 496 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF inspired, I know no reason why we should hesitate to admit this testimony as sufficient, seeing the congruity of their statements with the revelation we have already admitted, to entitle them to a place in the canon ; for all that we want to know is the fact that they received Apo- stolical sanction. If our opponents tell us that we are not able to judge of their statements but by " tradition," I would remind them of the way in which Tertullian proved, in his con- troversy with Marcion, the uncorrupted preservation of his copy of St. Luke's gospel. " If," saith he, " the Apostolical Gospels have come down to us uncorrupted, and our copy of Luke's Gospel has such congruency with their rule as to remain with them in the churches, then it is clear that Luke's Gospel has come down to us un- corrupted until Marcion's sacrilege." 1 If this argument is valid, then it neither was nor is necessary to go to tra- dition to judge of the internal evidence of these books, (which Mr. Keble would fain persuade us was the great test in the admission of books into the canon) ; but a comparison of them with the Apostolical, will show a con- gruency with their rule, and this is all that the internal evidence can do with respect to such books. If asked, then, upon what grounds I receive any one of the Apostolical books of the New Testament to be in- spired, (for we must, of course, begin with those written by the Apostles,) I reply, my first inquiry is as to the genuineness and uncorrupted preservation of the book. The next as to the character of the author, and the evi- dence I have for his inspiration. Finding him to be one of the Apostles of our Lord, I inquire what evidence I have as to the divine mission of our Lord, and having established on internal and external evidence (as before stated) the character of our Lord and his Apostles, I con- 1 Si enim Apostolica Integra decurrerunt [decucurrerunt], Lucre autcm quod est secundum nos adeo congruit regulae eoruro, ut cum illis apud eccle- sias inaneat. jam et Lucae constat integrum decucurrisse usque ad sacrilegium Marcionis. Tertull. Adv. Marc. iv. 5. p. 416. THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 497 elude in favour of the inspiration of the book. And this method will answer for all the books of the New Testa- ment, with the exception of the Gospels of Mark and Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles. There are, indeed, as we have already intimated, some books of the New Testament, for the genuineness of which the testimony of the primitive Church was not con- sentient. Consequently, as far as patristical testimony goes, there is an uncertainty in the case. And hence, I suppose, it is undeniable, that he who firmly believes those books to be part of the canon, must have some better foundation for his belief than patristical testimony, or the voice of the Church. And there is nothing, per- haps, which more strongly shows the inconsistencies to which Romish views on these matters lead, than the fact, that while the Romish Church of the present day main- tains the canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews as the infallible witness of church-tradition, and tells us, that from church-tradition only can we learn the canon, it is a historical fact, that in the fourth century this infallible witness of church-tradition maintained that it was not canonical. And here I would ask our opponents, upon what evi- dence they receive these books. If they say upon patris- tical tradition, they contradict their own tenet, that catholic consent alone is a sufficient foundation for faith, and pin their faith upon the declarations of that portion of the Catholic Church whose determinations please them. If they admit the insufficiency of patristi- cal tradition in proof of the canonicity of these books, they overturn the position against which we are here contending. With respect to the three books not written by Apo- stles, I would remark that for the two former we have the internal testimony (to be judged of by its congruency with the writings of the Apostles already admitted as inspired) which is not, I grant, a sufficient proof after the introduc- tion of Christianity, united with the direct and express 498 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF testimony of the Fathers, that they were sanctioned and recommended by Apostles, and the unanimous testimony (as far as it is ascertainable) of the early Church in their favour, manifestly grounded on their having received Apo- stolical sanction. With respect to the third, viz. the Acts of the Apostles, we have the internal testimony (to he judged of as before) united with the unanimous testimony of the early Church in its favour, grounded manifestly on the supposition of its having received such sanction. With respect also to those books that are rejected, the question may be at once determined historically. For instance, as to the pretended Epistle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans, the case is clear. There is no sufficient proof of its genuineness. And the writings of those who were not Apostles have, of course, no pretence, apart from very strong and direct evidence in their favour, to a place in the Canon, and therefore need not be considered. And, therefore, when Mr. Newman tells us, " We include the second Epistle of St. Peter, we leave out St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, simply because the Church Catholic has done so," (p. 341, 2,) he might as well say that we leave out the Epistles of Ignatius, or the works of Irenaeus, or anybody else, " simply because" the Fathers have done so. We neither put in nor leave out " simply because' the Fathers have done so, for I would beg to ask whether, supposing that they had said, " we grant that Cle- ment's Epistle never received Apostolical sanction, but we reckon it among the inspired books," that would have been a sufficient reason for putting it into the Canon. If not, it is not "simply because' the Fathers admitted one and rejected another that we do the same. We look to the grounds of their judgment. Such, then, is the evidence for the genuineness, uncor- rupted preservation, inspiration, and consequent canoni- city of the New Testament Scriptures. A brief sketch of its leading features has been all that our limits in this place have allowed us to give. But the more it is ex- panded into its details, the more complete and convincing THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 499 will it be found to be. And of this evidence the tradi- tion of the Church is but one part, and in the most im- portant part of the question, namely, the divine origin of the revelation contained in the Scriptures, it is a part of the evidence wholly insufficient by itself to constitute a proof. The utmost which it could do is to certify us of the genuine- ness and incorrupt preservation of these writings. Further ; were we to admit that the patristical tradi- tion we possess is by itself sufficient to assure us of the genuineness and incorrupt preservation of the writings of the New Testament, (a question which it is unnecessary to enter into, because we have other evidence on the point,) it would by no means follow that it was a sufficient and certain witness of the oral teaching of the Apostles so as to be a divine informant. For it is a totally different thing to hand down certain books as written or sanctioned by the Apostles, and to give a correct report of their oral teaching, whether concerning doctrines or rites. In the case of doctrines more especially, it is evident that testi- mony which might be very sufficient to establish the genuineness of the Scriptures might be very insufficient to establish the genuineness of doctrinal statements profess- ing to come from the oral teaching of the Apostles. I may believe fully the genuineness of a work upon evi- dence which would be wholly insufficient to establish the certainty of a doctrinal statement reported to me as having been orally delivered by the author of that work. True, our opponents ground their proof of the correctness of the report of it to which they refer on its being delivered by all catholics everywhere, urging that such consent proves its correctness. But then, as we have already observed, the proof of this consent is lamentably deficient, and in fact the claim to it evidently unfounded. There is no such testimony for the Apostolical origin of any doctrine or rite not contained in Scripture, or any interpretation of Scripture, as for the genuineness of the books of the New Testament,! believe I might say, of all, but certainly of all but those books whose genuineness was doubted of by KK2 500 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF some in the primitive Church, in which case neither party can be assured on the point by the testimony of patristical tradition. And were we even to suppose such consent, its weight in reporting an oral doctrinal statement of the Apostles, however great, would be very different, as we have already intimated, to the weight which it has in bearing witness to a certain book having come from the Apostles. Were we even to allow, then, that in both cases there was consent in the remaining Fathers (which we by no means do) and that that testimony was sufficient in the latter case, it would by no means follow that it was so in the former. Nay more, the character of the testimony is altogether different. The witness borne to Scripture is direct. It is of this nature. Such and such a book was written by such an Apostle, the book being cited under his name. But in the case of doctrines, interpretations, or practices, it is not in general pretended that the witness appealed to by our opponents is of this direct kind ; and if such a pretence be made, facts will immediately disprove its truth. There are few cases in which the Fathers can be shown to have made generally any direct claim to be delivering the oral teaching of the Apostles, and the two in which such claims are made with the most confidence, and by the greatest number, are just those which are generally disallowed, .viz. the doctrine of the millennium and the practice of giving the eucharist to infants. Moreover, in the delivery of a doctrinal statement we have to contend with all the difficulties arising from the carelessness and inaccuracy of the writer, the indistinct- ness of his own conceptions, the bias to which his subject inclined him, difficulties which any man of experience in such matters will know are quite sufficient to prevent the possibility of any proof of consent even where consent might exist. And as to matters of fact and the rites and practices of the Church, what is there for which we have anything like consentient patristical testimony for its Apostolical THAT SCRIPTURE 18 INSPIRED. 501 origin ? We have, no doubt, on many points patristical testimony strongly confirmatory of the correctness of our interpretation of Scripture in matters both of doctrine and practice, but the only testimony which bears a com- parison with that for the genuineness of Scripture is a direct ascription of the doctrine or practice to Aposto- lical teaching. Now, then, let our opponents no longer envelope them- selves in the smoke of fine words and vague generalities, but fairly tell us what doctrine or practice, or what in- terpretation of Scripture can challenge such direct testi- mony to its Apostolical origin from the catholic Fathers as a body, and point out the passages in which such testi- mony is to be found. For instance, let them point out the passages in which it is stated that the Apostles directed that infants should be baptized, and then let them com- pare with the evidence they find on this point the direct testimonies of the Fathers to the authorship of the books of the New Testament. The evidence will be found to be of an altogether different kind. It is quite true that the process by which the truth that Scripture is the word of God is arrived at, and the motives inducing men to believe it, may be very different in different individuals. One may begin at one part of the proof and another at another, one may be chiefly influ- enced by one part and another by another. And gene- rally in the case of those who have been instructed by the Church, the teaching of the Church as to the sacredness of these books is the introductory motive to belief in them as the Word of God, so that any subsequent inquiry re^ specting them is commenced with a feeling of reverent regard towards them. And this feeling united with a contemplation of the internal testimony to the divine origin of the revelation they contain, in the excellent nature and effects of that revelation, may, and often will, (always, with the assistance of God's Spirit) produce in the mind a belief in this truth, without any such elaborate investiga- 502 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF tion of the evidence for it as that to which we have just alluded. But, in no case, and under no circumstances, can the tradition of the Church be justly taken as sufficient proof of a matter which involves a doctrine affecting the very foundation upon which the church stands. Even were tradition a safe guide, as far as concerns conveying to us the oral traditions of the Apostles, it would not at all follow that it was a safe guide in this point, for the doctrine that Scripture is the Word of God, necessarily depends upon the character of our Lord and his Apostles; and this cannot be proved by any oral declaration of the Apostles to that effect, and still less by any decree of the Church. But, doubtless, for the genuineness and inspiration of those particular writings which form the New Testa- ment, there can be no sufficient proof to the unassisted mind, without good external evidence ; and the external evidence we have for these truths, appears to me, to be, as far as external evidence can go, (for those parts, at least, of the New Testament that have universal tradition in their favour,) conclusive. And hence, it is the duty of every man who is qualified by education to do so, to inquire into the evidences for the doctrine that Scripture is the word of God; and unless he does this, he cannot possess that evidence of the truth of the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture which is necessary (putting out of sight the work of the Spirit upon the heart) to form so complete a proof of it as to leave no room for reason to cavil or hesitate. It is quite true that God may so convince the mind of any truth, by a direct operation upon the soul, that such a man would be guilty, and without excuse before him , for not believing it. But in the first place, this can be no evidence to any one but himself. And further, know- ing the discordant opinions that have been maintained under the supposition of such an internal testimony, it is THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 503 clearly the duty of such an one to see that it is not opposed by other reasonable testimony, and to ascertain, as far as he is able, how far it is supported by other testi- mony. Granted that he may not be able to see or under- stand all the evidence there is in its favour, and that if he finds that it is not opposed by other valid evidence, this may be enough for satisfaction in such a case, yet the inquiry it is his duty to make. And this I conceive to be practically the situation of many Christians, who, from Circumstances, are prevented from taking that clear and comprehensive view of the evidences for Scripture which could demonstrate its divine origin. Here, as far as human assent could go, the ground for belief is lessened ; but, in the case which we are now supposing, the work is one of Divine power, and therefore the satisfaction possessed by the mind proportion ably strong. Nevertheless, the same reason which makes it incumbent upon such a man to look beyond the internal impressions produced upon his own mind in favour of the truth, either by the intrinsic power of the word or by divine influence, goes to show that the inquiry should be carried as far as the inquirer is able to investigate the subject. It is the duty and the privilege of one who feels that religion is his chief concern, thus to investigate the proofs for the divine origin of the Scriptures, and so to strengthen and fortify his faith in what they reveal. Instead, however, of wishing men to make such in- quiries, our opponents urge them against so doing as both unnecessary and dangerous, and that, not on account of the power of the internal evidence of the word or the work of the Spirit, but as if, forsooth, it were an affront to " the Church." Men are to be content to receive all on faith in the dictum of " the church." Their lan- guage is, in fact, You must shut your eyes and walk straightforward as your ecclesiastical guide tells you, and then all will be right. Only be sure not to open your eyes and look where you are going, for in that case, we will not answer for the consequences ; for we can assure 504 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF you that some people who have used their eyesight, have made mistakes. And in truth, holding the opinions they do (which we shall notice presently), as to the nature of these evidences, and the state in which men are left, it is no wonder that such is their advice. But, say our opponents, what are men in general, par- ticularly the illiterate, to do, who are unable to investigate the evidences for this truth ? I return the question, and shall probably be told that the illiterate must believe upon the testimony of the church. But to the illiterate man, th