I LLINOI S UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Brittle Books Project, 2009. -77 711 7 r -1 - - - - SAW i 1 - i 1 I 11 { i JuisDore, hcg Puchsd,198 THE DIVINE RULE 01? FAITH AND PRACTICE. Iliretici, quum ex Scripturis argunmtur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsarm Scripturarum, .. . quia vanie sint dictae, et quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qul nesciant Traditionern. Non enim per litteras traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem.-IRXI.trS. 'iavepa EKrrwcor s7rtoTECOS Kai vrp~av'as KaTl7yopta, y IOETELJ''frt cov yEypaLEVCOv, ire7TEayew JTOW / r7 yeypaqL'ow.--BASIL. A1VTdpKES cIOw vat' iyt a c OEo'rvevc-r-oi ypacjai irpo8 v ^ '~s /AjOdas aTayyEXav.-ATH A N A SIUS. I see not how you differ from that opinion which is THE GROUN~D OF ALL PA- PISTRY, that is, that all things necessary unto salvation are not EXPRESSED in the Scriptures ... There is nothing necessary to eternal life which is not both com- manded and expressed in the Scripture. I count it expressed, when it is either in maniest words contained in Scripture, or thereof gathered by necessary collection. --ARCHBISHOP WHITGIPT. We of the Church of England affirm, that the Scriptures contain a COMPLETE RULE OF FAITH AND) PRACTICE, and we reject every doctrine and precept as essential to salvation, or to be obeyed as divine, which is not supported by their authority.-BISHOP ToMLINE. THE DIVINE RULE OF 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;" ETC. IN WHICH ALSO THE DOCTRINES OF 8s fpoltoicaI "uccefion, the ticdjari-tic actice, &c. ARE FULLY DISCUSSED. BY WILLIAM GOODE, M.A. F.S.A. OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE;' RECTOH OF ALLHALLOWS THE GREAT AND LESS, LONDON. IN THREE VOLUMES. VOL. I. SECOND EDITION, REVISED AND ENLARGED. LONDON : JOHIN HENRY JACKSON, 21, PATERNOSTER ROW. 1853. LONDON: PRINTED BY C. F. HODGSON, GOUGH1 SQUARE, FLEET STREET. PREFACE PREFIXED TO THE FIRST EDITION, PUBLISHED IN 184Q. THE movement that has lately taken place in our Church, under the auspices of the Authors of the Tracts for the Times, whatever may be the view taken of it, must be admitted to be one of a very important kind. Whether for good or evil, the degree of development it has already attained, amply shows, that its success must be attended with a great and thorough change in the principles and practices of our Church in various most important points. That such would be the case, was for a long time studiously concealed from public view. So much caution, indeed, was exercised in the earlier part of their career by the Tractators, that to none but those who were somewhat acquainted with the controversial writings of divines on the points touched upon, so as to see the full force and tendency of the terms used, was it apparent whither they were going; though to such, I may add, it was abundantly evident. And the first intimation of it to the public mind was in the very seasonable publication of Mr. Froude's Remains, a work which clearly and most oppor- tunely revealed the real spirit and views of the (to use Mr. Froude's own term) "conspirators" against the present order of things in our Church. As time has advanced, and the number of their adherents increased, the reserve formerly practised has been gradually thrown aside. Perhaps, indeed, their own views have become more fixed and definite than when they commenced their labours. And we are far from laying to their charge any other concealment than such as they judged to be wise and prudent for the inculcation of new and unpalatable truths; though we may be pardoned for observing, that a more VOL. 1. b 800248 open course appears to us to be (to use a mild term) much freer from objections. It is now, then, openly avowed, that the Articles, though " it is notorious that they were drawn up by Protestants, and intended for the establishment of Protestantism," are not to be interpreted according to " the known opinions of their framers," but in what the Tractators are pleased to call a "Catholic" sense,1 which interpretation we are informed "was intended to " be admissible, though not that which their authors took them- " selves," in order to " comprehend those who did not go so far in Protestantism as themselves ;"2 though the Articles are said, in the very title prefixed to them, to have been drawn up "for " the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and for the establishing " of consent touching true religion ;" and were put forth, in compliance with the request of the lower House of Convocation, "that certain articles containing the principal grounds of the " Christian religion be set forth, as well to determine the truth of " things this day in controversy, as also to show what errors are " chiefly to be eschewed."3 And the "Declaration" prefixed to the Articles, requiring them to be interpreted in the "literal and grammatical sense," " sanctions" such a mode of inter- pretation.4 That is, the "literal and grammatical sense" com- prehends that "uncatholic" and Protestant doctrine against which the Tractators protest, and also that opposite "catholic " doctrine which they embrace. And this "catholic" doctrine is such as is consistent with the decrees of the Council of Trent.' And the Declaration, forbidding any person to "affix any new sense to any article," "was promulgated," we are told, " at a time when the leading men of our Church were especially noted for catholic views."6 But surely, if the "literal and gram- matical sense" of the Articles comprehends so much as the Tractators suppose, and men had all along subscribed the Articles with propriety, though varying in their sentiments from the Protestantism of Bishop Jewell,7 to the "Catholicism" which squared with the Decrees of the Council of Trent, it was 1 No. 90. p. 80. 2 Ib. p. 81. (2d edit. p. 82.) 3 Wilk. Cone. iv. 240. 4 No. 90. p. 80. 5 See the whole of No. 90. 6 Ib. p. 80. 7 The opposition of which to the catholicism of the Tractators may be judged of by an article in the British Critic for July, 1841. vi PREFACE. rather a useless admonition, for the wit of man could hardly devise a sense of the Articles not to be found within such an extensive range as this. And the very men, be it observed, who say, that these Articles, carefully drawn up "for the establishment of Protes- tantism," will bear meanings ranging from Protestantism to that Anti-protestantism that agrees with the decisions of the Council of Trent, tell us, that in the writings of the Fathers, a representation of the orthodox faith is to be found, so clearly and definitely delivered in the consentient testimony of all of them, that so far from there being any uncertainty as to their meaning, the orthodox faith as thus delivered is "an obvious historical fact ;" from which flows the very convenient conse- quence, that he who follows it has all the benefit of infallibility without incurring the odium of claiming it.1 Moreover, to " talk of the 'blessings of emancipation from the Papal yoke,' " is to use a phrase of "a bold and UNDUTIFUL tenour." " To call the earlier reformers martyrs, is to beg the " question, which of course Protestants do not consider a ques- " tion; but which no one pretending to the name of Catholic can "for a moment think of conceding to them, viz. whether that for " which these persons suffered were the 'truth.' " "Protes- " tantism, in its essence, and in all its bearings, is character- "istically the religion of corrupt human nature."4 " The " Protestant tone of doctrine and thought is essentially anti- " christian."5 The reader will observe, that the term used in these denunciations is no longer, as at first, "ultra-Protestan- tism," but (with a candour which we should have been glad to have seen from the commencement) "Protestantism." 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 individuals," they say, "are we not DEALING UNFAIRLY both with Protestants " and other branches of the Catholic Church ? Are we not "holding out false colours to the former, and drawing them near 1 See Newman's Lect. on Rom. &c. pp. 224, 5. 3 Ib. p. 14. 4 Ib. p. 27. 2 Brit. Crit. July, 1841. p. 2. 1 lb. p. 29. vii PREFACE. " 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, exhibiting a very distorted and unreal representation " of the Catholicism to which we desire to attract them; hold- " ing 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;' intrude upon the " peace of the contented, and raise doubts in the minds of the " uncomplaining; vex the Church with controversy, alarm serious " men, and interrupt the established order of things; set 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 UNPROTESTANTIZING (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 " themselves disastrous, effects of the pending controversy.... " We cannot stand where we are, we must go backwards or for- " wards; 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 viii PREFACE. " developed, which are now but in germ. AND AS WE GO ON, " WE MUST RECEDE MORE AND MORE FROM THE PRINCIPLES, c" IF ANY SUCH THERE BE, OF THE ENGLISH REFORMATION."1 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 foresaw 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 primary 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. It is, if possible, still more painful to contemplate the fact, that these remarks were published by those who profess 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 agita- tors," 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. 1 British Critic for July 1841, pp. 44, 45. 2 " Of course, union of the whole Church under one visible government is ab- stractedly 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 schisnm.. . . We talk of the ' blessings of emancipation from the Papal yoke,' and use other phrases of a like bold and UN UDTIFIL tenour."-Brit. Crit. for July 1841, p. 2. 1 ix PREFACE. The reader will observe, that in their use of the word "Catholic," the Tractators are directly opposed to our Re- formers. Our Reformers were so far from thinking that Pro- testantism and Catholicism were opposed to each other, that one ground for their supporting the former was, their convic- tion that it best deserved the title of the latter. Bishop Jewell believed, that it was the Reformation that restored the "antient religion" (to use the reviewer's phrase) to our Church. And both he and, I believe I may say, all the more learned Re- formers claimed the name "Catholic," as belonging more peculiarly to themselves, than to those who, both in the Wes- tern 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 themselves to be, by words and phrases. And the same caution must be given as to the Tractators' repudiation of the charge of holding Romish tenets. Their repudiation of it is grounded merely upon their rejection of certain 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 priestcraft, 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 ordinary 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 hold- ing 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 subse- quent page. With these facts and statements before his eyes, the reader x PREFACE. 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,' " 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 me impossible " to read the works of the Oxford divines, and especially to " follow them chronologically, without discovering a daily "approach towards our holy Church, both in doctrine and in " affectionate 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, far, " 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 institu- " tions and practices, and their regret at having lost them, " manifestly spring from the value which they set upon every- "thing Catholic; and to suppose them (without 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 secure 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 dissatisfaction at the system of the Angli- " can 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 Protestant redundancy in a third: but there is an im- 1 A Letter on Catholic Unity, to the Earl of Shrewsbury, by Nicholas, Bishop of Melipotamus. xi PREFACE. Xii PREFACE. " patient 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 " rights; the extinction of the monastic and ascetic feeling " and observances; the decay of ' awe, mystery, tenderness, " reverence, devotedness, and other feelings which may be spe- " cially called Catholic' (Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 26.) ; the miser- " able feeling of solitariness and separation 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 withhold 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 apo- stolical" 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 Christen- dom ;" 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 return to Popery. "A still more promising circumstance," he says, "I think your " lordship with 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 recon- "ciling the followers of the Augsburg Confession with the Holy PREFACE. " See. The learned Bishop observes, that Providence had " allowed so much Catholic truth to be preserved in that Con- " fession, that'full advantage should be taken of the circum- " stance: that no retractations should be demanded, but an " explanation of the Confession in accordance with Catholic " 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 will strip them of "all contradiction to the decrees of the Tridentine Synod." (p. 38.) This instructive passage 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 reconcilable with the state- ments of Trent itself. It may not be known to many, that a very similar attempt to reconcile our Articles with the doctrines of the Romish Church was made two centuries ago by an English convert to Popery, named Christopher Davenport, 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 explaining many of the most important of the Thirty-nine Ar- ticles, so as to make them conformable to the Tridentine state- ments; 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 Popery. And for learning and inge- nuity, our modern Reconciler 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 1 Deus, Natura, Gratia. Sive Tractatus de Predestinatione, de Meritis et pec- catorum remissione, seu de Justificatione et denique de Sanctorum Invocatione. Ubi ad trutinam fidei Catholice examinatur Confessio Anglicana, &c. Accessit paraphrastica Expositio reliquorum Articulorumn Confessionis Anglicae. 2a ed. Lugd. 1634. 8vo. MRi PREFACE. faith only," here, saith Mr. Newman, "faith, as being the be- " ginning 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, " be- " cause faith is the foundation of our justification and spiritual " life," " therefore justification, and the salvation of man, is at- tributed to faith."1 Justification is often attributed to faith, " because faith is the gate and foundation of it, and the whole spiritual structure."' "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 dispute is, what faith we are to understand.... "They themselves attribute it, iot to that special kind of faith, " but to ihe 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, xiv 1 p. 192. p. 196. 3 pp. 202, 3. PREFACE. 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 desti- tute of divine aid; and that so, notwithstanding this Article, " it is quite true that works done with divine aid, and in faith, " before justification, do dispose men to receive the grace of " justification,-such were Cornelius's alms, fastings, and pray- " ers, which led to his baptism."' 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 justification of congruity ; but, nevertheless, "with " the aid of the first bestowed grace preceding, we can, by seek- " ing 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 concerning "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 doc- " trine on all these points," &c.6 "And further, by the ' Ro- " mish doctrine,' is not meant the Tridentine statement .... " there are portions in the Tridentine statements on these sub- "jects which the Article, far from condemning, by anticipation " approves as far as they go."7 And what he considers con- 1 pp. 15, 16. 2 p. 152. p. 159. 4 p. 160. ' p. 170. 6 p. 23. 7 p. 24. XV demned, is "the 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 Invocation." And to see what was meant by " the Romish doctrine," he says, we must ob- serve how it is described by Protestants; and having (like Mr. Newman) extracted some honest representations of it from Pro- testant writers, he adds, that it is not to be wondered at that such a doctrine 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 im- " puted to the Church."' " In the same way evidently, and " by the same mode of speaking," he adds, "they reject, in " the same Article, not Purgatory, Indulgences, the adora- "tion of images and relics, in themselves, but, as before, the " Romish doctrine on all these points; that is, the doctrine falsely "imputed to us ;"2 proceeding to show that the Article did not condemn good sound Tridentine doctrine. " Here, therefore," he concludes, "there will be peace altogether with the Anglican " 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 Exposition of the other Articles," at the end, the same course is adopted. We will compare those on Art. xxviii. on Transubstantiation, and Art. xxxi. on Masses. " What is here opposed as 'Transubstantiation,'" says Mr. Newman on Art. xxviii., " is the shocking doctrine that ' the " body of Christ,' as the Article goes on to express it, is not " ' given, taken, and eaten after an heavenly and spiritual man- "ner, but is carnally pressed with the teeth;' that it is a body xvi PREFACE. 1 pp. 349, 50. 2 p. 351. 3 p. 353. PREFACE. " 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 locally at God's right hand, yet really present here,-present 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 con- " demned, in this Article, the antient error of the Capharnaites, " 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 denies 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. 388-90.) Again, on Art. xxxi. on Masses, Mr. Newman says, " No- " thing 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 remission of sin." (pp. 59, 60, 63.) So Francis a Sancta Clara says, that "there is nothing here against the " sacrifices of the Mass in themselves, but against the vulgar " or common notion respecting them, namely, that the priests "in their sacrifices offer Christ for the quick and the dead, for " remission of sin and transgression; so as to be able, by virtue " of this sacrifice offered by them, independent of the sacrifice " of the cross, meritoriously to procure for the people remission, " &c." (p. 400.) Such was the attempt made, two centuries ago, to reconcile our Protestant Articles with the dogmas of Popery. But at that time the nation had been but too recently emancipated xvii from the Papal yoke, and her traditional remembrances of Popery were too fresh, to admit of her being so easily be- guiled by fine words and plausible phrases. And it so happens, that we have ARCHBISHOP LAUD'S own testimony to his having "absolutely denied" permission to the author to have the work 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 Franciscan Friar, " who hath written a Popish and seditious book, entitled Deus, " Natura, Gratia, &c., wherein the Thirty-nine Articles of the " Church of England, established by Act of Parliament, are " much traduced and scandalized; 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 substance, " I found the scope of his book 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 foregoing 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 its purpose, would be, with the Articles themselves, indignantly thrown overboard, to make way for a truly "Catholic" exposition of the faith, dic- tated at Rome. And then I suspect the poor remnant of the despised Protestants might sigh in vain for a "Catholic" con- fession sufficiently indulgent to include an "uncatholic" mean- ing, 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 1 Canterbury's Doom, or Prynne's Account of the Trial of Archbishop Laud, p. 34, as quoted in Wood's Ath. Oxon. 2 See Archbishop Laud's History of his Troubles, p. 385. xviii PREFACE. 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 resting 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 per- sons of a thoroughly uncatholic spirit, and framed "for the establishment" of a system which they believe to be even Anti- christian, "the religion of corrupt human nature ;" and avow themselves " ecclesiastical agitators," purposing to avail them- selves 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 Pro- testant 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 Pro- testant Church, for the purpose of "unprotestantizing" it; the righteous end sanctifying, I suppose, (according to the well- known "Catholic" doctrine) the unrighteous means. This is no question, then, of high or low Churchmanship, of Calvinism or Arminianism, of this or that shade of doctrine, in which a latitude may justly be allowed. No, as the Tractators them- selves 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 1 See extract from British Critic, p. viii. above. xix PREFACE. entitled to the name of Anglicanism, and represented their doc- trines 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 extra- ordinary 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 statements 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 follow- ing 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 decisive 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 culpable (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, Hickes, John- son, and others, forming a small and 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 system 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, altogether 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, xx PREFACE. PREFACE. 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 per- manent 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 references 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 pas- sages with relation to the present controversy,' shows a want of acquaintance with the phraseology of the Fathers, which ought to make us receive his citations with corsiderable caution. Nor can I at all account for various other erroneous representations 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,') 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 1 See vol. i. pp. 72-75. 2 See vol. i. pp. 64-75; 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. iii. ch. x. � 3, under " Council of Nice;" 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. iii. ch. x. � 3, under "Chrysostom." VOL. I. C xxi XXII PREFACE. dignity of an oracular response, as what everybody always every- where in the Primitive Church from the beginning proclaimed and maintained with one consent, and yet 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 uncertainty, 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 point; even from a careful perusal of the records of antiquity 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 fancy- ing himself able hence to vouch for the sentiments of "every- body always everywhere," I feel a difficulty in understanding 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 ac- quainted with those sources of information 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. Statements, indeed, more uncatholic than some that the Tractators them- selves have made,-as for instance that of Dr. Pusey, that "to the decisions of the Church Universal we owe faith,"--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 ver- dict 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 1 Letter to Bishop of Oxford, p. 53. where so many references 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 subject of surprise, and among others, as it seems, to themselves.' For my own part, when I reflect upon the temporary success that has often attended heresies and delusions of the most extravagant nature, I cannot participate in such feelings. For the partial and temporary success that they have met with in the inculca- tion of their doctrines, 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 ex- pect that her great enemy will thus afflict her. If, however, she be upon the whole found faithful to her God, such trials will assuredly be overruled for her good; and there is perhaps no- thing 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 commenced 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 pur- poses, and from various causes excited against all its constituted 1 Brit. Crit. for July 1841, p. 28, c2 xxiii PREFACE. PREFACE. 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 permissible relaxation of principle in the conduct of her members towards the dissenters became so no longer, when it was clearly seen, that the leading object of those dissenters, as a body, was to deprive the Church of all her peculiar privileges and opportuni- ties for the promotion of Christianity 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. Everything 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, com- bined to lead all those who knew anything of Church principles, and had any regard for the Church, to serious reflection. There was in consequence a healthy reaction in favour of those prin- ciples. At this time, and under these circumstances, the Trac- tators commenced their labours. A more favourable moment could hardly have been fourid. Events had so completely pre- pared 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 Protestant Church. All that they blamed was "ultra-Protestantism." They claimed the support of all our great divines without exception. Antiquity was, beyond contradiction, according to their account, 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 suc- ceeded, and thus in many cases have converted a healthy reaction into one which threatens to carry away its victims, and has in- deed carried away several, into the bosom of Rome itself. xxIY The circumstances of the times had evidently much influence upon the Tractators themselves in leading them to embrace the views they have taken up.' 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 question) 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 Protestantism, 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 cannot but fear, that they suffered themselves to be prejudiced in favour of that system of doctrine to which the circumstances 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 reformers and correctors of the Church. I am much mistaken if their " Catenas" do not show either an un- fairness, 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 distinguished us as a body from that corrupt Church, and seem gradually progressing to the reception of the whole system; 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 saying, that the extreme of High Church principles is Popery. We beg the reader to ask himself, whether those principles can well be 1 See Newman's Lect. on Rom. &c. p. 14. Keble's Serm. on Trad pp. 5-7. PREFACE. XXV 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 judicious view of the subject. The low state of ecclesiastical 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 information could not fail to be seen under such circumstances. 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 citations from the Fathers, the corrupt doctrines and practices 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 dis- pute, not merely as to the foundation upon which their system rests, the authority of Patristical Tradition, 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 allegations from the Fathers, such as that of the British Critic in the case of Jewell, it reminds one but of the puny efforts of a dwarf to espy holes in the ar- mnour of a giant. We may add also, as a still further reason for their success, that their doctrines are such as will always, as long as human nature remains what it is, attract many to them ;* of the clergy, xxvi PREFACE. 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 ap- pealing to his judgment, "I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say," and your personal influence 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 will be much fewer than those in which a nominal adherence to the truth will be professed under the former system of teaching. And even were it not so, the personal influence of the clergy over their respec- tive 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 inspired 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 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 baselessness of the claims upon which it rests. All these causes have operated in favour of the Tractators. But there are at the same time not a few reasons also for XXVii PREFACE. XXViii PREFACE. 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 publica- tions 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 detected in such inconsistencies, misrepresentations, and mistakes, as will infallibly alter their position very materially in the eyes of many who may have been originally inclined 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 treatment, 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. Crit. for July 1841, p. 3.) Now the writer of this is either profoundly ignorant of the ecclesiastical literature of that period, or he has misrepresented 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 com- paratively) would have the means of judging of the truth of his re- mark. Considering the character of the period, and the compa- ratively limited number of original works then published to what there are now, it is surprising how many practical 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 deceived, especially by those who put forth high claims to wisdom and learning. Their "quiet,- self-complacent, supercilious language," as an able writer in the British Maga- zine has justly called it,1 will be doubly offensive when found to 1 Brit. Mag. for May 1839, p. 518. PREFACE. be wanting in that which alone could afford the shadow of an apology for it. Their misrepresentations, 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) deceived 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 Anti-protestant sense, in order to enable Antiprotestants to retain their places in our Church, is so utterly irreconcilable 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 impossible 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 pos- session of the citadel, and who suppose that they have better opportunities to do so within the walls than without, but whose avowed objects make it clear, that the present state of things can- not 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 standard 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 betrayers, 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 overthrow. That such a controversy should have arisen in our Church is deeply to be regretted. The agitation of such questions neces- sarily 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 discouraged and perplexed, her enemies triumph; xxix 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 Catholicism of our Reformers is to give place to a system of doctrine and practice altogether unsound, and the corruptions 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 prevent such a result. The zeal, and earnestness, and perseverance 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 suc- ceeded to the possession of privileges so dearly purchased, to contend with similar devotedness for their preservation and transmission unimpaired to their children. And we may hum- bly hope, that He who out of evil oft educeth good, may grant that even this controversy may not be without its good effects. The real principles of our Church will be better known and appreciated, even among its own members and ministers. The foundation upon which it stands will, we are convinced, 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 induce them to slight human authority, and are scarcely willing to pay defe- rence 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 spiritual and temporal interests. But I see no XXX PREFACE. reason hence to suppose, that unfounded claims to their obe- dience 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 calculated to act as a remedy for the evils which internal dissensions have produced in the Protestant body. The liberty obtained by the Reforma- tion has no doubt been in some cases abused. And the panacea for the evils so caused may appear to many to be the re-esta- blishment 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 else- where, and Rome is largely availing herself of it. But, what- ever 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 into the place of God and Christ, for the everlasting gospel, will be permitted to have but a very pre- carious and temporary hold upon the minds of men. Of this at least we are assured, that it is the duty of all who are interested in the real welfare of mankind to lay open the anti-christian nature and tendencies of such a system. Glad therefore as we should have been in being engaged in urging the just claims of Antiquity and our Church to the deferential respect of mankind, and pointing out the evils and the guilt connected with that wild and lawless spirit of independence of constituted authorities now so prevalent, and painful as it is to have to point out the blemishes rather than the excellencies of the Church, and to appear in any degree as the apologist of irregularities against which on other occasions we should feel it a duty to protest, the unfounded claims to spiritual dominion set up by the Tractators on behalf of the clergy, make it more than eqially a duty to guard men against such fatal errors. The clergy were appointed, not to be, either individually or collectively, as Mr. Newman would have them, "the sovereign lord of conscience," but wit- nesses for the truth, not lords over God's heritage, but ex- amples to the flock, not to be mediators between God and men, but to point men to the one Mediator Christ Jesus. xxxi PREFACE. The Romanists and the Tractators both tell us, that the divi- sions among Protestants are all owing to the free use of the Bible as the sole authoritative Rule of faith. Not to stop to retort the charge of internal divisions, or to say that unity obtained by impositions upon the credulity of mankind is as little to be boasted of as the peace that exists among the ashes of the dead, let me ask those who for so many centuries kept the Bible as a sealed book from the hands of the people, seriously to put it to their own consciences, how far the blame rests upon their own heads. Would it be any matter for surprise, if youths, long debarred from their just rights, should, upon finding them- selves free agents, run into extremes, and not find the middle path until age and experience had enabled them to take a calm and dispassionate view of things ? Why, then, should we feel surprised, that the Church, upon her emancipation from the Papal yoke, should for a long time suffer from the excesses into which the restoration of her liberty has ensnared some of her members ? Such divisions, indeed, are now likely to exist more or less to the end. And would that the evils caused by such divisions might lead those who are aiding in their perpetuation, to serious reflection upon the necessary consequences of their vagaries, and to a remembrance of the words of our Divine Master, that a house divided against itself falleth ! But let the blame be shared by those whose conduct has tended, more than anything else, to produce such a result. The unchristian usur- pations of Popery have done more than any other cause that can be named to destroy the unity of the Church, and subvert the moral influence of the clergy over the minds of men. Nor let it ever be forgotten by the Romanists, when complaining of the divided state of the Protestant body, that they have them- selves, by the imposition of unchristian terms of communion, rendered themselves the most schismatical portion of all Chris- tendom. When men are cast out of the Church by a Diotrephes, the brand of schism rests not upon the excommunicated, but the excommunicator. For presenting to the public the following work, an apology can hardly, I suppose, be needed. It was impossible to see the deadly leaven of Popery insinuating itself into the very vitals of xxxii PREFACE. our Church, and that too under the venerable names of those whose lives were spent in purging it out of her, or preserv- ing her from re-infection, without feeling that any warning (from whatever quarter it might proceed) could not be mistimed; that any effort, however it might fall short of doing full justice to the subject, could not be misplaced. I trust I shall not be misunderstood by the amiable authors of the works upon which I have here ventured to animadvert, when I say that it ap- peared to me to be-certainly it is equivalent in its effects to- treason in the camp. They 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 conclusions 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 Pri- mitive 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 quietude 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 themselves with the original sources of information, will understand the difficulties to be encountered in the performance 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, xxxiii PREFACE. PREFACE. ---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 obligations to those who have laboured in the same field before me, for many references to the Fathers, of which I have freely availed myself, when I have found them, on viewing them in their con- text, to afford good proof of that for which they are cited. The authorities our earlier divines have adduced in their works against the Romanists 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 Trac- tators, 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 particular 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 followed 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 con- troversy. 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 dis- cussed, one cannot but feel warmly, and he who feels warmly is apt to express himself warmly. I must beg pardon, however, for saying, that there are some circumstances in the present xxxiv controversy which appear to me to justify, and indeed to require, strong language. There are many points in the 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 repre- hension. Our opponents 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 con- sidered plain and fair dealing. Nor can I help adding, that the anonymous publications of the party more particularly are, many of them, characterized by a self-complacent spirit, and a scornful tone towards their opponents, such as intimate, 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 justify strong language. We are far from disputing the piety or the learning of the Tractators, but (let us not con- ceal 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 recommendations, 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 prejudices 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 Church any who have been misled, or preserve any who are in danger of being misled, by the specious arguments PREFACE. XXXV Xxxvi PREFACE. and plausible statements of the Tractators. I commend it hum- bly to His blessing who alone can make it instrumental to the good of His Church. WILLIAM GOODE. London, November 2, 1841. PR~EFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. SINCE the first edition of this work was published, the true nature and tendency of Tractarianism have been so fully proved, that it seems hardly necessary here to address any further warnings to the Reader on that point. But no one can view the present state of our Church without feeling, that, notwithstand. ing the Romish character of the movement, and the large secession it has caused from our ranks in the direction of Rome, it has produced an effect upon our Church, the consequences of which are likely to be at least of long duration and serious moment. When the conflict commenced by the publication of the "Tracts for the Times," the almost total neglect of theological studies had left the great mass of the Clergy an easy prey to the most superficial writers on the subject of theology. Almost any representation of the doctrines of the Fathers, and even of our own great divines of former times, might be made with comparative impunity, for few knew, or cared to know, what they were. The state of things among us was precisely such as enables a few earnest men of settled purpose and strong will, especially if not over scrupulous in the means used for the attainment of their end, to stamp upon the prevailing tone of the theology of a Church, almost any character they please. And largely have the Tractators availed themselves of the VOL. I. 2 C PREFACE TO THE facilities afforded them by these and other circumstances, which a future historian may feel less difficulty than a contemporane- ous one in specifying, to carry on their schemes for "unpro- testantizing" our Church. I have already noticed, however, in the Preface to the first edition of this work, the various causes which conspired to aid the efforts of the Tractators, at the commencement of their course, in the promotion of their designs; and among them, one,-adverted to in pp. xxiii, xxiv,-which I acknowledge with thankfulness has long ceased to exist, I mean that spirit of hostility to the Church, which grew out of the peculiar political circumstances of the period. We have reason to be grateful to the good providence of God, that amidst all the drawbacks which the manifold practical abuses and corruptions existing in our Church present to the confidence and affection of the people, the spirit of active hostility exhibited on the part of some, at the period alluded to, has either subsided or become innocuous, and the alienation of mina existing in others has issued in the work, not of destruction, but of con- servative reform. Such a movement, however, as that made by the authors of the "Tracts for the Times," and their adherents, involving great and important principles, if it once attains a hold upon the public mind, has a course to run, longer or shorter according to circumstances, which nothing can wholly prevent. It ought not, therefore, to be a matter for surprise, that the effect produced by the writings and labors of the Tractarian party, however erroneous and opposed to the genuine doctrine of our Church, has been of a deep, extensive, and lasting kind. Rather ought we to be prepared to view it as but the commencement of a struggle, which will be long continued, for the re-establishment in our Church of those principles and practices which she repudiated at the Reformation. Itis impossible for one who reads with any degree of atten- tion the history of our Church since that period, not to remark, how, at various subsequent times, retrograde principles have been at work, modifying the views put forth by all our great divines of the Reformation era, gradually altering the current XXXVil SECOND EDITION. tone of our theology, and even, as at the period of the Restora- tion, when a few Laudian divines were in the ascendant, tampering, as far as the circumstances of the times would permit, with our public Formularies. He who seeks a proof of this, may find it exhibited in a very re- markable way, by taking the works of any number of the bishops and divines of leading station in our Church for the first fifty years after its settlement on its present basis, at the accession of Queen Elizabeth, and comparing them with those of the same number of persons in a similar position at any period since the time of Laud. Few, I believe, have any notion of the difference of the theological atmosphere (so to speak) in which such a person would find himself in the two cases. And it would be a curious subject of inquiry, how many of the (so called) High Churchmen of the present day would have had even a locus standi left them in our Church, if the views held by the former as the doctrines of our Church, and as established by the Formularies they themselves drew up, had been made the standard by which those Formu- laries were to be interpreted. To that precise standard, for my part have no desire that those who minister in our Church should be limited. But surely there are bounds, within which the interpretation given to those Formularies, by those whu are admitted to the ministerial office in our Church on the con- dition of their belief in the doctrines there laid down, ought to be found. And if there are any, they are certainly such as to exclude an Anti-Protestant interpretation of Protestant Articles. It may be right on the part of those who are the genuine doctrinal successors of our Reformers, to overlook the change in the position assigned in our Church for the last two centuries to the doctrines they hold, and to leave even the ascendancy of views scarcely tolerated in our Church for many years after the Reformation, without a protest, to God's providential dispensa- tions. But when those views reach a point at which they become almost identical with those of Rome itself, then surely it becomes the duty of such as desire to preserve to their country the blessings of the Reformation, to call public attention to the dangers to which our Church is exposed. That such is the case at the present time, few will be disposed cr 2 xxxix PREFACE TO THE to deny. And among the signs of the times, indicating the nature of the theology which is being pressed upon our Church, even from some places of the highest authority, the subject of this work leads me more particularly to notice the last Charge of the Bishop of Oxford. In that address to his clergy his Lordship touches upon a subject of undoubtedly great impor- tance, and one which demands the attention of all who have a regard for the souls of men, namely, "our danger from the spirit of infidelity." (pp. 80 et seq.) But in his description of the mode in which this spirit is manifested, and more especially of the way in which it is to be encountered, we meet with an enunciation of views and principles painfully divergent from those upon which our Protestant Church stands. He tells us, that " the one thing which it resists is authority : IT WOULD "PLACE EVERY SINGLE SOUL IN DIRECT AND INDEPENDENT " COMMUNION WITH THE CREATIVE SPIRIT, of whose nature he " partakes, and to whom alone he is responsible. So far as Chris- " tianity promotes this, it is to be encouraged; but it is not, " they urge, to be borne, that any dogma should be enforced on " such seekers after truth by any external authority as essential " to salvation, or in itself necessarily true; or any medium " interposed between their spirits and the Universal Father. In " their first stage, therefore, these principles begin commonly by " resisting the authority of the Church, as that which meets them "most immediately; they proceed to raise questions as to the " inspiration of some parts of Holy Scripture; they end by " denying altogether its authority, and leaving their victim with " an entire unbelief as to the objective truth of any spiritual " agency beyond those of the one Great Spirit of the Universe, " and his own soul as an emanation from Him, seeking re- " union with Him." And he refers to the history of the author of "The Phases of Faith," as given by himself, in illustration of these remarks; and assures us, that "he has marked down " with the utmost accuracy the LOGICAL SEQUENCE of every one " of his steps, from an ardent love of Evangelical truth, combined " with a denial of all spiritual authority save in the letter of the " Written Word, down to its close, in a mystical but universal " scepticism." (pp. 80, 81.) So that his Lordship supposes, that if a man begins with " an ardent love of Evangelical truth," xl SECOND EDITION. but denies all spiritual authority but that of the Holy Scriptures, " the logical sequence" will be "a mystical but universal scepticism." " It is with this spirit," the Right Rev. Prelate tells us, "in unnumbered degrees, forms, and combinations, that we have to struggle ;" and he assures us, that it "can be " successfully resisted amongst ourselves only by a full and " faithful maintenance of the teaching and AUTHORITY OF OUR "CHURCH." (p. 81.) And he proceeds to quote, as an exemplification of this spirit, Dr. Arnold's teaching on the subject of the Church, contrasting with it what he considers the true doctrine, namely, that "we " are under an appointed spiritual economy, in which human " instruments and outward acts are made the channels of Divine " grace; that we are in a spiritual kingdom, which has its " appointed officers, through whom God works ;" (p. 88;) in short, that we derive all spiritual gifts and graces through ordi- nances ministered by the clergy of the Apostolic Succession; " the constitution of the Church" " securing for men" "access to God ;" (p. 84 ;) and " the Church" "being dwelt in by the " Spirit of God, and so becoming an instrument whereby, through " appointed channels, the gifts of the Spirit are ministered to " men." (p. 85.) To any one who has but an ordinary acquaintance with such subjects, the views and principles pervading these remarks are too manifest to need one word to point out their seriously anti- Protestant character. But, being written more particularly against those who deny the inspiration of parts of Holy Scrip- ture, and maintain some kindred errors, they may not, in the case of many readers, attract the attention they deserve. But the system here advocated is scarcely one step removed from Romanism. So far as concerns the views of Dr. Arnold or others here alluded to, this is not the place to discuss them, but to the system here put forward as their opponent it is necessary to direct attention, as it is in fact the Tractarian system developed to its full proportions; and if such a system ever prevails in our Church, it will not be long before she will again be absorbed in the Romish Apostasy. The great fundamental principles upon which Popery rests are precisely those here advocated, xi1 PREFACE TO THE namely, (1) the interposition of a mediating priest through whose ministrations alone we can hold communion with God, and the consequent denial of the soul's "direct and independent communion" with Him, (2) the denial of the supremacy of " the written word" to the consciences of individuals, and the setting up of another "spiritual authority" in "the teaching and authority of the Church," that is, the clergy, superior to it;* and (3) the making the laity of the Church dependent upon the clergy for all spiritual gifts and graces. As it respects the first and last of these points, I must content myself here with thus pointing them out to the reader's notice. But as it respects the second, which is intimately connected with the subject of this work, there is one remark which I cannot but offer, and that is, that it is a doctrine which, what- ever may be its character in other respects, is at least utterly subversive of the very foundation upon which the Reformed Church of England stands. With the doctrine of the Supremacy of Holy Scripture to the consciences of individuals, and the right of private judgment in contradistinction to "the authority of the Church," she stands or falls. For, her Reformation was effected by comparatively a few individuals acting against the authority of the Church both of the East and West, and going back (as one of her most illustrious Reformers, Bishop Jewel, tells us) to the word of God, to draw from it the pure doctrine of the Gospel of Christ. The faith of almost the whole Catholic Church was at the time, and had been for centuries, opposed to that which she established as the foundation upon which she was built up. And that which alone enabled her to effect her Reformation was, the gracious providence of God inclining the Civil Power to aid a minority of the clergy and laity in re-estab- lishing a Scriptural faith in the place of the corrupt system of Rome. The very ground, therefore, upon which our Church stands, is that of the right of private judgment; and the question * It exactly corresponds with the thesis recently offered to be maintained by the Abbe Combalot against Dr. Gaussen at Geneva, which was this,-" The supernatural faith necessary to salvation has for foundation and for rule, not the Bible submitted to private judgment, or interpreted by the reason of each indi- vidual, which is the foundation of all heresies, and the source of all errors, but the infallible authority of the Church as interpreter." xlii SECOND EDITION. of the justice of her charge of heterodoxy against so large a por- tion of Christendom she leaves to the judgment of the great day. When, therefore, her ministers advocate the doctrine of " the authority of the Church" over the consciences of mei, they are in fact subverting the very foundations on which their Church is built. And if they succeed in impressing their doc- trines on the minds of men, the necessary consequence, in the case of well-informed persons of ingenuous and independent minds, is a conviction, that the Reformed Church of England is built upon a foundation that will not stand the test of investi- gation. And the result of such a conviction is obvious. This is now, alas ! no mere theoretical speculation. We have seen the operation of the doctrine in producing the conviction, and the result to which that conviction has led, in a way that can leave no doubt what is the legitimate consequence of such a tenet. The effects upon our Church, and the country at large, in various ways, from the spread of such views within her com- munion, are of no trivial moment, even to the mere politician. But the political dangers of Popery having been supposed to cease with the death of the last Popish Pretender, the doctrine maintained by the clergy has been to the State a matter of comparative indifference. How far prudently so, time will show. It is not a matter of little moment to any State what are the doctrines and principles taught by the clergy. The history of those countries in which Romanism has been predominant, espe- cially Ireland, is a sufficient proof of the effect of its principles upon the general condition and interests of any community in which it bears sway. It only remains for me to give some account of the present edition of this work. As it respects, then, the entire substance of the work, the doctrine maintained, and all the arguments of any importance by which it was defended, the present edition will be found altogether to correspond with the last. Further reading and observation have only confirmed me in the views advocated, and led me more and more to feel their importance, and their consonancy with the doctrine of our Church. In fact, the more consideration I give to the matter, the more xliii PREFACE TO THE difficult I find it to understand, how any one can reconcile sub- scription to our Formularies with the system of doctrine put forth by the Tractarian party, and the deeper the conviction, that if that system is allowed to prevail in our Church, its days, as a Protestant Church, are numbered. But while the work, so far, remains the same, I have carefully revised it throughout; and the remarks made on the former edition, and the progress of the controversy, have led me to make various additions in different parts, including a final chapter containing a few general remarks on the whole subject. Among the additions will be found a new section, at the end of Chapter v., pointing out the remarkable testimony afforded to the correctness of the view here maintained of the famous Canon of Vincent of Lerins, by Mr. Newman's total abandonment of the position originally taken up by him, and here opposed, respecting it. The notion of Primitive Catholic Consent, ascertained by the application of the Vincentian Canon, being a sure guide to the truth and part of the Rule of faith,- which he originally advocated with such unbounded confidence,- has been exchanged by him for the doctrine of Development. In this edition, also, most of the quotations from the Fathers have been again collated with the originals, and a few more added. But it seemed needless much to increase their number. The same may be said of the quotations from the divines of our own Church. They might easily have been increased fifty or a hundred-fold from the writings of the most eminent bishops and doctors of our Church. But it would have been only a useless trial of the patience of the reader. And the Tractators certainly cannot object to have their views tested by a selection of the most eminent and able of the witnesses they have themselves chosen. To the Tractarian answer given to the former edition of this work, in a Review written in the British Critic, by one who not long after passed over to the Church of Rome, my reply will be found in connexion with those parts of the work to which the animadversions applied, and I believe there is no point of any moment touched upon in that Review which I have not noticed. It is worthy of observation, that the writer of this Review, though a leading man of the party, and speaking in the Review as one xliY SECOND EDITION. thoroughly acquainted with the writings of the Fathers and the state of things in the early Church, was, by his own subsequent admission, very little acquainted with them. And I might add, that what the Review pretty clearly indicates as to his own views, was shortly after admitted by himself even before his departure to Rome, namely, that some of the Articles of our Church he could only subscribe in a non-natural sense, maintaining even that one of them contains an " atrocious and most immoral sen- timent." This is the more observable, as he clearly speaks of it as a matter in which his whole party were in a similar position, and pleads in their defence, that, in his view, the party opposed to them were equally obliged to take other statements in our Formularies in a similar non-natural sense; forgetting, not merely that his view of the matter does not bind the consciences of others, but also that, even if his charge were a just one, com- panionship in sin is no palliation of the fault. And in the midst of these admissions he maintains as "the key to all moral and religious knowledge," and the "leading idea" of his work, that "careful moral discipline is the necessary foundation whereon alone Christian faith can be reared." (Warde's Ideal of a Chris- tian Church. Lond. 1844. Pref. p. vii.) How far, therefore, even according to his own view of the matter, his party, while so acting, could expect to become acquainted with the true nature of the Christian faith, is a subject for his and their serious consideration; nay, whether there is not good ground for fear, according to his own principles, that, under such circumstances, it was not to be expected that they should arrive at a knowledge of the truth. It is with sorrow and reluctance that I point the attention of the reader to such melancholy exhibitions of the self-deluding spirit in which men sometimes allow themselves to indulge. And were it only one of a few isolated cases, I should gladly have left it without notice. But, in fact, the case is one of which it is to be feared hundreds remain among us, while but few compa- ratively have taken the more honest course of quitting a ministry which they can only hold upon such terms. And it is absolutely necessary that the public should be acquainted with the real views and principles of the leaders of a party which now has its ramifications through the whole length and breadth of the Church, and is aiming, according to the confession of Dr. xlv PREFACE TO THE Pusey himself, at the extermination of all doctrines opposed to their system. The sentiment with which Mr. Newman commenced his career, is one which might alone serve to place us on our guard, and, I must add, is to my mind a sufficient, but pain- ful, explanation of his whole subsequent course. In his work entitled, "The Arians of the Fourth Century," published in 1833, just about the period when the" Tracts" commenced, advocating " the mode of arguing and teaching" "called econo- mical (KaT' o~Kovol(av) by the ancients," he thus describes its nature,---" The Alexandrian father [Clement] who has al- " ready been referred to, accurately describes the rules which " should guide the Christian in speaking and acting economically. " 'Being ever persuaded of the omnipresence of God,' he says, " 'and ashamed to come short of the truth, he is satisfied with " the approval of God, and of his own conscience. Whatever is " in his mind, is also on his tongue; towards those who are FIT " recipients, both in speaking and living, he harmonizes his pro- " fession with his opinions. He both thinks and speaks the " truth, EXCEPT WHEN CONSIDERATION IS NECESSARY, AND C THEN, AS A PHYSICIAN FOR THE GOOD OF HIS PATIENTS, HE " WILL BE FALSE, OR UTTER A FALSEHOOD, AS THE SOPHISTS SAY. " .... Nothing, however, but his neighbour's good will lead him to do this. . . . He gives himself up for the Church,' &c. " (Clem. Strom. vii. 8, 9.)" (pp. 72; 81, 82.) I leave this passage without comment in the hands of the reader. The Reviewer greatly complains at my leaving so much the authorities I have quoted to speak for themselves, and regrets my want of " the poetical and imaginative temper" which "is absolutely necessary in such inquiries." This defect, I confess, I have not attempted to supply. It appears to me that the less "imagination" has to do with such matters, the better. And I must assure my censor, that if he has found my array of autho- rities wearisome, I have found it still more so to wade through those seas of philosophizing disquisitions in which his party de- light to indulge, founded upon imaginations, the erroneousness of which a very small amount of research is sufficient to demonstrate. A discourse upon the excellence and value of "Catholic Consent" and our duty to believe and do what xlvi SECOND EDITION. "every body, always, everywhere" has believed and done, however beautiful in itself, is to my mind as uninteresting an affair as a disquisition founded on the notion that all the antients were of precisely the same size and height. t have, therefore, dealt by others as I would wish to be dealt by myself, and applied myself principally to the task of sup- plying the reader with those facts and authorities which may enable him to judge for himself on the points at issue. For instance, to meet the dream of " Catholic consent," I have sup- plied the reader with passages from the Fathers directly opposed to each other. To show what was their view as to the alleged obscurity of Scripture, I have placed before the reader abundant extracts testifying to its self-sufficiency and manifest plainness in all necessary points. And so on other points. In my humble apprehension, men really in search after the truth will prefer this mode of dealing with the matter to any poetic and imagina. tive discursus on the subject, written on the supposition that " Catholic" principles must be true, and the study of the Fathers quite unnecessary. To this edition are added three Indices, which, it is hoped, will be a great help to those who desire to make use of the work beyond a general perusal. The first, which is an "Index of the Works cited," I have drawn up myself; the two others have been compiled by a gentleman who is favorably known to the public as an author; but for them I must not be held answerable. A singular misstatement respecting the former edition, ema- nating from a quarter where it must have been altogether the result of some mistake, the reader will find noticed below.* I trust I may be permitted, without being supposed to arro- * I allude to a passage in the Memoir of the Rev. Josiah Pratt, p. 351, where an extract is given from one of Mr. Pratt's letters stating, respecting the work con- tained in these volumes,-"Bishop Meade of Virginia was in London last summer, and rendered Mr. Goode advice and assistance in this work." How such a mis- apprehension could have arisen, I know not; and I am anxious to correct it, as, if such a thing had occurred, either on the part of Bishop Meade or any other person, I should have felt it a duty to have acknowledged the obligation. The truth, however, is, that not the slightest communication ever passed between the Bishop, or any other individual, and myself, respecting anything in the work previous to its publication. In fact, the Bishop and myself were total strangers xlvii xlviii PREFACE TO THE gate any undue claims, to express my thankfulness for the way in which the former edition of this work was received, and the encouragement given me to hope,that it might not be without its use in strengthening the foundation on which our belief in the incalculably important doctrine of the supremacy of Holy Scrip- ture as the sole Divine Rule of faith and practice rests. That doctrine is at the root of Protestantism. With it Protestantism stands or falls. Any Church that surrenders that doctrine be- comes the slave of a human priesthood; and, as all experience shows, will be dragged by that priesthood, according to the natural course of human infirmity, into the depths of supersti- tion and idolatry. It is therefore a ground for thankfulness to have been permitted in any way to do service in such a cause. In the present day more especially, when Popery is again lifting its head among us, and an energetic and unscrupulous party in our own Church has formed a " conspiracy" (to use their own term) to "unprotestantize" her, and justly regards a belief in the doctrine of the supremacy of Holy Scripture as the great obstacle to its success, it is a matter of the deepest moment to the welfare of our Church, that the public mind should be made acquainted with the proofs and evidence on which it stands, and the groundlessness of the arguments and misapplication of the testimonies by which it has been assailed. To say nothing of the mistake, now admitted by Mr. Newman, of the reference to the Fathers for "Catholic consent," never surely was the blindness of party zeal more displayed, than in the Catenas put forth by the Tractarian party, for the purpose of leading the public to suppose, that their views were held by those great divines of our Church who have, in the most express and direct terms, opposed the doctrine of which they were cited as the advocates. This is one of the most painful parts of the subject; and while it is to be feared, that by this means a large portion to each other, until he called upon rme just before his return to America, for the purpose of obtaining a copy of the work so far as it was then printed; and about three-fourths of it had then passed through the press. A letter from the Bishop on the subject, confirming the above statement, was published shortly after the appearance of the Memoir; but it seems unnecessary to dwell further on the point. SECOND EDITION. of the public has been first misled, and then brought to love the views into which it has been, as it were, entrapped, the effect upon more ingenuous minds has been, to cause them to leave a communion which they could only adhere to through a palpable misrepresentation of the doctrines both of her Formu- laries and the great body of her divines. But alas la larger number remain, whose minds appear too much absorbed by the object they have in view, to allow them calmly to consider the nature of the means by which they are seeking to attain their end ; and we have been long ago warned by Dr. Pusey, that the struggle in our Church will be continued, until the prin- ciples he advocates are either ejected, or triumph and become supreme. With this warning before us, to shut our eyes to the momentous character of the conflict going on among us, and act as if the Protestant principles of our Church were ex- posed to no dangers, or not worth contending for, may obtain in this world the praise of moderation and its attendant privileges, and save us from much trouble and reproach, but will with difficulty be reconciled with the solemn engagements entered into by us on our undertaking the ministerial office. This is my apology, if any is needed, for the republication of this work. May He who condescends to work by the feeblest instruments make it effectual for the establishment of his truth, nullifying what may be erroneous, and giving His blessing to that which is consonant with his word and will. W. GOODE. 31. Charterhouse Square, June 21, 1853. xlix TABLE OF CONTENTS TO VOL. I. PAGE PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION................................. V-xxvi PREPACE TO SECOND EDITION .................................. xxvii lix CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ..................................... 1-21 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 ............................2.. Hence importance of ascertaining what divine revelations we possess, as being our Rule of faith .................................. 3, 4 Rule of faith defined ........................................ 4 The same our only .Divine Rule of practice ...................... 4 Distinction between Rule of faith and Rule of practice ............ 4, 5 Belief of divine origin of any testimony professing to be divine revela- tion must be on grounds satisfactory to reason. .................. 5 Our present inquiry is, where the Divine Rule of faith and practice is to be found, and what are the extent and limits of that Rule...... 6 The chief question in this inquiry on the present occasion is, whether we have any certain witness of what the Apostles delivered orally.. 7 What is called "Tradition" put forward as such by the Tractators.. 8 Observations respecting the meaning and use of the word " Tradition" 8-15 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; though the two are confounded by the Tractators 15-17 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.................................... 17-20 hii TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAOE Our argument will be almost wholly an a posteriori argument........20, 21 Great object of work is, to demonstrate that Holy Scripture is our sole and exclusive Divine Rule of faith and practice.21 CHAPTER II. THE DOCTRINE OF DR. PUSEY, MR. KEBLE, MR. NEWMAN AND THE " TRACTS FOR THE TIMES," ON THE SUBJECT OF PATRISTICAL TRADITION AND POINTS CONNECTED THEREWITH, WITH SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THEIR STATEMENTS........... 22-77 Principal Contents. Mr. Newman's doctrine on the subject..........................23-28 Mr. Keble's ditto...............................28-33 Doctrine maintained in Tract 85 on the subject..................33-35 Dr. Pusey's doctrine on the subject.............................35, 36 Summary of the doctrine of the Tractators on the subject...........36, 37 Vanity of the distinctions attempted to be drawn between the doctrine of the Tractators and that of the Romanists on the subject........37, 38 Extracts from Mr. Newman, illustrating the doctrine of the Tractators on the kindred subjects of Church authority and private judgment 39-50 Extracts from the Homilies on the subject.......................50, 51 Remarkable inconsistency of the statements of the Tractators.........51-53 Instances of misstatements and mistakes ........................54-75 Respecting the Article on the Church in the Creed ............54-56 Respecting the views of Protestants.......................56-64 Respecting the Creed called " the Apostles' Creed ............64, 65 Respecting a passage of Athanasius, with remarks illustrative of his use of the word Tradition ................... ...........65-69 Respecting another passage of Athanasius . ..................69-71 Respecting a third passage of Athanasius, which, by a remarkable want of acquaintance with the meaning of the phrase " the Evan- gelical Tradition," Mr. Newman has quoted as supporting his views, but which is altogether opposed to them, with proofs from the Fathers of the meaning of the phrase ........................ 72-75 Further mistranslation of the same passage ........................ 75 Practical meaning of the Tractators when they speak of " Catholic consent"....... ...................................... .75, 76 Extraordinary statements of the Tractators respecting the nature of the Christian's faith and the evidence on which it rests.......... 76, 77 CHAPTER III. COMPARISON OF THE DOCTRINE MAINTAINED IN THE WORKS ABOVE MENTIONED ON THE SUBJECT OF PATRISTICAL TRADI- TION WITH THAT OF THE ROMISH CHURCH......... .........78-105 Principal Contents. Comparison of the doctrine of the Tractators and that of the Romanists on the first of the five, propositions, in which the doctrine of the TABLE OF CONTENTS. Xxxvii PAGE former may be summed up; namely, That consentient Patristical Tra- dition, 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..................... 79-85 Comparison of the same on the second proposition, namely, That Patristical Tradition is consequently a part of the divinely-revealed Rule of faith and practice ............................... 85 Comparison of the same on the third proposition, namely, That Patris- tical Tradition 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 reveal 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 deve- lopment 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 divinely- revealed doctrines and rules not contained in Scripture .......... 85-93 Comparison of the same on the fourth proposition, namely, That Pa- tristical Tradition is a necessary part of thh 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 .................. 93, 94 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........................ 94, 95 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 Irennus on the same subject...... 96-101 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............. 101-105 CHAPTER IV. THAT THERE ARE NO WRITINGS EXTANT ENTITLED TO THE NAME OF APOSTOLICAL TRADITIONS BUT THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES 106-154 Principal Contents. Introductory remarks ........................................ 106, 107 That no precise form of words was left by the Apostles as the Christian Creed; and that consequently, from the first, when the VOL. I. d TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGEI different Churches and early writets wished to give a brief summary of the Christian faith, they did so in different words ............ 107-116 That there was no such definite summary of the chief articles of belief given by the Apostles to the Christian Church as "the Creed;" the baptismal Creed being originally merely a declaration of belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and afterwards amplified by the different Churches and Bishops as each thought it desirable; 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.................... 116-127 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 ................ 127-139 That the Creeds of the Primitive Church were derived originally from the Holy Scriptures ................................. 139-144 Consequently, That none of the antient Creeds can be considered as an Apostolical production ................ ........ ....... 144-146 The question discussed, Whether the Creed is a selection of the fundamental articles of the Christian faith............... . ... 146-153 What we are to understand by the name "Rule of Faith," applied by the early Fathers to the Creeds which they delivered..........153, 154 CHAPTER V. THAT PATRISTICAL TRADITION IS NOT A "PRACTICALLY INFAL- LIBLE " WITNESS OF THE ORAL TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES, NOR RECEIVABLE AS A DIVINE INFORMANT .. ............ 155-444 Principal Contents. SECTION I. Preliminary remarks ........................................ 155-164 SECTION II. No degree of consent, the knowledge of which is attainable, is worthy of being considered a divine informant, or certain witness of the oral teaching of the Apostles ................................... 165-183 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 ..... . ........ ...183-213 From their paucity ................................ ............................ 184-187 From their giving us only a partial view of Antiquity, as being Ssuch only as the ruling party in the Church has from time to time allowed to be preserved .............................................187-193 From the works of the Fathers having been mutilated and cor- rupted, and works forged in their name ........................... 193-213 xxxviii TABLE OF CONTENTS. xxxix SECTION IV. PAGE The witness of Patristical Tradition, even in the writings that have been preserved, is of a discordant kind, and that even in fundamental points.... ................................................ 213- 348 The statements of Ireneus, Tertullian, and Origen considered... 215-229 The witness of Patristical Tradition, as it respects the divinity of the Holy Spirit ....................... ................................ 229-234 Do. as to the doctrine of the divinity and generation of Christ... 234-262 General remarks as to discordant testimonies of the Fathers on fundamental points ...................... ......... 262-272 The witness of Patristical Tradition as to the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son ... 272, 273 Do. as to the doctrines connected with the Nestorian, Eutychian, and Pelagian errors................................ .......... 273-276 Do. as to the doctrine of the intermediate state ................... 276-283 Do. as to the sense of Scripture, instanced particularly in Prov. viii. 22. John x. 30. John xiv. 28. Phil. ii. 6 .............. 283 -297 The Fathers at variance, even in points called by some of them Apostolical traditions, instanced in (1) the doctrine of the Mil- lennium; (2) the disputes respecting the time of observing Easter; (3) the question relating to the re-baptization of those baptized by heretics; (4) various minor points................. 297-327 The Fathers at variance on various points, maintained by some of them to be doctrines of "the Church" ......... ....... 327-332 The Fathers at variance, even in their Conciliar decisions ...... 332-336 Collateral proofs that there is no such consent as our opponents suppose in the writings of the Fathers ................................ 337-340 Liability to mistake in fancying consent of Fathers, shown by some of the very cases referred to by our opponents as un- doubted instances of consent..................... ............ 340-344 Concluding remarks.................................. ........... 344-348 SECTION V. Consent, even in the writings that remain to us, not to be expected 348-354 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................3.. 55-368 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............................................. 868--385 SECTION VIII. What the Tractators call "Catholic Consent," is not treated by them- selves, in many cases, as affording any sufficient proof of the doctrines so supported ............................................ 386-401 xi TABLE OF CONTE~NTS. SECTION IX. PAGE The doctrine of the Tractators founded upon suppositions which are contradicted by facts....................................401-416 SECTION X. Reply to objections, and general remarks...................... .416--433 SECTION XI. Mr. Newman's abandonment of the theory of Catholic Consent and the Canon of Vincentius...................................... 433-444 THE DIVINE RULE &c. &c. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. THE word of God, however conveyed to us, binds the con- science 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 obedience. There is no room in such a case for doubt or inquiry. All that we have to consider is, What is delivered ? 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-as, for instance, what relates to the divine nature and the person of Christ-this implicit belief in the doctrines it reveals, involves a complete surrender of the mind to the authority on which the truth so delivered rests; and conse- quently such a belief is due only to divine revelation, and is not to be given to anything that comes under that name without sufficient evidence of its divine origin. The more ready the belief given 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 completely 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 VOL. I. B INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. revealed, the more are we bound to sift the evidence for its being a divine testimony. For in such matters we are very easily misled. In the doc- trines 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 requires 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 individuals, 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 im- portant for us to keep in view, because it shows us the indis- pensable 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 doctrines of Chris- tianity. 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' has been erected on a few false principles admitted I 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 make the Pope Christ's Vicar, should be offended at such terms. I use them merely for the rake of brevity. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. as the foundation. And belief grounded upon a false founda- tion or insufficient grounds is generally but weak and waver- ing; 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 religion, which is its usual meaning in theology. Other matters may be objects of faith, as-to cite the most important example-that the holy 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 Bible is not the complete 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, which is, whether " the faith," the Christian religion, is not fully contained in the holy Scriptures, and whether those Scriptures are not 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 suf- ficient grounds for believing to be divine revelation on the subject. For the doctrines of religion, 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 argument, and rests ultimately upon certain self-evident truths. Faith in the in- spiration, &c. of Scripture may rest upon grounds which derive their force from approving themselves to human reason. Faith in the great doctrines of Christianity rests upon the word of B2 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. God. The Christian religion is a revelation from God. Faith (as connected with our present subject) is a belief in that reve- lation, and a belief in it, so far as concerns its most important doctrines, on the mere 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 testimony we possess respecting religion for which we have sufficient evidence that it has a divine source and authority. By that testimony our faith is to be directed and measured; and there- fore it is properly called our rule of faith. Whether others have ever possessed more, is a question which does not affect our duty. I need hardly add, that the same testimony, being our only divine testimony, must be our only divine rule of practice 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 reli- gious 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, pre- vent her from admitting, that those only are intrinsically neces- sary 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 observed in the church in primitive times, thinking, as 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."1 1 Ecl. Pol. book v. c. 65. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. In matters of 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 autho- rity 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 belief that Scripture is a divine revelation has ample evidence to rest upon, both external and internal, such as commends itself to human reason, and leaves him inexcusable who does not receive it in that character. I am here, of course, speaking of the cases of those to whom God has given the power and opportunity of investigating these points. It is quite true that a large proportion of mankind- children and ignorant persons-may be unable to search deeply into these matters, and be compelled to take much from others upon trust, though even in these cases the internal testimony has its full weight. But the disadvantages under which children and ignorant persons lie in this respect, do not affect the ques- tion we are now considering. Their circumstances, no doubt, make them very dependent on those around them for the attain- ment of knowledge on any subject. But the question here is, whether there ought not to be, in the abstract, reasonable evi- dence in favour of anything put forth as a divine revelation or infallible testimony before it is received as such. And if even an ignorant man has a claim made upon him for his belief in certain truths on insufficient grounds, such as what is called the authority of the church, he may fairly decline assent to them on such grounds; while, nevertheless, he is ready to give full weight to the bare allegation, by a trustworthy informant, of evidence that commends itself to the common sense of mankind, though his circumstances preclude him from sifting it. And INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. this constitutes the great difference between the Romish and Protestant methods of teaching. Both for the fact that Scrip- ture is the word of God, and for the correctness of the doctrines we deduce from Scripture, we carefully give both the child and the ignorant man all the proofs their condition renders possible; while the Romanist demands belief on the authority of what he calls the church, that is, on grounds which the past history and present state of the church show to be a nullity. No doubt the condition of the child and the ignorant man, and their dependence on others, weaken in their case the force of the arguments for the authority of Scripture and the truths it contains; but these are circumstances showing only the disad- vantages under which certain individuals lie in receiving the faith, and cannot affect the abstract truth, that what is received as a divine informant ought to have sufficient evidence of its title to be so considered. The object of our present inquiry, then, is, 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, as not only being the most important, but in fact to a considerable extent including the other in its determina- tion; 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. 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 whom any divine reve- 6 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. lation has been received by us on the subject; the books of the New Testament written by companions of the apostles deriving their authority from being received at the earliest period as faithful records of apostolical teaching. There are no doubt dissentients to this doctrine. There have been in the Church, at various times, enthusiasts, who have pretended to have received additional 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 claim- ing our belief must be traceable to our Lord and his apostles. This is held to be the case by most of the Romanists them- selves. 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." (Rejoinder 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 reve- lation 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. But it cannot be denied, that when the apostles were deliver- ing 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 theyfirst 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 witness of their oral teaching, such as can be received by us as a divine revelation supplementary to, and inter- pretative of, the writings they have left us. This is, in few words, the question we are now about to discuss. It is a painful fact, that there has lately appeared in the I Div. fid. Analys. lib. i. c. 8, lect. iii. � 2, p. 95. Paris, 1767. 7 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. Church of England a school of divines of a character hitherto almost unprecedented among us, who, with the Romanists, assert the affirmative of this question, and hold that we have, in the works 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 con- tend that our view is that of most, to say the least, of the primitive Fathers, and of the Church of England. This, I say, is the main question we have to discuss here, though, as will readily be conceived, there are other important questions con- nected with it, and arising out of it, which necessarily enter into the discussion. This supposed supplementary record of inspired teaching is called by the somewhat loose and indefinite name of tradition, or sometimes apostolical tradition, a name which is 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 therefore 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 remove, if possible, the difficulties thus created in the way of the general reader. This word literally means only a delivery, or thing delivered, from one person to another, and that in any way; so that it is equally applicable to what is delivered in writing as to that which is delivered orally, as Bellarmine himself states; ' and so it is used in the Holy Scriptures; and also by the Fathers.3 I Nomen traditionis generale est, et significat omnem doetrinam sive scriptami sive non scriptamni que ab muno communicatur alteri. BELLARM. De verb. Dei. lib. iv. c. 2. 2 "Hold the tradition. (Ts wape8&ress) which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." 2 Thess. ii. 15. s Thus Gregory Nyssen uses the words, "the evangelical and apostolical tradi. tions," (eba y x yats re tal Atwo ,oAsKas rape a r,,) to express the books of the New Testament. De Virg. c. xi. ed. 1615, tom. ii. p. 579. So Tertullian, after referring to varionu passages of the New Testament which Marcion wished to expunge, says, "Believe what is delivered (tradited)." Crede quod traditum est. De camrne Christi, c. ii. ed. 1664. p. 308; and so elsewhere he says, "An et traditio INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. But at other times it is used by the Fathers,' 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;2 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 signify a report coming to us through the Fathers of what was delivered orally by the apostles. It is also often used to signify that which was first delivered by the early church, and does not trace its origin to the apostles, that is, in ritual matters; sometimes alone and sometimes with the word " ecclesiastical" attached to it; and hence the term " apostolical tradition" has been used to distinguish that which claimed an apostolical origin from that which professed to ori- ginate with others; but the distinction is not usually observed, for this " apostolical tradition" has been called, and more cor- rectly, both by antient and modern authors, ecclesiastical or patristical tradition, as we shall show presently; and, indeed, the phrase " apostolical tradition" is seldom used by the antients in the technical sense of the word "tradition" just mentioned, but generally to signify the apostolical epistles. It has also been used by modern writers to signify the mode tuen seripta 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 t�each the truth he was inculcating, says, " Let us, therefore, my dear brethren, believe according to the tradition of the apostles, (Kar& r jv wrapSaoo'w icTwo 'Airoa'n$Aswv)." 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. Two v Si 'EKIK~wjITE uyM7 s'cei' 7#40V Kal K7pUydTGri, r 'T& 4K ic s ryf44ieu sccwiaAtas gto/aws, r& 814s ic s icii''Aroi~rJ rdA rapCLad(Tswaia 8ui a' hui Sh 1wa'rn1phg waps8st4igea. B4AsIL. M. De Spir. S. c. 27. ed. Boened. vol. iii. p.&4. D. T& jli' Si& ypa sas, 7& 5a Sr' apa~rEL iraptaiiav ol *yLQL Aw&o roXo. EPIPIAN. Adv. her. in hmr. 61. ed. Petav. vol. i. p. 611. 2 It seems to be used ini this sense by Irenames, when he says, " Evenit itaque, nequne s cripturis jam neque traditioni consentire ceo." Adv. Kier. lib. iii. c. 2. edd. Grab. et Mass. 10 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. of conveyance by which a doctrine or rite so made known to us has been brought down.' This variety of signification necessarily creates much con- fusion, and occasions many difficulties to the general reader, and has enabled the Romanists and our opponents to avail themselves of many passages of the Fathers, as if they were favourable to their views, which in fact are not so, but the contrary. When modern writers, however, speak of "tradition" in re- ference to doctrine, it is usually meant to refer to that which pur- ports or is claimed to be the substance of the oral teaching of the apostles conveyed to us through the writings of those who came after them. The word, when used in reference to doctrine, is limited to the teaching of the apostles, because it is generally agreed, that it is from them only that the doctrines of Christianity can be received. But when applied to rites and ceremonies, it is often taken (as we have just intimated) to include the patristical report of the ordinances of the primitive church, as it appears to be in our 34th Article, where it is said, that "it is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one and utterly like," &c. where the whole Article evidently shows that the word is used to signify chiefly, if not solely, ecclesiastical rites derived from antient ecclesiastical sanction. The next question, then, to be considered is, how this oral apostolical tradition is supposed to be ascertainable. Our oppo- nents refer us to the consentient teaching of the Fathers, or what they call the catholic consent of the early church, so that in fact, strictly speaking, what they call " tradition," " apostolical tradition," is patristical tradition, or at best the patristical report of oral apostolical tradition. Such testimony they think could not exist in favour of a doc- trine or interpretation, unless that doctrine or interpretation had been delivered by the apostles, whether or not it be directly 1 The Greeks generally used the word 8ta8oX , to denote the mode of convey. ance in such a case, and rapd8oras only for the thing delivered, as in the following passage of Epiphanius, ris 'AuoroAr as rapaEdowscSr# tc a aaois al et s rap~A4$ aev. Adv. Her. in hwr. 33. ed. Petav. vol. i. p. 222. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. attributed to the oral teaching of the apostles by those who deliver it. And thus "tradition," "apostolical tradition," and " catholic consent," are with them practically convertible terms. Such at least is the ground upon which they generally argue, though, as we shall show hereafter, they are sometimes forced into concessions not quite consistent with this view. In this agree with them (as we shall see hereafter) the prin- cipal divines of the Church of Rome, though there have, no doubt, been some in that Church who have held it to be in pos- session of a body of apostolical teaching, some of which may never have been written, communicated orally by its pastors from one to another through successive ages, so as not to be tied down to what the Fathers have delivered, and which its priests deliver to the people in every age as far as they may see fit; but the former is the ground taken by the more learned divines of that Church, who always refer us to the Fathers for proof of what they pretend to derive from the oral teaching of the apostles. It would therefore, as it appears to me, obviate much con- fusion in treating this subject, if the word tradition was used in its proper meaning, and an epithet affixed to it denoting the acknowledged author. And thus, when we spoke of Apostolical tradition, Patristical tradition, Popish tradition, &c., we should understand by each, that which we all acknowledge to have been delivered by the Apostles, the Fathers, the Romanists, &c. And so the Fathers often, perhaps generally, used the term; for not only did they use the phrase, "the tradition of the apostles," or "apostolical tradition," to denote Scripture, but also "the tradition of the Fathers," or "patristical tradition," to denote that which is now called apostolical tradition? Strictly speaking, indeed, that only is any man's tradition to us, which he himself has delivered to us, either by writing or I Thus Basil speaks of "the accurate observance of the patristical traditions," (n e$ &pt~js lpcn irv warptiv wrapad de ). Ep. 243. � 2. e1. Bened. vol. iii. p. 373. B. And after delivering the doctrine relating to our Lord's human nature, he says, "These are the mysteries of the Church, these the traditions of the Fathers," (arra rv war4pv a! rapa adsvr). Ep. 261. � 3. ib. p. 403. B. And elsewhere, (if at least the passage is genuine,) De Sp. S. c. 30. � 79. Ed. Ben. tom. iii. p. 67. 11 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. orally; and therefore, in the case of those who lived at a remote period, their tradition to us can only be their written tradition, and we can receive the oral tradition of those only with whom we can personally communicate; for it is not pretended that oral communications can be handed down verbally, and conse- quently it is at most only the substance of what was delivered that is re-delivered, and therefore not precisely the tradition of the first author; and this, in abstruse doctrinal points, may make all the difference. The oral tradition of the apostles, therefore, strictly speaking, was enjoyed by those only to whom it was actually delivered by the apostles. We can only have the report of that tradition made by others. And to call that report by a name that strictly belongs only to Scripture,-apostolical tradition,-necessarily creates confusion; for in the one case it applies to the acknow- ledged words of the apostles, and in the other only to the report made by others of their substance, and moreover assumes what is questioned, viz. that that report is indubitably correct. This confusion is no doubt extremely useful to the Romanists and our opponents, because it throws a cloud over their statements, which often enables them to escape with impunity under its cover, when the light of clearer phraseology would have ex- posed them to much inconvenience. But, as our object is to clear this whole matter to the reader, we shall not make use of terms that assume the very point in question. A more accurate statement of the views of our opponents, then, would be this,--that patristical tradition (which, to us, is, what the Fathers have delivered in their writings,) is, under certain circumstances, an indubitably correct representation of the oral tradition of the apostles to their first followers. Being borne out, therefore, by the Scripture and many pas- sages of the Fathers, I shall, to avoid ambiguity, use the word tradition in its strict and proper sense, and not in the technical sense that has often been affixed to it; for nothing tends so much to perspicuity as the use of words in their natural and proper significations; and I shall therefore call the testimony to which our opponents appeal, by its proper name of patristical or ecclesiastical tradition; not understanding by those phrases a 12 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. tradition of all the Fathers or the whole Church, (of which we can have no evidence or proof, and therefore have no right to talk about,) but a tradition of certain Fathers or a certain portion, greater or less, of the Church. There are two remarks also, which I would offer to the reader, upon the common use of this term, by way of caution. The first is, that he must be very careful when estimating the value of the testimonies adduced by our opponents in favour of their views from antient authors, to ascertain what those authors meant by the " tradition" of which they are speaking; for the word is continually used by them, as we have already intimated, in reference to the Scriptures of the apostles,--a fact which the Romanists and our opponents seem to be very little acquainted with, or at least put out of sight. Thus we frequently meet in the Fathers, as in the instance referred to above, with the phrase "the Evangelical tradition," meaning that which has been delivered by the Evangelists in the Gospels,-a want of acquaintance with which fact has caused one of our opponents to make the mistake of applying a passage from Athanasius in a sense precisely contrary to its true meaning, (as I shall point out hereafter,)-and "the Apostolical tra- dition," meaning that which has been delivered in one of the Apostolical epistles. The second is, ever to remember that when the terms "tra- dition," "apostolical tradition," are used by our opponents, that which is so spoken of is traceable by us only to the report of the oral teaching of the apostles, given by others, and which, at the best, rests upon the evidence to be found in certain writings of the Fathers that happen to remain to us, and moreover is delivered, for the most part, to say the least, without any claim to its being derived from the oral teaching of the apostles. This is a fact so obvious, that it would be hardly necessary to notice it, but for the circumstance that our opponents continually reason as if it was denied that the oral teaching of the apostles was of equal authority with their writings, and tell us that it is "apostolical tradition" only to which they defer; when, in fact, as to the authority of the oral teaching of the apostles, and the deference due to apostolical tradition, that is, what the apos- 13 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. ties really delivered, all are agreed; and the sole question is, whether we have anything besides the Scriptures for which the title of apostolical tradition can be justly claimed in any proper sense of the words. We are all agreed that apostolical tradition, that is, what the apostles delivered respecting the doctrines of Christianity, is a fit and proper foundation for our faith. Indeed, there can hardly be any division of sentiment upon such a sub- ject in the Christian world. All are ready to receive with reve- rence whatever the apostles delivered respecting the Christian faith. But the question is, where that apostolical tradition is to be found. We say that the only record of it upon which we can fully depend is the Scripture. Our opponents contend that in the writings that remain to us of the early church there is to be found another record of it upon which we can also fully depend. The very question at issue, then, is, whether any patristical testimony, to be found in these writings, can be considered as an authoritative record of the oral teaching of the apostles. To represent it, therefore, as being, in the strict sense of the terms, apostolical tradition, and represent us as unwilling to receive the oral teaching of the apostles, is to take an unfair advantage of the reader, and to assume the very point in question. It is a report of it delivered by men uninspired, and liable to error and mistake in transmitting the doctrines of the oral teaching which they heard. The New Testament Scriptures may justly be called apostolical tradition. But as to the oral tradition or teaching of the apostles, it is evident, that, however infallible it may be in it- self, we can only have a fallible report of it through fallible men, and that, in fact, the report we do possess of it is very imperfect, and on many accounts open to just suspicion. And hence it is clear, that when any who lived long after the apostles are said to be taught anything or to judge of anything by apostolical tradition, the phrase "apostolical tradition" either must mean the Scriptures which the apostles have left, or is applied in a limited sense; for if it is applied to anything but Holy Scrip- ture, it refers to the patristical report of apostolical teaching; and the reader who keeps this in view will at once see the ground on which he stands,-that it is the ground of human and not divine authority. 14 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. And if this is observed, the phrase "apostolical tradition" may be used without danger, as describing the author to whom what is delivered is attributed, to distinguish it from ecclesiastical or patristical tradition, where no higher author of the doctrine delivered is claimed than the Church or the Fathers, and thus in fact the phrase is often used; but any argument derived from this use of the name, as if the apostolicity of the doctrine was thereby necessarily conceded by those who use this phrase, is manifestly absurd. To avoid mistake, however, I shall adhere to the phrase patristical tradition. Though our opponents, therefore, intimate their claim to the high-sounding title of " the Apostolicals," we cannot but think that it more justly belongs to those who are satisfied with the undoubted remains of the apostles, than to those who wish to add to them from the writings of the Fathers, who (as we all profess to follow the apostles) might rather be called " the Patristicals." However, the name need not alarm us, when we recollect that it was the name assumed by one of the early heresies; and one, by the way, which among other (supposed apostolical) notions was particularly severe against marriage, and those who lapsed after baptism. Another remark which I would here offer is, that we draw a wide distinction between the value of the testimony of the Fathers as to doctrines and the oral teaching of the apostles, and their testimony as to those matters of fact that came under their immediate cognizance. It is important to keep this in view, because the value of human testimony is very different in one of those cases from what it is in the other. The value of a man's testimony to a fact that takes place under his own eye, or to a matter that is the object of the senses, is very different from that of his report of an oral statement, especially with respect 'to matters of doctrine. And this is a truth so obvious and generally acknowledged, that the report of a communication from another, relating even to a matter of fact, would not be received in a court of justice, so conscious are men of the uncer- tainties attending such evidence. How much more uncertainty, then, attends the reports of communications of this nature when relating to such matters as the abstruse and controverted points 15 10 1?INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. of Christian doctrine ! However infallible those may be who make the communication, the imperfection and fallibility of the reporters necessarily throw a degree of uncertainty over the report, especially where it has passed through many hands, and where a slight misapprehension on the part of the hearer, or the change of a word, might alter the complexion of the whole. Hence the sole reason why we receive the apostolical accounts of our Lord's doctrine as entitled to our faith, is because we hold the apostles to have delivered those accounts under divine guidance. Should we have received them as entitled to our implicit faith, had they been delivered by uninspired men? Hence the attempt has been made by our opponents to con- found doctrines and facts together, and to make it appear that evidence which is valid with respect to the latter must be equally valid with respect to the former; by urging that it is a mere ques- tion of fact whether the apostles or the primitive church did or did not teach certain doctrines, and therefore that human testimony to such a fact is as valid as the same testimony to any other fact. But the inference is evidently most unwarranted; for it is a similar question of fact whether the Scriptures do or do not teach cer- tain doctrines, but men misunderstanding the Scriptures give dif- ferent accounts of this fact, which is an evident proof that their testimony in such a case is not wholly to be relied upon. Again, it is a fact that there is a Christian Episcopal Church in Eng- land, and it is a fact that that Church proposes certain doctrines to her members in the thirty-nine Articles; but though the testimony of our opponents to the existence of that church might be a very sufficient proof of such fact to people in other countries, their testimony as to what doctrines were maintained by her might be considered a very insufficient proof. Indeed this argument is founded upon a misuse of terms, because what is meant by a matter of fact here is a matter that originally falls under the cognizance of the senses, as distinguished from that which is merely an object of mental contemplation. We draw, therefore, a wide distinction between the value of patristical testimony as to ritual matters and such points, and its value in certifying us as to the oral teaching of the apostles, or the whole primitive church; not to dwell here upon the fact 16 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. that we have but little direct testimony as to what that teaching was. Thus the testimony of a few reputable authors may be sufficient to prove the fact of the practice of infant baptism in the primitive church, (and we shall show hereafter the use of such testimony with respect to doctrines immediately connected with the rites and usages of the church,) but not to prove what the doctrine of the apostles or the whole primitive church was, as to the nature and effects of that sacrament. Moreover even as to matters of fact, we must observe that a distinction is to be drawn between those for which we have the testimony of an eye-witness, and those for which we have only testimony derived from the report of others. We shall find hereafter, that even in such points as the duration of our Lord's public ministry, and the period of life at which he suffered, statements directly opposed to the truth might pass under the name of apostolical tradition, with the sanction of such respect- able names as Irenmus and Clement of Alexandria; and there- fore even as to these matters, where the report comes through several hands, we must not wholly rely upon the testimony of one or two authors, of whatever repute. It is true our opponents endeavour to make up for the obvious uncertainty attendant upon such testimony, by limiting it to that which is universal or established by what they call catholic consent; but, as we shall hereafter see, their alleged universality and catholic consent are mere words and not realities, for errors and heresies existed in the church from the very first, and (to name no other objection) the testimony we have for the first few centuries is derived from documents wholly insufficient to prove catholic consent. On this point, however, we shall have occa- sion to speak more at length in another place. Another point which I would request the reader to observe is, that when speaking of the Holy Scripture as the only certain depository or teacher of divine revelation, and the sole Rule of faith, we apply the words in the strict sense of the terms, as implying that which binds the conscience to the reception of whatever it may deliver, not as signifying that it is the only guide to the truth. There are many useful guides to the truth VOL. I. C 17 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. besides the Scriptures, of which the writings of the early Fathers form one, and an important one. It is very necessary to keep this distinction in view, because the advocates for " tradition" often catch an unwary reader by speaking as if their opponents had no regard, no respect for the writings of the primitive church; whereas those writings may be, and have been, held in high estimation as guides in our search after the truths of religion, by many who reject them as forming part of the rule of faith, or as giving an authoritative testimony respecting the doctrines of Christianity. There has been much very extraordinary misrepresentation upon this point in the writings of our opponents, against which I would here at the outset caution the reader. Language has been used implying that all those who do not take their views hold the Fathers in utter contempt, and look upon the great lights of the primitive church only with scorn, and they are held up to public derision under the name of "ultra-protestants." Such language is wholly unjustifiable, and reflects discredit only upon those who use it. The hasty and ignorant remarks of individuals who know nothing of the Fathers are not to be charged upon a whole body of men for the purpose of bringing their sentiments into disrepute. It may be convenient in con- troversy to impute to your adversary extreme views, and is often an argument very effectual with the popular mind, which gene- rally iiclines to extremes. But it is merely throwing dust into the eyes of the reader, to blind him to the real question. Our opponents must be quite aware, that there are multitudes of those who differ from them, who have no sympathy with men who talk contemptuously of antiquity and the early Fathers. We believe that our Lord has had a church upon earth ever since his first advent, and that we have among the records of antiquity many valuable works penned by his true followers; and that the writings and records of the primitive church may be, on various grounds and in many ways, useful in guiding us to a knowledge of the truth, and more especially in guarding us against error. Nay, we are ready to admit, that a notion put forward as an important article of faith which finds no support 18 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. in any of those writings, is thereby morally convicted of error, as we cannot suppose that the early Fathers would have had no knowledge of such a doctrine; and thus that in the refutation of heresy and error those writings are of great value. We hold also that the consent of many of the most able and pious ecclesiastical writers of antiquity (and what is called catholic consent is nothing more than this) in favour of any particular view of divine truth, is an argument of great force in defence of that view, not from the improbable possibility of such consent having been derived from the oral teaching of the apos- tles, but rather from the probable evidence afforded by such consent, (as one of themselves, Theodoret, will tell us,) that they were all under the guidance of one and the same omni- scient Spirit, whose teaching renders all those to whom it is vouchsafed valuable guides to the Church at large in all ages. " Immense mountains and seas," says Theodoret, after showing the identity of the testimony of several of the earliest Fathers upon certain important points, "separate them one from another, but the distance has not injured their harmony. Fou they were all taught by the same spiritual grace.", Further, we do not deny, that any man who differs from the true catholic church of Christ in fundamental points must be in fatal error, and that the faith of that church in such points must in all ages be the same; we do not deny, that there may have been fuller communications made by the apostles to some of their first followers on some points than we find in the Scrip- tures they have left us; we do not deny the possibility that interpretations of Scripture brought to us through the Fathers may have originally emanated from the apostles; we do not deny, but on the contrary firmly maintain, that the true ortho- dox faith, in at least all fundamental points, is to be found in the writings of the primitive Fathers, and therefore that it is very necessary, as a matter of evidence, that in all such points our faith be such as can find some testimony for it in their writings: but the question is, whether there is sufficient evi- dence of the divine origin of anything but Scripture to entitle it to authority over the conscience as a divine revelation; SSee testimony of Theodoret in ch. 10, below. c2 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. whether in the testimony of the Fathers there is to be found anything which, either in form or in substance, we are bound to receive as the Word of God delivered to the Church by the apostles, and consequently forming part of our Divinely-revealed Rule of faith and duty. This is the real question, and this question we answer in the negative. We assert that there is no sufficient evidence of the divine origin of anything but Scrip- ture; and that " tradition" is on many accounts not sufficiently trustworthy to be received as a divine informant. Our oppo- nents, with the Papists, maintain the affirmative, and assert that patristical testimony may, under certain circumstances, be taken as a "practically infallible" representative of the oral teaching of the apostles, and that we do in fact possess, in the patristical writings that have come down to us, a testimony respecting certain doctrines and interpretations of Scripture and other points, so indubitably of apostolic origin as to bind the conscience to the reception of it as part of the Divine Rule. There is one more observation which I would here at the outset offer to the reader, and that is, that our great concern in treating this subject will be to point out the facts of the case, and make them the ground for our conclusions. Speculative arguments have been adduced on the question on both sides, which, however plausible they may appear to the general reader, are far from being trustworthy. Thus, the advocates for the exclusive authority of the Holy Scriptures have often urged, that the Scriptures being given by God for the instruction of mankind in religion, they must be perfect for the accomplish- ment of the purpose for which they were given, and therefore must contain all that has been revealed for that purpose. But it does not follow that, because the Scriptures were given for that purpose, they are necessarily all that has been given. It is here assumed, that the end they were designed to answer was the instruction of mankind in the whole of Divine Revelation. This our opponents deny, and assert that we have inspired tes- timony on the subject of religion over and above what is con- tained in the Scriptures, and that consequently, though the Scriptures may be, and no doubt are, perfect for the end for which they were given, they form only a portion of God's gift 20 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. for the direction of man in religion. So, on the other hand, there are those who support the views of our opponents, who urge the necessity of having some inspired or practically infal lible testimony to appeal to for the interpretation of the Scrip- tures and the decision of controversies in important points, in order to preserve peace in the Church, and that God would not have left his Church without such a help; which is the old Popish argument for the supremacy of the Pope, and serves as well for that hypothesis as the one before us, and is evidently founded upon a mere human speculation as to what would be suitable to the Divine character and convenient to us. It might be very convenient for us to have such a judge of con- troversies, and the most convenient of all would be an indi- vidual judge in the centre of the Church to act as Christ's vicar; but the question is, What are the facts of the ease ? It is not for us to determine what the character of God seems to us to render it likely that he would give, nor what we might think convenient and desirable, but what God has given us. And in such a matter we are bound not to surrender our reason to the dictum of any man or body of men, but with humility, with a mind open to conviction and bent only upon arriving at the truth, to investigate the evidence upon which a claim set up in behalf of any testimony as a divine informant rests. The great object of the following work, then, is to demon- strate, in opposition to the view just stated, that there is nothing of which we have sufficient evidence that it is Divine or inspired testimony but the Holy Scripture; and consequently that the Holy Scripture is our sole and exclusive Divine Rule of faith and practice. Before, however, we proceed further, we shall in the next chapter show what are the precise views of our opponents as stated by themselves. 21 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. CHAPTER II. TILE DOCTRINE OF DR. PUSEY, MR. KEBLE, MR. NEWMAN, AND TIlE "'TRACTS FOR THE TIMES, ON THE SUBJECT OF PATRISTICAL TRADITION, AND POINTS CONNECTED THERE- WITH; WITH SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THEIR STATEMENTS. THE writers to whom I alluded more particularly when speaking of the views that have been lately advanced among us on the subject of "tradition," are those whose names are prefixed to this chapter.1 I am not, I believe, saying more than they have themselves avowed, when I state, that, besides the works pub- lished in their own names, they are the principal writers and compilers of the Tracts entitled, "Tracts for the Times, by Members of the University of Oxford." Mr. Newman has also published, among other works, "Lectures on Romanism and popular Protestantism," in which the doctrinal system he advo- cates on the subject of "tradition," church authority, and the right of private judgment, is somewhat elaborately laid down. Mr. Keble has also published a Sermon on "Primitive Tradi- tion," to the third edition of which is added an Appendix, con- SSince the first edition of this work was published, Mr. Newman has joined the Church of Rome. But as this work is.intended as a reply to such views as those he inculcated in the works quoted in this chapter, and many among us are still under their influence, I have retained the account I formerly gave of his statements. The reader, however, must of course bear in mind, that so far as concerns Mr. Newman himself, the statements must not be taken as expressing completely the views he nose holds. Most, however, will, I think, agree with me, that his present position is no slight proof of the true nature and tendency of the sentiments maintained in the extracts here given from writings published by him as one of the Tractarian party in our Church. 22 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. taining further proofs and illustrations of his argument, and a Catena Patrum from Divines of the English Church, alleged to be favourable to his views. The views of Dr. Pusey on this sub- ject are very pithily laid down in his "Earnest Remonstrance to the Author of the Pope's Letter," reprinted as No. 77 of the " Tracts for the Times." Before I proceed further, therefore, I am desirous of placing distinctly before the reader the views advanced in these works on the subject of patristical tradition; views for the refutation of which this work is more especially intended. I speak with deliberation when I say, that a system so com- pletely opposed to the views of the whole stream of our most able English divines from the Reformation to the present day, as that laid down in the above works, was never before advo. cated in our Church. Incidental observations tending to Romish views have no doubt been thrown out at times by various divines of our Church, particularly among the extreme section of the Nonjurors, as, for instance, Brett, Dodwell, &c., men noto- riously standing in a very inconsiderable minority in our Church, but now referred to by these writers as expressing her views on such points; a circumstance worthy of notice in deter- mining how far the system now put forward is entitled to the high names so confidently claimed for it, of Catholicism and Anglicanism. I begin with Mr. Newman, whose views on this subject are propounded in his "Lectures on Romanism and popular Pro.- testantism," from which work I have made the following ex- tracts, arranging them so as to present to the reader (with, at least in the intention, scrupulous fidelity,) a compendious view of the whole doctrine of Mr. Newman on the subject. With respect to the Holy Scripture, then, it is granted by Mr. Newman, in words, that it contains all the essential and fundamental articles of the faith, "all things necessary to sal. vation ;" "the saving faith," (p. 228, &c.); but it is not "the only ground of the faith," (p. 369,) nor "the source of all reli- gious truth whatever," (p. 370,) but there is another "ground of the faith," and also need of something else to teach us those truths of religion which are not contained there. 23 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. The other " ground of the faith" and " source of religious truth" is considered to be "tradition ;" and "these two [i. e. "the Bible and Catholic Tradition,"] together make up a joint rule, [i. e. of faith]." (p. 327.) With respect to " tradition,"- It is held that there is a Divine word left unwritten by the apostles contained in the writings of the Fathers, so surely pre- served, that "whatever explanations the Protestant makes in behalf of the preservation of the written word, will be found applicable in the theory to the unwritten," (p. 46,) that "we have as little warrant for rejecting antient consent as for re- jecting Scripture itself," (p. 325,) that "catholic tradition" is "a divine informant in religious matters," (p. 329,) "the un- written word." (p. 355.) This unwritten word is " antient consent," (p. 325,) often spoken of under the name of "antiquity ;" "we agree with the Romanist in appealing to Antiquity as our great teacher," (p. 47,) the meaning of which is thus stated: "Let us under- " stand what is meant by saying that antiquity is of authority in " religious questions. Both Romanists and ourselves maintain " as follows :-that whatever doctrine the primitive ages unani- " mously attest, whether by consent of Fathers, or by councils, or by the events of history, or by controversies, or in whatever " way, whatever may fairly and reasonably be considered to be " the universal belief of those ages, is to be received as coming "from the apostles." (p. 62; see also pp. 297-9.) This is Mr. Newman's view of the nature of "the unwritten word," and how it is to be ascertained. It is considered that this "tradition," or "unwritten word," is necessary for the following purposes. First, as the authority upon which we are to receive the canon of Scripture, the doc- trine of its divine origin, and the genuineness of what we receive as such. "How do we know that Scripture comes from God? " It cannot be denied, that we of this age receive it upon general " tradition; we receive through tradition both the Bible itself, and "the doctrine that it is divinely inspired." (p. 42.) " The sacred "volume itself, as well as the doctrine of its inspiration, comes "to us by traditional conveyance." (pp. 44, 5.) "We receive 24 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. " the NewTestament in its existing shape on tradition." (p.341.) " We consider the inspired canon was cut short in the apostles " whose works are contained in the New Testament, and that " their successors had no gift of expounding the law of Christ " such as they had, because the same ages so accounted it." (p. 371.) Secondly, for the interpretation of Scripture. "The " need of tradition arises only from THE OBSCURITY of Scripture, " and is terminated with the interpretation of it." (p. 381.) "Scripture does not interpret itself, or answer objections to " misinterpretations. We must betake ourselves to the early " church, and see how they understood it." (p. 371.) "Scrip- " ture was never intended to teach doctrine to the many."...... " I would not deny as an abstract proposition that a Christian " may gain the whole truth from the Scriptures, but would main- " tain that the chances are very seriously against a given indivi- " dual. I would not deny, but rather maintain, that a religious, " wise, and intellectually gifted man will succeed: but who " answers to this description but the collective church ?" (pp. 189, 190.) "These two [i. e. the Bible and Catholic Tradition] " together make up a joint rule, [i. e. of faith]; Scripture is " interpreted by Tradition, Tradition verified by Scripture." (p. 327.) "Acute men among them [i. c. Protestants] see " that the very elementary notion which they have adopted of " the Bible without note or comment being the sole authoritative "judge in controversies of faith, is a self.destructive principle." (p. 35.) Scripture is "but the document of appeal, and catho- lic tradition the authoritative teacher of Christians." (p. 343.) And "the catholic doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation, and " others similar to these, are the true interpretations of the " NOTICES contained in Scripture of those doctrines respectively." (p. 153.) "They [i. e. popular Protestants] must either give " up their maxim about the Bible, and the Bible only, or they "must give up the Nicene formulary. 7he Bible does not carry " with it its own interpretation. When pressed to say why they " maintain fundamentals of faith, they will have no good reason " to give, supposing they do not receive the creed also as A FIRST "P RINCIPLE. Why, it is asked them, should those who equally " with themselves believe in the Bible be denied the name of 25 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. " Christians, because they do not happen to discern the doctrine " of the Trinity therein ? If they answer that Scripture itself " singles out certain doctrines as necessary to salvation, and that " the Trinity is one of them, this, indeed, is most true, but avails " not to persons committed to so untrue a theory. It is urged " against them, that, though the texts referred to may imply the " catholic doctrine, yet they need not; that they ARE CONSISTENT " WITH ANY ONE OUT OF SEVERAL THEORIES; or at any rate that " other persons think so; that these others have as much right to " their opinion as the party called orthodox to theirs; that human " interpreters have no warrant to force upon them one view in " particular; that private judgment must be left unmolested; " that man must not close what God has left open; that Uni- " tarians (as they are called) believe in a Trinity, only not in the " catholic sense of it; and that, where men are willing to take " and profess what is written, it is not for us to be ' wise above " what is written,' especially when by such a course we break the " bonds of peace and charity. THIS REASONING, GRANTING THE " FIRST STEP, IS RESISTLESS." (pp. 292, 3.) That is, the Bible is altogether of ambiguous meaning; it may or may not mean to speak "the catholic doctrine," it is "consistent with any one out of several theories," or at any rate there are people who think so, and therefore it is unjust to say that the Socinians are not orthodox, unless we have an interpretation of it to tell us what it means, which we can look upon as equally "a first principle," that is, an infallible or divine informant; which "first principle" is "the creed," a phrase used by Mr. Newman to signify, according to convenience, either the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed, or those in Ireneus, Tertullian, &c., as if they were all identical. Mr. Newman is not aware, I sup- pose, that the Apostles' Creed has been misinterpreted as much as Scripture by the Socinians, and therefore that, by his own showing, his Socinian "resistless reasoning" is as applicable against himself, when he condemns the Socinians, as against his " popular Protestants." It is considered also to be important, and in fact relatively necessary for making known to us religious truths not in Scrip- ture; for it is "partly the interpretation, partly the supplement 26 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. of Scripture." (p. 298.) Il p. 335, we have a specimen of these supplementary truths. " It is only by tradition that we have " any safe and clear rule for changing the weekly feast from the " seventh to the first day;"-so that it is a necessary part of the divine rule of practice. "Again, our divines, such as Bramhall, " Bull, Pearson, and Patrick, believe that the blessed Mary was " 'ever virgin,' as the church has called her; but tradition was " [certainly] their only informant on the subject." Such is the doctrine of Mr. Newman with respect to Scripture and Patristical Tradition, a doctrine precisely identical with that of the Romanists, as we shall presently prove. Indeed, Mr. Newman appears, with one exception, to allow as much. For after explaining the Romish doctrine of "tradition," he says, "As a beautiful theory, it must, as a whole, ever remain. I do " not deny, indeed, that to a certain point it is tenable : but this " is a very different thing from admitting that it is so as regards " those very tenets for which the Romanists would adduce it. " They have to show, not only that there was such a traditionary " system, and that it has lasted to this day, but that their pecu- " liarities are part of it." (pp. 41, 42.) "We agree with the " Romanist in appealing to antiquity as our great teacher, but " deny that his doctrines are to be found in antiquity. So far " then is clear; we do not deny the force of tradition in the ab- "stract; we do not deny the soundness of the argument from "antiquity; but we challenge the Romanist to prove the matter " of fact. We deny that his doctrines are in antiquity," &c. (pp. 47, 48.) "Our controversy with Romanists turns more upon "facts than upon first principles." (pp. 50, 51.) The doctrine maintained, therefore, on the subject of " tra- dition" by Mr. Newman and the Romanists is the same. And the only difference on this subject supposed by Mr. Newman himself to exist between his doctrine and that of the Romanists, is thus stated by him :-" 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 salvation." (p. 370.) This obser- vation however is, as I shall show presently, founded on a mis. 27 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. take, for the Romanists maintain this as much as Mr. Newman. They hold that Scripture contains all points necessary to salva- tion; and when they speak of the necessity of believing things not there declared, but delivered by "tradition," it is not be- cause such things are in themselves necessary to salvation, but because "tradition" being a divine informant, a rejection of them is a direct act of disobedience to God. In all respects, therefore, the doctrine of Mr. Newman and the Romanists on this subject is the same, the only difference being as to whether some particular articles can be proved by "tradition." With this system of Mr. Newman agrees perfectly that of Mr. Keble, as I shall now proceed to show. First, with respect to the Holy Scriptures, Mr. Keble grants, in theory, that "every fundamental point of doctrine is con- " tained in the unquestioned books of that canon [i. e. the New "Testament] taken along with the Hebrew Scriptures," and hence "that nothing is to be insisted on as a point of faith "necessary to salvation, but what is contained in or maybe proved " by canonical Scripture." (pp. 30, 31.) But Scripture is not our sole rule of faith, for they are in error who "reject the " notion of a rule of faith made up of Scripture and tradition "together." (p. 82.) Nor does it contain the whole "orthodox faith,"-for, the whole "orthodox faith," though it is held to "include the written word," is not included in that word, but is "the whole creed of the apostolical church as guaranteed to us " by Holy Scripture, and by consent of pure antiquity." (pp. 80, 81.) With respect to "tradition," it is held that consentient patristical tradition is the record of that "oral teaching" of the apostles which the "Holy Spirit inspired." (p. 24.) Such tra- ditions are "unquestionable relics of the apostles," (p. 41,) "precious apostolical relies," (p. 42,) which men "might and ought to have religiously depended upon." (p. 45.) "Not a few " fragments yet remain, very precious and sacred fragments, of "the unwritten teaching of the first age of the church," (meaning of the apostles.) (p. 32.) Church tradition is "practically infal- 28 DOCTRINE OF THIE TRACTATORS. 2 lible," (p. 142,) " infallible," (p. 146,)l andc"if we will beim. " partial, we cannot hide it from ourselves, that God's unwritten "word, if it can be anyhow authenticated, [and the position " contended for is, that it can be authenticated, and is in the writings of the Fathers,] must necessarily demand the same " reverence from us, [as his written word,] and for exactly the " same reason, because it is his word." (p. 26.) Consentient patristical tradition, therefore, is " God's unwritten word," "do nanding the same reverence from us" as his written word, i. c. in the language of the Council of Trent, is to be received "pan pietatis affectu." Nay, "as long as the canon of the New Tes- " Lament was incomplete, the unwritten system served as a test even for the apostles' own writings."'("Apostolical tradition was divinely appointed in the church as the touchstone of canonical Scripture itself." (pp. 26, 27.) "The very writings of the "apostles were to be first tried by it before they could be incorpo- c rated into the canon." (p. 28.) "Between the traditional and written relics of the apostles" there is this difference, "that in " the former the things only-in the latter the very words also " --are holy." (p. 107.) With respect to the nature of this "unwritten word," and the way in which it is ascertained, Mr. Keble summarily describes it by the term, the "consent of pure antiquity," (pp. 44 and 81;t) th le ca tholic consent)'" (p. 89.) "1Those rules in which "all primitive councils arc uniform, those rites anid formularies which are found in all primitive liturgies, and those interpre- tations and principles of interpretation in which all orthodox Fathers agree," he (considers to form an indubitable part of "t the system of the apostles," enti tled to equal reverence with their acknowledged writings. (p. 40.) " If any one ask how "twe ascertain them, we answer, By application of the well-known " rule, Quod semper, quad ubique, quod ab omnibus ; antiquity, "icuniversality, catholicity." (pp. 32, 33.) Among the points which rest on the authority of " tradition," 1The ease more particularly spoken of here is that of the Nicene tradition;3 but this, as is evident from the context, only as one instance of that " primitive tradition " which is,,",a great and real help from above." (p. 142.) 29 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. he reckons the canon of Scripture; "The points of catholic " consent known by tradition constitute the knots and ties of the " whole system; being such as these, the canon of Scripture," &c. (p. 41.) " Among the traditionary truths ...... is the canon of Scripture itself," (p. 45): as well as its inspiration, for it is by tradition that " the validity" of Scripture is "ascertained." (p. 74.) Also the interpretation of Scripture, and the full deve- lopment of its doctrines. The " interpretation of Scripture" is one of " three distinct fields of Christian knowledge" which he points out, "in neither of which can we advance satisfactorily " or safely without constant appeal to tradition such as has " been described." (p. 34.) " Catholic tradition bears upon " Scripture interpretation not only indirectly by supplying, as " just now stated, certain great landmarks of apostolical doc- "trine CONFORMABLY TO WHICH THE WRITTEN STATEMENTS "ARE ALL TO BE INTERPRETED; but also in numerous cases "directly." (pp. 35, 36.) "Whether we look to discipline, to " interpretation, or to doctrine, every way we see reason to be " thankful for many fragments of apostolical practice and teaching " MOST NEEDFUL to guide us in the right use of Holy Scrip- " ture:" (p. 39.) The English Church, "acknowledging Scrip- " ture as her written charter, and tradition as the common law whereby both the validity and practical meaning of that charter is "ascertained, venerates both as INSEPARABLE members of one "great providential system." (p. 74.) This necessity of tra- dition for the, interpretation of Scripture is of course supposed to arise from the obscurity of Scripture. "If so it had pleased Almighty God," says Mr. Keble, "the Scriptures might have " been all clear of themselves....... Men may go on ima- "gining the advantages of such a dispensation, until they " have persuaded themselves that things are really so ordered." (p. 149.) So that even in the fundamental points of faith the Scriptures are not "clear." Notwithstanding all the explana- tions given by the apostles on those points in their writings, they have not at last made them clear; they have not written so as to be understood; the cogent proof of this being, that in all ages some have interpreted their writings contrary to the orthodox faith, so that the perverse misinterpretation of the 80 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. natural mind is to be taken as evidence that the Scriptures are not clear. Hence the observation that the Bible is "a volume which may be understood without traditional aid," is made by Mr. Keble the subject of particular remark as an objectionable statement. (p. 88.) " Primitive tradition," he says, " helps to " explain the Scriptures somewhat in the same way, and with " the same kind of evidence, as the grammar of a language, " once rightly taught, explains the sentences of that language." (pp. 141, 2.) Hence he holds the "rule of faith" to be "made up of Scripture and tradition together." (p. 82.) (See also here Tract 78.) The two other "fields of Christian knowledge, in neither " of which we can advance satisfactorily or safely without con- " stant appeal to tradition," are "the system and arrangement of fundamental articles," and "the discipline, formularies, and rites of the church of Christ." (pp. 34, 37.) Further; " tradition" reveals to us truths "not contained in Scripture." For Mr. Keble says, "As long as it is only doubt- " ful whether any statement or precept is part of the apostolic " system or no, so long a mind imbued with true devotion will " treat that statement or precept with reverence....... so " long the mere fact of its NOT BEING CONTAINED IN SCRIPTURE " cannot be felt as a justification for casting it aside....... " But, in truth, it may be proved to the satisfaction of any reason. " able mind, that not a few fragments yet remain, very precious " and sacred fragments, of the unwritten teaching of the first "age of the Church. The paramount authority, for example, "of the successors of the apostles in church government; the "threefold order established from the beginning; the virtue of " the blessed Eucharist as a commemorative sacrifice; infant " baptism ; and above all, the Catholic doctrine of the most holy " Trinity as contained in the Nicene Creed. All these, however " surely confirmed from Scripture, are yet ascertainable parts of " the primitive unwritten system of which we yet enjoy the " benefit." (pp. 31, 32.) Such are some of the points not con- tained in Scripture, which are revealed to us by tradition. This is not the place to notice them more particularly; but it is irnm- possible not to direct the reader's attention to the statement, 31 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. that the " Catholic doctrine of the most holy Trinity, as con- tained in the Nicene Creed," is "not contained in Scripture," though it may be " confirmed from Scripture," directly con- trary to the statement of our first Homily, to mention no other authority. Of the importance attached by Mr. Keble to the traditionary doctrinal matter not contained in Scripture, we may judge from the following passages :-" The sacred building is so divinely, " though invisibly, cemented, that for aught we know, it is " impossible to remove any portion, either of scriptural or tra- " ditionary truth, without weakening the whole arch...... Let " us, above all things, beware of the presumption of selecting for " ourselves, among the truths and laws of the Most High, which " we will retain, and which we may venture to dispense with." (p. 46.) " Confining our view to that which touches the founda- " tion, we shall find that the matters are neither few nor unim- " portant, which are settled by traditionary evidence."...... " The points of catholic consent known by tradition, constitute " the knots and ties of the whole system, being such as these,-the " canon of Scripture, the full doctrines of t/ Tinity and Incar- " nation, the oblation and consecration of the Eucharist, the " Apostolical Succession; truths and orders soon enumerated, "but such as to extend in vital efficacy through every part of the " great scheme of the Church." (pp. 41, 42.) When, therefore, Mr. Keble says, that Scripture contains all the fundamental points of faith, we must either suppose that he thinks the supplementary part of the doctrine of the Trinity learnt from tradition not to be fundamental, or (which rather appears to be his view and that of Mr. Newman) that Scripture so contains these truths that we need tradition to assure us of the fact; and that then, after having learnt the truth from tra- dition, we may find in Scripture passages which will "confirm" it, or, as it is elsewhere expressed, "hints" and "notices" of the orthodox faith. Such is the doctrine of Mr. Keble on this subject, being, as must be evident to the reader, precisely the same as that of Mr. Newman, the divine origin and necessity of "tradition" being indeed rather more than less strongly enforced, and therefore, 32 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. like Mr. Newman's, identical with that of the Romanists. It is rather remarkable also that he has made the same mistake as Mr. Newman with respect to the nature of the Romish doctrine on this subject, accusing the Romanists of avouching "tradition " of the substance of doctrine independent of Scripture, and " purporting to be of things necessary to salvation." (p. 71.) But this, as I shall prove presently, they do not do. The doctrine of Mr. Keble and Mr. Newman, then, on this subject, is in few words this,-That the revelation made to the world by our Lord and his apostles comes down to us in two different channels, one of which is the written word, the other the successional delivery by the Fathers of that which the apostles delivered orally to the Church. And as the apostles entered into fuller explanations of the doctrines of the faith in their oral statements than they have in their writings, and gave some information and directions to the Church on matters both of doctrine and practice not contained in those writings, the record of their inspired testimony which we have in the writings of antiquity is more full and clear than that which we have in the Scriptures. And as in all the fundamental doctrines of the faith, and some others of less moment, as well as in various points of practice, this traditional record of what the apostles delivered orally can be so verified as to be a "practically infal- lible" witness of what they did so deliver, in all these cases the brief and obscure "hints " and "notices" of Scripture are to be interpreted by'the more full and clear record of revelation we have in "catholic tradition," and the deficiencies of Scripture made up by the "supplemental'" records of " catholic tradition." And as to the degree of plainness with which the faith is delivered in Scripture, the author of Tract 85 tells us that " the gospel doctrine or message" "is but indirectly and COVERTLY recorded in Scripture under the surface." (p. 27; see also p. 35.) "Scripture is not one book...... it is as if you " were to seize the papers or correspondence of leading men in " any school of philosophy or science, which were never designed "for publication, and bring them out in one volume. You " would find probably in the collection so resulting many papers "begun and not finished, some parts systematic and didactic, VOL. I. D 33 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. " but the greater part made up of hints or of notices which " assumed first principles instead of asserting them, or of dis- c" ussions upon particular points which happened to require ' their attention. I say the doctrines, the first principles, the " rules, the objects of the school would be taken for granted, " alluded to, implied not stated. You would have some trouble " to get at them; you would have many repetitions, many hia- " tuses, many things which looked like contradictions; you " would have to work your way through heterogeneous materials, " and rafter your best efforts there would be much hopelessly obscure ; " or, on the other hand, you might look in vain in such a casual " collection for some particular opinions which the writers were " known nevertheless to have held, nay to have insisted on. " Such I conceive, with limitations presently to be noticed, is " the structure of the Bible." [The limitations shall be given after the next passage.] "Try to make out the history of " Rome from the extant letters of some of its great politicians, " and from the fragments of antient annals, histories, laws, " inscriptions, and medals, and you will have something like " the matter of fact, viewed antecedently, as regards the struc- " ture of the Bible, and the task of deducing the true system of " religion from it." (pp. 30, 31.) On all this I offer no com- ment, but commend it to the serious attention of the reader. Now for the " limitations." Unfortunately for our oppo- nents, there is an Article of our Church upon this subject, (Art. vi.) and therefore somehow or other the language of that Article must be retained. We are therefore told that " at " least as regards matters of faith Scripture does...... contain " all that is necessary for salvation; it has been overruled to do " so by Him who inspired it." (p. 32.) But determined that those words shall mean nothing, and be no obstacle in his way, the writer inmmediately proceeds to the task of explaining them away, and shows us, in the following words, the object and value of his preceding remarks. "This antecedent improba- " bility [i. e. of Scripture containing the faith] tells even in the " case of the doctrines of faith as far as this, that it reconciles " us to the necessity of gaining them indirectly from Scripture, " for it is a near thing (if I may so speak) that they are in Scrip- 34 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. 3 ture at all; the wonder is that they are all there; humanly " judging, they would not be there but for God's interposition; "and therefore, since they are there by a sort of accident, it is not "strange they shall be BUT LATENT there, and ony indirectly pro- ducible thence." (pp. 33, 34.) And on this subject he thus contradicts himself within the compass of a few pages. Having stated in p. 25, as the doe- trine of the English Church, that as to the whole "system of religion revealed in the Gospel," " thongh it is in tradition, " yet it can also be gathered from the communications of Scripture," he tells us in p. 48, that "though Scripture be con- sidered to be altogether silent as to the intermediate state. " there is nothing in this circumstance to disprove THE 3IIURcH's rr DOCTRINE, (if there be other grounds for it,) that there is an intermediate state, and that it is important." (See also p. 23.) Nay, still more, to prepare us for the reception of matters delivered by " tradition" which may seem even at variance with Scripture, he collects together (pp. 36-18) a number of in- stances of vhat he holds to be seeming contradictions in Scrip- hire itself, in order to draw from them the conclusion, that in the same way things delivered by " tradition" may not be really at variance with Scripture, though they may appear to he so. And that the reader may know that I am not exaggerating when I state this, I will give his conclusion in his own words. "Thme "argument," he says, "stated in a few word stands thinrs ;-a., distinct portions of Scripture itself are apparentlyi inconsistent "with one another, y~et are not really so ; therefore it does not "follow that Scripture and Catholic doctrine are at variance w it/h "each other, even if they seem to be." (p. 49. See also p. 24.) How this may strike the reader I know not, but to mne it appears to outdo Rome itself, and leave lBellarrnine to go to school. The doctrine held by Dr. Pusey on this subject is so very pithily expressed in a sentence occurring in his "Earnest Remonstrance," (reprinted as Tract 77,) that it is hardly necessary to search any further. " Our controversy with Rome," he says, " is not an ia priori question on the value of tradition in itself, or at an earlier period 1) 2 33 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. " of the Church, or of such traditions as, though not contained in " Scripture, are primitive, universal, and apostolical, but it is one " PURELY HISTORICAL, that the Romanist traditions not being " such, but on the contrary repugnant to Scripture, are not to " be received." (p. 13.) This at least is plain speaking for a divine of the Church of England. Let it, therefore, be distinctly understood, that when the authors of these works complain of being misrepresented when said to favour Romanism in their views of patristical tradition, they do so only because they think that the Romish doctrine on the subject is the catholic doctrine, though some of the tradi- tions the Romanists admit are unauthorized, and therefore that they ought not to be thus stigmatized, because, though holding the Romish doctrine on the subject, they do not hold all the traditions peculiar to Rome. The doctrine on this subject, then, advocated by Mr. Newman, Mr. Keble, Dr. Pusey, and their followers, may be summed up in the five following points. 1. That consentient patristical tradition, or "catholic con- sent," 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. 2. That such tradition is consequently a part of the divinely- revealed rule of faith and practice. 3. 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 reveal 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 development of many points, 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 divinely-revealed doctrines and rules not con- tained in Scripture. 36 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. 4. That it 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. 5. 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. It is quite true, indeed, (nor do I wish to conceal the fact,) that there are divers nice distinctions drawn by these writers in other parts of their works, by which, for very obvious reasons, they endeavour to rescue their doctrine from the charge of being identical with that of the Ilomanists. Dr. Pusey himself, though in the above sentence he clearly admits the identity of the two, endeavours, in his apologetical "Letter to the Bishop of Oxford," to draw a distinction between them in words, by telling us that " Rome differs from us as to the authority which " she ascribes to tradition; she regards it as co-ordinate, our " divines as sub-ordinate; as to the way in which it is to be "" employed; she as independent of Holy Scripture, ours as " subservient to and blended with it," &c.; and after adding some other supposed marks of distinction, in which the distinct questions of "tradition" and church authority are strangely confused, concludes, "So then beyond the name of tradition " the Church of Rome and our divines differ in everything "besides." (pp. 40, 41.) Now whatever may be said in de- fence of the good faith with which all this was penned, it will be found practically to be nothing more or less than a complete juggle of words. For what, I would ask, can be the use or propriety of drawing distinctios by the application of the words coordinate and subordinate, between two informants equally divine-which we are told that Scripture and tradition are ? The sole question with which we are concerned is, whether patristical tradition is a divine informant, and there- fore binds the conscience to the reception of what it delivers. He who holds that it is, is bound to receive it as the RIomanists do, pari pietatis affectu with the written word. And such, beyond contradiction, is the doctrine upheld in the works from which we have quoted above, as well as in other publications 37 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. attributed to the same authors, as, for instance, the British Critic, where " antiquity " is expressly spoken of as "revelation" equally with Scripture.' I)Dr. Puscy himself tells us, a few pages after, that " we owe . . . to the decisions of the church uni- versal, Faith." (p. 53.) Now taking this sentence in its least obnoxious signification, as referring to the decisions of the church universal, not as self-authoritative, but as the infallible witness of apostolical tradition, (which is, I suppose, its in- tended meaning,) I would ask whether Church-tradition is not placed here upon precisely the same footing with Scripture, and whether the distinction between the two, alluded to above, is not a mere verbal and not a real distinction ? Indeed, it is obvious, that to maintain that Scripture contains only an im- perfect delineation, hints and notices, of the most important doctrines, and that the full revelation of them is only to be found in "tradition," and yet aver that we make tradition only subordinate to Scripture, is an inconsistency and (I must be pardoned for adding) an absurdity of no ordinary kind. Mr. Newman has also offered some remarks of a similar nature. But we shall notice them more particularly in another place. Such, then, is the doctrine on patristical tradition propounded in these works as the doctrine of the English Church. The reader should also understand, that this doctrine forms part of a system laid down (though perhaps with some varia- tions and inconsistencies) in the Tracts and works to which we have referred, to which is very confidently ascribed (I leave the reader to determine how justly) the name of Catholicism and Anglicanism, as opposed to Romanism on one side and Protes- tantism on the other; and as the subjects of church authority and the right of private judgment are intimately connected with that we are now considering, I will add here some extracts from Mr. Newman's Lectures sufficient to put the reader in possession of his doctrine on those subjects. I do not intend to attempt in this work a formal refutation of his statements on those points, but I quote them in order that the reader may see more clearly the nature of the system. As it respects the question 1 See Brit. Crit. for Jan., 1838, article on Froude's Remains, and elsewhere in many places. DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. of church authority, I shall not in the following pages do more than notice it incidentally as it may arise in connexion with the immediate subject of the work. My object now is, to dis- cuss the question, whether there is such a Church-tradition, preserved to us from primitive times, as can be recognised as a divine informant in addition to Holy Scripture. It may be added, however, that if it is clear that there is not such an in- formant, and that the remains of the early Church show, that there was great difference of opinion in the primitive visible Church even upon leading points of the Christian faith, the claim of church authority at the present day, founded upon such tradition, be it made by whomsoever it may, is in the highest degree preposterous. And in a divine of the English Church it is perfectly unintelligible. For his "church autho- rity " is the judgment of a few English divines in the sixteenth century, drawing out a scheme of doctrine from the Holy Scriptures, (for to them Bishop Jewell assures us that they went, and their own Article tells us that they received even the Creeds only from their believing that they might be proved by '" certain warrants of Holy Scripture,") opposed to that held by the great majority of the Christian world of their age, and many previous ages. If the right of private judgment is not admitted, the reformed Church of England has no ground to stand upon. And they who take the high ground of church authority ought in common consistency to abandon her communion. It may be well, however, to note here the ground taken on these points by the writers to whom I am about to reply in the following pages. First, then, as to the authority of the Church. "The Church," says Mr. Newman, "enforces, on her own "responsibility, what is an historical fact, and ascertainable as "other facts, and obvious to the intelligence of inquirers as other "facts; viz., the doctrine of the apostles; and private judgment " has as little exercise here as in any matters of sense or experience." .. . "The Church enforces a fact-apostolical tradition-as " the doctrinal key to Scripture, and private judgment expatiates " BEYOND the limits of that tradition." (pp. 224, 5.) How Mr. Newman can reconcile the statement that " the doctrine of the 39 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. apostles" is a " historical fact ascertainable as other facts, and obvious to the intelligence of inquirers as other facts," with the fact that the nominal church has always been more or less divided in opinion respecting it, I must leave to him to explain. It must be confessed, however, that if it were not supposed to be so obvious a historical fact, Mr. Newman takes good care to give the Church sufficient power to enforce it. For he says, " Not only is the Church catholic bound to teach the truth, but " she is ever divinely guided to teach it; her witness of the Christian faith is a matter of promise as well as of duty; her " discernment of it is secured by a heavenly as well as a human " rule. She is indefectible in it, and therefore not only has autho- " rity to eaiforce, but is of authority in declaring it ...... that "doctrine, which is true, considered as an historical fact, is " true also because she teaches it." (pp. 225, 6.) Here, as is clear, the doctrine that the visible Church is an infallible guide in matters of faith is very distinctly laid down ; and Mr. Newman, commenting upon 1 Tim. iii. 15; Eph. iv. 11--14; Isa. lix. 21 ; and observing that these texts "are " considered by the Romanist to prove the infallibility of the " Church in all matters of faith and general morals," adds,- " They certainly will bear so to be interpreted, it cannot be " denied: and if this be so, why, it may be asked, do we not " interpret them as the Romanists do ?" (pp. 231, 2;) to which he replies, that the Church, from her " misconduct," " may have forfeited in a measure her original privileges." (p. 235.) "We " shall find, I think, in the New Testament, that the promise " to her was suspended, more or less, upon a coidition which " for many centuries she has actually broken. This condition " is unity." (p. 236.) Accordingly he limits her infallibility to the fundamental points of faith, holding that "the antient Church "will be our model in all matters of doctrine, till it broke up "into portions, and for catholic agreement substituted peculiar " and local opinions; but that, since that time, the Church has " possessed no fuller measure of the truth than we see it has at " this day; viz., merely the fundamental faith ;" (p. 241;) and to that extent he ascribes to her permanent infallibility. "Both '" we and Romanists," he says, "hold, that the Church catholic is 40 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. " unerring in its declarations of faith or saving doctrine." (p. 252. See also p. 232.) Strange to say, he proceeds to point out two passages in our received formularies as bearing out this doctrine. "First, in " the 20th Article we are told, that the Church has 'authority " in controversies of faith.' Now these words certainly do not " merely mean, that she has authority to enforce such doctrines " as can historically be proved to be apostolical. They do not ' speak of her power of enforcing truth, or of her power of " enforcing at all, but say that she has ' authority in contro- " versies;' whereas, if this authority depended on the mere " knowledge of an historical fact, and much more if only on her " persuasion in a matter of opinion, any individual of competent " information has the same in his place and degree. The " Church, then, according to this Article, has a power which " individuals have not ; a power, not merely as the ruling prin- " ciple of a society, to admit and reject members, not simply a "' power of imposing tests, but simply 'authority in controversies " of faith.' But how can she have this authority unless she be " certainly true in her declarations? She can have no authority "in declaring a lie." (pp. 226, 7.) The sum total of which reasoning--if reasoning it can be called-amounts to this, that there can be no authority where there is a liability to error, a doctrine which needs no further refutation than a clear state- ment of it. "Our reception of the Athanasian Creed," it is added, "is another proof of our holding the infallibility of the " Church, as some of our divines express it, in matters of saving " faith. In that creed it is unhesitatingly said, that certain doe- " trines are necessary to be believed in order to salvation; they " are minutely and precisely described; no room is left for pri- " vate judgment; none for any examination into Scripture with " the view of discovering them." (pp. 227.) Now does Mr. New- man really see no difference between the Church as represented by a body of her pastors bearing her testimony to what she believes to be the truth, and denouncing certain errors; and moreover, using her authority, as it respects terms of commu- nion, in support of the plain truths of Scripture; and her claiming to be an infallible guide? Strange indeed is it if he 41 DOCTRINE OF THE TIRACTATORS. does not; though, certainly, when coupled with another of his remarks, one may cease to feel surprised at it. "They [i. e. " the multitude of Protestants," he says,] consider every man " his own judge; they hold that every man may and must read " Scripture for himself, and judge about its meaning, and make " up his mind for himself; nay is, as regards himself, and prac- " tically, an infallible judge of its meaning ;-infallible, certainly, " for were the whole new creation against him .... yet accord- " ing to the popular doctrine, though he was aware of this, he " ought ultimately to rest in his own interpretations of Scripture, " and to follow his private judgment." (pp. 319, 20.) So that forsooth, when a man claims to decide for himself, which, out of the various interpretations of God's message given by diffe- rent portions of the visible Church, is the true one, he is said to claim infallibility ! It must be observed, however, in order to obtain a clear view of Mr. Newman's doctrine on this subject, that he considers the Church herself to be not a judge but a witness of the sense of Scripture; he does not consider the Church herself to have authority to judge of the sense of Scripture, but only to be a witness of what Catholic tradition delivers as the sense of Scrip- ture. Catholic tradition is to the Church herself the authorita- tive interpreter of Scripture. "The Church is not a judge of " the sense of Scripture in the common sense of the word, but a " witness. If, indeed, the word ' judge' be taken to mean what it " means in the courts of law, one vested with authority to declare " the received appointments and usages of the realm, and with " power to enforce them, then the Church is a judge-but not " of Scripture, but of Tradition.... We consider the Church " as a witness, a keeper and witness of Catholic tradition, and " in this sense invested with authority, just as in political mat- "ters an ambassador possessed of instructions from his Govern- "ment would speak with authority. [Catholic tradition, there- fore, bears to the Church the same relation as a Government to its ambassador] .... She bears witness to a fact, that such "and such a doctrine, or such a sense of Scripture, has ever " been received and came from the apostles; the proof of this "lies first in hler own unanimity throughout her various branches, 42 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. " next in the writings of the antient Fathers : and she acts upon " this her witness as the Executive does in civil matters, and " is responsible for it; but she does not undertake of herself to " determine the sense of Scripture, she has no immediate power "over it, she but alleges and submits to what is antient and " catholic.... We consider antiquity and catholicity to be the "' real guides, and the Church their organ." (pp. 320-322.) So that, in fact, the office of the Church is authoritatively to promulge the interpretation of Scripture given by catholic tra- dition, and she is divinely guided to tell us truly and infallibly in the fundamentals of faith, what that interpretation is. The Bible, therefore, is to the Church herself a very secondary book, for she can receive its truths only as they are doled out to her by the tradition of preceding ages. " Catholic tradition" being the unwritten word of God, and therefore entitled to equal respect with the Scriptures, and moreover the authoritative interpreter of the meaning of the Scriptures, and containing a full revelation of the doctrines of the faith, which in Scripture are only indirectly and obscurely noticed, it is of course much more valuable than the Scriptures. And the first "proof" that the testimony of "the Church" as to the witness of apo- stolical tradition is correct is, " her own unanimity throughout her various branches." Now "the Church" is made up of these branches, and cannot speak at all but through their unanimity, and therefore this amounts to saying that the first "proof" that her testimony is correct is that she bears that testimony. And, in fact, though "tradition" should fail her, she would be " almost infallible," Mr. Newman thinks, for he says,-" the " Church truly may be said almost infallibly to interpret Scrip- "ture, though, from the possession of past tradition, and amid " the divisions of the time present, perhaps at no period in the " course of the dispensation has she had the need and the "opportunity of interpreting it for herself.".... Such interpre- tation " the Church has never attempted." (p. 190.) It is some comfort, however, for her to know, that if anything should oblige her to attempt it, she will be "almost infallible." The Church, therefore, being thus vested with authority to declare and enforce that catholic tradition which is the autho- 43 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. ritative interpreter of Scripture, is to be viewed herself as, with respect to us, the authoritative interpreter of Scripture. "XWe " do not," says Mr. Newman, "set up the Church against " Scripture,--but we make her the keeper and interpreter of " Scripture." (p. 228.) And " if we inquire the ground of this authority in the Church," it is " that she speaks merely as the organ of the catholic voice," the organ of catholic tradition; (p. 227;) and in fundamentals is to be viewed, as we have seen, as infallible in her decrees. After these statements, the reader will of course not be sur- prised at finding that the Protestant doctrine of the right of private judgment is absolutely offensive to him. In immaterial points, indeed, he would allow the right, provided that it was silently exercised; but that it should be exercised upon points upon which our salvation depends, that is quite out of the question. " By the right of private judgment," he says, " in matters of " religious beli f and practice, is meant the prerogative, con- " sidered to belong to each individual Christian, of ascertaining " and deciding for himself from Scripture what is gospel truth, " and what is not." (p. 152.) This principle is, in Mr. Newman's view, most pernicious. Hie calls it "that mischievous, but very popular, principle " among us, that in serious matters we may interpret Scripture " by private judgment." (p. 218.) " If the Church," he says, " does not claim any gift of interpretation for herself in the " high points in question, [i. e. the fundamentals of the faith,] " much less does she allow individuals to pretend to it. Explicit " as our Articles are in asserting that the doctrines of faith are " contained and must be pointed out in Scripture, yet they give " no hint that private persons may presume to search Scripture " independently of external help, and to determine for them- " selves what is saving, [in other words, presume to obey the "direct injunctions of the first Homily.] The Church has a "prior claim to do so, but even the Church asserts it not, but "hands over the office to catholic antiquity. In what our "Articles say of Holy Scripture as the document of proof, exclu- " sire reference is had to TEACHING. It is not said that indi- "viduals are to infer the faith, but that the Church is to prove 44 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. " it from Scripture; not that individuals are to learn it, but " are to be taught it." (pp. 323, 4.) So that individuals are not even to make Scripture the document of proof; it is not for them even to test what "tradition," or "the Church," may say, by Scripture: no, " let this maxim," it is said, "be laid down " concerning all that the Church catholic holds, to the full ex- " tent of her prophetical tradition, that her members must either " believe or silently acquiesce in the whole of it," (p. 303); aye, so much so, that "WHEN THE SENSE OF SCRIPTURE, AS INTER- " PRETED BY REASON, Is CONTRARY TO THE SENSE GIVEN TO ' IT BY CATHOLIC ANTIQUITY, WE OUGHT TO SIDE WITH THE "' LATTER." (p. 160.) Now, I must say, that it appears to me a very wise precau- tion on the part of the Romanists, holding similar views to these, to interdict the general use of the Scriptures, and only to give permission to a few whom they can trust to read them; for if our faith is thus to be grounded on the authority of the Church, and not upon what appears to us to be the meaning of the Holy Scriptures, it is unwise to give men generally an oppor- tunity of consulting them, lest they should happen to think, as some assuredly will think, that their meaning, even in some important points, is not p)recisely what their Church tells them that it is; especially if they are so "obscure," and contain only "hints" and "notices" of even the fundamental points of the faith. And how near Mr. Newman has got to this view of the matter may be judged from the following sentence :-" By " the right of private judgment is meant, not that all must, " but that all may search Scripture, and determine or prove " their creed from it: THAT IS, PROVIDED THEY ARE DULY " QUALIFIED, for I suppose this is always implied, though " persons may differ what the qualifications are." (p. 174.) In " serious matters," then, the right of private judgment is altogether denied, both as to the meaning of Scripture and tra- dition, and our faith is to rest not upon Scripture, or even tradition, but upon that which the Church delivers to us as the true doctrine pointed out by catholic tradition as the meaning of Scripture, or rather upon the Church, as one infallibly guided to direct us aright in fundamentals. 45 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. Notwithstanding therefore that "apostolical tradition," "the doctrinal key to Scripture," is "an historical fact, and ascer- " tainable as other facts, and obvious to the intelligence of in- " quirers as other facts," (see p. 41 above); yet nevertheless individuals are not to be trusted to learn what it is for them- selves from the writings of the Fathers, but are to receive it from the Church.? Whether this is quite consistent with the statements made elsewhere as to the necessity of going to tra- dition as our teacher, &c., I leave to the judgment of the reader; but there can be no question of its convenience as a dernier resort, if individuals will be so perverse as to misinterpret tradi- tion as well as Scripture. The right of private judgment is confined to "matters of inferior moment." "In matters of inferior moment," says Mr. Newman, " both the Church and the individual have " room to exercise their own powers; the individual to judge " for himself, and the Church to give her judgment as one that " hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful; and that for " this simple reason, either that Scripture or tradition is " obscure, indeterminate, or silent." (p. 325.) "The Church " enforces a fact--apostolical tradition-as the doctrinal key to " Scripture, and private judgment expatiates beyond the limits " of that tradition." (p. 225.) We hold "that the Church has " authority, and that individuals may judge for themselves " outside the range of that authority." (p. 320.) But in such matters (and so far I quite agree with him) "it is pious to " sacrifice our own opinion to that of the Church," and "we " must avoid causing any disturbance." (p. 161.) Catholic tradition, however, being considered a divine infor- mant, this right of private judgment cannot of course be con- sidered to extend to those matters, even of inferior moment, to which that tradition is supposed to bear witness. I Hence I am told, in a review of the first edition of this Work by an eminent Trctarian, since gone over to the Church of Rome,-" We have in no way main- tained, that an ordinary religious inquirer would have any chance of discovering for himself the truth by his personal study of the Fathers; and should any have been inclined to think otherwise, we shall be very much pleased if the facts brought together by Mr. Goode prove to him his mistake." 46 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. Now, after attributing so much to the authority of "the catholic Church," making her infallible in all fundamental points of faith, and requiring absolute submission to her autho- rity in such points, and the suspension of all private judgment upon them, it might reasonably be expected that Mr. Newman should tell us how we may learn what this Church says. He allows this, and remarks, "You speak, it may be urged against " me, of the Church catholic, of the Church's teaching, and of "obedience to the Church. What is meant by the Church " catholic at this day ? Where is she? What are her local " instruments and organs? How does she speak? When and " where does she teach, forbid, command, censure? How can " she be said to utter one and the same doctrine everywhere, " when we are at war with all the rest of Christendom, and not " at peace at home ?" (p. 310.) What then is his reply ? It is as follows :-" Whatever truth there is in these remarks, still I " CANNOT ALLOW that what I have been above drawing out is " therefore a mere tale of other times, when addressed to those " who are really bent on serving God as well as they can, and " who consult what is most likely to please him. The very " difficulty of applying it will be a test, whether we earnestly " desire to do his will or not." (p. 311.)1 In other words, he candidly confesses that after all he cannot tell who constitute "the catholic Church." Having led us into the wood with a promise that we should there find an infallible guide in all fundamental points, he fairly confesses that he knows not where or what he is, intimating withal, as we shall see presently, what is a tolerably clear proof that to mortal eyes he may be indiscernible. Can he be surprised that the reply of many is, We have got an infallible guide already, given us by God himself, and with that we are contented, until you can I The course which Mr. Newman has taken since the first edition of this Work was published, seems to me an apt illustration of the necessary tendency of this doctrine of the authority of the Church to lead men to Rome. In no other com- munion can this doctrine be consistently held. And we here see in these words of Mr. Newman the consciousness that existed in his own mind, when he wrote them, that the system he was then holding was open to a fatal objection on this point, and that he must either retrograde or go forward. 47 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. distinctly point out to us another of whom you can produce equal evidence that he comes from God. The Church, indeed, as consisting of "the blessed company of all faithful people," must no doubt be always orthodox in the fundamentals of the faith. But how is the voice of that Church to be heard ? Where are its declarations and decrees to be found? And Mr. Newman admits, that "the promise that the " word of truth should not depart out of the mouth of the " Church . .. might be satisfied . . . though this were all, "which many think to be its highest meaning, that there " should always be in the Church some true believers " (p. 234); i. e. he admits, that the true Church may consist of a select body of believers scattered throughout the nominal Church, so that the voice of the legislative part of the Church may be anything but the voice of the true Church, i. e. the sound part of the professing Church. For instance, the voice of the Romish Church on the doctrine of justification, as heard at Trent, may be anything but the voice of that portion of the true catholic Church which we may hope is to be found. within the Romish Church; and so may it be in the case of any other part of the nominal catholic Church. And what is true in this respect, in the case of each part taken separately, will be true of the whole viewed as a whole. Nevertheless, though he is unable to inform us who constitute "the catholic Church," viewed as an infallible guide, and whe- ther it may not after all be a scattered body of individuals not traceable as a body by the eyes of men, yet he cannot persuade himself, as he ingenuously confesses, to give up his view as one not reducible to practice, and therefore proceeds to assert a claim in favour of our own Church being considered by "An- glicans" as the representative of that Church, and entitled to the same obedience. "To follow the Church in this day is to follow the Prayer-book." (p. 313.-See the whole of pp. 310- 317.) Now, in all the expressions of respect and attachment which he applies to our Church I most cordially agree. But when he places her upon an eminence to which she has no rightful claim, and to which, notwithstanding.the argument,- 48 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. may I not say puerile argument,-raised from her 20th Article, and her adoption of the Athanasian Creed, I will venture to say she offers no claim; when, in her name, he demands obe- dience to her as infallible in *all fundamental points of faith, and limits the right of private judgment to points beyond the limits of what she receives as fundamental, then surely it be- comes those of her members who do not embrace such doctrine, nor believe it to be hers, to raise their protest against such, as it appears to them, dangerous delusions. The difference between these views and those of the Romish Church is merely this,-that the Romish Church, considering herself to be "the catholic Church," (so that she avoids the in- consistency of Mr. Newman, who makes what he acknowledges to be but a part equivalent to the whole,) asserts that she is infallible not merely in the fundamentals of the faith, but in all her decisions, and therefore limits the right of private judg- ment to those points upon which she has not decided; while Mr. Newman considers the Church infallible only in the funda- mentals, and therefore seems to allow private judgment some- what greater scope. (See pp. 232, and 252, 3.) But even here, I suspect, the difference is rather nominal than real. For he says, " The Church enforces a fact-apostolical tradition-as the " doctrinal key to Scripture, and private judgment expatiates "beyond the limits of that tradition." (p. 225.) Now he certainly does not limit that "tradition" to the fundamental points; and if not, this is tantamount to what Rome says, for she claims no power for the Church of adding to the faith once delivered by the apostles, but only of "enforcing" the truths handed down by "apostolical tradition ;" and such tradition as is witnessed to in the writings of the Fathers. The dif- ference, then, would be merely this. Rome says that the Church is infallible, through divine promise, in delivering all points as much as in delivering the fundamentals of the faith. Mr. Newman says that she is not infallible, except in the funda- mentals, but, having an obvious historical fact, apostolical tradi- tion, to guide her, she cannot make a mistake. A very nice distinction ! The advancement of such claims in behalf of our Church VOL. I, E 49 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. appears to me calculated to do her essential disservice, and even to alienate the affections of many from her, if led to suppose that such are her principles. In my humble view they are totally opposed to her whole spirit and language. Does she refer us to "tradition," or to the Church, as the ulti- mate authority for our faith ? So far from it, that she says, in her "Exhortation" to her members "to the reading of Holy Scrip- ture,"--" Let us diligently search for the well of life in the books " of the New and Old Testament, and not run to the stinking pud- " dies of men's traditions, devised by men's imagination, for our "justification and salvation. FoR in Holy Scripture is fully con- " tained what we ought to do and what to eschew, what to believe, " what to love, and what to look for at God's hands at length." (Horn. 1.) Now, whatever may be the traditions here referred to, I put it to the common sense of any reader, whether the direction here given to " search for the well of life in the books " of the New and Old Testament . . . FoR in Holy Scripture " is fully contained what we ought to believe," &c., is consistent with the direction that we are to learn the faith from "tradi- tion," and make "tradition" a joint rule of faith with Scrip- ture. Does she hold that Scripture is so obscure that it needs "tradition" to interpret it? Nay, she says, "The humble " man may search any truth boldly in the Scripture, without " any danger of error. And if he be ignorant, he ought the "more to read and to search Holy Scripture to bring him out " of ignorance." "Although many things in Scripture be " spoken in obscure mysteries, yet there is nothing spoken "under dark mysteries in one place, but the selfsame thing in " other places is spoken more familiarly and plainly to the " capacity both of learned and unlearned. And those things " in the Scripture that be plain to understand and necessary for "salvation, every man's duty is to learn them, to print them in "memory, and effectually to exercise them." (Hom. 1.) Does she claim obedience to herself as infallible in all the fundamental points of faith, and forbid the exercise of private judgment upon those points, demanding that they should be believed upon her interpretation of Scripture as the witness of 50 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. catholic tradition ? What mean, then, her exhortations to her individual members to " search for the well of life in the books of the Old and New Testament ?" &c. She makes, therefore, no such presumptuous claim. Nay more, she knows that she needs it not. In the humble confidence that her doctrines arc agreeable to the written word of God, she exhorts her members to search for themselves in the Scriptures, resting satisfied that God's children will find her faith there. But on this point, that is, as to the views advocated by our Church on these matters, I shall have occasion to speak at large in a future chapter, Mr. Newman, I allow, makes this claim for the Church of England, on the ground of her having faithfully followed "' catholic tradition." But, in the first place, this is a matter of opinion. Romanists deny it. Some of our own sectaries deny it. And the assertion is quite inconsistent with Mr. Newman's denial of the right of any but the Visible Church to judge in such a matter; for when our Church separated from Rome, her reformed Creed was drawn up by comparatively few individuals against the views of the great majority in the Visible Church.' This cannot, therefore, be taken for granted; and those of us who are unable to compare her views with those of the primitive Church are utterly unable to judge in the matter. Supposing it, however, to be granted, that antiquity prepon- derates in her favour,which as a matter ofprivate opinion we should have no hesitation in doing, then the question recurs, What is the value of the patristical tradition we possess in any point ? Can we rate it higher, as a positive testimony, than as affording a probable or confirmatory argument for that which has been found in Scripture ? Such are the views which we are required to receive as exhibiting the doctrine of the Church of England upon these points; though, with singular inconsistency, it is allowed that 1 See chap. xl. 2 Here again we see, how directly Mr. Newman's sentiments on the authority of the Church were calculated to lead him to Rome; for if the Visible Church only had the right of determining the meaning both of Scripture and Tradition, the course which was taken by our Reformers is altogether indefensible. 51 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. this middle path, as it is called, "has never existed except on " paper, it has never been reduced to practice." (p. 20.) " To " take, for instance, the subject of private judgment; our theory " here is neither Protestant nor Roman, and has never been " realized." (p. 21.) "It still remains to be tried, whether what "is called Anglicanism, the religion of Andrews, Laud, Ham- " mond, Butler, and Wilson, is capable of being professed, " acted on, and maintained on a large sphere of action, and " through a sufficient period." (p. 21.) " If the English " Church has the mission, hitherto unfulfilled, of representing a " theology Catholic but not Roman, here is an especial reason " why her members should be on the watch for opportunities " of bringing out and carrying into effect its distinctive cha- " racter." (p. 24.) " The English doctrine is not embodied in " any substantive form, or publicly recognised in its details." (p. 27.) "The middle path adopted by the English Church ..... " has never been realized in any religious community, and " thereby brought home to the mind through the senses." (pp. 153, 4.) Mr. Newman, conscious apparently of this incon- sistency, attempts to give an explanation of it thus,-" That " though Anglicanism is not practically reduced to system in " its fulness, it does exist in all its parts in the writings of our " divines, and in good measure is in actual operation, though " with varying degrees of consistency and completeness, in dif- "ferent places," (p. 28,)--which explanation I leave with the reader. He adds, that in points not determined by the Prayer- book, or Thirty-nine Articles, or "episcopal authority," (the Homilies, be it observed, are carefully excluded,) we "are not " left to ourselves to determine as we please, but have the " guidance of our standard writers, and are bound to consult "them, nay, when they agree, to follow them, but when they "differ, to adjust or to choose between their opinions," (p. 29;) and to know which are our "standard writers," we are to observe that "there have ever been three principal parties in the Church " of England, the Apostolical, the Latitudinarian, and the " Puritan," (p. 28 3;) the apostolical being represented by a few whom our opponents claim as agreeing with them, such as Arch- bishop Laud and others, and the other two being "but modifi- 52 DOCTRINE OF TIHE TRACTATORS. cations of Socinianism and Calvinism," (p. 23;) so that we have only to throw overboard all those who differ from the school of Laud, and the residue will represent the "apostolical" portion of the divines of the Church of England, the "standard writers." This process of elimination is doubtless very necessary to stamp the doctrine of Mr. Newman with the character of Anglicanism. Nay, I believe, and hope to prove in a subsequent chapter, that we must eliminate most of these apostolicals also, to get at this result. And this process affords the shortest path imaginable to a conclusion, for no argument can be less complicated than this, Those divines that take my view of the subject are the apostolical portion of the divines of our Church, the rest being either Latitudinarian or Puritan, and so "but modifications of Socinianism and Calvinism," and therefore clearly my system of doctrine is Anglicanism and the doctrine of the Church of England. That the apostolical portion has never been able to get its views acted upon in the Church (and this is admitted) is, I suppose, only a sad proof that during the whole three centuries of its existence as a reformed church, error has been triumphant, and therefore, in Mr. Newman's words, "is an especial reason " why her members should be on the watch for opportunities of " bringing out and carrying into effect" those views. Thus, Anglicanism and the doctrine of the Church of England is not what has been generally and publicly professed and acted upon by that church, but a theory existing (as it is supposed) in the writings of some of her principal divines; and the Church is arraigned at Mr. Newman's bar for not having carried out this theory - a theory which, as a church, she never recognised-. into practice. The inconsistency and presumption of all this are truly extraordinary. Against such statements it is useless to argue, and therefore, with these few remarks to commend them to the notice of the reader, I leave them at his disposal.' I The presumption and inconsistency of the leaders of the Tractarian party are so remarkably displayed in a passage in the review of the first edition of this Work in the British Critic, that it may be worth while to quote it in this place. Main- taining that men are not to judge for themselves even what the testimony of the 53 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. Before we proceed, however, it is very necessary that we should point the reader's attention to a few passages in the works to which we have referred above, calculated to show him the absolute necessity of caution and reserve in the perusal of them. Those that are more closely connected with our subject, I shall notice hereafter in their appropriate place; but I will give a few here, in order at once to show the reader that the statements of the Tractators are not to be received with that implicit confidence which their triumphant tone and assumed intimate acquaintance and agreement with the Fathers and ecclesiastical antiquity, and the divines of our Church, seem to demand of us, and that in fact they have made very strange misstatements and very extraordinary mistakes. The first I would notice is one of considerable importance, and lying at the foundation of the system, namely, the interpretation of that article of the Creed, " I believe in the Holy Catholic Church." "Christians," says Mr. Newman, "have a demand " on their teachers for the meaning of the article of the Apo- " stles' Creed, which binds them to faith in ' the Holy Catholic early church as to doctrine is, but ought to take the "Church's instructions" as their guide, he tells us that the " main business" of " the Oxford writers " "was " to call upon those of their fellow-labourers in the Lord's vineyard who were able " and willing to assist them in their self-imposed task of repairing the breaches of " our Zion, of so building up and fortifying the English Church, that she might " both more fully claim authority, and more distinctly and articulately teach trxth. " And as a help in this task, they doubtless appealed, as in duty bound, to the history " of the early church. The consolidation of a theorlogical system which, built " uponm our formnularies, may tend to inform, persuade, and absorb into itself reli- " gious minds,'(Newman's Adv. to Lect. on Justif.) - this has been the object "nearest to their hearts; that by the labour and study of the few, plain, practical, "satisfying instruction might be given to the many." (pp. 83, 84.) Now it was no doubt very kindly meant in these gentlemen to take upon them the " self-imposed task" of "repairing" what they chose to consider "the breaches of our Zion," and enabling our Church, by the instruction they afforded her, "more fully to claim authority," &c., and to "consolidate a theological sys- temn" for her out of their private study of the remaining records of the early church. But I feel at a loss to understand on what grounds they can expect the rest of our Church to acquiesce in the results of their " elf-imposed task," and still more, why they should deny to others that right of private judgment, at any rate as to the nature of the testimony we obtain from the remaining records of the early church, which they have thus ex confesso so largely conceded to t -e- setes, even to the extent of manufacturing a new theological system for their church. 54 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. " Church,'" (p. 7) ; and consequently, to illustrate, as he thinks, that article, the "main object" of his Lectures "is to furnish " an approximation in one or two points towards a correct " theory of the duties and office of the Church catholic ;" to direct attention to points "connected with the pastoral office of the Church." (pp. 8, 9.) And his doctrine on this subject is, that Christians are bound to exercise a "childlike reliance on" the Church as " the guide which is ordained by God to be the interpreter of his message." (p. 307, and see whole of Lect. XI.) The meaning, therefore, of this article of the Creed is evidently assumed to be, (as it has been before interpreted by Romanists,) " I believe what the Holy Catholic Church says," in accordance with the observation already quoted from Dr. Pusey, that "we owe.... to the decisions of the Church universal, faith ;" and so far from any defence of this exposition being given, it is spoken of as if its correctness were beyond controversy; and in one at least of the writers of this party I have seen the accusa- tion that those who opposed them could not believe one of the articles of the Creed ! Now, if Mr. Newman and his friends will just turn to Bishop Pearson's Exposition of the Creed, which has long been considered by all parties as a standard work in our Church, they will find their whole edifice, so far as it is built upon this article of the Creed, to be utterly without foundation. "When I say [says Bishop Pearson] ' I believe in " the Holy Catholic Church,' I mean that THERE IS A CHURCH " which is holy, and which is catholic." "' Credo sanctam " ecclesiam,' I believe there is a holy church; or ' Credo in "sanctam ecclesiam,' is the same; nor does the particle in, " added or subtracted, make any difference." And so our learned Dr. Chaloner, in his Treatise on this Article against the Romanists, expressly refutes the interpreta- tion given to it by the Tractators, particularly "from the word " catholic in the Creed, which by the Tridentine catechism's " own confession, signifying the flock as well as the pastors, and "excluding no time, no persons, nor any condition of men, is "not possible to be seen, nor capable to be heard, nor able to " be consulted with; and therefore, according to the sense "which the Church believes in this place, it is absurd to con- 55 56 DOCTRINE OP THE TRACTATORS. "ceive that these words, credo ecclesiam, I believe that there is "a church, should be equivalent to these, Credo ecelesie, I yield "faith and belief to the Church."' This is not the place to enlarge upon the point, but I cannot help adding that in the confession of faith sent by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, in his letter to Alexander, bishop of Con- stantinople, respecting Arius,--and which Mr. Keble himself tells us is "evidently" " a paraphrase on the baptismal or apo- stolical creed then in use at Alexandria," '-this part of it runs thus :-" And in addition to this orthodox faith (E1coE/3eZ &dp) " respecting the Father and the Son, as the Holy Scriptures teach "us, we confess (d~oXoyov~cv) one Holy Spirit, who renewed " (rd Kcv(0av) both the holy men of the Old Testament,' and " the divine teachers of the New Testament, and one only catho- " lic, namely the apostolical, church [i. e. we confess], that shall "never be destroyed. "4 And so indeed the most antient exposition of the Creed which we have, namely, that by Rufinus, interprets it,-" Therefore " they who are taught above to believe in one God under the " mystery of the Trinity, ought also to believe this, that there is " one holy church." I think, then, I shall carry the reader with me when I say, that any writer who deals thus with an article of the Creed ought to be read with very considerable caution. The error sought to be affixed to that Article is the very foundation of our opponents' system, viz, that our faith is due not to Scrip- ture, but to what the decision of the universal church (a thing utterly unattainable) pronounces to be the meaning of Scripture, and lays down as the truth. Another point, which it is impossible to pass over without notice, is the highly-coloured and exaggerated representation 1 Chaloner's Credo Sanctam Eccies. Cathol. ed. 1638. pp. 18, 19. 2Sermn. App. p. 123. a The reader will note this passa as applying to a statement of Dr. Pusy and others on another subject. 4'Theodoret, lust. REM. i. 8. Op. ed. Scheize et al. Hake 1769 et S. tom. 3. p. 745. 6 Hi ergo qui supra in unumz Deem ecredere docti sunt sub inysterio Trinitatis, eredere etiam hoe de bent, earn ease sagsda e celesiam . Ref. Erpo. in Sy zeb. in art. 11Sanctam Eeclesiaiu." Inter Cypr. Op. ed. Fell. Oxon. 1682. Ad fin. p. 27. 56 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. made by Mr. Newman of the views of what he calls popular Protestantism, i. e. Protestantism as it stands distinguished from his own system. Of the extraordinary statements made on this head I will give the reader a specimen. And, first, of the " Protestant sects," of whom he says, " After whatever misgivings or reluctance, they seem to allow, " or to be in the way to allow, that truth is but matter of " opinion; that that is truth to each which each thinks to be " truth, provided he sincerely and really thinks it; that the " divinity of the Bible itself is the only thing that need be " believed, and that its meaning varies with the individuals " who receive it; that it has no one meaning to be ascertained " as a matter of fact, but that it may mean anything, because it " is said to mean so many things." (p. 35.) And he accuses them of an " adoption of the latitudinarian notion that one creed is as good as another." (p. 36.) Now, though I am not about to take up the defence of the Protestant sects, I cannot but express the pain and regret with which I read such palpable misrepresentations of their views. But they are not the only sufferers in this way, for in many other similar statements a large proportion of the clergy and members of the Church of England are evidently intended to be included; and the representation given of their views on this subject, under the title of "Popular Protestantism," are such as these,-" The external means of judging are such as Scrip- " ture, the existing church, tradition, catholicity, learning, " antiquity, and the national faith. Popular Protestantism "would DEPRIVE US OF ALL THESE EXTERNAL MEANS, except " the text of Holy Scripture." (p. 156.) "A widely-extended " shape of Protestantism in this country, and that which pro- "fesses to be the most religious of all, maintains that though " Scripture may seem to mean anything in matters of faith to "unassisted reason, yet that under the guidance of divine "illumination it speaks but one doctrine, and is thus the " instrument of the Holy Ghost in converting the soul. Start- " ing from this fundamental article, its advocates speak as "follows :--that Scripture is the only divine instrument given " us, that everything else is human," &c.-(which, thank God, 57 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. is very true, but which is followed up by the following glaring misrepresentation ;)-" It follows, that to inquire about the "' early Church, the consent of Fathers, unbroken testimonies, " or councils, to inquire when the Church first became corrupt, " or to make the primitive writers a comment upon the inspired " text, are but MELANCHOLY AND PERNICIOUS FOLLIES." (pp. 191, 2.) " The popular theory of rejecting all other HELPS, and reading the Bible only." (p. 200.) And this is said in a country where commentaries and biblical works, and all "helps" to the right interpretation of the Bible, are sought after with avidity! " In the English Church we shall hardly find ten or twenty neigh- " bouring clergymen who agree together, and that, not in the non- " essentials of religion, but as to what are its elementary and " necessary doctrines; or as to the fact whether there are any " necessary doctrines at all, any distinct and definite faith required " for salvation." (pp. 394, 5.) Again; "I trust that the fore- " going lectures have disposed us to take a more cheerful view " of what the Protestantism of the day considers a hardship. It " considers it a hardship to have anything clearly and distinctly " told it in elucidation of Scripture doctrine, an infringement on its " right of doubting, and mistaking, and labouring in vain. And " the violent effort to keep itself in this state of ignorance- " this unnatural 'stopping of its ears,' and 'throwing dust into " the air' after the pattern of those Jews who would not hear "the voice of apostles and martyrs,-all this it dignifies by "the title of defending the sacred right of private judgment, "calls it a holy cause, a righteous battle, and other large and " senseless epithets. But I trust that we have learned to glory " in that which the world [i. e. ' the Protestantism of the day,'] "calls a bondage. We do boast and exult in bearing Christ's "yoke, whether of faith or of obedience, [which of course ' the "Protestantism of the day' does not]; and we consider his "creed not as a tyrannical infliction, God forbid ! or a jealous "test, [as of course 'the Protestantism of the day' does con- " sider it]; but as a glorious privilege, which we are ready to " battle and to suffer for, yea much more ready, so be it I "through his grace, than they for their low, carnal, and des- "picable licence to reject it." (pp. 284, 5.) 58 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. And thus the whole body of his opponents are held up to the reader (according to the old artifice of the Romanists against the Protestants) as men that utterly despise the testi- mony of antiquity and the Fathers; and because they refuse to receive patristical tradition as a divine informant, are abused as persons who think it a hardship to have Scripture clearly ex- plained to them, and look upon Christ's creed as a tyrannical infliction, and are compared to those who stopped their ears when the apostles were speaking. On such statements as these it is quite unnecessary to offer a remark, and therefore I will only say, that it is difficult to understand how Mr. Newman can suppose that they can have any other effect with persons at all well informed on the subject than to recoil with tenfold force upon their author. One can hardly, however, help remarking that Romish doctrines and Romish tactics generally go together. I will give but one more extract in illustration of this point. " How very extravagant is the opposite notion now so common, " that belief in the Bible is the sole or main condition for a "' man being considered a Christian ! how very unchristian the "' title by which many men delight to designate themselves, " turning good words into bad, as Bible-christians! We are "all of us Bible-christians in one sense; but the term as ac- " tually used is unchristian, for the following rcason,-dircctly it " is assumed that the main condition of communion is the " acceptance of the Bible as the word of God, doctrines of "whatever sort become of but secondary importance." (p. 291.) Now, I would ask Mr. Newman, as this doctrine-that the mere acceptance by any one of the Bible as the word of God, independently of a consideration of the doctrines it may be held by him to support, is the main condition for a man being con- sidered a Christian,-is "so common" among his opponents, to name a few persons worthy of notice who hold this doctrine. If he cannot do so, he must be content to be charged with a very grievous misrepresentation of their views. It is very painful to have to deal with such misstatements. To expose their unfairness sufficiently without appearing to 59 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. insinuate wilful misrepresentation, (which in this case I am far from wishing to do,) is most difficult. Does he really suppose, that because some hot-headed and ill-informed men may have chosen to talk nonsense, he is justi- fied in thus vituperating (for it is nothing less) that large body of his brethren in the Church, as well as those out of the Church, who oppose his views? Mr. Newman knows well the effect upon the popular mind of such a representation of the views of an antagonist as shall lead them to conclude that he is in the extreme of absurdity and fanaticism. But such state- ments savour much more of party zeal and special pleading than of Christian candour and the upright defence of a good cause. He must be perfectly conscious, that his views are strenuously opposed by men to whom the sentiments which he has here attributed to his opponents would be as objectionable as they can be to himself. The fact is, (as Mr. Newman can hardly but be aware,) that the meaning of the great body of those who call themselves Bible-christians is nothing of the kind, for they hold, as much as Mr. Newman, that there are fundamental doctrines in Christianity, a belief of which is necessary. But the term is used to distinguish between those who hold that the Bible only is a divine informant, and those who hold that there is another divine informant besides the Bible. And thus the Romanists have made use of it as a term of reproach for the Protestants, as holding that the Bible alone is the rule of faith; a reproach which Mr. Newman and his party seem most desirous to show is inapplicable to them, but which our excellent Archbishop Tenison will tell them ought to be very differently met by us, and received not as a reproach but an honour. "The faith of the "reformed," says the Archbishop, "has by some of their adver- "saries of the Roman persuasion been called Bibli sm: and " they themselves have had the name of Biblists given to them. " And those they look upon as names of honour, though they were "intended as marks of infamy by the inventors of them: for it is "both a safe and a worthy practice, to take for their rule the " Word of God rather than the word of man. That was the rule 60 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. " which Christ left to his Church, and the judicious and sincere " Christians of all ages have governed themselves by it; for they " have believed, as St. Athanasius did, 'That the Holy and Divine " Scriptures are of themselves sufficient for showing the truth.' " I hope, therefore, that we may still take leave to "delight in the name" of Biblists and Bible-christians, as distinguishing us from those who hold such a doctrine on the rule of faith as that advocated by the Tractators; and that Mr. Newman will recon- sider the matter before he again misrepresents as he has done those who do delight in that name. It is worthy of remark also, that while the mouths of indivi- duals arguing from the Bible are to be stopped, one who argues from the testimony of " Tradition," or what appears to him to be so, may raise his voice against the whole Church. "We," it is added, "make it every individual's prerogative to maintain " and defend the Creed ... The humblest and meanest among " Christians may defend the faith against the whole Church, if " the need arise ;" and the way in which this individual is to ascertain that his interpretation of the Creed is right, is "to " ascertain the fact what is the meaning of the Creed in parti- " cular points, since matter of opinion it is not, any more than " the history of the rise and spread of Christianity itself;" as if the Creed was not open to different interpretations as well as the Scripture itself. This surely comes very unfortunately after such an exposition of an article of the Creed as we have had to notice above, by one who is such an admirer and student of antiquity as Mr. Newman. And how this doctrine is to be reconciled with his statements in other parts respecting the permanent infallibility of the Church in all fundamental points, and our duty to follow it as the keeper and witness of catholic tradition,2 is inconceivable. But the course which the Tracta- rians have taken necessarily involve them in these self-con- tradictions. They are setting themselves up to teach their Church the true faith by the exercise of their own private judg- ment upon the records of antiquity, and they are at the same 1 Popery not founded on Scripture. London, 1C88, 4to. Introduction, p. 5. The Introduction was written by Tenison, the rest of the volume by others. 2 See pp. 39-46 above. 61 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. time inculcating upon others the necessity of obedience to the teaching of their Church. While therefore, at one time, we find them earnestly advocating the doctrine of submission to the Church, at another, the consciousness of their own practice makes them earnest defenders of a man's right to maintain the faith which he has deduced for himself from Scripture and Tradition against everybody. The same unfair mode of arguing is adopted by Mr. Keble, though, certainly, not to the same extent. All his remarks tend to make the reader suppose, that those who oppose his view of the value of " tradition," antiquity, and the Fathers, deny that they have any value at all. Thus, after having observed, "We " love not to allow that in any sense we rest our faith and prac- tice upon tradition," he immediately adds, "and . . . objec- " tions the most contradictory are brought to justify this our " determined disregard of antiquity ;" as if there was no medium between " resting our faith and practice upon tradition," and a "determined disregard of antiquity." (p. 39, and see similar remarks, pp. 74, 87, &c.) Now this is a loose and ad captandum style of argument, which may deceive many readers; but to one who looks for an accurate and judicious treatment of the subject, it betrays a bias and prejudiced state of mind very far from satisfactory. Take also the following instance:-" Our ultra-Protestant," says the author of Tract 81, "would consistently reject the " doctrine of the sacrifice, (as he would the rite of infant bap- " tism,) because there is no explicit authority for it in Holy " Scripture, no statement of it totidem verbis; the Anglican divine " must receive it as the doctrine of the Church Catholic coin- " ciding with hints of Holy Scripture."' The writer of this was, or ought to have been, perfectly aware, that the persons to whom he applies the name of "ultra-Pro- testants," do not hold the necessity of a statement of doctrine being found totidem verbis in Scripture, but that a doctrine should follow by necessary consequence from what is stated in Scripture. The reader will also observe what in our opponent's view is the 1 Thwt 81, pp. 28, 9. 62 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. Anglican doctrine on this subject, namely, that we are bound to receive as " the doctrine of the Church catholic," whatever is stated by certain Fathers, and has "hints" of Holy Scrip. ture in its favour. But, in truth, there is a great deal of haste (to use no harsher term) displayed by our opponents in more than one respect in their endeavours to propagate their views, which has led to very much and very grievous misrepresentation of the sentiments, not only of those whom they oppose, but of those whom they would fain make the reader think are their friends, that is, the great majority of our best divines,-a misrepresentation which has been the mainstay of their cause. Men who have in the most clear, explicit, and direct terms opposed the view they advocate, are coolly and deliberately quoted by them as the supporters of their scheme, even in the very works in which it is repudiated. To give but one instance. They themselves refer to the famous rule of Vincent of Lerins, as the groundwork of their scheme on the subject of " tradition," making that rule the certain test of truth, and endeavouring to persuade us that thus it had been con- sidered by all our great English divines; referring, among others, to the learned Bishop Stillingfleet, and especially to his work on "The Grounds of Protestant Religion." Now, Bishop Stilling- fleet, in that very work, says,-"Wise men who have thoroughly " considered of Vincentius his way, though in general they cannot " but approve of it so far as to think it highly improbable, that "there should be antiquity, universality, and consent, against the " true and genuine sense of Scripture, yet when they consider this " way of Vincentius, with all those cautions, restrictions, and limi- "tations set down by him, (1. 1. e. 89,) they are apt to think that " he hath PUT MEN TO A WILD-GOOSE CHASE TO FIND OUT ANY- "THING ACCORDING TO HIS RULES; and that St. Augustine spake "a great deal more to the purpose when he spake concerning ALL " the writers of the Church, ' that although they had never so much "learning and sanctity he did not think it true because they thought "so, but because they persuaded him to believe it true, either from "the authority of Scripture or some probable reason." (p. 279, ed. 1665.) And in another part, he shows "how little certainty" there is " in his way of finding out traditions." (p. 247.) But 63 DOCTRINE OF TIHE TRACTATORS. this rule is put forth by our opponents as the test of" apo- stolical tradition," and that which is supposed to stand this test is a divine informant, having authority over our consciences as supplementary to and interpretative of Scripture, and of this view Bishop Stillingfleet is continually quoted as the supporter, even from the very work from which we have given the above extracts. Other instances of this the reader shall have in abundance hereafter. Further, let us inquire how far their accuracy may be relied upon in their statements respecting antiquity and the views and doctrines of the Fathers, where the reader might suppose from the tone they have assumed, that their knowledge was of the most perfect kind, and that their statements were the result of long study of, and intimate acquaintance with, the records of antiquity. What does the reader think of the following passage ?-" The " baptismal confessions recorded in the Acts are of this nature, " 'I believe that Jesus is the Son of God,'-' I believe in Jesus " Christ,' and the like. But this elementary confession, thus " brief and incomplete as far as the express words went, seems " even before the apostles' death to have been expanded and " moulded into form, and in that form or type it has remained up "to this day in the baptismal service. I say this was done in the " apostles' days, because history bears witness to the fact, calling " it ' the Creed,' ' the Apostles' Creed,' the treasure and legacy " of faith which the apostles had left to their converts, and " which was to be preserved in the Church to the end. Indeed " St. Paul, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, so speaks of " it when quoting part of it, viz. as that which had been commit- "ted to him, and which he had committed in turn to his con- " verts. (1 Cor. xv. 3.)" (Newman's Lectures, &c. pp. 260, 261.) This brief mode of settling everything is very convenient, but not quite satisfactory. The Creed which we now have (runs this argu- ment) was certainly put into its present form by the apostles, for some writers who lived long after (for that is all the testimony we have) call it the Apostles' Creed; and if this is not a sufficient proof, remember St. Paul himself has quoted it in 1 Cor. xv. 3, though he does not say so. 64 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATOLIS. 6 Such a statement as this at the present day is startling; more especially from one who professes an intimate acquaintance with antiquity. But it is merely an echo of the statements of some Romish writers; and statements, be it remembered, which are repudiated by the more learned members even of that Church. On this point, however, we shall have to speak at large in another place, to which therefore I refer the reader. (See c. 4.) Let us now see how far we may depend upon the correctness of their quotations from the Fathers. It is a favourite observa- tion with Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble, that "Tradition teaches, Scripture proves." On the correctness or incorrectness of this observation I say nothing here. My only concern now is with the following quotation from Athanasius, introduced in proof of it. "Athanasius," says Mr. Newman, "in the following pas- " sage, distinguishes between Tradition as teaching, and Scrip- ture as proving, verifying doctrine. 'Our faith is correct, and " is derived from Apostolical teaching and the Tradition of the "Fathers, being established out of the New and Old Testa- " meats.' (Ad Adelph. � 6.)" (p. 385.) Mr. Keble, still more boldly shaping the passage to his own mind, says,-" St. Atha- " nasius more than once mentions a certain 'form or stamp of "t the faith of a Christian,' by recurrence to which doctrines may " be best tried, and heresy repressed; and this form or stamp, " he says, we receive by tradition, but are able to demonstrate it by " the Scriptures. Ep. ad Adelph. tom. i. 914. E ;" adding part of the sentence in the original. (p. 124.) And in the next page he gives us this translation of the portion he refers to,-" ' To "us belongs the right faith, setting out from the apostolical " teaching and tradition of the Fathers, and confirmed both by " the New and the Old Testament.' Could he have said more " clearly, 'Tradition teaches, Scripture proves?' (p. 125.) Now this passage with its context stands thus ;---'IM v bi 71 7r~tc r rlv d pOij, Kai h bdbaTKaAlas 'A7roarrdAow v(or, 'Airo- 'YTOALKJs jA p f'V~ xai 7rapab6'e oc rev 7iarhpcov /3s/3cuov.Aq JK rs vas Kai 7r ahaLav &aOriK?rjs v p iv rrpo4~irr3v Asyo'vrow 'Airo'orsth~ov rav Ao'yov arov, Kal rtjv aX?1OELCW o-ov. Kac, '1O v 7 HapOkvos iv yao-rpi E$EL.......... b 'AToqXcr AOV 'rap~booe.y VOL. I. F 65 66 DOCTRINE OF THE TILACTATOUS. it i TxKEL, roy fEV HEIPOVp AEyOVros Xprroi oivv ip j v7a- O'vro O apc(l. [1 Pet. iv. 1.]. roil$ IlavAov ypd4ov-ros, [Jp:oo OvEVOt rev MaKaplav Xihra .... [Tit. ii. 13.]. Ep. ad Adelph. I give the portion of this passage, quoted by Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble, stopped as in the editions preceding the Bene- dictine. It may be thus translated':-" But our faith is the " orthodox faith, both taking its rise from the teaching of the " Apostles, and confirmed by the tradition of the Fathers, de- " rived both from the New and Old Testament; the prophets " saying, Send out thy Word and thy Truth, and, Behold a " virgin shall be with child, &c.;. .. and the tradition of the " apostles teaches us, Peter saying, 'Christ therefore having " suffered for us in the flesh,' and Paul writing, 'Looking for " that blessed hope, &c.' " This passage, however, the Benedictine editors have stopped so as to make it, if possible, speak the views of Itomanism, by in- serting a comma after 1rar pov, and thus connecting 3E/3aovpivq with what follows, and translating the passage according to this punctuation. Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble have followed in their wake; the latter having even gone so far as to translate the passage, " the apostolical teaching and tradition of the Fathers," as if it referred to the apostolicat teaching of the Fathers, a trans- lation which the very position of the words wholly forbids. Indeed I do not believe that they can point out any passage in the Fathers in which the words, "'the teaching of the apostles," or "the apostolical teaching," are p~ut for the report we derive of that teaching from the Fathers. Now whether the new Bene- dictine punctuation be correct or not, it is unnecessary here to inquire, though it seems to me quite inconsistent with the con- struction of the sentence. It is sufficient to observe, that the immediate context shows what Athanasius means by " the teach- ing of the apostles," viz, that which "the TRADITION of the apostles TEACHEaS Us," IN THEIR WRITINGS, the very passages nPeter Nannius, a Roman Catholic Irofessor at Louvain, translates the pas;ag thus :-Nostra contra fides recta eat, et ex doctrmna Apostolica et traditione Patrumn cotitirmatas, t Novo et Veteri Testameuito, em et Prophetwe clamjant, &c. (Se editin f Athannas ins, published, Colon. 1686. vol. i. p. 159) : which translation clearly supports that given above. 66 DOCTRINE OF THIE TRACTATORS. 6 from Peter and Paul to which he refers as "the tradition of the apostles" being pointed out; and therefore that the sense put upon the words by Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble is far from what he intended. But it is an old quotation of the Romanists against us, from whom our opponents appear to have borrowed it without even consulting the context.' The observation of Mr. Keble as to a certain form or stamp q' fail being here referred to, and said to be received by tradition, is perfectly unaccountable; for neither in the passage or the con- text is there anything of the kind; and it is not the less remark- able from his placing a few words of the Greek original at the foot of his page, as if he had really found his assertion in the original. Indeed Mr. Keble himself, referring to the same passage in the next page, tells us that the terms in question do not occur there. But unfortunately, again forgetting this, hc in the fol- lowing page recurs to his first assertion as correct, and makes it of considerable use to his argument, observing, "This same " 'form of the faith,' for which as we have seen Athanasius looked " to tradition, he affirms elsewhere to have been," &c. (p. 126.) Poor Athanasius ! This is indeed hard treatment of one who in every page with laborious reiteration refers to Scripture as that from which every individual is to satisfy himself of the truth. It is quite astonishing, indeed, how any one at all acquainted with the works of Athanasius can suppose that he I I incline to think, from the context, that the word lra rl pwv here dloes not refer to the Fathers of the Christian Church at all, hut to the writers of the Old Testament, proofs being immediately adduced from the Prolphets. Certainsly the word is sometimes used by the early Christian Fathers in that sense; as, fo~r instance, by Hyppolytus the Martyr, who, speaking of the prophets, says, otif as -yap wvv',ucrrpo4nrree.) ofwcr~s u ccrlprTIffiIvol. (lDe Antichristo, � 2. Op. ed. Falbr. 1716-18. vol. i. p. 5.) The word is also used in a very similar sense, i. e. of the writers of the Holy Scriptures generally, by Cyril of Alexandria, who speaks of those writings as, al r v &yt an' warwv oryypcaq al. (lDe S. Trin. Dial. 1. Op. Tomn. 6. P. 1. p. 388.) And apparently by Cyril of Jerusalem in the following passage Aoswrbv 54ds r &s siar ypa4&s 5ravAOw/tEv, salrivw~hEY S~wTSL&irb ' *Tfrpwvu &yyew, y7iv a pan. (Cat. 16. � 5. (el. Milles. p. 228.) But even if the refer. ence is to the Fathers of the Christian church, the passage, according to the old punctuation, is precisely in accordance with the view we (defend; for that " the tradition of the Fathers " is a confirmatory argument for the truth of a doctrine derived from Scripture is what we maintain, and this is the utmost for which this passage could be adduced. F2 67 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. is adducible in favour of the views advanced by Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble. The reader will observe, that in this passage of Athanasius the Scriptures of the apostles are called "the tradition of the apostles." The word tradition is constantly used by the Fathers in this sense, i. e. as significative of the Scriptures, and this, as was likely, has given rise to many perversions of their meaning, which makes it very necessary for us to be on our guard against being misled by scraps selected from their writings, in which the word tradition occurs, and which are adduced in proof of the value of ecclesiastical tradition, when in fact they are appli- cable only to the Scriptural tradition. Thus Athanasius, or at least the writer of a treatise ascribed to him, whose genuineness is doubtful, (in either case the pas- sage will serve equally well as an example), says,-" He that " abides by the traditions (roi rrapa8oOEiorL,) is safe. And we " exhort you, as we exhort ourselves, to preserve the faith that " has been delivered to us, (rav 7rapa6oOE0oTav r(o-rw, the tradi- " tional faith)." What a strong passage, it might be said, in favour of tradition! And thus it has been quoted by the Romanists. But when we take it with its context, we find that nothing is less meant than patristical tradition. It is the tradition of Scripture which alone is referred to, and the expression "THE traditions," as thus applied, shows that the term was commonly used by the early Fathers with reference to Holy Scripture. The whole passage stands thus,-" For things great and " difficult of apprehension are received by faith in God. "Whence they who have weak intellects fall away, unless they "should be persuaded to abide in the faith, and avoid idle " questions. Wherefore the blessed Paul said, ' Without con- "troversy great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest "in the flesh,' &c. Since therefore we have heard that some " among you are troubled, and desire letters from us con- " cerning the common faith, which was introduced by the apostles, " we write, that to search curiously into it is the duty of few, " but to hold the faith, of all who would obey God.... For he "who searches into things which are above his ability is in 68 DOCTRINE OF TIHE TRACTATORS. " imminent danger, but he who abides by the traditions is safe. " And we exhort you, as we exhort ourselves, to keep the faith " that has been delivered to us, and to turn away from profane " novelties of speech, and to enjoin this upon all, that they " should fear to institute curious inquiries respecting so great a " mystery, and confess that God has been manifest in the flesh " according to the apostolical tradition (r'v 'Arroo-roXLKiv 7rapd- " boow)." De incarn. Verbi Dei, init. (Ed. Col. 1686. tom. 1. p. 592. Ed. Bened. tom. 2. p. 33, 34.). 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 the author took of the use of Scripture from 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 Scripture, the scriptural tradition, and keep the faith as THERE delivered to us. The treatise from which this passage is taken, is indeed placed by the Benedictines among those of doubtful authorship, 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. 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, by which the sense is materially changed in favour of Romish doctrine, and, more- over, the construction of the sentence unwarrantably 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 beyond, ' It is enough that these are not " the doctrines of the Church nor of the Fathers."' (p. 387.) 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 doctrine. Now the passage as it stands in all the editions preceding the Benedictine reads thus :-Ta ya&p oirto w4avep s beLKv'peva 4aiAa, yvuvICeLv drl rX.iorv Kal 7reptupy6ttrOaL o beL, rva uL 69 70 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. roil &tAOvELKOVcTlV w'Q.lcf(f3OXa vopc Oi ') ovTo LVOV &TTOKpL vaorat 7rpbS Ta Troavua, Kai f if~riLv apKELorT&OVK t T avra rip KaOoXLKi EKKA7Trat, ot'b ravra ol 7rar~pEs+ po'vrjsrav.1 i. e. For as to doctrines which are so manifestly unsound, it is not right to make them subjects of earnest discussion2, and labo- "riously search into them, lest they should be considered by " men who love to dispute as doubtful points; or [i. e. or if you " argue at all against them] it is sufficient to give this answer only " to such things, and to say, that these are not the doctrines of " the catholic Church, nor was this the mind of the Fathers." Athanasius here, very wisely no doubt, advises the bishop to whom he was writing, not to hold disputes with those under him concerning doctrines manifestly heretical, lest they should be thought debateable points, but to say at once, These are not the doctrines of the catholic Church, and, therefore, I cannot allow them to be publicly disputed about by those who are in the communion of the Church. But the Benedictine Editors, by silently altering the punctuation thus, Kai drv'y'ApK a K. r. A. (leaving no verb, be it observed, to the infinitives diroKp(- varOat and dtrE v) have thought to make Athanasius advise the bishop to tell the heretics with whom he had to deal, that this was a SUFFICIENT proof against their doctrine, that it was not the true doctrine. This emendation of the punctuation of Athanasius, Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble have implicitly fol- lowed, and from it deduce a sentiment completely opposed to the whole tenor of his writings. I do not charge them with any unfairness in this, because they were probably not aware of the alteration, Ibut it shows the necessity of narrowly examining their quotations. And I must be allowed to add, that there is another part of the same quotation where it is not quite so easy to acquit them of partiality in their translation. Why does 1 Epist. ad Epict. ropeunit. ed. Col. 1686. tom. i. p. 584. See Ben. ed. tomi. i. pt. 2.1j). 903. 9Suicer has ohserved that Chrysostoni has used the word ,yiLVd~EVa~ in a some- what different snse, applying it thus; sitrlt ed d-yuwrros yrb AsX Ei ' yv~u'cCsw,. i. e. id quod dictum est exemplo illun~nrare; and( similarly elsewhere. In my first edition I considered that the word might he used in a similar sense here, and translated it accordingly. [Bit I believe the translation giv en above is more likely to be the corrcct rendering. 70 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. Mr. Newman translate the words rv e ioe371 7rrtv, ," the reve- rent faith of the church P" (p. 386.) And Mr. Keble, "the Creed of the true religion ?" (p. 127.) Why this partial trans- lation to suit their own peculiar views ? The words are merely "' the orthodox faith." Mr. Keble's rendering, moreover, is peculiarly unfortunate, implying that the heretics were to be silenced by "the Creed," when in the words immediately pre- ceding it is stated, that the heretics in question boasted of their adherence to the Nicene Creed. Nor is there any reason why the words " the orthodox faith" here should not mean the same as " the faith that has been delivered to us" in the last passage, where the words had a direct reference to Scripture. Further, what is the meaning of the phrase "the Fathers" in this passage ? It refers exclusively to the Fathers assembled at the Council of Nice, (as any reader of the context will see at once, and as the phrase is often used both by Athanasius and others,) to whose sentiments Athanasius refers as sufficient for the occasion, because the Church in which these disputes were, and indeed the disputants themselves, professed to receive their Creed; just as in the Church of England it would be a suffi- cient answer for a private bishop to make to any disputants upon points settled by the public confession of the Church, to say, I cannot allow these matters to be disputed about by you who profess to be members of the Church, as if they were debateable points, when the Church has already determined them and made the reception of them essential to communion with her. And hence we may observe, that even admitting the Bene- dictine punctuation, the passage is not necessarily favourable to the views of our opponents; because the sufficiency of the testimony referred to would apply not to its sufficiency for the establishment of the truth in the abstract, but to its sufficiency for the termination of the dispute spoken of. This passage, then, leaves the question between us and the Tractators utterly untouched. Another specimen of their mode of dealing with the Fathers, showing, as it appears to me, an extraordinary want of acquaint- 71 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. anee with the meaning of phrases of common occurrence in the writings of the early Church, must not be omitted. We have already observed,1 that the word tradition is fre- quently used by the Fathers to denote Scripture, sometimes alone, but more frequently connected with some word descrip- tive of its author. Thus the Scriptural tradition of the New Testament is sometimes called the Apostolical tradition, which refers to the Acts and Epistles of the New Testament, and sometimes the Evangelical tradition, significative of the Gospels of the Evangelists, these two parts of the New Testament being generally distinguished from each other by the early Fathers. On this subject we shall have to speak more fully in another place; but I just notice it again here, partly in order to put the reader on his guard on so important a point, and partly as in- troductory to the next passage to which I have to call his attention in the work of Mr. Newman,-a passage which, coming as it does from one who professes so intimate an ac- quaintance with the writings of the Fathers, it is difficult to account for. But it quite explains how it is that he thinks the Fathers such defenders of "tradition." The passage is as follows :-" He [i. e. Athanasius] concludes " with these words, in which the same distinction is made as has " already been pointed out between THE TRADITION or THE " Cu ucn as an antecedent argument, a fair plea, ORDINARILY " SUPERSEDING INQUIRY, and, on the other hand, when for one "reason or another the inquiry has proceeded, Scripture as the " only basis of sound argument and conclusion. 'I have " 'written the above, beloved, though really it was unnecessary, " 'for the Evangelical tradition is sufficient by itself; but since " you asked concerning our faith, and because of those who are " ' desirous of trifling with their theories, and do not consider " 'that he who speaks out of his private judgment speaks a lie. " 'For neither the comeliness nor the glory of the Lord's " 'human body can be adequately expressed by the wit of man, "' but we speak so far as we are able, viz. confess what has " 'been done, as it is in Scripture, and to worship the true and I See pp. 8, 13, and 68. 72 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. 7 " 'living God, for the glory and acknowledgment of his love " 'towards man,' &c. (Contr. Apollin. i. 9, 11, 22, fin.)" (Lec- tures, &c., p. 388.) Mr. Newman, therefore, would have us suppose, that the phrase i E&yyELKi rap6oocs, the Evangelical tradition, means the tradition of the Church, and upon this extraordinary mistake founds the observation, that from this passage it is clear, that Athanasius thought that the tradition of the Church is an antecedent argument ordinarily superseding inquiry. If, then, it should turn out, that " the Evangelical tradition" means Scrip- ture, then, upon Mr. Newman's own showing, it is the opinion of Athanasius that Scripture is the antecedent argument ordinarily superseding further inquiry. Whatever "the Evangelical tradition" may be, it is clearly the opinion of Athanasius, that it is "UFFICIENT BY ITSELF" (a7rpKigs) to teach the faith. Now the fact is, that this phrase is a common phrase with the Fathers for the Gospels, the tradition of the Evangelists, as dis- tinguished from the Acts and Epistles, which they call the tradi- tion of the Apostles, or, the Apostolical tradition. Thus Gregory NyssenB;-" But the argument from the in- " spired volume upon the point in question each one may " gather abundantly from both Testaments. For many may " easily be found in the prophets and the law, and many both Cin the Evangelical and Apostolical traditions," (+ v E1~aT,'EXKaic TE Kai ' A~oaoXLKas Tapab~ro' ac) . De Virg. c. xi. ed. Par. 1615. tom 2. p. 579. So Cyril of Alexandria;-" le would have them be gentle and patient, according to the Evangelical traditions" (rab~ Et'ayyEXLKaS 7apabvooELc). In Isa. c. lxvi. ver. 5. Other examples occur in Socrates, list. EccI. lib. ii. c. 7. and in IBalsamon ad Can. 6. Concil. Nic. Sec. And so Cyprian says, " Whence is that tradition ? Does it " descend from Dominical and Evangelical authority, or does "it come from the commands and epistles of the Apostles? " For God testifies that those things are to be done which are "rewritten....... If, therefore, either it is commanded in the " Gospel, or is contained in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles 73 74 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. .e.....lt that divine and holy tradition be observed. " If in anything the truth has not been steadily maintained, "let us return to the iDominical original and the Evangelical " and Apostolical tradition." (Ad originem Dominican et Evan- gelicarn et Apostolicam traditionem revertanur.) Epist. 74. ad Pomp. ed. Fell. p. 211, 215. And what is, if possible, still more conclusive, we find Jerome, when translating a passage of Polycrates, translating the words ra EvayyXeov, the Gospel, (referring to Scripture,) by "evange- lica traditio," the Evanyclical tradition.1 Indeed, I would ask Mr. Newman where he can find the phrase used in the early Fathers to mean anything else. So that "the Evangelical tradition" means the Gospels, and the passage of Athanasius recoils with no little force upon Mr. Newman's own hypothesis. The very context, indeed, shows that the Scripture is referred to, and in the next treatise we find more than once a phrase precisely similar, viz. 6 EiayyE- LK(S opos, the Evangelical rule, used to express the Gospels. (De salut. adv. Christi adv. Apoll. or Lib. see. adv. Apoll.) And in the Treatise " De pass. et cruce Por." attributed to him, we find tie phrases 6 'AiroarotKus Xoyos, "tihe apostolical saying," applied to a quotation from the Epistle to the Ronans; T6 EivayyEXLKcv roD Kvptov APnov, "the evangelical saying of our Lord," i. e. "tile saying of our Lord in the Gospels," applied to a quotation from St. Matthew. And so the author of the Qmvstiones et Responsiones ad Orthodoxos (in the works of Justin Martyr) uses the phrase roes EvayyE~XLoZs &vgyijl.ao L, "tile evangelical narratives," for the Gospels. (Qurest. 135.) And Rufinus,- " Prropterca ergo Propheticis et Evangelicis atque Apostolicis vocibus nobis pnenunciatur hic error." (Expos. in Synmb. ;) that is,-" Moreover this error is foretold to us in the Prophetical and Evangelical and Apostolical words." And as to the sentiment here expressed, we need go no further than the very first page of Athanasius's works, to see its con- formity with the views he has maintained elsewhere. "As you desire," he says to the person whom he was addressing, " to "hear me discourse respecting the faith, we will, as far as we 2 Se Routhi, Relict. Scr, vol. i. p. 371 ; or, 2nd ed. vol. 2, p. 15. 74 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. 7 "are able, expound the Christian faith, which indeed you might have found from the divine oracles, (bvvaj4dv &r6 rwv O E((v Aoy(wv ECpEv), but politely desire to hear from others. "For the holy and inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves " (amvnpxst) to deliver the truth. (irps rrv ris &NrOElas ?xay- " yEXlav.)" 1 Before we quit this passage, the reader should also notice another point, viz, the translation, "he who speaks out of his private judgment speaks a lie." The introduction of the term "private judgment" here is totally unauthorized by the original, which is i EK rc v t1wv aXwv, he who speaks out of his private fancies, and refers to the word translated by Mr. Newman " theories" ( tvp&Cao-t, inventions,) which had just gone before. The two phrases, as Mr. Newman must see, arc totally dif. ferent. The temptation no doubt was great to get a sly hit at the right of private judgment out of Athanasius, but this seems a somewhat unscrupulous method of obtaining it. I hope these are not specimens of the recent Oxford translations of the Fathers.I There is one thing more with which the reader ought to be acquainted before we proceed, viz, the practical meaning which our opponents give to the term " catholic consent ;" and what is considered by them as a sufficient proof that anything has been held " always, everywhere, and by all." Mr. Keble thinks that from tradition " we know with tolerable certainty that Mel- chisedek's feast is a type of the blessed eucharist." What is the proof? "tFor this," he says, " see S. Cyprian, ep. 63, p. 149, "ced. Fell ; S. Augustin, IDe Civ. Dci. xviii. 20; S. Jerome, Ep. " ad Marcellam, t. i. p. 123, ed. Frob. Basil. These, with the " distinct acknowledgment in the antient Roman liturgy, may " perhaps be considered sufficient to represent the sense of the "western churches. Among the Greeks, S. Chrysostom on 1 Drat. contr. gent. e.lien. Paris. torn. I. p. 1. 2 That their translations are not always to h trusted in points where they are interested, has been fully shown by an able writer in the British Magazine for May 1839, pp. 511-19. 75 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. " Gen. xiv. clearly implies the same construction. But the " reserve maintained by them on all liturgical subjects may " account for their comparative silence on this point, even sup- "posing them to have received the same interpretation." (p. 36.) Such is a specimen of the consent that gives " knowledge with tolerable certainty." And doctrines and statements so sup- ported are to be published to the Church as indubitable apo- stolical traditions. But, in truth, when we come to see what the notion of our opponents is as to the nature of faith, the view to which their system has driven them as to the character of the evidence upon which faith is built, we shall feel less surprised at such state- ments. It is almost impossible not to see, that in patristical tradition there is at least a degree of uncertainty as to its apo- stolical origin; and consequently that there can be at most only some degree of probability for faith to rest upon in such testi- mony. Our opponents have clearly seen this, and hence, instead of being deterred hereby from adopting it as a fit and adequate foundation for faith, they have coolly and deliberately set about to show, that faith can never have more than probability to rest upon, and that in fact, if there was certainty, there could not be faith, as if faith was belief on insufficient grounds. "We, for our part," says Mr. Newman, "have been taught to consider, that " faith in its degree as well as conduct must be guided by pro- " babilities, and that doubt is ever our portion in this life. We " can bear to confess, that other systems have their unanswer- "able arguments in matters of detail, and that we are but striking " a balance between diffculties existing on both sides, that we are " following as the voice of God what ON THE WHOLE we have "reason to think such." (p. 129.) "According to English [!] " principles, faith has all it needs in knowing that God is "our Creator and Preserver, and that he MAY, IF IT SO "HAPPEN, have spoken......Doubt may even be said to be "implied in a Christian's faith." (p. 103.) "Nay," saith Mr. Keble, "evidence complete in all its parts leaves no room for faith." (p. 82.) And to put an end to all doubt as to the doctrine they hold on this subject, Mr. Newman openly tells us, that "to ac. 76 DOCTRINE OF TIIHE TRACTATORS. " cept revelation at all" " we have but probability to show AT MOST, " NAY, TO BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF AN " INTELLIGENT CREATOR." (p. 69.) Such is the conclusion to which the views of our opponents on " tradition" have led them, and which, it seems, they can not only contemplate with unconcern, but commend to the adoption of their readers. The authority of "tradition" as a divine in- formant is, it appears, at all hazards to be maintained. The reader may here see the results to which the maintenance of such views confessedly leads. In this place I make no further observation upon the fearful doctrine here advocated, than to commend it to the reader's serious attention, but shall take an opportunity to consider it more fully hereafter. Having thus, I hope, given the reader sufficient proofs of the necessity of being at least on his guard in the perusal of these works, and that even in points where he might scarcely have expected it to be requisite, I proceed in the next chapter to show the identity of the doctrine of our opponents on this subject with that of the Romanists. 77 78 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS CHAPTER III. COMPARISON OF TIIE DOCTRINE MAINTAINED IN THE WORKS ABOVE MENTIONED ON TIHE SUBJECT OF PATRISTICAL TRA- DITION WITH THAT OF THE ROMISII CHURCH. AFTER the exhicit declaration ofiDr. Pusey, quoted in the preceding chapter, that our controversy with Rome on this subject is not a doctrinal but a "purely HISTORICAL" contro- versy, i. c. relating only to the validity of some particular tra- ditions, and also some intimations of a very similar kind from Mr. Newman,' such as that " we agree with the Ronanist in app)ealing to antiquity as our great teacher," (p. 47,) it may seem almost superfluous to attempt to prove the identity of the doctrine maintained by the writers whose views we have beeni considering, with that of the Ronmanists. As, however, in other lplaces they speak as if there was somec not inconsiderable dif- ference between their views and those of the Romanists on the subject, and as such an impression is likely to he entertained almost involuntarily by their readers, from the fact of their being ministers of the Church of England, it is desirable to show that the doctrines of the two parties are precisely the same. The reader wvill bear in mind that I am not now speaking of the traditions received by either party, but of their doctrine on the subject of tradition. The doctrine on this point advocated in the works under The reader will recollect that this chapter was written before Mr. Newman's secession to the Church of Rome, and refers to the statements made by him as the principal leader of the Tr ~rian party. 78 IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. consideration may be summed up, as we have already observed, in the five propositions which we have given in the preceding chapter; (pp. 36, 37 ;) and these propositions represent pre- cisely the doctrine of the Church of Rome in this matter, as I shall now proceed to show with respect to each of them seriatim. I. That consentient patristical tradition, or "catholic con- sent," is an unwritten word of God, a divine informant in reli- gion, and consequently entitled, as to its substance, to equal respect with the Holy Scriptures. "We assert," says Bellarmine, "that the whole necessary " doctrine either concerning faith or manners is not contained " explicitly (expresse) in the Scriptures; and that consequently " beyond the written word of God is required also the unwritten " word of God, that is, the divine and apostolical traditions.... " They [i. e. the Protestants] think, that if there were any " apostolical traditions, they do not now exist, that is, that " there cannot be any certain proof had of any apostolical tra- "dition .. We, on the contrary, assert, that there are not " wanting certain ways and methods by which apostolical tra- " ditions may be manifested.... If the authority of an apostle " when giving an oral precept is not less than when giving a " written one, there certainly is no temerity in considering any- "thing unwritten equivalent to the written word." [Which last observation is of course very true, and its truth is admitted by all, and therefore it answers no purpose except that of leading the reader to misapprehend the views of the Protestants; but I notice it to show how precisely the Tractators have echoed the statements of the Romanists on this subject.] (De Verb. Dei. lib. iv. e. 3.) The Council of Trent says,--" The most holy synod.... " seeing that the evangelical doctrine and polity are contained "in the written books and those unwritten traditions which "were received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ him- " self, or, emanating from the apostles themselves, at the die- " tation of the Holy Spirit, and delivered down from hand to hand, " have descended to us, following the example of the orthodox "Fathers, receives and venerates with a like feeling of piety and " reverence all the books as well of the Old as of the New Tes- 79 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS " tament, since one God is the author of both, as also traditions "' themselves, as well those relating to faith as those relating to " manners, as either uttered by Christ or dictated by the Holy " Spirit, and preserved in the catholic Church by an uninter- " rupted succession." (Cone. Trid. Sess. 4.) And the rules given by Bellarmine for ascertaining such tra- ditions are delivered by him thus;-" The -first rule is, When " the whole Church embraces anything as an article of faith " which is not found in the divine Scriptures, we must say, " that that is derived from the tradition of the apostles.... " The second rule is, When the whole Church observes any- " thing which none but God could ordain, which nevertheless " is nowhere found written, it must be admitted that it was " delivered (traditum) by Christ himself and his apostles.... " The third rule is, 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 ;"I "we " never defend traditions that are at variance with Scripture."3 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 I De Verb. Del. lib. iv. c. 9. SNec ullam traditionem admittimus contra Scripturam. Ib. c. 3. 3 Nec enimn traditionee eun Scripturn pugnantes unquaumn defendimus. Ib. c. 11. 80 IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISII. merely the present 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 establishment of anything as having proceeded from the oral teaching of the apostles. The examples given by Bellarmine 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 bap. " tizced is called an unwritten apostolical tradition, because it is " not found written in any apostolical book, although it is " written in the books of almost all the antient Fathers." And again, " Those rites only we receive as apostolical which we can prove to be apostolical by firm testimonies of the antients." 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 con- sent of the primitive Church as the test of truth in the way that our opponents have done. "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 from the Church) hath re- "sisted; 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 truly antient and apostolic " that the Fathers of those ages do testify to have been ob- "served 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 to us so few writings of that date" that " the face of the antient doctrine and practice of the Church IDe Verb. Dei. iv. c. 2. 2 De Verb. Dei. iv. c. 3. VOL. I. O 81 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS " cannot evidently appear to be therein represented." (Letter to Casaubon, prefixed to his " Replique," &c. See transl. publ. Douay 1630. fol. p. 6 & 8.) So that the tradition of which these authors speak must derive its proofs from the writings of the early Fathers, and be, in fact, as that of our opponents is, patristical tradition. I do not deny, but am well aware, that some writers among the Romanists have not apparently owned the necessity of finding the whole doctrine of the Church in the Fathers, but have seemed to suppose that some part of the oral teaching 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 that is not opposed to Scripture or what is called the unani- mous 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 written 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 from 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 their faith " as stated in councils, by universities, divines, &c. you would " have learnt that the uninterrupted and common consent of all " ages was requisite to constitute tradition a rule of faith.". .... " You do not seem to comprehend what is meant by the un- "written word of God, or oral tradition. You suppose, if it be " upon record (to use your own words) it ceases to be oral tra- " dition or the unwritten word of God. No such thing. It is " not called the unwritten word of God because it is nowhere " committed to writing, as I told you before, but because it is "not written in the inspired books of Scripture. And though IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. " 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 testi- "mony, it discerns true traditions from false."' And the Council of Trent enjoins," that no one shall interpret Scrip- ture contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers (con- tra 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 consent of the Fathers.' The fifth rule, understood with the limitation which of course was intended, viz. that the point established by it be not con- tradicted by other similarly obtained testimony, (for otherwise this rule would be contradictory to the preceding,) 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 of Rome, who, boasting that she is the only church remaining 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 applica- tion. And if I rightly understand the doctrine of " episcopal grace" as delivered in these works, it completely 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 ' Downs. discussion, p. 70. 2 Sess. 4. 3 Nec earn [i. e. Scripturam] unquam nisi juxta unanimem consensum Patrum accipiam et interpretabor. Bull. Pii IV. sup. form. Juram. prefix. ad Catech. Concil. Trid. o2 83 DOCTRINE OF THIE TRACTATORS " 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, as is evident, precisely the same; and the power which the Church of Rome in every age assumes of declaring what is and what is not an apostolical tradition, is a power limited in theory by these rules. It is true that in the appli- cation of these rules the Church of Rome may be "neglectful of antiquity" for the sake of maintaining some favourite doc- trine 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 succession. 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 distinct from and independent of it. The doc- trine is precisely 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 indi- vidual members of the Church of 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 doc- trines, his admission that the Fathers also can so readily be adduced in favour of views contrary to one another, must be a proof of the uncertainty and obscurity of patristical tradition? In making these remarks, I would by no means be under- stood to deny, that practically the system of the Romish Church is much worse than a faithful adherence to such a rule of judg- ment 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 antiquity is on her side. We deny IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 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 therefore we 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 opponents would limit our whole controversy with her, and still further reduce even this part of it, by admitting doctrines repu- diated 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 Patristical 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 sub- join the following,-- " I assert," says Bellarmine, "that Scripture, although 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.'' 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 tra- Sditions." III. That Patristical Tradition 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 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 a De Verb. Dei. iv. c. 12. 2 Omnis doctrine ratio, qums fidelibus tradenda sit, verbo Dei continetur, quod in Scripturam traditionesque distributumn est. Cat. Trid. Pref. � xix. 85 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS 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 con- veying 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 develop- ment of those articles. On the first of these points, Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble have both asserted 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 particularly "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 commandments and certain sacra- " ments. 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 prelates, "bishops, and presbyters only1 .... These things being ob.. " served, I assert, that all those things were written by the apo. 1 This notion of there being a reserve observed by the apostles in the commu- nication 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 rcserve in communicating religious knowledge." 86 IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. " stles which are necessary to all, and which they themselves had " openly preached to all without distinction: but that of other "things not all were written."1 And further on he says, (going quite as far as, if not beyond, even our opponents them- selves 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." And, like our opponents, he repudiates with indignation the charge made against the Romanists by the Protestants, of under- valuing 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 traditions only, nor cared " whether traditions were agreeable to Scripture or contrary to " Scripture. But it is not so : for we put a higher value on Scrip- " ture (Scripturam pluris facimus) than they do; nor admit any " tradition against Scripture."3 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 recol- lected, 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 doc- trine 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 i De Verb. Dei. iv. c. 11. 2 Ib. 3 Ib. c. 8. 87 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS direct rejection of what the Church delivers from "tradition" as divine revelation, is a mortal sin. As it is said by one whom Chalmers calls "one of the ablest controversial writers on the Popish side in his time," viz. Abraham Woodhead,1-" Funda- " mental, indeed, they [the Romanists] call sometimes all points " defined by the Church's councils, and hold them necessary to be " believed forattaining salvation; but not necessaryin such a sense " as ratione medii necessary ; or absolutely extra quas (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 defined 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 spiritual " superiors, sufficiently manifesting the contrary truth to be her " doctrine and a portion of the Christian faith." And so strongly is this held by them, that their learned Bishop Fisher, who Mr. Newman tells us" 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."'4 Hence the Romanists do not deny the sufficiency of the doc- trines contained in the Holy Scriptures for salvation; but, hold- ing 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 1 "Among the polemic writers of the seventeenth century, few are more gene- rally read or respected than the celebrated Abraham Woodhead."-Charles Butler. 2 Account of doctrine of Roman Catholics concerning the Ecclesiastical Guide in Controversies of Religion. By R. H. Second edition, 1673, 4to. pp. 246, 8. SLeet. p. 90. 4 Cum doctrina purgatorii sit omnibus scitu necessaria, non est credibile, illam non posse probari ex Scripturis. Adv. Luth. Art. 18. See Bp. Morton's Prot. Appeal, I. 2. � 13. p. 15. 83 IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 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 deny with respect to the sufficiency of the Scrip- tures in the fundamental points, is only that which our oppo- nents deny concerning it in the second part of the position under consideration, viz, that in these points the written word is to be considered the whole of the rule; Scripture being, as they think, only a part of the rule, the other part being tradition 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 con- " cerning 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.'" " Scripture is very " often ambiguous and obscure, so that unless it be interpreted " by some one who cannot err, it cannot be understood; there- "fore it is not sufficient ALONE.... It is to be observed that there " are two things in Scripture, the written words and the mean- " ing 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 affirmative 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 explicitly3 as to render unnecessary what is called the unwritten word. That is, there is asserted 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 I De Verb. Dei. 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 exrpression 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 ou virtually, in such a way as to be deducible thence by direct and seessary inference. 89 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS the necessary points, as is more fully stated in the work of Woodhead 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 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 attain- " ing salvation, and as ought explicitly by all men to be known " in order thereto, either ratione medii or precepti, as the doc- " trines collected in the three Creeds, the common precepts of " manners and of the more necessary sacraments, &c., are contained " in the Scriptures; contained therein, either in the conclusion " itself or in the principles from whence it is necessarily deduced." [lie 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 Scrip- " ture. And the chief tradition, 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-e plication 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 uni- " versally 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 offaith, 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 tra- 90 IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. " dition for a true exposition and sense,) is the 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 explicitly believed, be contained there, " [i. e. in the Scriptures] ; 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 con- " tested." (pp. 136--9.) The Romanists therefore affirm, as we do, that Holy Scrip- ture contains all things which are in themselves necessary 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 inter- preter of the written word, and that from it we also derive some supplementary 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 imputing to the Romanists that they hold "tradition of the substance of " doctrine independent of Scripture, and purporting to be of "things necessary to salvation :" (p. 71.) and Mr. Newman, in saying, "We differ from the Romanist in this, not in deny- " ing that tradition is valuable, but in maintaining that by " itself and without Scripture warrant it does not convey to us " any article necessary to salvation." (p. 370.) When the Romanists use the expression that Holy Scrip- ture 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 91 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS the doctrines essentially necessary to salvation, but to the neces- sity 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 Scrip- ture and Tradition 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 tradition, 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 un- certainty attendant upon all practically attainable 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 consider- ing, 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. Ie 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 examples which he gives, the doc- trines of the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary, (the example mentioned by Mr. Newman,) purgatory, and the prac- tice of infant baptism.2 Hence, he says, "I 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, Scripture and Tradition. And truly I See pp. 89 et seq. above. 2 De Verb. Dei. lib. iv. c. 4. 92 IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. " Scripture, inasmuch as it is a rule, has in consequence this " property, that whatever it contains is necessarily true and to " be believed, and whatever is contrary to it is necessarily false " and to be rejected; 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 receive 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 p1p. 31, 32 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 understood: " 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 Scripture testimonies only, controversies with froward op.. l Ib. c.12. 93 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS " ponents 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 Scriptures; 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."' With this agrees also the quotation which we have given above from Woodhead. (See pp. 90, 91 above.) In correspondence with the fifth position, viz.- V. 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,- Bcllarmine, 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 obtained 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 every- "where read that the Alcoran 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 proved from Scripture alone. There- "fore, since faith is founded upon the word of God, (nitatur "verbo DIei,) unless 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 only to know " 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 I Ib. e. 4. 94 IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. "tradition and the testimony of the Church, it will be of little " service. Mioreover, if this tradition has been able to come down " to us, why cannot others also have come down in the same way ?" 1 And hence one of the most common arguments with the Romanists, as with our opponents, is, that having received 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."s Whether, then, we regard the nature and character of Patris- tical Tradition, the place and value to be assigned to the Scrip- tures, 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 precisely 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) 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 would strongly recommend to the notice of the reader, namely, Placette's "Incurable Scep- ticism of the Church of Rome," translated and published by Arch- bishop Tenison, and inserted by Bishop Gibson in his Preservative against Popery, where the author shows the insufficiency of all the various grounds on which the Church of Rome professes to rest her faith.4 l b. 2 See the "Guide in Controversies," by R. II., p. 366; Eyre's Reply to Churton, pp. 117-119; &c. SSee Placette's Incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome, c. 2. 4 See particularly cc. 2, 3, and 20-27. 95 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS The general agreement between our opponents and the Romanists may be still further confirmed by a comparison of their views with a dissertation on Tradition, given in a Roman Catholic work, published a few years ago, on the Fathers ;1 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 coincidences 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 his doctrine than he has given us. In this 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 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 pru- dence in the mode of bringing forward their doctrines, is fully estimated by at least some of our opponents. I shall now give a few extracts from this dissertation, which is written more particularly on Irenaeus. "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, ' Lr prR Histor. Theol.--Grit. de vita, &c. Patrum. Aug. Vind.1783 et seq. 13 v. 8vo. This work is a compilation from various works on the Fathers. The dissertation above alluded to is principally taken from Massuet. 96 IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. " 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 Irenaeus, (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 Scrip. " tures 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,' nay, in what " follows, approves of, as we shall presently see. 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." (vol. iii. pp. 318-322.) 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 quaecun- que quse Protestantes pro his adferunt etiam pugnant pro tra- ditionis certitudine et firmitate.) Just as Mr. Newman tells us, that, "whatever explanations the Protestant makes in behalf " of the preservation 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 following 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, SHow far this is true we shall see hereafter, when we come to inquire into the sentiments of Ireneus on this matter. (See c. 10.) VOL. I. H 97 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS " 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 revelation. Although " it cannot be sufficiently clearly, or by any convincing argu- "ment, derived from Holy Scripture, it must be considered " as certainly flowing from divine tradition. In the first case, " where the doctrine is contained in Scripture, but not suffi- " ciently clearly or of necessity, it will be a declarative tradition. " In the 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 mathematically or phy- " sically 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 cannot 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, et seq. " (4.) When the universal Church observes anything as per- "taining 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 defended 98 IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISIIH. " in any age, although it be not clear that it prevailed in par- "ticular churches, if it has been always preserved in the prin- " cipal 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 for con- " sidering 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 con- " sent is not to be taken mathematically, but morally. But " how many Fathers precisely may be sufficient and be required, " cannot be generally defined, 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 ear consensionem requiritur ut omnes illi prorsus idem dixerint scripserintque nemine discordante: ejusmodi enim consensus non mathematice sed moraliter accipiendus est. Ceterum quinam priecise Patrum numerus sufficiat et requiratur, gene- raliter definiri nequit, ut semper contingit in iis quae moraliter iestimanda sunt et prudentum judicio relinquuntur.) Which remarks are surely remarkably similar to the following observa- tions of Mr. Newman :-" The rule of Vincent," says Mr. Newman, "is not of a mathematical or demonstrative 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 testimony of every one of them? How " many Fathers, how many places, how many instances, con- " stitute a fulfilment of the test proposed? . . . What degree i2 99 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS " of application is enough, must be decided by the same prin- " ciples which guide us in the conduct oflife," &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 up- "wards, and inquiring into its origin, we find it, it is only a " human ecclesiastical tradition." 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 through- " out the universal Church, is the fittest mean for applying to " us divine revelation. " (4.) Therefore Scripture is not perfect in the Protestant " sense. For it does not suffice alone to prove convincingly all " the doctrines of faith and precepts of manners 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, wnich IF PROTESTANTS " WOULD ADMIT, ALL TIHE OTHER CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN US " AND THEM WOULD SOON CEASE."1 There is only one point in which I conceive our opponents can object to this statement as differing from theirs, and that is, that it does not distinctly state that all the fundamental doc- trines 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 Romanists do not hold this, that is, in the sense in which they themselres hold it, namely, that these doc- trines are so contained in the Scriptures, that tradition is neces- I See Lumper, vol. iii. pp. 3418-62. 100 IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. sary to show that they are there. But certainly the Romanists, holding this view, do not pretend to refer us to Scripture alone 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 Romanists on this point, it would be easy to find it. One of our opponents' own witnesses, Dean Field, will tell them, "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 necessary consequence from thence, " and other things evident in the light of nature, or in the mat- " ter of fact, to be concluded." (Of the Church, bk. 4. c. 20, p. 377. 2d. ed. 1628.) And for modern evidence, they will find it in the Downside discussion, 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 Scriptures; either in the conclusions themselves, "or in the principles 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 con- "tained 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 exclusively, and others more expressly manifested, by the " unwritten word, forming a part of the good tidings which " Christ came from heaven to communicate; and this is called 101 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS " tradition. These two parts complete the rule of faith of the " catholic Church." (pp. 27, 28.) " Tradition forms apart of the " rule which Christ left to his Church, and as Protestants " exclude tradition, they have not a complete rule of faith." (lb. p. 118.) 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 sub- ject." 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 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 Scrip- " ture alone. Fifth rule. All the chief articles of Christianity are " contained in the Holy Scripture." "This rule," he adds after- wards, "is I think beyond dispute" "Sixth rule. All the " chief and most necessary articles of Christianity are plain in "the Hiioly 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 evidently con- " tains 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 contro- l " A person of consummate knowledge in all ecclesiastical affairs, scholastic, moral, and historical, and, to do him justice, perhaps the present age cannot show his equal."-Dod. "Dr. Rawardine's works are distinguished for brevity, accu- racy, clearness, order, and close reasoning."-Butler. 2 The Rule of Faith truly stated. 1721. 12mo. Pt. 3, pp. 275 et seq. 102 IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. "' versies of religion may be decided by the Holy Scripture alone. " Eleventh rule. The true Church may be found out by Scrip- " ture 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 completely with that of our opponents. The reader will not fail to observe, that y 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." I The same remark is made, as we shall see hereafter, by Mr. Newman, and apparently for the same reason, viz. in order to explain 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 oppo- nent 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 as delivering the doctrine of our Church on the subject.2 It is difficult to conceive how our opponents can have fallen into the mistake of supposing that there is any difference of im- portance between their doctrine and that of the Romanists, when in fact they are substantially identical. If, however, they have any doubts remaining about the mistake, I will supply them with several other references in confirmation of the preceding.3 ' p. 306. 2 See Reply to Rev. R. Churton, by F. Eyre of Warkworth, Esq. Lond. 1798, 8vo. pp. 116-119; &c. ' The following remarks were added here in a note in the first edition of this work, and they may not be even now without their use, though the events that have since occurred can leave no doubt as to the tendency of Tractarian principles :- It is worthy of observation that we have had not long since in our own 108 104 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS But having given sufficient to enable the reader to cor- pare the doctrine of the two parties upon the subject, I Church a practical proof of what the principles of the Tractators on this subject 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 lion, and Rev. Mr. Spencer. It is quite true that this is not a proof of the identity for which we contendl, lut it is a practical argument in favour of it which wise men will not think lightly of. Thus writes Mr. Spencer himself on the suhject. "I could "hardlly 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 "rdone so much to endeavour to lead me to withont effect; because I used always " to conceive the principles of church-authority, which when propose to me by Catholics afterwards I embraced, quite inconsistent 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 approxitna- "tion to catholicilg was owing to the conversation of a Protestant clergyman with " whom I happened to pass an evening a year before my conversion. 'fis clergyman " was the late Mr. Vaughan, brother to Sir Henry Ilalford, in argument with " whom I was maintaining the principle which I held most strenuously of regarding r nothing but the Scriptures as my guide. ie made me observe for the first time, "wtvwha it was strange enough I had never before observed, that the Scriptures were r not the original rule of faith dlelivered as such by the aposttes to the Church, "and he pressed me with arguments to show that the tradition of the Church i ust be attended to, [that is, as part of the rule of faith]. Thispart of his argu- "ment I took little notice of, because I was quite clear that in our hands the prin- " ciple tas unnenable; but I FELT EVER AFTER, THAT I WANTED SOMETHING "r MORE EXPLICIT THAN THIE SIMPLE SCRIPTU1ES TO GIVE ME AN ASSURANCE OF "FAITI, AND I WAS TH.E MORE READY TO EMBRACE THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE "oON THE RULE OF FAITH WHTEN AT LENGTH IT CAME TO BE CONSISTENTLY IfTPOOOSED TO ME. I am convinced the nrgmunelt yon hold against the high rchurchmnen of the Establishmnent is unanswerable." (British Magazine for May, 11,. 530~, 531.) No wonder that the Romnanists are exulting in the success of the Tractators, anld congratulating themselves upon, a great and speedy addition to their ranks from those who have made such advances towards tihem. Amnong the many testi- mnonies of this that might be quoted, I will content myself with the following from the "oCatholic Magazine " for March, 183 9. "rMost sincerely and unaffectedly do we tender our congratulations to our bre- "rthren of Oxford, that their eyes have been openled to the evils of private j udg- "rmeat, and the consequent necessity of curbing its multiform extravagance. It "rhas been given to them to see the dangers of the ever-shifting sands of the desert "rin which they were lately dwelling, and to strike their tents and flee the perils of "rthe wilderness. They have already advanced a great way on their return to- "wards that church within whose walls the wildest imagination is struck with awe," "&ce.-"' We can-we do forgive them,--that, urged by the clamour of theirop- "po-nents, many of thema exhibit towards us an extreme degree of intolerance, by way "rof Proving their abhorrence of such of our tenets as they do not at yet hold, and "texhibiting themees as good and true men to the eyes of their Brethren."- "rSome of the brightest ornaments of their church have advocated a re-union with 104 IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. pass on to the more important task of examining its preten- sions, " 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 Christendom rejoice greatly when so bright a laxdy " 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 " alone they can be safe from the moving sands beneath which they dread being " overwhehnlmed. The consideration 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." (pp. 175, 6.) The Tractators boast of having the great majority of our able and learned divines in their fivour. Will they have the kindness to inform us when and where those divines were so addressed by members of the Church of Rome ? Such was the note which was added in this place in the first edition of this work, published eleven years ago. Since that time Mr. Newman, and about a hundred of the clergy, together with a large number of the laity of his party, have joined the Romish communion. If any further evidence, then, was needed of the real character of the doctrine of the Tractators, the course of events has abundahmtly supplied it. As it respects those who have actually left our Church, I will not now go into the inquiry how far there was the consciousness of incon. sistency previous to their secession. Their own statements certainly make it diffi- cult to understand how they could have remained so long as they did in the ministry of our Church. The answer made by one of them to the above chapter was, that "the supposed identity of their doctrines with the received Roman theo- logy " " would only make their truth more probable ;" and he "earnestly hoped" that the arguments used to prove this identity might be found "cogent and satis- factory." (Brit. Crit. for July, 1842, p. 105.) The question, whether they could consistently, as clergymen of the Church of England, maintain a doctrine identical with that of Rome on the subject, seems not to have entered into his thoughts. And it was not till some time after, and on other grounds, that he quitted the communion of our Church. But they are gone; they have rendered justice, how- ever tardily, to the principle of consistency, and therefore I will add no more on their case. But as it respects those who, after having embracedl the same principles, still linger among us, the above proof of the identity of their doctrine with that of the Romish Church on a point which formed notoriously one ground of our separation from her at the Reformation, will, it may be hoped, show, both to themselves and others, the real ground on which they are standing. 105 ON THE ANTIENT CAESZD. 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 extant of which the apostles may be considered as the authors besides those in the New Testament. 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 genuine productions of the apostles, that it is unnecessary to notice them any further in this place. It is quite possible, indeed, that in these canons, constitutions, and liturgies, there may be remains of apostolical teaching, though probably to a very small extent; and negatively they may be made of considerable use in manifesting the corruptions that have been introduced into the Church since the primitive times. But there is no need now of arguments to prove that in their present form they are not the productions of the apostles, nor the genuine representations of apostolical teaching. And 106 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. who is to separate what is apostolical from that which proceeded from another source ?1 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 commonly called the Apostles' Creed. Mr. Newman calls it "the formal symbol which the apostles adopted, and bequeathed 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 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 foundation. Indeed, to hear such a claim advanced for it in the present day is not a little remarkable. To say with Mosheim, "All who have the " least knowledge of antiquity look upon this opinion as entirely "false, and destitute of all foundation,"' 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 venture to say, that Mr. Newman will find an overwhelming majority of the learned divines of the last three centuries who have examined the subject, altogether against him.3 As this matter is of some moment, I will enter somewhat 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 apostles as 1 Of course I am not here denying their value as important and interesting relics of the early Church. And the various copies of (so called) Apostolical Constitutions and Liturgies that have been discovered in modern times, particu- larly within the last few years, in different Oriental languages, have afforded the opportunity of critical revision to an extent that much increases their value. But to authority as apostolical remains they have no claim. 2 Eccl. Hist. Pt. 2. c. 3. Engl. transl. vol. i. p. 103. S See Wtalc. Introd. in libr. symb. lib. i. c. 2. Budd. Isag. ad Theolog. lib. i. c. 2. � 2. King's Hist. of the Apostles' Creed; Pearson; Barrow; &c. 107 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. the Christian Creed; and that consequently, from the first, when the different Churches and early writers wished to give a brief summary of the Christian faith, they did so in different words. 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, the baptismal Creed being originally merely a declaration of belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and afterwards amplified by the different Churches and bishops as each thought it desirable; 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. 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 derived originally from the Holy Scriptures. And therefore, 5. That none of the antient Creeds can be considered as an apostolical production. I. That no precise form of words was left by the apostles as the Christian Creed; and that consequently, from the first, when the different churches and early writers wished to give a brief summary of the Christian faith, they did so in different words. On this point we naturally refer, first, to the canonical Scrip- tures 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 correctness of his own private interpretation of one or two passages that seem to him to favour his views, boldly speaks of St. Paul "quoting" the Creed, and even tells us the name he gives to it. For, after observing that history 108 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. informs us that the Creed was drawn up in the apostles' days, he adds, "Indeed 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 recognised 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 re- ferred to, nor, as it appears to me, would the expressions lead to Mr. Newman's view of their meaning, even if we knew from in- dependent sources that a Creed 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 ex- pressions are all but identical, and surely, therefore, the obvious mode of interpreting the passage in the 15th is by that in the 11th chapter, where there is evidently no quotation from the Creed. And if anything further is wanting to show that the apostle did not "receive" 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 109 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. " the form (or, outline) of sound words which thou hast heard "of me," &c. TrorvirwrLV X e ytawvovrwv Ao yov, v crap' 4oi~ rjovora.. (2 Tim. i. 13.) Now the construction of these words in the original completely overthrows Mr. Newman's interpre- tation. For the apostle does not say that Timothy had "beard 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 observa- tions are handed down from one to another, and repeated on the mere authority of their having once been made.' 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 formula, 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 that have come down to us, is that of the apostles ? The form called by us "the Apostles' Creed" cannot be traced higher than the fourth century. And the forms given in the early writers vary much both from this and among themselves. I 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." (,awrw - Xeouou a/ries.) The idea is that of prevailing by superior strength to keep an adversary down. This text is almhnost 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 kades 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 interme- diate rest, but shall be ultimately delivered from it by him who "hath the keys of hade, and of death." (Rev. i. 18.) 110 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. For instance, the earliest extant is in Irenaus, who, having spoken of "the unalterable rule (Kavva) of truth which he received by baptism," (by La troO /3apirr(rparo ElrE) 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 apostles 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 salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who preached by " the prophets 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 " glory of the Father to restore (vaKE4aaubraoOaL) 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 wickedness, and transgressing and apostate "angels, and all impious and wicked and lawless and blasphe- " mous men into everlasting fire; and to the just and holy, and " those that have kept his commandments, and remained sted- "fast in his love, some from the beginning, others after repen- "tance, having given life, may confer on them immortality, and "put them in possession of eternal glory."' 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 crea- " ture, submitted to be born of a virgin, uniting man to God in I Mix. Adv. bwr. lib. L c. 10. ed. Mass. c. 2. p. 45. ed. Grab. 111 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. " 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 " (transfiguratores veritatis) and the despisers of his Father and " of his advent into eternal fire." 1 Passing from Irenieus 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, " De praescriptione haereticorum," 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 the world, who pro- " duced 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 cruci- " fled, 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, "insti- " tuted 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 unchangeable and unre- "formable, namely, of believing in one God Almighty, the Maker "of the world, and his Son Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin I Adv. her. lib. iii. c. 4. edd. Mass. et Grab. De Priescript. heret. c. 13. p. 206. ed. 16 &. 112 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. " 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."' He refers to it again in his treatise against Praxcas, where he states it thus :-" We believe indeed one God, nevertheless under " this mode of existence (dispensatione), which we call economy " (ceconomiam), 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 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 come to judge the quick " and the dead, from whence also he sent from the Father ac- " cording 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." (Itan regu - lam ab initio Evangelii decucurrisse.)N The passages 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 suc- cinet 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 question, that there was no form of words left by the Apostles as the Christian Creed; for had there been, that certainly 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 pre- served by the Church, and recognised in such passages as those just 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 SDe virgin. veland. c. 1. p. 173. 2 Lib. adv. Prax. c. 2. p. 501. VOL. I. I 118 114 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 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 particu- larly observable, because then at least there would have been a recognition of such a form, had it existed. There were at tha time no difficulties in the way to prevent its being openly brought forward, if there had been such a fornula; for persecution had then ceased, and there could be no reason for concealing it, espe- cially when the Council was about to promulge one intended for the same purposes as this is supposed to have answered. The rise of heresies ight have rendered some addition desirable, but there would have been at least some respectful reeognition of the fornudla left by the Apostles, had there been one. The silence of this council upon the subject appears to me conclusive against the idea. Further, the early Fathers apply themselves to prove the Ar- ticles of the Creeds they give, from the writings 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 relplied, from a misunderstanding of the words of Jerome (quoted in the next page), that " the Creed" was not writ.. ten, but (lelivercd orally from one to another, I answer, that this is evidlently a misinterpretation of his words, for " the Creed" had been before that time delivered without hesitation in writing by R ufinus, and so had been the Jerusalem form of it by Cyril, to say nothing of the forms given by Irenneus and Tertullian ; and therefore the meaning of Jerome, when he says, that " the " Creed is not written on paper or wxith ink, but on the fleshly "tables of the heart," is, that true Christians, as a body, were to inscribe it on their hearts, and not on paper, which would be useless ; and p~erhaps there may be also an allusion to the fact that " the Creed" was not to be written by the baptized, lest the catechumens might peruse it before they were prepared to receive the faith it contained, as we learn from Cyril.' But such pas-. ICyrill. Mier. Ciiteeh. 5. � 7. LA. Milles. p. 73. (1. Paris. 1631. p. "44.) 114 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.11 sages 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 of Jerusalem and Iufinus.' It is not till the close of the fourth century that we meet with the report of its being composed by the Apostles. 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 389.2 The first asser- tion of its having been comlosed by the Apostles is found in Rufinus, who, in his Exposition of the Creed, written about the year 390, tells us that it was said to be written by them," though he himself, in a subsequent part of the same treatise, speaks in a manner that seems to show he at least felt doubts on the sub. ject.4 Jerome also speaks of the Creed as having been delivered by the Apostles,! and similar language is held respecting it by several writers in the fifth and sixth centurics, and those that follow,' and hence for a time the notion gained credit that the Apostles were the authors of it. But the language of Jerome is I Rf. Expos. in Symbol. prope i n;,. This work is to be found in nil the 01( editions of (Cyprian and Jernne. The works of Iufinus were}published together by Vallarsius, Veron. 1714. fol., which is (aled the best edition; but the text seems to me to have been often altered, without, so far as appears, sufficient authority, andl for the worse. I shall quote, therefore, from the copy in l3p. DFell's edition of Cyp rian. Oxon. 1682. fol. 2 Credatur symbolo Apostoloruin, quod l'A~lesia 1{oana intemeratum sempor eustodit et servat. Ad Siricium. Ep. 42. � 5 Ed. Ilene d. Paris. torn. ii. col. 96S7. The earlier works to which reference has been made, are all long ago confessed to be spurious, as Clemn. Rom. Ep. ad JIacob. (onstit. Apostol. lib. vii. c. 41. 3" Tradlunt inajores nostri," &c. Kufin. Expos. in Symb. inter Op. Cypr. ed. Fell. Oxon. ad fin. p. 17. ed. Pamel]. Col. Agripp. 1617. p. 312. {" Cantissimae autem qei syiabonm fradiderucnt etiarn tempns quo aie sub Pontio Pilato giesta sent (designaverunt." Id. it. Art. " Crucifixus," &w. Ed. Fell. p. 22. ed. Pain. 316. 6 In symnbolo fidei et spei nostra' , quod ab Apostolis traslitum, non scribitur in ehartsi et atramento, sed in tabulis cordis earnalihus, post confessionein Trinitati~s et unitatem ceclesise, onine (bhristiani dogmatis sacramentum earnis resurreectione r'oncluditur. Contra Joann. Hierosol. ad Pammach. (written about the year 397.) � 28. ed. Vallars. 2a. Yen. ii. 435. (Benad. Paris. iv. 323.) g Leo Mfagn. Ep. 13. Jo. Cassian. De incarn. Dom. lib. v. Venantius Fortunatus, Expos. Svinb. in Prwfat. Isidor. Hispal. Orig. lib. vi. c. 9. Vigil. Taps. Adv. Eutych. lib. iv. 7 lahan. 'Maur. De instit. cler. lib. ii. c..56, and others. 115 116 ON THLE ANTIENT CREEDS. 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 apostolical faith. And his great contemporary Augustine, not only has nowhere in his genuine works' even given to it the name of 'the Apostles' Creed," but has expressly said, as we shall show presently, that it was compiled from the Scriptures. The account of Rufinus is this,-" Our Fathers say, that after the ascension of our Lord . . . . the Apostles.....ent " each to different nations. Tlherefore, being about to separate " from each other, they settle among themselves beforehand a " rule for their future preaching, lest pechn /Wfl ripart from one another, 1/1(1/slior sd!preach to those who were invited to the "jfaith of Gisrist doctrines at all dissimilar. Therefore, being " assembled all together and filled with the Holy Spirit, they compose that short summary of their future preaching, pting 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 Sernmon numlered 115 of the " cr- nones )e Tempore" of Augustine, kindly tells us what articles each apostle snpplied, Thomas supplying the words, " he descended into hell," and SimonZeotes, " the communion of paints ;" 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 comling rather too late in the day in the year 390, to make much impression, and withal not very complimentary to inslpired men, that they should be so careful to confer with one another before they separated, 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 Christian Church, us " the Creed ;" the baptismal Creed being originally merely a declaration of belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Sernn. 115 and 181 of his Serinones de Teipore are eomfiedly spurious, and re jecued by the 11 nedietine . See Note () in preceding jpAge. 116 ON TIHE ANTIENT CREEDS. Ghost, and afterwards amplified by the different churches and bishops as each thought it desirable; 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 summary. That they required a confession of faith from candidates for baptism is doubtless true, but how far that confession extended we have at least no evidence in Scripture, and the only recorded confession is, I think, that of the Ethiopian 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 baptism, which might, and probably did, include several of the articles now in "the Apostles' Creed." But as to the extent 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 in- structions of the Apostles, that such and such articles must have formed part of the baptismal Creed, they are but con- jectures, and grounded upon a mode of argument which would prove too much; for if, as has been argued, the articles of the resurrection of the dead and life everlasting are to be admitted, because the Apostle mentions in one place the resurrection 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 Creeds given by the early writers. Had there been a collection of certain definite articles made by the Apostles, and left with the 117 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 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 council. They would have told us, especially when delivering "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 indi- vidual writer.. And all that is stated merely amounts to this, that the summary so given was agreeable to the faith delivered by the Apostles, or in other words, that the faith delivered in it had come from the Apostles. To the argument, that unless there had been such a sum- mary 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 disciples, " Go and teach all nations, " baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and Sof the Holy Ghost," (Matt. xxviii. 19,) in which we find at once the rudiments of the earliest Creeds, and from which "the Greed" appears to have derived its origin. Such is the view taken of this passage by the great Atha- nasius. "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 gare, 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 founda- " tion for the Church, saying, ' Go and teach all nations, bap- 118 ON THlE ANTIENT CREEDS.19 "tizing; them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the H1oiy Ghost'; and the Apostles went and taught thus; and this is what is preached to every church nuder heaven. Therefore, since the Church has this as the foundation of its (faith, let them again address us, and answer, whether there is a Trinity or a Duality," &e.1 And so again ;-"This is the faith of the catholic Church. For the Lord hath founded and rooted it upoan the Trinity, saigto his disciples, 'Go and teach all nations atzn tthem in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the il oly Ghost.' " And again, speaking of the name Father as being more appropriate for the first Person of the Trrin~ity than Uncreated, he says, " Moreover, w~hen tahn us to pray, he [i. e. our Lord] dlid not say, But when ye pray, say, () God, untecated, but, But when ye pry say, Our Father who art in heaven ; and also he wished THlE 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 ncreated and the created, nor in the name of the Creator and the creature, but in the name of Father, and Son, and Holy "Ghost."' 1 'I50,,EV 51 Qi/w$ Kadi Wpbs 'rootrKai a rrI v 7rO' *Z &pX?)s rapd.8o06 elY KcbacoKcL- Atav Ka) trhr-riiffrs3oK0XOAKir 'EKKXlhrar, w 6 v Ktpos #'wrcw, of 5 'Awrd rroAot etSptav', Kai of irarlpes ji4av ?v'ra~rg yc&p n 'EICKAtPTCrfa Od w'raL, Kai 6 -raL6Tfs ?KWL7TV i i '&v ds6 1 oT' $&'TL Aeyos-ro, X pcr rzavdr. T peas '7QtvoJ' &'y Kai rEAsla s rh' .... Kai Sri af~rrh IrrdorLo 'rij'EKKA77TlO hs rrl, a65wocaw 6 c v Kupior, &,rooTdAAcv robs 'Awroor(Aous, 7apfhyyEtAE 'rourOV (hMEALo O v Le'J'a 'EKKAWT(fa, AEywi' nlopevOEJ'7ES Ofl'Tfl~TaaTE 7TdWTIZ T& Wvil, $7rLn(QPrE2 abrobs Es Tb tUvopGa Troi arpbs ,Kai 'roiTio if d a ytov flvetVMafros. 01 b 'AirdcrroAoi wropOa"rss o6'rws 9t184av. Kai roun rd oTVswo-r~ow i &w otpaivhi''EKKA1otfaP rb xllpirypa. vOl'Kutoiiv 'roiirov x6'n~ ' jo'EKKA??o'tcs bv 8 evT jcw ro rws, dlrfwda rcs wAty isv 4'svot Kald &roKpLVd~OBWiolZv, Tpids ?arty udis; K. T. A. Athanas. Epist. ad Scrap. Contra es qul dicunt, Spiritum S. c'earairi else. �� 23, 9. Op. ed. lien. Paris. torn. i. Part. 2. pp. 676, 7. (Edl. (Coli. P6.tn. i. pp. 202, 3.) See also the same Treatise at � 6. p. 653, (or p. 1719.) et Epist. ad Scrap. contra eco qui ic int Filium creaturain esse. � 6. p. 687, (or p. 170.) ; particularly the former. 2 Air?? 7710 KcOoAudjo 'EKKAnpTECLs 7 irOtLore. 'Es TpiS. i yap IXIT IV4ks ? f woTe euid "3l Star'E 6 Kx'pios, Eip11K's ' 7*0 s aOirai, flopfuOuVres p40771iJtiale K 7. A. Epist. ad Scrap. Ike:Spir. S. � 6. ed. Ben. Par. torn. i. Pt. 2. p. 695. (Ed. Col . tr. ii. p. 14.) 3 'AAA& Kadi /t&5 (6K5(TCU at8t&fKWi', QUK .lirEi, "Cray 81 rrpor4xEo 8E A17ys, 119 120 ON THlE ANTIENT CREEDS. Hence it is said in the " Catholic Letter" attributed to Athanasius, " The symbol, therefore, of our faith is the Con- substantial Trinity."'1 hence, therefore, Tertullian, after giving " the Creed," adds, (in a passage already quoted, p. 112 above,) that " this rule" was " instituted by Christ." So Basil, after giving a summary of " the Creed," taken pro- fressedly 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, " n fteSn n fteHl hs.So in the Creed of Lucian, (quoted p. 129 below), these words of our Lord are referred to as the foundation upon which the Creed was built. Tfhus 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 wich is contained the whole mystery of truce religion ; for he "r says, ' Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name "of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teach- 4~ 'A'yvrrc, AAa ciAkov, 'OTav rpoe~xfOFAtE')TE, fldr:;p mcii' 6 4nv 1.01 eupcwoss. Kialr6 K 'S.AcoV & r rrswys t CSWS'ells rourro cTUVTEII/ELJ jOE'AoE, Kf- Asicaas iMiis fOanrrfCcoOaLe, ovK fts +vo~a 'Aysirou Kai lsvcioi, o~ dis v Krhr,-ov Kai Krhirucros, 'aX.A' sir 5310/Ma fdrpor Ki ZTioi Kai &yiou Ib'v ,aaios. Contra Arianios Orat. ia. � 341. edl. Ben. torn. i. pp. 43K, 9. (prat. 2a. edo. Colon. vol. 1. p. 341l.) See also orat. 4. � 21. torn. i. p. 633. (or, oat. 5. torn. i. p. 535.) And s in the Treatise. " Contra Sab llii (Iregnies," attributed to Atha- onsvius, and supposed by Ihe Pin and others to be genuine, though the tae~edictines lalce it among those of dloubtful genuineness, it is said, M Seas &psofouwos 'r& Tpfa rhv Movdi~z fiptO1KEw a'oFut4&r, &AA' e4' rljTp*48s vos1Trb v, 4~ X vrb KE4)delAaiov -r-g irow f TEr~ r r earal Kai &4'il rTptahs &ytacs r payiroa. � 8. ed. lBen. tond. ii. p. 43. (ed. Col. vol. i. p). 658.) The " Epistola ad Jovianicun," vol. ii. p. 241, (or, p. 34) contains a similar passage, but I do not quote it,as that Letter is generally considlered spurious. Vi~oAov o~v i4s wrraws * i~v 6.sooucros Tptds. Ed. IBened, torn. ii. p. 30. (ed. Colon, 1686. tor. i. p. 571.) This letter is considered by.:Ii Pin and others as genuine, but the lienedietines have placed it among the doubtful. Okwras povotq.ues, Kia)ofor a lo~ev d sTpiada 6$ovicOLO, care& rv 47o. A jv arrow" 'row Kupto u iiv 'Ilcroi xperrou i; fwJ5ror" flopeuG~v'rer Fa rcrr'z' K. T. A. Serun. (de fide. � 4. ed. Bened. Paris. torn. ii. p. 228. (edl. Par. 1618. torn. ii. p. 255.) 120 ON THE ANTlEN r CREEDS. 1~ ing them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.' " iAnd so in another place he says, "We believe in accordance with that faith which our Lord set forth to the disciples, saying, 'Go and teach all nations,' &c. This is the declaration of the mystery by which, through the birth from above, our nature is changed from that vhich is mortal to that which is immortal." And thus speaks Augustine: who can be ignorant that it is not Christ's baptism, if the words of the Gospel, in which tt the Creed is contained, have been there wanting."3 Thus also Iilary: "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 complete, 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, when it is necessary to rput forward anything concerning things so great and reeon. dite beyond the heavenly rule. The Lord had said, that the rnations were to be baptized in the name of the Father, and I Kcd in pspu Aosirbw T,& A4.wzrcz of cw 9sXAov r3 v oo vlvi' 5Mm' Ya7yjvluELV, K(4i ?v ois &7W y&ITW 7ri1r- eios$slcs /.worllptov. flopsv9Ovrss yip, 4njc, ua8i0- 1EVTCElraF dJvla T& Mm7, #9a7TrtCovrEf I. r. A, Do resurr. rprat. 2a. Op. ed. Par. 161&----18. torn. ii. p. 844. (ed. Paris. 1638. torn. iii. p. 414.) 2flcreto.tv oo Kauc&&s 'E ef6ro 'Toil w&irrais i4/v wtr'rw6 K6psos 6 #t'irW" 65It IropflJOsvTEs OrstaOGT K. T. A. [Matt. xxviii. 19.11 O rds &rw 6 Ad'yos roi) 5o(T7ptou, b4' COt kT775 &'CSOEV yfvv1jro' ew5 E7(K6CfE1TCL ijse-v n crs w?,rb r; cprno wipbs 7rb&pOaprov. Id. Contr. Eunom. O7rat. la. ed. 1615. torn. ii. p. 2. (Crat. 2a. ed. 1638. tom. ii.) 3QiWs nesciat non ese aptismurn Christi, si verba Evangelica quibus syimbolim coiastat illic (defuerint. Aug. De bapt. contra Donat. lib. 6. e. 25. Op. ed. Boened. Paris. torn. ix. col. 176. There can be no doubt what the " verba Evangelica " mean, as he had said just before, " Dens adest Evangelicis verbis snis, sine quibus baptiarnus Christi consecrari non pot st." 121 122 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. " the Son, and the Hoiy Ghost. The form (or, rule) of faith is "certain ; but as it regards the heretics, the whole meaning is "ambiguous."'i And lastly, thus speaks Theodoret: "Go,' said he, ' and " teach all nations, baptizing them,' &c. And, according 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 thme Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; and baptize those who are thns taught, in the " name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."' 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 and1 princilpally a brief confession 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 evi- dently considered by the early Fathers as intimating that the sum and substance of the Christian faith consisted in such a confession ; and hence Christians are called by 'fertullian, "those who believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. "3 That any determinate amplification of the original Baptismal confession (i. e. one including certain fixed and definite p~oints) was made by the Apostles, there is not the slightest ground to 1 Suffiviebat credentibus IDoi srnio, qui in auros nostras Evangelistic tosti ionjo cumn ipsa veritatis sure virtute trnsfusus est, cuni dicit 1)ominus, Euntes mnc docete ouines gontos, b aptizautos cos,' &c. Quid enini in co do sacramento salutis huinaianon01 continetur ? Ant quid est. quod sit roliqluum nut ob seuruni ? P'lena stnt omia i t a pleno, ot aii 1)o perf)ctar..t.Sedi coinpollinmur In reticoruin et bhk' he nautiuni vitlis iliita agere, ardiun seand~ere, inofl bilia eolqi, inconeossa prasunnero . . .. Ioruni infidelito s in anelops ac5so riculurcn protrahit, uot neces sit do tantis ano tun reconditis rebus aliqui(1 ultra prmvseriptumn co 1oste profierre. Dixoraat Domninus l aptizandla s gont{ s in nomainno Patris et Fii oet Spiritus Sancti. Forma fidek corta st ; sod quantum ad l ucretic o onis sensus incertums est. ililar. Ike Thu. lib. 2. � 1, 2, 5. od. Bened. Paris 1693. col. 787, 7,8, 790. 2 flopevO#srs yip, t4np, paivrsmrr rs. ..Kcar&rot-roy 81 r by sd~vov KGI 01 He 'A wctro~o, icaal of $rf7x JKEIMOrz 'ijs tcAiaroacu &adoiccom, pal rst ou n 'rove i'rpo~ivflas rcars ls r goo to 0/AsiOU flWp )i, 3Cal TIooTbo,,real 'roo &)4ov T~vs pvos, Karl 'roux & /GirEu041T5s irrtgoov si~ 's go~sa roi Uwrp is, x. r. A. Theodi. THer. Feb. lib. iv. c. 1. ed. Schulz. torn. iv. pp. 360, 1. s Santm Paracletum, sanctifiestorern fidei eoru an qui credunt in Paatrern et P11mum et Spirituin Sanctum, Adv. Prax. c. 2. Op. ed. 1664. p. 501. 122 ON TlHE ANTIENT CREEDS. suppose. The testimony of the earliest Creeds is certainly opposed to such an idea; for while the degree of similarity there is among them is fully accounted for by recollecting that common foundation from which they originated,-namely, our Lord's precept for baptism,-the variations they exhibit show, that there was no definite confession formed upon that foundation by apostolical authority. And as the time at which some of the articles now found in "the Apostles' Creed" were inserted, can be traced, (as we shall prove presently,) and as these articles were inserted by ecclesiastical authority, so the articles pre- viously inserted may have been placed there by the same authority. "The earliest Christian Church," says L'Estrange, "knew, I " conceive, no other creed, no other confession of faith, as ante- " cedently necessary to baptism.... than that of belief in the "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as was the direction of our " Saviour relating to baptism.... Afterwards, as upstart here- "sies did administer occasion, several articles were added in " opposition to those false teachers."' The same view of this question is taken by Bishop Stillingfleet.2 " That in the more antient times," says Dr. Barrow, "there was " no one form generally fixed and agreed upon, to omit other " arguments that persuade it, is hence probable, for that the most "learned and generally knowing persons of those times, when " in their apologies against disbelievers for Christianity, or in " their assertions of its genuine principles and doctrines against " misbelievers, they, by the nature and sequel of their discourse, "are engaged to sum up the principal doctrines of our religion, " they do not yet (as reason did require, and they could hardly " have avoided doing, had there been any such constantly and "universally settled or avowed form,) allege any such; but " rather from their own observation of the common sense " agreed upon, and in their own expression, set down those "main doctrines wherein the chief Churches did consent; as "may be seen by divers of them, especially by Tertullian, the "oldest of the Latins, if we compare several places wherein he "delivers the rule of faith (as he constantly calls it, that is, I Alliance of Div. Ofcei, 2d. ed. p. 168. 2 Vindic. of Doet. of Trin. p. 225. 128 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. " such a summary of Christian principles by which the truth of " doctrines concerning matters therein touched might be exa- " mined) ; wherein I say he delivers such rules of faith to the " same purpose in sense, but in language somewhat different, " yet never referring us to any standing and more authentic form. " Among these forms, that which now passes under the title of " the Apostles' Creed (about which we discourse) seems to have " been peculiar to the Roman Church, and that very antiently " (as to the chief articles thereof, for it appears that in process " of time it hath been somewhat altered, especially by addition); " and because it had been used from such antiquity, that its " original composition and use were not known, was presumed " to have derived from the Apostles, the first planters of that " Church (as it was then usual to repute all immemorial customs to " he deduced from apostolical tradition) ; or possibly because the " Roman Church (as in common belief founded by the two great apostles, Peter and Paul,) was, by way of excellency, " called the apostolical Church, and the succession of Roman bishops, sedes apostolica, so whatever belonged to that Church obtained the same denomination; and among the rest, the " oman symbol might, for that reason, be called symbolum apostolicum ; that is, symbolum ecclesiae apostolwfe. For that it was compiled by joint advice, or by particular contributions " of all the Apostles, is a conceit sustained by very weak grounds, " and assailed by very strong objections; as that a matter of so illustrious remarkableness, and of so great concernment, should be nowhere mentioned in the Apostolic Acts, nor by any authentic record attested (and, indeed, had it been so testified, it must have attained canonical authority); that it " was not received by all Churches; and that those which used " the substance thereof were so bold therewith as to alter and enlarge it, are considerations ordinarily objected thereto; but that which most effectually to my seeming doth render such original thereof altogether uncertain, (and doth amount almost to a demonstration against it, I mean against the truth, or, which is all one in matters of this nature, its certainty of being composed by the Apostles,) is that which I before intimated; viz. that the most antient (and those the most inquisitive and 124 ON TIHE ANTIENT CREEDS. " best seen in such matters) were either wholly ignorant that " such a form, pretending the apostles for its authors, was " extant, or did not accord to its pretence, or did not at all " rely upon the authenticalness thereof; otherwise (as I before urged) it is hardly possible that they should not have in most " direct and express manner alleged it, and used its authority " against those wild heretics who impugned some points " thereof." 1 I conclude this head with the following observation of the Bishop of Lincoln. "The inference to be drawn from a coni- " parison of different passages scattered through Tertullian's " writings is, that the Apostles' Creed in its present form was " not known to him as a summary of faith; but [of which there " can be no doubt] that the various clauses of which it is corn- " posed were generally received as articles of faith by orthodox " Christians."' So little ground has Mr. Newman for his remark,-" This " elementary confession [i. c. "I believe in Jesus Christ"] " seems, even before the Apostles' death, to have been expanded " and moulded into form, and in that form or type it has remained " up to this day in the Baptismal Service. I say this was done " in the Apostles' days, because history bears witness to the fact, " calling it 'the Creed,' 'the Apostles' Creed,' the treasure " and legacy of faith which the Apostles had left to their con- " verts." (p. 260.) That it may be said to contain "the faith which the apostles had left to their converts," is very true, (and we can prove it by their writings,) but this is no proof that the Creed was "moulded into form" in the days of the Apostles; and when Mr. Newman adds, that "this was done in the " Apostles' days, because history bears witness to the fact, " calling it 'the Creed,' ' the Apostles' Creed,' " he very sadly misrepresents the real state of the case. It is not till quite the close of the fourth century that we hear anything about "the Apostles' Creed." The name (symbolum apostolorum) certainly is given to the Creed about that period by some writers, but 1 Exposition on the Creed, init. See his works, Oxf. 1818, vol. v. pp. 221-3. 2 Eccl. Hist. illustrated from Tertullian, 3d ed. 1845. p. 306. 123 126 ON THE ANTIENTr CREEDS. only in the Latin Church,' and the period at which they lived is evidently too late to admit of their evidence being considered as sufficient to establish such a matter. So that from the time of Erasmus very few authors of repute have maintained the opi- nion that the Creed was, strictly speaking, an alostolical for- mula. Indeed how to account for such statements from a student of antiquity L know not. That "the Apostles' Creed," and all the other Creeds of the orthodox, might be said to be "the faith (or, creed,) delivered by the holy apostles,"- as they are often called by the Fathers, is no doubt true, because they may be proved from Scripture; and the name is in fact applied to any orthodox summary of the faith ; but this is very different from speaking of the Apostles as the authors of the fornule themselves; which, had it been the case, would have been stated by the Fathers in defence of them, and have renldered their proofs of the statements contained in them, from the writings of the Apostles, unnecessary. The Creed called by uts " the Apostles' Creed," therefore, 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 arc those of the churches of Cresarea and Jerusalem,- given respectively by I s:ay this on the authority of Do Pi, himself a lRomanist. 2 As Epiphzanius says of a Creed given by him as, the baptismal Creed of his Church, and whlji diffe'rs nouch, hoth from that called" the Apostles'," and the Nee,-Sal SIS aeM r 71 7T1*(7Thr IrOapEfdO i &r)TOs (57(-WV Ca&TO(dXOPv, Peal '4 ' cKX77- EAi 'ni &ybi T&)aEL, &Ir?) IcvdV CI SMOvru TayC5tOV 4rwKdlrcov u7r~p 'rptaKo(rc ThrwaE -r bs &pG8,cv. Epiph. Anchor. � 120. Op. edl. Petav. Paris. 1622. tom. 2. p. 123. 3 As Cyril of Jerusalem calls the instructions which he had given to his Cate- ,lnunens--nJrs lraf)0805(T7r Suwes iracyy~atav &ytas Pal &ToG7&096is wr'ar. Cat. 18. �14. ed. Mulle. Oxon. 1703. p. 274t. (ed. 1631. p. 22 t) 4 1 do not notice the Creed given by sonie writers a. the antient oriental Creed, derived from the Exposition of Ilufinns upon the Creed, becaus 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 somse 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, exeept in the passagres he has noted. This may he so, hut it is nmerely conjecture. 126 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. I AIEATIN Eusehius of Cawsarea (as already quoted) and Cyril of Jeru- salem, (both of them, by the way, more antient writers than any fromu 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.' Each of these Creeds is, in fact, an exposition by one or more pastors of thc Church, of the faith delivered by the apostles, (whether taken from their oral or written tradition is hereafter to be considered); an expo- sition gradually extended from that simple confession of faith required from the eunuch by Philip, (Acts viii. 37,) or that con- fession of faith in the Trinity, to which our Lord's directions for baptism (M att. xxviii. 19) would lead. And that which is com- monly called anong us "the Apostles' Creed," we might more properly name, with Dr. Barrow, the antient Roan (reed, to distinguish it from those of Jerusalem and Nice and others, which are equally entitled with it to the name of the Apostles' Creed. Ard so, indeed, it is called by ufinusi In fact the appellation is merely due to the spirit in whieh the Church of Rome has acted from a very early p~eriol, 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 at- tained its present form, and that tvo 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 Jrcnlarns and Tertullian, the faith is comprised in the articles re- lating 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 IThis Creed has in fact been called " the Apostles' Creed" even in the Latin Church, w'hich may suggest the probahility that this title was not always intended to imply that the Apostles had deliv ered the fornula, but only the faith contained in it. In an antient nmissal in use in the Latin Church about the year 700, it is said of this Creed, " Finito jSymbolto Apostolorum, dicat sacerdos," &c. Miss. ed. Argent. 1557, p. 41. See Usher, De Rorn. Eccles. Symi). Apost. vet. aliisque fid. form. Oxon. 1660. p. 16. 2 See p. 137 below. See F irmilian's Letter to Cyprian, in C' ypria 's Works 128 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. into hell. Such also is the ease 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 principles," wherein he lays down the doctrines maintained, as he conceives, by succes- sional 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. IIowever 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 there is one God and Creator and Maker of all things, and God the Word " derived from him, consubstantial, eternal, who in the last " times took upon him human nature of Mary, and was cruci- "fled and rose again from the dead. And I believe also the Holy Ghost, who is eternal."' This work, however, is not considered to be a genuine work of Origen. The next in order is the Creed of Gregory of Neocasarea, commonly called Gregory the Thaumatug, which Gregory Nyssen tells ts remained to his time the creed of initiation ill the Church of Neocarsarea ;' and which, if we believe Gregory Nyssen's account in his life of hinm, was revealed 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 Godhead, the operative 'word, Wisdom compre- b ending the system of the universe, and Power creative of the "e whole creation, a true Son of a true Father, invisible of in- (visible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and immortal of 1 De recta in Deae fide sine Dial. Contr. Mareion. � 1. (lp. Orig. ced. Bened. Puris. torn. i. p. 80. dei uryrfrI XeTvvMrsvi as iaS r.m. reg. Nyss. Op). ed. 1615. tote, ii. p. 978. (edi. 1638. iii. 53.) 128 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. " immortal, and eternal of eternal. And there is one Spirit, who " has his existence from God, and through the Son was mani- " fested to men, a perfect image of the perfect Son, Life, the " Cause of those that live, the Fountain of holiness, Sane- " tity, the Author of sanctification; in whom is manifested 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 any- " thing introduced into it as not existing before and afterwards " added to it. Never, therefore, was the Father without the " Son, nor the Son without the Spirit, but the same Trinity " existed always unchanged and invariable."1 The next is the Creed of Lucian the Martyr, which is as fol- lows:--"We believe, agreeably to the Evangelical and Apo- " stolical 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 Resurrec- " tion, the Shepherd, the Gate, the inconvertible and unchange- " able 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 ' Gregor. Thaumat. Op. ed. Par. 1622, p. 1, and Gregor. Nyss. Op. ed. 1615, tomrn. 2, pp. 978, 9. (ed. 1638. iii. 546.) VOL. I. K 129 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. " 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 sancti- " fication and perfecting. As also our Lord Jesus Christ corn- " manded his disciples, saying, ' Go and teach all nations, bap- " tizing 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 unmean- " ingly 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 Christ, we anathematize all heretical " false doctrine; and if any one teaches contrary to the whole- " some 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 anathema. For we truly and "reverently believe and follow all those things that are delivered "to us from the divine Scriptures by prophets and apostles."1 These, with the formularies given above from Ireneus, &c. are the only Creeds that remain of the period anterior to the Council of Nice.' In that Council, Eusebius, Bishop of Casarca, who took a I The original of this confession is to be found in Athanasius, Epist. De Syn. Arimn. et Seleuc. � 23, and Socrat. Hist. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 10. A Latin translation of it is given by Hilary in his book De Synodis, � 29, who also vindicates 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.) 2 I do not notice the Creed inserted in the Apostolical Constitutions, because they are confessedly spurious, and of very uncertain age. 130 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. leading part in it, gave the following as the antient Creed of the Church of Casarea, as we learn from his Letter to the inha- bitants of Cesarea, respecting the acts of this Council, pre- served by Athanasius3 and others.2 "The formula, therefore, " proposed by us, which was read before our most pious em- " peror, 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 holding 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 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 works3) was as follows ;-" We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker "of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus "Christ, the Son of God, begotten 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 I Athan. Epist. de decret. Syn. Nic. sub fin. 2 Socr. Hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 8; Theodoret. Hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 12; &c. 3 Athanas. Epist. ad Jovian. � 3. Theodoret. Hist. Eccl. lib. 4. c. 3. Socr. Hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 8. Basil. M. Epist. 125. Op. ed. Ben. Paris. tom. 3. p. 215, &c. K2 131 l3~ ON THE ANTlENT CREEDS. " one substance 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, hay- "ing becn 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 he 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 anathematizes." Now in all these various forms it vill be observed, that there is not one of them which includes more than the confession relating to the Trinity. And so the Creed is often referred to by the Fathers, as consisting of belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Thus Cyril of Alexandria, 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."' And again,-" There is made by us the confession of the right faith in one God the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ his Son, and in one Holy Ghost."~ 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 terni sacrament, we may observe, is applied by other authors 'I cpotvpyi -rap ij t v rv 6poAo')4aJ, 'roUrr~QTL Trip wtorwv, 'v iccd up&i"i's t a'- f~ iroLEL(Tat, AJ4yovrfsv fliorTiva~&v s Ea vcz 8 r ?w wci4z WTopropcr xai4fis Eva Rupcov in~rovXpwcrdv T s, irwatrov i~ c4s 'T?,flvsviLs4 1 ' "7LQ. Cynli. Alex. T recta tide ad R~eg.-Op. ed. Aubert. tom, v. P. 2. p. 148. 2 'H 74 r ep9js xrr.ws 6 soAtryta GrpdTr f'Tw wpbr j~usiis sEv b'aBv, K. r. A. Id. ib. p. 168. 3 IDeduetorcm oumis verit ti , qua eft in Patre et } ilio et Spiritu Saneto secun- drn Cliri stiamnun saeranentrnu. Adv. Prmo. e. 30. ed. 1664. p. 618. 132 ON THIE ANTI ENT CREEDS.13 also to the Creed ; and Ambrose compares it to the soldier's " sacrament (or, oath) of warfare."' It was therefore the opinion of Erasmus and Vossius, that the Creed for more than three centuries did not extend further than that; and their opinion is adopted by Bishop Stillingtleet;3 and certainly as it respects that collection of articles which the earliest Fathers have pointed out to us as comprising the chief points of Christian doctrine, and called "the rule of faith," it is clear from the passages quoted above, that it did not extend further than that confession. But then this rule of faith was not during that whole period identical with the whole confession required to be made at bap- tism; and it appears to me that the want of this distinction 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 earliest 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." 4 'As Ituflnus in Apol. adv. Mlicron. lib. i. � 5. " aacrarnentnrn syniholi." (Op. ed. Vallars. Ver. 1745. col. 311.) and Hicron. Ad 1'animach. contra Joanoc. I3 icro s. ( 4ec p. 115 above.) 2 Milithe sacramentum. lie virg. lib. 3. c. 4. � 20. (Op. ed. Bciied. Paris. toni. 2. col. 179. 3 Vindication of doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 226, 6. 4 Qumnianteni sub Tribes et te. tatio fidci et sponsio salutis pigi'erentur, 11000s- sario adijicitur Ecch. he n entio ; quoniain uhi Tres, id eat, P'ater et Lilius et Spiitus Sanctus, ihi Eccie sia, quay Triurn corpus at. IDc baptiaiio, e. G. ed. 1664- p. 226. Seecalso c. 11. p. 228. 133 134 ON TilE ANTI ENT CREEDS. 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 our- " selves, 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 baptizing, because he seems " not to differ from us in the interrogation used at baptism, let " such an one, whoever thinks to object this, know first, that " there is not one and the same form of Greed to us and the " schisnatics, nor 1/he same interrogation. For when they say, " ' Dost thou believe the remission of sins and life eternal " through the holy Church ?' they speak falsely in the interro- gation, since they have not a Church."" And again; "The very interrogation which takes place at baptism is a witness of the truth. For when we say, 'iLost "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 distin- guish between the symbol or Creed containing the confession relating to the Trinity from the interrogation relating to " re- mission of sis and life everlasting through the holy Chmrch," or at any rate his words imply that these points were the sub- ject of a distinct and separate interrogation. And by a passage in the letter of Firmilian, Bishop of Ca sarca, to Cyprian, this matter is placed, I think, beyond doubt, where, speaking of a t " Quodi si aliqis iud opponit, ut dicat eandemn Nov atianutm legem tenere, qlusin Catlwliea Ecelesntenieat, coden soyniholo, quo et nos, baptizare, etundem nosse 1)euin Patron, eundei Filitun(Christn u, eu ndemn Spiriturn Sanctiun, ac propter hoe usurpare enint potestateun baptizandli posse, quod vide atur in interro- gatione baptisuni a nobis non discrepare ; sciat, quisqluis hoc opponendiun putat, priniux non esse unamn nobis et schisiaticis syinboli le genm, neque eandem interro- gationein. Nam n t dicunt ; 'Credis rernissionetn peccatorten et vitain ieternm per sanctani ire lesia n,' ientiuntur in interrogatione, quando lion habeant cde- shtn. "-C'YiPn. Ep. ad Magn. Ep. 69. ed. Fell. P.t. 2. p. 183. (Ep. 76. Parnel.) 2" Si et ipsa interrogatio, qutn fit in baptismto, testis est veritatis. INan cCam dicinius, ' Cre dis in vitautieternanm et reutissionem lpeectorum per sancta m Eccie- siani,' intellighnus renssionexn pea toruin non nisi in Ecelesia diari."-Earsn. Ep. ad Januaiuhn, &&e. Ep. 70. ib. p. 190. (Ep. 70. Pant.) 134 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. baptism performed by certain heretics, he says, "To which " neither the Creed of the Trinity, nor the legitimate interroga- " tion, and such as is used by the Church, was wanting."' And since these remarks were first made in the former edition of this work, a passage has come under my observation in the (so-called) Apostolical Constitutions recently published from the Coptic version,' which, though bearing evident marks of interpolation, (and all the copies we have of what are called the Apostolical Constitutions are confessedly full of interpolations,) seems to confirmn the view, that originally the Creed confessed at the moment of the baptismal act was very short, but followed afterwards, during the ceremony, by a distinct interrogation of the faith of the baptized entering more into detail. The passage as it now stands, reads thus;-" Let the Deacon " go with him into the water, and let him say to him, helping " him that he may say, ' I believe in the only true God, the " Father Almighty, and in his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ, " our Lord and Saviour, and in the Holy Spirit, the Quickener; " the Trinity, of the same essence; one sovereignty, one king- " dom, one faith, one baptism; and in the Holy Catholic " Apostolic Church, and in the life everlasting. Amen.' And " let him who receives (baptism) repeat after all these, ' I believe " thus.' And he who bestows it shall lay his hand upon the " head of him who receives, dipping him three times, confessing " these things each time. And afterwards let him say again, " ' Dost thou believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of " God the Father; that he became man in a wonderful manner " for us, in an incomprehensible unity, by his Holy Spirit, of " Mary the Holy Virgin, without the seed of man; and that he " was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and died of his own "will once for our redemption, and rose on the third day, "loosing the bonds (of death): he ascended up into heaven, "and sat on the right hand of his good Father on high, and he I Cui nee symxolum Trinitatis nec interrogatio legitimna et ecclesiastica d.fuit. Ep. 75, inter Cypriani Ep. ib. p. 223. 2 The Apostolic-al Constitutions or Canons of the Apostles in Coptic, with an English tranislation, by H. Tattam, LL.D., &c., Archdeacon of Bedford. Printed for the Oriental Translation Fund, &c. Sold by W. H. Allen & Co., Leadenhall. street. 1848. royal 8vo. 135 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. " cometh again to judge the living and the dead at his appearing " and his kingdom? And dost thou believe in the Holy Good " Spirit and Quickener, who wholly purifieth in the Holy " Church ?' Let him again say, ' I believe."' (Constit. 46. pp. 59, 60.) Here it is evident, that to the Creed repeated on going into the water, a Postnicene addition has been made; and no doubt this confession, as it originally stood, stopped at the word "Quickener." But we here see plain evidence, that much that was afterwards incorporated into the Creed was originally intro- duced as an interrogation made at baptism, distinct from the Confession required to be made at the moment of immersion; as if there was at first an unwillingness to add to the brief con- fession of a belief in the Trinity required at the performance of that act; but interrogations were subjoined to test further the faith of the neophyte on matters on which heresies had arisen. 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 1'onfession. We may add also to the preceding testimonies that of Cyril of Jerusalem. For in his fourth Catechetical Lecture, he says, ---" But before the delivery of any comment upon the faith, it " seems to me to be desirable now to give a compendious sum- " mary of the necessary doctrines, (&vaKe aAarEL oVVao'/U rfO " avayxa(ov oy&rwv)." He then proceeds to give the doc- trines 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, appayta,) ever in thy mind.. " ... And after the knowledge of this venerable and glorious " and holy faith, (or Creed, rbrews,) know also thyself," &c.1 Proceeding, however, in the subsequent Lectures to comment upon the confession required at baptism, he says, that after the i Cyrill. Hierosol. Cat. 4. �� 2, 12, 13. pp. 46, 56. ed. Milles. (Ed. Par. 1631. pp. 24, 30.) 136 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. confession of faith relating to the Trinity, this followed: "In " one baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, and in " one catholic Church (or, as other editions have it, holy "catholic Church), and in the resurrection of the flesh, and in "the life everlasting."1 So that even in the time of Cyril of Jerusalem, in the middle of the fourth century, there was a distinction between the Creed relating to the Trinity and the whole confession 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.2 Further; it appears from the Creeds we have already quoted, that even in the part relating to the Trinity, 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 previously exhibited by them at the Council of Sirmium.3 It is also to be found in the Creed of the Church of Aquileia, given by Rufinus4 towards the close of this century; who, however, also tells us, that this addition was not to be found in the Creed of the Roman Church, nor in the churches of the East.5 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' and Fathers7 there can I Id. Cat. 18. � 11. p. 269. (Ed. 1631. p. 220.) 2 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 only a part of the confession required at an early period at baptism. See his "Imhnportance of the doctrine of the Trinity," c. 6. Socr. Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. 37. Kal i ,'rd araXO6viaa wT'rEsaO4ra. And see lib. ii. c. 41. 4 Expos. in Symb. Apost. S " In Ecclesim Romann Symbolo non habetur additum, descendit ad inferna; sed neque in Orientis Ecclesiis habetur hic sermo."-Expos. in Symb. Ap. art. "Crucifixus," &c. Inter Cypr. Op. ed. Fell. ad fin. p. 22. ' Acts ii. 27; Eph. iv. 9. 7 Cyrill. Hieros. Cat. 4. � 8. p. 53. ed Milles. (Ed. 1631. p. 27.) Epiphan. Adv. 137 138 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. be no doubt, but it was not inserted in the summary of the chief articles of belief for several centuries. Two instances of the occurrence of the Creed without it in MSS. of the beginning of the eighth century are given by Archbishop Usher; one in Greek, at the end of a Latin Psalter of King Atheistan in the Cotton Library, written in the year 703, the other in Latin, at the end of a Groeo-Latin MS. of the Acts of the Apostles in the Bodleian Library, written about the same period. Passing on to the consideration of the articles that follow that relating to the iloly Ghost, and considering 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 both of the Greek and Roman churches have only the words " holy Church," the word "catholic" having been afterwards added by the Greeks.' 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 occurrence, perhaps, is in the 115th and 181st of the Sermones de Tempore erroneously ascribed to Augustine. Neither of the two antient Creeds mentioned above as given by Usher (and which exactly corres pond with each other) has the words " catholic " and " communion of saints." And as it may be interesting to the reader to see this more antient form of the Creed, I will give it as it is presented to us by Usher from the Latin copy. "Credo in c~utni Patrem Omunipotentenm; et in Christumi Jesuti flin ejus unicurn, Domtinumn nostrum; qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto et Maria Virgine, qui sub Pontio Pilato cruci- fixus est et sepultus, tertia die resurrexit a niortuis, ascendit in coelos, sedet ad dexterain Patris, undle venturus est judicare lier. 1Wl. iii. tom. 2. in Expos. i. Cath.� 17 : Op. ed. cit. toi. i. p. 1099. Iron. lib. iv. 27. ed. Mass. (c. 45. edl. Grab.) And seeEuseb. Hist. ELev. lib. i. c. ult, where an accunt is given of the preaching of Thaddicus at Edess, of which this article formed one topic. Others arc mentionedl by Pearson. Usher Do Win.c!.Lv. Symb. Apot.;, Oxon. 1660. p. 6. See Pears on's Exp~os. of the Creed; in loc. 138 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.13 " vivos et mortuos : et in Spiritum Sanctum, sanctam Ecciesiam, " remissionem peccatorum, carnis resurrectionem."' And our learned Archbishop remarks, that this is the Creed which is expounded by Maximus of Turin in his Homily respecting the delivery of the Creed, and by Augustine in his book "De fide et Symbolo," [written a. 393], who also, at the end of that treatise, commends it to all the faithful in these words ;-" laec est fides quae paucis verbis tenenda in Symbolo " novellis Christianis datur. Qume pauca verba fidelibus nota sunt: ut credendo subjugentur, Deo subjugati recte vivant, " recte vivendo cor mundent, corde mundo quod credunt in- "r telligant." it is maintained, 4. That the Creeds of the primitive Church were derived originally from the holy Scriptures. In proof of this I will point out, first, some internal indica- tions of the earliest Creeds having been derived from Scripture. Thus, in the first Creed given above from Irenaeus, in addi- tion 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 evidence than the general phraseology were wanting. I subjoin the original below, with one or two references to Scripture in illustration 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. A 1I have altered the ablative of the MS. in the last clause, into the accusative, in accordance with Usher's notice and the Greek and other forms. The alteration is clearly required, and is very slight, the m being expressd in antient M$', by merely a short line over the preceding letter; and the MS., as Usher tells us, is full of evident mistakes. 2 H $ v7ap 'EKKA71o-la, KcZLTsp KaO' tAfl5 rns tOIivt$4'fws irspd'rwv 7-r s 4i5& sorirap~dvr, irapc 5S rs 'A r,r'TXWV sal ri iJce tvw c,, $O lrv wapaAa.6oila r fr els irva 0ebv Uare'pa WU'roxp&rOpa T' rlo EO~L7CrflC&'TIJ ~p(LYWreal ' v # al rds Oa tdovas, sal wc&a & vraa ' rrois, [LSee Acts iv. 24; xiv. 15.] irto'isv sal eis but Xpto'rbv 'I,4croi~v, [See 1 Cor. viii. 6, which reference I give on the authority of the following paissage in Itufinus. " ()rierttis Eccle sire fere omne ita tradunt, "' Credo in unuto Deuin Iatrexn omnipotentem ;' et rursumn in sequenti sermnone, 139 140 ON THlE ANTIENT CREEDS. Again, in the third of the Creeds quoted above from Tertul- hian, we have two manifest quotations from Scripture. " There is also," it runs, " a Son of that one God, namely, his N~ord, " who proceeded from him, by whom all things were made, and "without whom nothing was made." "In the beginning," says St. John in his Gospel, ""was the Word, and the Word was "twith God, &e. ; my him all things were made, and without hire "cwas not anything made that was made." (John i. 1, 3.)1 And in the words, "rthat he suffered and was dead and buried, according to the Scriptures, and raised again by the Father,"' it is evident from other passages of the Treatise where this Creed occurs, that there is an allusion to 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4.3 And this fact is particularly observable in the ease of the formula we are now considering, of which Tertullian says, that it had corme down from the beginning of the Gospel, for it clearly ruhi nos dicimus, ' Et in .Tesum Christum, unicumn Filimrn ejus, D~ominm Nos- "trumo,' ita illi tradmrit,' Et in unumr 1)ominumn Nostrum .Iesum Christouni n- (11111 hhIii (' jUts.' jr111110 seilieet Deum (et unum 1)omninumn, seeuunduin antef ri- tafern Pauli Aprost olJprofitentes." ituf. in Synitb. art. " In l)eum 1P. 0." ed1. Fell. p. 18.; and see art. " In Christ. .Ies.," &c.fin. pr. 20. A remarkable obser- vation this for one who tells us elsewhere that the Apostles drew up the Creel.j 'rlw vibe 'ro 8oi, rbw crapxaiOEv~a i'flTp r~ iffAjsE.T4,ar crwrrpis. Kal)s s vsivu fiyiov, rb Sod razz' WpoyiflriV KEi7lPVXbiS 'T&s o KO'O4a!, raKyii~ &r iOEst, al -r ' EL ircsp~tfsov )455?7rTW, Sal Tri ,rc(Oor, sal r 'T7 spO'tyisv 5EpCi, Sal rT ' (CrpKOV ELs .iorus ohbpavoui s iu4tw 'vro0 � yarqp ou, X ptrroi 'Ineroi roi Kvpfou a uav, real -ri~y its rs' of pas'cvvs,4' 'ij831Vproi fla-rpbs [Matt. xvi. 27; Mark viii. 38.]j wapovoifav alroi, 4&l irb &Paxe~saa-ac OataL'rwvra, [Eph. i. 10.] sal &vrrra iicu trdnccs wirns &v~pwwdrirro?, iva XpuorrQ 'Inoaoiv rnrKupki intwv, sal Of W_ sal rw'r pt, sal $ao tAci ale 4& rv Es'8oKcw roiv flrpbs red &op rov, was yd vv i44p 4voti- pasvtmis' al rwi).Lwv sal KCITGXOovLwv, sal w rayAiicra hiuo.w~ry1 atrai rrwi, [Phil. ii. 10, 11.1 sal splaw ts 5r nv rois wrot Trot jr~rrcu.r& FdP WVfv~TJ/A1& rfl5 0orn- pfcu, sal &yylAoiis rc95i00756TcZ$, Ial iv &aOrYo.o- lcLyEsy/ras, Sal -robs &OE~Eis Kal a& tKous ial av6~osv, sal $Aaor ,uous rcws' &s'pawvsir LS rb aiwo rvpos wip in. Toffs 81 Succdots, Ial 60-101T, sal rxs 4'rox~s rnoi *rrqpisdo', sal 4v Trj &yd" afrroi 8iauessvpsio1o, offs &,r' &pifj, Toffs 81 4'tshTaofar, L"'w v Xcpccuvs, &%iOpoass &,pifriras, sal Sdaa a'awpaTohlcr.-IN~. Adv. flier. lib. i.eC. 10. ed. Mass. e. 2. edl. (iirabe . I " Filmus Serino ipsius, qui ex ipso proeysexit, per queen omaha facta sunt, et sine quo flietumn est nihil." Tertull. Adv. Prax. c. 2. ed. 1064. p. 501. '0 A6'yos ..f ld~vra ~at' ir irh y 'sio. ,al Xwpls aaroiv +y4'sero ov,' Utv bt.y yovv. (Jolun i. 1, 3.) " "ln possum, huac uxortuma eat sepultum secudu Scripturas et re sus- citatuna a Patre." ib. 3Adv. Prax. a. 29, p. 518. Also a. 15 of the same Treatise, wheie it is said, "" qu~er mortum contestatur, [i. e. Paulus,] seendum Sriprtura." ON TIHE ANTIENT CREEDS. shows that it is of the faith itself delivered in it that he is speaking as having been the rule of belief from the beginning, and not of the particular form or summary he is delivering, and that for a description of that faith he went to Scripture. Proceeding to the Creed given us by Origen, we find similar indications of the source whence it was derived. Besides several passages in the body of it, showing from the phraseology (as it appears to me) that the author had Scripture in his eye as his guide,' there is one direct quotation from Scripture, namely, in those words, "Who after he had ministered to the Father in " the creation of all things, for by him all things were made, in " the last times humbling himself," &c. referring to John i. 3.2 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 Scripture, 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 respected individuals in it; for this, be it re- membered, 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 such evidence alone, but upon direct testimony in favour of it, such as appears to me tolerably decisive. In the first place, Ireneus, when speaking of the misquota- tions of Scripture by which the Valentinians supported their errors, observes, that " he who retains the rule of truth immov- " able which he received in baptism, will recognise the words, I The loss of the original Greek renders the similarity probably less striking, but the reader may compare the following, "Sicut per prophetas sueos ante pro- miserat." (Acts iii. 18) "Misit Dominum Nostrum Jesum Christum primo qui- dem vocaturum IsraeL" (Acts iii. 26.) "Ante omnem creaturam natus." (Col. i. 15.) "se ipsum exinaniens." (Phil. ii. 7.) 2 Qi quum in omnium conditione Patri ministrasset, per ipsum enim omnia facta sunt, novissimis temporihbus se ipsum, &c. 141 142 N THE ANTIENT CREEDS. "and phrases, and parables [referred to by the Valentinians] " as derived from the Scriptures, but will not recognisethe " blasphemous hypothesis as so deriv Consequently, "the rule of truth" received at baptism, was either Scripture itself or a confession derived from Scripture; and immediately after this passage follows the Creed or eonfession we have just referred to as given by Irencus, and whieh by all authors whom I have yet seen is eonsidcred to be the " rule of truth" previously spoken of. Further, Cyril of Jerusalem, speaking of the Creed of his chureh, writes thus,-" For sinee 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 f 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 f/e 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 erposition of the failh." This testimony is clear and explicit, and coming from the quarter 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 Augustine. "This," he says, "is the Creed which ye are about to recite and "rdeliver. Those words which ye have heard are scattered through- "out the divine Scriptures, but collected thence and put together, " that the memory of men of slow understanding might not fail, "so that every one might be able to say and retain in his mind what he believes." 3 1 IREN. Adv. liaer. ib . i. c. 1. sub. fin. s 'Ewu5c& jyap OU irdvSj'rs ivac'iTu T&S ypas)ts &Vac7vc.v(KELv, &xx& Tior iv i&w- rtc, T814i'a4 OXXt 1r 4WQi iir#L lrrp ,s ~j r 7aibn, #r'rp -701/ r~y v 4vv &ka~his &wroAtcru, iv &kyois io~s rrfxotr rb wav Sh~a im s rrr wv piAa s- tdyo e.. .. 'Ei.84~ou 81 icr r 7?W ovra Kaipow rIv &r b are v Odw.v 'ypca4v Tfpt J g4d'rov 7Tairv yicecgv.,v ai4o-rityW. 06, yap, cir + olev, &v~pdwnots aOVVar TJG7 1;,si Tlof re, &AA' ix c dos 7pab s .r& xo.upictrai'a TvXAA#XOEI.Tcx av &vwawMfpoi T*v .'r s wh rrcws &e~cancaAtcw. Cril. Hierosol. Cat. 5. � 7. ed. Mules. pp. 75, 6. (Ed. Paris. 1631, pp. 44, 5.) 3 " Hoe est syinbolurn quod reensuri ests et redditu ri. Ista verba qua audistis per divias Sripturasspr stisnt ; id rode collecta et ad 'mum redacta, ne 142 ON THlE ANTIENT CREEDS.14 Again, in one of the homilies attributed to Eusehius, a French bishop, and by others to Eucherius, bishop of Lyons, (both of whom flourished in the early part of the fifth century,) we have the same testimony. "The Fathers of the churches," the writer says, " anxious for the salvation of the people, collected together " out of the difjerent books of Scripture weighty testimonies to " the truths of religion. Providing, therefore, a wholesome feast "for the food of souls, they collected together words few and definite, brief in phrase but containing many mysteries, and " this they called the reed."' And that this opinion as to the source from which "the Creed" was derived, became common in the Church, we may judge not only from the statement made by these authors being repeated in substance by others,' but from the fact that some even of those writers who speak of the Creed as if it had been composed by the Apostles, tell us that it was collected by them from the Scriptures ;I a notion which no doubt is sufficiently absurd, but tardorumn hommumnin nemoria lahoraret ; ut oimis hono possit dicere, possit tenere, Iuad credit." Aug. 1e c mh. Ad. Catech. c. i. Op. ed. Hened. Paris. tomn. vi. col. 547. 1 "kcclesiarum patres de populorim salute solbeiti, cx diversis voluminibus " Scripturarum collccrunt testimnoma divinis gravida sacrauwutis. I)isponeutcs " itaque ad aninarum pasturn saulre conviVuln collegerunt verba brevia et certa, " expedita sententils sod diffusa mystcriis, et hoc symlxdlun nominaverunt." And a little after,-" Ecciesiaruzm nagistri, studiosissimi salutis nostrmn negotiatores, "iln Scripturis Sanctis dle mngnis maxima separaveruint inentiurn in pagina inscri- "henda, tut cuilibet cordi, quamilihet angusto, (juamlihiet rustic o, sine ullius diflicul- " tatis imipedimento facile insinuari possit voritatis agnitio." Euseb. Gallic. Do synch. homuil. prim. Biblioth, 1'atruni. Col. Agripp. 1618. tom. v. p. 1, p. 652. 2 Thus Thomas Aquinas, in reply to the difficulty,-" Videtur (quad inconve- "nienter articuli fidei in symnbolo ponantur; sacra enim Scriptura est reguila fldei "cii nec addere nec subtraher licet.... ergo illicitum fuit aliquod symbolum con- " stituere quasi regulamn fidei post sacram Scripturam editam"-says-"1 Veritas " fldoi in sacra Scriptura diffuse continetur, et variis modis, et in quihusdam " obscure, ita quod ad eliciendum fidei veritatem ox sacra Scriptura requiritur "lIongum studium et oxercitium, ad quod non possunt porvenire omines illi quihus "necessarnuin ost cognoscore fidei veritatem ; quorum plerique aliis nogotiis occn- " pati studio vacare non possunt : ot idoo fuit n ecssariumn ut cx sontentils sacral "Scripturmo aliquid manifestum suimiario colligeretur, quodl proponeretur omni- "bits ad crodendum, quod quidem non est additum sacra fScriptura, sod potuus "o x sacra Scriptura sumptum."-Summa Thoolog. Sec. Soc. q. 1, art 9. ed. Paris. 1631. Pt. 2. p. 5. See also Durand. in 3. dist. 25, q. 2. " 'Do totis Scripturis hurec breviatim collectasunt al, apostolis. lit. quoniam " phures eredentium literas noscuunt, vol qui sc.iunt pram occupatione soculi serip- 143 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. which shows how general was the belief that it was derived from the Scriptures. Upon the whole, then, there can, I think, be little doubt how this summary of the faith was formed, and whence it was collected. It is quite true that Ireneus, Tertullian, and Origen appeal to the consentient teaching of the Churches founded by the Apostles, agreeing with the Creeds they delivered, as an argu- ment in favour of their truth. And at that early period such testimony formed distinct and independent evidence of their truth of considerable weight. But this fact does not militate against the assertion that those statements of the faith were drawn from Scripture. Their internal testimony, and the wit- ness of such early writers as Cyril of Jerusalem, and Augustine, hardly leave room for a doubt on the point. And the appeal to the testimony of the Apostolical Churches seems to have been, as to the correctness of the statements, so drawn from Scripture, of the Christian faith. It is maintained therefore,-- 5. That none of the antient Creeds can be considered as an apostolical production. The truth of this follows immediately from the proof of the foregoing positions. Neither as a form of words, nor as a sum- mary of the faith, is any one of them entitled to be considered as of apostolical origin. That the orthodox Creeds, as conveying the faith delivered by the apostles, may all, in a sense, be said to be of apostolical origin, especially as derived from the writings of the Apostles, is quite true; but this is all which can be justly claimed for any of them in respect of apostolicity. This view of the history of the antient Creeds may enable us to judge of the accuracy of Mr. Newman's observations on the subject, in his ninth and tenth Lectures. His object is to find out an authoritative digest of the essentials of the Gospel. This he thinks is supplied by "the Creed," and in order to clothe it "turns legere non lxssunt, hwc corde retinentes, habeant sufficientemn sibi scientiam "salutaremn." Rlab. Maur. De instit. cleric. lib. 2. c. 56. in De Cathol. lEcces. div. offic. &c. vet. Patrum &c. libri. Rom. 1591. fol. p. 303. See also Pas- chasius Ratbertus De Spit. S. in prwf. quoted by Vossius, De tribus Symb. pp. 4, 5. 144 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. with full authority, he resolutely maintains that this digest was made by the Apostles; and as it is convenient to include all the Articles of all the orthodox Creeds down to the Constantinopolitan (commonly called the Nicene) Creed, so we are somehow or other to suppose, that they are all identical; though, as might be imagined, there are some contradictory statements upon this latter point; and having thus jumbled the formuke of four cen- turies and all churches together, with all their discrepancies, (treating even the Creeds of Irnmeus and Tertullian as identical with the Constantinopolitan,) and speaking of them all as one .formula, he adds, " I say, then, that the Greed is a collection of cc DEFINITE ARTICLES SET APART FROM THE FIRST, passing "from hand to hand," &c. (p. 296.) And these "definite articles" are the essentials of the Gospel, the fundamental articles of the Christian faith. Thus, after having spoken of the Apo- stles' Creed, the Creeds of Irenicus and Tertullian, and that found in the Apostolical Constitutions, he adds, speaking of them all,-" We find it [i. e. the Creed] digested in form, limited in its topics, circumscribed in its range, one and the same everywhere" (p. 265) ; and still more explicitly, "Irenams, Tertullian, and " the rest, cite the Apostles' Creed, and say, ' This is the faith " which makes a Christian, the essentials of revelation, the " great truths of the Gospel,' " &c. (p. 267.) And so, though the doctrine of baptism is not alluded to in the Apostles' Creed, yet because it is contained in the form agreed upon at the Council of Constantinople, (and elsewhere,) it is said that in "the Creed" "the doctrine of baptism is expressed in an arti- cle," (p. 266,) and the variations are treated as mere " varieties in the detail," not "interfering with the substantial identity," so that "we must consider the Nicene and the Apostles' Creed as identical." (pp. 270, 271.) Now that the orthodox Creeds all contained, as far as they extended, the same faith, and were so far apostolical and iden- tical, is most true; but that they are identical as formulae, or as collections of certain definite articles, as Mr. Newman has inti- mated, and which alone would answer his purpose, or that the articles of which they are composed were " set apart from the first," is manifestly and on the face of it a mistake; as the VOL. I. L 145 1 16ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. preceding historical notices of the facts of the case have fully shown. Before concluding this chapter, however, I would offer a few remarks upon the notion here advocated by Mr. Newman, (which is also sulported by Mr. Keble,) that 1the Creed" is at selCtiOln of the fundamental articles of the faith; and also consider what we are to understand by the name " rule of faith," applied by the early Fathers to the Creeds which they dlelivered. Mr. Newman says that "the Creed" is "the abstract of saving faith," (p. 286,) and holds language respecting it im- plying that it is a selection of the fundamental points of the Christian faith. The same appears to be Mr.Kebic's view of it. Now this language seems to mc to require (to say the least) considerablle inodification, and to be calculated, as used by these authors, to lead to very erroneous views of the matter. There is, I believe, a sense ia which it may be said that the Apostles' (Creed contains the elements of the Christian faith in the funda- mental points. But that it contains all the fundamental points, or that it is exclusively an abstract of those particular points, are positions which cannot I conceive be maintained. If we were to judge by the Creeds of Irenmeus and Tertu llia and the testimony of the early Fathers, as above quoted, we must suppolse5 that the fundamental faith was limited to points connected with the nature and acts of the Three Persons of the Godhead.'I Indeed we are told by Tertullian and Athanasiurs, as we have seen, that the whole faith is founded upon and may be summed up in an orthodox confession relating to the Three Divine Persons. And to the passages above quoted many others might be added to the sanme effect. Thus Basil says, "For baptism is the seal of faith, and faith is a belief in the Godhead." I The articles relating to the Chiurci, the Communion of maints, and Blaptismi, are nioie of themi noticed in the Creeds of Ire na us aind Tertulliaii, nor in the selection of " necessiary articles " given above fr om Cyril of .Jerousalem.f~c-~ crcrarn.aI farw,8 h'e e~~~ I wdk oais. Adv. Eunoin. lib. iii. v . ed. Ilnedl. tin, i. p. 276. (Par. 1618 tonm. ii. p.-91.) I 16 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.14 And as an orthodox belief in Christ includes a belief in the whole Trinity, so the Christian's faith is sometimes spoken of (as in Scripture) as included in a belief in Christ. "God," says Ililary, "does not call us to the life of happiness by cc means of points difficult to be understood, nor allure us by a multiplex kind of flowing eloquence. Eternity is placed per- fectly and easily within our reach. We arc to believe that " Jesus was raised from the dead by God, and also to confess him to be the Lord."' Thus also speaks Augustine ;-" When therefore it is inquired what is to be believed which pertains to religion.... it is sufficient for a Christian to believe that the cause of things created, heavenly or earthly, visible or invisible, is nothing else but the goodness of the Creator, who is the one and true God, and that there is no nature which is not either God himself or from him ; and that he is a Trinity, namely, a Father, and a Son begotten of the Father, and a Holy Spirit proceeding from that same Father, but one and the Same Spirit of the Father and the Son."' There is also a remarkably clear passage in the Exposition of the Creed by Itufinus upon this point. " Fron all these " things," he says, "let the faithful turn away his ears; and "let him adhere to the holy Church, which confesses G0(1 the Father Almighty, and his only begotten Son Jesus Christ out' Lord, and the Holy Spirit, of a concordatnt and consonant " kind of substance, and believes that the Son of God was born "of a virgin, and suffered for the salvation of man, and rose " from the dead in the same flesh in which he was born, and I "Non per dlifflciles nos IDeus ad beatamz vitam (jnwstiofles vocat, nec niultiplaii "eloquentis facundiw genere s olflitat. I absoluto flnlbi$ ae facili est teternitas; Jesuni et suscitatuni a inortuis per IDeunn credere et ipsurn ease 1)orninuux confi- " teri." Ililar. IDe Thinit. lib. 10, sub. fin. ed. Boned, co. 1080. "Cueroqaiuqudreednsi rc areiinmpriet..Satis est Cliristiano reruin creatarum catisain, live corlestiuin sive torrnstrui n, sive visibilimrn sive inv isibibiurnr, non nisi honitatein eredere ('reatoris, qui est Deus "unnus et veins, nullarnque ease naturarn ute non ant ipso sit ant ab ipso ; eunque "esse Trinitatein, Patrern scilicet et Filiumi a Patre geniturn et Spiritumn Sanctaum " ab coden Patre procedentorn, sod unurn eundenarque Spinituan Patris et Filii." Enehriridl. ad L aur. c. 9. ed. Ben. Par. torn. vi. co. 198. 147 148 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. C' trusts that the same will come as the judge of all; in which [church] both the remission of sins and the resurrection of "the flesh is preached."I The reader will observe the distinc- tion here made between the fundamental faith of the Church, and the privileges promised by the ministers of the Church to that faith; and that the fundamental faith is a belief in the Father, Son, and Spirit, in their revealed nature and acts. A still more remarkable passage occurs in the Acts of the Council of Nice. A philosopher disputing with the bishops and others at Nice, previous to the meeting of the Council, was encountered by an aged and unlearned confessor, not with argument, but with a simple declaration of "the doctrines of the truth,"~ which he gave in the following words:-" There is one God, who, having made the heaven and the earth and the Cc sea, and all things that are in them, and having formed man "out of the earth, sustained all things by his word and Holy Spirit. This Word, 0 philosopher, knowing him to be the Son of God, we adore, believing that for our redemption he "took flesh of a virgin, and was born and made man; and that by the sufferings of his flesh upon the cross, and his death, he " rescued us from eternal condemnation, and by his resurrection " obtained for us eternal life ; who, having returned to heaven, Cwill, we expect, come again, and be judge of all those things "iwhich we have done." The philosopher, upon being asked by the confessor whether lie believed these things, replied in the affirmative ; upon which " the old man said to him, If thou believest that these "things are so, arise, follow me, let us hasten to the Church, "in which thou mayest receive the seal of this faith ;" and the philosopher arose, followed him, and was 11baptized and united I Al his, iInqlun. m, nibus fide lis dechinet auditus ; sanctaum vero Ecdle im telyea,q ~ cc I ii Ptrei on r niotent >n,eytigemutuinhhi um juseun Cliristui I liomiu m nostrm, et Spiritui Sanctum erneordi et cnsna substantihe ratione "protltetur, tiliumque Dl natui nex virgine , et las am pro salute humnans, et re- CWT(l VOLLY TvrYXdiVE L, KarT& , ETOy -W Twy7POELPIAEVWV i7"vX ptcrUrTv tWOLOV 011G.Cot"{,crnrnc t. "il Jo- harni. torn. ii. $ (6. Op. torn. iv. pp. 062. 2 T P yVJT b fvby aw 8sTOP A&~'ov yE'y0vbGL. lb. p. 62, and SeeWCp. (63. V31 232 ATRISTICAL TRADITION "Father and Son,"1 adding a charge against him of other errors. The same charge is brought by Photius against Theo- gnostus.2 Nor can Novatian be freed from the same error. For in his work on the Trinity, not only does he say, that "every spirit is a creature,"3 but he calls the Paraclete "inferior to Christ;" and when treating expressly, in the latter part of his treatise, 5 of the Holy Spirit, he never shows him to be God, or speaks of him as God, though he had before proved at large of the Father and the Son, that they are God; and towards the conclusion, affirming that the Father and Christ, though both God, are but one God, and rebutting the accusation he alleges to have been brought against him, that he thus made two Gods, he takes no notice of the Holy Spirit, nor joins him with Christ in the unity of the Godhead.6 These passages are referred to by Pamnelius, who was well able to pronounce judgment in such a ease, as showing the unorthodox character of his sentiments on this point; and one reason by which Pamelius attempts to account for his erroneous statements is, that "the Church" had not in his time defined the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity; an explanation which puts an end to the notion of the doctrinal definitions of " the Church" being drawn from the catholic consent of the early Fathers. And still further, this very treatise is said by Rufinus7 to have been circulated by the Macedonians, the deniers of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, as favourable to their cause. Of Lactantius, we are told by Jerome, that "in his writings, and especially in his letters to iDemnetrian, he altogether de- Y II~p2 gA TOL 'rot' flvuaTs ?wr r X~ak e vtKc Eo$it Sog aits, ',wo~4- $npdvau -i& p ctkar)T s roi flarpt)s Kcd Tiou t&wo'po',cx~i sn. PiloT. Iliblioth. Art. 119. col. 300. ed. 1653. 11b. Art. 106. col. 280. " "Ournis Spiritus creatu ra est." NOVATIAN. De Trio. e. 7. ad fin. 01p. Tertull. ed. 1064; or, ed. Patnel. Col. Agr. 1617. fol. #" Minor Christo ParaCdetus." c. 241. ib. ~Se c. 29. 6Ste . 30. 7 ,Apol. pro Orig. Inter Opp. Orig. ed. Pien, torn. iv. App. p. 53. 232 NO DIVINE INFORMANT.23 nies the entity of the Holy Spirit, and by a Jewish error says, " that he is to be referred either to the Father or the Son, and "that the holiness of each person is pointed out under his "cname."1 And, lastly, the same Father, -Jerome, tells us, "Many THIROUTGH IGNORANCE OF TIRE SCRIPTURES assert, (as also Fir- mianus does in the eighth book of his Letters to IDemetrian,) that the Father and Son are often called Holy Spirit. And while we ought clearly to believe in a Trinity, they, taking away the third Person, imagine it to be not a hypostasis of the Trinity, but a name."' And if we include Eusebius (whose orthodoxy is stoutly con- tended for by sonmc) among these Fathers, we shall find in his writing;s a passage precisely similar to that of Origen. lie tells its, that the Holy Spirit is " one of those things that were made by the Son, for 'all things were made by him, "' and he adds, that this is the doctrine of " the Catholic and holy C/urch." 3 Further, as to any notion of the correct orthodox doctrine having been handed down to posterity by the Catholic Fathers of this period, as a body, it is summarily overthrown by Basil, who denies that there was any such delivery of it to be found in the writings of those Fathers even in his time. For he says, that the question respecting the Holy Spirit hzaving1 been passed over in silence by the antients [i. e. comparatively, for there were some exceptions], through its not having been op~posed, 1"Lacetantius in libris suis et xmaximec in Epistolis ad Denletrianuxn Spirtus Sancti oinnino negat substantiain, et errore Judy iieo dicit, curn vel ad Patreni referri vel Filinnn, et sanntilicationein uti'iusqne Persona )subl)c(j)Us Wolnille dennonstrnri." 11IxUNi. Ep. ad Painmacth. et Ocean. � 7. Ep. 84. ed. Vallars. (41. lien.; 65. al.) 2 "Multi per imperitiain Seripturariun (quod et Fininianus in octavo ad l)einw. trianuin Epistolaruin libro facit) asserunt, Spiriturn Sanctum swepe Patrem sflp) Filinrn )ninari. Et juum perspicuc in rrrinitate crednainus, tertiain Iersonman auferentes non suhstantiain ;~us volunt esse, sod nomen." In). In Ep. ad GIal. lib,. ii in c. 4. ver. 6. Op. ed. Vallars. Yen. tern. vii. col. 450. 3 Tci S wapliKMllrov Hi'si a, of'i* 0s4~, Of;'re T'kds' is p j ?K 'roil fla'rpis to(ws 'ri Tlw Kad hia'TJ 'rlis' y vE(rtW l~ppv'Eu 8~ 1 T -w-&' ' To y TORJ 7f'0/4'C..V TV) X'iv"', 6'rt N hI&Ta at' cdrroi 4i'e'o, KUal Xw'ps anny74 ,E-ro o W *'. Taikra iv oitV r Ka~oAucr sal &ytas 'EKKAlo'tas &8d'ri tc & T'vedo','s4asd'v apaat&'ras re sorrpuz. Ersas. lDe Eccles. Theolog. lib. iii. c.G6. ad fin. De)CnslbtI. Evangel. Col. 1588. P. 175. 233 24PAT~ISTICAL TRADITION was left uneplained, and therefore that he would proceed to discuss it agreeably to the mind of Scripture;' and though he here says, that it was passed over in silence through its not having baecn opposed, this is in contradiction to his own testi- nony elsewhere, for he has accused Origen,' (if, at least, the latter part of the book on the Holy Spirit is his,) and certainly IJionysius of Alexandria,," of having in their writings delivered unorthodox doctrine respecting the Holy Ghost; and hence it was, probably, viz, from the neglect of the early Fathers on this point, that, in the time of Basil, the opponents of the orthodox doctrine accused the Catholics of introducing novel doctrine when they insisted on the divinity of the Hly Spirit. Further, as it respects the full orthodox doctrine of the dlivinity and generation of Christ, have we such consent? I admit with thankfulness, that against the Socinians the testi- mony of those that remain to us of the Catholic Fathers is, if we take their works, as they ought to be taken, as a whole, una- ninous. But that their witness is one whit stronger or more 'ecise than that of several passages of Scripture, and upon which by the way their testimony seems to be grounded, I utterly deny. But have we such testimony for the full orthodox doc- trine on this poiut ? Let us inquire. I begin with Tatian, whose '"Oration against the Greeks" w~xas written before his defection to the heresy of Valentinus. Ile speaks thits ;- God] was in the beginning ; but the begin- ning we have understood to be the power of reason. For the "Lord of the Universe being himself the subsistence of all cc tiings,' was, as it respects the non-existence of creation at that time, alone. Biut inasmuch as he was all Power, and was himself the subsistence of all things visible and invisible, with I 'EraB 1 6P1/V &vWCUr4aCv '"'pa T~ C&lV ltvcro &L ?XELpolIVWV C raga, ipesnww'qO v Tff'ruZAadt, &S iOrd&v a3S,rrOV, &&Stppa rov KccrsAs~~fl n(x4yw * Te(1cp wfp)oi trydov Hvsi zros) port'nsM sToM 71'spl Tothrou ?./yov, &xoAoi Ows rTV-'n rp$ 4 lvoL9. IAst. C35A. Ep. 159. Cep. tori. iii. p. 2-18. 2 De Spir. Stnet, c. 29.� 73. tor. ill. pp. 01, 2. 3 kip. 9. tom. iii. p. 91. See the passage pp. 265, 0, below. {See� 7 of this chapter, below. 5 As Tertullian s ay s, Ipse sibi et mumdus et locus et oonnia.." 234 NO DIVINE INFORMANT.23 "him were all things ; for with him, through hIis power of reason, "the Word himself also who was in him subsisted. But by "r 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 beginning of the world. But he [the Word] was produced "by distribution not abscission. For that which is cut off is separated and taken awvay from the first ; but that which arises by distribution, having assumed an aeconomical con- dition, does not leave that from which it is taken destitute of it. For as from one torch many flames are produced, but the light of the first torch is not lessened by the ignition of "many torches, thus also the 'Word having comec 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 moy word through the transmission of it." Here the Wcord seems clearly represented to have been produced but just before the creation of the world, as a personal agent, or a Sorn, and before his birth for the formation of the world to have existed only in the reason of the Father. This is a doc- trine which several of the early Fathers whose writings remain to us have delivered, and particularly T1ertullian, as we shall see presently. But it is certainly 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 28eas ijv b &p , 'r'jv 8F &py),v Ad7ou &Sz'a~twv apEsA? ~caiEV. '0 yap 8E'r'r7)s rw xwv gis rds(i'.Xwiv 'iou 'ii7rad 6 '1 i r1'rtsL, Kara'& tv 'rhv Ao16w 7Eyf- v'))ttvifv Troti)cTL ,.uvos is'. Kath 5 'iroa 6ai'cqus, 6parciv T'if 2&opdrcv c &rhr -rcwiaa-s 7 v, ovv avr4 r& irclv'a, (obs cdnj yap) t AOyLK9)s u &tJ'MWS, acdris ,c 6 A6'}os a s &voi'r4,TQ tr)o fE. 0eX1liarL 8 rijs &&7'rov croi i7rpomrn&S Adyos. 6 N A&dofot' KO'a& ,m'oi cwpiaas, (pyov 7rpw'i'&rV oi' i7'rarpb )dvecrat. Tot-rop ra-1s~y rA KJo t OU Tbv pxv.rd)ovE b+ Ka7& 5tow~Tv, oh ,a'r& &wrocow$v. Tbi -y&p &iioiT'ijOCv 'rot 1ipCa'YIOtJ KEX o-ao"raL' 'i 8 t p(T843' ObKOvot 'sT~jV CZ'pf OW 71pOtT- Aa$4 O ?'8tTbv UEV dI 7il~t7E71'OLVJKEV. wO'7rep yap &r ta /Lat500005 WlI'1'faS /Ltv wup& ,roAA c, Ts' 1 rp wrrts 5obs 81& 'rjv ta4 r v oXAci-v 8a~cwv otK Acsr- To'Tot T'rt 4wS' ovfrw iKcd 6 ASyos wposA~wv tK T 7' Ou 7rtipbs 8vd/ws, 06K Xo'yov 7r'E#oI7)KE bo'7EfVV7K&0. Kol y,&p oku'bs ?y AaA&, KlZ(&E 45 &KOt'E7E, KlOffo, a'4wou $tL it je/Aa3caews "01' XdyOU KEM )s 6 ,rpocroytAcw' Adyou ",4voias. TATIA '. 235 236 PATRISTICAL TRADITION "the firstborn work of the Father," and that the distribution (to use his own word) of the Godhead into three Persons was an aeconomical state of the Godhead; on which matter we shall have some further remarks to make when we come to consider the testimony of Tertullian.1 The same doctrine is delivered by Athenagoras, who says of "the Son," that "he is the first-born of the Father, nut as a " created being, (for, from the beginning, God-being an eternal "mind-had the Word (or Reason) in himself, being endued with " reason from eternity,) but as having come forth to be the form "and energy of all material things," &c.' 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. 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." 4 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 lace ,of his rest. But his Word, by whom "rhe made all things, being his power and wisdom, assuming "the appearance of the Father and Lord of the Universe, was (Contr. OCrie. .grat. � 5.-Inter Oip. Just. Mart. c. ed. lien. Paris. 1742. pp. 247, 8. The words iw cat~riyap are put by the Benedictine editors within brackets as of doubtful authority, hut without any sufficient ground. 1 have interpreted Mdyos, in the first place iu which it occurs, reason, for which rendering see the observa- tions on 'rertuliui. 1 In connexion with these remarks, see the dissertation on Tatian at the end of Worth's edition. See also Cave, Hlt. Lit, under the name Ta/ian. I fpar rov 7y5'17,La q~va t 'rfiwrp2, ~c r y 6dss'ov (Ji pX73jisyap 6 0sbs, sour &ta&os &Y,. dXsi'yras ? v arec '-6p Adyov, i5tws Xoyurcds &') &AA' c*s rciv $Auxcis' 'upi47rrw .. .. 18&cs KCl ?Mpyics dvait poeAcs v. ATHENAcs. Leg. pro Christianis, � 10.-Iit r Op. Just. Mart. &c. ed. Ben. p. 287. $'Er w v6 vas Toy 1ov0ft, AI$75 o T, flcrpdis ?v LaE IC xd Jvepyshg. 4 'E~XWV o~rs 6 &bs 'rio' icwroi Adhoy 6'8srcw6ro tv 0s &'os Ad yyvoas, +Jy4. s', oqv ausrbv pLE1.& Trs 4avro& ooi css Jcspsvjc4&svos wpr rcTwv 8Acv. Tou'rov Tbv Ad- yov eX V6"rop'y4 rwrv i-'~ ou y7yf7sv/A4'wvseal eai arou r wrrca I-evoh7KS v. Tuxorn. AriTrocu Ad Autol. lib. ii. � 10.--Inter Op. Just. Mart. &c. ed. Ben. p. 355. 236 NO DIVINE INFORMANT.23 " present in Paradise 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 mythologists 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 a produced WV ord, born before the whole creation ; not being himself rendered destitute of his Word, but, after having generated the Nord, being still always in communion with his 'Word."'I Here again it can hardly be maintained, that the Ao'yos Ev~tlOEro4, 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 generation of the Ao'yos 1pocoptx~s, the WNord put forth as a personal agent, is traced to a voluntary act of the Father, taking p~lace 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 generation of the Word as a Word put forth as a personal agent, or as a Soni, is represented as an act of the Father's will, contingent upon his conceiving the purpose of creating the world.' '4 0 6~~/ES KalZ)Ia73p wvIP A w""'X'p'1yds TrTKL 01 ' Tcp 06Xo E prKs'raL. ov. yap Jon T'diros r-r Ka Talravc.15 co'roi, '0 8' Adyor a"noit' ou ,&,rS'Ta ireTrot7pce, 8i4vauts &v Kacrcl4ta cdn-oi, &vaXap0dvwv Tb irpdcwrop TOP flairpbas al JKvplov rwZo' Aan', otrror TrapEyltETO EIS Tay irapdEswcov 6' 7rpoc.dr rQ 'ou eou, cai C~h V AL7A&(l . xal yap C&r e 86a ypa~i o~i 9a~curKt r1a5 apA&s Ayovra, T-77 cpwv7js&K71KOFar ue 4 w E il b x6i rwl, 'izAK 6 A4yos 6ArTau eov, 8s5 6rrsKai i6 CUTO,,. O&x ,s O(75OL 101T0. Ka~li WOypS4)0L Xeyouv vtobs 0ee ' Sc ovvouoias yFVs'v,ivt AA& cus &A?7OELZ Sine rat, Top A6yo701'6vTap 8 airav'r6s 6'v&d4s'rov iv Kap~t9 Of ov. flp6 yap 'ri ytvfaOa&, Tovrov e( se ou~o, ia, pov 'ov ical .ppr'170'6PTa. 'o rdTE 58 1OE'6AWTErv 6 0E6s woLnooj 5tC( iovs6OVdRa'o, rT/roy Tal A6-yov S4Mv77(fE Ipo4WopLK6U, TpwTdTOKOY 140775 KTITECVS, ?'KEYWOdS Ca6Ta OPe Adyov, &AA& Adyov 'ysvra~s, Kcai Tyr Adycp curoS 8uztrwTas 6~sAiv. II'. � 22. p. 365. 2 That these statements are Platonic rather than Christian, is allowed by Le Quen and Liumper., e Lump. list. Crit. Patr. vol. 3. pp. 170, et seq. 237 238 PATIIISTICAL TRADITION A similar non-eternal generation of the Word is also asserted by Iippolytus, and in terms which seem clearly to indicate, that, before that generation, he had not a distinct and personl existence. For, after speaking of the generation of the Word for the purposes of creation, 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."' It is quite true, that Bishop Bull has attempted so to inter- pret these statements as to reconcile them with the orthodox doctrine. But even supposing that his interpretation of them is the rigt one, it does not appear to vindicate their orthodoxy. In whichever way we understand them, they appear to mncto be irreconcileable with the orthodox(doctrine. For if, as some think, and as the expressions used would certainly lead me to conclude, these Fathers held, that the Word or Son did not exist as a .Person, until the generation of which they here sp"eak, which is unquestionably a generation at a particular time for the purposc of creation, they certainly spoke contrary to the generally-received orthodox doctrine. But if, on the other hand, they intended by these statements, as Bishop Bull supposes, to intimate the existence of the Word as a Person in the Father, before the generation of which they here speak, then their statements amount to a maintenance of the doctrine of an oriyinial and essential plurality of persons in the Godhead, which is equally unorthodox, 2 For they say, that the Word or Reason (Xo'yos) was always in the Father, because the Father was always endued wvith reason (oyKtev), and as being his "mind and intelligence." Now the Divine Being was origi"- nally and essentially endued with reason (XoyrKv) ; and hence, 1 Kal o rs CS rapLUrraro aCU)Tr9r &por. "E~rfpoP Aiywv, o OVo c A 7ws, &AA' w, s w$ K 4 wr4 , K. -r. A. litrroL. Contr. Nodt.� 11. Op. (A. Fabric. Hanib. 1716, 18. tonm. 2. p) 13. 2 " There can be hut one Person originally of himself subsisting in that infinite �Being., because a plurality of more persons so subsisting would necessarily infer a �multiplicity of god.... Wherefore it necessarily followeth, that Jlesus Christ, who is certainly not the Father, cannot be a Person subsisting in the Divine nature originally of himself." PEAutsoN, Expos. of Creed, pp. 203, 4. ed. IDobson. 230 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. according to these authors, the Word or Reason was originally and essentially in the Father. If, therefore, we suppose, that they meant that the Word (Aoyo) existing thus originally and essentially in the Father was a Person, their language implies, that there is an original and essential plurality of persons in the Godhead. There is nothing in these statements to bear out the ingenious fiction of Bishop Bull, that by the generation of which they speak, their authors meant a figurative or metapho- rical generation succeeding to a prior and eternal generation. Nay, on the contrary, they speak of this generation as that by which the Son beclme the first-begotten of the Father. Con- sequently, if he existed as a Person in the Father before this, he existed, not as orie generated of the Father, but as one origi- nally existing as a Second Person in the Godhead; and thus as being, equally with the Father, underived and without a begin- ning. Let us compare with them the language of Justin Martyr. IIe says that "before all created things, God begot a certain rational power (bvvarct AoytKI) of himself,"' which he proceeds to say is called by the various names of the Son, the Word, &c. This generation of tle Son is evidently the same as that spoken of by the authors we have just quoted; and is clearly no figu- rative or metaphorical generation, but the generation of the Son, which is here described (as it appears to me) as a putting forth of that "rational power" that always existed in the Father, as a personal agent; for if this rational power, as it previously existed in the Father, was a personal agent, then there was an essential plurality of p)ersons in the Godhead; and the Second Person was essentially and originally, and not by generation, in the Godhead; which is contrary to the orthodox doctrine: for though the essence of the Son existed originally in the Father, and was not begotten of him, the person of the Son was begotten of the Father. Nay, more; I would put it to the reader, whether the lan- guage of these writers is not such as clearly to show, that they considered the generation of which they here speak, to be the donation of personality (if I may so say) to the Word by the ' Dial. cum Tryph. � 61. p. 157. ed. Ben. 239 240 PATISTICAL TRADITION Father, particularly that of Iippolytus. And their idea seems to have been, that the putting forth of the Father's reason as a personal agent, was like a lighted torch igniting another; which act of ignition does not diminish the light of the first torch, but is, as it were, an extension or distribution of the original flame; and so the rational power of the Father was not diminished by this distribution of it. Nor is the argument of Bishop Bull against this, derived from their speaking of the Word as having been always in the Father, of any avail; because their words may apply to the essence, and not the person; and when they say, that the word or reason, (Aoyos,) was always in the Father, lecause the Father was always and originally rational,(AoyLKs,) it seems clear that they were intended to be so applied. And it is undeniable that such expressions were used in that sense; as, for instance, by Paul of Samnosata, who, as Dr. Burton tells us, "believed the Logos to be God, and to reside in the Father, hut not to " have a separate existence." Nay, Dr. Burton, speaking of these very writers, tells us,2 that they borrowed their notions from the Platonizing Jews of Alexandria, who, as he says, "had " learned almost to personify the mind or 'eason of God, as may " be seen in the works of Philo Judaus;" while "it may be " demonstrated, that these Alexandrian Jews did not really mean "to speak of XWisdom, or the Reason of God, as distinctly ex- " isting Persons ;" and the cautions which Dr. Burton seems to think are given by these writers against a Platonic application of the terms, I am unable to find ; but, on the contrary, their words seem to me clearly to show, that they held that there was no Second Person, till the generation of which they here speak. When, therefore, Hlippolytus calls the Son " co-eternal with the Fathers" r y ilarpt orva bos', there can be no doubt, that, with his views, he is speaking with reference to His essence ; for I Testim. of Ante-Nic. Fathers to Div. of Christ. 2d eed. p. 398. sTestimu. of Ante-Nic. Fathers to Trin. p. 30. 3 Demuonstr. contr. JTud. c. 7. Op. vol. 2. P. 4. The work " De consummnatione inundi et de Antichristo," from which Bishop Bull gives an extract, in which Christ is spoken of (� 43) as ovsScvap~os r4 fIlarpl, is now by almost universal con- sernt adjudged spurious. See HirroL. Opel. Fabric. vol. 1. App. pp. 3, 4; where also the work is to he found, pp. 4-29. 240 NO DIVINE INFORMANT.24 otherwise he would contradict himself. It is, in fact, language of the same purport as that which is used by those we have already quoted, when the Word or Reason is said to have been always in the Father, because the Father was always endued with reason (XoytKcs). Let it not be replied, that it would have been absurd to have used the words in that sense, because it is undeniable that such language was used in that sense. Nay, similar language was used, even where it was held that there was a time when the Son was only potentially in the Father. Thus Eusebius says,-" Moreover it was judged not improper that the saying that he was not before he was begotten, should " be anathematized; seeing it was confessed by all, that he was "the Son of God, even before his generation according to the "flesh. And further, our emperor, beloved of God, argued " that he was before all ages, even with respect to his Divine "generation; since even before he was actually beotten, he was "potentially in the Father without generation; the Father being "always Father, as also always King and Saviour, and poten- "tially being all things, both always and in the same manner, and continuing unchanged."' This passage is, as might be expected from its author, evasive and unorthodox, and in such a case, where a single word makes all the difference, we may reasonably hesitate to receive this report of Constantine's opinions as one altogether trustworthy. 2 But be that as it may, the statement shows, that the co-eternity may be held in words, where the sense in which it is held is anything but orthodox. For God is here held to have been always a Father, only in the same way that he was everything else, that is, potentially, which strikes at the foundation of the I 'ETC/4*fl' rb AvaOs~n pcrrfaeoTu 'rpb roG 'yeY~va'ifasothiv, otls & 6iovv&So. zi' 8nr iapck warw 6~osio ~Oat, sh'at czirbv '5Lbv ou eeoi Kai rpb r 77s Kwr& cflipKcL yPvv1 TEwe$. VHS?? 5b 6 o fO"ETaiOS ? W cwi AaCs .T'r4XSf97 lK O~Ea f, Ical Kara 7# 6'Oov a&rrUU ytvaoiouv rb ipb 7ivrwv cdovwv EbuZL ad,6v. swei Kcd wph, 4vspysLg yevinOflvaz, vvci j v 4' r p l &yv'frcs, 6s'ios 'ron Thvrpbs &s) wcrrpbs, 6IS cal $OA LKEl~&, Kai O'CIvTzpOS, Kal2 8uv4isuC7r6 Ta 4"roS &s re #cal ,ai& Td aura, ,Kal war vw xovros. Erm . Epist. ap. Theodoret. Just. Ecci. lib. i. c. 11. Op. tomn. Ii. pp. 781, 2. ed. Schulz. 2 See, as opposite testimony, Cox STAxNrz's Letter to Arnus, and his Letter to the Nicomedians against Eusebius and Theognis, in (IELAS. Cis. Ike Act. Cone. Nic. sub fin. ; ed. Lutet. 1599. pp. 203-24. VOL. I. R 241 242 PATRISTICAL TRADITION doctrine of the consubstantiality, as well as of the personal co- eternity. True it is, that there were others who used such terms to express the orthodox doctrine, and applied them to the Person of the Sorn,in order more effectually to refute the error of Anus, who said that there was a time when the Son was not. The sense, therefore, in which these terms were used by any parti- cular 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 Aris, 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 lini a Person originally self- existent in the Godhead, I and did not proceed from their denying his virtualco-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 those words, who did not mean to convey by them the idea of the Second Person in the Trinity being origi- nally in the Godhead, as an underived Person. Hence, perhaps, it was, that the Nicene or Constantinopolitan Creed says of the Son,-not that he is eternal, but only-that he was begotten of tihe Father before all worlds or ages (ip ir~vr ov rwv ale vcov wK ou 7rarpi's yEyEVv1 EVo1). 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, ~Xpovos. This the Arians themselves allowed.I Indeed, the very words of the Constantinopolitan Creed occur in a Creed given by Athanasius, as one of the numerous semiarian formuhte drawn up about the middle of the fourth century.3 But certainly, as lDr. 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 1 8e" ATUANAS. De Synod. � 26. Op. torn. i. P. 2. p. 739. ed. Boned. See ATUtAN AS D Sno. 1.tonm. i. P. 2. pp. 729, 30. 3See ATHUA As. De Syniod. � 27. oi.L P. 2. p. 742. 242 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 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 words co-eternal with the Father, though in reality holding the full orthodox faith; and, as it often hap- pens in such cases, the words are open to a lower sense.1 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, the generation or prolation of the Word as a personal agent, or a Son, taking place before any act of creation, but yet not from all eternity, and taking place for the purpose 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 communicate; " being always Father as always God." (On the Creed, p. 209. ed. Dobson.) It is quite true that it is not Sabellianism, because the Sabel- lians 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 held that the Word was without beginning, like the Father, and co-eternal with the Father, only because that reason or word, which the Father, when he pleased, put forth as a personal agent, was without be- ginning 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, would be, as it appears to me, 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 generation of the Son pre- cedently to the work of creation, they in effect made the Son I And in this lower sense they were used by the Arians. See ATHrANAs. DPe Synod � 16. tom. i. P. 2. pp. 729, 30; and HILAR. )De Trin. iv. � 12. col. 833. a2 243 244 PATRISTICAL TRADITION almost cowval with the Father.' And perhaps we should not be far from the truth in supposing 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 interpretation of their words, for the exposition of Bishop Bull seems to me to place them as far from orthodoxy on one side as that of Petavius on the other. The faet is, that, as it respects the original relation of the Second Person of the Trinity to the First, there was much diver- sity of opinion in the primitive Church. "It must be confessed," says Dr. Waterland, "that the Catholics themselves were for " some time lretty much divided about the question of eternal "generation, though there was no question about the eternal "existence: Whether the Ao'yoc might be rightly said to be begot- ten in respect of the state which was antecedent to the 7rpokevorLs "was thepoint 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 Aoyos considered as such plainly was) may and ought to be styled Son and begotten; besides, the Arians had objected, that there would be two unbegotten Persons, if the A'yor ever existed and was not in the capacity of Son, and the Church had never "been used to the language of two unbegottens. These eon- "siderations, besides the testimonies of elder Fathers, who had " admitted eternal generation, weighed with the generality of " the Catholics, and so eternal generation came to be the mnore pre- "railing language, and has prevailed ever since. There is nothing "new in the doctrine more than this, the calling that eternal "generation which others would have styled the eternal ex- "istencc and relation of the Ao'yos' to the Father, which at length amounts only to a difference in words and names." 1 There are sonic ofsrvations of IIL uT' on this point in his Treatise on the Trinity, (lib 12. ��W-15. col. 1127-36. cad. Ben.) which are remarkable. iNatuin semper es, he says, "choceset, sensumi ternporn naseundo priccurrere, nnoquc intelli eniticepatere aliquando fuis se non natu m." (� 30.) " Ideirco nune Sapie ntia natani se antesarula docens anteriorem se non soluin his qua creata aunt docet, sod wteruis coatcraiam, preparatih-ni scilicet ecei et discrtioni sedis Dci.... I'crpot ua cniin et at sine reruns ereandariun est prceparatio." (�� 39,40.) Omnis kaen. yrppratio Leo estet octer na." (� 40.) " Ubi ante s:cuum est niativitas, inlinitir gencrtionis aeternita est." (� 45.) see also CYRILI. ALRax. Thaesaur. e. 11. )lp. Toni. 6, Port. I. p. 87. 244 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. (Waterland's Second Defence, Works, vol. iii. p. 296.) Now in this passage (which appears to me altogether a most extra- ordinary one) it is distinctly admitted, that there was no catholic consent on the important point, whether the Second Person of the Sacred Trinity was begotten of the Father, but that some contended for his not being originally begotten. And it is added, out of a desire to spare the Fathers, the prudence of which may well be doubted, that the difference was only a dif- ference in words and names ! And as to their alleged agreement as to the eternal existence, this is no proof that they were of one mind in the matter. For there are at least three opinions wrapped up in this phrase. One, of those who hold the virtual coeternity of the Son, as Son, with the Father; another, of those who speak of his eternal existence, because the reason or word, which became by the will of the Father a Person, existed always in the Father; another, of those who mean by his eternal existence, his having been generated only just before creation or time commenced. Nay, the phrase might be even used by those who consider him to have originally existed only potentially in the Father before his generation for the work of creation, as in the passage already quoted from Eusebius. For the orthodox doctrine I would refer more particularly, among the writers of this period, to Dionysius of Alexandria, who seems to me to have given, in a passage quoted by Athanasius, (however he may have expressed himself elsewhere) the best and clearest statement of it; and such is the opinion of Athanasius, to whom chiefly we are indebted for the fragments that remain of this author, and from whom I extract the following passage:- " He [i. e. Dionysius] after other remarks writes thus:- "' There never was a time when God was not a Father.' And this "he acknowledges in what follows,-' that Christ always existed, "being reason and wisdom and power; for it was not the case " that God, being barren of these, afterwards produced a Son, "but he is called a Son because he is not self-existent, but has "his being from the Father.' And shortly after he says again " concerning the same matter :-' But being the effulgence of "eternal light, he is himself also altogether eternal; for the 245 246 PATRISTICAL TRADITION "rlight existing always, it is manifest that the effulgence always exists ; for in this it is known that it is light, namely in its "shining, and light cannot but be effulgent. For let us come "again to examples ; if there is the Sun, there is light, there is day ; if there is neither of these, the Sun also must be far "absent. If, therefore, the Sun was eternal, the day also would "have no end. But now, this not being the case, when the "Sun begins, the day begins, and when the Sun ceases, the day "ceases. But God is eternal light, that never had a beginning, " and will never have an end. Therefore the effulgence is eter- "nally manifested and present with him, without beginning, and " eternally generated.'.... And again,.... ' Therefore the Father being eternal, the Son is eternal, being light of light. For where there is a parent, there is also a child ; and if there were rno child, how and of whom could lhe be a parent? But both " exist, and exist always.'. .. . And again he says :-' But the Son "alone always co-existing with the Father, and filled with him "who exists essentially, exists also himself essentially, being of "the Father.' ) The difference between these passages and those which we have just been considering, is apparent. Ilere the generation of the Son as Son, and a Person, is made virtually coeval with the existence of the Father; and his virtual coeternity with the Father is grounded upon his eternal generation, whereas the writers above quoted place his generation just previous to the work of creation ; and though they speak of a previous exis- t p E O d' fpa, Orr.ws Ot) ydp J1PSee 6 6 uot K 3i rp.Kal roiro OThE v p ms s,6.1elrbv XptucrTbM dvc, Kdyov dva i cdo�ptcw ial6tva~tw ot" 'yap 8h roarrwv &yovos cv 6 8dbs .1rc f .raczsrooilo aro, 'aAA~ ' t rcq? & lunoi6 uibs, &AA~ ' icrod flarpbs IX" Tb e1yar.Ka /hAr 6Afyca wd w irpl i-oil c,4,,o' &waai~ycw/~a S6 v 4bc s &tou, dwdcs Icel czrbs 6"ud Trt. Ev~rosyl I, roan Oarbs, 87 Aov 01$ to-rip &.l Tb l&!5'yacW~aUCI tOrl.1 'yap KDCCII &s s$ortTL 191KaITCV- iC vo.iras, cl 4 s oti 6i'va'rcu d14 c.ri~'ov dvcm. wc(Av yea p lAw ev MJl 6W"p- $eL-y~ara. Ef~t taryf'Aios, toW a7, go rtW )/L'aElC. 1rooL0&01v $?1E'v ' o M A Ee i al iap.g 'at * Xww .1Et 4v olv &tSor6 4Xos, &TiIJuoTGo$ &~?v DCI ,ca l pa. vv 84, Ob y )~p io'TLv, &p4LZ/LvoVTr, ptaro, DCl I aiiop4vou, TCraSTCIL.6 84 -ye 0.bs cvvudv JoitT neat, o06r44P LvOV t X7?AtSv 7C0'E. OJKOL.V 02CeviL0Y Wp4KC.LICI, sICl Dt4rEOTV avng4 rb CircIa o~u4 &VOewp~ov ,cal &EL7ED4s .... Ka, a? 8s .... 5vros oiuv cd1vto,, roi Tlarpbs, atcwi'aos 6 vids aort, 41&r 4ic 1rrbr &rv 6vros 'yelp yov4ws, &crnucsal r cvou'. (1 S & TICJPh ov Er,, wc-s sal 'Divost tlat 8Iuva'ratyove6s; AA' .*rh' 41410, sKal i fhTy A(..Ka . wtrcval- rI dvos Si 6 uvas 6.l ovvabv rqi la'rpl, iccal roi 61ros WM'7poLS,..vos, DCalI CLrDsi6S uC1, 6&Y kC O IICDapLs. ATJIEA~S. De Sentent. Dionys. J 16. Op. tomn. i. Pp. 253, 4. 246 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. tence, they ground that existence only upon the Father's having always been endued with reason, to which reason he gave, when he conceived the purpose of creation, a personal existence. And we are warned by Dionysius against conceiving of this genera- tion as if any time had elapsed before God became a Father; and taught that by generation is meant, that the Second Person of the Trinity was existent by derivation from the first, and derived only as the light is derived from the Sun, so that as the Sun and light are coexistent, so also are the Father and Son. It is true that the same metaphor is used by the writers of whom we have spoken before, but it is not similarly applied, for Dionysius illustrates the generation of the Son by it with refer- ence to the time of that generation (which is the point now in question), whereas both Bishop Bull and Dr. Waterland allow, that the generation of which those writers speak was a temporal generation for the purpose of creation; and that generation those writers identify with the donation of personality to the Son, and his becoming a Son; and they apply this metaphor only to show the intimate connexion between the Father and Son upon that generation; and that, notwithstanding they were called Father and Son as distinct Persons, they were not more separated than a ray of the Sun is from the Sun. As Hippo- lytus, after speaking of the temporal generation, says, "And " thus there was present to him [i. c. 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." (See p. 238 above). This is a different application of the metaphor, or at least an application not equally comprehen- sive with that made by Dionysius, and not including the point now in question. The same application of it is made by Lac- tantius,1 who, as we shall hereafter show, did not hold the co- eternity of the Son with the Father. This passage of Dionysius is particularly valuable, because it is sufficiently full to render it impossible to explain it away. The incorrect use of orthodox terms makes it often impossible to rely upon the testimony of particular passages; for, to qualify them to be a proof, it is necessary to show, by some SLACTAr. Instit. lib. 4. c. 29. p. 230. ed. Cant. 1685. 247 PATRISTICAL TRADITION other passage of the same author, in what sense the terms used were employed, which it is not always possible to do. And herein lies one great difficulty in ascertaining with any certainty, and especially in proving to others, what were the sentiments of the Fathers. Not to say that there is every appearance with some of them of self-contradiction. It is unnecessary here to add further testimonies, because my object is only to show, that there was not an agreement in the Fathers of this period on the point. Moreover, there are others whose statements are still further removed from the orthodox doctrine respecting the Second Person in the Sacred Trinity. And first let us take Tertullian, with respect to whom it can- not be denied, that he has spoken in a way which it is impossi- ble completely to reconcile with the orthodox doctrine on this subject. For instance, he says that "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.' " No orthodox person will say that this is correct language. True, when we recollect that certain controversies had not been raised in the Church at this time, we may find an apology for it, but this is no help to the theory of our opponents. But there are still more objectionable passages. How, I would ask, are we to understand the following passage ? "God "is a Father, and God is a Judge, but iHe was not always a " Father and a Judge because always God. For he could " neither be a Father before there was a Son, nor a Judge " before there was an offence. But there was a time when there "was neither an offence nor a Son." 1 " Pater enimn tota substantia est; Filius vero derivatio totius et portio, sicut ipso profitetur, Quia Pater major me est." TZaTULL. Adv. Prax. c. ix. Op. p. 504. 2 "Et pater Deus est, et judex Deus est; non tanmen ideo pater et judex semper, quia Dens semper. Nani nec pater potuit esse miante filium, nee judex ante delic. tumn. Fuit autem tempus, cum et delictmn et filius non fuit." Adv. Henrmog. c. 3. p. 234. Bishop Bull's explanation of this may be seen in his Def. Fid. Nic. iii. 10. 2. et seq. He thinks that Tertullian spoke deceitfully, to answer the purpose of his argument, and used the word Son as applying only to that state which succeeded his coming forth from the Father for the creation of the world. But surely this is too much like special pleading. And even were it so, it is destructive of our opponents' notions, if the Fathers would thus speak deceitfully 248 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. At the same time it would be doing an injustice to him not to state what his views are on this point, more fully than this negative statement conveys them to us, as they are not properly Arian, though far from orthodox. Thus, then, he speaks on this matter in his Treatise against Praxeas. "That this cannot be true, I am led to think by other argu- "ments derived from the very constitution of the Godhead as it " existed before the world up to the generation of the Son.' For " before all things God was alone, his own world and place and "everything. But alone, because besides him nothing else " existed out of him. But he was not even then alone, for he " had with him that which he had in himself, that is his reason. " For God is rational (rationalis), and reason is in him at first, " and thus from him are all things. Which reason is his intel- " ligence (sensus). This the Greeks call Xo'yos, which we express " also by sermo. And consequently it is usual with us, by a " translation not altogether accurate, to say that the Word (ser- " monem) was in the beginning with God, when it is more " accordant with the real state of the case, that reason (rationem) "should be considered more antient (antiquiorem) ; because " God had not a Word (non sermonalis) from the beginning, " but God had reason even before the beginning; and because " the very Word itself consisting of reason, exhibits that pre- "existent (priorem) reason as its substance. Yet even so it " makes no difference. For although God had not yet sent "forth his Word, he nevertheless had it with and in his own "reason within himself, by tacitly thinking and contriving with "himself those things which he was shortly about to give utter- "ance to by the Word. For, thinking and contriving with his "reason, he made that reason his Word, which by his Word he "made use of." He then proceeds to illustrate this by referring to the example of man, in whom, he says, the word thought is in a manner a second entity within him, and the word itself, for the sake of their argument; which, however, after the ingenuous confessions of Jerome, I will not deny that they sometimes did. I " Hoe ut firmum non sit, alia me argumentas deducunt ab ipsa )Dei disposi. tione, qua fuit ante mundi constitutionem, adusque fllii generationem." Adv. Prax. c. 5. p. 502. 249 250 PATRISTICAL TRADITION when uttered, a different entity from him.' And he adds, " How much more fully, then, does this take place in God, of " whom you also are considered the image and similitude, that "he should have reason in himself even when silent, and in "reason a word (sermonem)? I might, therefore, not incor- "rectly have laid it down, that God, even then before the for- "mation of the universe, was not alone, having in himself "reason, and in reason a word which he might make second from "himself by causing them to act one upon the other.2 This power "and this distribution (dispositio) of the Divine intelligence "is also spoken of in Scripture by the name of Wisdom. For "what is wiser than the reason or word of God? Hear, there- "fore, Wisdom speaking as one who was made the Second Person. First, 'The Lord created me the beginning of his ways towards "his works, before he made the earth, before the mountains were placed ; before all the hills he begot me; "ing and begetting in his own intelligence. Then take notice "of Wisdom standing by at the moment of separation (assis- "tentem ipsa scparatione3), 'When, saith Wisdom, he was pre- " paring the heavens, I was present with him,' &c. For when "God desired to give their form and substance to those things " which with the reason and word of wisdom he had contrived "within himself, he first produced (protulit) the Word itself, "having in itself its component parts, reason and wisdom, that "all things might be made by that by which they were thought "tout and contrived, aye and already made as far as they could "be in the Divine intelligence. For this was wanting to them, "that they should be openly recognised and possessed in their "forms and substances. Then, therefore, the Word itself also "(received its form and beauty, sound and speech, when God "saith, 'Let there be light.' This is the perfect nativity of the jWord as it proceeds from God ; being formed by him first for a" Secundus quodamnodo in to est sermno, per quen loqueris cogitando, et per quemi cogtos loquendo. Ipse scrino alias est." Adv. Prax. c. 5. p. 503. 2"In ratione ernioneni queue secunduin a se faceret aitendo intra se." Th. 'The word sq'paraio. if Tertullian's, must have been used hastily here by him, as in cc. 8, 9, he denies that there is any separatio between the Father and Son. He uses elsewhere the word preotatio in this connexion. The true reading here must, I think, be, pres parat io"e 4( "H~c eat nativitas perfecta sennonis, dunn ex Deo procedit." lb. c. 7. 250 NO DIVINE INFORLMANT.25 "thought in the name of wisdom, 'The Lord made me the "beginning of his ways;' then begotten to bring to pass the "purposed work (ad effectum), 'When he was preparing the heavens, I was present with hin.' " Again, when reasoning with Hermogenes against the eternity of matter, he says,-" Finally, when he [God] perceived wisdom " to be necessary for the works of the world, he immediately forms "and generates it in himself. 'The Lord, saith wisdom, made me the beginning of his ways,' &c. Therefore let Hermogenes " acknowledge, that the wisdom of God was therefore said to be "born and formed, lest we should believe anything to be with- out generation or creation but God alone. For if within the " Lord that which was from him and in him, was not without beginning, namely, his wisdom, which was born and made from the time from which it began to be roused in the intelligence of " God to arrange the works of the world; much more is it im- " possible for anything to have been without a beginning which was out of the Lord."2 Mere, then, it appears, that Tertullian, though he denied the eternal generation of the Word or Son, even in his character as Wisdom, entertained the notion of the Word having been as it were in an embryo state of existence in the Father, that is, in his reason, before his generation. But then this is, in fact, merely the existence of the essence, not the existence of the Son as a Person. For if the Son did not exist as Son, he did not exist as a Person, for the Second Person in the Trinity exists by generation from the Father, and is a Son as soon as he is a Person. Indeed it is evident, from other passages, that Tertulhiati 1Adv. Prax. cc. 5+--7. pp. 502, 3. 2 " Deniquc ut necessarianm [i. e. S ophiatn] sensit ad opera mundi, statimnc [earn] condit et generat in seinetipso. D)ominus, inquit, condidit me initiurn viariun .suarumn in opera susa; ante seenla fundavit mc, pries quamn faceret terrain ; prius quam miontes collocrentur ; ante omnes autem colles generavit me; prior autem abysso genita sumn. Agnoscat ergo liermogenes ideirco etiamn Sophiamn Dci natam et conditam priedicari, ne quid innatumn et inconditumn pra ter solumInleumn crederemius. Si enimn intra Doxinum quad ex ipso et in ipso fuit, sine initin non fit : Sophia scilicet ipsius, exinde nata et condita ex quo in tse D.,ei ad opera mendi dispoaetida caipit agitari : nulto inagis non capit sine initio qiucquaiii fuisse quod extra Domiinum fuerit." Adv. ilerniog. c. 18. p. 239. 251 252 PATRISTICAL TRADITION considered personality to commence upon the generation of the Son. Thus he says:-"rEverything which proceeds from any. " thing is necessarily the second of that from which it proceeds, "but is not therefore separated. But where there is a second, "there arc two, and where there is a third, there are three; for " the third is the Spirit from God and the Son."' And again he says elsewhere, "We assert two, Father and Son, and now " three with the Holy Spirit, according to the ratio of the nco- "nomy, which makes a plurality of persons."1 This last passage reminds me of the observation previously made respecting the third summary of the faith given by Ter- tullian, where, as it appeared to me, there was a recognition of the notion that formed the heresy of Marcellus, viz, that the tripersonality of the Godhead, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, was only a dispensational or ceconomical and temporary mode of existence of the Godhead, for it was the notion of Marcellus that the Godhead was extended and contracted according to different dispensations (olKovoas. Had the passage in that summary stood alone, one might have been contented to affix a different idea to the words, but in this passage there is clearly a similar statement. And in the following the notion is still more fully expressed. "Observe, therefore, lest you rather "destroy the monarchy [of God], who overturn its arrangement "and dispensation, appointed in as many names as God pleased. " But it so far remains in its oum state, though a Trinity be " introduced, that it even has to be restored to the Father by "the Son ; as the Apostle writes concerning the last end, "'when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God even "tthe Father,' "3 Here he evidently supposes, that there might I " Ouue quod prodlit ex aliquo, secunduin sit ejus necesse eat, de quo prodit, non ideo tamnen est separaturn. Secundus autemn ubi est, duo sunt. Et tertius ubi + t, treessunt. Tertius enim est Spiritus a 1)eo et Fijio. " Adv. Prax. c. 8. p. 6. " cDuos quidemn deflninus, Patrem et P11mmu, et jam troy cumn Spiritu Sncto, secundum rationem aeconomis , qua facit nu~nerum." Adv. Prax. c. 13, p. 507. See also c. 16. And observe the following :-" Qulcunque ergo substantia sertuonis fait, 11am dico personamn, et i nonmen lil vindico." Adv. Prax. c. 7, p. 504. s " vide ergo ne tu potius muonarchnn destrtuas, qiu dispoitioneni et dispensa. tionemu ej is evertis in tot n misibsn ee, titutam in quot Dew~ vomit. Adeo autem nianot in suo state, LueN'T TRII.T lYA&TUiB, ut etiani restitui habeat Patri a 252 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. have been, if the Father had so willed it, more than three Persons in the Godhead, and that the tripersonal state as now existing was not from all eternity, and was only an ceconomical state. However, be this as it may, his statements respecting the Son are clearly incorrect. The reader will observe also, that I am not here attributing to Tertullian incorrect views on the ground of statements which admit of an orthodox interpretation, or which may be reconciled to orthodoxy by a comparison with other passages in his works, though in themselves not the most fit expressions, (as Semler, for instance, has done,) but limit my remarks to those points in which his views appear (as far as I am able to judge) to have been incorrect. His view appears to have been, that the production of the personal Word or Son is an act which must have been per- formed by one having a definite previous existence, and therefore that reason only, and not the Word or Son, can be said to be co- eternal with the Father. There is an important difference, how- ever, between his view and that of the Arians, because they spoke of the generation of the Son as a creation, and of the Son as being made from that which was not (if oic vrcev), and of a different essence to the Father, which is contrary to the views inculcated by Tertullian. There are perhaps other remarks in these subtile lucubrations of Tertullian, upon which, if inclined to say all that might be said, one might be disposed to offer an observa- tion, but some allowance must be made for the imperfection of human language when applied to such mysteries. However, there can be no doubt, that the language of Tertullian savoured more of Platonism than Apostolicity; nor is this any new idea, for thus speaks Gennadius, an author of the 5th century, "Nihil ex Trinitatis essentia ad creaturarum naturam deductum, ut Plato et Tertullianus."1 And how, indeed, can any author be depended upon, of whom it is confessed by his most stre- Filio. Siquidem Apostolus scribit de ultimo fine, quum tradiderit regnum Deo et Patri." Adv. Prax. c. 4. p. 502. Observe also the following:-" Videmur [videmnus] igitur non obesse monarchiae filium, etsi hodie apud filium est; quia et in suo statu est apud Filium, et curm suo statu restituetur Patri a Filio. Ita earn nemo hoe nomine destruet, si filium admittat, cui et traditam earn a Patre, et a quo quan- doque restituendam Patri constat." Adv. Prax. c. 4. p. 502. SDe eccles. dogmat. c. 4.-Inter Op. August. ed. Ben. tom viii. app. col. 76. 253 254 PATRISTICAL TRADlITION nuous defenders, that he argued deceitfully, anI cared little what lie said of God in refutation of his opponent ? Bishop Bull has laboured hard to bring him near orthodoxy, though apparently giving up the hope of effecting more than an approximation. His view and the difficulties under which it labours may be seen in thc following passage of Dr. Waterland, in which it is described. "Tertallian is known to have dis- " tinguished betwcen ratio and sermo, both of them names of " the selfsame Aoyov, considered at different times under dif- " ferent capacities; first, as silent and unoperating, alone with "the Father; afterwards proceeding or going forth from the Father, to operate in the creation. With this procession he " supposs, AS DO MANY OTHERS, the Sonship properly to com- "mence. So that though the Ao'yov had always existed, yet he "became a Son in time, and in this sense there was a time " when the Father had no Son." (Second Def.; Works, vol iii. p. 101.) Consequently, if this view is correct, the generation of the Son from the Father was in fact not a generation, but a mere procession from the Father of one who existed before as a Person, an active and intelligent personal agent, within him and therefore the words generation and Son are used without any proper meaning, and the Second Person in the Trinity was not generated by the First. Is this orthodox doctrine Bt m . Def. Fid. Nic. iii. 10. 4. 2 Bishop Bull supposes, that when the Arians at the Council of Nice affirmed of the Son, that be was not, before lie was begotten, they meant to oppose the notion advanced (as he thinks) by sonmc at that tinme, who, while they held a temporal generation for the purposes of creation, from which the Second Person of the Trinity was called in Scripture the Son of' God, andl the first-begotten, maintained also that lie existed before by an eternal generation fromi the Father, and that many of the catholics at Nice, understanding the terii begotten as used hy the Arians to refer to that temporal generation, mieant to maintain, in their condemna- tion of the Arians, that he was before lie was thus begotten. (Def. fid. Nic. iii. 9, 2.) But this is clearly disproved by the mode of arguing adopted by the Arians, which shows that they spioke of the original generation of the Son from the Father, without any particular reference to such views. (See ATITANAS De Synod. � 16. tomn. i. p. '729. 111LAki. 1De Trin. lib, xii. c. 1&--31. BASIL. Adv. Eunoin. lib. 2. e. 11, 15.) Whether there were aiiy at Nice who held the notion of a temporal generation for the purpose of creation as distinguished from the eternal genera- tion, is a point respecting which we have not the smallest evidence. But certainly Hlilary in his replies to the Arians treats the question as one relating to the origiiial generation of the Son, (De Trai. lit) 12,) and particularly opposes any supposition that the catholics in condemning the Arian statement, "he was not before he 254 NO DIVINE INFORMANT.25 I proceed to Novatian,I who says,-" He therefore, [i. e. the Son,] when the Father pleased, proceeded from the Father; "and he who was in the Father, proceeded from the Father; " and he who was in the Father, as he was from the Father, was afterwards with the Father, because he proceeded from "the Father; namely, that Divine Subsistence, whose name is " the Word, by which all things were made, and without which "nothing was made. For all things are after him, because they arc by him; and he is before all things, since all things "were made by him; who proceeded from him by whose will "all things were made; God, namely, proceeding from God, making a Second Person, but not depriving the Father of being "the only God."' He has also a still more objectionable passage, in which he has undeniably given the unorthodox interpretation to Phil. ii. 7. -" Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." He says,-" Nevertheless this very thing "that he should be both God and Lord of all things, and " God, after the form of God the Father, he obtained from his " Father, being born and brought forth of him. Although, " therefore, he was in the form of God, [non est rapinam arbi " tratus aequalem se esse Deo; which, from the remarks that "follow, he must have translated, as some others have (lone, "to this effect ;] he did not think it fell to his lot to be equal " with God. For although he remembered, that he was God of was begotten," meant to aff'irmi, that he was~ before he was begotten, andl contends against that statement only on the ground of its seeming to impugn the eternity of the Son. (lb. �� 30, 31. eol. 1127, 8.)---Since the first edition of this work, which contained the above note, Mr. Newman has published a IDissertation in defence of precisely the same criticism on Bishop Bull's view. SIf it is objected, that Novatian was a heretic, the reply is obvious, namely, that lie wa~s never accused of heresy except on one point connected with ecee siastic al discipline. 2 " Hie ergo, quando Pater voluit, processit cx Patre; et quti in Pal re flit, pro c essit ex Patre ; et qui in Patre fuit, quia cx Patre fuit, cium Patre )(ostmodnn1 fait, quia cx Patre processit; Substantia scilicet illy divina, enus no ecn est Verbum, per quod faca stint omnia, et sine quo factum est nihil. Omnmi: insi post ipsiun aunt, quis per ipum sunt ; et nerito ipsse est ante omunia, quando per ilium facts sent omnia, qui procesit ex co cx cujus voluntate facts sunt omunia: Deus utique procedens cx Dco secundam personam efilciens, sod non cripiens illudl Patri qui uns est Deus." NOVATTAN~. le Trin. c. 31. Ad fin. Tertull. Op. eel. Paris. 1664. p. 729, or, Col. Amripp. 1617. p. 743. 255 256 PATRISTICAL TRADITION " God the Father, he never either compared or likened himself "'to God the Father, remembering that he was of his own "Father, and that he possessed existence, BECAUSE the Father had given it. Hence, then, both before his incarnation, and after "his assumption of a body, nay, moreover, after the resurrec- "tion itself, he rendered, and still renders, all obedience to the "Father in all things. From which it appears, that he never " contemplated that any such divinity fell to his lot, as that he " should equal himself to God the Father; nay, on the contrary, "being obedient and subject to all his commands and will, he "was content to take upon himself the form of a servant," &c.' And again:-" He is, therefore, God; but begotten for this " very purpose, that he might be God. He is also Lord, but "generated of the Father for this very purpose, that he might "be Lord."' According to him, therefore, he was not co-eternal with the Father as God; and he distinctly states his divinity to he different from that of the Father. I must say that I know not what advantage the orthodox cause can gain, by claiming the writer of these remarks as on its side. It appears to me impossible to explain these expres- sions as applying only to an inequality in the order of existence in the Persons of the Godhead; and it is somewhat remarkable, that the passage in which he interprets Phil. ii. 7, at least that p)art of it which is objectionable, has usually been passed over by those who have attempted to vindicate the treatise in which they occur as orthodox. How, moreover, arc we to reconcile with the orthodox doctrine c "Hoc ipsum tamen a Patro proprio conse cutus, ut omnium et Deus esset, et Dominus asset, et Dens ad formam Dei Patris ex ipso genitus atqna prolatus. Hie ergo quamvis esset in fonnasIDei, non est rapinain arbitratus weqnaletn se Deo ewe. Quanwvis cnihn soecx Deo Patre Deum case meminisset, nunquam se Deo Patri ant comparavit nt contulit, muemor seocaecx suo Patre, et hoc ipannm, quod est, habere se, quia Pater dedisset. Inde denique et ante eanis assumptionein, scd et post assuniuptionerm corporis, post ipsam prierca resurrectionein, omneni Patri in omnibus rebus obedientiam prssstitit pariter ac prastat. Ex quo probatur, nun. quain arbitratum iliumn case rapinamn quandamn divinitatein, nt axuaret so Patri Deo: quinime contra, onmni ipsius ixnperio et vohuntati obediens atqne subjectus, ut fornuen servi susciperet contentus fiiit," c. NOVATIA i. De 'Trin. e. 17. Lb. p. 717, or, p. 734. 2 "FAt ergo Drvs, sod in hoc ipaum genitus, at asset Dens. Eat et Donminus, sod in hoc ipanm ex Patre, tasst Dominus." ID. ib. c. 31. 1b. p. 730, or 743. 256 NO DIVIN~E INFORMANT.25 those words of Methodius, where he calls the Son "the most antient of aons, and the first of Archangels ?"1 And as to Lactantius, there can be no question about the matter, with a writer who can speak thus :-" Since God was CC most wise in designing, and most skilful in creating, before " he commenced the creation of the world; since in him was "the fountain of full and perfect good, as it is always; in order "that from that good a stream might arise and flow widely " abroad, he produced a Spirit similar to himself, who was en- "dued with the qualities of God the Father. And how he did " that, we shall endeavour to teach in the fourth book. Then he "made another, in whom the disposition of the divine original " did not remain.... Him the Greeks call Fa4/3oAos [devil], we "criminator [the accuser].... God, therefore, on commencing "the Fabric of the world, set that first and greatest Son over " the whole work; and made use of him as at once his coun- " sellor and artificer in planning, beautifying, and perfecting "things; because he is perfect in forethought, and reason, and power."2 More may be found in him elsewhere to the same effect.3 It is useless to attempt to reconcile such statements with the ortho- dox 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 "ifare observable in his writings concerning the divinity and " eternal existence of the Son, concerning the pre-existence of " souls and a future state after this life, concerning the end ox 1Tbv WpEJr$&aroP 'rWM Cw2vtealV ICCZI WWTV 7s'APX&TEMIwV. METHOD. Con. viv. decemn virg. orat. 3a. � 4. Bib).. Patr. ed. (lalland. torn. iii. p 686. 2 u"Cum esset Deus ad exc oitanduni prudentissimus, ad faciendum solertis. simus, antequamn ordiretur hoc opus mnundi : quoniam pp..cm et cosummtati boni fons in ipso erat, sicut eat semper, ut ab so bono tanquam rivus oriretur longeque proflueret, produxit similein sui spiritum, qui esset virtutibus Dei Patris prieditus. Quomodo autein id fecerit, in quarto libro docere conabimur. Deinde fecit alterum, in quo indoles divine stirpis non permansit.. .. Hunc.. .. (irnici a~Xov appel- lant, nos criminatorern vocamus .... Exorsuss igitur Deus fabricamn mundi ilium primum et maximum fIliumn priefecit open universo, eoque simnul et consiliatore usus eat, et artifice, in excogitandis, ornandis, perficiendisque rebus, quoniarn. is et providentia et ratione et potentate perfectus est." LAcw. r. Instit. lib. 2. C. 4. edl. Cant. 1685. p. 84. 3See LACTAIT. Instit. lib. iv. cc. 6, &c. VOL. I.8 257 PATRISTICAL TRADITION " the world, and the thousand years reign, concerning the " advent of Elias to turn many to the worship of God, and " other points concerning which he has spoken obscurely, in- "cautiously, and sometimes dangerously, will be excused by " candid observers on account of the ignorance of the age in which " he lived about these things, the abstruse nature of the doctrines " not yet sufficiently clearly explained by theologians, nor de- " fined by conciliar determinations, and in which he had very " many of the Fathers of the preceding ages in agreement with " him."' Similar remarks respecting the Ante-Nicene Fathers are made by the learned Huetius in his Origeniana. And to these I need hardly add the name of the still more learned Petavius. I shall not, indeed, undertake to 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 show- ing that many of the antient Fathers were unorthodox, when Rome vehemently professes to interpret Scripture only according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, and to adhere to those traditions 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 infallibility of one who professes to follow them. Nor is there any foundation for the somewhat similar insinuations of Bishop Bull. It is evident, I Cxvx, Hist. Liter. sub nom. "Lactantius," vol. i. p. 162. See also his Articles on Origen and Eusebius. 2 Lib. ii. q. 2. �� 10,14, and 25. In Op. Orig. ed. Ben. tom. iv. app. pp. 122--34. 258 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 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 Stillingfleet. " Suppose," says the Bishop, "the question be not con- " cerning the express articles of this rule of faith, but concerning " the sense and meaning of them, how then are 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. tom. ii. in Prief.) that " there was an antient tradition for the substance of the doctrine " of the Trinity, and yet he confesses 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. s 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 dis- " cussed. Here now arises the greatest dificulty to me in this "point of tradition; the usefulness of it I am told is for ex- "plaining 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. I ierome, (Apol. c. Ruffin. "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, now cOMES THE "TESTIMONY OF ERRONEOUS OR UNWARY WRITERS TO BE THE " CERTAIN 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 understanding it plainly shows the s2 259 PATRISTICAL TRADITION " incompetency of tradition for giving a certain sense of Scripture, " when that tradition is to be taken from the writers of the.fore. "going ages; and if this had been the only way of confuting " Arius, it is a great question how he could ever have been con- " demned if Petavius or S. Hierome say true." 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 promul- gated, which was far from being the case ?2 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 patro- nized by some able and influential bishop, as for instance Origen, a condemnation, even in a local Council, was hardly to be expected. The Council at Nice we owe entirely to the inter- ference of Constantine, who hoped by means of it to put an end to the dispute raised by Arius. And much are we indebted to the first Christian Emperor, for having been the instrument of obtaining for us such a confirmation of the ortho- dox 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 doctors of the nominal Christian Church for the three preceding centuries held precisely the same sentiments as the majority of this Council, is a supposition utterly unnecessary for any good pur- pose, improbable in theory, and contradicted by facts. In selecting the extracts given above from the Ante-Nicene I 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 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. See Sozox~t. Hist. lib. i. c. 14. 260 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. Fathers, I have endeavoured to view the matter with an im- partial eye, and to give those passages which bring before the reader the real views of those Fathers on the point in question. Had it been my object merely to make out a case against them, it would 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 carefully com- paring 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 plausible 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 from those which were after- wards 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 heretics 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 doctrine. For instance, when the early Fathers speak of the Son ministering to the Father in the creation of the world, (using such words as rovpy ev,) it is sometimes inti- mated, that this is opposed to orthodox doctrine; whereas it is capable of a very orthodox interpretation, though, in after times, such phrases might be rejected by some on account of 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 imperfect but yet to a certain extent correct and useful similitude). And 261 PATRISTICAL TRADITION as the essence of the stream is the same as that of the fountain, and all the goodness, virtues, and power residing in the foun- tain, 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 in' aro;, but as it respects the Son, that all things were made bt' airoi. And it would be unjust 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 testimony of the Catholic Fathers that remain to us is unanimous, and I think their writ- ings render it highly probable, that most of them held the doctrine of his consubstantiality, 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 impossible to establish the latter point without a nice and laborious critical investigation of the works of those 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 impossible 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 erroneously. His orthodoxy, indeed, is a matter much disputed both in antient and modemrn times. And I must add, that in my hum- ble judgment the evidence against him overwhelmingly prepon- derates. And the same must be said of Eusebius. And with respect to some of them 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 op. 262 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. ponents, that a correct report of the full orthodox doctrine 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 ? Instead of any such report, we find that very many of those writers spoke at least most un- guardedly 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 received, 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 consentient delivery of them, he finds many of these Fathers speaking, to say the least, most unguardedly and incorrectly, and others undeniably unorthodox. And yet, notwithstanding this, we are directed to this sup- posed consent,--a consent founded, as far as it is obtainable, upon a nice critical examination of apparently discrepant pas- sages 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. But I would again remind the reader, that I am by no means disposed to set down all the Fathers who have used incorrect lan- guage on important points as themselves necessarily unorthodox. Their real views may often have been but inadequatelyrepresented by their statements. But the incorrectness of their language clearly disqualifies them from fulfilling the office assigned to them by our 263 PATRISTICAL TRADITION opponents. And this is what any one who may attempt an answer to these pages has to disprove. An ingenious attempt to show that their language may be accounted for, or even may have a sense put upon it consistent with orthodoxy, will not answer the purpose. Either their testimony must be shown to be clearly in favour of the orthodox faith; or they must be given up as authorities in proof of it. Moreover, where we cannot establish catholic consent for the first three centuries, we cannot establish it at all. The testi- mony 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.' 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 every- thing 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 truth 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 catholic consent being part of the rule of faith. This is a fact, 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 I See AvGrsT. Contr. Maxim. lib. 2. c. 1 2 See c. 10. � 3, below. 264 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 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 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 is beyond question, 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, notwithstand- ing 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 numbers. 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 dis- "approve. For I might almost say, that of that impious heresy " which is now so rife, I mean the Anomcean, 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 con- " trary direction. Something like this we find to have hap- "pened to this man. For, opposing vehemently the impiety " of the Libyan, he was unconsciously carried himself into an " opposite error by his vehement opposition; and when it was " sufficient for him to show that the Father and Son were not " the same subjectively,' and thus to gain the victory against 1 O6 'rcwbv r'rca (IWOlfIME t c1aT p K0.2 ulf. 265 266 PATRISTICAL TRADITION " the blasphemer, he, that he might most clearly triumph and " gain more than a victory, not only lays down a distinction of "t hypostases, but also a difference of essence, and degrees of "power, and diversity of glory.' So that it thus happened, " that hc exchanged one error for another, and deviated 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, separating it from that Godhead that is to be " worshipped, and numbering it among inferior beings-with "created and ministrative nature.3 Such is this man."4 Such is the testimony of Basil; and Gennadius of Marseilles calls him the fountain of the*Arian heresy.' Can it be denied, then, that even iDionysius of Alexandria wrote respecting the Son, so as apparently to support error; and that such a fact shows us, that, instead of finding in the early Fathers an accu- rate report of Apostolical doctrine, we have often, even in the case of those who may have been orthodox, language very much opposed to it? They either held different sentiments at dif- ferent times, or expressed themselves so imperfectly and incor- 1 ' O #x &d'rra udvov 'wv ocr'idoe'v vt, &XA& DKcl o'tizs tcpoprlv, Kai &,vd 5sv 0)O'& sazl adtis 'irapciAXczrv. 2 Ta j -pTeoKslrczVro~nids &-w 4' 'i-ois ypa~ztqaao'w, viis 144&c up(.v 'ib 6~o. eiiai-&O, t r& 'i- &Oi' tri-& iWI f,7io"tt'i-&tWVKIC(S Ciri-9D EXpf)'OV t' s 8bN wpoa- 44.4(505?v' ts &woo'eysirt'i 7rpbs 'ibs 6cteuvvov. Sflpbs 81 riooisrKall irspl 'rot, fvs4 a'i-es ?4 j iic 4v&s, 4ticw i-c& pwov~os T-e flv etrL, 'r-s7f po(TI(UVotp4'15scw'rb �kS'i-nros Jopt 'can, sal sti'rw iro Ti '-pK'i-L0'r Aftrvp'yrQ 4ocru t ovrapsO~ulv. With this testimony it is difficult to know what to determine respecting the genuineness of the "Letter to Paul of Samosata," attri- buted to Dionysius, which on other grounds is, as Dr. Cave tells us, " suspcted by many" (multis suspecta). The testimonies it contains to the trute and proper divinity (in the highest sense of the term) of the Son and Holy Spirit are very strong and clear. If it be his, we must suppose either that the expressions here referred to by Basil wore unintentionally incorrect, or that his views underwent some change. 4 BASIL. Css. Ep. 9. Op. ed. Ben. tom. ii. pp. 90, 91. 5 " Nihil creatum ant serviens in Trinitate credendumn, ut vult Dionysius fons AriL" (IENmow. De eccle& dognt. c. 4. Inter Op. Augustin. ed. Ben. tomn. viii. app. col. 76. 266 NO DIVINE INFORMANT.26 reetly, as to appear to support error, even when they did not intend it. In the same condition with Dionysius stands Theognostus, who, although he is quoted by Athanasius as supporting the doc- trine of the Son's consubstantiality, is reprehended by Gregory Nyssen for very opposite doctrine. "Neither [says Gregory " Nyssen] was Eunomius alone deceived in this, &c.; hut we " may find language equivalent to his in the books of Theo- "gnostus, who says that God, when he wished to construct the universe, first appointed his Son as a certain rule of work- manship."x The same charge is repeated, with various weighty additions, by Photius,who accuses him of calling the Son a creature (Kto-pa), and asserting that he has rule only over rational beings; and also of speaking of the Holy Spirit in an unorthodox way.2 So the work of Novatian on tne Trinity, above quoted, is accused by I ufinus (who attributes it to Tertullian) of being unorthodox on the subject of the holy Spirit; and he charges the Macedonians with having exposed it for sale at a low price at Constantinople, under the name of Cyprian.5 And of Lactantius, we have (as the reader will remember) this account given us by Jerome. "Lactantius in his writings, and particularly in his letters to Demetrian, altogether denies "the entity of the Holy Spirit;, and, by a Jewish error, says " that he is to be referred either to the Father or the Son ; and "that the holiness of each Person is pointed out under his "tname." 4 And again ; -" MANY, through ignorance of the "Scriptures, assert, (as also Firmianus does in the eighth book " of his Letters to Demetrian,) that the Father and Son are "roften called the Holy Spirit. And while we ought clearly to ' O06 ub'os 4' Tot'PTCps Wr X~nrCiV?7CLwar& 7lfr &IoWECW TOIJv564%iairos6 Evw4utos. &AX &tot Kad 4'rotseOSS80Vd4oT1(e rnr0p77v4ots Tb ?boy fpsw' 554)7)OL'trbv 0Ebv sovu6- /LEVOV 16e5 rb WCW KaIWXCE dcset, Wpwrov rbPv vbM oolO3'r tva KCSb 1/PZT75 s ovp7(as lrpomnotrr j ra rOaa. GREG. NYSE. Contr. Eunom. Orat. 3a. torn. ii. p. 132. ed!. Paris. 1615. 2 PHoTII Biblioth. Art. 107. col. 280. ed. 1653. 3 Apol. pro Orig. Inter Op. Orig. ed. Ben. torn. iv. app. p. 63. Jerome corrects him in his reply, as far as respects the name of the author, intimating that it was known to be Novatian's. 4See p. 233 above. 267 PATRISTICAL TRADITION " believe in a Trinity, they, taking away the third Person, hold " it to be not a hypostasis of the Trinity, but a name."1 And Augustine, having observed that to the Scriptures alone he had learned to give such honour as to suppose the writers of them certainly inerrable, adds, of all other writers, -" But " others, however distinguished they may be for holiness and " learning, I so read as not to think anything true, because they " thought it to be so, but because they are able to persuade me, " either by those canonical authors, or by some probable reason; " that it is agreeable to the truth."2 Now, had Augustine held our opponents' doctrine of " catholic consent," here would have been the fairest possible opportunity for enforcing it; indeed, it would have been impossible for him to have passed it over; but, on the contrary, he tells us that he receives no doctrine propounded by uninspired authors, except by being persuaded of its truth, either by arguments drawn from the Scriptures, or by reason. We see, then, that these Fathers made no scruple to find fault with the Fathers that preceded them, and to accuse them of heterodoxy, even on fundamental points; and even where they indulged the hope, that the heterodoxy of their writings was rather the result of haste or carelessness, or the desire of victory over their opponents, than their own convictions, they hesitated not to pronounce them to be very unfit guides, on account of that inaccuracy in their statements. How is it, then, that we are now required to take for granted-aye, and that even upon the authority of these very Fathers of the fourth and succeeding centuries-that all the Catholic writers of the first three centuries must have held the faith correctly in all funda- mental points; and moreover, must have expressed it so cor- rectly in their writings, that their consent is, in fundamentals, a necessary and infallible guide in the interpretation of Scripture ? It is quite true, that these Fathers may have held, and pro- bably did hold, that there had been in the Church a succession of those who had delivered the true doctrine. And so do we. SSee p. 233 above. S"Alios autem ita lego, ut quantalibet sanctitate doctrinaque prtepolleant, non ideo verum putem, quia ipsi its senserunt, sed quia muihi vel per illos auctores canonicos, vol probab'ili ratione, quod a vero non abhorreat, persuadere potuerunt." AvuosTr. Epist. ad Hieron. ep. 82. (al. 19.) Op. tom. ii. col. 190. ed. Bened. 268 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. And hence it is that we admit the principle, that if you take all the remains of the Primitive Church for the first few centuries, (our Church seems generally held to include about the first five centuries,) you will find among them a correct statement of the true orthodox doctrine in all fundamental and important points. And thus those writings constitute a useful practical check against the inroads of error, of Popish novelties, and fanatical conceits. But the notion of our being able to obtain catholic consent for the whole orthodox faith, or even the consent of the Fathers that remain to us after that assiduous weeding that the Patristical writings have in all probability undergone,-and which has left us, out of the " innumerable" authors of the first three centuries, the mutilated remains of about twenty,-is both utterly opposed to the statements of the Fathers themselves, and never could dwell for a moment in the mind of any one fully ac- quainted with their writings, and viewing them with an impar- tial eye. It may be a very pretty theory viewed at a distance, but it will not stand the test of examination. There is hardly a single point of doctrine now controverted, in matters at all dis- cussed in the Primitive Church, in which an adversary of the orthodox doctrine could not bring forward some Patristical evidence in his favour. How, I would ask, is it possible to deny this, when we see such a man as Photius,-whose learning, judgment, extensive reading, and varied qualifications for pronouncing an opinion, are undeniable,)-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 ?I To attribute this to want of judgment and power of discrimi- nation is out of the question. Against the practice of judging from insulated passages he particularly protests.3 To attribute it to partiality is equally unreasonable, for what object had he to I Cave, speaking of his Bibliotheca, to which work I am here alluding more particularly, says,-" Opus in quo ingenii acumen, judicii gravitatem, legentis industriam an lectionis varietatem quis magis admiratur, haud facile dixerim." Hist. Lit. ii. p. 48. 2 See his observations on Origen, Theognostus, Pierius, Methodius, &c. 3 See his Biblioth. Art. 225 on Eulogius, col. 761. ed. 1653. 269 PATRISTICAL TRADITION gain by running them down? None. How, then, are we to account for it ? Clearly from the fact that these Fathers have expressed themselves most erroneously; and if, in the judgment of charity, we can hope that they did not entertain the senti- ments 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 Photius says, but a very poor defence,' 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 ortho- doxy of these Fathers, even in fundamentals; 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,' which is just the expression of a charitable hope, that though their 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 must be admitted to have spoken very indiscreetly and incorrectly, and that some must be alto- gether given up,-is it not preposterous to talk of catholic consent as the necessary and infallible interpreter of Scripture, and still more as 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 Scripture? And it is worth remarking, that it was upon the testimony of these very Fathers that Dr. Clarke and Mr. Whiston grounded their unor- thodox 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 re- mains that have come down to us of the earliest instructors of the Christian Church. It renders the argument from them, as far as those discrepancies extend, very different from what it 1 Puor. Biblioth. Art. 107. De Theognosto, col. 280. ed. 1653. 2 "Jam dudum observarunt Docti, Patreos sepenumero rectius sensisse quam locutos fiisse." LrPrrat. Hist. Crit. Patr. vol. iii. p. 157. 270 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. would have been had we found them giving a clear consentient testimony to the full orthodox faith. Nor can it be justly urged, that the unorthodox statements 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 sentiments of the great body of the Church; but unfortunately 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 alto- gether uncertain in the matter. Now I am quite aware, that there will be some who will be very impatient at this attempt to show that there is no consent of Fathers even on points of the greatest moment. Of such I would merely ask one question,-Of what possible conse- quence can it be to us, that 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 Scripture 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 cannot see any cause for alarm in it, or that it exposes the truth to any danger. Here arc certain philosophizing Christians, converts perhaps from Paganism, speaking very incorrectly upon points connected with the doc- trine 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, circumstances 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 to be 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 with- 271 PATRISTICAL TRADITION out the Church moving to condemn them. At any rate, my opponents cannot blame me for quoting these passages; for their theory is, that the truth is delivered obscurely in Scrip- ture, but clearly in the Fathers. They cannot surely then object to men being made acquainted with those clear exposi- tions (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 sup- posed 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 articles on which even the Fathers 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, however, a few. And first, the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. It will not, I conceive, 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 maintained by the Greek Church, of the procession from the Father only. And when the point came to be discussed after that period, there was a great division of opinion on the subject, the majority appa- rently holding the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, but others, as Theodoret, main- taining that the Spirit proceeded 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 ortho- "dox saying; but if he means it in the sense of his being from "the Son, or as having his subsistence through the Son, we ' See p. 230 above. 272 NO DIVINE INFORMANT.27 "c shall reject this as blasphemous and impious."' 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 holds, that the Spirit proceeds " from the Father only, and not from the Son also."a And certainly, as far as Patristical testimony is concerned, it forms a strong negative argument in favour of those who deny the procession from tie Son, that tie Creed, as agreed upon at the Council of Constantinople, had only the words, "who pro- ceedeth from the Father ;" the words "and the Son" having been added long after by the LatinsA Others of the Greek Fathers appear to have approached nearer the doctrine of tie Latin Church in this point than Theodoret, but hardly any of the antient Greek Fathers, as far as I am aware, held properly tie 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 Christi- anity handed down by the consentient testimony of the Fathers of each age is a mere dream of the imagination, completely dis- proved by the facts of the case. The same may be said of the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies. The defenders of those 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 heresy, I 'I8tov 54 'b Hi iwz oy TWOi, Eil /4 Pcws 131o4'v0s, KaZ JKfla'rpbr ?copve v ton, 0-v~A7~o.v KcZl cws Ei~os E E6~4EOG i- J JvJv* El 5' lot 4TiOu, atS' 'riot/ T'v ~raptw goI,, dir$A6aoJ4OV TvTnG, Ki l dir So'os4r roi3&t~o1Ev. ThEODORET. Reprehens. Anathemn. Cyrill. ; adv. Anath. 9.--Op. toin. v. p. 47. ed. &hnlze. 2 H a7ta Ki lKCOoALK* EKA7ta .... 8o')~f/art s. ... rTb flvrfU~atci KopEu'T iv K, , Llh T uv arbs, &.' obl iKi K iToy'rWOi. Mien. 1'SELLI Cap. Theol. a id(X'ilfl ad Mich. Comn. c. 10.-Inter Opera in 1)osvr TTdos &-Ytdws eccr& AarTvwv. Jassii in Moldav. 1698. fol. p. 493. ae Pearson on the Creed, Art. 8, (pp. 486, 7. Dobson,) and Burton's Testimi. to Doctr. of Trin. p. 144. VOL. 1. T 273 274 PATRISTICAL TRADITION says, " the hypostatical union we alogether reject, as outlandish ' jand foreign to the divine Scriptures and the Fathers who have " interpreted them." I Let us next inquire, whether these Fathers bore a cousentient 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 "bath committed fornication, or how one who has done nothing "hath fallen under Adam's curse "M;-where in effect the doc- trine of original sin is clearly denied. As it respects the doctrine of frcewill, it is notorious, that the early Fathers have often exprcsscd themselves most erroneously on the subject. It is satisfactory, however, to be able to add, that most of them have done so inconsistently 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, be- cause Bishop Morton is not only an able judge on the point, but also one of our opponents' favourite witnesses. In his reply to the Ilomish Apologie, in which a sarcastic allusion had been made to the complaints of the iProtestants as to the erroneous statements of some of the Fathers on this point, he speaks thus,-" The censure which the judicious .Protestants have passed "upon antient authors, is not an universal taxation of all, but " yet of many. Now, if the Apologists had not in this their "ropposition rather affected (as may be feared) seducement than " judgment, they might have taught their reader from their own STO~s icaS' i6'udorarvw aiaw.rirczoIF &72'Oov/LfV, crs t4oTV, icaJ &AAcdipvAov 7civr Sefee' ypa4xi~v iccd'rciv ra6,as tjp nvvwc~wv wras'w. TilEonoRET. Repr. Ana- them. ('yrill. ; adv. Anath. 2.-Op. torn. v. p. 10. ed. Schulze. And see the obser. vations of' Oarnier, hb. pp. 461 and 478, &c. 2 As'y a'rcw ra v, wed Jwdpvsuo'ev 'r?) sunOiv Brae&ov ; J wc r &i rv^1 A& &o v+ owwr.iw' pv 4vr? p#4v vp yixam'; Cuxm. A x. Strom. lib. iii. � 16. Op. ed. Potter. Oxon. 1716. pp. 656, 7. And if we are to suppose, that the work called "H1ypotyposes," attributed to him, and mentioned by Photius, was really his, he is chargeable with statements far more unorthodox than this. 274 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. " Sixtus Senensis, and from three of their principal Jesuits, " that in the root of the doctrine of freewill, ' Chrysostom, Cyril, " Theophylact, Euthymius, (Ecumenius, Ammonius, and most " of others, especially in the Greek Church, did yield too much " 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 Protes- " tants as being injurious in that taxation, wherein by the judg- " ment of their own Jesuits they stand justifiable unto every " conscience of man. Nevertheless we do not so judge the " Fathers as herein damnably erroneous, but so far 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 par- " ticularly and by name observed, that Justinus, Irenaeus, Cle- " mens, 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 whirl- wind 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 favourable 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.- And it is obvious, that if this passage gives us at all a correct view of ' MORTON's Catholique Appeal for Protestants. Lond. 1610. pp. 201, 2. 2 This view is abundantly confirmed by our learned Dr. Whitaker, in his Trea- tise, 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 subiject. T2 275 PATRISTICAL TRADITION the case, it is absurd to think of deriving anything like a con- sentient testimony from 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 interpreter of Scripture and judge of controversies, we are compelled to make Scripture the judge of their controversies, 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 resurrection. 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 instance, 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 consequently a proof, how easily we may be deceived when concluding, that because a doctrine was held by those whose works happen to remain, that is, by those of them who have mentioned the sub- ject, 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 Irenaus thus speaking;--" Since the Lord departed " to the valley of the shadow of death, [alluding apparently to " Psa. xxiii. 4,] where the souls of the dead were, and then after- " wards rose in the body, and after his resurrection 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 them by God, and there dwell " until the resurrection, awaiting the resurrection; and then " having had their bodies restored to them, and risen perfectly, 276 NO DIVINE INFORMANT.27 "that is, with their bodies, even as the Lord arose, shall "thus come to the vision of God."' 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 doetrine is delivered by Justin Martyr, who, in his Dialogue with Trypho, says, that " the souls of the pious remain "csomewhere 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 doctrine 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 arc called Christians, who do not admit this, [i. e. the doctrine of the millennium] .. .. ..and who say, that there is norsrrc "eure-tion 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- tibans."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. So, also, Tertullian. " But if Christ, who was God, because "he was also man, having died according to the Scriptures, and " been buried according to the same, comlplied also with this " law, having put on the appearance of human death in the "lower regions ; and did not ascend to the heights of the "heaven, before he descended to the lower parts of the earth, I "Corn enim Dominus in medio uinbrw3 mortis idbierit, uhi itnimw mortuorum erant, post deinde corporaliter resurrexit, et post resurrectionem assumlptus est ; inaniftestmin est quia et discipulorum ejus, propter quos et hree operatus est I)omi- 11115, at 4uxal 7ri~pxovYcu Esir.... r!v 'rdwov [invisihilein locum, Vet. Lat. int.]J Tb w CpLO'MEVOV a&irb Ttwb0Tou �O, K KIEL M XP' "T-s 4pa tr&'ews 4poTwOL, 7rspL/.d' MovtiiOLT' &vdrraiv"wtbwia &ro~afov a ou r oara, Kad 6AOKAiIpws &iaOraola, 7ourntrt ~w/eZ1LWs, KaELS Kal 6 K~ptos f&v4,rr, , ol'rws ?At oovras dsL'Sr~s5iw 'rou eoiaR. IREN. lib. v. c. 31. Ad.Mas. p. 331. ed. (Grab. p. 451, 2. There is also a passage, lib. v. c. 5. which seems of similar import. 1 2 Tds /.iv TWY A' ~w, Y KpETTOJ/ t OLX'6P'f' M'VE, 'ras a It(KOVS Kad ron7p1 S ?v Xdipovs, 'TW T7IS pht'Ewr 6'IEXo/.L&as 'pd vov r' 767 [ore Thirll.J. JUSTIN. MART. Dial. cumn Tryph. � 5. ed. Beoned. p. 107. 8 El yap Kal TV'v+E$S.AETE LS .ELS 7101Asyegvoss X pUTrTLIOS, K(Ll TOt/TO jl 6MwO( 701/rtIP. 0?.OfKal X yus Lt) c47 vsKp' v&,'do icwu, &AA& 1( a r Q &WOvilere~sw Tas 4wux&s atDrcev &aa$tsavo t E TbV Obptvw, /.4l UWOAS.I3TE aroVs X pLtSrV0ts. I.D ib. � 80. p. 178. 277 278 PATRISTICAL TRADITION " that he might make the Patriarchs and Prophets there par- "takers of his presence, you have also to believe a subterraneous "region in the lower parts of the earth, and drive away those " who proudly enough think that the souls of the faithful " deserve a better abode than the lower regions; being truly " servants above their Lord, and disciples above their Master, "disdaining perhaps to receive in the bosom of Abraham the " comfort of an expected resurrection . . . . Heaven is open "to none while the earth remains safe, not to say closed. " For the kingdom of heaven will be opened with the passing " away of the world. .......You have also a little treatise on " Paradise, written by us, in which we have resolved, that every soul is set apart in the lower regions against the day of the "Lord."' And further on in the same treatise,-" Are there- "'fore all souls kept in the lower regions? You speak rightly. "le you willing or unwilling, there are now there both tor- ments and delights."" And again elsewhere, with a mere verbal difference as to the use of the phrase, "lower regions," he says, "whence it is " evident to every wise man.....that there is a certain "place which is called the bosom of Abraham, set apart for E the rception of the souls of his children, even of the Gen. "tiles . . . . that that place therefore, I mean the bosom of "Abraham, which, although not in heaven, is yet above the " lower regions, will in the meantime afford refreshment to the souls of the just until the consummation of things shall " bring about the resurrection of all in the fulness of the " reward."" I tQuodl si c'hristus Dens, quiaa et honio, mortous secundum Scripturns et spultus sui.ts a nsdcm, huic quoque logi s atisf.. it, forina huranat mortis. spud inferos ft'nectus ; nee ante ascendit in sublin forai eceloruni, queurn descendit in inferioria ternrun, ut illie Paatrisrehaas et Prophota s compotes sui facoret, habes et regionenti iferfhu subterraanosam erodoro, et illos cuhito pellero qui satis superbe naon putant moni t ideliuni inforis digvas : sormi super 1)oniumu, ot (liscipuli supewr Maagistrum, n. p roati si forte in Abrahiea sinu expoctandto resurrectionis solatiumn c por.... Nudli patot codlun terra adhuc sadva, no dixerim claus. Cumn transactions oimin mndi roorahuntur regna celorun.... Habos etiam de Pars. dliso a nobis libollurn, quo constituinius ornemoninuan spud inferos sequestrari in diem Dotnini." TERTULL. Do Animas. c. 55. Op. ed. 1664. p. 3i4. thaOunes orgo aninnaponos inforos ? Inqus. Xelis se nolis et supplicis ,jami illic et refrigeriaa." In. ib. c. 38. p.'106. '"t Jnde arnuiret sapionti cuique.... esse al quam lcalem determinaationem, 278 NO DIVINE INFORMANT.29 Other similar passages may be found elsewhere in his writings.' There is also a passage of Clement of Alexandria, which seenms to show, that he held the same view ;. namely, that in which he speaks of "the expected resurrection, when, at the "end of the world, the angels shall receive the truly penitent " into the heavenly tabernacles... and before all the Saviour "himself meets him with a kind reception, affording light, " cloudless and eternal, leading him to the bosom of the Father, " to eternal light, to the kingdom of heaven."2N Thus also Origen :--" For not even the Apostles," he says, " have yet received their joy, but themselves also wait for it, "that I also may become a partaker of their joy. For neither " the saints, when they depart hence, receive immediately the full reward of their deserts, but wait for us.. .. You see, " therefore, that Abraham yet waits for the attainment of that "twhich is perfect. And Isaac waits, and Jacob, and all the " Prophets wait for us, that they may enjoy with us perfect " happiness. On this account, therefore, even that mystery is " kept to the last day of the deferred judgment."3 And again he says, elsewhere, " It is my opinion, that all the saints that " depart from this life shall remain in a certain place in the qua~ sinus dicta sit Abraha', ad recipiendas animnas filiorum ejus, tiam ox nation. bus.. .. Earn itaque regioneni, sinumn dico Abraha'r, etsi non emloestoni, sublimiorem tainon inferis, interim refrigrium pra'biturarn animabus jug orumn dence coflsUlfl rnatio rerum resurrectioneo finiulflpleflitudhfl mercedis expungat." InD. Adv. Marc. lib. iv. c. 34. pp. 450, 451. 1 See TEr ULt. Apologet. c. 47. p. 37. Scorp. c. 12. p. 498. 2 'Av'-cu rswr A rt~o .dvjs, 5'rav, v rj7 ozn'rAsS( 'toy aiwvos, of 6.'ysXOt rojis &a, 6&s u*'avooUv'Tas 8ijwzvracis buoupavious orxjvds, .. wipb 8 irdvrcov cd'rs 6 Zwrjp wpoawravr4 Sstio6,uevos, (Pas eapE'7w5 &cetov, &rav''rdv. $5777w3' cs 'roes SA. woes 'toi Ikrrpbs, cis 'T~v aidvtoe lslv, sr rljv $acwLAsa, tcv of pave. CLEM. ALEX. Quis Dives salvetur. Op. ed. Potter. Oxon. 1716. pp. 960, 961. 3 " Nondum enirn receperunt la titiam suam no Apostoli quidemn, sod ot ipsi exspectant, ut et ego hatitia, corurn particeps fiam. Noque enmn lecodlentes hinc Sancti, continuo integra moritorum suorum pra'mia consequuntur; sod exspetant etiiunn o.... Vides ergo quia exspectat adhuc Abraham, ut quine perfecta sent consoquatur. Exspotat et Isaac, et Jacob, et omnes Prophetiexspectant nos, ut nobiscum perfectam boatitudmnein capiant. Propter haic ergo otiam mysteiriun illud in ultirnam (iem dilati judicii custoditur." Guin. Horn. 7. in Levit. � 2. Op. torn. ii. p. 222. See also Horn. 26. in Numn. � 4. p. 372. 279 280 PATISTICAL TRADITION " earth, which the divine Scripture calls Paradise, as in a place " of instruction."' In the immediate context of this last passage, however, he seems to intimate, that their stay in this place is longer or shorter, according to their deserts; and that they gradually ascend through a succession of such places to heaven; which is not very reconcileable with the former passage, and is a speci- men of what we so often meet with in several of the Fathers; namely, that self-contradiction which makes it almost impos- sible, and sometimes quite impossible, to tell what their real views were. However, as it respects the point now in question, his view is evidently, to a certain extent at least, agreeable to that of the Fathers already quoted. The last I shall quote is Lactantius, who thus delivers the same doctrine:-" Nor let any one think, that souls are judged "immediately after death. For all are kept in one common "pplace of custody, until the time comes when the great Judge "cwill make inquiry into their deserts."' To these authorities, various others might be added, both of those who lived during the first three centuries, and of the best writers of the succeeding times; insomuch that it has been represented as a doctrine in which all the primitive writers consented. I would observe, also, that a full description of the place of abode of the spirits of the departed, is given in a fragment of a work on the universe, attributed to various authors, but more particularly to Caius.3 Whence the writer got his information, hie does not tell us.4 I itPuto Ceifli qiod sancti (juique lIdiseefe ltC inehcvita pernmanebunt in loco aaliqlon 1 terra l)0ito, qilet parialisuni dicit S$cnptura diving, velnt in qluodam crudlitionis loco." O cG. IDe PrIneip. lib. 2. c. xi. � 6. Op. tomn. i. P. 106. ed. Bta'f. 2 "Nec tamen quisq cuam putet, animas post nmortetm protinus judicari. Namn omnes in nuna communique custodiaa detinentur, doneec tempts aadv eniat, quo ma ximus judlex meritoruno fhc at examnen." LACTKNT. Instit. lib. 7. � 21. Op. ed. ('ant. 1685. p. 396. 8See the fntagm. in the notes of Hecrsehlius on Photii Iliblioth. ed. 1653. ad fin. pp. 10, 11; or in H1ippol. Op). ed. Fabric. vol. i. p. 220. And serespecting it, Phot. Biblioth. Cod. 48. col. 36., and :Routh. R~elic. Sacr. vol ii. pp. 31, 2. 4 Tertullian in his Treatise. be anima, and the Anthor of the Quar.t. adte Io. 280 NO DIVINE INFORMANT.28 We shall find, however, that it only affords us a proof, how clearly and strongly many of the primitive Fathers may deliver a doctrine on an important point, (for such, unquestionably, is the one before us,) and even rank the opposite doctrine among heretical notions, when, nevertheless, there were men of equal authority in the Church, who held that opposite view; and consequently how impossible it is on such points, with the few remains we have of the primitive Fathers, to lay claim to catholic consent on one side or the other. It so happens, that there are two Fathers in this period, in whom we find passages very clearly conveying the opposite doctrine. The first is Ignatius, who, in his Epistle to the Romans, says, in the prospect of his martyrdom, "Suffer me to become " the food of wild beasts, through whom it is in my power to "attain the presence of God."' And again, still more clearly, -"The living water . . .. says within me, 'Come to the Father' "2 The other is Cyprian.-"How great," he says, "is the " honour, and how great the security, to go hence joyful; to depart in triumph amidst afflictions and troubles! to shut in " one moment the eyes with which men and the world were "seen, and to open them immediately that God may be seen, and " Christ!I How great the speed of the happy journey! You " are suddenly taken from the earth, that you may be placed in " a state of rest in the heavenly kingdom." 3 attributed to Justin Martyr (quest. 75, 76, 85), venture upon the strange notion, that the place of happy departed souls, is the paradise in wich Adam was ; another instance of the way in which the Fathers' statements oppose each other in such points. 1 tf (hrs s phapuw ETvaL $op&V, 8L' V v scrsv 0501' ivSUXE?/. IGNATI Ep. ad Thom. � 4. Patr. Apost. ed. Jacobs. Oxon. 1838. tern. ii. pp. 352,4. A similar expressio~n occurs � 2. p. 3, andl � 9. p. 368. 2 "T~up Cwv..!ow04' o* A yov, swpo 1rp bs rbvIau4pa. In. ib. � 7. pp. 364, 366. 3 "tQuanta est dignitas et quanta securitas exire hinc laturn, exire inter pres- auras et angustias gloriosunm, clandere in mornenteoculos quibus bomine.s vide bautur et nmundus, et aperire eosdlein statinm ut Deus videatuy et (2bristus! Tamn feliciter inigrani quanta velocitas ! Terris repente ssubtralieris, ut in regnis caetes- tibua reponaris." C'pia.N. De exhort. mart, ad fin--Op). ed. Fell. Pt. 1. p.183. 4. 281 PATRISTICAL TRADITION There are some other passages in Cyprian, which intimate the same view. And were we to proceed beyond the first three centuries, we should find the same view maintained by Epiphanius,1 Am- brose,2 (though perhaps inconsistently with himself in other parts,3) and others.4 It is evident, then, that these Fathers held the doctrine which the others repudiated, viz. that disembodied souls go at once to heaven, and enjoy, previous to the resurrection, the beatific vision of the Father. It is possible that other passages may be found in the writings of this period of a similar kind, but certainly the testimony in favour of this view will be found to be small, compared with that we have for the opposite. I enter not here into the question, which doctrine has the best claim upon our belief. That is beside our present subject. But the case clearly shows, that even on such points, and where the doctrine of one side at least was very emphatically laid down as the only true doctrine, the Fathers widely differed. And it also shows, how easily we might have the appearance of catholic consent in the writings that remain to us, where there was not really catholic consent. For had it so happened, that these two or three passages, which express a doctrine contrary to that which is so clearly delivered by the majority, had been lost, we should have been told, that we were opposing catholic consent, and the doctrine of the Apostles, in saying what these authors have said, and what, for aught we know, hundreds and thousands held in the Primitive Church, and many perhaps published. The confession of the Benedictine Editors of Ambrose on this subject is so remarkable and instructive, that I here subjoin it. "It is not, indeed, surprising," they say, "that Ambrose should " have written in this way concerning the state of souls; but it "may appear almost incredible, how uncertain and inconsistent " the holy Fathers, from the very times of the Apostles to the "Pontificate of Gregory XI. and the Council of Florence, that is, z Adv. hwr.; her. 78. Antidicomar. 24. Op. tomn. i. p. 1056. 2 De fide, lib. 4. cc. 1, 2. a See Admon. ed. Bened. in lbr. De bono mortis. Ambros. Op. tom. i. col. 885 et seq. See King on the Creed, pp. 204-22. 4th ed. 1719. 282 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. " for almost the whole of fourteen centuries, were on this point. " For not only does one differ from another, as generally happens " in questions of this kind before they are decided by the Church ; " but they are not even consistent with themselves; for in some " places of their writings they seem to concede the clear vision " of the Divine nature to the same souls to which in other " places they deny it. But it is not to our purpose here to "collect together those opposing testimonies of the antient " Fathers. Any one who wishes to know more on this matter " may consult Alph. a Castro, (lib. 3, adv. haer.) Sixtus Senen- "sis, (Bibl. 1. 6. Annot. 345,) Bellarmine, (lib. 1. De Beat. " c. 1, et seq.) Petavius (Theolog. dogm. de Deo, c. 13 and " 14,) and others. We here only observe, that all that con- " traricty sprung from the different ideas (principiis) which the " reading of the Holy Scriptures supplied to those holy men."1 The reader will here observe, then, that so far from " the Church" deciding agreeably to the consent of the preceding Fathers, it is admitted, that there is no such thing as consent to be looked for until "the Church" has decided, and that the early Fathers gathered their views, not from Tradition, but from Scripture; conclusions which, though not perhaps in the mind of the authors of this passage, clearly flow from it. Further; as the Fathers thus differ in their doctrinal state- ments both from one another and from themselves, so, as might be expected, and as it is hardly necessary to add, do they differ in the interpretation they give to the Scriptures when comment- ing upon them, and that even in the case of the most important texts. I will give some instances of this, and none are more pertinent than those commonly adduced in proof of this point. But it will be easy to add to them, if necessary, though but for the necessity of showing the groundlessness of the ill-advised claims made by our opponents, one would willingly have passed them all over in silence. (1) Prov. viii. 22. "The Lord possessed (Sept. created) me in the beginning of his way before his works of old." ' Admon. in Ambros. libr. De bono mortis. See Ambros. Op. ed. Ben. tom. i. col. 385, 6. 283 284 PATRISTICAL TRADITION This passage is, by most of the Ante-Nicene Fathers that remain to us, applied to the divine generation of the Son. Thus, for instance, it is applied by (among others) Justin Martyr,' Athenagoras,2 Clement of Alexandria,' and Tertullian 4 But IrenaEus applies it to the Holy Spirit.' And when after- wards the Arians used it as favourable to their cause, it was generally applied by the orthodox Fathers to the generation of the human nature of Christ. That this is its proper meaning is very decisively laid down by Athanasius6 and Augustine ;7 and the same meaniug is attached to it by Basil5 and Epipha- nius,9 if the passay8 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 ;10 and Basil is evidently inclined to the same opinion.'1 And the interpretation given by Hilary of Poictiers does not precisely 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 afterwards to Abraham, &c.'1 (2) John x. 30. " I and my Father are one." This is a text in which, had there been any traditive interpre- tation of Scripture handed down by the consent 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 IDial. cum Tryph. pp. 158 and 222. ed. B~en. 2Leg. pro Christiannis, j 10. p. 287. ed. Ben. x i Choart. ad gert. Op. torn. i. pp. 6i7, 8. ed. Potter. $iSe asges quoted above, p. 25 1. bAdv. ha r. iv. 20. ed. Mass. iv. 37. ed. Grab. 0 Doe deer. Nic. Syn. � 14. Op. torn. i. p. 220. ed. Ilen. &c. &c. 7 loo tide et svrnb. � 6. Op. ton. vi. col. 1641. Igo Trit. lib. i. � 21. torni. viii. col. 765. S'Avey ,jeis r~jv vOpwrd vra cdbroi vosin.. Adv. Eunorn. lib. iv. Op. ton. i. p,. 293. ed. Ben. 9See the passage below, near the end of this section. 10 lb. II lb. 12 isCreatus eot in v iasPDi a seculo, cuin ad conspicabilein speceein subditus creature habituen creationis assiu nsit." Do Trim. lib. Yi. � 45. Op. eel. 1136. ed. le. 284 NO DIVINE INFORMANT.,8 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 explained as being a physical unity, with relation to the divine nature and essence. Thus Novatian says,-"'h nn Thu Noatin ays,-" 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.)' Upon which amelius remarks,--."In this he does not write ." with sufficient caution, in that he does not assert any commu- nion 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." 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.' 1) To these might perhaps be added Tertullian4 and Athena- goras,5 as supporting the same view. And the same explanation is given by Eusebius, whose or- thodoxy some have stoutly contended for ; though the Benedic- tines a more wisely have given him up. lie 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 imitation of him, t"Unurn quod ait, ad concordiani et eandern sententian et ad ipsarn charitatis societatein pertinet, ut merito unurn sit Pater et IFilius per concAordan et per arnorern et per dilectioner.... I)eniqne novit hanc concordiw unitatern et Apost. Ins Paulus, curn personaruni tauten distinction," &c. [1 Cor.iii. 8.] NoYATIANI 1)e Trin. c. '22. ad fin. Op. Tertull. ed. 1664. p. 720; or in d. Parnel. 2 .l''ainlius in be. 3'l-o 4~v roi ?+JVELV 7bv vi'de, ?$ Kea 6 irai4 p 9v k~sv. ORIG. In .Johann. torn. xiii. � 36; Op. torn. iv. p. 2.45. See also Die Princip. lib. i. � 8. ton. i. p. 56 ; and Contra Cels. lib. viii. � 12. torn. i. p. 750; and Comnment. in Ezek. horn. 9. torn. iii. p. 388. ed. Ben. 4 Ads. Prax. c. 22. SLeg. pro Christianis, � 10. ed. Ben. p. 287. 6 See Divinitas Christi, &c. pp. 579, et se. 283 286 PATRISTICAL TRADITION "may partake of the same unity ; not that, as Marcellus thinks, " the Word is united to God, and connected with him in " essence."x In the works of 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 Son. But, in the disputes with the Arians, this text was constantly referred to in that signification; as, for instance, by Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine, and others,2 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. Irenaeus 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, "that we might learn, through him, that the Father was "above all things. For, saith he, 'The Father is greater than " I;' " 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 "ithe 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 I frlo ep 'lap csorbs, la1Tv 'vTs sal r76v TEs2aby dWau AC)'E, %4KeIJ 'E, Ecail 6 flci'rjp y OAEVrporm, If caa Wdcu 71s ~c~L, ara ~r T fr avrro ia ,da1o, Trs bT7rTr rr cdrroi prao siv E6xaa. ob, ,car& Me pKEAAoJ, iroiAdyou b-ow,.vou .r4 o iccd r *bel 'rt (jr~vo?7Ts'ou. EtrsBUx Do Lcel. Theolog. lib. iii. c. 19. p. 193. ad fin. Demonstr. Evangel. ed. Col. 1688. 2 See Maldonatus or Lanmpe in be. 3 " Si quis exquirat causami, propter quamz in omnibus Pater communicans Fibie sobus scire horaan et diem a Domino manifestatus et, neque aptabilem mnagis neque decetiorem nee sine periculo alteram quam bane inveniat in prwesenti, (quonianm enim soblus verax magister eat Dominus) ut diseaus per ipsin super amnia else Patrem. Etenim Pater, sit, major me est." ISNx. Adv. bter. lib. 2. c. 28. ed. Mass. e. 49. ed. (Grab. 286 NO DIVINE INFORMANT.28 "was sanctified by his Father. Since, therefore, he receives "sanctification from the Father, he is inferior 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 sanctification from the Father, by this very thing by which 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 vho say, that the material world is his who "created all things, clearly maintain, that the Son is not " stronger than the Father, but inferior to him; and we say "this, believing him when he said, 'The Father that sent me is greater than I.' "M And the same view of this passage is maintained by him elsewhere.3 Nor do I see how Tertullian can be explained otherwise than as deducing the same doctrine from this passage, when he says, 1 " Quis onim non socundam Hilii post Patrem agnoscat aso porsoflam, ciun legat dictum, &c.... aift clunginvenit ositun, ' Quoniamu qui me misfit, major me est.' "--" Filmu.... sanctificatum se a sno Patre case proponit. Dum rnispr. Deum] ergo accipit sanctificationem a Patre, minor Patre ot; minor axtem Patre consequenter ost, sod Filius. Pator enim si ftiissot, sanctificationem dedisset, non accopisset. Et none autom profitendo so accepisso sanctificationom a Patre, hoc ipso quo Patre so minorom, accipiondo ah ipso sanctificationom, prohat, filium so esso non Patrom monstravit." NoVATiAYN. Do Trin. cc. 21, 22. ad fin. Tortull. Op. ed. 1604. pp. '720, 721; or, in ed. Pamel. 2 '"w ya81 'tLvaU s Iv ' WXrM8l (t vfvv6wvT., orl ) 8XO/JYWV 814tagnv~, IL& r3 a wpolr~rstav ,nrort8so'Ocu rbv Zwri~pa dvau rbv /SsiyLO'TOV M6r ar O 0sWAX' o5'rt yf i7seis oorrop, of iretO4~svoi car, Xfyorrt, '0 flar~p, 6 ,r ias a, 55(('OV 0vlut .... iis yd p is, of 'yoi'rss red ird vra w.rrsvros Ka I rbyv cro'Osrbv ,cdouo0v alen'J, 4a v rbv ulbv o"K c urXvppE To flv a'rpbs, &AX' &ffoaadOTEpov. Kal rotiho X'yO/hss, aiirc r4 tEL~o(t LaOL 5r(SV1, K. T. X. OR m. Cont. Cola. lib. viii. � 14 , 15. Op. tom. i. pp. 752, 3. 8 see his Comment. in Matth. tom. 15. � 10. Ogp. tom. iii. p. 666., and Com- ment. in Johann. tom. 13. � 26. Op. tom. iv. p. 236., and lb. tom. 32. � 18. Op. torn. iv. p. 451. 287 288 PATRISTICAL TRADITION -"The Father is the whole substance, but the Son a deriva- "tion and portion of the whole, as he himself professes ; 'For " the Father is greater than I.' " 1 But by others of the Fathers, especially those engaged in dis- putes with the Arians, these words are explained as referring to the human nature of our Lord. Thus, Athanasius says,-" Whatsoever, therefore, the Scrip- " ture 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."' 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, " 'lie that hath seen me hath seen the Father,' (I and the "rFather 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 compared to the Father, he says, that he "is among things inferior on account of his human nature."3s And so Augustine, Ambrose,' and others have explained it. Many, however, maintain the opinion, that it refers to the 1 " Pater tota substantia est, Filiuis vero aerivatio totiu~s et portio, sicut ipse profitetur, Quja IPater major me est." TuRTULt. Adv. Prax. c. 9.i.Op. . 50 4. 2 'Odaobv ?S/ys ,*? Ypa4 j, 6Tr tAcitiw6 uib,, KZ2 8oj'tdo8,, 6 uis, Bed rmjva p ndrra cs~rov i; t, ou Std r*a' Gsmiva. Kcd 8'E Ai7yeS, 6 f~a 4lp wv, 6 r44 as E, /A'vvlou a&TLV, Sir l Cv~pwwrsrov t05E AlCVcu airTov \iet L rbv fcrrpa. Ad- yo4 6w 'ra ro laa'pbs, To'os afn'oG &rwv. ATIL&NAS. I)e Incarn. � 1. Op. trn. i. Pt. 2. p. 873. 3 '0 iK OeoG vAciyoi . ,.. &vdrrpos Aim &vpwrrfros, &s 4al~te&eebs, Kea vZOl' of6K &artd' 84Wa, wat 74ib I r t 40EL us'sOa a o~s'v, Stlt'ii &vOp4rwov. Torydpm'oi wo'r4 JAYv, tIaOaEV, 6 ~Swpasc6is 4ub, 4ipaics rbv flc'rpa4, yKiaa 6 larlp v &glEM. TIo'r4 8 aS awdAwy, 6 flcsrip ,uou sdasCv o' rw' Oi. Lfwov yp 6wo' ro aGfrpbs, uccs'r 'y 'rb Jv uoif 'tcam~ dbv, scat ica'dray mrov ro~' b ioorraroi, , 5,SA(' rro'wrval err, ari 'rb &vOp~rov. CYRIL,. ALEX. Do recta ide ad Theodos. c. 28. Op. torn. v. Pt. 2. p. 25. ed. Auberti. 4 IDe Trin. lib. iH. cc. 6 and 7. 8 fi ide, lib. ii. c. 4. 288 NO DIVINE INFORMANT.28 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 advocated by both the Fathers from whom we have just quoted, Athanasius and Cyril, in other parts of their works. Thus, Athanasius says,-" For on this account it was, that the Son himself did " not s.ay, ' My Father is superior to me,' lest any one should CCsuppose, that he was of a different nature from him, but he tt said, 'greater,' not indeed in magnitude nor time, but on t aceount of his generation from the Father ; nevertheless tt even in saying he is greater, he showed the quality of the essence." 1 And Cyril,-" The Son, therefore, being equal with the " Father as it respects his essence, and like to him in all points, says, that the Father is greater, as being without " beinning, he himself having a beginning only as it respects " his generation from him, although he has a similar subsistence with hiin."' In the context,3 however, he gives the other ex- planation, viz, that these words are to be understood only with reference to the human nature of Christ. All this amply shows how utterly destitute the Fathers were of any traditive interpretation of the text. Among the others who have considered this passage as apply- ing to the divine nature of the Son may be mentioned Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and Epiphanius.4 I thee?'roirro 7&p read a&rrbr 6 lhs OIJK d4pilKEY, 6 flarjp /LoUKpslrrwv MoU i'', Iva 3i t/vov ' .1LIsriKjr cevou 4nvdos rdruwTrrroA($or &XA& &Et~wv 'dorEV, 0tu $E'0E4 rovd, out XJpdvr, &XA& BL& arnv ' a~noi iou fna rpbs y~ren0'W7iXjv8i' 5 r, T EL7TEL&', LEt~wv hrih', (8eit LkE vFAWT'v 'r-s ooaai8sdr ra. ATnANAS. Orat. 1. contr. Arian. � 58. 0p. tom. i. pp. 462, 3. And see his treatise JDe Synod. � 28. torn. i. Pt. 2. p. 745. 2 11001 Os yCtp0L'V Kar vT&-s rjrot'nrhs Adyov (rrdp~wv 6 uihs r4 H a'rp2, Kcl 8/5OwSo ,ccer& ,rcvra, ,t, E'fra a ,rrvelw ks h'C, ficip~ov, 9Xev 'l pX*IV Ka r l dvoi' Tb ?o, i' icc d 1YYpoo/hv a3T11 Tj 7 f frapt4 v tC. Cys. ALEX. Thiesaurus, c. 11. Op. torn. v. pt. 1. pp. 85, 6i. aSee ih. pp. 85, 843, and 91. 'See these andl several others in Bishop Pearson on the Creed, Art. 1, who takes this view of the text. Forhes supports, and likewise from the Fathers, the opinion that it refers to the human nature, and denies that it can have any refe- rence to the divine. (Instruct Hist.--Theolog. lib. i. c. 26.) Many modern com- mentators, as Lampe, consider it as spoken in reference to the complex person of the Mediator, in which the divine and human natures were united. vol.. 1. U 289 290 1PATRISTICAL TRADITION Even in such texts as - (4) Phil. ii. 6. "ccwho being in the form of God thought it not robbery [as our translation runs] to be equal with God "-we find Patristical authority for an unorthodox interpretation. These words have been used as evidence in the controversies respecting the divinity of our Lord in precisely opposite signilb- cations. Upon referring to the Fathers respecting them, what do we find? Exactly the same discrepancy. Among the Ante-Nicene Fathers (with the exception of Novatian, whom I shall quote presently,) I have not found any explanation of the passage such as can certify us of the way in which the words were understood, as the passages in which they are quoted give them merely in the form of a literal translation' For the orthodox sense we may refer to Chrysoston,2 Theodo- ret,3 Augustine,4 and many others. While on the other hand, as we have already seen, the unor- thodox interpretation is evidently given to this passage by Novatian, who interprets it as meaning, "he (id not think it " fell to his lot to be equal with God. For, although he remen- " bered that he was God of God the Father, he never either compared or likened himself to God the Father," &c. This was the interpretation given to this passage by Arius, who, as Chrysostom tells us, explained it thus, " being in " the form of God, he did not take it to himself to be equal with cGod."6 Other instances, in points of less importance, the reader will Thus TEarrut. Adv. Prax. c. 7. Adv. Mare. lib. v. e. 20. and Le resurr. earn. e. 6. 2 In toe. 3 In loe. 4 Contr. Maximn. lib~. 1. e. 5. s1)e Trin. c. 17. See p. 255, 6. above. It is remarkable that Dr. Burton, when giving, in his Testimaonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the divinity of Christ, their remarks on this text, has not alluded to this passage, though he has quoted the context of it. (pp. 122, 125, 133, 136. 2d ed.) I have not referred to the passage he has quoted (p. 12 1) from the letter written by the churches of Vienne and Lyons, preserved by :l#usebins (Ilist. Ecel. v. 2.), becmuse it appears to me very open to opposite interpretations. Eli's [Fi. e. Arius], 5ri v op4ji 0soi 6 t'wcipXc n', c s 'r~ iu ?ova & 0#aE. Cauvnsosr. Conmnent. in Phil. hioni. 6. � 2. Op. tom. xi. p. 235. On the various meanings that have been given to this aag e see 'Wolf in loc'. 290 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. find in the comments of the Fathers upon Gen. vi. 2, 4. Mark xiii. 32. 1 Peter iii. 19. iv. 6. In the first of these he will find the authors of the first three centuries unanimously interpreting it of the angels, while others in the fourth and fifth have no hesitation in denouncing such an interpretation as ignorant and absurd. These instances are adduced merely as a specimen, but any inquirer into this matter will find, that they afford a fair sample of the general state of the case, and that the notion of there being any traditive interpretation of Scripture, common to the catholic Fathers, is perfectly unfounded, and contrary to the plain facts of the case. In all passages where there is any difficulty, the Fathers are sure to be opposed to each other in their interpretations, and I may add they are often similarly opposed where there appears no difficulty. We need only con- sult those commentators who have given more fully the inter- pretations of the Fathers to see the truth of this.' Surely, then, we may say, as Bishop Patrick (our opponents' witness) says of his Romish antagonist,-" He knew, if he under- stood anything, there is no traditive interpretation of Scripture:" or as Bishop Taylor,-" It is said there are traditive interpreta- " tions as well as traditive propositions, but these have not " much distinct consideration in them, both because their un- " certainty is as great as the other upon the former considera- " tions, as also because in very deed there are no such things as " traditive interpretations universal; for, as for particulars, they " signify no more but that they are not sufficient determina- " tions of questions theological; therefore because they are "particular, contingent, and of infinite variety, and they are no " more argument than the particular authority of those men "whose commentaries they are, and therefore must be con- " sidered with them."' 1 See particularly Cornelius a Lapide, and Maldonatus; and Dr. Whithy's Dis- sertatio de SS. interpret. see. Patrum comment. Lond. 1714. 8vo. where many similar instances are adduced. 2 Answ. to Touchstone, p. 15. 3 Liberty of proph. � 5. 291 PATRISTICAL TRADITION And so Placette, as translated and published by our Arch- bishop Tenison, says,-" How little help there is for Scripture " in tradition appeareth hence, that it can no otherwise teach " what is the true sense of Scripture, but by the unanimous " consent of the Fathers, which whether it be to be had in any " one text of Scripture may be much doubted. It was a hard "condition, therefore, which Pope Pius IV. prescribed in his " profession of faith to all who desired admission into the " Church of Rome, and which may for ever silence all the Roman " commentators, 'That they will never receive nor interpret "Scripture any otherwise than according to the unanimous " consent of the Fathers.' Now I would fain know, how this " Law can be observed, since I may confidently affirm that there " is no one place of Scripture explained the same way by all the " Fathers. For there arc many places which none of them have " touched, and none which all have interpreted. Nor will it " suffice to say, that they agree who have interpreted it, and " that the silence of the rest is to be taken for consent; as if " they must be supposed to consent who were ignorant of such " interpretations, or died perhaps before they were made, or as " if the antients were wont expressly to reject all interpretations " different from their own, or those might not be rejected, or " at least others proposed, in those books of the Fathers which " are lost. It is not enough, therefore, to have the consent of a " few, unless we be assured of the concurrence of the rest. But " granting that it is, it cannot be denied, that our adversaries " can collect nothing certain out of any place of Scripture, if "any one of the antients have interpreted it otherwise. Hence " Alphonsus a Castro requireth, that among the necessary qua- "lifications of a text of Scripture to be produced for the con- " viction of heretics, this be the chief, 'that it be so plain and "undoubted, that none of the sacred and approved doctors " interpret it in some other sense, according to which such a " proposition cannot be thereby convinced of heresy.' But if "this be true, how few places will there be of whose sense we "may not doubt? Certainly there are very few explained the " same way by all antient commentators . . . . The anony- " mous writer of the 'Treatise of the liberties of the Gallican 292 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. " Church' maintains, that there are few places of Scripture which " the holy Fathers have not differently interpreted. As will " also manifestly appear to any one who shall consult those " interpreters that are wont to produce the expositions of the " antient writers. Hence the reader may imagine to what a " strait our adversaries would be reduced, if they were tied up to " their own laws, and allowed to urge no other places of Scrip- " ture against us than what are unanimously interpreted by the " Fathers : ... That the sense of Scripture cannot be learned "from tradition hence appeareth."'' And so lastly Dean Sherlock;-" As for expounding Scrip- " ture by the unanimous consent of primitive Fathers, this is " indeed the rule which the Council of Trent gives, and which ' their doctors swear to observe. How well they keep this oath, " they ought to consider. Now as to this, you may tell them, " that you would readily pay a great deference to the unani- " mous consent of Fathers, could you tell how to know it; and " therefore in the first place you desire to know the agreement " of how many Fathers makes an unanimous consent; for you " have been told, that there has been as great variety in inter- " preting Scripture among the antient Fathers as among our modern " interpreters; that there are very few, if any, controverted texts " of Scripture which are interpreted by an unanimous consent "of all the Fathers. If this unanimous consent then signify " all the Fathers, we shall be troubled to find such a consent in " expounding Scripture. Must it, then, be the unanimous con- " sent of the greatest number of Fathers ? This will be a very "hard thing, especially for unlearned men to tell noses: we can " know the opinion only of those Fathers who were the writers " in every age, and whose writings have been preserved down "to us; and who can tell, whether the major number of those " Fathers who did not write, or whose writings are lost, were of " the same mind with those whose writings we have? And why " must the major part be always the wisest and best men ? And " if they were not, the consent of a few wise men is to be pre- " ferred before great numbers of other expositors. Again ask I Incurable scepticism of the Church of Rome, c. 2.; reprinted in Gibson's Preservative, vol. 3. 293 294 PATRISTICAL TRADITION " theme, whether these Fathers were infallible or traditionary " expositors of Scripture, or whether they expounded Scripture "according to their own private reason and judgment. If they were infallible expositors and delivered the traditionary sense and interpretation of Scripture, it is a little strange how they "should differ in their expositions of Scripture.... If they cx- "pounded Scripture according to their own reason and judgment, "As IT IS PLAIN THEY DID, then their authority is no more " sacred than their reason is; and those are the best expositors, whether antient or modern, whose expositions are backed with " the best reasons. We think it a great confirmation of our faith, that the Fathers of the Church in the first and hest ages " did believe the same doctrines, and expound Scripture in great and concerning lpoints, much to the same sense that we do, and therefore we refuse not to appeal to them, but yet we do not wholly build our faith upon the authority of the Fathers " we forsake them, where they forsake the Scriptures, or put per- 'erse senses on them. . . .There is no other way, then, left of understanding Scripture, but to-cxpound it as we do other writings; by considering the signification and propriety of "words and phrases, the scope and context of the place, the reasons of things, the analogy between the Old and New Tes- tangent, and the like. Ihen they dismute with Protestants, they can reasonably pretend to no other way of erzoundingy Scripture, " because WE ADMIT OF NO OTHER."' And so elsewhere on the general question of doctrinal consent among the Fathers, when his opponent had urged " how great and manifest" primitive consent was "to those good men who inquire," he sarcastically replies, "1 Y ea, how great indeed, for nobody can find it but the Vicar q f Putney."' Nay, what is the testimony of Origen in the middle of the third century ? " Celsus remarks," he says, " that they [i. e. "the earliest Christians] were all of one mind; not observing S St:.mtocx's Preservative against Popery, Pt. 1. pp. 52-4; reprinted in Bp. Giibson's Coll etion, vol. 2. Sn EumoCK'S Vindication of 1)iseuurse of Notes of Church, 1687. p. 13. re- printed in Bishop (riihson's Preservative against Popery, vol. i. tit. 3. c. 2. p. 66. The allusion is to the " Consensus Veterumn" of Selater, who for a time left the Church of England for that of Rome, hut afterwards returned. 294 NO DIVINE INFORMANT.25 " in this, that from the very beginning there were differences " among believers resccting the meaning of the books that were " believed to be divine ;"l and further on, accounting for the variety of sects among Christians, of which Celsus had com- plained, he says, that this arose "from many of the learned among the heathen being desirous of understanding the Chris- tian faith, from which it followed, that from their understanding differently the words which were believed by all to be divine, " there arose heresies, taking their names from those who were " struck with the first principles of the word, but were somehow moved by soe probable reasons to entertain different views of it one from another." Now this is clearly inconsistent with the notion of there being any traditive interpretation of Scripture commonly received in the Church, and thought to be from the Apostles; for here it is evident, that the Scriptures were taken as the rule by which to judge what the Christian faith was, (which Origen mentions, not only without reprehension, but as coming in the natural course of things,) and that from the different interpretations given to the Scriptures (as was likely) by these learned heathen, there arose various sects, and that Origen 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 suc- cessional delivery, and which lie evidently considers to be in Scripture as well and as clearly, is the summary of the elemen- tary articles of the faith above quoted. For had he held the views of our olpponients, he would have thrown the blame of those divisions upon their authors not having followed this tra- ditive interpretation derived from the Apostles, whereas it is evident, that he had no notion of the existence of this infallible guide; but, seeing that mien would come with all manner of 1 +>7~2 aKa 1-1 by ~Vt?4,pd,/ovv ?rcfv7ES'ova' 6v 'ro? rce p bpwv, 8"'&PX71OEv IrEpl Trfv ' rois WErTLO1EU/.VOLs OEEoLs EPlvat$ij3Xiots ?JK~OX37V 'y'('caaL t 44rw5/aL 7W)' rL- 'rEvSVrwJ'. OIIIGE . Contr. Ceb. lib. iii. � 11. op. torn. i. p. 4153. 2 tL& Tb TrolJ8Cf Lo v O'1vatCLT& yjucrrtavta"o/ Kl' w rv 4XoX&yw'cilAEIoY4d. To& ' a'i3KOAott~O7LTE, ata4'dpspW? 6E, aLE'WV Tobu &. a 2 WcUTL WLLTEVOEY7s IZ$ elfvzs O A&yous, rb, )'V&ala capi'cr~s bwv6jt ous ~oOGU~WXY&MvrWV pipT r~) oU Xkyov &pX~)lu, Kt?1OfVTwV a' g5ws wor' olio (nr6 rsvwv ~aor i-wv irpbs r&s h &X 1 Aous S~wvonas. ORtioRN. Contr. Cell. lib. iii.� 12. Op. tomn. i. p. 454, 5. 2U5 PATRISTICAL TRADITION preconceived 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 pre- tensions at the present day ! When, therefore, our opponents send us to the Fathers to learn from their consentient interpretation of Scripture what is its true meaning, they are sending us to that which has no exist- ence, 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 impos- sible to arrive at any certainty; and yet this "consent" is pro- posed to us as part of the rule of faith, without which we cannot be sure what is the 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 Fathers truly and impartially to ascertain what they have delivered, and find that there is hardly a single doctrine 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 Scriptures, as interpreted by the consent of all the Fathers, may end in neglecting both. Their system may look very well in theory, and may p)lease 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 it is brought 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, 296 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 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 doc- trine 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 doctrines, statements, and practices, were not unfrequently maintained by pri- mitive 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 to 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 Fathers of the first two centuries and a half, uncontradicted by the others we possess of that period, that the Apostles affirmed, that at Christ's second coming 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 resur- rection and the final judgment. This, I admit, they attempted to prove partly from Scripture; but they also claimed an Apostolical tradition in its favour. Thus, Irenreus 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 297 298 ATISTICAL TRADITION "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."' 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 accord- ing as those who see him shall be worthy."... . " That this is "the arrangement and classification of those who are saved, 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.]' Frome these passages it appears, that this doctrine was de- livered as an Apostolical tradition, not upon the authority of Palpias only, as is sometimes stated, but of others, who were also the immediate disciples of the Apostles. And as it respects P'apias, there seems no reason why we should question his capa- bility 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, "rto set down in order for you, with the interpretations, those things which I formerly fully learnt a 46 rwdicta itaque bcnedietio ad teinpora Regni sine conctradictione pertinet, qluando1(regnabunt justi surgentes a in ortuis : qiiaido et ceatura renovata et liberata inultitudinemn fruetiticaldt iniivcrsnj cscaw, cx rare tali et ex fertilitate terra : cueiiadiuduenu Ireshten i einerunt, pd ui nneni disiimulnni )ouiiii viderunt, au(1isse sc at) (o, quiciadlinodui d~e ten porihus ilis docebait Douminus, et dicebat :' epic nt dies in qluibus vines naseentur, singuhe dccciii millia pal- inituin hlaentes,'"~ &e...Tairaz51 KUJ flawlas 'Iwdvvou dv &Ioten-js, floAwcdpsrov 851&ceipos yryov'cs, &pxaios &svjp, >7pdL pwsrt rLFPpsL 4y rlj rerdprp i-wv crroi , $Afwue 'ora ycp acirei w4'rs t3Ac ruay a7a. IRE N. Adv. hbcr. lit). v. e. 33. ed. Mass. p. 333. ed. Grab. p. 455. 1s fln01iipEsi367pot A y)'Q', Ithq KCal 01 r' KarawO4l Es 7175 ?' ofpe4 &crp. J 7s iIT C0 wpijaxout, 01f64 rjnrov irapcz6Eitrou rpv4 s &wroAtoaouatof &01 6 Ae~u pdrrr rirjsr w sr a6 oaTtvw' av rcLXoiJ ycp 6 Zci p paOijtc.rai, iea~cwintot ioovrcolfp&'ren c.r6v ...., Ilane ee, adordlinationePn et dispositioneni ecommr qui salvantur, dicunt P'rebyteri Apostolorum discipuli, et per hujusmnodi gradus proflecre, et per Spinrtumn quideum [ad] Filluun, pc r Filiun autem asceudere ad Patrem, Filio deinceps mCdenlte Patri opuis slci lupenmadmoduin et al.) Apostold dictum st : " quouiin oportet," &e. [1I(Cr. xv. 25, 6.] lb. e. 36. p. 337, or, p. 401. 298 NO DIVINE INFORMANT.29 " from the presbyters, and have well remembered,' confirming 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 conversed with the elders, I inquired diligently " after the sayings of the elders, what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip, or what Thomas, or Janmes, or what John "or Matthew, or any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and John the elder (or, presbyter), the disciples of our Lord, say. For I thought that the accounts given in books could not profit me so much as what I might hear fromn the "mouth of those yet living and remaining in the world."" And although Eusebius says, that, judging from his books, he was a man of very narrow understanding, yet this censure has not much weight when it comes from one strongly opplosed to him in the doctrines he there stated ; especially when it is admitted, as Eusebius is obliged to admit, that he induced very many, of whom Irenmeus is mentioned as one, to embrace the Millennarian doctrine, for Irena~us certainly was a better judge of his qualifications than Eusebius. And when Eusebius men- tions as the cause of his error, his having understood those statements literally wvhieh were to be understood figuratively, (upon which, by the way, he seems partly to infer the nar- rowness of his understanding,) he is assuming the very point in question, and charging that as a fault upon Papias, which Irenaeus, Justin, and others, whom no man pretends to accuse of a want of understanding, stoutly defend. 3 I 'Ooa iron wap& iee' wper$eur pw KaAWS J 8aov Kal KaA~vS i 'b Pvoa. 2 PAPI .- fmgrn. in Euseb. Hlist. Icel. lib. iii. c. tit., and in Routh, Relict. Saer. Vol. i. p. 8. SThe words of Enedhius are these. Kal &AAa ?l~ 6 adrrbs yypa4)dse 45 4 wrapa J$tTws &ypdc~1ou E$ s aio' 4KOVTa 71clpaTEOELrtL, t+cvasTi 'rtias irapct/3oA&s roi Zw r-qpoe Kal 6&uricaAtae eri, ic alr'rta AAa z OWdurEpa. 'EP Off' Kcd l xtLS. TW L 41WT1V &WV 'TosocLgat U-Tarap, ELK 4'vEKpw Y &voT'rLY wt'w /ctKwC T1 t'rtrof X pso'- 'TOU $WAEvcISsi r rm r-s "^is irowo o4'dr . 'A Ice i7'oV/iAt T&5 &lFrotT7 Xuc&s 7rcaoEKaEt4L EvoM 3t rsv, &iroXa(3est', Ta&44' &ro5efytyxw pbs t'raiv vo(rucKt siva rvvwpaucora.Z48pa 'ydp 'Tot o/sLcpb)s &vtbr v 'Om,', s &Y ?x''r&iv cv- 'rOe Atycsw 'rEKI7qp t/.4f MOM ihrwwi, 4 alvercu i wv al& ,oroct' ter' cdnbvw rXEt0'rott' 8ootc 7rcY tKKA7JrtOaTri~e, 'r is '6gotats afrr tnSs WIrpacSiLos Vf70Me, '7iy &PXOafO~'a 299 800 PATRISTICAL TRADITION Moreover, as this doctrine was maintained as one derived by successional delivery from the Apostles, so was it more especially defended as one supported by numerous testimonies of Scrip- ture. Thus, Justin Martyr affirms, that Ezekiel and Isaiah and the rest of the prophets maintain it; and having quoted some pas- sages, (viz. Isa. lxv. 17--25, and Psa. lxxxix. 4,) he adds, "And one of us, by name John, one of the Apostles of Christ, " in the revelation made to him, predicted that those that "believe in our Christ, should live a thousand years in Jeru- salem, and that after this should be the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection of all together with one accord, ard the judgment; which also our Lord spoke of, that they shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be like the angels, being the children of the God of the resurrection. [Luke xx. 35, 6.]"1 Similar evidence for the doctrine is still more largely ad- duced by Irenaxus, who quotes from more than a dozen books of Scripture in proof of it.' So Tertullian speaks of it as pre- dicted both by Ezekiel and St. John.' Further; they maintain this doctrine with the greatest con- tidence as the truth of God, and intimate, that those who did not receive it, among the faithful, were such as had been led astray in the matter by the heretics. Thus, Ireineus says,- " The above-mentioned blessing, [viz. that of Jacob by Isaac,] undeniably belongs to the times of the kingdom." And again ; "Such promises do most clearly signify the feasting of the "creature which God promises to give in the kingdom of the "just."5 And again ; " These and all other such things are undeniably spoken respecting the resurrection of the just."" r&vs po wp6A s .vocs- gtiwfp o r Eip~vat41, ,cal of r s XAos & 8,uca 4'povwis &5c1r4l'"eI'. Eusini. lust. Ecci. lib, ii., c, nit.; ed. Reading, p. 137. 1JUSTIN. M. Dial. Ginn Tryph. � 81. ed. lien. pp. 178, a. (ed. 1686. p. 307.) sSee IRIE . Adv. bier. lib. v. cc. 33-36, dd. Mass. et Grab. 8 Tiucntux. Adv. Marc. lib. iii. c.24 4See p. 297, 8. above. 6" Tales itaque proniissiones inaifestissimo in Regno justorum istius creature epulatione nsign icant, quaii Deus reprowittit iniustratunun se." LxzmN. lib. V. c. 34. ed. Mass. p. 334. eed. Grab. p. 467. s"lne ecnin [et] adian nai ersa in resurrectionein justornin sine c ontroversis dicta suet." lb. c. 35. eed. Masw. p. 335. ed. Grab. p. 458 300 NO DIVINE INFORMANT.30 And when introducing this subject, he attributes the necessity of discussing it to the circumstance of some having imbibed "heretical notions" on the point. "Since," he says, "some " of those who are thought to be correct in their belief,' trans- gress the order of the promotion of the just, and are ignorant "of the steps by which they are gradually trained for the incor- ruptible state, having in themselves heretical notions;' for the "heretics, despising the work of God, and not believing in the "salvation of their flesh . . . . say, that, as soon as they are " dead, they go beyond the heavens and the Creator... As to "r those, therefore, who reject the resurrection altogether, and as " far as is in their power take it away, what wonder is it if they " do not know the order of the resurrection? . . . . Since, there- "fore, the opinions of some are influenced by the discourses of the heretics,3 and they are ignorant of the arrangements of God and the mystery of the resurrection of the just, and of the kingdom which is the commencement of the incorruptible state, by which kingdom they who are worthy arc habituated by degrees to enjoy communion with God, it is necessary to speak concerning these things," &c.4 And thus also speaks Justin Martyr;-"Tell me," says Trypho, " do you affirm, that this place Jerusalem is to be really rebuilt, and do you expect, that your people shall be gathered together [there], and live happily with Christ, together with the lpatriarchs arid prophets, and those of our race, and those that became proselytes before your Christ came, or have you {proceedled to affirm thesethnsha you might seem to over- come us in argument ?" To which Justin replies,--" I amn not such a wretch, 0 Trypho, as to speak differently from "what I think. I have, therefore, already confessed to you, that I and many others are of this opinion. I.. .. But I have also " "Quidam ex his qui putantur recte credidisse." 2 " lsereties sensu s in se hahentes." 3"Transferuntur qjuorumidain sententin' sib hasreticis scrinonibus." 4IRE a. Adv. hoer. lib. tv. cc. 31, 32. ed. Mass. pp. 330, 331. ead. Grab,. pp. 450-2. 5The words here omittedI are, 4sreal d wcsJlrtorasTeEf raro 7YFi'?o /4E5ov, which seem clearly corrupt. Thirihy conjectures 4wsorrdcrthu, which the 1Benedic- tine Edlitor adopts, hut which does not appear to remove the difficulty. The sentence appears to me evdently to require ?brrr4#OEa, (which occurs in the latter part of' the partgraphI,) and then the sense would he, " as also we fully know that this will he." The words riro ii' &s'4s~a -,w rJsvos occur in � 49. 301 302 PATRISTICAL TRADITION "told you, that many even of those Christians who are of pure " and pious sentiments, do not acknowledge this. For as to "those who are called Christians, but are in reality atheists and " impious heretics, I have shown you, that in all things they "teach blasphemous, and infidel, and absurd doctrines.... " For I am resolved to follow-not men or human doctrines, " but--God, and the doctrines that come from him. For if you " fall in with some who are called Christians, and who do not " confess this, but even dare to blaspheme the God of Abraham, "i and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and who say, "t that there is no resurrection of the dead, but that their souls, "as soon as they die, are taken up into heaven, you must not suppose then to be Christians. As neither would any one " who rightly inquired into the matter, affirm the Sadducees or "the similar sects of the Genistae and Merist c, and Galiheans, and Iellenists, and Baptist-Pharisees, (and bear with me "while I speak my mind,) to be Jews, but Jews and children " of Abraham in name, and confessing God with their lips, as " God himself exclaimed, but having their heart far from him. B But I, and all Christians altogether orthodox,1 know, both " that there will he a resurrection of the flesh, and a thousand years in Jerusalem built up, and beautified and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and the rest affirm." Here, then, although (according to the reading of the copies that remain to us, the correctness of which is doubted by many3) he admits, that many Christians of pure and pious sen- timents did not hold this doctrine, yet he lays it down as cer- tainly true, and one which all those who were fully orthodox maintained ; and he couples the denial of it with very serious heresies. 1'Eyar $, coal s51 rwVs doss 3peeycsuovcsrKca drca Xprwasol. 2 .1 uSriN. MARIT. IDial. ceuni Tryph.� 80. e. Ben. pp. 177, 8. (ed. 1680. p. 306.) 8 It has been thought by manny, that instead of roA~obs S'' a til cd rif KaBapcs$ KaL i 6rs~ois v7WV X pssrucvv -vc /A77, we should read voAAovs 8' a; sil rvv hr-s xa~ap , K. r. A. which certainly would suit the context better, but is an munendationhadydtm il on conjecture, and is not necessary. Arch. bishop Tillotson, however, in his Utiule of faith," pleads strongly for it ; and he supposes the pas sage here referred to by JIustiii, to be that occurring in � 35. pp. 132, 3. (eed. 1686. p. 253.) The words of Ire i us, however, quoted in the preceding page, (note 1.) support the reading of the M''. 302 NO DIVINE INFOR IANT.33 And to those already mentioned, we may add, as defenders of this doctrine, among others, Nepos, Victorinus Pctavio- nensis,2 Lactantius,3 Apollinarius Junior,4 and Sulpicius Severus, 5 to whom some add even the Nicene Council.6 Moreover, as we have the testimony of Eusebius, quoted above, to the number of those who embraced this doctrine, so we have a similar testimony from Jerome, who says that though he did not adopt the doctrine, yet he could not condemn it, because many members of the Church and martyrs had main- tained it ;7 and he admits, that the majority of the Western Church in his part of the world maintained it; and that so earnestly, as to be indignant with those who denied jt.s It is impossible, then, to deny, that the testimony in favour See ErsEn. Hist. Ecel. vii, 24; and HIEIc ON. De vir. illustr. c. 69. 2 Se HhERON. ) vir. ill. c. 18; and Comm. in Ezeeh. e. 36; and ANON. Frag'm. op. I)e fair. nundi, in Cave, lust. Lit. sub nom. 3 See ILACTANT. Inst. vii. 24, and Epit. � 11; and lITERoN. Do vir. ill. C. 18. 4 See IhrEaoN. )o vir. ill. c. 18; and Comm. in Is. in Pra{ ad lib. 18: also, Basia. Cs . Ep. 263. Op. ed. len. torm. iii. p. 406. (al. Ep. 74.) 5 See II ElION. Comm. in Ezech. c. 36. 6 Their words, according to (lelasius Cyzicenus, were these;--"Wherefore we expect new heavens and a new earth, according to the Holy Scriptures, when the appearance and kingdom of the great (h and our Saviour, .Jesus Christ, is mani- fested to us ; and then, as Daniel says, the saints of the most high shall take the kingdom, and the earth shall 1)e pure, a holy earth of the living, and not of the dead ; which IDavid foreseeing, hy the eye of faith, exclaims, ,I helieve that I shall see the goodness oif the Lord in the hind of the living, the land of the meek and humhle.' For 'hlessed,' saith lie, ' are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.' And the Prolphet, ''rhe feet of the meek and humhle,' saith he, 'shall tread upon it.'" GELAs. Cxrzwc. Aeta Cone. Nic. lih. 2. c. 31. ('d. Lutet. 1599. pp. 156, 7. 7 " Qui licet no0n seqluaniur, tamen dasinnare non lxssusiin, juia multi Ecele- siasticorm virornm et martyres ista dixerunt. Et unusqiiisqiie in sno sensu ahundet, et I omini euncta judicio reserventur." HIrpON. Comm. in hlerein. e. 19. Op. toni. iv. col. 975, 6. ed. V'allars. Ven. s"lI)e repromissionihus futurorum, quomodo deheant aceipi, et qua ratione intelhigenda sit A pocalypsis .Iohannis, quam si juxta literam accipimus, judaizandum est, si spiritualiter ut scripta eyst (lisserimus, inultorumi vetcrumn videhimnur 0111100- nibus contraire. Latinorum, Tertulliani, Victorini, Lactantii ; Gni'crum, ut cateros 1) wtermittani, Irenwi tantmrn Lugd. Episec. faciaxn nentionemn, adiver- sum quem vir eloquentisstimus I)ionysius AlexandrinmE cclesia pontifex elegantem scrihit lihrun, irridens mnille arinorum fahulamn. .. Cmii duiohus voliinimhis re- spondet Apollinarins, qt'emn non solumn suoe $eet'( Iomies cud et nost'rorwm, ia kow ppart' dumt'ret', plvrimna sequitur multit'ude, a' pra'saga music 'jam cernam, quantouma in me ab ie.s conflCP/Cfl it." llum .ow. (omnm. in Is. in Prief. ad libr. 18. Op. torn. iv. cal. 767, 8. ed. Vallars. Ven. 303 304 PATRISTICAL TRADITION of this doctrine, as an Apostolical tradition, is such as can be adduced for hardly any other; and by the earliest Fathers it is delivered to us as one which it savours strongly of heresy to deny. They deliver it to us as the undeniable sense of Scrip- ture, and as confirmed by a testimony coming to them by suc- cessional delivery from the oral teaching of the Apostles. Nor is it till we come to the middle of the third century, that we find any record of any person of note in the Church op- posing it.l A bout that time we find, from an incidental notice of the matter in Eusebius2 and Jerome,3 that Dionysius of Alex- andria wrote a hook against it, in refutation of one by Nepos, according to Eusebius, or, as Jerome says, against Irenus; and was answered by Apollinarius, who (as Jerome tells us in the passage above quoted,4) was followed in is point by most of the Western Church in Jerome's part of the world. And after this period we find most of the authors that remain to us opposing, and even ridiculing, the doctrine.' Now I will not enter upon the question, whether this doctrine is true or false, for that might seem to involve a determination of the very l)oint in dispute; nor will I press the argumentum net Iwriricm against our opponents, as not receiving what has such witness in its favour, because they may justly take refuge in the admissions of Justin and Iremeus, that there were those among Christians who did not embrace it, as showing that there x unless we think, that the answer of the relations of our Lord to Domoitian, when questioned concerning the future kingdom of Christ, is pertinenit to this matter; and it certainly appears to me w~orthy of observation, in connexion with it. x Being asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, what it would he, and when and where it was to appear, they answered that it was not mundane or earthly, hut heavenly and angelicol; and would he at the end of the world, when he should conmc in glory anl judge the quick and the dead, and give to each nc ording to his works." ('Epavrrn64'rar 8S irepl 'roi X purroi real 'rijs 0oiwAdas czuroe, 6irof a ir l sJ, K al IIJTe ral we? 4av ~cop.4',, Xyov ovc, dis ov Kocr LLcl1 /oirs' kv' rfsio , 4roepdneos S teal &)7EALIc j'rtvXd6.'-, s~ bl vrrEXs4ycroi ciivos y v ir, hrcra AN V8~ 4t) s op's?'cis'ra realcdvErpous, rel ol WOchJELcdorqi breard 1r& wiri~s ara a 'roi. EuSiEn. list. Reel. ii. 20. ed. Reading, p. 110.) Ersi.s. lust. ecel. lib. vii. c. 21.; and see lib. iii. c. 28. a lliiu or. Comm. in Is. in 'rwf. ad lihr. 18. 4 See the preceding page. 5 See EresEs. luist. eel. iii. c. colt. lirmroN. in lnc. cit. et passimn. TruxoDoirT Ilieret. Fab. lib. 2. c. 3. Op. tonm. iv. p. 330. ed. Schulze; &o. &. 304 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 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 cor- rect interpretation of Scripture, and an Apostolical tradition, by a great number of the most esteemed Fathers, and conse- quently may 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 moreover, that what seems, if we are to judge from the few authors that remain to us, to have been the pre- vailing 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 repu- diated by the great majority, that we can barely find a sup- porter of it, and shall 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 ;"1 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 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 concern- " ing matters of doctrine."' Now, the notion is new to me that a doctrine is more easily handed down than a fact; and the point now under consideration is, as it appears to me, a doctrine. It certainly was so propounded by Iremneus 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,-" Certainly in Egypt I Lect. on Romanism, &c. p. 203. 2 lb. p. 203. VOL. I. X 305 PATRISTICAL TRADITION " in the third century they seem to have had their origin in a " misconstruction of Scripture. Euseb. list. vii. 24."1 I can see nothing more, however, in this passage, than that those who supported the doctrine, supported it, as Justin and Irenaus (lid before them, by testimonies of Scripture; believing those testi- monies 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 Dionysius of Alexandria of a disputation he held with some of those who were attached to this d~trine; in which he tells us, in praise of his opponents, tha' they, "acting most conscientiously and " sincerely, and with hearts laid open to God's view, fully re- " ceived those things that were established by proofs and testi- " monies taken from the iHoly Scriptures." The two next cases I would notice, are instances of un- founded claims to Apostolical tradition, on points connected 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 Eusebius, who tells us, that towards the close of the second century "no " small controversy being raised, because the churches (rapot- " K at) 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 commanded 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 prevailing; 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 SLect. p. 203. See the passage quoted below, ch. 10, under "Dionysius of Alexandria." 306 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. " one consent, did by their letters certify the brethren every- "where of the ecclesiastical 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 (ypaq4Q) of those who then were as- " sembled in Palestine, over whom Theophilus, bishop of the " church in Caesarea, and Narcissus, bishop of that in Jerusa- " lem, 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 Iren us was bishop. More- " over, 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 determina- " tion."1 But, on the other hand, when this judgment was communi- cated to the churches of Asia, they, as Eusebius tells us, " stoutly maintained, that they ought to observe the custom that came to them by antient tradition ;"~ and their bishop, Polycrates, wrote back to Victor, bishop of Rome, as follows :- "We therefore," he says, "observe the true dlay unaltered, hay- "ing neither added to nor taken from [what has been delivered "to us]. For in Asia died the great founders (vccrtv &'rucplrrEiv ?w'EX~Spuuv. Kal rTara iv ot'ror 'repl 'ro6au' 5taA43&v,v 5&ws rxity. EtT5Efl. lust. EccI. iii. 32. ed. Readting. p. 128. The RIAmlmsh editor of Eusebius, Valesius, being very much troubled with this pasae though he admits that Eusoebius understood Ifego- sippus to be speaking of the Church at large, has the face to s sert, that Euseius was in this mistaken, and that Hegessippus was only speaking of the Church oif Jerusalem, though we have nothing left us of Il~segesilppas but the few fragments that Eusebius has preserved. A similar passage of Iliesippu s on the same sub. jeet is preserved to us by Euselaus in his 4th bk. c. 22. Some have supposed it to be themsie passge as is here referred to, thinking thereby to curtail the passage given abxve; hut if Rusebius is to be trusted, the passages were evidently no t the same ; and why should we suppose, that there could not be two notices relating to the same matter in the five books of H-egesippusP The very passages we arc now considering, show, that we should be wrong in such a supposition in the case of Eusebius, and why therefore might we not in that of ilegesippus? 405 PATRISTICAL TRADITION the heretics were all posterior to the times of the Apostles. " Whatsoever," says Dr. Routh, " Firmilian may say to the " contrary in his Epistle to Cyprian, it is well known, that some " heresies, and such as even separated from the communion of " the Church, existed before the Apostles were dead, certainly " before the death of the Apostle John. (See 1 John ii. 19; " Jude 19; Rev. ii. 6, 15.)''1 And therefore, as the same learned writer observes, all these authors are to be interpreted as meaning, that the times of Trajan and Hadrian were fruitful in h eresiarchs, who acted much more boldly than those who went before them." That the seeds of those heresies existed in the Church in the times of the Apostles, and are alluded to in such passages as those we have quoted above, is distinctly main- tained by Tertullian 3 and Irenaus.4 But, indeed, what can be plainer than the following state. ment of Jerome on this subject ? " While," saith he, " the " blood of Christ was yet but recently shed in Judiea, it was " maintained, that the Lord's body was but an appearance; the " Galatians drawn away to the observance of the Law were again " begotten to spiritual life by the Apostle; the Corinthians dis- " believing the resurrection of the flesh were urged by many " arguments to return to the true path. Then Simon Magus " and Menander his disciple asserted themselves to be Powers of " God. Then Basilides feigned his great God Abraxas with his " three hundred and sixty-five forms. Then Nicolaus, who was "one of the seven deacons, dreamed his impurities. I say " nothing of the heretics of Judaism ...... I come to those "heretics who mangled the gospels; a certain Saturninus, and " the Ophites, and Cainites, and Sethoites, and Carpocrates, " and Cerinthus and his successor Ebion, and other pests, most "of whom broke forth during the life of the Apostle John." And in the Apocalypse of St. John, he points out, as instances of heretics, that, "To the angel of Ephesus there is imputed the "loss of love. In the angel of the church of Pergamos, the 1 Itourn. Reliq. SS. Patr. vol. i. p. 234. -lb. S TEItTLL. De Pruscr. hlret. c. 7 and c. 33. 4 IRs. Adv. her. lib. i. In. prof. 406 NO DIVINE INFORMANT.40 "eating of things offered to idols and the doctrine of the Nico- "laitans are blamed. Likewise in the ease of the angel of the " Thyatyreans, the prophetess Jezebel and the eating of things "offered to images and fornications are rebuked." I Remarkable also is the testimony of Origen. " Many of " those who profess to believe in Christ," he says, "disagree not only in small points and those of no moment, but also in important points, and those of the highest moment."' And again, in a still more important passage;-( I wish that those "only who are without the Church were deceived; it would be " easy to avoid the seduction. But now they who profess to be- "long to the Church are deceived and misled even on the necessary "points, as their dissension is a witness, since even those who " arc within the Church are misled......It is bad to find any one erring in points of morals, but I think it is much worse to err in doctrines, and not to hold that doctrine which is agreeable " to the most true rule of the Scriptures. . . . . Every one that is perfect . . . . and that has his senses exercised for under- standing the truth, will necessarily in his inquiries fall in " with many doctrines opposed to one another, and will hear " many professing to know the truth and different traditions re- " spectinq git."3 To which we may add the passages already quoted in a pre- " "Adhue spud .Tudwam Christi sanguine recenti, phantasms Domini corpus asserebatur; Galatas ad obsorvationem Legis traductos Apostolus iterum parturit; Corinthios resurrectionem carnis non credentes plurihus argunmentis ad verum iter trahere conatur. Tune Simon Magus et M enander discipulus ejrusi)ei so asseruere Vii'tutes : tunceTBasilides summum DIeum Abrazxas cum trecentis sexaginta qjuinque Editionibus commentatus eat; tune Nicolaus, qui unus de septem Diaconis fuit, die noctuque nuptias faciens, obacienos et auditu quoque erubescendos eoitus som- niavit. Taceo de Judaismi hiereticis...Ad eos venio htereticos, qui Evangelia laniaverunt; Saturminum quenmdamn, et Ophitas, at Cainalos, et Setthoitas, et Carpocratem, et Cerinthum, et hujus successorern Ebionern et cweteras peotes quorum pluriini vivente auhuc Joanne Apostolo eruperunt." "Angelo Ephesi deserta caritas imputatur. In angelo Pergarneue cciesibe idolothytorum esus et Nicolaitaruin doctrina reprehendlitur. Item apud Angelunl Thyatyrorum Jezabel prophetissa et siniulacrorum es;w et fornicationes increpantur." HxmnioxNY. Dialog. adv. Luciferian. �� 23, 24. Op. torn. ii. col. 196-8. 2 Oaio EN. De Princip. lib. i. Praf.--Op. ed. lien, torn. i. p. 47. 8 " Utinam soli qui extra ecciesiam sunt seducerentur ; facile erat c avere sedue- tionern. Nunc autem ipsi qui profitentur se c ciesiasticos esse de neesariis qui- busque capitulis falluntur et seducuntur, sicut ipsa dissensio Corum testixuoniumi 407 408 PATRISTICAL TRADITION ceding page ;1 where he tells us, that " from the very beginning "there were differences among believers respecting the meaning " of the books that were believed to be divine." So also iDionysius of Corinth (who flourished a. 170) speaks of " some teachers" who, in their esteem for the works of Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, respecting the millennium, " despised the " law and the prophets, and neglected to follow the gospels, aind "made light of the Epistles of the Apostles.""2 And these, we find from the context, were teachers in the Catholic Church. Nay, we find that such a correct successional delivery of doc- trine as our opponents suppose, did not exist even in matters relating to the rites and practices of the Church, where an alte- ration is so much less easy than in points of mere doctrine : as, for instance, in the observance of Easter, the varieties in which are attributed by Irenenus to some bishops not being so diligent as they ought, and leaving that as a custom to those that came t fter them which had been introduced through simplicity and igno- rance.3 And we find Firmilian of Caesarea, (as we have already ob- served,) in the middle of the third century, charging the Church of Rome with many such innovations, and telling its rulers that they vainly paretenlded apostolical authority for them..4 And these eorruptions, be it observed, must have been intro- duced at periods anterior to almost all the records we possess of the Primitive Church. east, quoaantni et rai inxtus aunt seducuntur;. . . Mahi quidean c"t invenire ali- qcn aicunutn more. vitae erraaatem, anulto autena pejus arluitror ee in dogm aa- tibus alaerrare, et non secnadan veriuashaaaan regulatan airilturarum s:entire... Omnais pui perteetus east. ... et quti exercataitou lalat seluus aid caripitc unn, Wneceus cn at qutrciua es et discutiens in multi incurrat de atatuan pri lia, audiet dtiana mnultost prot'tentes veit ateom et (riveras doecat trnditioaaes." Oauoru. In Maittla. Comnaaaat. Series. � � 33, 35. Op. torna. iii. pp. 852, 853, 8541. See p. 294, 5. abuove. 2 K~al rtw n' accocdxwv 'rbv j4v a'4wv cal 'roes wpo4tiras rb 4usjy vii 'ov,.d5v. ccd 'rb 'rots se'ciyys~tois bqtrOc TpE'Irtvv alv ,cal s rcjv 'Awrog'rdAcv ir cWLo1A&5 iac cuAnrc+raw. Dxos-rs. Con., in Eusan. Hiat. Eccles. vii. 24. ed. Rea ding. p. 350. s T in' wcptt 7b a&pt$ s, W~S d*c4s, icpa'roa vmra', r s' ae' &wX~anrrca K endrr ourvuccu' .ies na vrrra rirweorqtcdmav. Thxs. Epist. ad Victor. in Eras. l ist. Eccies. v. 24. (d. Rending. p. 218. 4See the passage in p. 317, 318, above. AAN NO DIVINE INFORMANT. If, then, such changes could be so easily introduced in mat- ters relating to the rites and usages of the Church, and the inno- vations claim for themselves Apostolical tradition and authority, as was the case with those we have just mentioned, how much more easily might this be done in matters of mere doctrine. And when such innovations were widely spread, (and if they were corruptions 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 corrup- tions would here be out of place, where we are principally con- cerned with facts. But we may just observe, that there were many such. One of the most fruitful sources of such corrup- tions 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, out of that which was plain making mysteries suitable to their own imaginations, and, -resolving that to themselves 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, be- came celebrated throughout 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 409 PATRISTICAL TRADITION the almost incredible effect which may be produced by one or two able, zealous, and influential individuals, nay even by one,- witness Augustine; a truth to which Mr. Keble himself has borne testimony ; 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. How- ever 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 that remain to us of the Primitive Church. 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 impartial 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 Christian 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 :. contradicting herself on this point, in the two most General Councils we read I KaLE'S Pref. to Hooker, p. liv. See HIERON. adv. Lucifer.; LIBERnIn Epist. adL Ursac. Valent. et Germ. in Oper. llTLaII Pier. Fragm. 6. col. 1338, 9, et Ep. ad Vincent, ibid. col. 1340; GaGone. NAZIyz. orat. 21; V c. Lra. Commonit. c. 6. 410 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. of in ecclesiastical history ;1 to say nothing of those numerous 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 substantial evidence in their favour." And this leads me to the second point, viz., to show more distinctly, Secondly, That such errors were from the beginning main- tained 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 be- longing to it, could publicly maintain any errors of importance, without being excommunicated, or at least censured, by a judg- ment of the whole Church, and so as that such censure must have come down to us, is a supposition 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 un- awares ;" "ungodly men, turning the grace of God into lasci- "viousness, 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 communion of those churches. (Jude vv. 4, 12.) Again; in the church of Pergamos, there were those that held the doctrine of Balaam, and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans; (Rev. ii. 14, 15.); SSee p. 186, and 332, 333, above. SSee JEWELL's famnous challenge to the Romanists, in his sermon. 411 PATRISTICAL TRADITION in the Church of Thyatira, whose "works, and charity, and ser- vice, 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 pretensions 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 Diotrephes; 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 reocive 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 ad- mitted,--as, in truth, it is a known fact,-that the heretics generally pleaded as strongly for their doctrine being Apostolical, as the orthodox did. The passages above quoted, indeed, 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 Diotrephes presided, spiritually 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, I beg to ask, how is the enquirer to determine which are the Laodicean, and which the orthodox churches ? For, here is an end at once to the notion of there being catholic consent in all important points in all the Apostolical 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 inspired teachers of the faith ? Would he not naturally say, Have the 412 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 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 exception worth naming, as au- thoritative, on all sides. What will a wise man, individually responsible to God for embracing the true faith, do under such circumstances ? Will he not take those Scriptures into his hands, and by a diligent 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 neces- sary; for, as we see from the passages already adduced under the former head, the supporters of false doctrine within the Catholic Church progressed with the advance 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 pas- sages 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 promulgated by those who were all their lives in the communion of the Catholic Church, and were even followed, admired, and honoured members of it; of which Origen is a most remarkable and undeniable instance; whose writings were not condemned by the Church till long after his death. Were it necessary, we might point out many other instances of erroneous statements on important points in the works of Fathers who died in the communion of the Church, and alto- gether free, as far as we know, from ecclesiastical 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 fundamental points, while, nevertheless, they remained in the communion of the Church; and were not, as SSee p. 407 above. 413 PATRISTICAL TRADITION far as we know, publicly censured for want of orthodoxy. From whatever cause this might be, whether from their happening to be screened by circumstances, or from the elevated position they held in the Church, or from the lack of any constituted authority to take cognizance of the matter, or from their con- demnation not having come down to us, the fact is indisput- able. Now this appears to me to be fatal to the system of our oppo- nents; for it is a necessary hypothesis for the support of their scheme, that had there been unorthodox notions in the writings of any of the Fathers who were in the communion of the Catholic Church, there would have been a condemnation of them by the Church remaining to us. For this is the only reason for limit- ing ourselves to those of the Catholic Church, namely, the sup- position that in their professed 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 offer 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.) This would be very true, if we had 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 exist on any point; for, on the contrary, they would appear to me rather to strengthen it; for Patristical consent, under such circumstances, would be 414 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 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 essential to the main- tenance of their system. The errors that we have shown to have been openly defended 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 ex- clusively 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 com- munion with each other by the epistolary intercourse of their prelates, should, for two or three centuries, bear precisely the same testimony 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 corruptions had been introduced, where was the tribunal competent 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 separation ? 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 in- 415 PATRISTICAL TRADITION dividuals. 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 confession of faith ? The fact is, as any one who will take the trouble impartially 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 GENERAL REMARKS. I now proceed, in the last place, to reply to the objections that have been urged against the views here advocated. One of these has been already disposed of in the former part of this chapter. It has been objected, that the position we maintain is just that of all the antient heretics, who always declined the testimony of Tradition. I have already abundantly shown,1 that this is altogether a mistake, and that the heretics were in the habit of appealing to the testimonies of preceding Fathers, and calling 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 had 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 have been necessary to consider those traditionary notices a divine informant, arises from the hypo- I See Sect. 7. above. 416 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. thesis 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 Tradition would not have preserved the truth, and is not fitted to be a divine informant. It is further objected,' however,-- That for more than two thousand years from the creation 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 on record, being those of men who were favoured with some peculiar and extraordinary divine manifesta- tions. 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 nature the things " contained in the law," and be " a law unto themselves," and " show the work of the law written in their hearts, their con.. "science 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 SNEWMAN's Iet. on Rom. &c. p. 330. BELLARM. De Verb. Dei, iv. 4. VOL. I. EE 417 418 PATRISTICAL TRADITION dictates of reason, were Christians, though they might be reckoned atheists ;' 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 Irenieus identifies the decalogue with " those " natural precepts which God from the beginning implanted in "the hearts of men." 2 And Clement of Alexandria tells us, that " before the coming " of Christ philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteous- ness ;" that " God is the cause of all good things, of some " immediately, as of the Old and New Testament, of others "mediately, as of philosophy. But perhaps it [i. e. philosophy] " was then given by him to the Greeks immediately, before that "the Lord had called the Greeks; for even this, as a school- master, led the Greeks to Christ, as the law did the Hebrews. " Therefore philosophy prepares beforehand, and makes ready " the way for him who is perfected by Christ."s Thus, Tertullian says, that " before the law was written by Moses, the Fathers observed that which nat ure taught them," arid that by this Noah and others were considered righteous.4 Eusebius says, 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." 6 Theodoret snys, " that the Abrahanmic race received the divine 1 01 ,SEra Adyo aov ucaV5T5, Xp#cSivol 510., ioy &sot io$E0lo rav olo,..E4' 'EAAjo-i J A4 Zwipdrrticc.) 'HpdicAsrror, ic.) l .o c.?.arrois. JUST. MARIT. Apol. 1. �46. Op. ed. Boned). p. '71. (eel. Col. Apol. 2. p. 83.) 2 " Nam IDens prim o (jiide n per nat uralia p"wteepfa, qtuv ael) initia in/Ira dedi? Aomhdbi~n.s, adnmonens cos [i. e. Judy ]s, id est, pe'r D clogum, (qua si quis n1on1fl Brit, non babat sadutem,) ihil plus ab eis exquisivit." IE t. Adv. leer. lib. iv. c. 15. A ad.M . p. 24 (e. 28. e1. Grab. p. 317.) ' H' I A6 o3tyirpbr is red Kuptou lrcpouocrls u's Succ.oo'rv p'EXAfl0.w vc yicc.1c. qnAocro4d . ... wdvrwv v y7lp cdrtorrwv ,ccAan'd6 euds- fA& recv JPv, Kacrt wrpo177o4evi, s 7r-s 7is5.c.imvs T sh~ us ..Kric7s Vfas" mill 84, Karr' .braico- Aotv~ ia ijs 4i.rAoaoo idc. .Tdc. a81 i cc.)wpyov1.dvw5 Toil 'EAAijo'w J8SO,1 di, wplv I 'ras Kt pcoyv F(ka'c~a ic.)robs 'EAAgsp'c rcs~ ~wc.. c 7ds.yp icc.)&1fl Tb 'EXX-qic~icv, cia 6 vd cos 'rove 'EZIpcatous cs rX purrdv. flpoirapcicsvd%.r rotyvvw!4 isj dla TpooSoWrOS0oc. 71W In&rb .X puro rou SXIOMEov. CLEM. ALEX. Strom. lib. i. � 6. Op. ed. Potter. p. 331. (Syilb. p. 121, 122.) 4" Ante legenii Moysi scriptam, qua naturaliter intelligehatur, et a Patribus enstodiebatur. Nam node). Not Justus invantus, si non illum naturalis legis justitia priveebt P uncle1 Abraham axaicus Di deputatus, Si non do maquitate et justitia leis nxaturabis ?" &c. TErITULL. Adv. Jud. c. 2. Op. ad. 1664. p. 184. 5 nJ O ~ r ?7rpviv crov Md/han'v, Astovs 46n T'.,i' pOVtrd p0.Y 6pOo s XG'yaa. 418 NO DIVINE INFORMANT.41 "c law, and enjoyed the blessing of prophecy, but the Governor " of the universe led the other nations to piety through nature "c and creation."' 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 subject of religion had not, as traditions, any claim upon their belief. They were not binding upon the conscience, 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. Let us 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 tradi- tionary notices of religion that have come down to them from their ancestors ? Or, rather, are they not bound, strictly speak- ing, to avail themselves of the light of their natural reason and conscience, and reject those traditions, 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 thenm 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 inseparable from the mode of conveyance by which they were transmitted ; and we should have been left to the ".Is, BOoo Eo9Etaf &pETIKcTEk o T/S4O?UaY. ErsED. Caps. Prapsr. Evang. lib. vii. c. 7. ed. Col. 1688. P. 305. 1 T?, ~i' 7 p 'A~paqJ.LCUOV y7&0, Kal a VWO~v LO iJcI7, KO.l WpO4m77rLKflI & rj- Acun* f ro -T& 84 .yE &aX(1 i, 8L& 7115 4 (CTEWIDCs)ralr^1Thi CTEC.s !Ji yetrru pbs OEoo 3t TE~wo 8V Acv 6 irp6t~.cs. TuaonoxIrr. (arms. Affect. Curat.; disput. 1. props fin. op. ed. Schulze, torn. iv. p. 724, 725. E E2 419 PATRISTICAL TRADITION guidance 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 prac- tical 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 recognise as divine. We need very direct proof of their revelation to convince us of their truth. Such proof we cannot have in "Tradition," and there- fore 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 and 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 "Tradition" 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, they can never be laid down as part of the authoritative rule of faith for mankind in general. Nor is it a valid 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 autho- ritative claim upon the faith of the hearers. But it was gene- rally 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 420 NO DIVINE INFORLMANT.42 Ghost sent down from heaven, rendering the more abundant testimony we possess to its divine origin unnecessary. On this point we may add, as our opponcnts think so much of the authority of the Fathers, that Chrysostom expressly 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 writ- " ings, 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. 11 For that the former was better, God hath manifested, both by "wvhat 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, sonic on account of doctrines, "raothers in life and manners, [which shows how soon Chry- sostom believed such errors to have prevailed,] there was "oagain need of writings to preserve a remembrance of the "truth." i "IE Si ~s u 7ast se ~ tr&irb 'rsv yp qsdiwu'$on6etas' &AAt' o~rw (or, crp KO~ai caapbv, cws v Tvtiaroir iv ivILTO '4tY &dw &rl $s$Atwv ')EJ4S8t at zs 71EtE tp5555 4'vxcsis, Kad KaO4lrep rTidhs 8t& daso, otrrw r&t vap5tav ra, * ripas 8s& wvE6LLaTG5 +iyyEypS 4S~u. 'EwrEs53 641ir&7v 8SEKpOIO4LEcS 8r~&'xcpsv, 44 p,, 4v Tb,' a EEpoV &0TiaT568a5 irAoiuv. 'Ertl 5istrb lrpdrpov 6 + w'ov ~, cal 8t' toy jel?, teal 5e' av ?irohpftea jAcasEv 6 0.ds. Ka) y&p 'rs^ NW'*Kal TV ~'A$pa C t, ,al TOiS y6VoGsSToiSS Kfi&'OV, real 759 'IcSr, Kal rya Mavi o~tZ 84ob 8U& paL$ST0S' 0dET0yro 421 422 PATRISTICAL TRADITION 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. iBut, as we have already seen," Mr. Newman himself admits, that all the promises of Christ to the Church would be fulfilled by the existence of a succession of individuals in the Church holding the true faith. The promises 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 suifrages 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, how- ever, we have already spoken in a former page.2 Further, it is objected, that "Tradition" is like that un- written 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 "rthey have received from the generation before them, and that generation again from the generation before itself. And in "this sense, undoubtedly, we all go by tradition in miatters of "the world.... At this very time, great part of the law of the &aAx cdrr?,s St' Icatroi, Kaacp&J' E, pLO'cuiv cuv rIv ijv acdMvotav. 'Ewr~*Sj N ds a~rra i4s KwdxtU 4'&hecre rbv' wvogva a rwiv 'E~pah*,v 6 8ijtws, &v ,ccdws Aoaw?,v ypdt. /a-r 1c4 d ccs, teal,) S&td olthrwv i wdwr. Kuld 'otro, oux r br s0' 4'v wa~au ayw , AAcat+s a e Th1 p IC4tropI4.v go, i1s t&V. OW 74.yp Toil +&TOOrd~ots t3w1 *7a 6 9 dJs- J . 4'r 7zy d'rirav ro fle6Awos 4flryYdAaro &S'w x4v. 'Escivos -yap paus &'ai&,r, p Tcra. . . . y~Sj84 uoAAoi TrOt Xp4GV i spoIdi'-ros Jitem La, 01 / v 8oyudrwv v&w', of U 9ou sca rp4%r.v, 4S nv srAtp is wb a 41t 6o~wfjortws. CuxvsosroM. Comment. in Matth. hots. 1. scut. Op. tm. viu. pp. 1, 2. 1Se pp. 48 and 170 at seq. above. 2 Ibid. 422 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. "land 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 expe- " dient. If we ask, why it is that these professed traditions " 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 trans- " mission 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 indi- "rect, 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."' 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 records 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 I NEwxy's Let. on Romanismn, &c. pp. 38-40. 423 PATRISTICAL TRADITION are received as part of the common law, certain "church prac- tices 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. 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 custom beyond the period of legal memory, to make it binding in a court of common law, I shall be quite prepared to receive it as Apo- stolical. Be it observed, also, that this argument affects merely the customs, and not the doctrines of the Church, notwithstanding 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 con- nected 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 KrBLE'S Serm. on Prim. Trad. p. 33. 2 BELLAItM. Dc Verb. Dei, iv. 8 424 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 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 observ- ing such rules, as long as they are not inconsistent with the declarations of Scripture or their duty to God, is not here dis- puted. But the question is, whether rules and customs are to be enforced as having been ordained by the Apostles, for which the evidence we have for that professed Apostolical sanc- tion 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 had Apostolical sanc- tion. Lastly, a very favourite argument with our opponents, as with the Romanists, is, that as we are satisfied to take the book 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 Fathers 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 con- " troversy, 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. Newman, we will suppose, delivers a Treatise on Justification, rather obscurely penned, (for so must we suppose to preserve the similarity of the two cases in Mr. Newman's view of the matter,) to a brother clergyman, to whom also he delivers orally an ex- planation of its meaning. The book travelling through many hands, accompanied in each transfer with an attempted repeti- tion of the oral comment, comes at last into my hands, and the de- liverer 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 criticizing the contents of the book, I should remark, that this 42 5 PATRISTICAL TRADITION 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 deliveries, 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 commu- nication 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 another upon such evidence. And let it be noted, whither such a principle would lead us. We receive the books of the Old Testament from the Jews. There- fore, accordilng to this argument, we are bound to receive the meaning of them from the Jews. Therefore we are bound to reject the New Testament and Christianity altogether. " We can never be assured, " says our learned Henry Whar- ton, (in his Preface to an old treatise by Bishop Peacock on " Scripture the rule of faith," republished by him in the great Popish controversy at the end of the 17th 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 capricious " malice or ignorance of men. Nothing can exempt the tra- " dition of the Christian religion from this fate, at least from " our reasonable suspicions of it, but the infallibility 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 infal- "libility must at last be resolved into the sole truth and certainty "of tradition. In the next place, tradition cannot certainly and "invariably 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 erery one of these cases infinite "difficulties will occur, which will singly appear insuperable. 426 NO DIVINE INFORMANT.42 "As, Who is a true Pope, What his intentions ndefining were, Whether he acted canonically, In what sense he hath " defined? What Councils, whether (Ecumenical, Patriarchal, " or Provincial, may be securely trusted? What are the neces- "sary conditions and qualifications of a general Council ? Whether "all these conditions were ever observed in any Council? What "these Councils arc, 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 Pope and Councils " be rejected? From all Christians, or oniy from tke clergy? If "from the latter, whether the assent of every member of the clergy " be required? If not, how great a part may safe4, dissent from " the rest ? From whom the opinion of the mafr' part is to be "receired ? Whether from the writings of doctors 'r the teaching of living pastors ? 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 difficulties 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, tradition 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 thenm 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 obtined 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 cauw.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 antecedent to the knowledge of the true Church, " and consequently independent on it. For otherwise Scripture "will be believed for the authority of the Church, and the 42 PATRISTICAL TRADITION " 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 contradic- " tions 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 or other presuppose " the knowledge 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 opponents to the suffrage of all our great divines in their favour, and which have justly con- tributed more than anything else to the maintenance 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 scep- ticism 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," a few extracts from which I will here place before the reader; and in which, we may observe, he distinctly main- tains, that no such consent has been obtainable 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 arc, 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 I WHA'TON'S Prface 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." Lond. 1688. 4to. 428 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. "doctors, whosoever they be, it be required, that all should " consent in their doctrine every one of them, which they call " all mathematically; or whether the consent of all morally, that "is 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 hun- "dredth, &c. who shall define this? If all mathematically " 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 "alhnost all consent, ought not only to affirm but also to prove " what he says. But how shall so obscure a thing be proved ? " 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 con- " sented; 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 define " this as they please, and almost all be accounted to have con- sented, 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 consent 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 4.29 PATRISTICAL TRADITION " from the Europeans 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 followers 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 acknowlcdgeth, that " ' if a rule obscurely 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, therefore, I shall show, that the consent of pastors "about matters of belief i� 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 dif- " fused 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 dispersed.... 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. For nothing is more true than that opi-.. " nions are illustrated by controversies.... We proceed to the " third reason, which consisteth in this, That some opinions are 430 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. " often divulged in the Church as revealed by God and approved "' 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 appear, that it is taught to " be of faith; but that this is most uncertain.... Not what- " soever they unanimously affirm is to be received as the reve- " lation of God, and the doctrine 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 con- " sider 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 cx. " pressly revealed or coherent to things revealed. This Holden " acknowledgeth ;-'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 insti- "tution, or not immediately founded upon divine revelation, " 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 Hie adds some remarks against the possibility 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;"2 on each of which points he offers some valuable obser- vations which I would commend to the notice of the reader. I PLACET's Incur. Scept. of Church of Rome, cc. 20, 21, 22. 2 Ib. c. 24. 3 lb. cc. 24-27. 431 432 PATRISTICAL TRADITION 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 sonic 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 Romanist Cassander, who, in his irenical exposition of the articles of the faith, professes to have scrupulously followed that consent as his guide.' Such also was the view expressly advo- cated by the Lutheran George Calixtus and others in the 17th century, who entertained the hope of thereby effecting a recon- ciliation between the Romanists and Protestants, and bringing the whole Church to a state of peace and amity,2 a consunma- tion worthy of any labours and efforts for its accomplishment, but little likely to be brought about by such means, or indeed by any human means. But "consent of Fathers" is indeed a broken reed to depend upon for such a purpose. Once more, however, I would warn the reader, that my object in this chapter has not been to withdraw from the Fathers that reslpect that is due to many of them, but to show, that the doctrine 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 impos- sible to avoid an exposure of their mistakes and infirmities, which I should have been glad to 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 xSee CASSANmoI Consultatio, prole finemi. 2 "EFo devenerunt [i. e. G. ('alixtus, ('our. Ilorneins et. Christ. Dreierus], ut Scripturfe Sacra consensunm Eeesiio aut Patrum, prwsertiin quinque priorum s ucloruin, adijungerent, c mtenderentque in rebus dubius consensuin ilium ceu veritatis regulain ainpiectendum, et quidquid isto consensu niteretur, hoc soltum creditu ad saintein ease ne cessarinin, nec adeo fundamentales errores exprobrari illis posse, qui crederent quin cum i ito Patrum consensu convenirent. Hoc uimirum Mlud i1 'un enit, quod Vineentiuni Lerinenseni docuisse antea observa- vinius, quem et drw ernsse s qui 4zeimet Profitebantur. Btrnn tIs8. ad Th elog. lib. ii. c. 3. vol. i. p. 511.Se also WALCR. Biblioth. vol. ii. pp. 498 et seq. 432 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 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 qualities 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 infallible expositors of the Divine word and doctrine. Now, of such men it is painful to speak but with regard 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 which endangers the very foundation upon which our faith is built, however painful the task may be, it is one of which duty to the Church requires the performance. It is the natural and inevitable consequence of their having been exalted by our opponents 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 evidence of what was held by some por- tion of the Primitive Church in their day. As witnesses to) facts comining under their own observation, their testimony is invaluable. But to set up their consent as a practically infal- lible reporter of the teaching and traditions of the Apostles, is not only to give their testimony 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. VOL. I. 433 F ' PATRISTICAL TRADITION SECTION XI.-MIt. NEWMAN'S ABANDONMENT OF TlE THEORY OF CATHOLIC CONSENT AND THE CANON OF VINCENTIUS. Before bringing this chapter to a close in this second edition of the present work, it becomes almost necessary to notice the very remarkable change that has taken place in Mr. Newman's views since the former edition was published. I am not now alluding to his formal secession to the Church of Rome, but to his abandonment, even before that act took place, of the Vin- centian theory of catholic consent, which so long formed the very foundation of his system as the leader of the Tractarian party, and is still the ignis fatuus by which that party are endeavouring to guide their steps. In 181.5 Mr. Newman published an "Essay on the develop- ment of Christian doctrine," the greater part of which was written and printed before he had finally resolved to join the Church of Rome. The " Introduction" to this work is devoted to showing the incompetency of the rule of Vincentius to enable us to ascertain what is the orthodox Christian faith. "The rule," says Mr. Newman, "is more serviceable in " determining what is not, than what is Christianity; it is " irresistible against Protestantism, and in one sense indeed it " is irresistible against Rome also; but in the same sense it is " irresistible against England. It strikes at Rome through " England. It admits of being interpreted in one of two ways; " if it be narrowed for the purpose of disproving the catholicity " of the Creed of Pope Pius, it becomes also an objection to the "Athanasian; and if it be relaxed to admit the doctrines re- "tained by the English Church, it no longer excludes certain "doctrines of Rome which that Church denies." (p. 9.) There is much truth in this passage, however mixed with error. If the rule is "narrowed" to the legitimate meaning of its words, so that nothing is to be received but what everybody always everywhere from the beginning has held, the Athanasian Creed will fall to the ground equally with that of Pope Pius; for 43i1 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. though there is good testimony for the one in the very earliest times, and none for a great portion of the other, there is certainly not the catholic consent of the whole nominal Church for either one or the other. And if the rule is "relaxed" so that a few direct or indirect testimonies of certain selected authors are to be taken as satisfying its requisitions, then almost anything may be proved by it. Mr. Newman then proceeds to notice one of those saving clauses with which his works as a Tractarian leader abounded, pointing out the limitations to which the rule of Vincentius was necessarily subject, in order, as it would appear, to lessen the dis- tance that separates his first theory from that to which he had attached himself when he wrote the "Essay." These saving clauses, so far as they relate to our present subject, we have not neglected to notice above. But they are of little avail for Mr. Newman's purpose, because, when he wrote them, he was so far from allowing that the difficulty of satisfying the requirements of the Canon of Vincentius prevented our obtaining from it any authoritative guidance, that he maintained precisely the contrary, and put forth what was deduced from the remains of Antiquity by the application of this rule of Vincentius, as teach- ing that claimed our faith as much as Holy Scripture. But let us see how Mr. Newman proceeds completely to demolish with his own hands his former structure. Going on with his remarks on the theory of catholic consent according to the rule of Vincentius, he observes;-" Let us allow, that " the whole circle of doctrines, of which our Lord is the subject, " was consistently and uniformly confessed by the Primitive " Church, though not ratified formally in Council. But it " surely is otherwise with the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. " I do not see in what sense it can be said, that there is a " consensus of primitive divines in its favour, which will not " avail also for certain doctrines of the Roman Church which " will presently come into mention. And this is a point which "the writer of the above passages [referring to some remarks of "his own in a previous work] ought to have more distinctly "brought before his mind, and more carefully weighed; but he " seems to have fancied, that Bishop Bull proved the primitive- r2 435 PATRISTICAL TRADITION "ness of the Catholic doctrine concerning the Holy Trinity as " well as concerning our Lord. " Now, it should be clearly understood, what it is which must " be shown by those who would prove it. Of course the doe- " trine of our Lord's divinity itself partly implies and partly " recommends the doctrine of the Trinity ; but implication and " suggestion belong to another kind of proof, which has not "' yet come into consideration. Moreover, the statements of a " particular Father may certainly be of a most important cha- " racter; but one divine is not equal to a Catena. We must " have a whole doctrine stated by a whole Church. The Ca- " tholic Truth in question is made up of a number of separate " propositions, each of which, if maintained without the rest, is " a heresy. In order, then, to prove, that all the Ante-Nicene " writers taught it, it is not enough to prove, that each has gone " far enough to be a heretic--not enough to prove, that one has " held that the Son is God, (for so did the Sabellian, so did the " Macedonian,) and another that the Father is not the Son, (for " so did the Arian,) and another that the Son is equal to the " Father, (for so did the Tritheist,) and another that there is but " One God, (for so did the Unitarian,)-not enough that many " attached in some sense a Threefold Power to the idea of the " Almighty, (for so did almost all the heresies that ever existed, " and could not but do so, if they accepted the New Testament " at all;) but we must show, that all these statements at once, "and others too, are laid down by as many separate testimonies Sas may fairly be taken to constitute a ' consensus of doctors.' "It is true, indeed, that the subsequent profession of the doc- "trine in the Universal Church creates a presumption that it " was held even before it was professed; and it is fair to inter- "pret the early Fathers by the later. This is true, and admits " of application to certain other doctrines besides that of the " Blessed Trinity in Unity; but there is as little room for ante- " cedent probabilities as for the argument from intimations in " the Quad semper, quad ubique, quod ab omnibus, as it is com- " monly understood by English divines. What we need is a " sufficient number of Ante-Nicene statements, each distinctly " anticipating the Athanasian Creed. 436 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. "Now, let us look at the leading facts of the case, in appeal- " ing to which I must not be supposed to be ascribing any heresy " to the holy men whose words have not always been sufficiently " full or exact to preclude the imputation. First, the Creeds of " that early day make no mention in their letter of the Catholic " doctrine at all. They make mention indeed of a Three; but " that there is any mystery in the doctrine, that the Three are " One, that They are coequal, coeternal, all increate, all omni- " potent, all incomprehensible, is not stated, and never could be " gathered from them. Of course we believe that they imply it, " or rather intend it. God forbid we should do otherwise ! But " nothing in the mere letter of those documents leads to that "belief. To give a deeper meaning to their letter, we must " interpret them by the times which came after. "Again, there is one, and one only, great doctrinal Council " in Ante-Nicene times. It was held at Antioch, in the middle "' of the third century, on occasion of the incipient innovations " of the Syrian heretical school. Now the Fathers then as- " sembled, for whatever reason, condemned, or at least withdrew, " when it came into the dispute, the word ' llomoiision,' which " was received at Nicaea as the special symbol of Catholicism " against Arius. " Again, the six great bishops and saints of the Ante-Nicene "Church were St. Irenaeus, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian, St. " Gregory Thaumaturgus, St. Dionysius of Alexandria, and St. "Methodius. Of these, St. Dionysius is accused by St. Basil of "having sown the first seeds of Arianism; and St. Gregory is "allowed by the same learned Father to have used language "concerning our Lord, which he only defends on the plea of "an economical object in the writer. St. HIippolytus speaks as "if he were ignorant of our Lord's Eternal Sonship; St. " Methodius speaks incorrectly at least upon the Incarnation; and St. Cyprian does not treat of theology at all. Such is "the incompleteness of the extant teaching of these true saints, "and, in their day, faithful witnesses of the Eternal Son. " Again, Athenagoras, St. Clement, Tertullian, and the two " SS. Dionysii, would appear to be the only writers whose "language is at any time exact and systematic enough to re. 437 PATRISTICAL TRADITION "mind us of the Athanasian Creed. If we limit our views of "the teaching of the Fathers by what they expressly state, St. "Ignatius may be considered as a Patripassian, St. Justin "arianizes, and St. Hippolytus is a Photinian. " Again, there are three great doctrinal writers of the Ante- "Nicene centuries, Tertullian, Origen, and, we may add, "Eusebius, though he lived some way into the fourth. Ter- "tullian is heterodox on the doctrine of our Lord's divinity, and, indeed, ultimately fell altogether into heresy or schism; " Origen is, at the very least, suspected, and must be defended and explained rather than cited as a witness of orthodoxy; and Eusebius was an Arian. "Moreover, it may be questioned, whether any Ante-Nicene Father distinctly affirms either the numerical Unity or the " Coequality of the Three Persons; except perhaps the heterodox " Tertullian, and that chiefly in a work written after he had " become a Montanist : yet to satisfy the Anti-Roman use of Quod "semper, ic., surely we ought not to be left for these great " articles of doctrine to the testimony of a later age. "Further, Bishop Bull allows, that 'nearly all the antient " Catholics who preceded Arius have the appearance of being "ignorant of the invisible and incomprehensible (immensam) " nature of the Son of God ;' (Def. F. N. iv. 3. � 1.) an article "expressly contained in the Athanasian Creed under the sane- "tion of its anathema. "It must be asked, moreover, how much direct and literal "testimony the Ante-Nicene Fathers give, one by one, to the " divinity of the Holy Spirit ? This alone shall be observed, " that St. Basil, in the fourth century, finding that, if he dis- " tinctly called the Third Person in the Blessed Trinity by the "name of God, he should be put out of the Church by the "Arians, pointedly refrained from doing so on an occasion on "which his enemies were on the watch; and that, when some "Catholics found fault with him, St. Athanasius took his part. "(Basil. ed. Ben. vol. 3. p. xcvi.) Could this possibly have been "the conduct of any true Christian, not to say Saint, of a later " age? that is, whatever be the true account of it, does it not " suggest to us, that the testimony of those early times lies 438 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. " very unfavourably for the application of the rule of Vincen- " tius ?" (Newman's Essay on Development, pp. 11-15.) "Perhaps it will be said, that we ought to take the Ante- " Nicene Fathers as a whole, and interpret one of them by " another. This is to assume that they are all of one school, " which is a point to be proved; but it is even doubtful, " whether, on the whole, such a procedure would strengthen " the argument. For instance, as to the second head of the " two, Tertullian is the most formal and elaborate of these " Fathers in his statements of the Catholic doctrine. ' It " would hardly be possible,' says Dr. Burton, after quoting a " passage, 'for Athanasius himself, or the compiler of the "Athanasian Creed, to have delivered the doctrine of the " Trinity in stronger terms than these.' (Ante-Nicene Test. to "the Trinity, p. 69.) Yet Tertullian must be considered " heterodox on the doctrine of our Lord's eternal existence. " (Contr. Herm. 3.) [The very passage referred to p. 248 above]. " If then we are to argue from his instance to that of the other " Fathers, we shall be driven to the conclusion, that even the " most exact statements are worth nothing more than their " letter, are a warrant for nothing beyond themselves, and are " consistent with heterodoxy where they do not expressly protest " against it." (Ib. p. 16.) And after other observations of a similar kind, (mixed with inti- minations that the Patristical evidence in favour of certain Romish doctrines is superior even to that for doctrines which even orthodox Protestants hold,) he concludes his remarks on the rule of Vincentius with this statement;- "It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion, " that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records "and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the " dictum of Vincentius must be considered in the abstract, and "possible as its application might be in his own age, when he " might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, " IT S1 HARDLY AVAILABLE NOW OR EFFECTIVE OF ANY SATIS- " FACTORY RESULT. THE SOLUTION IT OFFERS 18 AS DIFFICULT " AS THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM." (Ib. p. 24.) Such is the complete renunciation of the principle upon 439 PATRISTICAL TRADITION which it might fairly be said that the whole Tractarian system is grounded, by the prime author and founder of that system. Notwithstanding all the boastful confidence with which the rule of Vincentius was put forward as the sure method for discovering the truth, so that, to one who so inquired after it, it was said to be a "historical fact," " obvious to the intelligence of inquirers as other facts," a little further acquaintance with the remains of the antient Church has shown Mr. Newman, that the rule is wholly unfit for guiding us to any "satisfactory result." From this fact the public may judge of the competency of the founders of Tractarianism for the task they undertook, and, I must add, of the weight due to the writings of those who could thus lightly dogmatize in matters of which they had so little knowledge. The reader will observe, therefore, that the validity of the argument I have made use of in this chapter against the Trac. tarian system has now been acknowledged by the prime sup- porter of that system; some of the very same passages and considerations to which I have referred having been adduced by him for the same purpose. Into the consideration of the theory which Mr. Newman has adopted in the place of the doctrine of "catholic consent," it would be irrelevant here to enter. But a brief notice of its nature may be satisfactory to the reader. It is thus stated by Mr. Newman himself:- "That the increase and expansion of the Christian Creed and "Ritual, and the variations which have attended the process in "the case of individual writers and Churches, are the necessary "attendants on any philosophy or polity which takes possession "of the intellect and heart, and has had any wide or extended "dominion; that, from the nature of the human mind, time is "necessary for the full comprehension and perfection of great "ideas; and that the highest and most wonderful truths, "though communicated to the world once for all by inspired "teachers, could not be comprehended all at once by the " recipients, but, as received and transmitted by minds not in- " spired, and through media which were human, have required "only the longer time and deeper thought for their full elucida- "tion. This may be called the Theory of Developments." (p. 27.) 440 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. And he adds elsewhere, that when the time came that the recipients of revelation "ceased to be inspired," " on these " recipients the revealed truths would fall, as in other cases, at "first vaguely and generally, and would afterwards be com. " pleted by developments." (p. 95.) According to this theory, then, it is so far from being the case, that the earliest post-apostolic writers have left us a testi- mony to the orthodox doctrine, that they did not themselves comprehend it. Why those who came after them should understand it better, is to me, I confess, wholly unaccountable. For the case is totally dissimilar to that of men who, by suc- cessive discoveries in successive generations, gradually find out a truth, each generation contributing a portion of the necessary information. For here, as Mr. Newman allows, the truths were " communicated to the world once for all by inspired teachers," and everything beyond the truths so communicated arises from a source not accredited to us as divine. Consequently the age next to the Apostles seems to have been in at least as good a position for understanding those truths as any subsequent age, and was probably more likely to receive them in their simplicity than those who lived after the variously endowed minds of men of many successive generations had overlayed them with the dreams of the human imagination. And this will be more rea- dily admitted, when we recollect, that in the case of such truths as those revealed to us in the Gospel, the tendency of the human mind is to their corruption. I should conceive it to be impossible for any impartial person not to see, that Mr. Newman has been here confounding two things that are totally distinct, namely, the gradual development of the ideas suggested by a doctrine in individual minds accord- ing as those minds gradually fathom its depth, and the gradual development of a system of philosophy, according as successive - minds perfect it by gradual discoveries. A development of the former kind no doubt often takes place in religion as much as in other matters; but a development of the latter kind there cannot be in religion, except by a fresh Divine revelation. But Mr. Newman reasons about the matter just as if Chris- tianity was a mere discovery of man, a system of human philo- sophy that was to be perfected by the efforts of the human 441 PATRISTICAL TRADITION intellect. I will quote one more passage to show that in thus speaking I am not misrepresenting his views. He says:- " It is, indeed, sometimes said, that the stream is clearest near " the spring. Whatever use may fairly be made of this image, " it does not apply to the history of a philosophy or sect, which, "on the contrary, is more equable, and purer, and stronger, " when its bed has become deep, and broad, and full. It neces- " sarily rises out of an existing state of things, and for a time " savours of the soil. [Such is the astounding language used " respecting a revelation coming from God!] Its vital element " needs disengaging from what is foreign and temporary, and is " employed in efforts after freedom, more vigorous and hopeful " as its years increase. Its beginnings are no measure of its " capabilities, nor of its scope. At first, no one knows what it ' is, or what it is worth. [1!] It remains, perhaps, for a time " quiescent: it tries, as it were, its limbs, and proves the " ground under it, and feels its way. From time to time, it " makes essays which fail, and are in consequence abandoned. " It seems in su.spense which way to go; it wavers, and at length " strikes out in one definite direction. In time it enters upon " strange territory; points of controversy alter their bearing; " parties rise and fall about it; dangers and hopes appear in " new relations, and old principles re-appear under new forms; " it changes with them in order to remain the same. In a higher "world it is otherwise; but here below to live is to change, and " to be perfect is to have changed often." (pp. 38, 39.) Such is Mr. Newman's account of the development of Chris- tian doctrine in the successive ages of the Christian Church. And whatever may be thought of it in other respects, one thing certainly must be admitted, namely, that this theory forms a most convenient defence for the additions of the Church of Rome to the primitive Creed. They are but the leaves and fruit gradually springing out of the Gospel seed. And, accord- ing to Mr. Newman's hypothesis, it is only consistent with what the right development of Christianity demanded, that the Christianity of an age distant a few centuries from the Apo- stles, should be as different from that of the first Christians as a full-grown tree differs from its seed; and that constant addi- tions should be made to the faith of the Church with the 442 NO DIVINE INFORMANT. advance of time. Whether Rome's additions are the genuine pro- duce of the original seed, is certainly a further and very import- ant question; but this theory of development tends undoubtedly to smooth the way to their admission. And the separation of true from false developments is to be effected through the infallibility of the Church. "In propor- " tion," says Mr. Newman, "to the probability of true develop- " ments of doctrine and practice in the Divine Scheme, is the " probability also of the appointment in that scheme of an " external authority to decide upon them, thereby separating " them from the mass of mere human speculation, extravagance, " corruption, and error, in and out of which they grow. This " is the doctrine of the infallibility of the Church; for by infal- " libility I suppose is meant the power of deciding whether this, " that, and a third, and any number of theological or ethical " statements are true." (p. 117.) The dictum of what Mr. Newman calls "the Church," there- fore, is at last to settle everything. And thus Transubstan- tiation, the sacrifice of the Mass, Purgatory, and all the other peculiar doctrines of the Church of Rome, utterly unknown as they may confessedly have been to the Primitive Church, are without difficulty resolved to be genuine developments of the statements of Revelation. Such is the progress of self-delusion when God's Holy Word has been dethroned from the seat of authority. It is a true remark made by Mr. Newman,1 that "in proportion " as we find in matter of fact, [or, imagine that we find,] that the " inspired Volume is not calculated or intended to subserve that " purpose, [that is, of being an ' infallible guide,' conveying 'a " message and a lesson speaking to this man and that,'] are we "forced to revert to that living and present guide, which, at the "era of her rejection [at the Reformation], had been so long " recognised as the dispenser of Scripture according to times and "circumstances, and the arbiter of all true doctrine and holy " practice to her children." And hence it is, that even moderate Tractarianism is the high road to Popery. For, one of the first principles of Tractarianism is, that Holy Scripture is insufficient to teach men the true faith, 1 F~ay on D)evel. p. 126. AAA 444 PATRISTICAL TRADITION NO DIVINE INFORMANT. and needs something else both to supply its deficiencies and to interpret its words. True it is, that that "something else" is with the Tractarian " Tradition," but it is soon found by the sincere and diligent inquirer, that Tradition is but a broken reed to lean upon, and needs an authoritative expositor at least as much as Scripture; and then, the guidance of God's Holy Word having been already set aside as insufficient, the next resort is to the authority of " the Church," leading by necessary sequence, in the case of every one who is true to his convictions, to the " Roman obedience." And remarkably does Mr. Newman's language in this passage illustrate, incidentally and unintentionally, the truth of the charge made against the priests of Rome, of denying even the free use of the Holy Scriptures to the laity of their Church. The priest- hood is here distinctly recognised (and most properly so accord- ing to the Romish and Tractarian systems) as "the dispenser of Scripture according to times and circumstances." I cannot conclude this chapter without remarking, that it appears to me, that both the Roman and Tractarian systems are founded upon one and the same fundamental error; namely, that the true Church of Christ must be a body of individuals united together by external and visible bonds of union and com- munion, under the government of those ordained in succession from the Apostles as their bishops and pastors. From this pri- mary false principle springs an abundant harvest of errors. Truth is sacrificed to unity. The "1priesthood" are exalted to a place not belonging to them, and the ministry of service is turned into a ministry of lordly gorernment. Usurped power is sustained by the expedients to which usurpers are wont to resort, fictions and delusions of every kind calculated to place the minds of men under their yoke. And the spiritual kingdom of Christ, of which hearts are the subjects, and His word and the unseen influences of His Spirit the ruling and directing autho- rities, is turned into an earthly kingdom, whose subjects are all those who submit themselves to certain human authorities, and hold themselves bound by certain human laws. END OF VOL. I. Printed by C. F. ludt- n ,Gough Square. Fleet Street This book is a preservation facsimile produced for the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. It is made in compliance with copyright law and produced on acid-free archival 60# book weight paper which meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (permanence of paper). Preservation facsimile printing and binding by Northern Micrographics Brookhaven Bindery La Crosse, Wisconsin 2009