Full text of "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"

See other formats

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the

publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at|http: //books .google .com/I

600090678

BODLEIAN LIBRARY
OXFORD

THE

DIVINE RULE

FAITH AND PEAOTIOE.

Hfloretici, qntun ex Scriptnrisarg^nntar, in aocuBationem convcrtuntnr ipsorum
Scriptnramm, . . . quia vario sint dictas, ct quia non posnt ex his inveniri Veritas
ab his qxu nesciant TraditioneiiL Non enim per littcras traditam illami sod per
vivam vooem. — iBEKfTTS.

^ap€pii liorrcyMrcr maT€»£ kolL vir€prf<l>aplas KorriyopUiy ^ a^crctv ri t&v
yeypofMp^iHov, ^ rrreiirayccp r&v fi^ ycypa^/Acyup. — Basil.

AvTopKets €l<rtv cd Syuu koI Bt6nv€v<TToi ypaxfMi irp6s r^v rrjs dkrjOeias
aurayytkiav, — Ath a n asxus.

I see not how you differ fVom that opnion which is thb OBomn) of all Pa-
PIBTBT, that is, that all ihingt neceuary unlo saHvatUm are not exfbesbbd in tke
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
manifest words contained in Scripture, or thereof gathered by necessary collection.
— ^Abchbibhop Whitoipt.

We of the Church of England affirm, that the Scriptures contain a oohplete
Rule of Faith Ain> Praotics, and we reject efoery doctrine and precept as
essential to salvation, or to he obeyed as divine, which is not supported by their
authority. — ^Bishop Toxlinb.

THE

DIVINE RULE

FAITH AND PEACTICE j

OB,

A DEFENCE OP THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

THAT HOLY SCRIPTURE HAS BEEN, SINCE THE TIMES OF THE APOSTLES,

THE SOLE DIVINE RULE OP FAITH AND PRACTICE

TO THE CHURCH :

AGAINST THB DANGBBOUS SBB0B8 OF

THE AUTHORS OP THE TRACTS FOR THE TIMES
AND THE ROMANISTS,

▲8, PABTICULABX.T, THAT THB BULK OV VAITH 18 " MADB UP OV

BCBIFTUBB AXD TBADITIOV TOOBTIIKK'," BTC.

ly wnicu ALSO thb ooctrikbs or

abb fully OI8CUBSBO.

By WILLIAM GOODE, M.A. F.S.A.

OV TBJiriTY COLLBOB, CABBBIDOE; BBCTOB OF ALLHALLOW8 TUB QBBAT AMD LE88, L0MD05.

IN THREE VOLUMES.

VOL. I.

SECOND EDITION, REVISED AND ENL.VRGED.

LONDON :
JOHN HENRY JACKSON,

* 21, PATERNOSTER ROW.

1853.

LOMDOM:
PRINTED BY C. F. HODOBON,

PREFACE

PREFIXED TO THE FIRST EDITION,

PUBLISHED IN 1842.

The movement that has lately taken place in our Churchy
under the auspices of the Authors of the Tracts for the Times^
whatever may he 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.
Fronde's oum 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. I. b

VI PREFACE.

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,^ 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/'^ 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"^ 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.* 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."* 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,"^ to the " Catholicism"
which squared with the Decrees of the Council of Trent, it was

> No. 90. p. 80. » lb. p. 81. (2d edit. p. 82.) • Wilk. Cone. iv. 240.

< No. 90. p. 80. » See the whole of No. 90. « lb. p. 80.

' The opposition of which to the catholidsm of the Tractntors may be judged
of by an article in the British Critic for July, 1841.

PREFACB. VU

rather a useless admonition^ for the wit of man could hardly
devise a sense of the Articles not to be found within such an
OLtensive 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.^

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.''* " The
Protestant tone of doctrine and thought is essentially anti-
" christian."^ 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 UNFAiELYboth with Protestants
" and other branches of the Catholic Church ? Are we not
" holding out false colours to the former, and drawing them near

^ See Newman's Lect. on Rom. &c. pp. 224, 5. ' Brit. Crit. Jnly, 1841. p. 2.
» lb. p. 14. * lb. p. 27. » lb. p. 29.

b 2

Vlil 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 HATE IMBIBED THE TRUE CaTHOLIC SPIRIT,
" WE CAN HAVE NO SORT OF SYMPATHY ? Mcauwhilc, 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 f
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 orfor^
" wards ; and it unll 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

€{

i€
€t
€t
€€

€(
€€
i€
(€
ti

ii
€C
(€
U
€€

€€

.C€

€<

PREFACE. IX

€€
€€

developed^ which are now bat in germ. And as we go on,

WE MUST recede MORE AND MORE FROM THE PRINCIPLES^
IF ANY SUCH THERE BE, OF THE EnOLISH REFORMATION.*'^

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 Ihere is much di£Eerence 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 Grod. 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,^ 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
iTilers, 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 eflfort, 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.

' " Of course^ union of the whole Church under one visible government is ab-
fltractedly the most perfect state. We were so united, and now are not. And
the history of this great struggle for religious independence . . is, in any case,
the record of the origin and progress of that deplorable schism. . . . We talk of
the ' blessings of emandpatiou firom the Papal yoke,' and use other phrases of a
like hM and uhdutipul tenour."— Brit. Crit. for July 1841, p. 2.

X 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 roost 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 y^ 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

€€
(t
€€
€<
€€
t€

PREFACE. XI

will not be surprised to leam^ 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, /or,
'^ 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 ini-

' A Letter on Catholic Unity, to the Earl of Shrewsbury, by Nicholas, Bishop
oi Melipotomus.

Xil PREFACE.

tt
it

ti
St
i(

tt
ft
tt

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
^' 80 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 ail-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 sofataUy 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. 9(J 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

tt
tt

PREFACE. Xlll

'' 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,"^ 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
thejm all to good soimd Popery. And for learning and inge-
nuity, our modem 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

' Dens, Natnra, Gratia. &ve Tractatus de Pnedestinatione, de Mentis et pec-
catomm remiasione, sen de Justificatione et denique de Sanctomm Invocatione.
Ubi ad tratinam fidei Cutholics examinatur Confcssio Anglicana, &c. Accenut
paraphrastica Expcwitio rellquorum Articulortim Ck>nfe88ioiiifl Auglics. 2a cd.
Lagd. 1684. 8vo.

€€

€€
it
tt

XIV 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" See, &c. (No.
90^ 2d ed. p. 13.) 80 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.'' ^ 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, not to that special kind of faith,
" but to the faith of Christ, as we do. For, in the Articles of
'' the English Confession, no faith is specified, but the faith of
" which the Apostles everywhere speak. Therefore there is no
'' difference between us on this point. But what is added in the
*' Homily parenthetically, ' This would be to attribute justification
" to a habit or act in us/ seems to deny inherent righteousness ;
*' but, in truth, nothing was less meant, for it is immediately added,
" 'But it is God who justifies/, . . . Behold, therefore, we clearly
'' and fully agape."*

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,

» p. 192. 2 p. 196. s pp. 202, 3.

€€
it

PREFACE. XV

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 mih 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 f 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 ;^ 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 f 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 firom faith, can in some measure lead to and deserve
" of congruity the grace of justification,*'^

Fmrther, 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.^ " 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."'' And what he considers con-

€f
U

^ pp. 16, 16.

« p. 152.

' p. 159.

* p. 160.

* p. 170.

« p. 23.

'p. 24.

tl
i€

€t
it

XVI PREFACE.

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 standi 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;"^ 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."^
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

' pp. 84d, 50. 3 p. 351. ' p. 353.

it
it

€1

PREFACE. XVll

'* 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 Chrisfs body'' (p. 68.) ;
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 J' (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 Caphamaites,
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 'y* 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

€€

XVIU PftEFACB.

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.,^ the Archbishop tells us,* 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,
/ found the scope of his book to be such as thai 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

^ Canierbury'B Doom, or Prynne's Account of the Trial of Archbishop Land,
p. 84^ as quoted in Wood's Ath. Oxon.

* See Archbiihop Land's History of his Tronblce, p. 885.

€€

PRETACE. XIX

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 Churchy 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 Churchy 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 Churchy 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

^ See extract firom Britash Critic^ p. Tiii. above.

XX PREFACE,

entitled to the name of Anglieanism^ 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
Churchy 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 mtnesses ; 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.

PREFACE. XXI

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 considerable 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

' See voL i. pp. 72 — ^76.

' See ToL L pp. 64—76 ; also the remarkB of Mr. Keble respecting the Conndl
of Nice, oompared with the statements of those from whom he has himself quoted,
notioed toL iiL ch. x. § 8, mider ** Comidl of Nice ;" also the citation from Chry-
sostom, prefixed to Tract 84^ in a sense which no one reading the context ooold
for a moment dream of» noticed voL iii. ch. x. § 3, under " Chrysostom.'*

VOL. I. C

XXU PREFACE.

dignity of an oracalar 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
modem 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

> Letter to Bishop of Oxford, p. 53.

PREFACE. XXIU

where so many references occor^ 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 Chturch 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

> Brit. Crit. for July 1841, p. 2a

c 2

XXIV 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 found. 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.

PREFACE. XXV

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 Komish writers^ that one cannot but fear^
that they suffered themselves to be prejudiced in favour of that
system of d<»ctrine 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. Hookas 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

* See Newman's Lect. on Rom. &c. p. 14. Keble*B Serm. on Trad pp. 5 — 7.

XXVI PREFACE.

carried farther 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-
mour 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,

PREFACE. XXVU

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
eictended 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 (jod
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

XXVni PREFACE.

hoping that^ in the mercy of (jod, 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,^ will be doubly offensive when found to

> Brit. Mag. for May 1839, p. 518.

PBEFACB. XXIX

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 ;

ZXX PREFACE.

her Ood 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 1 But when
matters of such moment are at stake, when the question is,
whether the true Catholicism of our Beformers 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 Ood 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 comm\mity, both as it
respects their spiritual and temporal interests. But I see no

PREFACE. zm

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 JELeforma-
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 Bome 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 equally 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.

XXXU 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 tho^e 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 I 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 Popeiy insinuating itself into the very vitals of

PREFACE. XXXIU

our Churchy 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 feeUng 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 1 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.

XXXW PREFACE.

circumstance which those who are m 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

PREFACE. XXXIU

our Churchy 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.

XXXVl 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.

PREFACE

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 efifect 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. c^

XXXVlii PREFACE TO THE

facilities afforded them by these and other circumstaneeB, which
a future^ historian may feci 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 Ood, 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 otsome, at the period alluded to, has either subsided
or become innocuous, and the alienation of mind 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.

It is 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

SECOND EDITION. XXXIX

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, I 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 who
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 Anii-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

6' 2

Xl PREFACE TO THE

to deny. And among the signs of the timcs^ indicating the
nature of the theology which is being pressed upon our Church,
even &om 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 Uim, 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,"

€€
<€

€€

SECOND EDITION. xli

bat denies all spiritual authority but tbat of tbe 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. Amold^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. 81 ;) and " the Church'* " being dwelt in by the
" Spirit of Grod, 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
u|)on which Popciy rests are precisely those here advocated,

Xlii PREFACE TO THE

namely, (1) the interposition of a mediating priest through
whose ministrations alone we can hold communion with Grod,
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 Crod 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 eiactly oorresponds with the thesis recently offered to be maintained by
the Abb6 Combalot against Dr. Ganssen 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 eacli indi-
vidual, which is the foundation of all heresies, and the source of all errors, but
the infallible authority of the Church as interpreter."

SBCOND EDITION. xliu

of tbe 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 men,
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
jhow. 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 b^rs 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

xliv 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 Yincentian 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 in worthy of observatioii, that the writer of this Review, though
a leading man of the party, and speaking in the Review as one

SECOND EDITION. xlv

thoroaghly acquainted with the writings of the Fathers and the
state of things in the early Chorch^ was^ hy 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, m hiB 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 aU moral and
rehgious knowledge," and the " leading idea '^ of his work, that
'' careful moral discipline is the necessary foundation whereon
alone Christian faith can be rearedP ( 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, accoidiug to the confession of Dr.

Xlvi PREFACE TO THE

Fiisey himself^ at the extermiDation 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 (Kar^ oUovofxCav) 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
*' THEN, AS A PHYSICIAN FOR THE OOOD 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 jdo this, . . . He gives himself up /or the Church/ 8m;.
" (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

• SECOND EDITION. xlvil

''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. I
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 ducursus 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 neld
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 allode to a passage in the Memoir of the Rev. Joniab Pratt, p. 351, where
an extract ia given from one of Mr. Pratt* s letters stating, respecting the woric con-
tained in these tolumes, — '* 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 Icnow not ; and I am anxious to correct it, as,
if such a thing had occurred, either on the part of Bishop Meade or antf other
pertonf I should have felt it a doty to have acknowledged the obligation. The
truth, however, is, that not the slightest comrnunication 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

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. Wi(;h 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 " UTq)rote8tantize" 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 tne Fathers for '^ Cathohc 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 me 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 Uie 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. xlix

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 ! a 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 owr Church wUl be continued, until the prin^
ciples he advocates are either ejectedy 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 estabUshment 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.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TO VOL. I.

FAOK
PbSVACS to FIB8T BDITION V — XXXVi

Pesvacb to bsoond edition xxxvii — xlix

CHAPTER I.
Ifiboductobt Rekabks 1—21

JPnncij»al ContenU.

All diyine rerelafion demands oar implicit £uth and obedience 1

In a revelation of tmths above our oomprebension, demanding our

Ikitb, we are bound to require sufficient evidence of its divine origin 1, 2

This we must do indhidwUly, because we are to be judged as in-

^viduals 2

Hence importance of ascertaining wbat divine revelations we possess,

as being our Bule of &ith i 3, 4

Rule of fidth defined 4

The same our only Divine Bule of practice 4

Distinction between Rule of fiuth and Rule of practice 4, S

Belief of divine origin of any testimony profesang to be divine revela-
tion must be on groundi satisfieuitory to reason 5

Oar present inquiry is, where the Divine Rule of fidth and practice is

to be found, and wbat 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 tlie value of the testimony of
the Fathers as to doctrines and the oral teaching of the Apostles,
and that of their testimony to fiicts that came under their own im-
mediate cognizance; though the two are confounded by the Tractators 15 — 17
When speaking of Scripture as the solo Rule of fidth, &c. we are
speaking in the strict sense of the terms, not as excluding other
things as usefbl ffuides to religious knowledge ; though much mis-
represented on this p<rint 17—20

lii TABLE OP CONTKNTS.

PAOK

Our arpiiment will be almost wholly nn a posteriori argomcnt 20, 21

Great object of work is, to demonstrate that Holy Scripture is our sole
and exclusive Divine Rule of fidth and practice 21

CHAPTER II.

The doctrine op 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 maintjunod in Tract 85 on the subject 33 — 35

Dr. Puscy's doctrine on the subject 35, 36

Summary of the doctriiic 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 51—66

RcspectinK the views of Protestants 66 — 61

RcsiHicting the Creed called " the AjKistlos' Creed" 61, 66

Respecting a passage of Athanasius, with remarks illustrative of

his use of the word Tradition 66 — 69

Respecting another passage of Athanasius 60 — 71

Respecting a third passage of Athanasius, which, by a remarkablo
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 — 76

Further mistranslation of the same passage ., 76

Practical meaning of the Tractators when they speak of ''Catholic
consent" 75, 76

Elxtraordinary 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. XXXVU

PAOI

fbrmer may be summed up; namely. That oonflentieiitFAtristical Tra-
dition, or " Catholic Consent," is an unwritten word of Qod, a divine
informant in religion, and consequently entitled, as to its mihttanee,
to equal respect with the Holy Scriptures. 79—85

Comparison of the same on the second proposition, namely. That
Flatristical Tradition is consequently a part of the divinely-revealed
Ruleof&ith and practice 85

Comparison of the same on the third proporition, namely. That Pbtris-
tical Tradition is a necessary part of the IMvine Bule of fiuth and
practice, on account of the defectiveness of Scripture, for that (1)
though it does not reveal to us any fundamental articles of fiiith or
practice not noticed in Scripture, Holy Scripture oontfuning, that is,
g^nvng hinia or notices of, all the fundamental articles of faith and
practice, it is yet a necessary part of the Divine Bule of fiuth 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 ; tod (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 Jbwrth proposition, namely, That Fb-
tristical Tradition is a necessary part of the Divine Rule of £uth
and practice, because of the obscurity of Scripture even in some of
the fundamental articles, which makes Scripture insufficient to te<ich
us even the fimdamentals of &ath and practice 93, 94

Comparison of the same on the Jifth propontion, namely. That it is
only by the testimony of P&tristical 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 rimilarity, and in some parts coinddenoe, in the state-
ments of Mr. Newman on " Tradition,*' and those of a celebrated
Roman Catholic dissertation on Irenseus on the same subject 96 — 101

Farther proofs of the identity of the doctrine of the Tractators and the
Romanists from our own Dean I^ld, from a Roman Catholic speaker
at the Downnde Discussion, from Dr. Hawardine, &c 101 — 105

CHAPTER IV.

That therb are no writings extant entitled to the name
ov apostolical'^tradltions butthe canonical scriptureg 106 — 154

Principal Contcnis.

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

XXXVin TABLE OF CONTENTS.

rxoB
different Chnrchet and early writers wished to g^ve a brief rammary
of the Christian fiuth, they did 80 in different words 107—116

That there was no snch definite summary of the chief articles of belief
given by the Apostles to the Christian Chnrch as *' the Creed;" the
baptismal Creed being originally merely a declaration of belief in
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ohost, 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 attuned its
present form, and that two at least of the Articles it now contains
were not inserted in it before the fourth century 127 — ^189

That the Creeds of the Primitiye Church were derived origpnaUy
from the Holy Scriptures 189—144

Consequently, That none of the antient Creeds can be oonndered as
an Apostolical production , 144—146

The question discussed. Whether the Creed is a selection of the
fundamental articles of the Christian fidth 146 — ^158

What we are to understand by the name " Rule of Faith," appUed
by the early Fathers to the Creeds which they delivered 159> 154

CHAPTEE V.

That patristical tradition is not a '* practically infal-
liblb '' witness of the oral teaching of the apostles,
nor receivable as a divine informant 155—444

J^rindpal Content*,

Section I.
Frelinunary remarks 166 — 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 165^188

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 &ith of the whole Church 183 — ^218

From their /xnid/y 184—187

From their g^iving ns onlf a partial view of Antiquity, as being
each only as the mllng party in tho 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

TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXXIZ

Section IV.

PAOB

The witnem of Fbtristical Tradition^ even in the writings that have
been preserved^ is of a discordant kind, and that even in fimdamental
points 213—348

The Btstementa of Ireiuens, Tertallian, and Origen considered... 216—289

The witness of Patxistical Tradition, as it respects the divinity
of the H0I7 Spirit 229—234

Do. as to the doctrine of the divinity and generation of Christ... 234—202

(General remarks as to discordant testimonies of the Fathers on
ftindamental points 202—272

The witness of Patristical Tradition as to the doctrine of the
procession of the Holy Spirit flrom the Father and the Son ... 272; 273

Do. as to the doctrines connected with the Nestorian, Eatychian,
and Pelagian errors 273—276

Do. as to the doctrine of the intermediate state 276—288

Do. as to the sense of Scripture, instanced particularly in Prov.
vHi. 22. John x. 80. John xiv. 28. Phil. ii. 6 288 -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 ; (8) the question relating to the re-baptization of those
baptised I^ heretics ; (4) various minor points 297—827

The Fathers at variance on various points, maintained by some
of them to be doctrines of "the Church" 827—332

The Fathers at variance, even in their Conciliar decisions 832—336

Collateral proofs that there Is no such consent as our opponents
suppose in the writings of the Fathers 337 — 840

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—844

Concluding remarks 844—348

Section V.
Consent, even in the writings that remain to as, not to he expected 348 — 854

Section VI.

Hie tmoertointies and difficulties with which even that small and partial
consent, which may sometimes he attainable, and is called by our
opponents " Catholic Consent," is embarrassed 355—868

Section VII.

The rival appeals made to Ffttristical 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
anj partial consent we may find on such points, in the works that
remain to us 86S— 885

Section VIII.

What the Tractators call " Catholic Consent," is not treated by them-
sdveSy in many cases, as affording any sufficient proof of the doctrines
so supported 886—401

Xl TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Sbction IX.

PAOB

Tlic doctrine of the Tractaton founded upon suppositions which are
contradicted by facta 401—416

Sbction X.
Reply to objections, and general remarks 416—483

Sbction XI.

Mr. Newnum*s abandonment of the theory of Catholic Consent and the
Canon of Vincentins 43S— 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

Z INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.

revealed^ the more are we bound to sift the evideDce for its
beinff 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
tinith 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 individtials 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. 1 8, 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 oar
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 arc we safe, for if our reliance is placed
upon anything else, we immediately lay ourselves open to error.
He who embraces ev^n 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. Tlie whole superstructure of
Romanism^ has been erected on a few false principles admitted

* I 1180 the wordH Romanian and Romanist, Poperj' and Papist, without any
^ish to s]H>ak ofTeiiHively to those so denif^nated, and sec no reason why they who
practically identify the Church of Rome with the Catholic Cliun*h, and make the
I^ope CTirist's Vicar, should ha oficndi'd at such tonus. I use them merely for the
sake of brevity.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 3

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 Ood ; whereas this is a
matter totally distinct from that which we are considering,
which is, whether "the faith,*' the Christian religion, is not
folly 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 Ood 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

B 2

4 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.

Ood. 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 aflFect 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.** ^

> Eccl. Pol. Ixwk V. c. 65.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 5

In matters oi faith, therefore, the divine rule is our sole
authoritative rule; in matters of /wac^tce thei^ maybe 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 fiill 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

6 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-
vantage^ 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 Umits 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-

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. *7

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
Churchy 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. 61.)
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 tliey first delivered it orally,
and afterwards penned the writings they have left us. The
question, then, for our determination is this. Whether we have
any record or 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 its.

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

1 Div. fid. Analys. Ub. t c 8, lect. iii. § 2, p. 95. F&ris, 1767.

8* 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 delivercd in writing as to that
which is delivered orally, as Bellarmine himself states ; ^ and so
it is used in the Holy Scriptures j^ and also by the Fathers.^

* Xomen traditionis generale est, et significat omnem doctrinam give scriptam
rive non scriptam qu» ab uno communicatur alteri. Bbllabm. De verb. Dei.
lib. iv. c. 2.

' " Hold the iraditUma (rhs irapaZSa-ds) which ye have been taught, whether by
word, or our epUtle." 2 Thess. ii. 15.

• Thus Gregory Nyssen uses the words, "the evangelical and apostolical tradi-
tions," {fharff^Kucais re koL iarotrroKiKois irapaZ6<T€<Ti,) to express the books qf the
New Testament. De Vh-g. c. xi. ed. 1615, torn. ii. p. 579. So Tertullian, after
referring to various passages of the New Testament which Marcion wished to
expunge, says, " Believe what is delivered (tradited)." Crede quod traditum est.
De came Christi, c. ii. ed. 1664. p. 308 ; and so elsewhere he says, " An et traditio

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. ^9

But at other times it is used by the Fathers/ as well as
modern writers, to signify that which was delivered orally, in
caniradistmction 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;^ 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

nisi tcripia non debeat rorapi." (De Cor. c. iii. ib. p. 101.) So Hippolytus the
Martyr, after having quoted various passages from the New Testament, and
pointed them out as amply sufficient to teach the truth he was inculcating, says,
" Let us, therefore, my dear bretliren, believe according to the traditum of the
apoatles, (iccrr^ r^y irapd9o<rty rStv * K'wwrr6Kwv)" Contr. Noet. § 17. ed. Fabr.
voL ii. p. 18. Many others might be added ; but we shall have occasion to refer
to this point agsdn.

* Tuv iv rf, *lE,KK\f\<ri(^ irtipvXayfidvofv ^oyfidretv koI Kripvyfidruv, rit fAhf 4k rris
iyypdffMv StSeuricaAias Ixoftci', rh 9h 4k ttjs r&v *AirocrT6\o»f irapa8<^cws iuJioO^yra
inuv 4y fiwmipUp iropt 8c|c(^€0a. Basil. M. De Spir. S. c 27. ed. Bened. voL iii.
p. 54. D.

Th, fi^v 4v ypcup€us, r^ 9h 4v irapaZ6(ru irap^iotKixy ol &yioi A'ir6cro\oi, EPIFHAN.
Adv. hser. in h»r. 61. ed. Petav. voL i. p. 511.

' It seems to be used in this sense by Irenajus, when he says, ** Evenit itaque,
neque Kripturis jam neque traditioni consentire cos." Adv. hsr. lib. iii. c. 2.
edd. Qrab. et Mass.

If) INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.

of conveyance by which a doctrine or rite so made known to ua»
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 modem 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, hec^M'&Q 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 signiiy 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

* The Greeks generally used the word ^laZox^t to denote the mode of convey-
ance in such a case, and irapdJioffi.s only for the thing delivered, as in the following
passage of Epiphanius, r^s * KiroaroKiK^s 'irapaB6<r€us %v 4k 9iai^xvi '^^ Vf^*^^
irapti\'fi<l>afi€v. Adv. Hser. in ho^r. 33. ed. Petav. vol. i. p. 222.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 11

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
froni 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

1 Thus Basil speaks of " the accurate observance of the patristical traditions,"
(il iucpifiiis rfipvitris t&v frarpiKwv irapaZ6<r€wv). £p. 243. § 2. ed. Bened. vol. iii. p.
873. 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," (aSrai r&y irar4pufy cd irapta6<rtis). 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.

12 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. Ji^e 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 afi&xed 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 th^ testimony
to which our opponents appeal, by its proper name o{ patristical
or ecclesiastical tradition ; not understanding by those phrases a

INTBODUCTORY REMARKS. 13

tradition of all the Fathers or the whole Churchy (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 Grospels, — 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,'' "apostoUcal 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-

14 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 vl fallible report of it through /aZ/tife 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.

INTRODUCTORY RBMARKS. 15

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 dther. The value of a
man^s testimony to a fact that takes place under his otvn 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

16 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.

of Christian doctrine I 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 wc 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

INTRODUCTOBY BEMABKS. 17

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 churchy (and we shall show hereafter the use of
such testimony with respect to doctrines immediately connected
with the rites and usages of the churchy) 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 Irenseus 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 imiversality
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

18 INTBODVCTORY 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 riew, because
the advocates for " traditiop'^ 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 ^^ uUra-protestanU.^*
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 inclines 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

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 19

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 oi 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. For
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;.

1 See testimony of Theodoret in ch. 10, below.

c 2

20 INTBODUCTORT 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 i*eceived 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 Bule.

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

' INTBODtJCTORT REMARKS. 21

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 Churchy 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 case ? It is not
for us to determine what the character of (jod 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.

22 . DOCTBINE OF THE TBACTATOKS.

CHAPTER II.

THE DOCTRINE OF DR. PUSEYj MR. KEBLE^ MR. NEWMAN,
AND THE ^^ 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.^ 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-

^ Since 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
th;)6e 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 fivr as
concerns Mr. Newman himself, the statements must not be taken as expressing
completely the views he now holds. Most, however, will, I think, agree with me,
that his present pontion 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.

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTAT0R8. 23

taining further proofs and illustrations of his argument^ and a
Catena Patrum from Divines of the English Churchy 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 sitch 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.

24 DOCTBINE OF THE TRACTATOR8.

The other " ground of the faith'' and " source of religions
truth" is considered to be *' tradition;" and ''these two [t. ^ .
" the Bible and Catholic Tradition,''] together make up a joint
rule, [t.^. 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. 829,) " 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 ottr 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 (rod?
" It cannot be denied, that we of this age receive it upon general
" tradition ; we receive through tradition both the Bible itself y 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

€€

€(

DOCTRINE OV THE TRACTAT0R8. 25

^' the NewTestament in its existing shape on tradition/' (p. 34 1.)
'' 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
'' n^^^ of tradition arises only from the obscurity of Scripture,
'' and is terminated with the interpretation of it." (p. 384.)
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- jnujiyi-
dual. I would not deny, but rather maintain, that a refig{|iis,
" wise, and intellectually gifted man will succeed : but who
" answers to this description but the collective church /*" (pp.
189, 190.) "These two [t. e. the Bible and Catholic Tradition]
" together make up a joiat rule, [i. e. of faith] ; Scripture is
" interpreted by Tradition, Tradition verified by Scripture."
{p. 327.) '' Acute men among them [i. e. 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 principled*
(p. 35.) Scripture is " but the document of appeal, and catho-
lic tradition the authoritative teacher of Christians." (p. 343.)
And ^Hhe 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. The Bible does not carry
" unth 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
" PRINCIPLE. Why, it is asked them, should those who equally
" with themselves believe in the Bible be denied the name of

<t
if
t€

C€
H

i€
€€

26 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 OP 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 j^ 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 Irenseus, 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

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. 27

of ScriptuTe!^ (p. 298.) In p. 835, 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 oi 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 Bomish 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. 60, 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-

28 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 helieving things
not there declared, hut delivered by " tradition/^ it is not be-
cause such things are in themselves necessary to salvation, but
becauBC ^^ 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 relics,** (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-

€€

DOCTRINE OV THE TRACTATORS. 29

lible/' (p. 142/) "infallible/' (p.l46,)i and "if we wUl be im-
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*^ " de-
manding the same reverence from us" as his written word, i. e. in
the language of the Council of Trent, is to be received " pari
pietatis aflFectu/* Nay, " as long as the canon of the New Tes^
" tament was incomplete, the univritten system salved 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^
" 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 ;) " the catholic consent." (p. 89.) " Those rules in which
all primitive councils are uniform, those rites and 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
" the system of the apostles'' entitled to equal reverence with
their acknowledged writings, (p. 40.) " If any one ask how
" we ascertain them, we answer. By application of the well-known
" rule, Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus ; antiquity,
" universality, catholicity." (pp. 32,33.)

Among the points which rest on the authority of "tradition,"

' The case more paiticiilarly spoken of here is that of the Nioene tradition ;
hot 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.)

C€
t€
t€
ti

€(

80 DOCTBINE OF THE TBACTATORS.

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,^* 805.

(p. 41.) ''Among the traditionary truths v& 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 fiill 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 uumcrous cases
" directly." (pp. 35, 36.) " Whether we look to discipline, to
" interpretation, or to doctrine, every way we see reason to be
" thankful for m.Kay fragments of apostolical practice and teaching
" MOST NEEDFUL to guidc 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

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATOBS. 31

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 "nife offaith'^ to be "made
tq) of Scripture and tradition together J^ (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 im*
possible not to direct the reiTder's attention to the statement.

it
t€
€€
€€

{(

€<
€(
<€

82 DOCTBINE 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 he ^^ 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 thefoundo'
" Hon, we shall find that the matters are neither few nor unim^

" portantj 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 the Trinity 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 strObgly enforced, and therefore.

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. 38

like Mr. Newman^s^ identical with that of the Romanists. It
is rather remarkable also ithat 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 clesx 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

€€
t€
it

t€
€€
€€
i€
i€

€(
€<
U
t€
«
€<

34 DOCTRINE OF THE TBACTATOBS.

" but the greater part made up of hints or of notices which
assumed first principles instead of asserting them^ or of dis-
cussions 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 takea 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 ; t/ou
'' would have to work your way through heterogeneous materialsj
and after 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 J* [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 oflFer 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
" BO by Him who inspired it." (p. 32.) But determined that
those words shall mean nothing, and be no obstacle in his way,
the writer immediately 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-

it
ft

te
it
a

DOCTRINE O? THE TBACTATORS. 35

'' iure at all ; the wonder is that they are all there ; humanly
judging^ they would not be there but for 6od*s interposition ;
and therefore, since they are there by a sort oj accident y it is not
strange they shall be but latent there, and only 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 doc-
trine of the English Church, that as to the whole " system of
religion revealed in the (Jospel,^* " though 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 Church's
'' 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—48) a number of in-
stances of what he holds to be seeming contradictions in Scrips
ture 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 be 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. '' The
'^ argument," he says, " stated in a few words stands thus ; — as
" distinct portions of Scripture itself are apparently inconsistent
vnth one another, yet are not really so ; therefore it does not
follow that Scripture and Catholic doctrine are at variance with
" 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 me it
appears to outdo Rome itself, and leave Bellarmine 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 d priori
" question on the value of tradition in itself, or at an earlier period

D 2

36 DOCTRINE OF THE TBACTATORS.

" 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 intei'preter of Scripture,
and as giving the full development of many points, some of
which arc 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.

DOCTRINE OP THE TBACTATORS. 87

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 Romanists. 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 X)xford," 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 «i6- 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 diflfer 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 distinctions 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 Romanists
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

38 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATOKS.

attributed to the same authors^ as^ for instance^ the British
Critic, where " antiquity " is expressly spoken of as " revelation *'
equally with Scripture.^ Dr. Pusey himself tells us, a few
pages after, that '' we owe . . . to the decisions of the chwrch 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-aiUhoritative, 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

* See Brit. Crit. for Jan.^ 1838, article on Froude's Remuns, and elsewherg
in many places.

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. 39

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 diflFerence 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.

Firsts 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 ; Bind 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

40 DOCTBINE 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 enforce, 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 condition which
" for many centuries she has actually broken. This condition
" is unity." (p. 236.) Accordingly he limits her infallibility to
the fundamental points o//aiM, holding that "theantient 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

€€

€<

DOCTBINE OF THE T&ACTATOBS. 41

" 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
receiyed 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 priri'
" ciple of a society , to admit and reject members, not simply a
" power of imposing tests, but simply ' authority in controversies
" off^ill^'* 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 liabihty 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 doc-
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

€€

t€
€€

(€

t€
€(
€€
€t

42 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATOBS.

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 infaUible 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 Grod^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 her own unanimity throughout her various branches,

t€
€(
€€
<C
€€
€t
€€
€€

«
€(

DOCTBINE OF THE TBACTATORS. 43

" 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 '^ proofs
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-

44 DOCTBINE OF THE T&ACTATOBS.

ritative interpreter of Scripture, is to be viewed herself as, with
respect to us, the authoritative interpreter of Scripture. " We
'' 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 ofiensive 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 belief 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.
He calls it 'Hhat 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'
" sive reference is had to teaching. It is not said that indi-
'^ viduals are to infer the faith, but that the Church is to prove

eg
€i

€€

if
it

€€

OOCTBINE OF THE TRACTATOBS. 45

€€
{€

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,
80 much so, that "when the sense of Sceipture, as intee-
" 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 precisely 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 diflFer 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.

€(

46 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS.

Notwithstanding therefore that " apostolical tradition/' " the
doctrinal key to Scripture,** is '' an historical fact, and ascer-
'' tainabU 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
ftt)m 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 tj*adition is
"obscure, indeterminate, or silent.** (p. 825.) "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 ran^e 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.

' Henoe I am told, in a review of the first edition of this Work by an eminent
Tractarian, since gone over to the Chnrch of Rome, — " We have in no way main-
tained, that an ordinary religions inquirer would have any chance of disooTering
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."

((
it

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. 47

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.)^
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 coitfesses 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

' The ooone 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 oonsdousn^s 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 ^ther retrograde or go forward.

€€
tt

t€
€(
€€

€t
€€

48 DOCTRINE OF THE TBACTATORS.

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 foimd 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, —

DOCTRINE OF TH£ T&ACTATORS. 49

may I not say puerile argument^ — raised from her 20th Article,
and her adoption of the Atbanasian 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 Bomish 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 ia
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 fundar
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 aU
points as much as in delivering the fundamentals of the faith.
Mr. Newman says that she is no/ 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 1

The advancement of such claims in behaK of our Church

VOL. I. B

60 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 'Ho 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. FoE in Holy Scripture \b fully con-
" tained what we ought to do and what to eschew, what to believe,
" what to love, and what to look for at (Jod's hands at length."
(Hom. 1.) Now, whatever may be the traditions here referred
to, I put it to the conmion 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 £edth 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 he plain to understand and necessary for
" salvation, every man's duty is to learn them, to print them in
" memory, and efiectually 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

DOCTRINE 07 THE TRACTATORS. 51

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 ?*' ficc. She makes, therefore,
no such presumptuous claim. Nay more, she knows that she
needs it not. In the humble confidence that her doctrines are
agreeable to the written word of Grod, 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 ofprwaie 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 afibrding
a probable or confirmatory argument for that which has been
found in Scripture 7

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

^ See chap. xi.

' Here again we see, how directly Mr. Newman's sentiments on the anthority
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.

E 2

62 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORSi

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
''thrdugh a sufficient period/' (p. 21.) "U the English
" Church has the mission, hitherto wnfalfiUed, 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 EngUsh 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. 23 ;) the apostoUcal 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-

€€

DOCTRINE OF THE T&ACTATORS. 53

cations of Socinianism and Calvinism/' (p. 28 ;) so that we have
only to throw overboard all those who differ from the school of
Laud^ and the residue will represent the " apostolicaV' portion
of the divines of the Church of England^ the " standai'd 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.^

1 The presmnption and inoonfflstency of the leaden of the Tractarian party are
80 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

54 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 stranee

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«
'' sties' Creed, which binds them to faith in ' the Holy Catholic

early church as to doctrine 1b, bnt ought to take the " Church's instractions" as
their guide, he tells us that the " mam bumness " of " the Oxford writers " " was
" to call upon those of their feUow-lahourors 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 Chxurch, that she might
" both more fully daim authority , and more distinctly and articulately teach truth,
** 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 theological system which, built
" upon our formularies, 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 ike few, plain, practical,
satisfying instruction might be given to the many." (|^. 83, 84.)
Now it was no doubt vary 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 dum authority," &c, and to "consolidate a theological sys-
tem" 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 " self-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 firom the remaining records of
the early church, which they have thus ex coufesso so largely conceded to them^
selves, even to the extent of manufarturing a new theological system for their
church.

DOCTBINB OP THE T&ACTATOHSU 56

" Church/ '' (p. 7) j and consequently^ to illustrate, as he thinks,
that article, the '' main object^' of his Lectures '' is to fiimish
'' an approximation in one or two points towards a ccnrrect
^' theory of /A^ 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 J^ (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 1 Now, if Mr. Newman and his friends
wiU 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 chubcq
'' which is holy, and which is catholic." '' ' Credo sanctam
'' ecclesiam,' / 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 B^manists, 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-

€€
i€
tt
(€
tt

'66 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATOBS.

''^ ceive that these words, credo ecclesiam, I believe that there is
'' a church, should be equivalent to these, Credo ecclesus, 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 (ei(re)9et b6^)
'' respecting the Father and the Son, as the Holy Scriptures teach

us, we confess {SiMokoyovixai) one Holy Spirit, who renewed

{rb KawCaav) both the holy men of the Old Testament,^ and
'' the divine teachers of the New Testament, and one only catho-
^^ lie, namely the apostolical, church [t. e. we confess"], that shall
'' never be destroyed."*

And so indeed the most antient exposition of the Creed which
we have, namely, that by Bufinus, interprets it, — '' Therefore
'' they who are taught above to believe in one Grod 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'fl Credo Sanctom Eodes. CathoL ed. 1638. pp. IS, 19.

^ Serm. App. p. 123.

' The reader will note this passage as applying to a statement of Dr. Posey and
others on another snlgect.

* Theodoret, Hist EccL i. 3. Op. ed. Schnlze et aL Haka 1769 et s. torn. 3. p. 745.

' Hi ergo qui supra in unum Deum credere docti sunt sub mysterio Trinitatifl^
credere etiani hoc dehent, unam esse sanctom ecclesictm, Ruf. Expos, in Symb.
in art. *< Sanctam Eodesiam." Inter Cypr. Op. ed. FelL Ozon. 1682. Ad fin. p. 27.

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. 57

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
isibout 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, CXCCpt

" 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,

€€

58 DOCTBINE OF THE TRACTATORS.

is very trae^ but wliich 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.) " THhepopular theory oiryecting 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-
'' bowring 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 e£fort 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 !
'' through his grace, than they for their low, carnal, and des-
" picable licence to reject it," (pp. 284, 5.)

t€
t€
it

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORa. 59

And thus the whole body of his opponents are held up to
the reader (according to the old artifice of the Bomanista
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 ofler
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 e£fect 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
Bomish 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 I 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 reason, — directly 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 Grod,
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

€i

60 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
e£fect 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 savoiu* 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 Bomanists
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 diflFerently 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 Biblism : 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 ruie

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. 61

" 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 shounng 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 individuaPs 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,^ 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

» Popery not founded on Scripture. London, 1688, 4to. Introduction, p. 5.
The Introduction was written by Tenison, the rest of the volume by others.
5 See pp. 39 — 16 above.

€€
€€

64 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORSk

this rule is put forth hy 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 ahove 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 mo$]k
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 beheve in Jesus
'^ Christy' and the like. But this elementary confession, thus
'' brief and incomplete as far as the express words went, seems
" even before the apostle^ 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. Faul^ 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
proofs remember St. Faul himself has quoted itm\ Cor. xv. 3^
though he does not say so.

€€

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. 65

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^ he it rememhered^
which are repudiated hy 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, beinff established out of the New and Old Testa-
ments.' (AdAdelph. §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
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
be 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; — 'H/icSi; bi
fj ttCotis iarlv ff dpOq, koL iK hbacrKaXCas ^AiroaroKoiv (or, 'Airo-
OTokiKjjs!) 6pfjL<t)fi4vrj Kal TiapabSacois tQv TraWpcov fiefiaiovyLivri
Ik T€ vias Kal Trakatas biaOrJKtjs' t&v fi€V 'jrpo(f>rjTQv XeySvroiv*
* ATT6aT€t,\ov rbv \6yov aov, Koi rriv akridcuip aov Koi, *lbov ^

TlapOivos iv ya&rpl cfei rj bi 'AirooroAoai; TTopiboais

VOL. I. r

it
i<

€t

C€
tt
«
U

€€

66 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS.

hihiL(TK€i, Tov \i.\v Tlirpov \iyovT09* XpKrrov ovv ilr^p fjfiQv Tia-
06vTos (TopKC [1 Pet, iv, 1.]. tov hi UavXov ypi^vro^y IT/MMrfte-
yji^Lfvoi, Jiiv ixoKopCav ikiriba • • • « [Tit. ii. 13.]. Ep. ad Adelph,

I give the portion of this passage^ quoted hy 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, fix/ '*

This passage, however, the Benedictine editors have stopped
so as to make it, if possible, speak the views of Romanism, by in-
serting a comma after iraripaiVy and thus connecting ^e/Satov/i^
with what follows, and translating the passage according to this
punctuation. Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble have followed in
their wake j 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 apostolical 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 put for the report we derive
of that teaching from the Fathers. Now whether the new Bene-
dictine punctuation be correct or not, it is tmnecessary 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 TEACHES us" IN THEIR WRITINGS, the vciy passages

> Peter Xanniiif, a Roman Catholic Profeesor at Lomrain, translates the passage
thus : — ^Nostra contra fides recta est, et ex doctrina Apostolica et traditione Piatrum
oonfirmata, et Novo et Veteri Testamento, cum et PtophetiB damant, &c (See
edition of Athanasins, published. Colon. 1686. yol. i. p. 169) : which translation
clearly sapporU that given above.

DOCTRINE OF THB TRACTATORS. 67

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 of
faith 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 Oreek 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^ he 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/ /or wHch 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 incUne to think, from the context, that the word ineripttv here does not
refer to the Fathers of the Christian Church at all, bat to the writers of the Old
Testament, proofis being immediately adduced frt>m the Prophets. Certunly the
word is sometimes nsed by the early Christian Fathers in that sense; as, for
instance, by Hyppolytus the Martyr, who, speaking of the prophets, says, otroi yhp
ww€6fupri Tp<Hp7iTuc^ ol 'war4p€s Kanipricrfi4rou (De Antichristo, § 2. Op. ed. Fabr.
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 rAv ayictw irctr^puF avyypa^. (De S. Trin. Dial. 1. Op. Tom. 5. P.
1. p. 888.) And apparently by Cyril of Jerusalem in the following passage ^—
Aoarhtr 8i elf ria B€las ypcup^s hraofiKBttiitVy koI iriv^tiity fSZara kirh tifier^prntf
iyytlmf, hyiwif irar4puy, (Cat. 16. § 5. ed. 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 predsely in accordance with the view we defend ; for tliat " 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 wliich tliis
passage could be adduced.

F 2

68 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTAT0R8.

is adducible in favour of the views advanced by Mr. Newman
and Mr. Keble.

The reader will observe, that in this passage of Athanasiua
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 meanings
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 Scriptvaral tradition.

, Thus Athanasius^ or at least the writer of a treatide 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 {jols irapaboOt'lat,,) is safe. And we
*' exhort you, as we exhort ourselves, to preserve the faith tJiat
has been delivered to us, {rriv Trapabo6€l(T'av irCimVj 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, an,d 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^ U^ 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

it
tt
fl
it
tt
tt
tt
it

DOCTRINE OP THE TRACTATORS. 6$

^ immiDent danger^ but lie 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 i
*^ mystery, and confess that God has been manifest in the flesh
'' according to the apostolical tradition (r^v 'ATrooroAtic^i; irapd-
" 8o<nr)." De incam. Verbi Dei, init. (Ed. Col. 1686. tom. l!
p. 592. Ed. Bened. tom. 2. p. 83, 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 foUow 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 ApoUinarian 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 : — Th yhp ollra) <^aveptt9 detKW^/iera
<^at;Aa^ yviwi(€iv iirl TrAeioi; Koi Tr€pi€pyi(€(rOai oi dei, &a fi^

70 DOCTRINE QP THE TRACTAT0R8.

Tols (l>iXov€iKov<riv &9 lLfMt>lpoXa vofii<rO^^ fj roiko \l6vov imoKpl"
vaadcu TTpbs ra rotavraf kclL cIttclv ipKcl^ 8ti ovk i<m ravra rrjs
KaOoXiiajs 'EkkXt/o-uxs^ oibi ravra ol itarip^^ i<f>p6vr\<Tav,^ i. e.
'^ For as to doctrines which are so manifestly unsound^ it is not
'^ right to make them subjects of earnest discussion^; 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 Churchy 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 Churchy 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^ koL Anetv' ^ApKcl Sn
«• r. A. (leaving no verb^ be it observed^ to the infinitives iLiroKpU
vacOai and clTrtw) 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 tnte 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 tmfaimess in this, because they were probably not aware of
the alteration, but 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

' Epist. ad Epict. prope init. ed. Col. 1686. torn. L p. 584. See Ben. ed. torn. i.
pt 2. p. 903.

' Suioer has observed that Chrysosiom has used the word yvft»d(€w in a some-
what different sense, applying it thus ; iwl {nro^tlyiueros rh Kfx^4v yvfiyd(€iy, i. e.
id quod dictum est excmplo illuHrare ; and nmilarly elsewhere. In my first
edition I considered that the word might be useil in a similar sense here, and
translated it accordingly. But I believe the translation given above is more likely
to be the correct rendering.

DOCTBINE OP THE TRACTATOBS. 71

Mr» Newman translate the words rriv evaefiri irCariv, " the reve-
rent faith of the church f' (p. 886.) And Mr, Keble, '' the
Creed of the true religion V^ {$. 127.) Why this partial trans-
lation to suit their own peculiar views ? The words are merely
'^ the orthodox faith/' Mr* Keble's renderings 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 faitV 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 Serif twre.

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 Churchy 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-

72 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS.

ance with the meaning of phrases of common occurrence in the
writings of the early Churchy must not be omitted.

We have already observed,^ 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 of the
^' Church as an antecedent argument , a fair plea, ordinarilv
" 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 comeUness 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

» Si?e pp. 8, 13, and 68.

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS^ 73

•

•''^ living Gk)d, for the glory and acknowledgment of bis love
'* 'towards man/ &c. (Contr. Apollin. i. 9, 11, 22, fin.)^* (Lec-
tures, &c., p. 888.)

Mr. Newman, therefore, would have us suppose, that thiei
phrase ff EvayyekiKri ircLpiboins, the Evangelical tradition^ mean^
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 '* sufficient by itself "
{avripKTis) 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 Nyssen ; — ^'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
" in the Evangelical and Apostolical traditions," {iv EvayyeAiKai;
re Koi 'ATTOdToAtKai? Trapabbcco'i,) , De Virg. c* xi. ed. Par* 1615*
tom 2. p. 579.

So Cyril of Alexandria ; — " He would have them be gentle
and patient, according to the Evangelical traditions'' {ras
EvayycAifca? irapabSo'cis), In Isa. c. Ixvi. ver. 5.

Other examples occur in Socrates, Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 7.
and in Balsamon 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

" written If, therefore, either it is commanded in thef

" Gospel, or is contained in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles

74 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTAT0R8*

'^ let that divine and holy tradition be observed. . • • . .

" If in anything the truth has not been steadily maintained^
" let us return to the Dominical original and the Evangelical
'^ and Apostolical tradition^* (Ad originem Dominicam et Evan-
gelicam et Apostolicam traditionem revertamur.) Epist. 74. ad
Pomp. ed. FeU. p. 211, 215.

And what is, if possible, still more conclusive, we find Jerome,
when translating a passage of Polycrates, translating the words
rb €vayyi\iov, the Gospel, (referring to Scripture,) by '^ evange-
lica traditio,'' the Evangelical tradition^

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 Evayye-
kiK^s Spos, the Evangelical rule, used to express the Gospels^
(De salut. adv. Christi adv. Apoll. or Lib. sec. adv. Apoll.)
And in the Treatise ^' De pass, et cruce Dom.'' attributed to
him, we find the phrases 6 *ATro<TTo\iKbs kiyos, ''the apostolical
saying,'^ applied to a quotation from the Epistle to the Romans ;
rb Evayy€kiKbv rod KvpCov prirbv, " the evangelical saying of our
Lord,** i. e. ''the saying of our Lord in the Gospels,*' applied
to a quotation from St. Matthew. And so the author of the
Qusestiones et Besponsiones ad Orthodoxos (in the works of
Justin Martyr) uses the phrase roU Evayy^kiKols dtiyy^fuwt,
"the evangdical narratives,*' for the Gospels. (Qusest. 135.)
And Bufinus, — "Propterea ergo Propheticis et Evangelicis
atque Apostolids vocibus nobis prsenunciatur hie error.**
(Expos, in Symb. ;) 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

* See South, Reliq. Sacr. voL L p. 871; op,2iid ed. vol. 2, p. 16.

DOCTRINB OF THE TRACTAT0R8. 75

€(
€€

it
t€
€€
it

are able^ expound the Christian faith, which indeed you
might hBye found from the divine oracles, {bwofUvt^ iurb rwf
O^luiv koyluiv €vp€lv), but politely desire to hear from others^
For the holy and inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves
(avr<tpK€49) to deliver the truth, {irpbs t^v rrjs iXriO€Ca9 iiray*
y€kCap.)"^

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 yad7m«i/'' here is totally unauthorized by the original,
which is 6 iK t&v IbCoiv kak&v, he who speaks out of his private
fancies, and refers to the word translated by Mr. Newman
" theories " {i(t>€vp€a€(Ti, inventions ,) which had just gone before.
The two phrases, as Mr. Newman must see, are 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.^

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 f "For this,'' he says, "see S. Cyprian, ep. 63, p. 149;
*' ed. Fell; S. Augustin, De Civ. Dei. xviii. 20; S. Jerome, Ep.
" ad Marcellam, t. i. p. 123, ed. Frob. Basil. These, with the
" distinct acknowledgment in the antient Boman liturgy, may
" perhaps be considered sufficient to represent the sense of the
•'Western churches. Among. the Greeks, S. Chrysostom on

^ Orat. oontr. gent. ed. Ben. Paris, torn. i. p. 1.

' That their translations are not always to be trusted in points where they are
interested, has been fully shown by an able writer in the British Magaadne for May
1839, pp. 511—19.

76 DOCTRfNE OF THE TRACTATORS.

" Oen. xiv. clearly implies tbe same construction. iBut the
*' reserve maintained by them on all liturgical subjects may
f' account for their comparative silence on this pointy 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.

Butj in truths when we come to see what the notion of our
opponents is as to the nature of faith^ the view to which theii'
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 iinpossible not to see^ that in patristical
tradition there is at least a degree oi uncertainty as to its apo-
stolical origin ; and consequently that there can be at mast only
some degree oi 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 weU as conduct must be guided by pro-
" babilities, wid 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 difficulties 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 Jaith." (p. 103.) " Nay," saith Mr.
Keble, " evidence complete in all its parts leaves no room for faith J*
(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-

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. 77

" 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 seethe 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.

78 DOCTRINE OP THE TRACTATORS

CHAPTER III.

COMPARISON OP THE DOCTRINE MAINTAINED IN THE WORKS
ABOVE MENTIONED ON THE SUBJECT OP PATRISTICAL TRA-
DITION WITH THAT OP THE ROMISH CHURCH.

Apter the explicit declaration of Dr. Fusey^ quoted in the
preceding chapter^ that our controversy with Rome on this
subject is not a doctrinal but a *^ purely historical" contro-
versy, i. e. 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 Romanist in
appealing to antiquity as our ffreat 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 been
considering, with that of the Romanists. As, however, in other
places they speak as if there was some not inconsiderable dif-
ference between their views and those of the Romanists on the
subject, and as such an impression is likely to be 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 will 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 recoUect that this chapter was written before Mr. Newman^s
secession to the Chnrch of Borne, and refers to the statements made by him as the
prindpal leader of the Tnictarian party.

it
u

IDENTICAL WITH THB ROMISH. 79

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 Grod, 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 obserxation is of course very true, and its truth is admitted
by aU, 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. c. 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 imwritten traditions which
were received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ him-
self, or, emanating from the apostles themselves, at the dic-
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-

t€
tt
€€

if
€€

tt
t€

80 POCTBINE OF THE TRACTATORS

'' lament^ 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
1' 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."^

It is hardly necessary to say, that he adds the limitation, —
^^ We admit no tradition that is contrary to Scripture /'^ ^' we
" never defend traditions that are at variance with Scripture.^' ^

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

» De Verb. Dei. Ub. iv. c. 9.

' Nee ullam tradiiaonem adxmttimtiB contra Scripturam. lb. c. 3.

• Nee enim tradiUones cum Scriptura pugnantes nnquam dcfendimus. lb. c. 11.

IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMlSH. 81

merely the present Churchy 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 writvngs 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-
'* tized 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 (^tholic 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
'f 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

» Dc Verb. Dei. iv. c. 2. ' Dc Verb. Dei. iv. c. 3.

VOL. I. G

€(
t€

82 DOCTBINE OF THE T&ACTATORS

'^ 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
Churchy 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 (Jod 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. 88

'^' we should admit oral tradition in the sense you take it^ yet
" every discriminating article^ either as to faith or morality, wc

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 tvritvngs of
" the FcUhers, 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 Fatrum). And Fius 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 GoePs 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, discusaion, p. 70. * Seas. 4.

• Nee earn [i. e. Scripturam] anqnam nisi juxta unanimem consensum Patrum
aocipiam et interpretabor. Bull. Pii IV. sup. form. Juram. prefix, ad Catecli.
Condi. Trid.

G 2

82 DOCTRINE OF THE T&ACTATORS

'' 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 umvritten, 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 B0MI8H. 88

'^* we should admit oral tradition in the sense you take it^ yet
'^ every discriminating article, either as to faith or morality, wc
** 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 j &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 GocPs 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, diflcoasion, p. 70. * Seas. 4.

' Nee earn [i. e. Scripturam] anqnam nin juxta unanimem oonsensmn Patrrnn
aocipiam et interpretabor. Bull. Pii IV. gup. form. Juram. prefix, ad Catech.
Condi. Trid,

G 2

82 DOCTRINE OF THE T&ACTATORS

'' 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

if
if

a
ii

Identical with the romish. 88

'^' we should admit oral tradition in the sense you take it, yet
" every discriminating article, either as to faith or morality, wc
** 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 %vr%tmg8 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 Fatrum). And Fius 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 GocPs 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

€€

' Dowub. discossioii, p. 70. • Seaa. 4.

' Nee earn [i. e. Scripturam] anqnam nin juxta unanimem oonsensmn Patnim
aodpam et interpretabor. Bull. Pii IV. sup. form. Juram. prefix, ad Catech.
C(mcil.Trid.

G 2

86 POCTBINE OF THE T&ACTATORS

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 firsty 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^trm^ 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' Creeds 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 only^. . . . These things being ob-
" served, I assert, that aU those things were written by the apo^

^ This notion of there being a reserve observed by the apostles in the commu-
mcation of religious knowledge, and of some matters having been committed by
them more especially to the custody of the clergy, has also been embraced by our
opponents, and an exhortation given by them to the present Church to practise
a similar reserve! See Tract 80, "On reserve in communicating religious
knowledge."

€(
U
<€
(t
tt
tt
tt

tt
tt

€(

IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 87

'' sties which are necessary to all, and whicli they themselves had
openly preached to all without distinction : but that of other
things not all were written/'^ 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
'' JuUy 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 Scr^^
ture {Scripturam pluris facimus) than they do ; nor admit any
'^ tradition against Scripture/'^

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* Greedy 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 incidcate 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

» De Verb. Del iv. c 11. « lb. » lb. c 3.

€{

€€
€t
€€

88 DOCTRINE OF THE TBACTAT0R8

direct rejection of what theChurcli 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/ — " Punda-
" mental^ indeed^ they [the Romanists] call sometimes all points
" defined by the Church's councils^ and hold them necessary to be
" believed for attaining salvation; but not necessary in such a sense
'^ as ratione medii necessary ; or absolutely extra quas {creditas)
nan est solus, 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. Nevnnan 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."*

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 churchy 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.

' Acoomit of doctrine of Roman Catholics concerning the Ecclofflastical Guide
in Controversies of Religion. By R. H. Second edition, 1673, 4to. pp. 245, 8.

* Lect. p. 90.

^ Cnm doctrina porgatorii nt omnibos sdtu necessaria, non est credibilc, illam
non posse probari ex Scriptoris. Adv. Luth. Art. 18. See Bp. Morton's Prot.
Appeal, L 2. § 13. p. 15.

IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 89

the fedthfa]^ 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 beings as they
thinks 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, m 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.'* 3

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 explicitly^
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

» Do Verb. Dei. iv. c. 3. « lb. c 4.

' The inference as to the necessity of tradition, shows that the word expreue
must be taken to include both a formal and virtual expression of the doctrines in
question. Words fairer to the Protestant view, therefore, might have been used,
because the Protestant doctrine is, that all such points are contained in Scripture
either expressly OB virtually, in such a way as to be dedudble thence by direct and
necessary inference.

t€
€€
€t
ti
it
ft
if
ft
<<
ft
<<

€€
€(

tt
€t
t€
€C

90 DOCTRINE OF THE TKACTATORS

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^ Uoman- 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 pracepti, 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/'
[He here refers for proof to passages in Bellarmine, Stapleton,
P. 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
*' ScripturaSy i.e. such doctrines as have not \he!a foundation at
'^ least in Scripture ; but is the preserving and delivering of the
primitive sense and Church-explication of that which is written
in the Scriptures, but many tiiges 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 of faith, that Catholics do question ;
" but such a non-clearness of Scriptures for several of these
'' points as that they may be misunderstood, (which non-clearness
'' of them infers a necessity of making use of the Church's tra-

IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 91

" 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 ffuide, 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 y 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 addy 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

((

92 DOCTRINE OF THB TRACTATORS

the doctrines essentially necessary to salvation^ but to the neces-
sity of belief in that which they^ as the Churchy 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.^

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 Fatristical Tradition is an important part of the divine
rule as conveying to us various important doctrines and rules
not contained in Scripture, —

Is thus advocated by Bellarmine. He remarks that Tradition
is necessary because there are many points which we ought not
to be ignorant of, and which yet are not contained in Scripture,
instancing, among the other 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.^

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

* See pp. 89 et seq. above. ' De Verb. DdL lib. iv. c. 4.

IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 93

" Scriptnre^ inasmuch as it is a role^ 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 pointy quoted
pp. 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 ^uld contend for them on the ground
" of Scripture testimonies only, controversies with froward op-

» lb. C,12 r

€<
t€

tc
tc

tt
l€

94 DOCTEINE OF THE TRACTATORfir

" 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, —
Bellarmine, in describing the fourth, fifth, and sixth uses for
which tradition is necessary, maintains as follows : — " Fourthly,
*^ it is necessary to know, that there exist certain truly divine
'^ books, a truth which certainly cannot be 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 Dei,) 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

» lb. c. 4.

€€
€t
€t
tt

€t
€€
€C
It

IDENTICAL WITH THE B0MI8H. 95

" tradition and the testimony of the Church, it will be of little
" service. Moreover y if this tradition has been able to come down
*^ to uSy why cannot others also have come down in the same way ?"^

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.* I should add, however, that there are some/ew,
even among the Romanists, who take a sounder view on this
point, and believe the authority of the Scripture, indepeudently
of the judgment of the Church ; as, for instance, the learned
Huetius, in his " Evangelical Demonstration.'^^

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 diflFerence 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.*
» lb.

« See the " Guide in Controversies," by R. H., p. 366 ; Eyre's Reply to
Churton, pp. 117 — 119 ; &c.

* See Placette's Incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome, c. 2.

* See particularly oc. 2, 3, and 20—27.

96 DOCTRINE OF THE TBACTAT0R8

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;^ 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 o{ 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. Fronde'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 Irenseus.

That the sacred Scriptures are the words of God, and a

certain and immutable rule of truth, to which nothing must
** be added, and from which nothing must be taken away,

^ LuHPES Histor. TheoL — Crit de vita, Ac Patrum. Aug. Vind. 1783 ct seq.
18 V. Svo. This work is a oompilation firom various works on the Fathers. Tlie
^ssertation above alluded to is principally taken fVom Massuet.

€t
t€
€€

IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH.* 97

" Irenseus most rightly teaches. Nevertheless, that all the
" words of God are not eaipressly contained in them, but that
the apostles, as the ambassadors and heralds of Christ, taught
other things which they never consigned to writing, he not
less clearly declares/' And then, after having quoted some
passages from Irenseus, (lib. 3, cc. 3, 45,) he adds, — " From
'^ which these things evidently follow ; first, that the very worst
of all the heretics acknowledged and confessed that the 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 Irenseus blames not,^ nay, in what
" follows, approves of, as we shall presently see. Thirdly, that
tradition is/ei/fer 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 qusecun-
que quae Frotestantes pro his adferunt etiam pugnant pro tra-
ditionis certitudine et firmitate.) Just as Mr. Newman tells
us, that, '^ whatever eaplanations the Protestant makes in behalf
of the preservation of the written wordy 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,

» How far this U true we shall see hereafter, when we come to inquire into
the sentiments of Iremieus on this matter. (See c. 10.)
VOL. I. H

ft
tc
it

(C
€(

i€

98 OOCTRINE OF THE T&ACTATOR8

'' 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
'' jfrom divine tradition.

" (5.) The doctrine which the universal Church has defended

it
((

C(
€€

cc
cc

IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH*. 99

" 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

€€
it

€€
it
€t
t€
€€
€€
t€

" contained in Scripture^ afibrds 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 mathematicaUy^ but morally. But
haw 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 cam
consensionem requiritur ut omnes illi prorsus idem dixerint
scripserintque nemine discordante: ejusmodi enim consensus
non mathematice sed moraliter accipiendus est. Cseterum
quinam prsecise Fatrum numerus sufficiat et requiratur^ gene-
raliter definiri nequit^ ut semper contingit in iis quse moraliter
sestimanda 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 f . . • What degree

H 2

€€
it

tt
{(

100 DOCTRINE OP THE TRACTATORS

t€
i€

(€

of application is enough^ must be decided by the same prin-
" ciples which guide us in the conduct of life /^ &c.(pp. 68, 9.)

'* (8.) If the universal Church observes anything which is
" found to have been observed in it in all past times, though

the institution of it may not be beyond human authority, if

its origin cannot be ascertained, it is deservedly thought to
" have been instituted by the apostles ; but if ascending 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, area rule

of faith. [To this all will subscribe.]

" (3.) Tradition certainly and continuously di£Fused 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 Churchy
" either those that are necessary or those that are useful."

" Therefore/* adds the writer, " the complete rule of faith is
" Scripture joined with divine tradition, which ip Protestants

'* WOULD ADMIT, ALL THE OTHER CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN US
" AND THEM WOULD SOON CEASE."^

There is only one point in which I conceive our opponents
can object to this statement as difiering 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 tliey themselves hold it, namely^ that these doc-
trines are so contained in the Scriptures, that tradition is neces-

* See Lumper, vol. iii. pp. 848 — 62.

IDENTICAL WITH THE BOMISH. 101

sary to show that they are there. But certainly the Bomanists^
holding this view, do not pretend to refer us to Scripture alone
ioT 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 modem 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 i 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
" unu)ritten word, forming a part of the good tidings which
'' Christ came from heaven to communicate ; and this is called

102 DOCTUNB OF THE TRACTATOR8

^ tradition. These two parts complete the rule of faith of the
" catholic Church." (pp. 27, 28.) ''Tradition forms a ;>ar/o//Ae
'' rule which Christ left to his Churchy and as Protestants
'' exclude tradition, they have not a complete rule of fedth.''
(lb. p. 118.)

Lastly, let the reader compare the doctrine of our opponents
with the following summary of the Bomish doctrine of the rule
of faith, given by Dr. Hawardine,^ in his Treatise on that sub-
ject.^ Dr. Hawardine sums up the Bomish 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 Holy Scripture, if we consider it in that sense in which it
" is and always has been understood by the faithful. Seventh
" rule. Considering the Holy Scripture in that sense in which
*' it was always understood by the faithful, all the articles of
" religion which it is necessary for every Christian to know are
^' plain in it. Eighth rule. Hie 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-

> "A penon of oonsummate .knowledge in all eoclewiwtioal affiun^ scholastic,
moral, and historical, and, to do him justioe, perhaps the present age caiinot show
his eqoaL" — Dod. "Dr. Hawardine's works are distinguished for brevity, aocn-
racy, deameest, order, and dose reasoning." — Bntler.

< The Bole of Faith troly stated. 1721. 12mo. Pt 8, pp. 276 et seq.

t€
€€
t€

IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 108

t€

versies of religion may be decided by the Holy Scfiptwre alone.
'* Eleventh ride. The true Church may be found out by Scrip-
" ture alone. Twelfth rule. Whatever contains the chief and
'' most distinguishing articles of Christian religion maybe truly
'' called the ride 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 rvle of Christian religion."^ 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 I put
forward by divines of the Church of England as delivering the
doctrine of our Church on the subject.^

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.'

» p. 806.

« See Reply to Rev. R, Churton, by F. Eyre of Warkworth, Esq. Loud. 1798,
8vo. pp. 116—119; Ac

' The following remarks were added here in a note in the fint edition of this
work, and they may not be even now without their use, though the events that
have once occurred can leave no doubt as to the tendency of lYaotarian
prindplea : —

It if worthy of observation that we have had not long sinos in oor oiwn

1P4 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS

But having given sufficient to enable the reader to com-
pare the doctrine of the two parties upon the subject^ I

Church a practical proof of what the principles of the Tractators on this suhject
may lead to, and an acknowledgment of their identity with those of the Church of
Rome of a very remarkahle kind. I allude to the case of the Hon. and Rev. Mr.
Spencer. It is quite true that this is not a proof of the identity for which we
oont^id, but it is a practical argument in fiivour of it which wise men will not
think lightly of. Thus writes Mr. Spencer himself on the subject. " I could
" hardly fidl telling him that in becoming a Catholic I had come into the principles
** which Mr. Sikes and he himself held in common, and on which Mr. Sikes had
** done so much to endeavour to lead me to without effect ; because I used always
" to conceive the prindples of church-authority, which when proposed to me by
Catholics afterwards I embraced, quite inconnstent 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 approxima-
tion to catholiciUf was owing to the conversation of a Protestant clergyman with
whom I happened to pass an evening a year before my conversion. This clergyman
was the late Mr. Yaughan, brotiier to Sir Henry Halford, in argument with
" whom I. was maintaining the principle which I held most strenuously of regarding
'' nothing but the Scriptures as my g^de. He made me observe for the first time,
" what it was strange enough I had never before observed, that the Scriptures were
" not the original rule of fiuth delivered as such by the apostles to t^ Chiuch,
and he pressed me with arguments to show that the tradition of the Churdi
must be attended to, [that is, as part of the rule of fiEuth]. This'part of his argu-
" ment I took little notice of, because I was quite dear that in our hands theprin-
" ciple was untenable s but I felt eteb afteb, that I wanted soifBTHiNO

" MORE EXPLICIT THAN THE SIK FLE SCBIFTTTBES TO OIYE ME AN ASSITBANCE OF
** FAITH, AND I WAS THE MOBE BEADY TO EMBBACE THE CATHOLIC DOOTBINB
*' ON THE BULE OF FAITH WHEN AT LENGTH IT CAME TO BE CONSISTENTLY

** PBOPOSED TO ME I am convinced the argument you hold against the high

" churchmen of the Establishment is unanswerable." (British Magazine for May,
1840, pp. 530, 531.)

No wonder that the Romanists are exulting in the success of the Tractators,
and congratulating themsdves upon a great and speedy addition to thdr ranks
from those who have made such advances towards them. Among the many testi-
monies of thb that might be quoted, I will content myself with the following from
the "CathoUc Magazine" for March, 1839.

Most ancerdy and unaffectedly do we tender our congratulations to our bre-
thren of Oxford, that their eyes have been opened to the evils of private judg-
ment, and the consequent necessity of curbing its multiform extravagance. It
" has been given to them to see the dangersof the ever-shifting sands of the desert
" in which they were latdy dwelling, and to strike thdr tents and flee the perils of
** the 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,"
" &c. — *' We can — ^we do forgive them, — ^that, urged by the clamour of thdr oppo-
" nents, many of them exhibit towards us an extreme degree of intolerance, iy icoy
of proving their abhorrence of such of our tenets as they do not as yet hold, and
exhibiting themselves as good and true men to the eyes of their brethren" —
Some of the brightest ornaments of their church have advocated a re-union with

«<

««
««

«<

«i

€4

IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 105

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
" retomed to his Cither's house, the fatted calf was killed, and a great feast of joy
" made, even so will the whole of Christendom rcrjoice greatly when so bright a body
" of learned and pious men as the authors of the ' Tracts for the 'Kmes ' 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
** overwhelmed. 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. 176, 6.)

The Tractators boast of having the great majority of our able and learned
divines in their &vour. 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 clei^, tc^ther 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
abundantly 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 inoon-
sisiency previous to their secession. Their own statements certainly make it diffi-
cult to imderstand 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 tins identity might be found " cogent and satis-
fiictory." (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 gprounds, that he quitted the
oonununion 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 embraced 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.

106 ON THS ANTIBNT CRVSD8.

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 weU
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 farther 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

ON THE ANTIENT CKBBD8. 107

who is to separate what is apostolical from that which proceeded
from another source ?^

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 Churchy 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 aU 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.'

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

* Of coarse I am not here denying their value as important and intereating
relics of the early Church. And the various copies of (so called) Apostolical
Constitutions and Liturgies that have been discovered in modem 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 vahio.
But to authority as apostoHcal remains they have no daim.

< Ecd. Hist. Pt. 2. c 8. Engl. transL voL L p. 108.

* See Watch, Introd. in Hbr. symb. lib.L c. 2. Bmdd. Isag. ad Theok^. lib. L
c 2. § 2. Kimjft Hist of the ApostW Creed; iVonxMi/ Barrows ^

108 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.

the Christian Creed; and that consequently^ from the firsts
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 ^iven 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
ako without any proof, maintains the contrary, and, silently
assuming the correctness of hi^ 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

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 109

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, 08 St. Paul has determined in his second epistle to Timothy ^
(p. 267.) " // is delineated and recognised in Scripture itself, where
it is called the Hypotyposis, or *■ outline of sound words J '' (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 V^ 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. 8.)
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. 28.) 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 w&s 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

110 ON THE AinnBNT CEVBIM.

" the form (or^ outline) of sound words which thou hast heard
'' of me/' &c *Tvor6v<a<nv lx€ iyiaiviiimav Xiytop, &v vof^ iym
ffKova-as. (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 ''heard
from him'' '' an outline of sound words^" but that he had heard
from him sound words^ of which he was to hold fast the ouiUne,
that is^ the great characteristic features. The English reader
will observe that the word ''which" refers to the "sound
words f* 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.

1 Another ixutanoe, I would humbly sabmit, is in the common application of
llstt. zyL 18. "The gates of heU (or, hadst) shall not prevail against it." {ntrtff-
X^oiwaw abrris,) The idea is that of prevailing by snperior strength to keep in
adversary down. Ttds text is almost always quoted as a promise that Satan shall
never destroy Christ's chmx^ on earth; and is so applied by Mr. Newman,
(p. 240.) But what can the gates of hades have to do witii the Chnrch on earth ?
Bot viewing hadea as the place of departed spirits, where they remain till the
resmredion, the passage is /dear, and the excellence of the promise at once seen.
It is a promise that the Chnrch shall not remain always in that place of interme-
^Bate rest, bat shall be ultimately delivered from it by him who " hath the keys
of Aa<2M and of death." (Bev. L 18.)

€€

ON THB ANTIBNT CKBED8. Ill

For instance^ the earliest extant is in Irenseus^ who^ having
spoken of ^'the unalterable rule (KavSpa) of truth which he
received by baptism^'^ {hp bth tov pawria^ixiTos cIXi^^c) gives
the faith preached by the Church'^ thus, — "The Church,
though scattered over aU 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 {ivaK€(txiKxui<ra<r6aC) 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 bom of a virgin, uniting man to God in

1 Ibxk. Adv. har. Hb. L c 10. ed. Mass, c 2. p. 46. ed. Qrab.

t€
it
<(
€<
t<
<€

112 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.

(€
€€
€t
(t

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.'* ^

Passing from Irenseus 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 prsescriptione hareticorum,'* 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
'' Gk)d, 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 Ood, 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, " iusti-
'^ 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, bom of the Virgin

' Adv. hser. lib. ill. c 4. edd. Mam. et Grab.
* De PrsBBcript. hseret. c. 13. p. 206. ed. 1664.

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 113

€€

€<

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 Praxeas^ where he
states it thus : — " We believe indeed one God, nevertheless under
this mode of existence (dispensatione)^ which we call ceconomy
(oeconomiam), 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 Grospel.*' (Hanc regu-
1am ab initio Evangelii decucurrisse.)^

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-
cinct 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

' Dc virgin, veland. c. 1. p. 173. * Lib. adv. Prax. c. 2. p. 601.

VOL. I. I

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 that
time no difficulties in the way to prevent its being openly brought
forward, if there had been such a formula ; for persecution had
then ceased, and there could be no reason for concealing it, 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 might have rendered some addition desirable, but
there would have been at least some respectful recognition of
the formula 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 replied, from a misunderstanding of the words of
Jerome (quoted in the next page), that " the Creed" was not writ-
ten, but delivered orally from one to another, I answer, that this
is evidently a misinterpretation of his words, for " the Creed "
had been before that time delivered without hesitation in writing
by Rufinus, and so had been the Jerusalem form of it by Cyril,
to say nothing of the forms given by Irenaeus and Tcrtullian ;
and therefore the meaning of Jerome, when he says, that " the
^' Creed is not written on paper or with ink, but on the fleshly
" tables of the heart," is, that true Christians, as a body, were
to inscribe it on their hearts, and not on paper, which would be
useless ; and perhaps there may be also an allusion to the fact
that " the Creed" was not to be written by the 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-

' rVrill. HieroR. Catoch. 5. § 7. wl. Millos. p. 75. (ed. Paris. 1631. p. 44.)

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 115

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 Rufinus.^
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.* The first asser-
tion of its having been composed 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.^ 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 centuries,^ 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

^ Ruf. Expos, in Symbol, prope imt. This work is to be found in all the old
editions of Cyprian and Jerome. The works of Rufinus were published together
by Vallarsius, V eron. 1745. fol., which is called the best edition ; but the text seems
to me to have been often altered, without, so &r as appears, suffident authority,
and for the worse. I shall quote, therefore, firom the copy in Bp. Fell's edition
of Cj-prian. Oxon. 1682. fol.

^ Credatur symbolo Apostolorum, quod Ecdesia Romana intemcratum semper
cnstodit et servat. Ad Siricium. Ep. 42. § 5. Ed. Bened. Paris, tom. ii. ool. 967.
The earlier works to which reference has been made, are all long ago confessed to
be spurious, as Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Jacob. Constit. Apoetol. lib. viL c 41.

' " Tradunt m^ores nostri," &c Rufin. Expos, in Symb. inter Op. Cypr. ed.
PelL Oxon. ad fin. p. 17. ed. Ptanel. CoL Agripp. 1617. p. 312.

* " Cautissime autem qui symholum tradiderurU etiam tempus quo hasc sub
Pontio Pilato gesta sunt designaverunt." Id. ib. Art. " Crucifixus," &c Ed. Fell,
p. 22. ed. Pam. 316.

' In symbolo fidd et spd nostrse, quod ab Apostolis traditum, non scribitur in
charta et atramento, sed in tabulis cordis camalibus, post confessionem Trinitatis
et unitatem ocelesisB, omne Christiani dogmatis sacramentum camis resurrectione
concluditur. Contra Joann. HierosoL ad Pammach. (written about the year 397.)
§ 28. ed. Vallars. 2a. Vcn. ii. 435. (Bened. P&ris. iv. 323.)

• Leo Magn. Ep. 13. Jo. Cassian. De incam. Dom. lib. v. Vcnantius Fortunatus,
Expos. Symb. in Prajfat. Isidor. Hispal. Orig. lib. vi. c. 9. Vigil. Taps. Adv.
Entych. lib. iv.

" Rabnn. Maur. De insiit. Her. lib. ii. c. 56, and others.

1 2

€€
t<
i€
€€

116 ON THE ANTIKNT 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/' hut 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 .... went
" each to different nations. Therefore, heing ahout to separate
^' from each other, they settle among themselves beforehand a
" rule for their future preaching, lest perchance when apart from
one another, they should preach to those who were invited to the
faith of Christ doctrines at all dissimilar. Therefore, heing
assembled all together and filled with the Holy Spirit, they
compose that short summary of their future preaching, put-
ting together what each one thought fit to supply, and
^' resolve that this should be given to the faithful as a rule.'' ^

And the Author of the Sermon numbered 115 of the " Ser-
mones Dc Tempore" of Augustine, kindly tells us what
articles each apostle supplied, Thomas supplying the words,
^' he descended into hell," and Simon Zelotes, " the communion
of saints ;" which articles, as is well known, were not in the
Creed till some two centuries at least after the death of all the
Apostles.

A very pretty story, but coming rather too late in the day in
the year 390, to make much impression, and withal not very
complimentary to inspired men, that they should be so careful
to confer with one another before they 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,
as " the Creed ;" the baptismal Creed being originally merely
a declaration of belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy

* Serm. 115 and 181 of his Sermones de Tempore are confessedly spurions, and
rejected by the Benedictines.
2 See Note (") in preceding iMtge.

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. Il7

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 hanng 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 Grod,'' — 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. (x\cts 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 mighty
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 Creeda.
given by the early writers. Had there been a collection of
certain definite articles made by the Apostles, and left with the

(C
€(

118 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.

Churchy on the understaDding that those were the articles
which should form the Greedy 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 siunmaries 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
of the Holy Ghost," (Matt, xxviii. 1 9,) in which we find at
once the rudiments of the earliest Creeds, and^om which "the
Creed" 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 gave, and the Apostles
" preached, and the Fathers kept. For upon this the Church
" was founded, and he who falls away from this could not be,
" nor be called, a Christian. Therefore, there is a holy and
perfect Trinity, &c. . . [proceeding to deliver the doctrine
of the Trinity] . . . And that this faith is the faith of the
" Church, let them learn from this, that the Lord, when he
" sent forth his disciples, commanded them to lay thisfounda-
" tion for the Church, saying, ' Go and teach all nations, bap-

{(
({

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 119

tizing them in the name of the Father^ and of the Son^ and

of the Holy Ghost'; and the Apostles went and taught thus;

and this is what is preached to every church under heaven.
*' Therefore, 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/' &c.^

And so again; — "This is the faith of the catholic Church.
" For the Lord hath founded and rooted it upon the Trinity,
" saying to his disciples, ' Go and teach all nations, baptizing
" them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
" Holy Ghost/ ''-

And again, speaking of the name Father as being more

appropriate for the first Person of the Trinity than Uncreated,

he says, " Moreover, when teaching us to pray, he [i. e. our

" Lord] did not say. But when ye pray, say, 0 God, uncreated,

" but, But when ye pray, say. Our Father who art in heaven ;

" and also he wished the summary of our faith to lead

" likewise to this [name], where having commanded that we

" should be baptized, it is not in the name of the Uncreated

" and the created, nor in the name of the Creator and the

" creature, but in the name of Father, and Son, and Holy
" Ghost/' 3

* *l9(otJi€v 9h Sfiots K<d vphs robots K(d oMfr t^k i^ ^X^' TapdSotriy iced 8i8a<nra-
Xlay Kcd jrlariw r^s KaSoXu^i *EicicA7)(r^as, %i^ 6 fiky K^tos f^uKtUf ol 8i *Air6<rro\ot
iicfipv^ay, K<d ol irar4p€s 4<f>6\a^air iy ra^rrf ykp ^ 'EKKXfiaia rf$€fi€\[urai, K<d &
rairris iicirlirruv o(h^ hv cfi;, otfr* hv Ihi \4yoiro\ Xpiamay6s, Tpib,i rolvov ayia
Kcd T(\fia itrrly .... Kat Zri a&n} ^ wlffris riis *EicicAi}<r(a5 iffrlj /tio^eraxray, w&s
6 fiky Kipios, inroirriKKuy rohi *A'iro<rT6\ovSf xaipf^iyytiXt rovroy 0ffi4\ioy ri64ycu rp
*EK*cAi7(r(a, Xiywy TloptvB^yrfs fwJ9r]rt{Krart wdyra rh (9yfi, ficarrl^oyrts avrohs
fls rh 6yofjLa rod Harphs K(d rod Tlov Kol rod aylov Th^/xaros. Ol 8^ *Air6irTo\oi
xopfv6tyr€5 ofh-cts 49lBa^ay, Kcd tovt6 4<my els traffoy r^y inf ohpayhy *t,KKKi\iriay
th icffpvyfjLa. OifKovy rovroy 4x^^^^ ''^^ *EKK\i}<rl<is rhy d€fi4\ioy rrjs irlimws,
€lirdr»<ray w<i\iy fi/uy iKtiyoi KctX iiroKptydtrSofffayj Tpids itrriy ^ Avc£s ; k. t. A.
Athaiias. Epist. ad Scrap. Contra eos qui dicunt, Spiritmn S. creaturara esse.
§§ 28, 9. Op. ed. Ben. Paris, torn. i. Part. 2. pp. 676, 7. (Ed. Col. 1686. torn. i.
pp. 202, 3.) See also the same Treatise at § 6. p. 653, (or p. 179.) et Epist. ad
Scrap, contra cos qui dicunt Filium creaturam esse. § 6. p. 687, (or p. 170.) ;
particularly the former.

' ASti) t^j KaSoXiicns *EKK\Ti<rlas ^ vl(ms. *Ey TpidBi ykp aMiy ieffjit\iwa't
K<d 4fipi(<oa-(y 6 K{>pi0Sy tlpTjKdts ro7s fjLaOrjrcus, Uop€v$€yr€s ijux0rjr€6<rarf k t. A.
Epist. ad Scrap. De Spir. S. § 6. ed. Ben. Par. tom. i. Pt. 2. p. 695. (Ed. Col.
torn. ii. p. 14.)

' *AAAek KoL r\yMi t6x*<Tdai Zil^Ktay, ovk *lir(y, "Orav 84 irpotrt^xtir^t Ktytrt,

120 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.

Hence it is said in the " Catholic Letter'' attributed to
Athanasius, " The symbol, therefore, of our faith is the Con-
substantial Ti'inity."^

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-
fessedlyfrom 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, ' Gro and
" teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
" and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' "^

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.

Thus also Gregory of Nyssa says, "And afterwards he [i. e.
" our Lord] adds the words by which they [i. e. his disciples]
" were about to take captive as in a net the whole earth, and
" in which is contained the whole mystery of true religion ; for he

says, ' Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name

of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teach-

6ci *Ay4yrrr€f iXXcb jUoAXoi', "Orav 8^ vpoct^fx^^^y \4yerty Ildrtp iifi&¥ & iv rots
ovpayoli. koL rh K€<pd?>Juoy 9^ riis irl<rrfus rifi&y tis rovro avprtlytiy ^0^Ai}(rc, K€'
Ac^as rjfuis fiairri^tirBcUf o{>k tls 6yofw. 'Aycv^ov K<d rtyrirov, ouii els 6yofAa
KrlffTov Ktd KrifrfwroSj *aXA* els 6yofM Udrpos ical T/oO iced aylov Ilytiftaros.
Contra Arianoe Orat. la. § 34. ed. Ben. torn. i. pp. 438, 9. (orat. 2a. ed. Colon.
voL i. p. 841.) See also orat. 4. § 21. torn. i. p. 633. (or, orat. 5. torn. i.
p. 535.) And so in the Treatise, ** Contra Sabellii Grogales," attributed to Atha-
nasius, and supposed by Du Pin and others to be genuine, though the Benedictines
place it among those of doubtfol genuineness^ it is said, Mi}8ch iifwoififyos rh Tpla
T^y MoviUa tiplcKtiy yofui^TMj iiW* iy rf TpuUt yoflrof rh ty, llx^" ^^ Kf^>d\aioy
riis viffrtus iy ry ficarrlfffmri koI 4y reus rptaly aylais ff^paytffi. § 8. ed. Ben.
torn. ii. p. 43. (ed. Col. vol. i. p. 658.) The " Epistola ad Jovianum," vol. ii.
p. 241, (or, p. 34) contains a similar passage, but I do not quote it» as that Letter
is generally oonrndered spurious.

* 'Xlt*^\oy oZy T^s iriamvs iifiwy dfiooitrios ri Tpi^s. Ed. Bened. tom. ii. p. 30.
(ed. Colon. 1686. tom. i. p. 571.) This letter is considered by Du Pin and others as
genuine, but the Benedictines have placed it among the doubtful.

^ OSrus <f>poyovfityj koH othus fiairrl(ofify tts TpiiUa biiooiffioyj Korit r^y irro-
\iiy abrou rov Kvpiou ^fi&y *lnaov Xpurrov fiir6yros' TIop€v$4yrts fuxBiirt^ore
K. r. A. Serm. de fide. § 4. ed. Bened. Paris, tom. ii. p. 228. (ed. Par. 1618. tom.
ii. p. 255.)

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 121

^' ing them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
" you/ " ^ And 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 which 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
" the Creed is contained, have been there wanting/'*

Thus also Hilary : " To believers the word of God, which was
*^ transfused into our ears by the testimony of the Evangelist
" united with the power of its own truth, was sufficient, when
'* the Lord says, ' Go and teach all nations, baptizing them,' &c.
*' [Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.] For what is there which concerns the
" mystery of the salvation of man, which is not contained in it ?
'* Or what is there which remains to be said, or is obscure ? All
*• things are 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
" put forward anything concerning things so great and recon-
*' dite beyond the heavenly rule. The Lord had, said, that the
*' nations were to be baptized in the name of the Father, and

* Kat iiruf>4p€i Konrhy r^ ^/utra 8t* £k l/tcAAor t^k ohcovyiiintiv 5Ai}k <ra79}yc^iy,
KoX 4y oXs iarriv tewav rh r^s tlcffifitis iiwrHipiov, Hop^vBivr^i ykp, ^<ri, ftoBri'
T€<5«roTe trdyra rit Hdvrij fiawrl(oyTfs ic. t. A, De reerar. orat. 2a. Op. ed. P*r.
1615—18. torn. ii. p. 846. (ed. Paria. 1638. torn. iii. p. 414.)

* ni<rT€6ofity oZy KoBias 4^4$cro rots fiaBirrcus r^y vltrriy 6 K6pios 6 flirty &rt
iroptvd4yr€s fiaBirr€^ar€ k. t. A. [Matt. xxviiL 19.] Odr6s 4<my 6 KAyos rod
fivarriplovj iy f 8i^ rris &yad€v ytyyfiatws fiereurK€6a(€rcu ^fuiy ^ ^{htis hrh roS
(pBapTov wp6s rh A^aproy, Id. Contr. Eunom. Orat. la. ed. 1615. torn. ii. p. 2.
(Orat. 2a. ed. 1638. torn, ii.)

3 Qms nesciat non esse baptismmn Christi, si verba Evangelica quHnu ajfmhoUim
constat illic deAierint. Aug. De bapt. contra Donat. lib. 6. c. 25. Op. ed. Bened.
Paris, torn. ix. col. 176. There can be no doabt what the "verba Evangelica"
uican, as he had said just before, " Dens adest Evangelids verbis snis, sine quibns
baptismus Christi consecrari non potest."

122 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.

'^ the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The form (or, rule) of faith is
" certain ; but as it regards the heretics, the whole meaning is
" ambiguous/'^

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 the Son, and of the
" Holy Ghost ; and baptize those who are thus taught, in the
'^ name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."^

The foundation of '' the Creed,'' therefore, was laid in these
words delivered by our Lord himself. Each bishop or church,
baptizing, according to our Saviour's command, in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, required
first and principally a brief 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 Tertullian,
" those who believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. "*

That any determinate amplification of the original Baptismal
confession (i. e. one including certain fixed and definite points)
was made by the Apostles, there is not the slightest ground to

^ SufEciebat credentibus Dei scrmo, qui in aurcs nostras Evangelists testimonio
cam ipsa veritatis eaas virtute transfrisus est, cum didt Dominus, ' Euntes nunc
docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos,' &c. Quid enim in co de sacramento salutis
humanse non continetur ? Aut quid est, quod »t rcliquum aut obsciurum ? Plena
sunt omnia ut a pleno, et a perfecto perfecta .... Scd compellimur hsereiicorum
et blasphemantium vitiis illidta agcrc, ardua scandere, inefl&bilia eloqui, inooncessa
prsBsumere .... Horum infidelitas in anceps noe ac periculum protrabit, ut neoesse
sit de tantis ac tam reoonditis rebus aliquid ultra pra^scriptum coeleste proferre.
Dixerat Dominus baptizandas gcntes in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.
Forma fidei certa est; sed quantum ad hsreticos omnis sensus incertus est.
Hilar. De Trin. lib. 2. §§ 1, 2, 5. ed. Bened. Paris 1693. col. 787, 788, 790.

' Ilop€XfO€yT€S ykpj f<prj, fiaBytrtlftrart Kor^ rovrov 8i rhv v6/xoy koI ol

0€7ot *Air6<rTo\oif Kcd ol ft€T* ^Kfiyovs ttjs iKK\riffias BiidaKoXot, fuxBrrrf^owri robs
irpwriovras irurrt^fiv ds rh 6yofia rod llarphSf Kcd rov Tiou, iral rod aylov Tlyf^fiaros,
«ol robs fwB7triv04vras $airrlCov<rip €ls rh 6vofUL rov liarrphs, k, t. \, Theod.
Hser. Fab. lib. iv. c. 1. ed. Schulz. tom. iv. pp. 350, 1.

' Sanctum Paradetum, sanctificatorem fidci conim qui credmit in Patrcin et
Filium et Spiritum Sanctum. Adv. Pnuc. c. 2. Op. ed. 1664. p. 501.

ON THE ANTIBNT CREEDS. 128

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.^

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 Tcrtullian, the
'^ oldest of the Latins, if we compare several places wherein he

delivers the rule of faith (as he constantly calls it, that is,

» .VUiauce of Div. Offices, 2d. wl. p. 168. = Vindic. of Doct. of Triu. p. 225.

(€

(<
€(
<(
ti
(€

124 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.

€€

Ruch 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
" be 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
" Roman symbol might, for that reason, be called symbobim
" apostolicum ; that is, symbolum ecclesia apostolica. 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 anticnt (and those the most inquisitive and

it
€<
it

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 125

" 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 com-
parison of different passages scattered through Tertullian's
writings is, that the Apostle^ 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 com-

'' posed were generally received as articles of faith by orthodox
" Christians/' 2

So little ground has Mr. Newman for his remark, — "This
elementary confession [i.e. "I believe in Jesus Christ"]
seems, even before the Apostles' death, to have been eapanded
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 'Uhe 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. // 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

* ExpoBition on the Creed, init See his works, Oxf. 1818, vol. v. pp. 221 — 3.
' Eccl. Hiat. illustrated from Tertullian, 8d ed. 1845. p. 806.

€(
it

u
t<

126 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.

ordy 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 speakings an apostolical for-
mula. Indeed how to account for such statements from a
student of antiquity I know not.

That '' the Apostles* Creed," and all the other Creeds of the
orthodox, might be said to be ^Hhe 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 f but this is very different from speaking of the Apostles as
the authors of the formulae themselves ; which, had it been the
case, would have been stated by the Fathers in defence of them,
and have rendered their proofs of the statements contained in
them, from the writings of the Apostles, unnecessary.

The Creed called by us ^' the Apostles* Creed," 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 otvn church, for
it has clearly no more right to the title than the Creeds of the
Oriental Churches, of which the most antient extant are those
of the churches of Csesarea and Jerusalem,^ given respectively by

* I say this on the authority of Du Pin, himself a Romanist.

^ As Epiphanius says of a Creed given hy him as the baptismal Creed of his
church, and which differs much, both from that called ** the Apostles'," and the
Nicene, — Kal aSrri fihy ri iriirrts irap€B60ri Awb rwy aylwy oiro<rT(J\»»', koI iy 4KK\rj-
cl<f T^ ayicf, w6\u, &wh vdyruy dfxov rSoy ayicay iimrKSrircay {nrip rpiaxofflup 94Ka rhy
iipiBt^v, Epiph. Anchor. § 120. Op. cd. Petav. Paris. 1622. tom. 2. p. 123.

' As Cyril of Jerusalem calls the instructions which he had given to his cate-
chumens— T^J 7rapaBo6€i<nis vfuy ds hrayy^Xlav ayias koI iiroaToKucTJs irlcrr^toi.
Oat. 18. § 14. ed. MiUes. Oxon. 1703. p. 274. (ed. 1631. p. 224.)

* I do not notice the Creed given by some writers as the antient Oriental
Creed, derived from the Exposition of Rufinus upon the Creed, because it is
derived from thence merely by inferential reasoning. Tlie Creed wliich he there
gives is, as he himself tells us, the Creed of the Church of Aquileia ; but from his
occasional notice of some discrepancies between that and the Creeds of Rome and
the churches of the East, it has been taken for granted, that these latter Cree<U
were precisely the same as that of Aquileia, wliich ho gives, except in the passagos
he has noted. Tliis may be so, but it is merely conjecture.

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 127

Eusebius of Csesarea (as already quoted) and Cyril of Jeru-
salem^ (both of them, by the way, more antient writers than any
from whom we have the Creeds of the Latin Church,) nor have
any of those Creeds a better right to the title than the Creeds of
the Councils of Nice and Constantinople.^ Each of these Creeds
is, in fact, an exposition by one or more pastors of the Churchy
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 (Matt, xxviii. 19) would lead. And that which is com-
monly called among us '^ the Apostles* Creed,'* we might more
properly name, with Dr. Barrow, the antient Roman Greedy to
distinguish it from those of Jerusalem and Nice and others,
which are equally entitled with it to the name of the Apostles' •
Creed. And so, indeed, it is called by Rufinus.^ In fact the
appellation is merely due to the spirit in which the Church of
Rome has acted from a very early period,* 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 two at least of the Articles it
now contains were not inserted in it before the fourth century.

It will have been already observed, that in the Creeds or
confessions of faith just quoted from the works of Ireuseus
and TertuUian, 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

* This Creed has in fact been called " the Apostles' Creed " even in the Latin
Churchy wliich may suggest the probability that this title was not always intended
to imply that the Apostles had delivered the formula, but only the faith contained
in it. In an antient missal in use in the Latin Church about the year 700, it is
said of this Creed, " Fiiiito St/mbolo Apostolorum, dicat sacerdos," &c. Mibs. ed.
Argent. 1557, p. 41. See Usher, De Rom. Eccles. Symb. Apost. vet. aliisque fid.
form. Oxon. 1660. p. 16.

' See p. 137 below.

' See FHnnilian's Letter to Cj^man, in Cyprian's Works

128 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.

into hell. Such also is the case in all the Creeds down to that
of the Nicene Council^ that also included.

For the satisfaction of the reader^ I will here add them in the
order in which they occur.

Among them may be noticed the statement made by Origen
at the beginning of his work, '' On first 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. However the reader will find it in the next
chapter.

There is, however, in a work attributed to Origen, a delivery
of such a siunmary, 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-
^' fied 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 Neocsesarea,
commonly called Gregory the Thaumaturg, which Gregory
Nyssen tells us remained to his time the creed of initiation
in the Church of Neocsesarea ;* and which, if we believe Gregory
Nyssen's account in his life of him, 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-
" bending the system of the universe, and Power creative of the
" whole creation, a true Son of a true Father, invisible of in-
" visible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and immortal of

> De recta in Deum fide sive Dial. Contr. Mardon. § 1. Op. Orig. ed. Bened.
FariB. torn. i. p. 804.

^ At* ^j fivffrayuyfirat fx^xpi rov yvy S iKtivois \ahi. De vita S. Qrt»g. Tliau-
mat. Greg. Nyss. C^. cd. 1615. torn. ii. p. 978. (ed. 1638. iii. 546.)

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 129

'' immortal^ and eternal of eternal. And there is one Spirit, who
** has his existence from God, and through the Sou was mani-
'^ fested to men, a perfect image of the perfect Son, Life, the
'^ Cause of those that live, the Fountain of holiness, Sanc-
" tity, the Author of sanctification ; in whom is manifested Grod
" 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.''^

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 Eesurrec-
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-bom of
** every creature, who was in the beginning with (Jod, 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 bom of a virgin, according to the Scriptures,
and was made man, the Mediator between (jod 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 suflFered for us and rose again the

» Gregor. Thaumat. Op. ed. Par. 1622, p. 1, and Gregor. Nyae. Op. ed. 1616,
torn. 2, pp. 978, 9. (ed. 1638. iii. 646.)
VOL. I. K

t€

u
it

130 ON THE ANTI8NT CREEDS.

t€

tt
t€

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 com-
'* manded his disciples, saying, ^ Go and teach all nations, bap-
'' tizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, a'hd
" 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/Sbriptures, 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.'*^

These, with the formularies given above from Irenseus, &c.
are the only Creeds that remain of the period anterior to the
Council of Nice.*

In that Council, Eusebius, Bishop of Csesarea, who took a

* The original of this oonfesnon is to be foand in AthanasiuB, Epist. De Syn.
Arim. et Selene. § 23, and Socrat. Hist. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 10. A Latin translation
of it is g^ven 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 Lncian was the author of it, and Bingham, (Antiq.
book X. c. 4. § 6.)

' I do not notice the Creed inserted in the Apostolical Constitutions, because
they are confessedly spurious, and of very uncertain age.

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 131

leading part in it^ gave the following as the antient Creed of
the Church of Csesarea^ as we learn from his Letter to the inha-
bitants of Csesarea^ respecting the acts of this Council^ pre-
served by Athanasius^ and others.* " 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 Spu-it.' ''

The Creed published by the Council of Nice (preserved to us
in the letter of Eusebius just quoted and in other works^) was as
follows j — '' 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 Ck>d,
Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, of

€€
€C

€1
«
t€
t€
tt
ti
€t
tt
tt
tt
tt

tt
tt

> Athan. Episfc. de decret. Syn. Nic. sab fin.

' Socr. Hist. Ecd. lib. 1. c 8; Theodoret. Hist. Ecd. lib. 1. c. 12 ; &o.
' Athanas. Epist. ad Jovian. § 3. Theodoret. Hist. EocL lib. 4. c 3. Socr. ESst.
Eocl. lib. 1. c. a Basil. M. Epist. 125. Op. ed. Ben. Ptuis. torn. 3. p. 21&, &o.

132 ON THE ANTIENT 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, hav-
" ing been made man, suffered, and rose again the third day,

ascended into heaven, and shall come to judge the quick and

dead. And in the Holy Spirit. And those who say that
•' there was a time when the Son of God was not, and that he
" was not before he was begotten, and that 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 will be observed, that there
is not one of them which includes more than the confession
relating to the Trinity. And so the Creed is 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." 2

There is also a passage in the writings of TertuUian, 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 a//
trtUh/^ he adds, " which, according to tfie Christian sacrament,
is in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost." ^ The
term sacrament, we may observe, is applied by other authors

' 'Ifpovpyu yhp TiiiSiv r^y 6fM\oyiaVf rovr^tm rijy iriariy, ^v Koi 6p$m KcertiBla-
fitOa wotfurBai, \4yoyT€f nurrct^/iif v €*$ tya ©eiv iraripa ircan-oKpdropa' Kci tis ?wi
K^pioy Irjaovy Xpttrrhy rhy vlhy atrrov' Koi tls rh IlveSfta rh Ayioy, Cyrill. Alex.
De recta fide ad Reg. — Op. ed. Aubert. torn. v. P. 2. p. 148.

' 'H T^j 6p$ris wlffrto/s 6fJu>\oyla wpdrrtreu wpbs i]fx&y tls tvo. Oc^v, k. t. A. Id.
ib. p. 158.

• Deductorem omnis veritatis, quae est in Patre et Pilio et Spiritu Sancto secun-
dum Christiauum sacramcntum. Adv. Prax. c. 30. ed. 16G4. p. 518.

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 183

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 Stillingfleet;'
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 ^rom 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."*

^ As Rufinus in ApoL adv. Hieron. lib. i. § 6. " sacrameiitum symboli." (Op.
cd. Vallara. Yer. 1745. ooL 311.) and Hieron. Ad Panunack. contra Joonn. Ilieroa.
(See p. 115 above.)

' Militiffi Bacramentmn. De virg. lib. 3. c. 4. § 20. Op. od. Bened. F^uia.
torn. 2. col 179.

8 Vindication of doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 225, 6.

* Quum autem sub Tribus ct testatio fidei et sponao salutis pignerentnr, neoes-
sario a(\jicitur Ecclcsiffi mentio; quoniam ubi Tree, id est, P&ter et I^llios et
Spiritos Sanctus, ibi Eodesia, qtuD Triom corpus est. De baptismo, c. G. ed. 1664.
p. 226. See also c. 11. p. 228.

€€

€€
t€
it
€€

184 ON THE ANTIENT 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 Ood 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 Creed to us and the
" schismatics, nor the same interrogation. For when they say,
" ' Dost thou believe the remission of sins and life eternal
" through the holy Church V 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, 'Dost
" thou believe in eternal life and the remission of sins through
" the holy Church,' we mean that remission of sins is not given
" but in the Church."^

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 sins and life everlasting through the holy Church,''
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 Csesarea, to Cyprian, this
matter is placed, I think, beyond doubt, where, speaking of a

> " Quod si aliquis illud opponit^ ut dicat eandem Novatianum legem tenere,
quam Catholica Eoclesia teneat, eodem symbolo, quo et luw, baptizare, enndem
noflse Deum Fatrem, eundem Rlium Christum, eundem Spiritum Sanctum, ao
propter hoc usurpare eum potestatem baptizandi pOBse, quod videatur in interro-
gatione baptismi a nobis non discrepare; sciat, qulsquis hoc opponendum putat,
primum non esse unam nobis et schismatids symboli l^em, neque eandem interro-
gationem. Nam cum dicunt ; ' Crcdis remissionem peocatorum et vitam estemam
per sanctam Ecclesiam/ mentiuntur in interrogatione, quando non habeant eode-
riam."— Ctpe. Ep. ad Magn. Ep. 69. ed. Fell. Pt. 2. p. 183. (Ep. 76. PftmeL)

' " Sed et ipsa interrogatio, qusB fit in baptismo, testis est veritatis. Nam cum
dicimus, ' Credis in vitam stemam et remissionem peccatorum per sanctam Eode-
riam/ intelligimus remissionem peocatorum non nisi in Eodesia dari." — Ejttsd. Ep.
ad Januarium, &c. Ep. 70. ib. p. 190. (Ep. 70. Pam.)

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 185

baptism performed by certain heretics, he says, "To which
" neither the Creed of the Trinity, nor the legUimate interrogO'
" 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 confirm 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

* Cni nee 83nnbolum Trinitatis nee interrogatio legitima et eodesiaslica dsftdt.
£p. 75, inter Cypriani £p. ib. p. 223.

3 The Apostolkal Constitutions or Canons of the Apostles in Coptic, wilh an
English translation, by H. Tattam, LL.D., &c. Archdeacon of Bedford. PHnted
for the Oriental Translation Fund, &c. Sold by Vf. H. Allen & Co., Laadenhall-
street. 1848. royal 8vo.

it
i<

€C
€t

U
((
t(

186 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 firom 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
confession.

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, (ivaK€<t>aXai<i(r€L (rvvTOfna r&v
iLvayKatuav boyfi<i.T(»)v)J' 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, iT<f}pay&a,) ever in thy mind. .
" . . . . And after the knowledge of this venerable and glorious
" and holy faith, (or Creed, w-^crrccoy,) know also thyself," &c.^

Proceeding, however, in the subsequent Lectures to comment
upon the confession required at baptism, he says, that after the

« CyriU. HioroeoL Cat. 4. §§ 2, 12, 13. pp. 46, 66. ed. MiUcs. (Ed. Par. 1631.
pp. 24, 30.)

tt
It
t(

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 187

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/'^

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.* It is also to be found
in the Creed of the Church of Aquileia, given by Aufinus^
towards the close of this century ; who, however, also tells us,
that this addition was not to be foimd in the Creed of the
Roman Church, nor in the churches of the East.^ 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 Fathers^ there can

» Id. Cat. 18. § 11. p. 269. (Ed. 1631. p. 220.)

^ Since writing the above, I have found that Dr. Waterland favonrs 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 " Importance of the
doctrine of the Trinity," c. 6.

^ Socr. Hist. £ccl. lib. ii. 37. Ka2 els r& KaraxB6yia Kart\06rra, And see
lib. ii. c 41.
. * Expos, in Symb. Apost.

' " In Eodesia) Romance Symbolo non habetur additum, descendit ad infema;
sed neque in Orientis Ecclesiis habetur hie sermo." — Expos, in Symb. Ap. art.
" Crudfixus," &JC, Inter Cypr. Op. ed. Fell, ad fin. p. 22.

« Actsii. 27; Eph. iv. 9.

7 Cyrill. Hieros. Cat. 4. § 8. p. ^. od Milles. (Ed. 1631. p. 27.) Epiphan. Adv.

188 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 Athelstan in the
Cotton Library, written in the year 703, the other in Latin, at
the end of a Grseco-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 Holy 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 correspond 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 Deum Patrem Omnipotentem ; et in Christum
" Jesum filium ejus unicum, Dominum nostrum; qui natus est de
" Spiritu Sancto et Maria Virgine, qui sub Pontio Pilato cruci-
" fixus est et sepultus, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit in
'^ coelos, sedet ad dexteram Patris, unde venturus est judicare

HsBT. lib. iu. torn. 2. in Expos. Fid. Cath. § 17 : Op. ed. dt. torn. i. p. 1099.
Iren. lib. iv. 27. ed. Mass. (c. 46. ed. Grab.) And see Euseb. Hist. Eod. lib. i.
c. nit. wbere an aooount is given of the preaching of Thaddsras at Edessa, of
which this article formed one topic. Others are mentioned by Pearson.

> Usher De Rom. Eod Symb. Apost. ; Oxon. 166a p. 6.

^ See Pearson's Expoa. of the Creed; in loc.

ON THE ANTIXNT CREEDS. 139

'' vivos et mortuos : et in Spiritom Sanctum^ sanctam Ecclesiam^
" 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 deUvery of the Greedy and by Augustine in his
book ''De fide et Symbolo/' [written a. 898], who also, at the
end of that treatise, commends it to all the faithful in these
words ; — " Hsec est fides quae paucis verbis tenenda in Symbolo
'^ novellis Christianis datur. Quae pauca verba fidelibus nota
'^ sunt : ut credendo subjugentur, Deo subjugati recte vivant^
" recte vivendo cor mundent, corde mundo quod credunt in-
•' 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 Irenseus, 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.^

^ I have altered the ablative of the MS. in the last dause, into the aociualive^
in aooordance with Usher's notice and the Greek and other forms. The alteration
is clearly reqmred, and is very slight, the m being expressed in antient MSS. by
merely a short line over the preceding letter; and the MS., as Usher tells vm, is
Aill of evident mistakes.

' 'H fiky yhp *EKKXii<rla^ icalw^p Koff 5\ijf t^s olieovfi4r/is ttts wtpdrwy rris yijs S«-
4(nrapfiftnrit wapii 8i r&y ^AroffrSXMV iral tAp iK^ltwy luJhrrStv irttpaKafiowra r^w clt
^va ^hy TlaT4pa irayroKpdropa rhy irtwoniKSTa rhy ottpat^y icat riiy yjjy ical r&f
0a\da'<rasy Kcd vtCrra rii 4y o^rots, [See Acts iv. 24; ziv. 16,] wUrrur jcol cli Ira
Xpurrhy 'IijtroCi', [See 1 Cor. viii. 6, which reference I give on the authority of
the following passage in Bufinut. '*0ri6ntis Eodesis fere omnes ita tradunt^

Credo in unnm Denm Fafcrem onm^Mtentem;' et mrsom in tequenti lennane,

•« (

140 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.

Again^ in the third of the Creeds quoted above from Tertul-
lian, we have two manifest quotations from Scripture. " There
is also,'' it runs, " a Son of that one God, namely, his Ward,
" who proceeded from him, by whom all things were madcy and
" without whom nothing was made J' " In the beginning,'' says
St. John in his Gospel, " was the Ward, and the Word was
" with God, &c. j by him all things were made, and without him
" was not anything made that was made" (John i. 1, 3.)^ Apd
in the words, "ihsi 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.^

And this fact is particularly observable in the case of the
formula we are now considering, of which Tertullian says, that it
had come down from the beginning of the Gospel, for it clearly

y ubi DOS didmuB, ' Et in Jesum Christom, unicuin fHliom ejus, Dommiim Nos-
" tram,' ita ilH tradunt, ' £t in unum Dominnm Nostrum Jesmn Christmn mii-
" cmn Filimn ejus.' Unmn scilicet Demn et mium Dominmn, secundum auctari'
** totem PauH ApostoU proJUerUea" Ruf. in Symb. art. " In Demn P. O." ed.
Fell. p. 18. ; and see art. " In Christ. Jes./' &4i,Jin. p. 20. A remarkable obser-
vation this for one who tells ns elsewhere that the Apostles drew up the Creed.]
rhif vlby rod OcoO, rhy <rapKw64tna tir^p rrjs rifitT4pas aomfpias' Kot els Uytvfia
Bryiovy rh ^ih rSov irpoifyriray Ktmiptfxhs rits obcovofilas, Kot riis ^Xc^trcis, mil r^y iK
irap$4yov y4yirri<ny, Koi rh irdBos, irol r^v Hytpaiy ix yfKpwVy irol r^v lfy<rapico¥ tls
robs ovpayohs ia^dXri^lfiy rov ifyawTifi4yov Xpitrrov *l7i<rov rov Kvplov Tifiiayy Kcd r^y
iic r&y ovpayw 4y rg Z6^ri rov Uarphs [Matt. xvi. 27 ; Mark viii. 38.] wapovaiay
ainoVf M rh hvaKf<paXa^<raurBai rk wdyra, [Eph. i. 10.] irol iu^aarrjo'eu wtuFca^
ffdpKa "wdarTis iufBponr&rjfroSy tya Xpurr^ *Ii}(roG r^ Kvpltf ij/myy Ktd Ocal, ical <r<vT^pit
jcol /SourtXci, KOT^ rijy citioKiay rod Tlarphs rod &opdrov, way y6yv Kdfu^ imv'
payi^y iral hny^Uoy koX KoraxBoylwy, Kot irduray\M<ra'a i^ofM\oy^ffrireu ain^y [Phil,
ii. 10, 11.] Kol Kplciy BiKoiay iy rots irocn iroviicntrai' rh fi^y irytvfutruciL rrjs ironj-
pias, irol iiyy4\ovs 'wapafit^K6raSy icol «V &woaTcuri(f y€yoy6raSt koI robs iurtfi^ts
Ktd iZUovs irol ia^S/iovs, Kot fiKaaffyfifiovs rSoy hy6p<6iray §1$ rh ouf&yioy irvp ir4fv^'
ro7s 8i iiKoioiSy irol 6<rlots, irol rhs 4yro?^ airrov rtrripTiKScit Kci 4y rp &yc(irj|
airrou 9tafitfA€yriK6fft, rois AV itpxvs* 'rois 9k 4k fitrayoias, {»^y x^f^^^h
A^apclay Bwp4i<nrreuy Ktd 8<{|ay alayiay trfpiwoiriffTi, — Iben. Adv. Heer. lib. i. c. 10.
ed. Mass. c. 2. ed. Grabe.

* ** Filius Sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso processerit, per quem omnia facta sunt, et
sine quo fectum est nihil." Tertull. Adv. Prax. c. 2. ed. 1664. p. 501. *0 Aiyos
.... ndyra 9i* airrov 4y4yero' icol x^P^^ abrov 4y4yrro oM ty t y4yoy€y, (John i.
1,8.)

' *' Hunc passum, hunc mortuum et sepoltum secundum Scripturas et resus-
citatum a Patre." ib.

' Adv. Prax. c. 29, p. 518. Also c. 15 of the same Treatise, where it is said,
" quem mortuum oontestatur, [i. e. F^ulus,] secundum Scripturas."

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 141

shows that it is of the faith itself delivered in it that he is
speaking as having been the rule of belief from the beginnings
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.^

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, Irenseus, 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,

1 Tho loss .of the original Greek renders the similarity prohahly less striking^
hut the reader may compare the following, " Sicnt per prophetas suos ante pro-
miserat." (Acts iii. 18.) ** Misit Dominum Nostram Jesom Christmn primo qui-
dera vocaturmn Israel" (Acts iii. 26.) "Ante omnem creatmtun natus," (Col. i.
15.) " 80 ipsum exinaniens." (Phil. ii. 7.)

2 Qui quum in omnium conditione Patri ministrasset, per ipsum enim omnia
facta sunt, novissimis temporibos se ipsnm, Ac

142 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.

€€

and phrases^ and parables [referred to by the Yalentinians]
as derived from the Scriptures^ but will not recognise the
*' blasphemous hypothesis as so derived/^ ^ 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 confession we have just referred to
as given by Irenseus, and which by all authors whom I have yet
seen is considered to be the " rule of truth'* previously spoken of.
Further, Cyril of Jerusalem, speaking of the Creed of his
church, writes thus, — '^ For since not all are able to read the
Scriptures, but some are prevented by want of learning, others
by want of leisure, from obtaining a knowledge of them, that
'' the soul may not perish through ignorance, we comprehend
'' the whole doctrine of the faith in a few sentences. . . . And at
" a proper time obtain from the divine Scriptures the proof for
" each one of the articles contained therein, for the articles of
** the faith were not, as it seems, composed by men, but the most
** suitable passages having been collected together out of the whole
" Scripture, furnish one exposition of the faith.'' ^

This testimony is clear and explicit, and coming from 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
deliver. Those words which ye have heard are scattered through-
out the dhme 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.***

> Iben. Adv. hast, lib. i. c. 1. sub fin.

' *E«>e(8^ 7^ oh wdyr^s 9ircurr€u riis ypcu^ia iiyeeyip^Ktip, &XX& rohs ft^y Hut-
rc(a, Tohs 9^ kaxoXia ris ifAwo9((ii wphs r^¥ yrAtrip^ iw^p rod fiii rj^v i^vxh'^ ^|
iifjui0las diroX/crtfcu, iw Ixiyois ro7s trrtxois rh way 96y/ia r^t wltrrttts irtpiXofi-
fidyofuy. . . . *EkB4xou 9h Korii rhy 94oyTa iccuphy i^y inrh r&y BtUty ypa^y vcpi
iicdtrrov r&y iyKtifi^y^y a^ffraeriy. Oh yhp, &s H^o^ty^ hySp^ois <rvyer49ri rii r^s
vfoTcwr, &XX* ^jc wdffTis ypa^njs rh Ktupu&rara (rvXAcx^^i^a fjdcty kyeac\ripo7 r^y riis
witrr€tfs SiScuricaAiay. Cyrill. HierosoL Cat. 6. § 7. ed. Milles. pp. 75, 6. (Ed.
Ptoifl. 1631, pp. 44, 5.)

' " Hoc est symboltim quod reoeiunxri estui et redditnri. Ista verba qiue audistu
per divinaa Scripturas sparaa sunt; sed inde coUecta et ad tuium redacta, no

t€
€t
tt

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 143

Again j in one of the homilies attributed to Eusebius, 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 different 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 Creed." ^

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 ; ^ a notion which no doubt is sufficiently absurd, but

tardomm hominum memoria laboraret; nt omnis homo poflnt dioere, posrit
tenere, quod credit." Aug. De Symb. Ad. Catech. c L Op. ed. Bened. Paru.
torn. vi. col. 547.

^ "Ecdefliarum patres de popnlomm salute aolliciti, ex divenns yoluminibiiB
Scripturarum collegerunt testhnonia divinis gravida sacramentifl. Diflponentea
itaque ad animarum pastum salubre convivium collegerunt verba brevia et oerta»
expedita sententiis sed difibsa mysteriifl, et hoc symbolum nominavemnt." And
a little after, — " Eccleoarum magistri, studiosiflsimi salutis nostrs negotiatorei^
" in Scripturifl Sanctis de magnis maxima separaverunt mentium in pagina inscri-
" benda, ut cuilibet oordi, quamHbet angnsto, quamlibet rustioo, rine ullius difficnl-
" tatis impedimento fiuale inmnuari poent veritaias agnitio." Euseb. Gallic. De
symb. homil. prim. Biblioth. Flatrum. Col. Agripp. 1618. tom. y. p. 1, p. 552.
' Thus Thomas Aquinas, in reply to the difficulty, — " Videtur quod inoonve-
nienter articuli fidei in symbolo ponantur ; sacra enim Scriptura est regula fidei
cui nee addere nee subtrahere licet. . . . ergo illidtum fhit aliquod symbolum con-
stituere quasi regulam fidei post sacram Scripturam editam" — says — " Veritas
fidei in sacra Scriptura diffuse oontinetur, et variis modis, et in quibusdam
" obscure, ita quod ad elidendum fidd veritatem ex sacra Scriptura requiritur
" longum studium et exerdtium, ad quod non possunt penrenire omnes illi quibiia
" neoessarium est oognoscere fidei veritatem ; quorum plerique aliis negotiis oocn-
" pati studio vacare non possunt : et ideo foit necessarium ut ex sententiis sacrsB
Scriptune aliquid manifestum summarie coUigeretur, quod proponeretur omni-
bus ad credendum, quod quidem non est additum sacrs Scripturse, sed potius
" ex sacra Scriptura suraptum." — Summa Theolog. Sec. Sec. q. 1, art 9. ed. Paris.
1631. PL 2. p. 5. See also Durand. in 3. dist. 25, q. 2.

* " De totis Scripturis heo breviatun oollecta sunt ab apostolis, ut, quoniam
*' plures credentium literas nesdunt, vel qui sdunt pr» occnpatione secnli scrip-

it
u
«(

«
«<

144 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 Irenseus, 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 firom 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 apostolidty.

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 (lospel. This
he thinks is supplied by " the Creed," and in order to clothe it

*' tnras legere non po88imt» hsBC oorde retinenteg, habeant soffidentem sibi scientiam
*< salutarem." Rab. Maur. De instit. cleric, lib. 2. c. 56. in De Catbol. Eccles.
div. offic &c. vet. Patnim &c. libri. Bom. 1591. fol. p. 308. See also Pas-
chasiiia Batbertus De Spir. S. in pnefl quoted by Vossiusy De tribos Symb. pp. 4» 5.

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 145

with fiill 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 caUed the Nicene) Creed, so we are somehow or
other to suppose, that they are aU identical ; though, as might
be imagined, there are some contradictory statements upon this
latter point ; and having thus jumbled the formulae of four cen*
turies and aU churches together, with all their discrepancies,
(treating even the Creeds of Irenseus and Tertullian as identical
with the Constantinopolitan,) and speaking of them all as one
formida, he adds, '^ I say, then, that the Creed is a collection of

" DEFINITE ARTICLES SET APART FROM THE FIRST, passiug

" 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 Irenseus and Tertullian, and that
found in the Apostolical Constitutions, he adds, speaking of them
all, — " We find it [i. e. the Creed] digested inform, limited in its
topics, circumscribed in its range, one and the same everywhere^*
(p. 265) ; and still more explicitly, " Irenseus, Tertullian, an<?
*^ 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

VQI4. I. L

146 Oir THE ANTIENT CREEDS.

preceding historical notices of the &cts of the case have foUy
shown.

Before concluding this chapter^ however, I would offer a few
remarks upon the notion here advocated by Mr. Newman,
(which is also supported by Mr. Keble,) that " the Creed'' is
a selection 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
delivered.

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. Keble's view of it.

Now this language seems to me to require (to say the least)
considerable modification, and to be calculated, as used by these
authors, to lead to very erroneous views of the matter. There
is, I believe, a sense in 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 Irenseus and Tertullian,
and the testimony of the early Fathers, as above quoted, we
must suppose that the fundamental faith was limited to points
connected with the nature and acts of the Three Persons of the
(}odhead. ^ Indeed we are told by Tertullian and Athanasius,
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 same effect.

Thus Basil says, " For baptism is the seal of faith, and faith
is a beUef in the Godhead."^

> The articles relating to the Church, the Communion of Sidnts, and Baptism,
are none of them noticed in the Creeds of Irensus and Tertullian, nor in the
idection of " necessary artides " given above from Cyril of Jerusalem.

' ''EoTi yiip rh fidim<rfia <r<f>payls t^$ ir/<rr6«$, ^ 9h wlaris Btimfros ovyKordBt-
ais. Adv. Eunom. lib. iii. § 5. ed. Bened. tom. i. p. 276. (Pax, 1618. torn. ii.
p. 84.)

€€
t(
€€

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 147

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 Hilary, ''does not call us to the life of happiness by
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 are 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
'' Grod, 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 Rufinus upon this point. ''From all these
things," he says, " let the faithful turn away his ears ; and
let him adhere to the holy Church, which confesses God the
Father Almighty, and his only begotten Son Jesus Christ our
Lord, and the Holy Spirit, of a concordant and consonant
" kind of substance, and believes that the Son of God was bom
" of a virgin, and suffered for the salvation of man, and rose
" from the dead in the same flesh in which he was bom, and

^ " Non per diffidles nos Deos ad beatam ritam qiuwtioneB Tocat, nee multiplici
" eloqaentifl fiicandise genere sollidtat. In abeolnto nobis ac fiuali est letemitas;
" Jesum et susdtatam a mortois per Denm credere et ipsum esse Dominum confi-
« ten.'' Hilar. De Trinit. Hb. 10, sub. fin. ed. Bened. coL 1080.

s ** Cmn ergo qnffiritnr quid credendmn nt quod ad reli^onem pertineat. . . .
" Satis est Christiano remm creatarmn cansam, sive ooelestiiim sive terrestrium, sive
visitnlinm rive inyiribilimn, non niri bonitatem credere Creatoris, qui est Dens'
unns et veros, nnllamque esse natoram qnsB non ant ipse rit ant ab ipso ; enmqne
esse Trinitatem, F^itrem scilicet et fWnm a Fatregenitum et Sjnritnm Sanctum
" ab eodem Fiatre procedentem, sed unum eundemque Spiritum Fatris et fWL**
Enchirid. ad Laur. c. 9. ed. Ben. Par. torn. vi. ooL 198.

L 2

€€
C<
IC

it
«
«

€t
€€

148 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.

'^ trusts that the same will come as the judge of all ; m which
" [churcK] both the remission of sins and the resurrection of
** the flesh is preached/'^ The reader will observe the distinc-
tion here made between the fundamental faith of the Churchy
and \)iQ privileges promised by the ministers of the Church to
that faith ; and that the fu/ndamental 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
«nd 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
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 bom 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,
will, we expect, come again, and be judge of all those things
" which we have done.''

The philosopher, upon being asked by the confessor whether
he 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 "baptized and united

' "Ab his, inquam, omniboB fidelis dedinet aaditus; sanctam vero Ecclesiam
** toneat, qu4B Demn Pfetrem omnipotentem, et tmigenitnm filinm qua Jewim Christum
" Dommxim nostaum, et Spiritom Sanctum oonoordi et oonsomi substantife ratione
profitetur, filimnque Dei mitmn ex virgine, et passmn pro salute hmnana, et re-
sorrexiase a mortuis in eadem came qua natus est, credit, eundemque venturum
judicem omnium sperat, in qua et remissio peocatorum etcamis resurrectio prce«
" dicatwr" Expos, in Symb. art. " Sanctam Ecdesiam," ed. Fell. p. 27.

t€
€€

It
«

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 149

to the Church of God/' and '^the Synod rejoiced at the won-
derful works of God."^

We have here^ then^ a clear proof that the essentials of the
baptismal Creed were, even at the period of the Council of
Nice, considered to be comprised in an orthodox confession
respecting the Sacred Trinity.

Judging from these passages, we should conclude, that the
early Church considered, that in a full and orthodox belief in
the nature and acts of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as
represented to us by Divine revelation, was included a belief in
all the essentials of Christian doctrine.

Now if this is the case, (upon which question, however, I
shall not here enter,) the present Apostolical, the Nicene, or the
Constantinopolitan Creed, would be, in one sense, too long to
be called a selection of the fundamental points, for they em-
brace points not connected with articles relating to any of the
Persons of the Sacred Trinity.

But it will be admitted by all, that whether these points are
fundamental or not, all essentially important points connected
with the orthodox doctrine relating to the Three Persons of the
Sacred Trinity, are fundamental, and consequently that these
Creeds are too short to be called a selection of the fundamental
articles, for they do not contain all those points. They need
to be greatly expanded to answer that character, and a wide
field for amplification is opened on many important points.
Who will undertake to enumerate all the heretical notions that
might be connected with, and vitiate, a professed belief in
Christ? Now, as many heretical notions as there are that
might be entertained respecting his person and work, so many
fundamental points are there connected with this article alone*
And the Creed appears to have been gradually expanded as
heresies arose in the Church, and expanded only as those
heresies might seem to render it necessary. As, for instance,
the Arian heresy was the occasion of the insertion of the article
of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father; and this
article, though fundamental, was not expressed in the Creed till

> Gelas. Cyzic Acta Cone. Nic lib. 2. c. 13. pp. 90—93. ed. Latot. 1599. The
same account is g^ven by Sozomen, Hitt. Eod. i. 17.

150 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.

that time, and conBequently all the fdndamental articles were
not preyioosly expressed in the Creed ; and as this fundamental
article was not there for some centuries, so are there others,
equally fundamental, that have never been inserted.

True, this article, as well as that of the descent into hell, is
supposed to have been always implied, though not always
expressed; and doubtless it was implied in an orthodox belief
respecting the Son. And so also may other articles be said to
be equally implied, though circumstances did not seem to the
early Church to require a further amplification of the Creed by
the enumeration of other points ; as, for instance, the doctrine of
justification, and others. But the question is, not whether a person
of orthodox belief would carry out the meaning of the Creed
so as to include all the fundamental articles of the faith, for this
such a person would do in the case of a much shorter confes-
sion ; but whether the Creed ffives expression to all the funda-
mental points of the faith, so that either in words, or by virtue
of direct and necessary inferences^ they are all to be found there.

Moreover, when we come to draw out the points included in
it, may not some be fundamental, and others not ? So that
not only is there no easily ascertainable limit to the points in-
cluded, but further direction is needed for the classification of
those points, and the determining which are fundamental, and
which not. Hence there may be many fundamental points not
mentioned in the Creed, and there may be some in the Creed
(as, for instance, the article of the descent into hell,) which are
not absolutely fundamental.

There is no reason, indeed, to suppose that the early
churches ever considered their Creed to be any more a selection
of the fundamental points than the words of our Lord, Matt,
xxviii. 19, 20, upon which it was founded; and they certainly
had no authority to determine what they were, if they had
attempted to do so.^

* "The judgment of the primitive chmrches is no donbt of great nae and
" wdght. . . . But still, since their judgment must finally be submitted to the test
" of Scriptwre and right reason, and cannot be admitted but as consonant thereto,
" it is very plain that the ratio of a Amdamental rests not ultimately in their judg-
*' ment or definition, but in the nature of the doctrine itself, and the credentials

which it brings with it, by which all the rest must be tried. The definition,

(€
€€

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 151

How far Mr. Newman feels the weight of these difficulties to
press upon his hypothesis^ may be judged by the following
extract from his Lectures :— '^ How much, then, or how little, doc-
^^ trine is contained in the Creed ? What extent and exactness
of meaning must be admitted in its articles by those who
profess it ? What, in fact, after all, is that faith which is
required of the candidates for baptism, since it is not to be
an acceptance of the mere letter of the Creed, but of a real
and living doctrine ? For instance, is the doctrine of original
sin to be accounted part of the Creed ? or of justification by
'' faith ? or of election ? or of the sacraments ? If so, is there
'' any limit to that faith which the Creed represents ? I answer,
" there is no precise limit" (Lect. on Rom. &c. p. 803.)

Surely, then, it is a mistake to say, as Mr. Newman does,
that ''the fundamental or essential doctrines are those which
are contained in the Creed " (p. 259) ; as if the Creed was a
selection of the fundamentals of the faith.

Putting aside, then, the question whether the articles added
in the Apostolical, Nicene, and Constantinopolitan forms, be-
yond those relating to the Sacred Trinity, are fundamental
or not, it does not appear that those Creeds are a selection of
the fundamental points, even as far as the confession relating to
the Trinity is concerned, but only an orthodox amplification, as
far as they go, of the Christian fSedth in the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost, giving expression particularly to some points which
had been misrepresented by prevailing heresies. All that could
be said of any one of these Creeds in this respect is, that it gives
the principal articles of the Christian fsuth, and contains the
rudimental elements of the whole faith,^ and may thus be
called a summary of the Christian fsuth, as all the vital points
of the faith may be connected with, and made to enter into, the
right interpretation of its articles;^ but then this leaves the

*' therefore, even of the primitive chnrcheB, can never be justly looked upon aa
" the proper or adequate rule." Waterland, IMac of Fimdam. (Works, viiL 106.)

> As the Apostles' Creed is spoken of by Rnfinns as containing "prima fidel
elemento." Expos, in Symb. art " Crucifixns," Ac

3 Thns it is said in the "Reformatio legmn codes." of the Apostolical, Nicene,
and Athanasian Creeds, " ista tria symbola, ut fidei nostrsB compendia quadam^
** recipimns et amplectimur, quod firmissimiB divinarum et canonicarum Scripta«
" rarum testimoniis fiwale probari posnnt." Tit 1. c. 5. ed. Qxf. 1850. p. 8.

15S ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.

question of what are the fundamentals of the faith^ the essentials
of the gospel, almost as much open as ever.

Moreover^ we must ask our opponents, if one of these Creeds
is to be taken as a precise list of the fundamental articles,
which of them it is ; for to talk of a Creed which takes not the
slightest notice of the articles, for instance, of the Church and
the communion of saints, as being identical with another which
contains them, is manifestly absurd. And when they have
pointed it out, they will only have involved themselves in a
fresh difficulty, by being left to give a reason for the omissions
or additions in the others ; for their position is, that what was
given in each of those Creeds was given as representing the
fundamental articles of the faith. And to endeavour to escape
from this difficulty, by declaring that they are all identical, is
an attempt which none but those wedded to a hypothesis could
ever have made.

Without entering, then, here into the question, what in par-
ticular are the fundamental articles of the faith, certain it is,
that '^ the Creed'' is not a selection or representation of them ;^
except in the sense in which it may be said that belief in Christ
is the only fundamental article, or that our Lord's words, Matt,
xzviii. ] 9, comprise the whole fundamental faith ; in which sense,
of course, the appellation is not worth disputing about to either
party.^

Moreover, since " the Creed" is proposed to us apparently as
the interpreter of Scripture, to teach us the fundamentals of the
faith, we may take this opportunity of asking in what point the
language of ^'the Creed" is clearer than that of Scripture.
Those who are so inclined, can make heresy harmonize with the
one as easily as with the other. Nay, St. Augustine says, " So
'^ also it may happen that a Catholic catechumen may light upon

' On the question, what are the ftmdamental articles of the £uth, the reader
may see Waterland, Stapfer, Spanhdm, &c

' I must now add, in this second edition, that on this point, as on many others,
Mr. Newman has- found reason entirely to change his language. He now says,
that the Creed " is no collection of definitions, hut a summary of certain credenda,
" an incomplete summary, and, like the Lord's Prayer or the Decalogue, a mere
" sample of IMvine truths, especially of the more elementary." Essay on Dcvclopra .
p. 107.

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 453

^^ some heretic^s book, and, unable to discern error from truth,
*' may believe something contrary to the catholic faith, which
'' error, nevertheless, the words of the Creed do not oppose; for,
'^ under the same words, innumerable errors of heretics have arisen/* ^
Nay more, the Socinians themsdves have contended for the
apostolical origin of the Apostles^ Creed, and argued from it
that the Apostles did not hold the divinity of the Son and Holy
Ghost, because they have not there (as they maintain) expressly
taught it.^

The antient Creeds, then, (to proceed to the second point on
which we proposed to offer a few remarks,) being thus brief
summaries of the chief articles of the Christian faith, were justly
called by the Fathers the rule of faith. Even the Creeds given
by Irenseus and TertuUian are called so, as containing the prime
articles of the faith, in the right explication of which, in their
full meaning and consequences, all the vital articles might be
included. They were so called as expositions of the faith pub-
licly professed on the chief points in the primitive churches, just
as the symbolical books of the Church of England, the Lutheran
Church, &c., may be called, in a sense, the rule of faith to those
Churches respectively, (the Lutheran being in fact entitled the
Normal books,') differing only in the degree, not in the nature,
of their claim upon us; their degree of claim upon us being
greater from their being sanctioned by the primitive Catholic
Church, while the nature of their claim is the same, i. e. of a
secondary and entirely subordinate character, depending upon
their conformity to the Divine will, to be judged of by us by

I " Sic etiam fieri potest, at in aliciyiis hieretici libmm catholicos catechmnentis
incidat, et a veritate nesdenB disoemere errorem credat aliqnid contra catholicam
fidem, coi tamen errori verba symboH non repugnant, sob iiadem qnippe verbis
innmnerabiles hsereticonun errores exorti sunt." De Bapt. contr. Donat. Hb. 8*
c. 15. torn. ix. coL 115.

3 Bishop Stillingfleef s Yindic. of Doctrine of Trinity, p. 224.

' " Veteres symbola etiam wlffrivy M*<rtw r^s wltrrtws regulam fidei vocabant,
" quemadmodnm et apud nos interdmn Uhrorum normalium nomine veninnt." —
'' Pro norma qnadam ac regnla fidei sed secmidaria babeantmr [i. e. libri symbolici]
" qn» vim omnem atqne anctoritatem a oonvenientiacam Scriptora sacra aodpiat.
*'.... Atque ita quoqne accipiendmn qnando libri symbolid in quibosdam locis
** normaUt adpellitantur." Budd. Isag. in Theolog. voL i. p. 895 and p. 476.

154t ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.

their conformity to that revelation of the Divine will which we
possess in the inspired Scriptures. And hence the Creed is
sometimes called by Augustine the '^confession** of faith.^

1 " Hoc nisi credamiu, periditator ipsum nostne Confetnonig initixim, qua nos
in Dcxim Pafcrem onmipotentem credere oonfitemur." Enchirid. ad Laurentiain
de fide, &c c 94. torn. vL coL 231.

FATRI8TICAL TRADITION NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 165

CHAPTER V.

THAT PATRI8TICAL TRADITION IS NOT A *' PRACTICALLY IN-
FALLIBLE'' WITNESS OF THE ORAL TEACHING OF THE
APOSTLES^ NOR RECEIVABLE AS A DIVINE INFORMANT.

SECTION I. — PRELIMINARY REMARKS.

We DOW proceed to a consideration of the five points in
which, as we have abeady observed, (pp. 36, 7,) the doctrine of
our opponents upon this subject is contained; and we shall in
this chapter endeavour to prove, in opposition to the^r«/, that
patristical tradition is not a " practically infallible'' reporter of
the oral teaching of the apostles, nor receivable as a divine
informant*

This question lies at the root of the whole controversy, and a
proof of what we here maintain cuts away the ground altogether
from under the feet of our opponents^ and leaves them without
any foundation to rest upon. It demands, therefore, a fall and
attentive consideration.

When our opponents refer to patristical tradition as a divine
informant, they are not to be understood as attributing any
authority to the Fathers in themselves as individuals, but only
as witnesses of what they had received from others; and the
patristical tradition which they regard as a divine informant is
not (i. e. in theory) that which is delivered by one or two Fathers,
but that which is delivered by the consentient testimony of all
the Fathers; which they dignify by the name of '^ catholic con-

€{
t(
tt

€€
tt
tt

136 FATRISTICAL TRADITION

sent,*' and it is to this '^ catholic consent*' alone that in theory
they attach the notion of a divine informant.

The practical rule for ascertaining this " catholic consent'* is
taken^ by them from Vincent, a monk of Lerins, who lived in
the fifth century, by whom it is thus delivered. I quote from
the translation lately published at Oxford under the sanction of
our opponents.2

" We are to take great care,'* he tells us, ^' that we hold that
'^ which hath been believed everywhere always and of all men ;
for that is truly and properly catholic (as the very force and
nature of the word doth declare) which comprehendeth all
things in general after an xiniversal manner, and that shall we
'' do if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. Universality
shall we follow thus, if we profess that one faith to be true
which the whole Church throughout the world acknowledgeth
and confesseth. Antiquity shall we follow, if we depart not
any whit from those senses which it is plain that our holy
'' elders and fathers generally held. Consent shall we likewise
''follow, if in this very antiquity itself we hold the definitions
and opinions of all, or at any rate almost all, the priests and
doctors together. What then shall a catholic Christian do, if
some small part of the Church cut itself off from the com-
munion of the universal faith? What else but prefer the
health of the whole body before the pestiferous and corrupt
" member ? What if some new infection goeth about to cor-
'' rupt not in this case only a little part but the whole Church ?
" Then likewise shall he regard and be sure to cleave unto anti-
'' quity, which can now no more be seduced by any crafty
" novelty. What if in antiquity itself, and amongst the antient
'' Fathers, be found some error of two or three men, or haply
of some one city or province ? Then shall he diligently take
heed that he prefer the universal decrees and determinations
'' of an antient General Council, if such there be, before the
'' temerity or folly of a few. What if some such case happen
where no such thing can be found ? Then shall he labour, by
conferring and laying them together amongst themselves, to

tt
tt
tt
tt
tt

tt
tt

* See Newman's Lectures, p. 68, and Keble's Sermon, pp. 82, 8, &c.
2 " Vinoentius of Lirins* Commonitory." Oxf. 1837.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 157

" refer to and consult the antient Fathers' opinions, not of all,
" but of those only which living at divers times and sundry
'^ places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of one
" catholic Church, were approved masters and guides to be fol-
lowed {msgistn probabiles); and whatsoever he perceiveth not
one or two but all jointly with one consent, plainly, usually, con-
stantly to have holden, written, and taught, let him know that
this without scruple or doubt he ought to believe." (cc. 2, 3.)
Such is the rule to which our. opponents refer us for ascer-
taining '^ catholic consent.''

To guard against misapprehension, I would at once premise,
that to these observations, taking them generally and as pointing
out a useful practical guide in the interpretation of Scripture, I
am far from offering any objection, and as such they have «been
quoted by many divines of our Church. I am quite ready to
admit, nay, I would firmly maintain, that the concurrent testi-
mony of many of the great lights of the primitive Church in
favour of any particular interpretation of Scripture in Kfumda^
mental point is the strongest possible confirmation of the truth
of that interpretation, and the opposition of any view on a^un-
damental point to the sentiments of all the Fathers that remain
to us, is of itself a good reason for its rejection.

But this is a view of the matter totally different from that
taken by our opponents. With them all which stands the test
of this rule is to be considered '^ catholic consent,'' and as such
a divine informant, and is consequently binding upon the con-
science as a matter which demands our faith. How far Vincent
himself agreed with our opponents in this we shall consider
hereafter, when reviewing the sentiments of the Fathera on this
subject.

Now it is evident, in the first place, that this rule, in its
practical application, must be subject to many restrictions and
limitations ; and accordingly we find that in the latter part of
the treatise Vincent himself admits as much. Nay, he makes
an important restriction (to which our opponents have paid
little attention) as to the subjects respecting which this patris-
tical tradition is to be inquired into. For he tells us, that '^ this
^' antient consent of holy Fathers is not so carefully and

t€
tt

158 PATRI8TICAL TRADITION

'' diligently to be both sought for aod followed in every small
'' question of the divine Law> but only^ or, at least especially,
" in the rule of faith" (c. 28.) And again, — " It is necessary
'^ that the interpretation of the heavenly Scripture be directed
according to the rule of the Church's understanding : only be
it observed, especially in those questions upon which the foun-
dations of the whole catholic doctrine do depend/' (c. 29.)
Beyond a few fundamental points , then, he does not consider
this antient consent much worth inquiring after.

Still further, even in these, when he descends to the descrip-
tion of the practical mode of finding this antient consent, he is
of course driven to make various restrictions and limitations, and
at last to admit that this antient consent is in fact the consent
of some dozen individuals who are taken as the representatives
of some dozen millions.

Neither yet," he adds, '' are heresies always nor all after
this sort to be impugned, but only such as are new and upstart ;
to wit, at their first springing up and before they have (as
'^ hindered by the shortness of time) falsified the rules of the
antient faith, and before that, the poison spreading further,
they go about to corrupt the Fathers' writings; but those
'^ heresies which have already got ground, and be of some con-
tinuance, are not this way to be dealt withal ; because by long
tract of time they have had long opportunity to steal the
truth. And therefore such kind, whether of profane schisms
or heresies, which be of longer standing, we must not other-
wise convince but only, if need be, by the authority of the
Scriptures ; or else avoid and detest them as already convicted
'^ and condemned in old time by general councils of catholic
" priests. . . . But those Fathers' opinions only are to be con-
" ferred together, which with holiness, wisdom, and constancy,
'' lived, taught, and continued in the faith and communion of
the Catholic Church, and finally deserved either to die faith-
fully in Christ, or happily for Christ to be martyred : whom
notwithstanding we are to believe with this condition, that
whatsoever either all or the greater part with one and the same
" mind plainly, commonly, and constantly, as it were in a Coun-
" cil of Doctors agreeing together, have confirmed by receiving

tt
tt
tt
tt
ft
tt
tt
tt
tt
tt
tt
tt
tt

tt
ft
tt
tt

€€

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 159

" it, holding it, and delivering it ; let that be acconnted for
'^ undoubted^ for certain and acknowledged truth. And what-
soever any^ although holy and learned, although a bishop,
although a confessor and martyr, hath holden otherwise than
all, or against all, let that be put aside from the authority of
the common public and general judgment, and reputed among
his own proper, private, and secret opinions, lest with the
'^ utmost danger of our eternal salvation, we do, according to
the custom of sacrilegious heretics and schismatics, forsake
the truth of the universal doctrine, and follow the novel error
of some one man/' (c. 28.)
And further on, recapitulating these means for determining
the truth, he adds, '^ Lest any man might think that we said
'^ this rather of our own presumption than from any authority
'^ of the Church, we give an example of the sacred Council
holden almost three years since at Ephesus, a city in Asia,
in the time of the right honourable consuls, Bessus and
Antiochus, in which, disputation being had of authorizing
rules of faith, lest there might by chance some profane
novelty creep in, as happened at that perfidious meeting in
Ariminum, this was thought the most catholic, faithful, and
best course to be taken, by all the priests there present, which
were about two hundred in number, that the opinions of those
holy Fathers should be brought forth, of whom it was certain
that some of them had been martyrs, some confessors, and
that all had lived and died catholic priests, that by their consent
and verdict the true religion of antient doctrine might be
duly and solemnly confirmed, and the blasphemy of profane
novelty condemned : which being so done, that impious Nes-
toriuB was worthily and justly judged to have taught con-
trary to the old catholic faith, and blessed Cyril to have
agreed with holy and sacred antiquity .'' And he then pro-
ceeds to give us the names of the Fathers according to whose
judgment '' the rule of divine doctrine** was established, which
were, Peter, Athanasius, and Theophilus, Bishops of Alexandria,
Gregory of Nazianzum, Basil of Csesarea, and Gregory of Nyssa,
Felix Martyr and Julius, Bishops of BiOme, Cyprian of Carthage,

€<
€{
t€
t€
€<
€€
«

«
(€
IC
tl
€1
<€
€C
€C
€C

160 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

and Ambrose of MilaD^ adding, ^^ albeit a far greater number of
'^ Fathers might have been alleged, yet was it- not necessary,
'^ because it was not fit that the time of business should be
'^ spent with multitude of witnesses ; and further, no man
" doubted but that those ten did think little other than all
" the rest of their colleagues/' (c. 30.)

Such is '' catholic consent'' at its very best. The testimony
of ten witnesses, whose remarks upon a question not in their
mind at the time will probably be more or less indirect, with
an accon^modating, ^' &c." and an intimation that no dovbt the
rest agfi*eed with them !

The fact is, that when we come to the practical application of
the rule, we find ourselves beset with endless difficulties, and
hence it was that Vincent himself was obliged to clog his rule
with so many exceptions and limitations as to lead Bishop
Stillingfleet (one of our opponents' best referees) to make the
remark we have already quoted, that ^^wise men, who have
thoroughly considered of. Vincentius his way, plough in
general they cannot but approve of it so far as to think
it highly improbable that there should be antiquity, univer-
sality, and consent, against the true and genuine sense of
'' Scripture, yet when they consider this way of Vincentius,
*^ with all those cautions, restrictions, and limitations set
'' down by him, (1. 1, c. 39,) they are apt to think that he hath
put men to a wild-goose chase to find out anything 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 if true because they thought so, but
" because they persuaded him to believe it true, either from the
" authority of Scripture or some probable reason J " ^

And so in another place he says, ^^ The utmost use I can sup-
pose, then, Vincentius his rules can be of to us now is in that
case which he puts when corruptions and errors have had
time to take root and fasten themselves, and that is. By an
appeal to Scripture and Antient Councils. But because of

1 Rational Account of Grounds of Protestant Religion, 1665. p. 279.

t<
t(
«

€<
<t

<i
((

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 161

" THE CHARGE OP INNOVATION agahist US, we are content to be
tried by his second rule. By the consent of the Fathers of
greatest reputation,'' &c.^
The period over which the inquiry for this catholic consent is
to extend, is left by our opponents altogether indefinite, but
apparently it includes about the first five or perhaps six cen-
turies.*

Mr. Newman seems contented with the first four, for he
says, "If the voluminous remains of that era, including the
works of Ambrose, Austin, Jerome, Chrysostom, Basil, Gre-
gory Nyssen, Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasius, and Cjrril of
Jerusalem, will not afford a standard of catholic doctrine,
there seems little profit to be gained from antiquity at all.''
(p. 246.)

A less period than this our opponents have already found
(like the Romanists) would not at all answer their purpose.
And they have practically confessed, that their Creed depends
for its papistical proof upon the writings of the fourth and
fifth century. For thus writes the author of Tract 85.

" In both cases/* [i. e. "the canon of Scripture/* and "the
catholic doctrines/'^ "we believe mainly because the Church of
the fourth and fifth centuries unanimously believed"^'" We
" depend for the canon and creed upon the fovrth and fifth cen»
" turies. We depend upon them thus : as to Scripture, former
centuries certainly do not speak distinctly, firequently, or una-
nimously, except of some chief books, as the Gospels ; but
" still we see in them, as we believe, an evergrowing tendency
" and approximation to that full agreement which we find in
" the fifth. The testimony given at the latter date is the limit
" to which all that has been before given converges. For
" instance, it is commonly said, exceptio probat regulam ; when
" we have reason to think that a writer or an age would tutve
" witnessed so and so, but for this or that, and that this or
" that were mere accidents of his position, then he or it may be
said to tend towards such testimony. In this way the first
centuries tend toward the fifth. Viewing the matter as one of

' Coandl of Trent examined, &c p. 24.
' See Newman's Lectures, pp. 241 — ^9.
VOL. I. M

€€
it

€€
€€

162 PATRI8TICAL TRADITION

'' moral evidence^ we seem to see in the testimony of the fifth
'' the very testimony which every preceding century gave, accidents
" EXCEPTED, such OS the present loss of documents once extant

or the then existing misconceptions which want of iniercourse

between the chwrches occasioned. The fifth century acts as
" a comment on the obscure text of the centuries before it, and
'^ hrings out a meaning which with the help of the comment
'' any candid person sees really to belong to them. And in the
" same way as regards the catholic Creed, though there is not so
'^ much to eocplain and account for. Not so much, for no one, I
" suppose, mil deny, that in the Fathers of the fourth century, it
" is as fully developed and as unanimously adopted as it can be in
'' the fifth." (pp. 102, 3.)

Now as it respects the canon of Scripture I say nothing here,
because this will form the subject of a future chapter, but as it
respects what the Tractator calls ^'the catholic Creed,^' thia
passage appears to me worthy of the reader's especial notice, as
throwing very considerable light upon the true jaature of
" catholic consent,'' and the testimony of *^ everybody, always^
every where.*' In the writings of the whole of the first three
centuries, it seems, we get, not a proof of our opponents' version
of " the catholic Creed," but only something that in their view
tends towards it, something which, when we interpret it by the
writings of the fourth and fifth centuries, seems, " accidents
EXCEPTED," to mean what- the writings which we have selected as
the interpreter express, though it must be admitted after all that
it is but an '^ obscure text." So that if we were even to add
the writings of the first three centuries to Scripture to obtain
"the catholic Creed," we should only get an obscure comment
upon the obscure writings of the Apostles, and should not find
what we wanted until we admitted the light of the fourth and
fifth centuries to interpret the obscure comment upon those
obscure writings. The Tractator, therefore, justly remarks,
that "we," i.e. he and those who think with him, "believe
mainly because the Church of the fourth and fifth centuries
unanimously believed," " we depend for the canon and Creed
upon the fourth and fifth centuries."

The reader will observe how completely this coincides with

NO DIYINB INFORMANT. 168

the ground taken by the Romanists. And in the following
passage he will see what was the view taken of their conduct in
this respect by one of the best of our opponents' own witnesses.

'^ I know/' says Bishop Stillingfleet^ '' some of the greatest
'^ patrons of the Church of Rome, and such who know best
" how to manage things with best advantage for the interest of
^' that Churchy have made little account of the three first ages,
^' and confined themselves within the compass of the four first
^' Councils^ upon this pretence^ because the books and writers

are so rare before^ and that those persons who lived then had

no occasion to write of the matters in controversy between
'^ them and us. But if the ground why those other things
*' which are not determined in Scripture are to be believed by
'' us and practised as necessary^ be^ that they were apostolical
*' traditions y who can be more competent judges what was sOy and
** what not, than those who lived nearest the cqMstolical times f
*' and those certainly, if they writ of anything, could not write
*^ of anything of more concernment to the Christian world than
" the knowledge of such things would be.'^^

We might at once, then, on the ground of such admissions
as these, demur to the doctrine of our opponents, and reply
that these admissions are altogether fatal to their cause. For,
to claim for their Creed the consent of everybody, always, every*
where, in the Catholic Church, a consent whose universality is so
complete as to prove the apostolical origin of what it delivers, and
make it a divine informant or practically infallible reporter of the
oral teaching of the Apostles, and then to admit that all the wri-^
tings that remain to us of the. first three centuries form but an
obscure text, tending only, even in their view, towards the confirma-
tion of their Creed, and needing to be interpreted by the writings
of the fourth and fifth centuries to make it really speak that Creed^
has so much in it of durect self-contradiction as to leave one,
not in hesitation about the matter itself, but only wondering
what can induce learned men to put forth such statements.

The purity of the motives by which the Tractators are in-
fluenced I call not in question. They are desirous of inducing
men to embrace what they believe to be the truth, and there*

> BationalAcootrntofOroundsof Protestant Religion, p. 262. ed. 1665.

M 2

164 PATBISTICAL TRABITIOK

fore give the most high-sounding names to the testimony by
which they think it is established^ and offer the most persuasive
reasons they can find for its reception. Mr. Keble in parti-
cular reminds us^ how it would tend to " exempt us once and
for ever from haunting doubts/' if we would but be convinced
" that the Nicene tradition is true and dwine :*^^ in a word,
how comfortable it would be to come to the conclusion, no
longer to give ourselves any trouble in deciding between the
claims of conflicting doctrines^ but pin our faith at once upon
certain individuals.

And with many minds their scheme is not unUkely to suc-
ceed. It exempts men firom the trouble of thinking. It
affects to place them under the direction of an infallible guide.
It entangles them in the mazes of a magnificent vocabulary of
words which delight^ perplex^ and ensnare them^ and out of
which they often neither wish nor are able to see their way.
But our opponents must excuse others if they look a little further
into the nature of the testimony adduced^ and call things by
their right names, and decline thinking that anything is gained
by shutting their eyes to the real state of the case, and building
their faith upon words instead of realities, upon claims to the
consent of everybody, always, everywhere, when upon investi-
gation the " everybody *' turns out to be not one in a million,
the ''always'* not one for every quarter of a century, and the
" everywhere *' not one for each country ; to say nothing of the
fact that there is hardly a doctrine respecting which we do not
get conflicting testimonies.

But leaving the reader to judge how far these concessions, of
themselves, overthrow their cause, I shall now proceed to point
out the various grounds upon which we reject the notion of our
opponents, that what they call *' catholic consent,'' is a certain
informant of the oral teaching of the Apostles.

» Serm. p. 148.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 166

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.

The great argument upon which the system of our opponents
is founded^ is, that catholic consent in the whole primitive Church
for scTeral centuries in favour of any doctrine or interpretation
of Scripture or other matter, is a sure proof that it was derived
from the Apostles, for that otherwise such consent could not
have been found in such a widely scattered body. . Consentient
patristical statements, they say, must have had a common origiii
in the teaching of the first preachers of Christianity.^

This is the theory upon which their whole superstructure is
built ; and in words it is no doubt plausible enough, and suf»
ficiently likely to captivate any man who will take words for
realities. There is a natural anxiety to know something of the
doctrines of the early Church, and he who finds a few remains
of the primitive doctors, almost naturally pleads for them as a
sufficient testimony to demonstrate the primitive faith ; just as
a zealous antiquary, upon the testimony of a few imperfect relics
accidentaUy turned up, will pronounce upon the state of the arts
generally at the time when they were executed. What, more-
over, could be more convenient and desirable^ than to have such
a standard of appeal for the termination of controversies, as the
consentient testimony of the whole primitive Church ? It is
quite refreshing and delightful, in the present state of the Church,
to contemplate the existence of such a court of appeal. The
mind is at once attracted to the notion by a recollection of the
benefits that might arise from it. For, mark how the argument
runs, — This or that is a doctrine or view which was held by alf

1 There is alflo another ground on which Mr. Kewman Beema to daim foK such
consent the authority of a divine informant^ namely, the promises made to the
Chorch, which are supposed to have secured infidlilnlity to it, while it remained
one and umUvided. See Newman's Lectures j 8, pp. 224, et seq. But without
entering upon a discussion of the question here invdlYed, our reply in the follow -
ing work to the daim made for catboHc consent^ on the ground mentioned above,
equaUy meets this

166 PATRISTICAL TRADITIOM

the members of the whole Church, {sender, ubique et ab omnibus,)
everybody, always, everywhere, for the first three or four centuries*
What an overwhehning argument against a man who presumed
to controvert it I But are you quite sure, he will say, that every-
body always everywhere, for the first three centuries, did hold
this view ? The Church was very widely spread during that
period. Millions were included within it, and had but little
intercourse with one another. You must have vast means of
information. Are you quite sure that there were none who took
an opposite view of the matter ? Can you answer even for ten
in every hundred ? Yes, quite sure of '^ everybody always every-
where,'' say our opponents ; so much so, as to have made this
universality of consent the very groundwork upon which our claim
for the certainty of the witness as a correct record of the oral
teaching of the Apostles is founded. Well, then, there is no
help for it, but that he who does not wish to unchristianise ^11
the members of the catholic Church who lived immediately after
the times of tl^e Apostles, must, if the point be an important
one, accept what such a body of Christians unanimously held^
as beyond controversy the truth of God. For it cannot be sup-
posed, that all the Christians of the first ages of the Church
were in error ; and therefore, what they all agreed in must be, in
important points, that true faith which it is every good man's
wish to embrace. For the true faith must in all ages be the
same ; and therefore the belief of true Christians in all funda-
mental points must be the same now as in the first ages of
Christianity. True catholic consent, then, might well conclude
us j and though perhaps not altogether derived from apostolical
tradition or teaching, would, as true, be identical with it.

And in this, but no other, sense did our learned Bishop
Morley grant, in his Conference with the Jesuit, that the Church
was infallible. " If," said he, '' by the word Church were meant
'' all Christians in all places, he would willingly grant that the
^' Church in that sense did never, nor could never, err in any
^^ point of faith or manners absolutely necessary to salvation,"^

And this might be granted for the present as much as for the
(mtient Church.

* Several Treatises, Ac. No. 1. p. 5.

NO DIVINE INFOBlfANT. 167

And it is remarkable that Bellarmine himself, when driven
to an explanation of what is meant by the infallibility of the
Church, states it thus, — ^^ The Church cannot err, that is, that
" which all believers hold as of the faith, is necessarily true, and
** of the faith ;^^ respecting which there cannot be two opinions
among those who suppose that there has always been a suc-
cession of individuals in the Church holding the true faith. And
when he adds, — ^^ And likewise that which all bishops teach as
'^ belonging to the faith is necessarily true, and of the faith,*' ^
we should not, perhaps, think it worth while to raise much dis-
pute on the matter as a practical question.

So far we fiilly agree with our opponents. Only let them
prove anything by Vincent's rule, and we will most submissively
accept it. It is not surprising, that those who take words as
realities, and think they know what everybody always everywhere
in the Church of Christ thought for several centuries respecting
any matter, should dogmatize about it, and anathematize dis-
sentients. There is, in fact, only one objection against Vincent's
method of proving a doctrine, namely, that its application in
that strict sense which would make it capable of producing a
proof, is utterly impracticable. That the principle of it, indeed,
is applicable, to a limited extent, I am far from denying ; and
that its application to that extent is useful, as affording a pro-
bable and confirmatory argument for the truth, is also not to be
doubted. Nay, in any point put forward as vital, it may well
be required that we should be able to show, from the records of
antient times, that the doctrine we maintain, though we main-
tain it from Scripture, is not a novelty , but was held in the pri-
mitive Church; which is a safeguard against the dreams of
enthusiasm, and so used by the Fathers of the fourth and fifth
centuries, whose appeal to this patristical testimony in their
favour is often incorrectly taken as supporting the doctrine of
our opponents respecting " tradition.'' But to a very limited
extent only is Vincent's rule applicable in any case, and there-

* Ecclesia non potest errare, id est, id quod tenent oinnes fideles tamqnam de
fide, necessario est vcmm, et de fide ; et Bimiliter id quod docent omnes Episoopi,
tamquam ad fidem pertiiieiis, neceasario est verum, et de fide. De Cone, et Eccles,
tib. 3. c 14

168 PAT&ISTICAL TRADITION

fore the certainty wliich would follow firom it, if we were able
fully to carry it out^ is not attainable.

For, let us consider, what is the practical application which
can be made of this rule. As it respects the number and value
of the records remaining to us of the primitive Church, I shall
speak in the next section. But my object here is to consider
the question generally. Let us look around us, and view the
Church as it exists in the present day, when the facilities of
intercourse are such as no former period ever enjoyed. What
sort of application could we make of Yincent^s rule at the pre-
sent day, even for the generation now living? How should we
be able to ascertain what doctrines were held by everybody
everywhere F

And if we go back to the times of the primitive Church, the
dijBSculty is a thousandfold greater; for we have nothing to
depend upon for those times but the writings of a few antient
Christian authors. So that I see not why, for fundamental
points, we should not rather seek the catholic consent of some
age nearer our own, of which we know more than of the first
ages of Christianity. For if, as our opponents maintain, and I
am by no means disposed to question, there have always been,
and always will be, some true Christians in the world, real
catholic consent, or that which all believe respecting fundamen-
tal points in any age, must be the orthodox faith, for otherwise
the true Christians, who form part of this total, must be in fun-
damental error, which is absurd. But the truth is, that in no
generation is the argument derived from this source applicable,
because the knowledge of that catholic consent is not attainable.

And as Dean Sherlock justly observes, "It is absolutely
'^ impossible that the catholic Church should be represented, for
" the catholic Church is the whole multitude of Christians,
" considered as the whole company or multitude ; now a mul-
'' titude, as a multitude, can never be represented by anything
** but itself; there can be no formal nor virtual multitude, but
^' the Mhole entire number. The catholic Church signifies all
'* Christians, and if you leave out any of the number, it is not
" all, and therefore is not the catholic Church. . . . Anything
'/ less than all makes it cease to be catholic ; and therefore the

<€

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 169

^' catholic Church cannot be represented by a few of the whole

^^ number^ because a few are not all^ and therefore not the

" cathoUc Church/' 1

So that^ on the notion that the catholic Church is an infallible

guide^ he remarks^ — '^ We do say, and we may safely say, that

" there always has been, and ever will be, a visible Church; for

" while there are any men who visibly profess Christianity, there

^' will be a visible Church. And what then ? ' What then f

Why then you must hear the Church, then you must submit to

the authority of the Church, then you must believe as the

^^ Church believes, and receive your faith from the decrees and

^' definitions of the Church.' But pray why so ? Has every

visible Church this authority ? No, but the catholic Church

has. Suppose that ; but how shall I speak with the catholic

^^ Church, which is dispersed over all the world, and is nothing else

^' but the whole number of Christians all the world over ? Now

*' it seems impossible for me to speak with all the Christians in

^^ the world, and to know what their belief is in all matters of

^^ controversy ; and though the catholic Church is visible, and

^' part of it is to be seen in England, and part in Holland, and

part in France, &c., yet no man can see it all together, nor

speak with all the Christians in the world together; and

therefore, though the catholic Church be visible, it cannot

determine any one controversy, unless there be some visible

^^ catholic tribunal from which we must receive the faith of

^' the whole Church [which he has before proved that there is
^^not.]''2

Hence we may observe, that though we should admit, (as,
indeed, we willingly do) that there is a sense in which the
Church may be said to be infallible, or indefectible, in the
fundamental points, it does not follow that the Church is
capable of being an infallible guide to us in such points; a
distinction which the Tractators seem entirely to have over-
looked.

* Disc. cone, nature, unity, &c. of Church, pp. 44^ 6 ; reprinted in Bishop Qibeon's
Preservative.

3 lb. p. 46. See also Bishop Taylor's Dissuasive, Pt. 2. Works, voL z.
pp. 347, 8.

€€

170 PATRISTIC AL TRADITION

It must never be forgotten, that all the promises of Christ to
the Church would be fulfilled by the existence of a succession of
individuals in the external Church attached to the true faith.
This is distinctly admitted by Mr. Newman himself, and is an
admission fatal to his doctrine of the Church catholic being in
any sense an infallible guide ; for then it follows, that we must
absolutely collect the suffirages of every individual Christian
before we can be certain of the orthodox faith, and therefore,
as Bishop Taylor says, " If by the Church they mean the com-
'^ munion of saints only, though the persons of men be visible,
'' yet because their distinctive cognizance is invisible, they can
'' never see their guide, and therefore they can never know
" whether they go right or wrong.'^^ Let the reader mark Mr.
'* Newman's confession : — " The promise that the word of
'^ truth should not depart out of the mouth of the Church is
'' satisfied in what we see fulfilled at this day, viz. in the whole
'' Church, in aU its branches, having ever maintained the faith
'^ in its essential outlines ; nay, it might be satisfied even in a
*' mttch scantier Jidfilment, — -for instance, though this were all,
'* which many think to be its highest meaning, that there should
'' always be in the Church some true believers"^ And this ad-
mission makes the statement, that '^ the whole Church in all its
branches has ever maintained the faith in its essential outlines,'^
a mere assertion requiring proof of its truth, independently of
what any number of Christian churches or communities can
give. The public standard of faith in a church being regulated
by the ruling power in it, may become corrupt even in essential
points, while at the same time some of the members of that
church, adhering to the written word, and taught by the Spirit,
though united in external communion with a corrupt church,
through the effect of circumstances, or from mistaken notions
of church communion, may preserve the pure faith. And this
we hold to be in all probability the case in the Church of Rome«
That there were such persons in that Church before the Refor-
mation is very capable of proof. And of these the Protestants
are the successors. '^Even in the times of the greatest and
" most general defection,'' says Bishop Sanderson, *^ there have

> Din. from Popery, Pt. 2. Bk. 1. § 1. Works, x. p. 347. ' Led. p. 234.

€€
€€

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 171

'^ been always partieular men, and those eminent either for
number, place^ learning, or godliness, who, though living in
the midst of corrupt Churches, and in the communion and
visible profession thereof, have yet, according to the measure
^' of their grace and knowledge, and the exigence of times
'' and occasions, either, first, openly resisted the errors, super-
'' stitions, and corruptions of their times ; or secondly, noted
'' the corruptions as they grew, and complained of them and
f' desired reformation ; or thirdly, in private dissented from
" them in the explication of the most dangerous doctrines, and
'' kept themselves free from the foulest corruptions. ... in ihue
men did the succession of the true Church, taking it compara-
tively and in the second sense, especiaUy consist, and the visi^
bility of it continue in the time of universal defection. In which
" men the true Church continues visible always and perpetually
'' without interruption,'^^

And so our learned Dr. Chaloner; ''There may be a church
" which, in respect of her chief prelates and a predominant fac-
tion thereof, may be false and antichristian, yet may contain
some members of the true Church within her pale, who though
they refuse not to communicate with her, nay more, are in-
fected with some smaller errors of the time, yet swallow not
down all untruths without difference, but keep still the foun-
'' dation of faith intire and unshaken. Thus it was with the
'' Church of the Jews at the coming of our Saviour. . . . and
" thus doubtless it was with some, which being outwardly of
" the Church of Rome, we may justly notwithstanding chal-
'' lenge to ourselves.''^

Further, our opponents' own witness. Bishop Morton, tells
us, that " the catholic Church,^' in the Creed, is this succession
of true believers, the faithful people of Grod. " Some of our
adversaries,^' he says, referring more particularly to Bellarmine,
" to take away the distinction of visible and invisible Church,
'' have so conceited of the catholic Church, the article of Christian
" belief, as to think that wicked men and the limbs of Satan
f- may be true members of this mystical body of Christ, even for

^ IMflc oonceming the Church, pp. 10, 11.

> Credo lanctam eodes. cathol. 1688. pp. 221- 8.

<t
it

172 PATRI8TICAL TRADITION

'' their outward profession sake. We contrariwise teach^ that
" those glorious titles of spouse of Christ and catholic Church
'' do properly appertain unto the faithful and elect of Ood ;
" which accordeth unto S. Gregory his judgment^ professing
" that 'within the limits of the Church are all the elect, without
it are the reprobate ; because the holy Church against which
the gates of hell shall not prevail, consisteth of the elect unto
eternal life/ (Moral, lib. 28, c. 6. In Psahn. v. Psenit.)''^
And to this agrees Dr. Chaloner.^ Thus also speaks Irenseus.
Commenting on Ps. Ixxxi. 1, he says, — '^ He speaks of the
" Father and Son, and of those who have received adoption ;
'' and these are the Church. For this is the congregation of
'' God, which God, that is, the Son himself collected through
" himself/'^ I need hardly remind the reader, that such also
is the language of our own Church, which tells us that '^ the
mystical body'* of Christ is, " the blessed corrq^any of all faithful
people."^

And of this body, and this body only, may it be said, that it
cannot err in fundamentals. To say that this Church is always
orthodox in fundamentals, is a mere truism, because it is sup-
posed to be composed only of true believers. And as it respects
the Church at large, it can only be said to be indefectible and
inerrable in fundamentals, as it contains within it those indivi-
duals who form the body of true believers, as Archbishop Laud
admits.^

If such, then, is the case, and that the true mystical body of
Christ, consisting of the succession of individual saints scattered
over the whole Church, can alone be a certain and infallible
guide, and that the faith of such individuals cannot even be
certainly gathered from the public confessions of the churches
to which they belong, then the notion of obtaining such a

^ Catholic Appeal, lib. 1. c 6. § 2, p. 63. And a little forthcr on, p. 69, he
tells UB that Bede applied the title ''catholic Church/' in the same way, "to the
sodety of the elect only."

3 See his " Credo ecdesam," &c Comp. pp. 16 and 70, ed. 1638.

' De PAtro et Filio et de his qni adoptionem perceperunt, didt : hi autem sunt
Ecdesia. Hssc enim est synagoga Dei, qnam I>eii8, hoc est, Illius ipse per semet-
ipsmn coUcgit. Adv. hser. lib. 3. c. 6. edd. Mass. et Grab.

* Communion Service.

* Against lusher, $ 21. Numb. 5. note. p. 90, ed. 1686.

NO DtVINfi INFORMANT. 178

catholic consent as can make the Church a sure guide to us
falls to the ground. Such individuals moreover may always
have been from the times of our earliest records^ in the com-
parison, very few in number; and whatever may be our private
opinion as to the question of fact, yet, seeing that such may at
any time have been the state of the Church, our opinion that
the case has not been so must depend upon our supposing that
the maintenance of the true faith has not been so limited, which
takes for granted that we know from an independent source what
the true faith is.

But Mr. Newman, identifying (like the Romanists) the
Church, the catholic Church, with those representative bodies
or individuals that have spoken in her name, points us to ''the
Church '* as our infallible and authoritative guide to the ortho-
dox faith, having authority to declare and enforce the truth
(pp. 226—8); and by an extraordinary mistake as to the
meaning of an article in the Creed, tells us that by the Creed
we are bound to faith in the holy catholic Church, in the sense
of being bound to believe what that Church delivers, (Pref. p. 7,)
when neither he nor any one el^e can tell us what that Church,
taking it either as the nominal catholic Church, or as the
company of the faithful, does deliver. And so Dr. Pusey ad-
monishes us, that '' to the decisions of the universal Church we
owe faith.'^^

Nay, Mr. Newman would fain make us believe, that this is
the doctrine of our Church, telling us (as we have noticed in a
former page) that our 20th Article shows that the English
Church holds ''the infallibility of the Church in matters of
saving faith." (See pp. 226, 7.) Let one of his own favourite
witnesses convince him of his mistake. In controversies of
faith, says Leslie, (speaking in the way of dialogue with a dis-
senter,) " She [i. e. the Church of England] has authority as
" ^ a witness and keeper of holy writ,' as the article words it,
" Diss. : What authority is that ? C.E.: [the representative of
" the Church of England replies,] 7%^ same that is acknow-
" ledged in your Westminster confession of faith, c. 31, 'mtn»-
" terially to determine controversies of faith,' as you there

> Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, p. 53.

174 PATBIBTICAL TBADITIOlf

'' word it. But in regulating the worship of 6od^ and in di»-
'' dpline for the better government of the Churchy there to
'' determine authoritatively J'^

And to Dr. Pusey'a statement that ^'to the decisions of the
universal Church we owe faith/^ I reply in the words of the
able treatise by Flacette^ translated and published by our Arch-
bishop Tenison, '' That there is nothing whereon the faith of all
'' private Christians can lesa rely ; and that for these reasons :
** 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. 8. Because it is
'' not manifest whether the faith of any church assignable be
^' trucj^'^ on each of which points the reader wiU find some
valuable observations in the treatise referred to.

But Mr. Newman says^ that '' Scripture itself conveys to thtf
** Church the charter of her office, to be the keeper and inter<^
'* preter of Scripture/^' And he quotes three passages to prove
it, of which the only one that can with any plausibility be
urged in support of his statement is the following, ''The
'^ Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the
^' truth ;'^^ and he adds, '' How Protestant sectaries understand
'^ these passages, I know not ; how, for instance, the first cited
'' [which is the one given above] is understood at all by those
" who deny a visible Church.''

Now, first, let us notice the disingenuousness of this. No
one denies the visibility of the Church, taking it even as refer-
ring to that Church of the faithful, which consists of certain
individuals scattered over the world. And to this Church our
learned Dr. Chaloner considers this passage to refer, namely
*' the Church essential, which is the congregation of all faithful
believers"^

For, are these individuals hid from the world so as not to be

^ Leslie, Of Priyate Judgment and Authority in matters of Faith. See also
Archbishop Tenison's Discourse concerning a guide in matters of Faith, p. 18.

' Incurable scepticism of the Chnrch of Bome, c 24. See the whole of
oc 20— 27.— It was first published in 1688» 4ito, and was inserted by Bishop
Gibson in the tlurd volmne of his " Preservatiye."

• Lect. p. 228. 4 i Tim. iiL 15.

* Credo cedes, sanct. cathoL ed. 1638. p. 70.

irO DIYINB INPORMANT. 175

a visible Church? Rather are they not ''the light of the
world/' "the salt of the earth?*' And however widely scat-
tered^ they form but one body^ even the mystical body of Christy
united to him as their Head by one all-pervading Spirit^ and
with each other in the bonds of spiritual communion, having
one Lord, one faith, one baptism. And may they not therefore
be justly said to be in their generation '' the pillar and ground
of the truth/' aye, and be much better entitled to the name than
any other body of men in the world ? When it is said that the
true Church is invisible, it is merely indicative of our inability
to point out the precise individuals who form the collective
body of the faithful, and in that sense it is invisible, or rather
indefinable ; and seeing that such a body can only be recognised
by us by our knowing first what is the true faith, such a body
cannot be our authoritative guide to the true faith.

Nay, the phrase, " pillar and ground of the truth,'' might be
not improperly applied to the universal nominal Church of
Christ as being the depositary of the oracles of Ood, and as
having within her those who are living epistles of Christ, known
and read of all men, and thus the supporters of the truth in a
corrupt world.

I think, therefore, that the passage may well be understood
as it stands, as conveying no such sense as Mr. Newman affixes
to it.

But further, I will give him another answer to it, and that
not from a sectary, but from one of his own best and most
learned witnesses, Bishop Stillingfleet, who, when his Romish
antagonist objected this passage precisely in the sense for which
Mr. Newman here contends, observes, — '' But the defender saith,
" ' the Holy Scripture assures us that the Church is the founda-
'' tion and pillar of truth.' I confess I cannot be assured from
'' hence that the Church hath such an authority as is here
'' pleaded for, suppose it be understood of the whole Church.
" For how was it possible^ the Church at that time should be
'' the foundation and pillar of truth, when the Apostles had the
''infallible Spirit, and were to guide and direct the whole
" Church I It seems, therefore, far more probable to me that
" those words relate to Timothy and not to the Church, by a

176 PATRI8TICAL TRADITION

€€

€€
€(
€t
<€
€<
€i
€€

€€
€€
€€

very common ellipsis^ vix. how he ought to behave himself m the
ChiiTch of Ood, which is the house of the living God, as a pillar
and 'support of truth; and to that purpose this whole epistle
was written to him ; as appears by the beginning of it, wherein
he is charged not to give heed to fables^ and to take care that
no false doctrine were taught at Ephesus. Now^ saith the
Apostle^ ' If I come not shortly, yet I have written this epistle,
that thou mayest know how to behave thyself in the church,
which is the house of God, as a pillar and support of truth/ ^
What can be more natural and easy than this sense ? And
*' that there is no novelty in it appears from hence, that Gregory
Nyssen (De vit. Mos. p. 225) expressly delivers this to be the
meaning ; and many others of the Fathers apply the same
phrases to the great men of the Church. S. Basil (Ep. 62)
'^ useth the very same expressions concerning Musonius. S.
^* Chrysostom (Hom. 148, tom. 5) calls the Apostles, ' the im-
'' movable pillars of the true faith/ Theodoret (De Prov. Orat.
10) saith concerning S. Peter and S. John, 'That they were
the towers of godliness and the pDlars of truth/ Gregory
Nazianzen (Ep. 38) calls S. Basil, 'The ground of faith and
the rule of truth;' and elsewhere (Orat. 19, Ep. 29) 'The
pillar and groimd of the Church,' which titles he gives to
another bishop at that time. And so it appears in the Greek
" Catena mentioned by Heinsius (in loc.) S. Basil read these
" words, or understood them so, when he saith, ' The apostles
" were the pillars of the New Jerusalem, as it is said, ThepiUar
and ground of the ChurchJ I forbear more, since these are
sufficient to show that they understood this place as relating
to Timothy, and not to the Church.^' ? Thus speaks Bishop
Stillingfleet, in a small work which I would earnestly commend
to the perusal of our opponents, particularly the chapter from
which I have quoted the above, where he undertakes to discuss
the three following points. "First, whether Christ and his
" Apostles did establish such a standing judicature in the
" Church, to which all Christians were bound to submit in mat-

' *E^ Z\ fipaS6yWf Xya ttSfs tus 8ci 4p oXk^ 6coO ki^axrrp4^(T9ai^ Ip-is 4<rT\v
4KK\ri<ria Btov (Hyros, <rHt\os ica2 iUpcdttfia rris iiKvieflas. 1 Tim. iii. 16.
' Vindioation of the Answer to some late iwpers, pp. 32, 3.

€<

€€
t<
«

€€
i€
€€

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 177

" tere of faith. Secondly, whether the primitive church did
^^ own such a judicature, and did accordingly govern their faith.
*' Thirdly, whether it be an unreasonable thing to suppose the con-
'* tran/, viz. that Christ should leave men to judge for them-
" SELVES in matters which concern their salvation according to
" THE Scriptures.''^

But it may be said. We need not surely ascertain the faith of
all Chiistians. It will be sufficient to know what everybody
always everywhere among the pastors of the Church believed.
This, it must be admitted, contracts the extent of the rule within
limits very much narrower than the words signify, so that if this
is all that is meant, it is difficult to see why it should not be so
stated. And although, for my part, I should be quite willing to
attribute very great weight to evidence so obtained, I feel it a
duty to remind the reader, that there have been periods in the
history of Grod's Church which should make us very jealous of
such admissions for any definite period. Who formed the Church
of Ood in the time of Ahab, when Elijah only appears to have
been left of God's ministers ? Who formed the Church of God
in the time of our Lord, when rulers, priests, and people, with
the exception of a few humble aud despised individuals, cried out,
Away with him, crucify him ? Never let it be forgotten, that it
was by the catholic consent of the Church of his day that our
blessed Lord was crucified. For the notion that such a handful
of humble individuals as constituted his followers could be of any
account in the matter, would have been scouted by the followers
of " catholic consent" as an utter absurdity. Here were all
the venerable interpreters of the Scriptures and depositaries of
the tradition of the Church ranged on one side, declaring that
tradition, and the true meaning of Scripture as interpreted by it,
were altogether against the claims of Jesus Christ ; on the other
a few obscure and unlearned individuals, who pretended to inter-
pret Scripture for themselves. Could the followers of " catholic
consent" doubt for a moment on which side the truth was to be
found ?

These cases very clearly show us, how much we may be mis-
taken if we make the majority, or even the pastors of the Church,

» Ibid. p. 30.

VOL. I. N

178 PATRISTIC AL TRADITION

the representatives of the true Church of Christ, the sure wit-
nesses of the orthodox faith.

But granting all that is here asked, — and it may, no doubt,
be presumed, that among the collective body of the faithful
forming the true Church, there are not wanting faithful pastors
of Christ's flock, — what do we gain by it ? How do we know
what everybody always everywhere among the pastors of the pri-
mitive Church believed ? How should we be able to ascertain
this even for the generation now living ? How much less, then,
can we ascertain it for generations that lived ages since; of
whom we know nothing, but from the writings of a few indi-
viduals who lived at the period, and who themselves were unable
to trace it ?

Take the case of the Church of England alone at the present
day, with her express and particular Confession of faith branched
out into points on which the public records of the early Church
are altogether silent. In the belief of that Confession, all her
members profess to agree. But do they all hold in reality the
same doctrine on all the points of that Confession ? Take the
doctrine of justification, for instance. Will the article give you
the precise doctrine held by all the members of the Church ?
No ; some interpret it in one way, others in another ; and he
who reads it to know what is the view of our Church upon the
subject, may, if his inclination so dispose him, strain it to a third
sense. And each will tell you the article is plainly on his side ;
for it is as impossible to bind error by words as by chains. It
has been often bound with both ; and both have been broken
through and burst asunder by it, and even turned to the pro-
motion of its own purposes. How, then, I ask, even with this
Confession of faith in our hands, shall we be able to tell what
everybody everywhere in the Church of England holds respect-
ing the doctrine of justification 7 Clearly as the article speaks,
it does not show what precise views are entertained on the sub-
ject, by all who subscribe it. I can no more say, therefore, what
are the precise views of all our clergy, because they have sub-
scribed this article, than I can say what their views are, because
they hold Scripture to be the Word of God, and profess to be-
lieve all that it delivers. Even where there is so definite a Con-

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 179

fession of faith^ therefore, there is some uncertainty as to the
views of those who profess to hold it. Nay, let us hear what Mr.
Newman himself says on this subject. *^ In the English Church
*^ we shall hardly find ten or twenty neighbouring clergymen who
*^ agree together, and that, not in the non-essentials of religion,
^* but as to what are its elementary and necessary doctrines,'*
(pp. 394, 5.)

Now, then, let us go back to primitive times, and let our oppo-
nents show us, of which of the primitive churches we have such
evidence of the doctrine held by it, as we have in the case of the
Church of England. No ; we have not any such public Con-
fessions even of particular churches to guide us, much less of
the Catholic Church.

There is nothing, indeed, that could claim to be considered
the voice of the Catholic Church, until we come to the Council
of Nice. How is it possible, therefore, that we can undertake
to say what all the pastors of the various churches, or even of
all the Apostolically-founded churches, believed ? To take the
extant works of the few individuals whose writings happen to
remain to us, as the representatives of this whole body, is as
absurd as it would be a thousand years hence to take the
writings of some half-dozen individuals of the last three cen-
turies, that may happen to have survived to that period, as the
representatives of the whole Church since the Reformation to
this age. And these latter individuals, be it remembered, if
they happened to be Romanists, would represent the whole
Catholic Church as agreeing with them, and their only oppo-
nents to be a few contemptible sectaries.

Nay, the early Fathers themselves could not tell what was
the faith of '' the Church,*' when " the Church'' had not pub-
licly defined it. And hence the Romanists themselves make
this apology for the errors of some of the Fathers on various
points, that " the Church" had not then determined it ; allowing
that the Fathers themselves might easily err, where there had
been no public decision of the Church ; while, nevertheless, the
desire and purpose of such individuals must have been to retain
the faith of the Church, which, therefore, they must have sup-

N 2

180 PATRT8TICAL TRADITION

posed themselves to do ; and would^ therefore, in their writings,
have maintained that they did.

Hence, still further, suppose we were even to grant that the
consent of the public Confessions of faith of all the primitive
churches for the first few centuries, might be taken as indi«
cative of such a catholic consent as ought to be considered a
sufficient proof of the oral teaching of the Apostles, where can
we find those Confessions ? The utmost of the kind that we
can find for the first three centuries, is in the remains left to us
of three authors of the second and third centuries, who, in their
controversies with some who were opposed to them, give us (as
we have seen in the preceding chapter) a Creed not comprising
more than what is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, and
consisting of articles which, in the present day, are not called
in question ; for which they claim the consent of the churches
founded by the Apostles.

Now these Creeds are, no doubt, entitled to great respect.
But when we recollect that these churches had no fixed and
publicly agreed-upon Formula or Confession of faith to be
judged by, and that even in the case of churches that have
such a Confession, the representation given of their doctrine
varies with the private views of him who gives it, we cannot
surely accept even these as infallible witnesses. These writers,
to use the words of Doctor Barrow, ^^ allege the general consent
'^ of churches planted by the Apostles, and propagated by con-
" tinual successions of bishops from those whom the Apostles
'^ did ordain, in doctrines and practices opposite to those de-
" vices, as a good argument ; and so, indeed, it then was, next to
" a demonstration against them/'^ Then the truth of the state-
ment could be tested ; and doubtless their report of such agree-
ment, is a strong argument even in our day ; but one, the strength
of which is greatly diminished to what it was then ; and that
on several accounts. We cannot verify it. We have to trust
to the report of two or three partial writers, who themselves
must have judged greatly from report. And when we find, as
we shall hereafter, how freely the name of the Church was after-

> WorkB, vol. vi. p. 198.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 181

wards used for doctrines that had no pretence to claim such an
authority, we can hardly consider these testimonies conclusive.
We have not even the writings of those who were opposed to
them, to consult in the matter; and who, we know, laid claim
to apostolical tradition as in their favour. Even in the few points
];nentioned in those Creeds, therefore, we believe that they were
held generally in the primitive Church, because we find them
clearly expressed in Scripture, not because we have any certain
testimony of catholic consent in their favour. And lastly, those
Creeds, if admitted, are open to almost all the errors which
agitate the Church, having been originally directed against
those outrageous absurdities of the Valentinians and Mar-
cionitcs, which, in the present day, are equally despised by all
parties.

Moreover, were we to suppose that what is called a Greneral
Council might be taken as an undoubted representative of the
whole Church in its day, yet there was not a single Council of
the kind for the first three centuries and more. Nay, if we
speak of a Council truly general, faithfully representing the
whole Church, it may well be doubted whether there ever was
yet such a Council. Bishop Stillingfleet, speaking on this sub-
ject, and showing the far better title which the Antient Councils
had to be called General than the modem ones of Rome so
called, adds, — '^ I do not say. There was ever such a General
Council as did fully represent the Universal Church, which
could not be done without provincial Councils summoned
" before in all parts of Christendom, and the delegation from
them of such persons as were to deliver their sense in the
matter of faith to be debated in the General Council, and I
have reason to question whether this were ever done.'^^
And suppose such a Council assembled, and having (which is
all that would be practicable at any time) a few deputies from
every Church in existence, could we be sure that those deputies
spoke anything more than the sense of the majority of the pas-
tors of the Church they represented ? Take an instance. What
do our opponents think of the representation made by the Eng-

1 yindication of the answer to some late papers, p. 53, and see Flacette on the
Incurable Soeptidsm of the Church of Borne, c 12.

(€

l€

]82 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

lish deputies at the Synod of Dort of the doctrine of the Church
of England ? Let them honestly say, whether they believe that
the doctrine of the Church of England was truly represented
there. If they do, what becomes of their subscription ? If they
do not, they at once confess that such assemblies afford no
proof of the doctrine of the churches there represented ? Nay,
it undeniably follows from this case, that it is only the majority
that is represented, because it is notorious that there were those,
as for instance Bishop Montague, in the Church of England,
who took a very different view of the doctrine of our Church
from what was there given.

On this whole subject, therefore. Archbishop Tenison, when
discoursing of a guide in matters of faith, speaking of the pre-
tensions that have been made by the Romanists to an infallible
one, says, (and his words apply equally to the arguments of our
opponents,) — "This guide could not be the Church diffusive of
the first ages. For the sufirages of every Christian were never
gathered. And if we mil have their sense, they must rise from
" the dead and give it us. This guide cannot be the faith, as
such, of all the governors of all the primitive churches. The
sense of it was never collected. There were antiently general
Creeds, but such as especially related to the heresies then on
foot ; and who can affirm upon grounds of certainty, that each
^' bishop in the world consented to each Article, or to each so
" expressed ? This guide is not a Council perfectly free and
" universal. For a guide which cannot be had is none. If
" such a Council could assemble, it would not err in the neces-
" saries of faith. . . . But there never was yet an universal Council
properly so called. ... In the Councils called general, if we speak
comparatively, there were not many southern or western bishops
present at them. It was thus at that first oecumenical Coun-
" cil, the Council of Nice ; though in one sacred place, as Euse-
" bins hath noted, there were assembled Syrians and Cilicians,
" Phoenicians and Arabians, Palsestinians, Egyptians, Thebaeans,
Libyans, Mesopotamians, a Persian, a Scythian bishop, and
many others from other countries. But there was but one
bishop for Africa, one for Spain, one for Gaul, two priests as
deputies of the infirm and aged bishop of Borne ; whilst, for

€€
<€

<t
(C
«

ts
cc
tc

NO DIVIN£ INFORMANT. 183

instance sake^ there were seventeen bishops for the small
province of Isauria. . . . This guide is not the present Church
declaring to particular Christians the sense of the Church of
former ages. How can this declaration be made^ seeing

" churches differ, and each church calls itself the true one,

*' and pretendeth to the primitive pattern/'^

cc
it

SECTION III. THE INADEQUACY OF THE RECORDS THAT RE-
MAIN TO US OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH TO BE TAKEN AS
ANYTHING LIKE A SUFFICIENT AND INDUBITABLE REPRE-
SENTATION OF THE FAITH OF THE WHOLE CHURCH.

We now come to the consideration of the number and value
of the writings themselves from which we have to collect the
^^ catholic consent '' of the primitive Church. And, I think, it
will be evident to every impartial reader, that if we include in
our review the writings of the first three centuries, we are giving
our opponents as long a period as they can with any shadow of
justice require. For the argument is, that we must go to the
primitive Church to learn the doctrines of the faith, because,
as corruptions came in by degrees, the nearer we get to the
times of Christ and his Apostles, the more likely we are to ob-
tain the truth unmixed with error. I know, indeed, that we
are so far removed from the Apostolic age, that men who lived
some three or four centuries after the Apostles, are viewed by
many as almost their contemporaries. The Apostles and the
Fathers of the first three or four centuries are to us in this
respect like the stars. They are all so far off from us that they
appear almost equidistant. The difference of their distances is
so small in the comparison, that it is almost lost sight of. But
if we allow ourselves to judge thus hastily, we may easily be de-
ceived. It cannot be pretended that what is not found in the

* I>uKX)iir8e concerning a guide in matters of fmth, pp. 14 — 18, repr. in Bishop
Gibson's Presen'ative, vol. 1. tit. iv. c. 1. p. 8 et scq. ; and see the whole of Placette's
** Incurable Scepticism of the Chm-ch of Rome ;" and respecting General Councils,
see Dean Sherlock's "Vindication of some Protestant Principles," &c.; both re-
printed in Gibson's Preserrative, toL iii.

184 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

writers of the first three centuries can be proved to be the oral
teaching of the Apostles by the testimony of subsequent writers,
though subsequent writers may act as a check upon those of this
period^ and may also be included for a negative testimony^ that
is, as negativing a doctrine by their silence ; for if a doctrine is
unknown to the Fathers of the first five centuries, there is still
stronger reason to suppose it to be false, than if we could only
say that it was unknown to the Fathers of the first three. The
longer the period you can include for the negative argument,
the stronger it becomes. And hence, we willingly give the
Romanists the first five or six centuries from which to prove the
doctrines in dispute between them and us. But for a positive
testimony in proof of any doctrine the case is precisely the con-
trary. Here we want respectable proof of catholic consent at a
period very near the apostolical times.

Let us observe, then, on this head,

First, and more especially, the paucity of the remains of the
primitive Church for the first three centuries.

Whatever may have been the number of writers in the Church
during the first three centuries, when we come to view the
records that actually remain to us, we shall find that we can
hardly reckon upon having one witness for a million. For who
are our witnesses for this period ? We have first, a few brief
epistles to various churches by Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius.
We have the works of Justin Martyr, Irenseus, Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen and Lactantius ; a few
small Treatises by Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Hippo-
lytus, Gregory of Neocsesarea, Minucius Felix and Arnobius.
These with a few fragments of some other authors preserved by
subsequent writers, form the sum total of our witnesses for more
than the first three hundred years. And almost all these works
are written in reply, either to the heathen opponents of Chris-
tianity, or to heresies which in the present day would be equally
despised by all parties, and consequently have a very indirect
reference to any of the disputes by which the Church is now
agitated. These, then, are to be taken, according to our oppo-
nents, as the certain representatives of the whole Church, as
equivalent to everybody always everywhere during this period.

NO DIVINB INFORMANT. 185

and hence^ as presenting us, where they agree, with a certain
record of the oral teaching of the Apostles.

Now, whether these writers do give a consentient testimony
in behalf of any doctrine, is a point which we shall discuss here-
after. But, at present, I would only submit to the reader,
whether such a claim in behalf of the few individuals above
named, namely, that their concurrent statements should be taken
as a certain record of the consent of the whole Church, and so
of the oral teaching of the Apostles, is admissible.

Consider the small number of those whom we are thus making
the uncommissioned plenary representatives of the Universal
Church for three hundred years. And that too when we know,
that they form but a very small proportion even of the writers
of those ages. For the author of the '* Synopsis of Scripture,'*
attributed by some to Athanasius, having given a list of the
canonical books of the New Testament, says, — ^^ Such are the
" books of the New Testament, those at least that are canonical,
" and as it were the first fruits or anchors and props of our
" faith, as being written and composed by the Apostles of
^^ Christ themselves, and those that associated with him, and
" were taught by him ; but afterwards, in accordance with their
*' teachings and in harmony with them, myriads of other books
*^ without number were composed by the Fathers who in their
" time were great and excelling in wisdom and taught by Grod.''^
And again, further on, he speaks of these writers as ^Wery many
and infinite in number.'*^

Is it reasonable, then, to make the testimony of the few indi-
viduals above mentioned equivalent to the " catholic consent*' of
the whole primitive Church for the first three centuries ?

For the whole of this period, be it observed, we have no re-
corded public Confessions either of churches or councils to guide

THffS ^ft&y oloy^l iKpodlyia ^ JkyKvpai ical iptUrfuvra' &5 rap' ainwv r&y &wo<rT6\w¥
rod XpurroVf rwv Kctt avyytyofx^ycoy U^lytf ical W avrov iMoBrrrtvSiyrwv ypa^hna
jvol iKr%e4yra, 'Evtlroi yt bartpoy icotA r^y ixfiywy iucoKovSlay icol avfufwytay, AXXA
/Aupla Kcd ayapldfirira fiifikla ^^eiroi^dijtroK i»rh rwy icotA Koupohs fityd\»y icol
ao<l>ofrdTwy d§wf>6pc»y varipcty. Synopsis Script. Sacr. § 4. Inter Athan. Op. cd.
Bened. vol. ii. p. 131. A, B.

' YlaLii'K6xXMy kcDl iopltrrwy, lb.

186 PATBISTICAL TRADITION

118. The utmost of this kind to be found among the records of
this period are the brief Confessions (abeady alluded to^ and
which will be considered more particularly hereafter) recorded
by Irenseus^ Tertullian and Origen^ and for which they claim the
consent of the churches founded by the Apostles.

It must be added also^ that were we to include a longer
period in our review^ so as to take in some of the Councils best
entitled to the name of General, our opponents would gain
nothing by it. For such Councils have proved themselves to be
far from infallible witnesses of the faith of the true Church by
contradicting each other. If we come to consider what Councils
we have that can make any pretences to being considered general,
we shall find that the two which can make the best claim,
namely^ those of Nice and Ariminum with Seleucia, are entirely
opposed to each other in a vital pointy and that the latter^ which
Bishop Stillingfleet calls, " the most General Council we read of
in Church history,"^ decided against the orthodox faith.

So that Augustine, when disputing with an Arian, virtually
admits, that, as far as the testimony of Councils is concerned,
his opponent's argument from the Council of Ariminum would
be as good as his own from the Council of Nice ; and, therefore,
that they must both betake themselves to the Scriptures.^

And yet, notwithstanding all this, our opponents can bring
themselves to attribute supreme authority to the witness given
by General Councils respecting the faith ; and even charge this
view upon our own Church, because of its admission of the
determinations of the first four General Councils, though it is
an indisputable fact, that we admit those Councils, not on the
ground of any intrinsic authority in the nature of their witness,
but because, on comparing it with Scripture, we judge their
witness to be correct, though it might have been otherwise*^
We may say to the Tractators, as it was long ago said by a
learned writer among us to the Romanists, — ^' If General Coun-

* Vind. of Answ. to some late papers, pp. 53, 4.

* Adv. Maxiiniii. lib. 2. c. 14. torn. viii. coL 704.

' This is made a ground of objection to us by well-informed Romanists. See
It. U.'s [i. e. Abraham Woodhead^s] Rational Account of Doctrine of Roman
Catholics concerning Guide m Controv. Disc 3. c. 4. § 40. p. 174. 2d ed. 1678.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 187

€e

€€
U

€€
€€

cils cannot err^ how come these gentlemen to be persuaded
'' that the Council of ^rtmsnum, tonsisting of about six hundred
bishops^ which also was backed by a Synod of Eastern bishops
at Seleucia^ did not discharge the Church of all obligation to
quit [? hold] the belief and profession of the Son's being
'^ consubstantial with the Father ? The second Council of
'' Ephesus had a general summons, and in respect of the number
of bishops, it was as general as Councils sometimes were
which are esteemed so, and yet we all say they erred with
" Dioscorus. And many more instances there are of this
" nature/'^

Secondly, the view we have of antiquity, in the remains of it
that are left to us, is a partial view.

When estimating the title of the Patristical writings that
remain to the character claimed for them by our opponents, we
must pursue the inquiry, not as men who have already decided
in favour of particular doctrines, not with a bias towards par-
ticular Fathers, but with a simple regard to the intrinsic value
of their testimony, apart from any consideration of the doctrine
which it supports ; for otherwise our decision will be founded
merely upon our own prejudices, and thus, though it may be
very satisfactory to ourselves, will bring no conviction to others,
and forms no sufficient foundation for our own faith. The
writings of the Tractators appear to me to be very open to cen-
sure in this respect. There is throughout them a tacit assump-
tion that such men as Ignatius and Irenseus, &c. were so excel-
lent and orthodox, that we may well abide by their decisions in
important points, as representing to us the faith of the true
Church. And this is the secret which explains all their state-
ments. But this is, in fact, an assumption of the very thing
which we profess to be seeking, namely, the orthodox faith.
How, I would ask, did we obtain this bias in favour of these
men, but from finding that they agreed upon the whole in our
view of the orthodox faith, as delivered by the Scriptures ?

' Hntchinson and Clagetf 8 Anth. of Councils, &c. pp. 7, 8 ; repr. in Bishop Gib-
son's Preservative, vol. 1. tit. 4. e. 2. p. 143. The same doctrine is maintained by
Dean Field. See his Treatise "Of the Church/' p. 861. 2d ed. 1628. And by
Bishop Jer. Taylor, in his Liberty of Prophesying, $ 6.

188 PATRI8TI0AL TRADITION

We must observe, therefore, that in the works which remain
to us, we see antiquity through the medium of those records
and writings only which the ruling party in the Church has
allowed to be preserved.

Whatever, then, may be our private view as to the effect thus
produced, and whether we consider it to have been more or less
favourable to what we hold to be the orthodox faith, it is unde-
niable, that this fact greatly affects the value of those writings as
impartial and faithful representatives of the faith of the Universal
Church. It is certain that thousands of books published in the
primitive Church have perished ; and among these the works of
all those who were condemned by any Conciliar decisions. This
is, indeed, what might be expected. The influence of the ruling
party would naturally prevail, — especially at a time when books
were not multiplied with the facility with which they now are, — •
for the gradual extinction of the writings of those who had been
publicly condemned. When Christianity came to be protected
and supported by the State, we find the ruling party in the
Church, whichever it might be, enforcing strict prohibitions,
and a rigid suppression, of the books on the other side, even
though they might have been written long before by those who
had died in the communion of the Catholic Church. Thus we
find the fifth General Council (as it is called) anathematizing
the books of three bishops, Ibas, Theodoret, and Theodorus of
Mopsuesta, all of whom had died long before in the communion
of the Catholic Church ; and on the case of one of whom,
namely Ibas, the fourth General Council had expressly passed a
different decision. And in this Council (as ^^the seventh Gre-
neral Council and all the Greek historians testify''^) the con-
demnation of Origen, who had been dead about three centuries,
was pronounced ; and this condemnation is probably the reason
why we have so few of his works remaining in the original
Greek.

And as the Church became more corrupt, the effect of these
anathemas and prohibitions, (whatever it may have been pre-

* Du Pin, wbo, however, contendii, that it was ** in the Council held in 540
under Hennas, which made a part of the fifth CoundL'* Sec Du Pin, under fifth
General CoundL

€€
€C
€€

€€

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 189

viously,) became proportionably injurious to the cause of truth,
as we see remarkably exemplified in the ninth canon of the second
Nicene Council that decided in favour of image worship, which,
as DuPin himself represents it, ^^ ordains that all the works made
against images shall be put in the palace of the Patriarch of
Constantinople, among the heretical books,*' and ** threatens
to depose or excommunicate those that shall conceal them j"^
which was in accordance with the letter of Pope Adrian to the
Council, in which (as Du Pin says) he *^ establisheth the wor-
ship of images, and affirms that the Church of Rome received it
by tradition from St. Peter ;*' and ^' proves, by a fake relation,
" that in St. Sylvester's time, St. Peter's and St. Paul's pictures
" were in the Church;"^ and accordingly his Legates required
that all the books against images should either be anathematized
or burnt. Daille, who mentions this case, justly remarks,^ that
it is probably in consequence of this anathema that we have not
the original Greek of the Epistle of Epiphanius to John of Jeru-
salem anywhere remaining, but only the Latin translation of it
by Jerome, which has been preserved to us among St. Jerome's
own letters. And hence the want of the original has been taken
advantage of by Dureus, Sanders, and Baronius, to deny that it
is a work of Epiphanius.* Such is the progress of corruption
in these matters.

So, also, Pamelius confesses that a treatise of Tertullian on
baptism was probably suppressed on account of his having there
defended the opinion that the baptism of heretics was null and
void.^

Upon this principle the Church of Rome has acted ever since,
particularly from the period of the Reformation ; at the very
dawn of which this principle of suppressing whatever might be
contrary to her views, appears to have been, as far as was in her
power, rigidly enforced ; for, at the tenth session of the fifth
Council of Lateran under Leo X., in 1515, it was ordained, in

* See Du Pin under this Council ; Can. 9.

' Du Pin, ib. on second action of the Council.
3 On the use of the Fathers, Part i. c 4.

* Sec Coci Censura in Pnuf.

» See Pamel. Annot. in Tertull. p. 650. ed. Col. Agripp. 1617.

190 PATRI8T1CAL TRADITION

the Third Constitution^ that all books printed at Borne should
be examined by the Pope's Vicar, and Master of the Holy Pa-
lace, and in other places by the Bishop and Inquisitor, under a
penalty against the printer of forfeiting the books issued with-
out such examination, (which were to be burnt,) and paying
a heavy fine; a decree which applied to the works of the
antients, as well as the modems; as appears from the &ct,
that when all the bishops present but one had assented to it,
the remaining one remarked that he assented to it as respected
new works, but not as to old. And as we are indebted almost
wholly to the Bomanists for all the earlier editions of the
Fathers, the mischief that may have been done to their remains
in this way is incalculable ; not merely by the suppression of
whole treatises, but more especially by their corruptions of the
works which they have published, which we shall notice pre-
sently.

In the Council of Trent this decree of the Lateran Coimcil
was specially recognised and enforced. And from these decrees
sprung the Prohibitory and Expurgatory Indexes with which
the world has since been favoured ; which have not spared even
the works of the antients. Dr. James tells us, that in the first
two editions of the ^^ Bibliotheca Patrum,"^ ''there are many
'' treatises which make rather against, than for them ; as well
" knew the Boman Index, which hath commanded them to be left
clean out ; and according hereto, Jhey are omitted in the last
edition of Paris ;'^^ namely, the third of 1609-10.* It was
originally designed, that the Admonitions of Agapetus should
have been among the number; but this work seems to have
been afterwards spared, on the condition of a marginal note
being affixed to an obnoxious passage, which was this : '' The
king hath no superior in the earth.^^* '' Write in the margin,^'

> By M. de la Bigne, Paris, 1575—9, 9 vols. ; and Paris, 1589, 9 vols.

> James's Corruption, &c. Part 2. n. 19. p. 214. od. 1688. These two first edi-
tions, therefore, were prohibited. See James. Index Gtsn. Libr. Prohib. Oxon. 1627,
12mo, under " Bibliotheca."

» The " auctorium " and " index ** to this third edition, were also ordered to be
expurgated in various parts. See James. Index Libr. Prohib. under "Biblio-
theca."

* Non enim liabet [i. e. Rex] in terris se qnioquam excelsius.

€€
it

((

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 191

says the Roman Index^ ^^ Understand among secular and tem-
poral dignities; for the eeclesiastical dignity is superior to
the kingly/'^ This gloss is not only contrary to the words^
but directly contradicted by several other passages of the work ;
but it will be found duly inserted in the Bibliotheca.^

We may here observe^ also^ that in the Roman Index of
1559^ we find^ among the prohibited books^ Bertram on the
body and blood of Christy the Imperfect work on Matthew^
attributed to Chrysostom, (of which their own Sixtus Senensis
says that it had been ^^ approved for ages by the common consent
of the Church/' and which had been quoted by Gratian^ Thomas
Aquinas^ the Rhemists^ and other Romanists^ as a genuine
work of Chrysostom,)* and ^'a Treatise on the true and pure
Chiurch/' "most falsely," says the Inquisitor, "ascribed to
Athanasius.'^^ As it respects the last of these, the prohibition
appears to have been but too successful, as I can find no notice
of it anywhere else ; but, in the case of the two former, it has
fortunately proved but brutum fulmen. And doubtless these
Prohibitory Indexes have been less injurious than the tacit
suppression of the works before publication; for, when once
abroad, the universal destruction of the copies was no easy
task. Of this, the Romanists have been well aware; and con-
sequently have done their best to strangle obnoxious works in
the birth. A curious case oi this kind was brought to light by
Archbishop Wake, which is throughout so illustrative of the
Romish system in this matter, that I will here present it to the
reader.

In 1548, Peter Martyr, in his dispute with Gardiner, bishop
of Winchester, concerning the Eucharist, produced a passage
from an " Epistle of Chrysostom to Csesarius," evidently over-
turning the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation, professing
that he had copied the epistle from a Florentine MS., and
placed it in the library of Archbishop Cranmer. Bishop

* Scribe ad margmem, Intcllige inter sseculares ct temporalee dignitates, nam
eoclesiastica dignitas sublimior est regia. Ind. Rom. p. 200.

' See James. lb. pp. 213, etseq.

^ James's Corruption, &c. Pt. 2. n. 2. p. 165.

* Tractatus de vera et para eoclena, D. Atbanamo fidsifl&me adscriptns.

192 PATRI8TICAL TRADITION

Gardiner, not being able to deny this, endeavoured to get over
the difficulty as weU as he could; and ascribed the epistle to
another John of Constantinople, who lived about the beginning
of the sixth century. This answer was adopted by others:
though, as the Archbishop observes, "still the argument re-
" curred upon them ; forasmuch as this other John was in the
" beginning of the sixth age ; and transubstantiation, by con-
" sequence, was not the doctrine of the Church then/* and
accordingly, the copy in Cranmer's Library being, of course,
lost in the dispersion of his books. Cardinal Perron, in his
Treatise of the Eucharist, "flatly accuses Peter Martyr of
" forgery ; and uses abundance of arguments to persuade the
" world that there never was any such epistle as had been pre-
" tended/* And so says Bellarmine.^ Thus the matter stood
till 1680, when Bigotius, having brought a copy of the epistle
from Florence, printed it with his edition of Palladius, and
strengthened it, says Dr. Wake, "with such attestations, as
show it to be beyond all doubt authentic.*' But, before the
publication of the book, this part of it was interdicted and sup-
pressed by the doctors of the Sorbonne, and ^^ the printed leaves cut
out of the book;" and "of this, the edition of Palladius of that
" year remains a standing monument, both in the preface and
" in the book.**^ However, "the very leaves cut out by those
" doctors of Mr. Bigot's preface and the epistle rased out of
" the book,'* fell into the hands of Dr. Wake, by whom they
were published in the appendix to his " Defence of the Exposi-
tion of the Doctrine of the Church of England against M. de
Meaux,** (pp. 127, et seq.) The oflFensive passage is this. I
use Dr. Wake's translation. " Before the bread is consecrated,
we call it bread ; but when the grace of God, by the priest,
has consecrated it, it is no longer called bread, but is esteemed
worthy to be called the Lord's body, although the nature of
" bread still remains in it"^

1 Nihil ejosmodi mnquam scripBisse Chrysostomum, neqne enim in toto Chry-
sostomi opere ullus est liber vel Epistola ad Cffisarium. De sacr. euchar. lib. 2.
c22.

' For the truth of which I can also testify, having a copy of the book ; which
is not, indeed, of uncommon occurrence.

* Antequam sanctiflcotur panis, panem nominamus, divina autem ilium sanc-

{{

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 193

It only remained for the Romanists that came after, to main-
tain that the whole epistle is spurious; which is accordingly
done^ without any hesitation^ by the Benedictines^ in their
elaborate edition of Chrysostom. It is with them ^^ altogether
spurious/' (omnino spuria,) written by nobody knows who;
though they admit that it is quoted as Chrysostom' s, by John
Damascen^ Anastasius the Presbyter^ Nicephorus^ and others.^

Indeed, as Archbishop Wake says, ^' So many antient authors
'' have cited it as St. Chrysostom's Epistle to Csesarius, such
" fragments of it remain in the most antient writers as authen-
'' tic ; that he who after all these shall call this piece in ques-
'' tion, may with the same reasonableness doubt of all the rest
*' of his works ; which, perhaps upon less grounds, are on all
'^ sides allowed as true and undoubted.''^ So much for the
impartiality of the Benedictines, upon whom far too much
reliance has been placed.

It is impossible, then, to consider the remains we have of the
antient ecclesiastical authors, as beyond doubt exhibiting to us
all the variations of doctrine that were to be found in the
primitive Church ; and therefore we could not regard even the
consent of those writings, as representing the catholic consent
of the whole Church. It is no aid to the cause of orthodoxy,
to put forth such a claim. It looks like a confession of weak-
ness; a desire to entrap men into a belief of doctrines, for
whose divine origin there is (as they will suppose) no sufficient
foundation.

Thirdly, the view we have of antiquity, in the remains of it
that are left to us, labours under much uncertainty, from the
way in which the works of the Fathers have been mutilated and
corrupted, and works forged in their name.

None have suffered so much in this respect as the Fathers.

tificuite gratia, mediante aacerdote, liberatus est quidem appellatione pania^
dignos autem habitus est Dominid corporis appellatione, etiamsi oatura panis in
ipso permansit. Wake's App. pp. 156, 7.

^ See Chbtsobt. Op. ed. Bened. torn. 3. Prsef. § 3. et Monit. in Ep. ad Ceiar.
pp. 737, 8.

' P. 145. This mode of getting rid of treatises in which passages obcur op-
posed to their views, has long been in common use among the Romanists. See
the Preface to Coci Censnra.

VOL. r. o

194 FATRISTICAL TRADITION

He who sits down to read the Fathers^ in order to be
guided by them to the true faith^ will find himself encumbered
at the outset with difficulties of the most formidable kind. For
if he is to take them as the ground upon which his faith is to
rest^ it is very necessary^ that the works upon which he depends,
should be really theirs ; and that they should be in the state in
which their authors left them. But as to a vast number of
these works^ he will find not only that their authors are dis-
puted^ but that they are set down by many as the forgeries of
mischievous or heretical persons ; and that many others have
been grievously corrupted, (and how far the corruption extends,
it is impossible to tell,) by the heretics in antient, and by
Romanists in modem times.

Thus, above one hundred and eighty treatises, professing to
be written by authors of the first six centuries, are repudiated
by the more learned of the Romanists themselves as, most of
them, rank forgeries ; and the others as not written by those
whose names they bear; though, be it observed, they have been,
almost all, quoted over and over again by celebrated controver-
sial writers of the Romish communion, in support of their errors
against Protestants.^

And any one who will consult the works that have been
written by Cave, Du Pin, and others, on the ecclesiastical
authors of antiquity, and particularly that of Robert Cooke on
the spurious and doubtful works attributed to the Fathers,* will
find three or four times as many more, noted as either shame-
less forgeries, or at least of very doubtful authority, and very
uncertain authorship.

So that before we commence our task, we must strike out of
our list of Patristical relics a whole mass of writings, which the
criticism of an age removed a thousand years and more from the
period when these writings profess to have been published, may
command us to reject. This, it must be admitted, is not a very
satisfactory commencement ; because we are naturally disposed
to ask, whether we can be quite sure as to the genuineness of
those that remain ; and shall, in fact, find ourselves not a little

^ See James's Corrnptioii of Fathers, &c. Part I.

' Rob. Coci Cenimra qnomndam scriptorum, &c. Lond. 1614. 4to.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 195

puzzled to know the grounds upon which some have been elimi-
nated^ and others allowed to stand, not to say that oar critics
are sometimes grievously divided among themselves ; some con-
tending stoutly for the genuineness of a piece, others as stiffly
maintaining the contrary.

But what is worse, we have also to guard against the corrup*
tions introduced into the genuine works of the Fathers. This
is an evil which it is still more difficult to remedy, especially as
it is one which has been growing since the very earliest times. We
have to deal with the corruptions both of antient and modem
times. Of these interpolations we find many complaints in the
Fathers themselves. Thus Augustine, speaking of a charge of cor-
ruption brought 'against the works of Cyprian, says, — " For the
" integrity and a knowledge of the writings of any one bishop,
^' however illustrious, could not be so preserved, as the canonical
'' Scripture is preserved by the variety of the languages in which
'' it is found, and by the order and succession of its rehearsal in
'' the Church ; against which nevertheless there have not been
wanting those who have forged many things under the names
of the Apostles. To no purpose indeed, because it was so in
esteem, so constantly read, so well known. But what such
'' boldness could do in the case of writings not supported by
" canonical authority, is proved by the impiety with which it
'^ has not even refrained from exerting itself against those that
" are supported by a knowledge so universal.'^^ This testimony
is the more observable, because it shows, that in Augustine^s
view, the Holy Scriptures stand upon very di£ferent groimd in
this respect from the writings of the Fathers, and that we may
justly fear corruptions in the latter to which the former are,
from the circumstances of the case, in an infinitely smaller
degree liable.

^ "Keqne enim sic potuit integritas atque notitia litteramm unitis quamlibet
iUustaiB episoopi costodiri, quemadmodum Scriptura canonica tot linguarum
litteris et ordine et sucoessione celebrationis ecdesiasticss custoditur, contra quam
tamen non defhenint qui sub nominibus apoetolomm multa confingcreut. Frustra
qnidem, quia ilia sic commendata, sic celebrata, sic nota est ; vemm quid possit
adyersom litteras non canonica auctoritate fundatas etiam hinc demonstravit im-
piiB oonatus audacise, qaod et adversum cas quse tanta notitifl) uiolc firmatse sunt
sese erigere non praDtermisit." August. Ep. ad Vincent. Rogat. ep. 93. Op. torn,
it ool. 246, 7, ed. Bened. Paris.

O 2

<€
i€
€€

196 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

i(
t(

€(
€(
{{

So great,'* says Isidorus Hispalensis, *' is the canning of
the heretics, that they mix falsehood with truth, and evil
things with good, and generally insert the poison of their
error in things that are salutary, that they may more easily
insinuate their wicked error under the appearance of the
truth. The heretics generally indite their doctrines under
** the name of the catholic doctors, that, being read without
question, they may be believed. Sometimes also they deceit-
fully insert their blasphemies in the books of our doctors,
" and corrupt the true doctrine by adulteration, namely, either
'* by adding what is impious or taking away what is agreeable
'' to the faith. We must cautiously meditate upon, and test
" with careful discrimination, what we read, that, according to
'^ the apostolic admonition, we may both hold fast that which is
'^ good, and oppose that which is contrary to the truth ; and so
" take instruction from the good as to remain uninjured by the
" evil.^'i

So also it is said by Anastasius Sinaita, — " The Catholics of
'^ Alexandria told me, that after the times of the blessed
" Eulogius the Pope [i. e. Patriarch of Alexandria] , there was
'* a certain Augustan prefect there, a follower of Severus, who
" for a long time had fourteen amanuenses of like mind with
^' himself, to sit down at his command and falsify the books

" containing the doctrines of the Fathers, and especially those
"of the holy Cyril." 2

^ ** Tanta est hseretioonim calliditas, at falsa veris, malaqne bonis permisoeant,
Balutaribusque rebus plemmqae erroris sui Tirus mterserant, quo fificilius poflsint
pjavitatem perversi dogmatis sub specie persuadere veritatis. Plerumque sub
nomine catholicorum doctorum bseretici sua dicta conscribunt, ut indubitanter
lecta credantur. Nonnunquam etiam blaspbemias suas latenti dolo in libris nos-
tromm inserunt, doctrinamque veram adulterando corrumpunt ; scilicet vel ad-
jidendo quad impia sunt, vel auferendo quse pia sunt. Caute meditanda, cautoque
sensu probanda sunt, quae leguntur, ut, juxta Apostolica monita, et teneamus qusB
recta sunt, et refutemus qute contraria veritati existunt, sioque in bonis instm-
amur, ut a malis illsBsi permaneamus/' Isidob. Hibp. Sentent. lib. 3. c. 12. Op.
torn. vi. p. 294, 5. ed. Rom. 1797 et seq.

2 ^vifyovvro rotwy iifjuy ot rrjs KoBoKucris iKKKritrlas iv * hXt^avZpit^j tri, fierii
Tohs XP^^^^^ '''^^ fxcucaptov Eif\oylov rov Udira, y4yoy4y ris Airyowmbuos irravOa
2cvcp(ay<{f , ical M iKoyobs xp^^^^ ^<^X« ^^ KoXXiyp^jpovs (rifi^povas owrov, iccrr'
iirirpow)iv ahrov Ka0€(ofi€yovSt Koi ^aXfrtioyras rb,s filfi\ovs r&y ioyfidrwr rvv iru-
rtpwy^ fcal fid^iffra rij rov irylov KuplKXov. Anastas. Sllf AIT. Viae dux. c 10.
p. 198. ed. Ingolst. 1606. 4to.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 197

Of the partisans of Dioscorus it is said in the letter of the
monks of Palestine, preserved by Evagrius, that they had fre-
quently corrupted the works of the Fathers, and had attached
the names of Athanasius, Gregory Thaumaturgus and Julius to
many of the works of ApoUinarius.^

It would be easy to add other passages of a similar nature.
But we will proceed to point out some particular instances.

Of the Constitutions of Clement of Rome, it is complained by
the Quinisext Council, that certain corruptions of the true faith
had been introduced into them by heretical persons, which had
obscured the beautiful character of the divine ordinances.* The
same is said of the ^'Recognitions'^ attributed to him, by
Bufinus,^ Photius,^ and Epiphanius.^

That the epistles ascribed to Ignatius were corrupted by
heretics, we have proof in the variations of the copies still
extant of them. Into the question, to what extent they have
been corrupted, and what parts or epistles are genuine, I do not
here enter.

In the same case, probably, are the " Shepherd '* of Hermas,
and the Epistle of Barnabas ; and hence by some they are wholly
rejected as spurious, while by others, as Archbishop Wake, &c.
they are defended as the true productions of those apostolical
men ; and certainly a book under the former title, and con-
taining passages to be found in that we now have, is quoted
with the greatest respect by Irenseus, Clement of Alexandria,
Origen, and others. As it now stands, however, it is disfigured
by passages hardly reconcileable with the orthodox faith.

Nay, of one of the most valuable remains of antiquity we
possess, the work of Irenseus against heresies, we are warned

' Kai yiip ical \6yovs xardpctv xoWdxts yeyoBt^Kturif xoWohs 9h 'AiroKivaplov
XAyovs *A$ayaa'iqf ical Tpviyopitf r^ ^aufuerovpy^ ical *lov\ltp 8iik r&v hriypa^v
iLnersefUeuriy, EvAGB. Scholabt. Hist. EccL lib. iii. c. 31. ed. Beading. 1720.
inter Hist. Eccl. iii. 363. See also Leont. BxzAyT. Adv. ApoUinarist. in Canis.
Antiq. Lect. torn. iv. pt. 1. p. 105. or in Biblioth. Patr. torn. xii. p. 701. ed.
Galland.

' ATj ruri ird\cu ^h ray lrcpo8<^|c»v, M \vfi7i rris 'EKK\ri(riaSy y60a riyd fccJ
^4ya rTJs tdfftfitias irap€y^40Tj(rayt rh €^p€'irhs KtiWos ruy Btiwv Zoyftdrwy rjfuy
iifiovp^curra' QuiNiSEXT. CoNCFL. Can. 2. — Concil. ed. Labb. et Cos*. Paris.
1671. torn. vi. col. 1139; or, ed. Hardouin. torn. iii. col. 1660.

» Ap. Hieron. in libr. Contr. Buf. Hb. ii. § 17. Op. torn. u. col. 507.

* Biblioth. c. lid. coL 289. ed. 1653. * Adv. hser. in bar. 30. voL i. p. 139.

198 PATKI8TICAL TRADITION

by our present learned Bishop of Lincoln^ " we should always
*' bear in mind^ that far the greater portion of the work of
'^ Irenseus is extant only in a barbarous Latin translation,
'* which lies under heavy suspicions of interpolation/'^

The boldness of these corrupters of the writings of the
Fathers may be conceived from the fact that they did not spare
an author's works, even in his own lifetime ; witness the com-
plaint of Dionysius of Corinth: "I wrote some epistles,*' he
says, " at the request of the brethren, but the ministers of the

devil filled them with tares ; taking away some things and

adding others; for whom woe is reserved."*

That the " Hypotyposes" of Clement of Alexandria were thus
corrupted, can hardly be doubted by any one who reads the
account given of them by Photius, who himself supposes it to
have been the case.^

On this ground, as is well known, Rufinus endeavours to
defend the writings of Origen, viz. that they had been grievously
corrupted by heretics, an apology however which Jerome would
not receive ; and therefore we will only refer the reader to the
contest between Jerome and Rufinus on this point, where he
will also meet with many observations illustrative of this sub-
ject.^ And it is somewhat remarkable, that so little was Jerome
acquainted with the fact, now contended for, of there being catho-
lic consent among all the writers of the early Church on all impor-
tant points, that (rejecting the supposition so convenient for such
a hypothesis, that, wherever they had spoken incorrectly, their
writings had been falsified by the heretics,) he does not scruple
to say, — ^^ It may happen that either they absolutely erred, or
'* wrote with another meaning, or their writings were by degrees
'^ corrupted by imskilful copyists. Or, at any rate, before the

rise of that meridian daemon Arius in Alexandria, they spoke

some things innocently and incautiously."^

€€

1 On the writings of Tertnllian, 2d ed. p. 90. note, (3d ed. p. 83.)
' *Eirt<rroAAf yh^, iZeKipwv it^iwrdyrotv fit ypd^cuy f/fMnf^o, ical ra^cv ol rov 9mi-.
fi6Kov it,T6<rTo\oi (i(atflwy y^4iuKcaf' h fihf i^cupovyrts, A 9h Tpo<m$4yTtr oTs
rh oind Kurcu, EuBEB. Hist. Eccl. iv. 23. ed. Reading. 1720. i. 187.
» Phot. Biblioth. c. 109. ed. 1653. col. 285.

* See HiXBOK. Contra Rufin., and Rxjpik. ApoL apnd Hieron. Opera.

* " fieri enim potett, nt vel slmpliciter erraverint, yel alio sensu scripserinty vel

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 199

One things however^ seems quite certaiD^ and that is^ that the
Latin translations of the Greek Fathers^ by Rufinus, are not to
be tmsted. He is clearly convicted by Jerome, of having both
published the first book of Eusebius's six books of the defence
of Origen, under the name of Pamphilus the Martyr, in order to
obtain greater respect for it, and of having altered the sense of
various passages, so as to make them speak the language of the
Nicene Creed.^ I say clearly convicted, for Rufiinus, in his
reply, does not attempt to deny it. He is charged with doing
the same in his translations of the works of Origen, in order to
make them consonant with the orthodox faith ; and as far the
greater part of what we possess of Origen^s works remains to us
only in his translations, we have but little of Origen that we can
at all depend upon. The translations of Rufinus are given up
by all parties as wholly unworthy of credit.^ Such adulterations
of the works of the Fathers, therefore, were not all on the side
of the heretics.

Another instance is recorded by Cyril of Alexandria, in the
case of the epistle of Athanasius to Epictetus, Bishop of Corinth.
Writing to John of Antioch, Cyril remarks, — " Having learnt
that some have published in an adulterated form the epistle
of our illustrious Father Athanasius to the blessed Epictetus,
so that many may be injured thereby, we have thought it
" useful and necessary to the brethren to send your holiness a
transcript from some antient and incorrupt copies that are pre-
served by us.'^^ And again, to Acacius he writes, — " Paul,
Bishop of Emisa, asked me very earnestly whether I assent to
" what was written by our celebrated and most blessed Father

a libnriui imperitis eomm paulatim scripta cormpta sint. Vel oerte anteqnam
in Alexandria quasi dsmoniam meridianum Arius nascoretur, innooenter qtuBdam
et minus caute loquuti sont." HiSBOir. Contr. Rof. lib. iL § 17. Op. torn. iL
oqL608,9.

» See HiEBON. Contr. Rufin. lib. i. $ &— 10, and lib. iii. § 12.

• See HuBTii Origen. lib. iii. c 1, § 3, et pasmm ; and Cavb, sub nom. Rufinm,

• 'EirciS^ tk fi€fjLa$^KatitVf tri ical r^v Tphs rhv fuucdpiov *Eirl#mrrov fwtaroXiiv
rod Toytv^fJLOv xarrpbt ^fJL&v *A$ayaa'ioVt bpBM^tos Hx^^^^'^^y xapa^tip€arr4s riyts
MtiiiKaa'iv, &s itntdOtv &6uc€7<r0cu iroAAo^s, Ziii rovro xp^o-tfUv ri koI &i^ay«ccuoy
hrawiwrts rois a8cX^7f, i^ hvriypij^v iipxidctyt ruv xap' ^fuv, Kcd awX&s
ix^'^^"* ^xtartikofMy rit 7<ra rp (rp 6a't6niTi. Cfbill. Aubx. Epist. ad Jobann.
Antioch. Op. torn. t. Fbrt. 2. inter Ejust. p. 109. A, B.

€t

€€
it

200 PATRI8T1CAL TBADITION

'' Athanasius to Epictetus, Bishop of Corinth. I replied, ' If
" you have the epistle in an nncorrupt state, (for many things in
" it have been falsified by the enemies of the truth,) I assent to
'' it altogether, and in every point/ He replied that he had the
" epistle, and would be glad to be assured by my copies, and
'' ascertain whether his own copies were corrupted or not. And
^^ having taken the antient copies, and compared them with
" those he had brought, he found that his were adulterated, and
" advised me to make transcripts from our copies, and send
" them to the church of Antioch, which also was done/' ^ He
repeats this statement in his first and second letters to Snccensus,
in the former attributing the corruption to the followers of
Nestorius.^

In the second of these letters to Succensus also, he cautions
him that if any carried about a letter purporting to be written
by that most pious presbyter of the Church of Rome, Philip, and
intimating that the most holy Bishop Xystus was grieved at the
deposition of Nestorius and assisted him, he was not to believe
it ; or if a letter was brought to him, purporting to be written
by himself, (namely Cyril,) and intimating his regret at what
he had done at Ephesus, he was only to laugh at it :^ which
evidently shows that such letters were being then circulated.

That the works of Cyril were corrupted after his death we have
several testimonies. Dioscorus, his successor in the See of Alex-
andria, is evidently considered as having adulterated them by Le-
on tins of Byzantium.^ And Nicephorus Callistus tells us, that
^lurus, who forced himself into the See of Alexandria in the times
of the Emperor Leo, " is said to have corrupted many of the

^ *Eir\(rKoiros TlavKos riis *Efu<rriy&y .... HieirvyBdyrrS fiov, Kcd fuiKa ia-mvUacr'
/A^KCDf, c^ ovvcuyw To7s yp€Uf>€i(ri iroipii rod rris &oi9(fxov fiy)ifiris Kid rpurfuueapiov
xeerphs iifi&y 'hOavauriov irpbs *Ex\icTriToy Mancoroy rrjs Kopiy$iofy, *E7flb 8^ f<f>V
Znriy tl ird»^<prai irap* vfjuy oil y€yoO€Vfi4yoy rh ypiififia' irapcareK-oi'riTcu yhp r&y 4w
tdir^ xoXXh xapii rS>y r^y hXriBtias ix^P^^ avycuy^trcufu &y ir^trrp re ical Tian-ats,
*0 8^ irphs rovTo t^cuTKtyy fx*'^ i*-^^ >^^ ahrhs r^y hrurroX^Vy fioh\€<r$ai 8i koI ^k
ray irctp* ^fuy iurriypd^y irkrifM^fniOriyai, «cal tiaBuy^ ir6ir%p6y irorc r^ axn&y
fiifiXia TapTKoiri&rjy fl /i^. Kol 8^ koI kafiiiiy iun-typculKt iroAola, «cal ots lw€<f>4prro
avfifiaXioyf Ji^pitrKf ravra y€y(^tvfi4ya' jco) trpoirpr^w in r&y irop* ijfuy fiifixiwy
ttra iroi^ffcu, iriiv^al re rp 'Ayriox^t^y iiacXfitrlq.' h 8^ Kcii ytyoyt, Cybill. Alex.
Epifit. ad Acadum Melitanse epsc. — Op. torn. y. part 2. inter £p. p. 120. A, B, C.

9 lb. pp. 140 and 151. * » lb. p. 151.

* De Sectis Act. 8. fin.— Biblioth. Patr. ed. Galland. torn. xii. p. 652.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 201

" writiijgs of the divine Cyril^ not published abroad^ and to have
'' inserted in them false doctrines/^ ^ The same is intimated^
as we have already observed^ by Anastasius Sinaita ;^ who also
gives an instance of such corruption as occurring in the first
Epistle to Succensus, where the words being bvo ra^ (pvorcis e&ai
i^aiikv, they had been in most copies altered^ and he tells us^
that in only one copy shown him by the Librarian at Alexandria^
did he find the correct reading, the rest being all altered ;
some reading hio <f>vcr€is fjviocrOai <f)afj,iv, others^ bvo Ta9 (t>v(r€is
iwo€X<r6ai t^taiUv,^ Consequently, it may be doubted, whether
our reading in the present day, which is, hvo rhs (pvcret^ ehai
ifKLfiiv Tciy kvuiO^icras,* is the genuine reading, and if so, we have
he\Q an instance how easily we may be deceived in such a
matter.

The same Anastasius mentions a corruption in the works of
Ambrose, where, for, "let us observe the difference of the
divinity and the flesh,'* had been substituted, "let us observe
the difference of the reading.*'^ The passage as we now have
it in the works of Ambrose^ presents us with the true reading.®

In the sixth Council, Macarius and his colleagues were con-
victed not only of corrupting the testimonies they brought
from the Fathers,^ but also of circulating corrupt copies of the
Acts of the fifth Coimcil.®

And these forgeries appear to have been committed some-
times upon a large scale. Witness the book of Basil on the
Holy Spirit^ of which it is justly suspected, that a large portion
of the latter part, containing more than half of the whole, has
been added by another. This was first noticed by Erasmus, and
in his judgment our two learned prelates Jeremy Taylor and

' A4yercu fiiiv iroXXh rovroy Mira rhy AX\ovpoy rS»y (TxrfYpatiijJerDty rov Octov
KvplWov fiiprv u(nr\drus iicZoOiyrwy^ Zia\vfi7iydff0ait y6Ba roinois iwunrtipayra
Uy/wra. NiCEPH. Hist. EccL lib. xv. c 16. ed. Lutet. 1630. torn. 2. p. 613.

' See page 196 above. ' In eod. loc.

* See Cybil. Albx. Op. ed. Aubert. torn. v. Part 2. inter Epist. p. 137. E.

* *Ayr\ Tov, <pv\d^o»fi€y r^y ^uupopiuf rrjs B^Sm^os icol rr\s (rapichs, pv\di«»fi€y
r^y iuufwpiuf rris ivcryvcwcrewj. An AST. SlNAIT. Viae dux, c. 10. p. 200.

* ** Servemus distinctionem divinitatis et carnis." Ahbbos. De fide, lib. ii. o. 9.
par. 77. Op. torn. ii. col. 485.

7 Ck>vciL. Sext. Act. 8 and 9.
» lb. Act. 14.

202 FATRI8TICAL TRADITION

Stillingfleet fully coincide ; the former stating, that the last fif-
teen chapters ^^ were plainly added by another hand,"^ and the
latter, that besides the evidence from the connexion and style of
the parts, so we must suppose it to be, if we think that St. Basil
'^ would not utter palpable and evident contradictions in his
writings," his testimony here respecting traditions being totally
contradictory to several passages in his acknowledged works.*
And this judgment is further confirmed by Bishop Patrick in
his Answer to the Touchstone, and by the learned Robert Cooke.*
And as Bishop Stillingfleet justly observes, '^Erasmus was not
'' the first who suspected corruption in St. Basil's writings*
" For Marcus Ephesius in the Florentine Council, (Act. 20.)
'' charged some Latinizing Greeks with corrupting his books
'^ against Eunomius, protesting that in Constantinople there
i* were but four copies to above one thousand which had the
*' passages in them which were produced by the Latins.'**

Other instances might easily be adduced.^ And against the
corruptions of antient times we have scarcely any defence,
except that which is founded upon criticism and conjecture,
grounds far too insecure to build faith upon.

Nor must we omit to observe, that these antient corrupters
of the Fathers have had their imitators in later times, whose
frauds, though certainly more open to detection by us than those
of antient times, have not always been easy to be discovered.

I will not here enter upon the various charges, mutually made
against each other by the Greeks and Latins, of corrupting the
Fathers to speak their sense,* except to notice that not even
the Creed has escaped ; witness the dispute as to the phrase
^^filioque/' of such importance in the doctrine of the procession
of the Holy Ghost, which the Greeks charge the Latins with
adding, and the Latins charge the Greeks with abstracting, so
that, be it as it may, on one side or the other a fraud has been
committed.

1 Lib.ofProph.§8.

s Rationiil Aoooimt, &c ed. 1666, pp. 248, 4.

' Cexumra Qaonmdam Scriptonxm. Lond. 1614. 4to. pp. 120 et seq.

* Ratioiml Aooonnt, &c p. 243.

* Several are mentioned by Daill^ On the true use of the Fathers, Fart 1. c 4.

* See particularly the difcnsnons in the Conncil of Florence.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 203

Bat I will rather notice the performances of the Romanists
of this kind^ which may seem more especially to affect us.

Their corruption of St. Cyprian's treatise " On the Unity of
the Church/' in the edition by Manutius published at Rome in
1564, under the sanction of the Pope^ and afterwards followed
by Pamelius, is so well known^ that I need hardly dwell long
upon it here. It is fully stated by James in his work on this
subject/ and is thus briefly noticed by Bishop Taylor : " The
" third chapter of St. Cyprian's book ' On the Unity of the
'' Church/ in the edition of Pamelius^ suffered great alteration.
*' These words, primatus Petro datwr, ' the primacy is given to
'* St. Peter,' wholly inserted ; and these, super cathedram Petri
^'fundata est ecclesia, ' the church is founded upon the chair
'' of St. Peter :' and whereas it was before, super unum adificat
" ecclesiam Christus, ^ Christ builds his Church upon one,' that
** not being enough, they have made it, stqter ilium unum, ' upon
^* that one.' Now these additions are against the faith of all old
copies before Manutius and Pamelius, and against Gratian,
even after himself had been chastised by the Roman correctors,
the commissaries of Gregory XIII., as is to be seen where these
words are alleged, Decret. c. 24. q. 1. can. Loquitur Dominus
'* ad Petrum. So that we may say of Cyprian's works, as
'' Pamelius himself said concerning his writings and the writings
'* of other of the Fathers ; saith he, * Whence we gather that
*' the writings of Cyprian and others of the Fathers are in
*' various ways corrupted by the transcribers.' (Cypriani scripta
'^ ut et aliorum Yeterum a librariis varie fuisse interpolata.
" Annot. in Cypr. super Concil. Carthag. n. 1.)"^

In the same place, the bishop, like James,^ notices a similar
corruption introduced by Gratian, who quoting that passage of
Ambrose, '' They do not hold the inheritance of Peter who have
not the/ai7A of Peter," (non habent Petri haereditatem qui non
habent Petri fidem,) quotes it as, '^ They do not hold the inhe-
ritance of Peter who hold not the seat of Peter" (for fidem
substituting sedem).

^ TreatiBe of the Comiption of Scriptorey Councils, and Fathers, hy the Fo-
lates, &c of the Church of Borne. Bfft 2. pp. 113—160. ed. 1688.
' Liberty of Prophes. $ 8. fin.
* Comiption of SS. &c. Bfft 2. n. 28. p. 222. ed. 1688.

t€
tt

204 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

So again^ in that passage of Augustine^ ^' In reckoning the
'^ canonical Scriptures^ let a man follow the authority of the
'' greatest number of catholic Churches, among which truly are
'^ those which deserved both to have the seats of the Apostles,
'* and to receive their Epistles/'^ the latter part is quoted by
Gratian in the Canon Law as, '^ among which Scriptures those
'' Epistles must be reckoned which the Apostolic See hath, and
" others have deserved to receive from her /'^ and to it is pre-
fixed the title, ^^ The decretal Epistles are reckoned among the
Canonical Scriptures,''^ to lead the reader to suppose that Augus-
tine refers in these words to the Decretal Epistles of the Popes.*

In such corruptions, however, none seem to have outdone
Pamelius. We have already noticed those which are to be found
in Cyprian's Treatise, '^ On the Unity of the Church,'' in his
edition. Another instance occurs in Cyprian's Tract, " On the
Advantage of Patience," where, for the words, after the reception
of the eucharist (post gustatam eucharistiam), we find, after the
carrying about of the eucharist (post gestatam eucharistiam), to
maintain the Romish custom of the circumgestation of the
eucharist.^ So in his fortieth Epistle of this edition, we have
petram, the rock, changed into Petrum, Peter. And though the
Epistle of Firmilian is admitted on account of its having been
already published, so that it was of no use to try to suppress it,
Pamelius very candidly admits that he wishes it had never been
published, and that probably Manutius intentionally omitted it
in his edition of Cyprian.^ And certainly Romanists are not
likely to be much gratified with an Epistle written in the third
century, in which it is stated, that, ^' Anybody may know that
'' those at Rome do not in all things observe those things that

^ '* In canonidfl aatem Scriptnrb Eodesiarom catholicarmn quamplmiiim ancto-
ritatem seqnatur, inter qnas sane ills nnt, qnse apostolicas sedes habere et
Epstolas aodpere meroenmt." August. De Boct. Christiana^ lib. ii. c 8. Op.
torn. iii. col. 23.

' " Inter qnas sane illse sint, quas Apostolica sedes habere, et ab ea aUi mem-
enint aodpere epistolas." Decret. Pt. L dist. 19. c 6. In Canonici^. CofiP. JUB.
Cak. Lugd. 1624. torn. L coL 83.

' " Inter canonicas Scripturas Decretales Epistolse connmnerantur." lb.

* James's Corruption, &c. Part 2. n. 7. p. 185.
' Jakes, ib. p. 239.

* " Fortassis oonsoltiiis fbret, ntmqaam editam ftusse hanc epistolam, ita ut pntem
oonsnlto illam omisiaBe Manntimn." Argom. ad epst. 75. These two cases are
noticed by Daille, lib. i. c 4.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 205

'^ were delivered from the beginnings and vainly pretend aposto-
'' lical authority/'^

Another remarkable instance occurs in Tfirtullian^ where^
until Rigaltius had the honesty to give the passage as he foimd
it in the MSS., an important testimony was altogether lost
through the falsification introduced into it. The passage occurs
in his ^^Exhortation to Chastity^'' where^ according to the
reading given by Rigaltius from the MSS., we read, ''Where
" there is no assembly of the ecclesiastical order, you [speaking
" to a layman] both offer [i. e. in the eucharist] and baptize,
" and are alone a priest to yourself/'^ which passage has been
corrupted into the following, — " Where there is an assembly of
'' the ecclesiastical order, the priest, who is there alone, both
" offers and baptizes,''^ which is altogether incongruous with
the context, and turns the whole passage into nonsense ; but it
was preferable to make Tertullian speak nonsense, than utter
such a testimony as his real words give us. To the testimony
supplied in these words we shall have occasion to advert here-
after.

In the Roman editions of the Fathers by Manutius, various
instances of the same kind might be pointed out* What, indeed,
could be expected from one who professes to have received a
charge from the Pope to print them " so corrected that there
may be no error remaining, which, by holding out the ap-
pearance of false doctrine, can influence the minds of the
simple ^'?^ It was his duty to print them as he found them;

€t

^ ** Eos autem qui Roms sunt non ea in omnibus observare quad sunt ab origine
tradita, et firustra Apostolomm auctoritatem pnetcndcre, scire qnis etiam inde
potest, quod drca oelebrandos dies peschse, et circa multa alia divinsB rei sacra-
menta, videat esse apud illos aliquas diversitates, nee observari illic omnia Kqualiter
qu» Hierosolymis observantur." Fibmil. Ep. ad Cypr. — Inter Cypr. Op. ed.
FeU. Epist. 75. Pt. 2. p. 220.

< '* Ubi Ecdesiastid Ordinis non est consessus, et offers et tinguis et saoerdos es
tibi solus.** Tebtull. De exhort, cast. c. 7. p. 522. ed. 1664.

* " Ubi Ecdesiastid Ordinis est consessus, et offcrt et tinguit saocrdos qui est
ibi solus." See the editions of Pamelius. I quote from that of Col. Agripp. 1617,
To whom the corruption may be due, it is impossible precisely to say, but Pamelius»
in his note, admits that he struck out the " mm.**

* ** Sic emendati, ne qua supersit bibes quse imperitorum animos objecta fidsso
doctriuse spede possit mficere." Manutu Pnef. ad Pium 4m. in lib. Poli De
Concil.

if
ft
fr
ff
ft

206 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

instead of which, he makes a boast of suppressing all which was
reckoned at Rome false doctrine. It was in conformity, I sup-
pose, with these directions, that he left out, as Pamelius tells
us, the letter of Firmilian to Cyprian, and introduced the cor-
ruptions we have already noticed in his edition of Cyprian's
treatise *'0n the Unity of the Church/' Well may the
Romanists, with such editors, boast of having all the Fathers
on their side.

. Another of his ''emendations," occurring in the works of Gre-
gory the Great, is thus noted by Dr. James. The genuine passage
is this : " All things that were foretold are come to pass. The
king of pride is near ; and (which is a wickedness to name) a
whole host of priests is provided to attend his coming. (Sacer-
dotum ei prseparatur exercitus.) For they also march with
as proud a countenance as he, which were appointed to be
examples of meekness and humility to others."^ ''The
Roman edition, with sundry others," says Dr. James, "read
" most absurdly, contrary to the faith of the MSS. and the cir-
" cumstance of the place, sacerdotum est praparatus exitus**
" The king of pride is near. And (which is a wickedness to
" name) when he comes, the priests shall be executed and put to
" death** " Whereas," says Dr. James, " the word militant, do
march, in the next words, makes the matter clear on our side
against them. For if they were put to death, how should
" they walk up and down ? unless they did as St. Denis is said
" to have done, that carried his head in his hand ; and yet
" methinks a more modest gait than Gregory speaks of should
" have become them. Add hereunto that the epistle is written
" to tax the pride of a bishop (John of Constantinople, which
" took upon him the title of universal bishop) and not of a
king, of the clergy and not of the laity. Lastly, to make the
matter sure, all the MSS. that I could yet procure or get into
my hands, (that is seven MSS.,) do read exercitus and not
" exitus" And he adds, that, for '^ citing these words truly,"

^ " Omnia qus prsodicta snnt; fiunt. Bex gaperbiae prope est ; et, quod diet
nefiiB est, sacerdotum ei prroparatur exercitus ; quia oervid militant elationis qui
positi fVierant ut ducatum prseberent himiilitatis." Oreo. Magn. Epist. lib. 4.
Ind. 13. £p. 38. as quoted by James. — Oper. ed. Ben. lib. y. Ind. 13. Ep. 18.

€<
€(
t€

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 207

BiBhop Jewell had been '' traduced and slandered among the
Papists^'' as one who had misquoted Gregory to serve his pur-
pose;^ a very apt specimen of Popish dealings, first to publish
coirnpted editions of the Fathers themselves, and then charge
others with misquoting them, if they swerve from that corrupted
text. One thing more we may observe from the genuine passage
of Gregory; namely, that he held the assumption of the title of
universal bishop to be a mark of antichrist. Would that his
successors had been of his mind !

Another instance, apparently, of such corruptions, and one
which remains in the Popish editions to this day, occurs in the
works of Augustine, in a passage much quoted by the Romanists
in support of their notions of tradition. Augustine, speaking
of baptism, says, according to the reading of three MSS. at
Oxford,^ — *' The custom of our mother the Church in baptizing
" infants is rtoi to be despised, nor by any means to be thought
superfluous, nor at all to be believed to be anything but an
apostolic tradition/'^ And this agrees with what he says
elsewhere on this subject, where, speaking of infant baptism as
having been always practised in the Church, he says, " That
'' which the universal Church holds, and was not instituted by
" Councils, but has always been retained, is most rightly
" believed to have been delivered by no other than apostolical
" authority.''* How far this rule is admissible, is a question
into which I do not here enter. But the meaning of Augustine
in both these passages is clear. The former passage, however,
has been corrupted by the Romanists, by the addition of a
letter to one word, into this ; '' The custom of our mother the
Church in baptizing infants is not to be despised, nor by any
means to be thought superfluous, nor at all to be believed, were

€€

ti
it

^ Jahss's Corruption, Ac Part. 2. n. 26. pp. 230 et seq.

* lb. Pt. 2. n. 4. pp. 177 et seq.

* " Consaetudo matrifl ccclesias in baptizandis parvnlis neqnaqnam spemonda
eat, neque uUo modo snperfloa deputanda, nee omnino credcnda niai apostolica esse
traditio." August. De Genes, ad Ut. lib. 10. c. 23.

* " Qnod universa tenet ecclcsia, nee conciliis institntmn, sed semper retentnm
est, non nisi auctoritate apostolica traditum rectisnme creditur." August. De
bapt contr. Donat. lib. 4. c. 23. Op. torn. ix. ooL 140.

€€
€€
tt

208 PATBISTICAL TRADITION*

" it not an apostolical tradition J^^ And so it remains to this day
in the Benedictine edition, without even the slightest intimation of
the MSS. having any other reading. And hence the passage is
quoted by Romish controversialists^ as showing that in Augus-
tine's opinion, infant baptism ought not to be believed at all
but for tradition^ and therefore cannot be proved from Scrip-
ture,* which is clearly contrary to Augustine's own remarks
elsewhere ; and so this passage was to stand as a proof that for
some points of the highest importance we must go to tradition,
and cannot get any sufficient proof from Scripture.^

Again ; the following passage of (Ecumenius has been alto-
gether omitted in the printed editions. " For those who favour
the Law introduced even the worship of angels, because
through them the Law was given ; and this custom remained
in Phrygia, so that the Council of Laodicea made a decree,
prohibiting the making addresses and praying to angels;^
" whence also there were many temples among them erected to
" the archangel Michael/'^ This passage David Hoeschelius,
in his notes on the work of Origen against Celsus, testifies that
he himself had seen in the MSS. of (Ecumenius.®

Nay, they are not contented with leaving obnoxious passages
out of their printed copies, but will even blot them out of the
MSS. where they have the opportunity. Thus, when that
famous passage in the " Imperfect work on Matthew,'^ attri-

> ** CoDSuetudo matris ecdesise, &c. (as above) . . . nee omnino credenda nisi
apostolica esset traditio." Op. torn. iii. coL 272.

3 As by the Rhemists in their notes on 2 Thess. ii. 15, and the author of ** The
grrounds of the old religion and the new," (see James, p. 180,) and by the answerer
of Archbishop Laud. (See Stilling^eet's Rational Account, &c p. 108.)

* See James, ib. This corruption was first suspected by Bishop Bilson, partly
by the course of the sentence, and partly by a comparison with other places, and,
upon referring to the MSS., Dr. James ascertained that the suspidon was weU
founded. How is it that these valuable MSS. of the Fathers have been so little
used, and that we have been left by the possessors of them, though with a " Cla-
rendon Press " at hand, to the tender mercies of Bonush editors for almost all the
editions of the Fathers we possess ?

* Bee Concil. Laod. Can. 35. Cod. Can. Eccl. Univ. Can. 139.

' 'Ot yiip ry yS/Jup cvvrtyopoinnts iced rohs hyyihovs <r4fi(iy tlffrfyouyro, 5t« Ji*
aibr&y iced 6 y6fios ii6$ii, ''Efi€iyf Si rovro Korh ^pvyiay rh fBos, &s iced r^y iy
Aao8ticc(f fr6yoZoy y6fjup KwK^fftu rh lepocrUycu iyy4\ois, iced irpoafi&xfo^cu, *A^* oZ
/red yaol irap* afrrois rov ^x^f^^^'^'TX^*^ Mtxa^^ iroAAoh

* See Daille, lib. i. c. 4.

NO DIVINB INFORMANT. 209

bated to Chrysostom^ in which it is said — ^that there should
oome a time when the Church being corrupted men should be
utterly unable to find the true Church but by the Scriptures^
and should perish if they took anything else for their guide^ —
IB urged against Bellarmine^ he very coolly replies^ that that
whole passage had evidently been inserted by the Arians^ and
had been removed from some MSS. that had been lately cor-
reded} And aiScordingly in the edition printed at Paris, 1557,
8vo. it is altogether omitted.^

Fifty examples of this kind are noted by Dr. James/ to which
he tells us he might have added hundreds more.

Their forgeries and falsifications in the acts and canons of
the* early Councils, have been largely investigated by Dr«
Comber.^ And these forgeries, we must observe, are not all
the produce of modern times, but commenced as early as the
ambition of the Roman Pontiffs for universal dominion in the
Church; insomuch that even at the Council of Chalcedon in
the fifth century, the Pope^s Legate cited the sixth canon of
Nice as containing the words, — *' The Church of Rome hath
always had the primacy,'' the falsehood of which was showed
by the Constantinopolitan Code then produced.^ A pregnant
instance this, surely, of the dangers to which such documents
have been exposed, in their passage through the Roman Church
to our hands.

There is not, in fact, an edition of the Councils in which
there are not. Bishop Barlow says, '* spurious canons and de-
" cretal epistles of antient Popes put in, and genuine canons
" left out or corrupted.''^ To all which we must add the well-

1 ** Totas hie locus ianquam ab Arianis inaertus e quibusdam oodicibus naper
emendatia gublatus est." Bellarh. De Verb. Dei, lib. iv. c. 11.

' See James, Pt. 2. n. 2, pp. 161 et Beq. And see somewhat nmilar instances
mentioned, ib. n. 12. pp. 195 et seq. and n. 13. pp. 198 ct seq.

• Corraption of Scripture and Fathers, &c Part 2. pp. 113 et seq.

* Combeb's Roman Forgeries in the Councils. Part 1. Lond. 1689. 4to. Ptet 2.
Lond. 1695. 4to. Many are also mentioned by Daill^ " On the true Use of the
Fathers," Pt. 1. c. 4; and in the "Historical Examination of the authwity of
General Councils," quoted above.

* See ConciL Chalced. Act. 16; and Comber's Rom. Forg. p. 93.

• Direcdons for choice of books, &c p. 32. A remarkable instance is mentioned
by Dr. James in his Corruption of SS. and Fathers. Pt. 2. n, 38. pp. 260 et seq.

VOL. I. P

210 PATBI8TICAL TRADITION

known mutual accusations of tbe Greeks and Latins against
each other of direct forgeries and sweeping suppressions and
alterations in the decrees and canons of the various Councils,
even from the first great Council at Nice, which leave us in still
greater uncertainty in the matter.

Nay more, they have not hesitated openly to profess to correct
the writings of the Fathers, where they have spoken erroneously.
Dr. James refers to two Expurgatory Indexes^ where certain
sentences or words in the text of Gregory Nyssen, Chrysostom,
Anastasius, Eucherius, Procopius, Agapetus, and Didymus
Alexandrinus, '' against idolatry, satisfactions, Peter's primacy,
and for the supremacy of temporal kings and princes,'^ are
ordered to be erased ; and testifies to having seen a copy of
Chrysostom, in which *' divers sentences" had been blotted out
by the Inquisitors.^

And so the famous work of Bertram on the Eucharist, is in
some Indexes altogether forbidden;' and in others expurgated
of the part which opposes Romish errors.^

And this practice is openly defended by the Jesuit Gretser,
in his treatise on the subject,^ where he maintains, that though
*' the sayings of the Fathers, as they are Fathers, need no
purging;'' yet that, ''being considered as sons, their words
may be corrected and censured by the Church."*

Such are the principles and practices of those through whom
principally we have received the works of the Fathers.

These examples very clearly show the extensive and systematic
corruption to which the writings of the Fathers have been sub-
jected by the Romanists ; a corruption, of which the detection,
in a few cases, such as those given above, can afibrd but a very
inadequate idea, considering the opportunities they have enjoyed.

Now it is quite true, that it would be wrong to infer from
these facts, that we have no remains of antiquity that we can

* Madrit. 1584. 4to. Bom. 1607. 8vo.
' Corruption, Ac Ptart 4. pp. 410, 11.
' As in that published at Rome, 1559. 4to.
^ As in the Index. Belg. Antw. 1571. 4to.
' Gbetseb. De jure et more prohibendi, &c.

' Jambs, ib. p. 412 ; where he adds some remarks well worth oonsideratioiv on
the ^earlj Roman editions of the Fathers.

NO DIVINB INFORMANT. 211

depend upon. But^ at the same time^ they do ondoubtedly
ahow us the necessity of caution with respect to those writings
that come to us under that name. They necessarily weaken
the argument derived from those writings in favour of any doc-
trines^ and take away that certainty that is necessary to make
them authoritative witnesses. Their statements^ though useful
as a guide in the interpretation of Scripture, and as a check
upon the extravagance of private interpretation, are not such as
can be made binding upon the conscience. Would it not be
absurd to call our common-places, gathered from these writings,
a '^ practically infallible^' testimony of the oral tradition of the
Apostles ?

We are not called upon, then, be it observed, to determine
whether, in an abstract view, a society like the Church could
be a safe depositary for the oral teaching of its founders, or
whether the records testifying of the oral tradition of the Apo-
stles might have been so abundant and well preserved, as to
ensure the safe conveyance of that tradition to succeeding ages.
We must look to facts; and facts show, that the state of the
Church and its records has not been such as to make them
trustworthy witnesses of oral Apostolical tradition.

That the reader may not suppose, that I am pressing this argu-
ment beyond what the great divines of our own Church would
sanction, I would here call his attention to what our opponents'
own witness. Bishop Jer. Taylor, has said on this subject :
" There are some," he says, " who think they can determine all
'• questions in the world by two or three sayings of the Fathers,
" or by the consent of so many as they mil please to call a con-
*' current testimony. But this consideration will soon be at an
*' end." And then having produced various objections to such
a notion, he thus proceeds, — " But I will rather choose to show
'* the uncertainty of this topic, by such an argument which was
" not in the Fathers' power to help ; such as makes no invasion
upon their great reputation, which I desire should be pre-
served as sacred as it ought. For other things, let who please
'' read M. Daille ^On the true use of the Fathers;' but I shall
" only consider that the writings of the Fathers have been so
" corrupted by the in tei mixture of heretics, so many false books

F 2

(€
€t
t€
€€

212 PATBI8TICAL TRADITION

'^ put forth in their namesy so many of their writings lost which
^^ would more clearly have explicated their sense^ and at last an
open profession made and a trade of making the Fathers speak,
not what themselves thought, but what other men pleased,
that it is a great instance of (rod's providence, and care of his
Church, that we have so much good preserved in the writings
'* which we receive from the Fathers ; and that all truth is not
as clear gone as is the certainty of their great authority andrepU"
tation" And having given various instances, as of the epistle
written to Constantine by the Arians, under the name of Atha-
nasius, and a work written by the Eutychians against Cyril of
Alexandria, under the name of Theodoret, and of the chapters
added, as he maintains with Erasmus, to the work of Basil on
the Holy Spirit ; and the testimony of Erasmus that, in the
eighth century, " books, under the assumed name of illustrious
men, were everywhere to be met with,'' he adds, '^ Indeed the
" whole world hath been so much abused, that every man
'^ thinks he hath reason to suspect whatsoever is against him ;
^' that is, what he pleases ; which proceeding only produces this
" truth, that there neither is nor can be any certainty, nor very
" much probability, in such allegations."

" But,'' he proceeds, " there is a worse mischief than this,
'' besides those very many which are not yet discovered, which,
like the pestilence, destroys in the dark, and grows into
inconvenience more insensibly and more irremediably; and
that is, corruption of particular places, by inserting words
and altering them to contrary senses." And having given
several examples, the principal of which will be found more
fully stated among those we have given above, he adds, — '' But
'' that the Indices Expurgatorii, commanded by authority, and
" practised with public licence, profess to alter and correct the
sayings of the Fathers, and to reconcile them to the catholic
sense, by putting in and leaving out, is so great an imposture,
" so unchristian a proceeding, that it hath made the faith of all
'^ books and all authors justly to be suspected. For considering
" their infinite diligence and great opportunity, as having had
'' most of the copies in their own hands, together with an
" unsatisfiable desire of prevailing in their right, or in their

€€
ti

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 218

" wrong, they have made an absolute destruction of this topic ;
" and when the Fathers speak Latin, or breathe in a Roman
" diocese^ although the providence of God does infinitely over-
'' rule them, and that it is next to a miracle that in the monu-
" ments of antiquity there is no more found that can pretend
'' for their advantage than there is, which indeed is infinitely
*' inconsiderable, yet our questions and uncertainties are in-
'' finitely multiplied, instead of a probable and reasonable
** determination. For since the Latins always complained of
" the Greeks for privately corrupting the antient records both
'' of Councils and Fathers, and now the Latins make open
profession not of corrupting but of correcting their writings
(that is the word), and at the most U was but a human autho-
'' rity, and that of persons not always learned, and very often
'' deceived, the whole matter is so unreasonable, that

" IT IS NOT worth a FURTHER DISQUISITION/'^

it
It

SECTION IV. — THE WITNESS OF PATRISTICAL TRADITION, EVEN
IN THE WRITINGS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESERVED, IS OF A
DISCORDANT KIND, AND THAT EVEN IN FUNDAMENTAL
POINTS.

We have already shown, that even the consent of the few
writers whose remains we possess of the primitive Church,
could not be taken as any just representation of the doctrine
of the whole Church of that period, and therefore certainly not
as a divine informant or certain record of the oral teaching of
the Apostles.

But thus much we are perfectly ready to admit, that if we
take the writings of the first five or six centuries, considering
the character of their authors and their extent, it is not likely
that the orthodox faith, in all fundamental points, should not
be contained therein. Consequently, the consent of those
writings, upon any point admitted to be a fundamental article,
would, in all probability, represent the true faith. I say admitted
to be a fundamental article, because, if it be a question whether

^ Jeb. Tatlob's Lib. of Prophcs. § 8.

!^14 PATRI8TICAL TRADITION

it be a fundamental article or not^ then it is also a question
what is the value of such consent. And I know of nothing but
Scripture that can determine what the fundamental articles are.
Moreover, it must really be the consent of those writings. It is
not sufficient to say, four or five have given their testimony in
its favour, and the rest are silent. For this destroys the very
groundwork upon which the argument is built, namely, that
such and so many authors are not likely to have all erred in
fundamentals. But four or five, or more, among them, may
have erred.

Nay more, I admit fully that our Church has (wisely, in my
humble view,) sanctioned the principle^ that nothing is to be
admitted as a fundamental point of faith that has not some
support in the Patristical testimony of the first five or six cen-
turies ; a rule which (especially at the time when it was first made)
was a prudent precaution against the novelties of enthusiasm
and Popery ; and hence it was that Bishop Taylor said, that
the Church of England ''ties her doctors as much as the
'' Council of Trent does to expound Scriptures according to
" the sense of the antient Fathers."^ And this quotation re-
minds me of a very important erratum in a work of Mr. Keble,^
who, quoting this passage from Bishop Taylor (inadvertently,
no doubt, but still somewhat extraordinarily), substitutes for
"sense,'* " consent/' thereby making Bishop Taylor seem to
intimate that " consent" is to be found in the Fathers, directly
opposite to his own express determination to the contrary, both
in a previous work,^ and also in the context of this very pas-
sage.* True, it would follow from what he says, that the
consent of the writings of this period in a fundamental point is
not to be controverted by us where it can be found, but that is
vastly different to asserting that there is such consent. The
latter would make the Fathers a very clear guide in such points,
while the fact is, that they are a very obscure one from their
contradictions.

> DiflL ficom Vopency, Pt. ii. Introduction. Works, vol. x. p. 822.
' App. to Sermon, p. 149.

• Liberty of Prophesying, § 8.

* lb. p. 824.

NO DIVINE INVOBMAKT. 215

Further ; on what ground is it^ that our Church has given
them this authority ? Clearly because^ on inspection and com-
parison with Scripture^ they were considered to be, taking them
as a body, in possession of the truth, that is, that the true faith
was contained in their writings. ^^The Protestants,^' says Dr.
Waterland, " having well studied the Fathers, were now willing
" to rest their cause not upon Scripture only, but Fathers too;
** 80 far at least as the three first centuries. And they thought
*' that a much greater, deference was due to the judgment of those
^* early ages of the Church than to that of the ages succeeding,
** while the Romanists were used to value the latter equally with
** the former, or even to give them the prefer ence.^^^

When the Protestants referred to the Fathers as judges of
the disputes between them and the Romanists, this was not
from their holding their witness to be authoritative in the
matter, but from their finding that such an appeal might safely
be made, and on the natural supposition that it would be the
most influential with those who professed to guide themselves
by that witness.

We allow, then, that the consent of the Fathers whose re-
mains we possess of the first five or six centuries, would be a
strong argument in favour of any doctrine on a fundamental
point ; and admit readily, that the principle sanctioned by our
Church of requiring some Patristical testimony in favour of any
doctrine put forward as fundamental, would make such consent
(not from any intrinsic authority, but from the acknowledgment
of our Church as to these writings,) a conclusive argument that
it was the doctrine of our Church •

We will now proceed, then, to inquire farther, whether such
consent is to be found.

Among the writers of the first three centuries are three indi-
viduals, Irenseus, Tertullian, and Origen, who have each left us a
brief summary of the Christian faith, for which they claim the
consentient testimony of all the churches founded by the Apo .,
sties. These summaries, then, have clearly the best claim of

" Watbbland's Second Vindication of Chriit's Divinity, Rref. p. xriL See
also Stillinoflbst'S Coundl of Trent examined, p. 2A, quoted p. 160, 161 above,
and other teetimonies in o. 11 belovr.

i€

216 PATKI8TICAL TRADITION

aDything in antiquity to be considered the representatives of
the catholic consent of the primitive Churchy and as agreeable
to the teaching of the Apostles^ and beyond doubt are entitled
to very great respect. I shall^ therefore^ begin with them. The
summaries of Irenseus and Tertullian have been already given
in the preceding chapter^ pp. Ill — 113, and therefore I will
not here repeat them, but proceed at once to that of Origen.
The summary given by Origen is as follows : —
'' Since, therefore, many of those who profess to believe in Christ
disagree f not only in small points, and those of no moment,
but also in important points , and those of the highest moment ;
that is, either concerning* God, or concerning the Lord J^us
'' Christ, or concerning the Holy Spirit ; and not only concern-
ing these, but also concerning others that are creatures ; that
is, either concerning Dominions, or concerning holy Powers;
it seems necessary on that account first to lay down a certain
" line and clear rule respecting each of these, and then after-
'* wards to discuss other points. For as, while many among
'^the Greeks and Barbarians promised the truth, we left (^
'^ seeking it among all those who delivered it according to their
*' own false notions, after that we believed that Christ was the
Son of God, and were persuaded that it was to be learnt by
us from him ; so, since there are many who think that they
'^understand the doctrines of Christ, and some of them may
understand them differently from those who preceded them,
while, nevertheless, the ecclesiastical doctrine (prsedicatio)
" delivered from the Apostles, through the order of succession,
'* and to this day remaining in the churches, may be preserved ;
'^ that alone is to be believed as the truth, which in no respect
'^ disagrees with the ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition. But
'' it is right that we should know, that the holy Apostles, when
'' delivering the faith of Christ, with respect to some things,
" whatever they considered to be necessary they delivered most
" plainly to att, even to those who seemed slow in searching after
" divine knowledge, leaving the full purport of their declarations
^' to be inquired into by those who should deserve the excellent
" gifts of the Spirit, and had obtained, in an especial degree,
" through the Holy Spirit himself, the gift of speech, wisdom.

€(

NO DIVINE INTORMANT. 217

'' and knowledge : but with respect to other things^ they said
" that they are so ; but how or whence they are so, they give
'' no account ; in order that the more studious of those who
'' should come after them, who might be lovers of wisdom,
'' might have a subject for study, in which they might show
'' the firuits of their understanding ; those truly who should
'' make themselves worthy and fit to receive wisdom. But th^
''outlines (species) of those [truths], that are manifestly de-
'' livered in the preaching of the Apostles, are these : First, that
'' there is one God, who created and made all things, and who,
'' when nothing existed, brought th^ whole universe into being,
" from the first creature and the foundation of the world, the
'' Ood of all the saints, of Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Enoch, Noah,
'' Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve Patriarchs, Moses,
" and the Prophets ; and that this God in the last days, as he
'' had before promised by his Prophets, sent our Lord Jesus
" Christ, first to call Israel, and then, after the treachery of the
'' people of Israel, the Gentiles. This just and good God, the
" Father of our Lord Jesus Christ himself, gave the law, and
'^ the prophets, and the gospels, being also the God of the
Apostles, and of the Old and New Testament. Then, that
Jesus Christ himself who came was begotten of the Father
before all creatures; 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 depriving himself of his glory,
'' being made man, was incarnate through God ; and, when
" made man, remained what he was, God. He assumed a
" body similar to our body, differing only in that it sprung from
" the Virgin and the Holy Spirit. And that this Jesus Christ
'' was bom and suffered in reality, and not merely in appear -
'' ance suffered the death which is common to all ; he was truly
" dead ; for he truly rose from the dead, and having conversed
with his disciples after his resurrection, was taken up into
heaven. Then further, they have declared that the Holy
Ghost is associated in dignity and honour with the Father
and the Son. In this it is not yet clearly discerned whether he
[i. e. the Holy Spirit] is to be considered as begotten or not^ or

' Such if Rnfinus's version, in which iJone this work remiuns. But Jerome

it
tt
u

t(
a
t<
tt

it
ti

€(
t€
€i
tt

218 TATBI8TICAL TRADITION

'' a Son of God or not. But these points are to be enquired into,
" as far as we are able, from the sacred Scripture, and to be inves^
'^ tigated by acute research. That that Spirit truly inspired all
'' the saints^ both the Prophets and Apostles ; and that there
^' was not one Spirit in the antients^ and another in those who
'^ were inspired at the advent of Christy is' most clearly pro-
claimed (prsedicatur) in the churches. Moreover^ that the
soul^ having a subsistence and life of its own^ when it shall
depart out of this worlds shall be dealt with according to its
deserts ; and shall either enjoy eternal life and the inheritance
of blessedness, if its dee48 shall have afforded it this blessing,
or shall be committed to eternal fire and punishment, if its
wickedness shall have brought upon it such a fate; and,
^' moreover, that there shall be a time of the resurrection of the
'' dead, when this body, which is now sown in corruption, shall
'' rise in incorruption ; and that which is sown in dishonour
1' shall rise in glory. That, also, is declared in the ecclesiastical
'' tradition (prsedicatione), that every rational soul has a free
'^ choice and will ; also that it has a contest to wage against the
^' devil and his angels and opposing powers, because they strive
to load it with sins ; while we, if we live correctly and pru-
dently, endeavour to free ourselves from such a burthen.
^' Whence it follows, that we must understand that we are not
'' subjected to necessity, so as to be compelled to do either good
" or evil against our inclination. For if we are free agents,
some Powers may perhaps impel us to sin, and others assist
us in obtaining salvation ; but we are not compelled by neces-
*' sity either to do well or ill, as those think who say, that the
'^ course and motions of the stars are the cause of human
" actions, not only of those which happen beyond the liberty of
'' the will, but also of those which are placed within our own
*' power/' He proceeds to observe, that, with respect to the origin
of the soul, there is no sufficiently clear testimony;^ and adds;-^

(Ep. ad Avit. 124^ ed. ValL) says the words were, " made or not made," which, from
Origen's statements elsewhere, was no douht the case. (See p. 230 below.)

1 " De amma yero, ntmm ex seminis traduce ducatnr, ita at ratio ipsius vel sub-
stantia inserta ipsis seminibus corporalibus habeatur, an vero aliud habeat initium ;
et hoc ipsum initium si genitum est aut non genitum ; vel certe si extrinsecus
corpori inditur, necne, non satis manifesta prsedicatione distinguitur."

€(

t€

TfO DIVINE INFORMANT. 219

it
a

Concerning the devil and his angels and evil Powers^ the
ecclesiastical tradition (praedicatio) hath taught us that they
" exist ; but what they are^ or what is their nature^ it has not
^' sufficiently clearly explained. Most^ however, entertain the
'' opinion^ that the devil was an angel^ and having become an
'' apostate^ persuaded very many angels to transgress with him-
'' self, who are still called his angels. Further, the ecclesiastical
tradition (prsedicatio) informs us, that the world was made and
had a beginning, and is to be destroyed for its wickedness.
'' But what was before thi» world, or what shall be after the
" world, is not clearly known to many. For there is no clear
'' testimony concerning these things in the ecclesiastical tradi-
'^ tion (prsedicatione). Then, finally, that the Scriptures were
'' written by the Spirit of Grod, and have not only the sense
" which is apparent, but also another concealed from most.
'' For those things that are described, are the outlines of certain
'' mysteries (sacramentorum) and the images of divine things.
'' On this point the whole Church is agreed, that the whole law
" is spiritual, but that those things which the law intimates are
'^ not known to all, but to those only to whom the gift of the
'' Holy Spirit in the word of wisdom and knowledge is vouch-
'' safed. . . . That is also to be found in the ecclesiastical tradi-
" tion, that there are certain angels of Gk)d and good Powers
'' who minister to him in promoting the salvation of men ; but
'' when they were created, or of what kind they are, or what is
" the mode of their existence, is not sufficiently clearly pointed
'' out. But with respect to the sun, and moon, and stars,
*' whether they have souls or not, is not clearly delivered. It
behoves, therefore, every one who desires to form a connected
statement and body [of theology] out of all these, to use such
'' truths as elementary, and fundamental, according to the pre-
" cept that says. Enlighten yourselves with the light of know-
'' ledge, that by the aid of manifest and necessary positions, he
may diligently search out, with respect to each individual
point, what is the truth ; and, as I said, may foim one body
by examples and affiinnations, either those which he may have
found in the Holy Scriptures, or those which he may have

t€
(€
{(

220 FATmiincAL TSABinoif

" diseovered by diligent inquiry into consequences, and by the
" coarse of direct inference/'^

These, as &r as I am aware, are the only passages in the
writings of the first three centuries, (I might say a longer
period,) in which we have any statement of doctrine for which
is daimed the universal consent of the Apostolical Churches.
There are doubtless appeals made to antient writers by subse-
quent Fathers in favour of certain doctrines, such as may be
made now, but what I speak of is a claim to the content of aU
the AposioUcal Churches.

I would observe, then, upon these passages, first, that wfaat-
ever force the argument finom such allied consent might have
at that time, it comes before us in a very altered form. The
grounds upon which the argument stood might then be verified.
The churches appealed to were in existence. The doctrine
maintained by them might be ascertained. And until the
argument was verified by such an inquiry into the grounds
upon which it stood, it had no claim even at that time to be
received by any prudent man as infallible evidence ; for in such
statements as those we have quoted, there was nothing more
than the persuasion of one or two individuals, that a great
number of distant communities of Christians held such and
such doctrines. Place, then, the probability of the individual
being rightly informed at what amount you please, you get
nothing more than a probable testimony even for his contem-
poraries until they have verified his assertions. And after all,
in those early days, when there were no public confessions of
faith agreed upon by the churches, how was their doctrine
ascertained ? Probably from the testimony of one or two of
their clergy, or at best from the statements of their chief
bishop. But is this sufficient evidence? Would the state-
ments of Archbishop Whitgift and Archbishop Laud as to the
doctrine of the Church of England, even in some of those
points mentioned above by Origen, have been the same ? Or
will our opponents subscribe to the statements made by the
English deputies at the Synod of Dort ?

» Obiobn. De Prindp. lib. 1. Pnef.— Op. ed. Ben. torn. i. pp. 47—40.

NO DIYINE INrORlfANT. 221

And when we come to consider the argument as it now
stands^ its force is immeasurably reduced from what it then was.
For with us there is no possibility of verifying these statements.
l¥e have the bare word of their authors to depend upon ; men
who had but few means of information to what we now have ;
who could hardly have had even themselves the opportunity of
verifying their statements^ and therefore must have spoken in a
great measure from general report; and moreover men whose
writings have been exposed for ages to mutilation and corrup-
tion^ and have confessedly su£Pered therefrom^ as in the case of
Irenseus and Origen can hardly be denied.

However^ then^ we may regard their statements as tending
to confirm the truths and as affording an additional motive to
men to believe it^ to put them forward as a divine informant is
both unfair and unwise^ calculated only to prejudice the truth
in the eyes of thinking men^ who may be doubtful respecting
it^ when they see our anxiety thus to stop their mouths and
cut short their doubts by unfounded claims to evidence *' prac-
tically infallible " in our favour.

Every man of common experience in such matters will feel
how liable these individuals were to be warped by their own
views and prejudices in their statements of the doctrine of the
Apostolical Churches. Nay^ I would confidently appeal to our
opponents themselves^ whether in this statement of Origen
there is not distinct evidence of the influence of his own private
views in his remark as to the double sense of Scripture. And
yet he puts it down definitively as a point in which the whole
Church agreed ; and consequently when he comes to the expo-
sition of Scripture, he turns plain narratives into the most
fanciful allegories. lie is found fault with on this very ground
by Jerome^ who complains, that he "makes his own fancies
mysteries of the Church"^ Have we not here a distinct proof
that such statements cannot be fully depended upon ?

They are, in fact, when descending at all into particulars, too

* " Ingeniom suum facit ecclesiGB sacramenta." Hiekon. In Is. lib. 5. Pnef. —
Op. torn. 4. col. 168. And were we to take Jerome's account (£p. ad Avit.) of the
work from which we have quoted above, instead of Rufinus's probably unfaitliful
version, we should find Origen «*lMTningr the sanction of the Church for vital errors.

222 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

much like the large and general statements of the Romanists^
as to the prevalence of their views; such^ for instance^ as that of
the great opponent of Bishop Jewell^ Harding^ as to the pre-
valence of private masses^ when he says, ^^ So it is all Greece
*^ over; so it is in Asia, in Syria, in Assyria, in Armenia, and
'* wheresoever the religion of Christ is professed/' (See Jewell's
Vef. of Apol. Ft. 5, ch. 15. div. 1.) But is this to be quoted
some thousand years hence, in the absence of evidence to prove
the assertion, as sufficient to establish what is there stated, even
though half a dozen others of the same persuasion should say
the same ?

It is undeniable, indeed, that many of the best of the Fathers
were very apt to make large and general statements in favour
of their views, which, if examined, might often be shown to be
exaggerated statements even by the documents that happen to
remain to us ; as, if necessary, I could easily show, but other-
wise I have no wish to take a course which might diminish that
respect which is their due.

I must add, however, that this statement of Origen appears
to me clearly to labour under this fault ; particularly when I
advert to the language of Tertullian, when delivering the Creed
quoted from him above, where he seems clearly to intimate, that
what was beyond the rule of faith he had given was not
established as that rule was, but more open to investigation;^
and, therefore, we may reasonably doubt, whether Origen had
any sufficient ground, half a century afterwards, to make that
Creed .two or three times longer, and pronounce so dogmatically
as to the Apostolicity and universal reception of various other
points. Such assertions partake of the infirmity of their
authors.

Nay, it appisars to me that the first sentence of the third
summary given by Tertullian is, to say the least, very open to
an unorthodox interpretation ; and I confess more than open to
it, in my opinion, because there is confirmatory evidence in
favour of it in other parts of Tertullian's writings, and even in
the same treatise. He says, — ^' Unicum Deum credimus ; sub
** hac tamen dispensatione quam oeconomiam dicirmis, ut imici Dei

' Tebtull. De Fnoscr. hseret. c. 14. See also Adv. Marc. i. 21.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 223

" sit et filiuB^ sermo ipsius/' &c. These words may be under-
stood, I admits in an orthodox sense, but the question is, in
what sense they were used by Tertullian; and I shall show
presently, that there are several passages in his works, indicating
that the dispensation or oeconomy of which he here speaks, was
a temporary state of existence, by which it would appear, that
he held the notion of, not a permanent but only, a dispensa-
tional and temporary tripersonality in the Godhead. His view,
in a word, appears to have been somewhat like that of Mar-
cellus.^

If such, then, is the case, we here see another specimen of
the way in which the sentiments of the individual may influence
his delivery of the faith preached by the Apostolical Churches.

At the very best, what is the real state of the case with re-
gard to these summaries ? Clearly this, that all such statements
are to be received with caution and reserve, as emanating from
men who might not only be deceived when they made such
large statements, but might, with the best intentions and an
orthodox meaning, speak hastily, unguardedly, and incorrectly,
and so as to give countenance to an error not in their minds at
the time, and still less, perhaps, in the minds of those to whom
they were referring. And if so, it is quite clear, that the con-
sciences of men are not to be concluded and boimd by such
statements.

Still further, (and most important it is to observe this,) these
statements clearly place definite limits^ and those narrow limits, to
the doctrines for which the consent of the early Church can be with
any decent show of probability pleaded. For, not to confine our-
selves to those of Irenseus and Tertullian, which may be said
only to be intended to refer to the most essential points, nothing
can be clearer than that Origen here gives us, as he supposes, a
definite list and account of all the points for which the consent
of the early Church might be pleaded, and states that nothing
beyond those points was capable of any such confirmation. Can
there, then, be a greater absurdity than that any man living
long after him should attempt to add to these other points of

' See TiTEODORET. HsBret. Fab. lib. ii § 10. Op. ed. Schulze, torn. iy. p. 336.

224 FATRISTICAL TRADITION

catholic consent f Surely at the very most we must be con-
tented with Origen^s list. We cannot in reason pretend to
enlarge it.

To claim^ indeed^ the consent of the early Apostolical
Churches upon points about which there was^ as far as we
know^ no discussion among them^ but which subsequent here-
sies brought into notice^ is evidently most imreasonable. Tnie^
we may perhaps find such a notice of those points in very early
authors as may justly lead us to suppose that they held this or
that view respecting them^ and this is to us^ as far as it goes,
an argument in favour of the correctness of the view which they
support. But I need not say, that such indirect notices of
points not in question, are but an indifferent proof of the sen-
timents even of the writers.

Now, with respect to these statements, it is obvious that
there is hardly a point in dispute among Christians at the
present day that can be settled by them, except, perhaps, as to
the article of the divinity of our Lord against those who con-
sider him a mere man. And, surely, no one will pretend to say,
that they are clearer upon this point than Scripture is.

The principal value of these summaries, as it appears to me,
lies in the testimony they bear to the genuineness of the wri-
tings of the New Testament. It was not pretended by Irenseus
or Tertullian (whatever might be the case with Origen), that
they stated anything more than was to be found in the writings
of the New Testament; but when the heretics denied the
genuineness of parts of the Sacred Writings, these Fathers
adduced as an argument in favour of the doctrines contained
in them, that those doctrines were still preached in all the
Apostolical Churches. And so we might argue now in a similar
case ; though with some abatement on acco\mt of the want of
documents and proximity to Apostolical times, and other favour-
able circumstances which these writers enjoyed. That is, if any
one denied the genuineness of parts of Scripture in which the
doctrines of the incarnation, resurrection, &;c., as stated in these
summaries, are delivered, we might argue from the widely-
extended acceptance and inculcation of such doctrines among
the followers of Christ, from the earliest to the present times.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 225

that such doctrines formed part of the Christian faith^ and
hence obtain an indirect argument for the genuineness of the
parts questioned.

With us, however, who hold the genuineness and inspiration
of the whole of these writings, it is both absurd and irreverent
to the Divine Author of Scripture to be guided by an account
of those doctrines given us by fallible men, instead of going at
once to the Divine Word, and taking our views from thence.

And so thought the earliest writer we have, subsequent to the
Apostolic age, Justin Martyr, who says to Trypho, when about
to prove the divinity of Christ, '' There are some, I admitted,
" of our community, {yivovs,) who confess that he [Jesus] is
" Christ, but affirm that he is a man, born of men; with whom
" I do not agree, nor should I even if the great majority of those
** who are of my own religion should say so, since we are com-
" manded by Christ himself to be ruled by, not the doctrines
" of men, but those preached by the blessed prophets, and
" taught by him.''^

At the same time, I beg to be understood as maintaining,
that the evidence of a large body of consentient Patristical tradi-
tion forms a very important and powerful argument in favour of
the correctaess of any interpretation of Scripture so supported.

Let us observe, how one of the earliest Fathers uses the argu-
ment. The writer to whom I allude is the Author of " The
Little Labyrinth,*' composed against the heresy of Artemon
about the commencement of the third century, and of which
, the following fragment is preserved by Eusebius. " The here-
tics say,'' observes this author, ^' that all the antients, and the
" Apostles themselves, both received and taught those things
'' which they now affirm ; and that the truth of the gospel
*' {tov KrjfwyiiaToij was preserved until the times of Victor,
" who was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter ; but that
" from the time of his successor Zephyr in us the truth was
'' adulterated. And the remark would perhaps be probable, but
*^ for that, FIRST, THE Divine Scriptures opposed them, and
'' that there are writings of certain brethren older than the
'' times of Victor, which they wrote against the heathen in

' See the paatage in c 10 below.
VOL. I. Q

{€

226 FATRISTICAL TRADITION

" defence of the truths and against the heresies of that time :
'' I mean^ the writings of Justin^ and Miltiades^ and Tatian^ and
'^ Clement^ and many others^ in all of which Christ is spoken
'' of as God. For who is ignorant of the volumes of Irenseus, and
'^ Melito^ and the rest which speak of Christ as God and man T
" And how many psalms and hymns of brethren, written by be-
lieversfrom the beginning, praiseChrist as the Word of God, and
speak of him as God {jov \6yov tov 0€ou tov XpLorbv vfwova-L
" 6€o\oyovvT€si) ? How, therefore, is it possible, that when the
doctrine received by the Church was preached so many years
ago, all up to the time of Victor should have preached such
" doctrine as they say ? And how is it that they are not
'^ ashamed to bring this false accusation against Victor, know-
ing well that Victor excommunicated Theodotus the tanner,
the leader and father of this God-denying apostasy, who first
" maintained that Christ was a mere man. For if Victor,
according to them, entertained such notions as their blas-
phemy teaches, how could he have cast out Theodotus the
author of that heresy V*^
Now here are no high-sounding claims of universal consent,
which even at that early period could not be strictly verified.
No; these are left for the heretics to make, who, as we here
plainly see, liked the argument as well as others have done.
But the matter is placed upon just and reasonable grounds.
The claim of the heretics, that their doctrine was held and
preached by the Apostles and all their earliest followers, is
denied, first, because the doctrine was opposed to Scrip-
ture, and secondly, because some of their earliest followers had
left writings in which the contrary was maintained. Now this
is precisely the ground taken by the Reformers and their true
followers. Heresy is refuted first by Scripture, and then anti-
quity is appealed to in confirmation, to show that what is
considered the orthodox doctrine, the correct interpretation of
Scripture, is no novelty, but has been held by many from the
earliest times. In a word, the argument from Fatristical Tra-
dition is pressed only so {%r as it can be made good. And I
need not add, that if this was the best mode of arguing in the

> Euiseb. U. £. v. 28. Routh Keliq. Saor. vol. iL pp. 7, 8. (2cL ed. pp. 129, 130.)

€€
€€

€€
t<
It

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 227

third century^ we have infinitely stronger reason to adopt it
now.

This fragment^ moreover, shows us, how little we can rely
upon the assertions of individuals, that the catholic consent of
the early Church was in favour of their views ; for here we see,
that a direct claim was made to that consent, at the commence-
ment of the third century^ as favourable to the heresy of
Artemon, while Origen (nearly a contemporary) claims it, as
we have just seen, for the opposite doctrine. Both could not
be right; and it would little advance the cause of truth to
assert, that one party was to be believed and the other not.
And as to proof, neither could prove their assertions, except so
far as quotations from a few antient writers could prove them.
Artemon, perhaps, could barely have done that ; and his ortho-
dox opponent just quoted does not pretend to do more.

Further; the heresy of Arius remains untouched by these
statements, for he and his followers have always acknowledged
the divinity of Christ, but have considered it as in certain
respects inferior to that of the Father. Their heresy consists
in drawing subtile distinctions between the nature of the Father
and the Son, against which these statements of the doctrine held
by the Apostolical Churches prove nothing; because, though
we may believe, that the term God is not properly applicable as
the Arians have applied it, this is one of the points to be proved
in the controversy.

Moreover, as these summaries will afford us no help against
the errors of Arius, neither will they against those of Nestorius
or Pelagius, or indeed scarcely any of the vexata quastiones
that have agitated the Church in modern times.

By these statements, then, even admitting that they may be
fully depended upon as infallibly correct, the doctrines that can
be supported by the catholic consent of the early Church are
reduced within an exceedingly narrow compass, so narrow, that
it is hardly worth discussing the question whether that consent,
as here represented, is to be regarded as binding upon the con-
science or not ; for even as to the iivportant point of the divinity
of Christ against the Socinians, I suppose that he who can
explain away the declarations of Scripture, that "the Word

Q 2

228 FATRISTICAL TRADITION

was Grod/' &c., can as easily explain away the testimony borne
to that truth in these statements. For^ as ^^ an excellent writer,
thoroughly conversant in these subjects'' (as Bishop Home
calls him, when quoting the following testimony) has said,
'* Cannot one know that the Socinian interpretation of John i. 1,
" and Hebr. i. 10, or of the texts relating to Christ's pre-exist-
" ence, is not the mind of Scripture ? Yea, one may know
'' it as certainly as that a counter is not the king*s coin, or
** that a monster is not a man."^

In proceeding to consider the nature of the evidence which
we possess in the writings that remain to us of the first three
centuries, upon the points connected with Arian, Macedonian,
Nestorian, Eutychian, Pelagian, and such like errors, in con-
nexion with our present subject, I am entering upon an exami-
nation which I would fain have been spared the necessity of
making. Much rather would I have been engaged in showing
to those who may oppose the orthodox doctrine in these points,
the strength of the evidence in favour of orthodoxy, than in
showing, against those who are setting up \m warranted claims
for the supreme authority and conscience-binding nature of that
evidence as catholic consent and a divine informant, that it has
no claim to such a character. To show the weak side of one
part of the argument for truth is a painful task, and one which,
no doubt, exposes one to the being placed in the unenviable
predicament of being quoted by the unorthodox as a friend of
error, and abused by the hot and violent champions of ortho-
doxy as having aided the cause of heresy. I will not, however,
allow myself to be deterred, even by the prospect of such a fate,
from holding out a warning against placing truth in any degree
upon a foxindation that will not stand investigation. Our oppo-
nents seem to me like men who, when they have got a rock to
build upon, prefer making their foundation partly of sand, and
moreover putting the sand uppermost ; and the consequence is,
that even in points where they may have got the right founda-
tion underneath them, their whole edifice is in danger, because,
not satisfied with the rock, they tviU place the sand above it. 1
think, then, that I shall do no harm, if I persuade those who

» Bp. Home's Sermon at Cant. July 1, 1786. Oxf. 1786. p. 13.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 229

9ie about to build for themselves, to be satisfied with the rock ;
and this I shall best do, by showiug them that what our oppo-
nents have added to the rock is, as a foundation, little better
Uif^i sand. It may be very useful to aid them in the construc-
tion of the building, but it will not bear the house.
First, then, as to the doctrine of the Trinity.
Do we find catholic consent among the writings that remain
to us of the first three centuries, even upon this fundamental
point ? Let us inquire.

First as it respects the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.
There are, no doubt, most clear and satisfactory testimonies
to this point to be found in some of the writers of this period; a
fact which, I trust, every reader will bear in mind, while I pro-
ceed to point out other authors of this period who have borne a
contrary testimony.

1 will first quote a clear testimony to the orthodox doctrine
from Cyprian. He says, " If a person may be baptized among
'' the heretics, he may also obtain the remission of his' sins. If
'^ he has obtained the remission of his sins, he is also sanctified,
and made the temple of God. I ask of what God ? If of the
Creator, it is impossible, for he has never believed in him ; if
of Christ, neither can he be His temple, who denies Christ to
be Grod ; if of the Holy Spirit, since the three are one, how can
the Holy Spirit be at peace with him who is the enemy either
" of the Father or the Son.^'^

Nothing can be clearer than this ; and many other similar
testimonies might be brought from the writers of this period.
But as our opponents claim the consent of all the writers of the
primitive Catholic Church for it, our present object is to show
the error of this notion, by pointing out writers of the Catholic
Church who delivered in their writings unorthodox doctrine on
this point.

^ ** Nam si baptizari quis apud hsretiooB potait, utique et remissam pcccatomm
oonBeqai potuit. Si peccatorum remissam consecutns est, et sanctificatns est, et
templam Dei fiictas est. Qusero, cujus Dei ? Si Creatoris, non potmt qui in
emn non crecQdit : si Christi, nee hi\jus fie# potest templum, qui negat Deum
Christum: si Spiritus Sancti, cum tres unum sint, quomodo Spiritus Sanctuji
placatus esse ci potest, qui aut Vatna aut Filii iniinicus est ?" Cyfbiak. £p. 73.
cd. FeU. Oxon. Pt 2. p. 208 : ed. PttmeL Col. Agr. 1617. p. 106.

t€
tt
ii
€€

230 FATRI8TICAL TRADITION

Thus^ then^ speaks Origen. He is commentiag on 1 John i. 3.
'' All tlungs were made by him ;" and he says, — " Since it is
true that all things were made by him, we must inquire
whether the Holy Spirit was made by him. For I think
'^ that he who says that it [the Holy Spirit] was made, and
'^ who admits the truth of the declaration, ' all things were
'' made by him,' must necessarily embrace the notion that the
Holy Spirit was made by the Word, the Word being more
antient than the Spirit. But in the case of him who is
unwilling to believe that the Holy Spirit was made by Christ,
and yet judges what is contained in this Gospel to be true, it
follows that he must call the Spirit unbegotten [or, uncreated] .
But besides these two, him namely who believes that the Holy
Spirit was made by the Word, and him who supposes him to
be uncreated [or, unbegotten], there may be a third, who
*' holds, that there is no proper personal existence of the Holy
Spirit distinct from the Father and the Son. . . . We truly,
believing that there are three Persons, the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit, and believing that there is nothing
unbegotten [or, uncreated]^ but the Father, receive as the
most pious and true the opinion, that of all the things made
by the Word the Holy Spirit is the most honourable, and
ranks higher than all the things made by the Father through
" Christ. And perhaps this is the reason that he is not called
the very Son of God, the only-begotten alone being originally
by nature Son, who appears to have been necessary to the
Holy Spirit, ministering to the formation of his person, not
only with respect to his existence, but with respect to his

€t

t<
t<

€<
t€
€t
€C

it
it
«
tt
t€
ti

t€
€t

tt
ft

' In this and two preceding places, I have intimated a doubt as to the reading.
My reason is this, that it appears to me that in all of them we must, from tho
nature of tho sentence, read the same word, that is, in all these places we must
either read uncreated or unbegotten, which words in the Greek differ only in one
letter, being it.y4yriroy and iuyiwmtrow, and, as Dr. Burton (On Trin. p. 99) says,
** the evidence of MSS. is very little in these cases." He adds, speaking of the
firH tipo cases, ** I should be inclined to read ity4yrirop in both places." If this is
the true rea(Ung in these two places, it seems to follow that it is so in the third,
where it would affect the real divimty of the Son, from which error Dr. B. has
endeavoured to rescue Origen, but of which ho is vehemently accused by some of
the best authorities of the early Church, as I shall notice presently. It appears
to me that iL-yimnrov is probably the true reading in all three places.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 231

€€

being wise, and endued with reason, and just, and everything
" which we onght to suppose him to be, according to the par-
^' ticipation of those qualities of Christ which we have already
" mentioned."^

And again, soon after, he twice repeats, that the Holy Spirit
was nutde by the Word or Logos.'

It appears to me a waste of words to attempt to reconcile
this passage with the orthodox doctrine. Nor am I aware of
any clear and decisive passage to be found in Origen in oppo-
sition to the statement here made, and in support of the ortho-
dox doctrine, except, perhaps, in those translations of his works
by Rufinus, which on such a point are of no authority, as having
been notoriously altered by the translator. And further, when
we find that such men as Jerome, Basil, Epiphanius, and Pho-
tius, all agree in condemning his sentiments on the subject of
the divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit as unsound, can we
suppose that there was no ground for the accusation T

Of Fierius also, who is said to have succeeded Origen in the
school of Alexandria, Photius informs us, that in his writings
" he delivers very dangerous and impious doctrine concerning
" the Spirit, for he affirms, that he is inferior in glory to the

* 'Elrrcurr/ov W, iX7i$ovs 5rroi tow, wdrra 9i* aJbrmi iy4perOj u ica2 t^ TvtvfAa
rh iytoy 9i* ainov hf4vero. Olfiau yiip Zrri ry fiir ^dmcom-i ytnrrhp cArh ftwu, icol
*poUfi4pm rhf wdyra 9i' ovrov fy^vero, h^aeyKouov wapai^^eurBai Zrri rh Sytop wytvfAa
9tit TOW ASjov 4y4yero, wp€<rfivr4pov rap* a^inh t9v ASyov rvyxjkyorros* Ty 8^ ii^
fiovXoii4vtf rh Syioy vywOfut 9iii row Xpiorow y^yoy^yai, hrertu rh ky4yrriroy cdnh
A^cy, iXnefj rii iy r^ fbaryytXity roirif flyat Kpipopri. "EoTo* 8^ ris Koi rplros
wapii rohs H^j r6v re Zih. rov A&yov itapcHtx^f^^^^ ^^ wwwfta, rh Bryiov yeyoy^poi,
Koi rhy iy4yriroy alrrhy cinu 6roAa/iA/3<£yorra, 9oyfuerl(tfy /irfi^ oMeof rtyik IMoy
l^ffrdyai rov aytov Ty^^fiaros Mpay Tapit rhy war4pa koX rhy vUy .... *H/i€is
fi4yroty€ rp€is broffrdtrtis 'r€i06fityoi rvyx^*^"* '^^'^ Tlar4paj ical rhy vl6y, «ca2 rh
Syioy wyfUfjuif itcU iy4yyrrroy firiZhy trtpoy rov Tlarphs flveu wurrf^yrtSt its cwoc-
$4(rrtpoy koH iiXyidhj wpoiri4fi€$ti rh, whntty J«A rov A6yov ytyofUymy, rh Syioy
TyfVfM wdyruy tJycu rifiu&rtpoyt Kcd rd^u vdyrwy rAy &r6 rw llarp6s JiA Xpurroi
yty^rniUywy* Kol Tc^xa aSirjt 4ffr\y ^ curia rov /i^ Kcd abrovihy xpVfuer^C*"^ '»'»«'
ecow, fi6yov rod fiayoytyovs tpivti vlov ipx^^" rvyxda^oyrost ot xMf**" '<>*** '''^
Sryioy rytvfjMy ZioKoyovyros awrow t^ bwotrrdtrti^ ob fi6yoy §ls rd tlytUt *a\AA itol
<ro<f>6y ttvcUf Kcd KoytKdy^ Kcd ZlKoioy, Koi way &rtirorovy xp^ «^^ "<>«"' '"OTC*^**"*
icotA furox^y ray wpofiprifi4ywy iifjuy Xptarov Iriyotuy. Orig. Comment, in Jo-
hann. torn. ii. J 6. Op. torn. iv. pp. GO — 62.

- Tb wytvfM ytyrrrhy hy 8i<l tow AAyov ytyovivan. lb. p. 62, luid see p. 63.

232 PATK18TICAL T&ADITION

'' Father and Son/'^ adding a charge i^aiuat him of other
errors.

The same charge is brought by Photius i^aiust Theo-
gnostus.^

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/'* but he calls the Paraclete "inferior to Christ;"*
and when treating expressly, in the latter part of his treatise,^
of the Holy Spirit, he never shows him to be God, or speaks of
him as Grod, 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 (jodhead.* These passages are referred to by
Pamelius, who was well able to pronounce judgment in such a
case, 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 Rufinus^ 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 Demetrian, he altogether de-

' IIcpl fjJpTOi rod llytiftaros iicur^xtXMS XSay koI Hvaaffi&s So^furrf^ci, &wofi4-
0iflK4y<u ykp ain6 rris rod TUtrpds itoi Tlov hwo^>dKrK^i S^s. Phot. BibHoth. Art.
119. coL 800. ed. 1653.

« lb. Art. 106. col. 280.

• "Omnia Spiritns creatnra est." Novatian. De Trin. c. 7. ad fin. Op.
Tertnll. ed. 1664; or, ed. Fftmel. Col. Agr. 1617. fol.

• " Minor Christo PftradetuB." c. 24. ib.
» See c. 29.

• See c. 30.

7 Apol. pro Orig. Inter Op. Orig. ed. Ben. torn. iv. App. p. &3.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 233

" 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
'' name/'i

And, lastly, the same Father, Jerome, tells us, ^^ Many
THROUGH IGNORANCE OF THE ScRiFTUREs assert, (as also Fir-
mianus does in the eighth book of his Letters to Demetrian,)
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 some) among these Fathers, we shall find in his
writings a passage precisely similar to that of Origen. He tells
us, 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 Church.'*^

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 having been
passed over in silence by the antients [i. e. comparatively, for there
were some exceptions], through its not having been opposed,

* " Lactantins in libris suis ct maxime in Epistolis ad Demetrianum Spiritus
Sancti onmino negat substantiam, et eirore Judaioo didt, earn vel ad Patrem
refcrri vel Filium, et sanctificationem utriusque Personse sub ejus nomine
demonstrari." Hiebon. Ep. ad Pammach. et Ocean. § 7. Ep. 84. ed. Vallars. (41.
Ben.; 65. al.)

' " Multi per imperitiam Scripturarum (quod et I^rmianus in octavo ad Deme-
trianum Epistolarum libro facit) asserunt, Spiritmn Sanctmn ssepe Patrem ssepe
Filium nominari. Et quum perspicue in Trinitato credamus, tertiam Personam
auferentes non substantiam ejus volunt esse, sed nomen." Id. In Ep. ad Gal.
lib. ii. in c. 4. ver. 6. Op. ed. Vallars. Ven. torn. vii. col. 450.

• T^ 8i 'rapdK\rrroy TlytdfULj oCrt Bthsj otht Tl6s' iir§l fi^ iK rod Thxrpds Sfiolus
Tw T/« Kcd airrd r^y y4yf<riy ^CKii^tw^ *Ey 8i ri rSty Zik rov tiov ytvoiUywv rvy»
X^^^t 2h-i 8^ 'rdyra 8i* aJtrrov iyiyero^ kcU x^P^^ atnov iy4yero oM ey. TaOro
H^y olv T^T KatfoXuc^t itcU kyias *EjeicA.)}<r(as £8^ m; ^ik rwy $fltty ^ywv wapaZi^orai
rk ^v<rHipM. EusxB. De Eocles. Theolog. lib. iii. c. 6. ad fin. Demonstr. Evangel.
Col. 1588. p. 175.

234 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

was left unexplained, 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 been opposed^ this is in contradiction to his own testi-
mony elsewhere^ for he has accused Origen^^ (if^ at least^ the
latter part of the book on the Holy Spirit is his^) and certainly
Dionysius 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
pointy that^ in the time of Basils the opponents of the orthodox
doctrine accused the Catholics of introducing novel doctrine
when they insisted on the divinity of the Holy Spirit.^

Further^ as it respects the full orthodox doctrine of the
divinity and generation of Christy 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-
nimous. But that their witness is one whit stronger or more
precise 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 point ? Let us inquire.

I begin with Tatian, whose "Oration against the Greeks"
was written before his defection to the heresy of Valentinus.
He speaks thus ; — ^^ 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
things/ was, as it Fespects the non-existence of creation at
that time, alone. But inasmuch as he was all Power, and was
** himself the subsistence of all things visible and invisible, with

^ 'EvciS^ tk t6 yvy Ayeuc^oy irapii rS»y &cl KCuyoT0fi€7y iirix^ipo^prwy {fyrrifta,
wapaffUffwrfB^y rots vcCXflu, 8t^ t6 hvaarripfnuroVf iuHidfAporroy Kar€\f(^>$ri (Kiyot 8^
t6 wf pi rod aylov Tlyfifiaros) wpocrrldtfity r6y ircpl roinov \6yoy^ iucoKoMws rf rris
Tpcufnis iyyot<f' BASIL. C.£8. £p. 159* Op. torn. iii. p. 248.

3 De Spir. Sanct. c. 29. § 73. torn. iii. pp. 61, 2.
, * Ep. 9. torn. iii. p. 91. See the passage pp. 265, 6, below.

* See § 7 of this chapter, below.

^ As Tertullian says, '* Ipse sibi et muiidus et locus et omnia."

NO DIVINE INFOBMANT. 235

€t

t€
€t
€€

it
If
tt

him were all things ; for with him^ through his power of reason,
** the Word himself also who was in him subsisted. But by
'' the will of his single-mindedness the Word comes forth ; but
^' the Word not having proceeded from him in vain^ becomes
^^ the first-born work of the Father. This we know to be the
beginning of the world. But he [the Word] was produced
by distribution not abscission. For that which is cut off is
separated and taken away from the first; but that which
arises by distribution^ having assumed an ceconomical 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 come forth from the
*' power of the Father, did not leave him who begot the Word
*^ destitute of it. For also I speak and you hear. And yet I
'' who address you do not by any means become destitute of my
"word through the transmission of it.'*^

Here the Word seems clearly represented to have hetn produced
but just before the creation of the world, as 9i personal agent,
or a Son, 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 Tertullian, 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

^ B^6s ^y Iv i^XVf ''^^ '^ ^xh" k6yov Ti^yaifuv wap€t\ii<pafi€y. *0 ydip Sccnrc^f
r&y SXmit aUn'6s &r(ipx»y "rod wayr6s ri &r6(rr€urtSf Kork fi^p rijy firi94jrw yvy€-
ruiiirfiv iroffiiTiy fi6yos ^y* KjaB6 9^ irwra S^KOfus, Speeruy re jcol kopdrwy avrds
inr6<rrcurii ^k, trhy aJbr^ rk wdyrti, {<rhy abr^f ykp) 9idt Koyucijs ivydfifwst abrhs ica2
6 \6yos hs ^y iy airr^ hvitmivt, QtXiifiari Hh Trjs awk6rrrros ainov irpowjiH^ \6yos.
6 9k \6yos ov Kork Ktyov x^f'h^^t ^pyoy vpotrSroKoy rod warphs yly€r€u, Tovroy
Ifffiey rod K6<rfAov r^y iipxh^- T^yoyt 9k Korii fitpurfthy, ob. tcardt hwoKoirfiy, Th
ykp inroTfiriBky tov irp^ov K^xi^pifrrw rh 9\ (itpurBky ohcoyofdas r V ciptaty wpoff'
Xafihy oitK iy9f«f rhy Mfy cTXiTirrcu wnrolriKty. &<nr€p yhp kwh fuas 9a9hs iiydirrercu
fiky wvpk woXXii, rris 9k wp^^s 9cJihs 9ik r^v f^w^iy r&y woW&y 9a9wy ouk iKar-
rovrau rh tp&s' olhw ical 6 \6yos 'wpotKB^y iic t^s tov ircerpbs 9vydfitwSf oitK UXoyow
wewoiriKt rhy ytytyyiiK^a* KaX ykp alrrhs iyif XaXd, Koi bfuTs &ico^crc, icai oO
9iiwov 9idL T^s utrafidatofs rod \Ayov Ktyhs 6 irpoaofii\uy \6yov ylyofiM, TaTIAK.

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
oeconoDiical state of the Godhead; on which matter we shall
have some further remarks to make when we come to consider
the testimony of Tertullian.^

The same doctrine is delivered by Athenagoras^ who says of
"the Son/' that ''be is the first-bom of the Father, not as a.
" created being, (for, from the beginning, God — bein^ 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."* 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."* And again: —
" The Grod and Father of the universe is not comprehensible
" within any fixed space, and is not found in any certain place.
" For there is no place of his rest. But his Word, by whom
he made all things, being his power and wisdom, assuming
the appearance of the Father and Lord of the Universe, was

€<
€<

Contr. Graec. Orat. § 6. — Inter Op. Ju«t. Mart. &c ed. Ben. Paris. 1742. pp. 247, 8.
The words ffhv oM^ y^ are put by the Benedictme editors within brackets as of
doubtful authority, but without any sufficient ground. I have interpreted \^yos,
in the first place in which it occurs, recucm, for which rendering see the observa-
tions on TertuUian.

1 In connexion with these remarks, see the dissertation on Tatian at the end of
Worth's edition. See also Cave, Hist. Lit. under the name Tatian,

' UpSnop y4yyrjfAa cTvcu r^ Harpl, obx ^^ ytp6fi€P0P (^( ^XV* 7^ ^ 6c^f , vovs
ktZtos ^^t *lx^y tUnds 4v kavr^ r6y AiSyoy^ iuZlcos \oytK6s &p) &W* its rStv (>KikS»9
^vfiwdyroty .... i8/a icol iy4pytia thcu wpot\B<liy, Atsksaq. Leg. pro Christianis,
5 10. — Inter Op. Just. Mart. &c. ed. Ben. p. 287.

' "Eariy 6 vl6s rod BcoD, \6yos rov Harpis tv lZ4t^ kojL iv^prftiff,

^ '^Ex^y ody 6 Bths rhy icurrov AiAyoy MtdBeroy iy rois IZiois mrXiirfxyoii, iydy*
yrifffy cArhy furk Trjs iavrov <ro<f>ias i^fp€v^dfi€yos wpii rS»y ZXoty. Tovroy rhy A6'
yoy ivx^v trwovpyhy rSty in^ alrov ytytyrifidywyj ica2 9t* ainov rii vdyra 'rnroiriic€y.
Thxoph. Antiooh Ad AutoL lib. ii. $ 10.— Inter Op. Just. Mart. &c. ed. Ben.
p. 855.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 237

{{

(€
(€

it
€(
ft

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 Word, born before the whole
creation ; not being himself rendered destitute of his Word,
but, after having generated the Word, being still always in
^' communion with his Word.^'^

Here again it can hardly be maintained, that the Aoyo;
hhi&O^Tosy 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 A6yos Trpo(f>opi.K6s, the Word put forth as a personal agent,
is traced to a voluntary act of the Father, taking place just
before the creation of the world.

And here I would observe, that in all these statements, as in
others which we shall notice presently, the generation of the
Word as a Word put forth as a personal agent, or as a Son, is
represented as an act of the Father^s will, contingent upon his
conceiving the purpose of creating the world.^

* 'O fihy Sths fcal Ilarijp rSay iXjuv iix^P^^^ iari^ kcUL iv r6ir<f obx tipltrKtrcu.
o2> yiip 4<m rSwoi rrjs Korawadfffws ainov. 'O 8i /iSyos airrovt 81* ov r& irdyra
wtirolriKt, 96yafus &v Kot (ro<pia ovrov, &yaXMfi$iiyuy rh irp6<re»woy rov Jlarphs ircd
Kvplov rStv iXwv, olros wapeylyfro (Is r6» wapdBuffoy iy irpoff^tf rod 8<oS, kcUL
&fAl\ti r^ A9d/ii. Kott yitp aMj ^ d€7a ypcup^ StScitricci rifias rdy AHiifi \4yoyrat r^s
^yrji iLKr\Ko4yax' puyii 9c rl &XA.<{ itrriy^ *aAA* ^ 6 AAyoi 6 rod 0coD, 8$ i(m ical
vl6s adrov, Odx &s ol woiriral koI fiv0oypd<l>oi \4yov(riy viobs OccDk 4k avyowrias
ytyyufx^yovs, &XX^ &s iL\ri0(ia Jiirycrro*, roy /iSyoy rdy 6yra Hiawayrds 4y9id$froy
4y Kopiliif ^ov. Tlp6 yhp r\ yiyttrOcu, rovroy cTx^ a^fifiovKoyt iaurov yovy Koi
<^p6y7iffiy 6yra. 'Ow^rf 8i i^BiKriffw 6 B€6s woiTJccu S<ra 4fiovK({HTaroy rovroy r6y
A^yoy 4y4yyjiff9 irpo(popiK6y^ irpoorAroKoy wdarii Krifftoas, oh fccKo^cb aiArbs rov
A^ov, &AA^ Airfoy ytyrfiffoSt Kcd r^ Airpif oJrov dtcnroKT^s hiuKSty, lb. § 22.
p. 365.

2 That these statements are Platonic rather than Christian, is allowed by Le
Quien and Lumper. See Lump. Hist. Crit. Patr. vol. 3. pp. 170, et seq.

238 PATEISTICAL TRADITION

A similar non-eternal generation of the Word is also asserted
by Hippolytus, and in terms which seem clearly to indicate^
that^ before that generation^ he had not a distinct and personal
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 right one, it does not appear to me to vindicate their
orthodoxy.

In whichever way we understand them, they appear to me to
be irreconcileable with the orthodox doctrine. For if, as some
think, and as the expressions used would 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
speak, which is unquestionably a generation at a particular
time for the purposes 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 original and essential plurality of persons in the Godhead,
which is equally unorthodox.^ For they say, that the Word or
Reason {kdyos) was always in the Father, because the Father
was always endued with reason (Xoyixos), and as being his
" mind and intelligence.^' Now the Divine Being was origi-
nally and essentially endued with reason (XoytK^;) ; and hence,

^ Kai ofh-ws waplararo adr^ trtpoi, "Ertpoi^ 8i \eyup, od H^o Stohs X/yw, &AA*
&i <f>wi 4k (pcor6st k. t. A. HiPFOL. Contr. Noet. § 11. Op. ed. Fabric Hamb.
1716, 18. torn. 2. p. 13.

' " There ciui be but one Person originally of himself subsisting in that infinite
** Being, because a pluraHty of more persons so subnsting would necessarily infer a

" multiplidty of gods Wherefore it necessarily followeth, that Jesus Christ, who

" is certmnly not the Father, cannot be a Person subsisting in the Divine nature
" originally of himself." Pbabson, Expos, of Creed, pp. 208, 4. ed. Dobeon.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 239

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 {koyos) 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 became the first-begotten of the Father. Con-
sequently, if he existed as a Person in the Father before this,
be existed, not as one 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.
He says that '^ before all created things, God begot a certain
rational power {bvva^iis XoyiK^) of himself,^^^ which he proceeds
to say is called by the various names of the Son, the Word, &c.
This generation of the 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 persons 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.

240 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

Father^ particularly that of Hippolytus. 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, (AJyoy,) was always in the Father, because the
Father was always and originally rational, (XoytKiy,) 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 Samosata, who, as Dr. Burton^ tells us, '^ believed
'^ the Logos to be God, and to reside in the Father, but not to
'' have a separate existence.^' Nay, Dr. Burton, speaking of
these very writers, tells us,^ that they borrowed their notions
from the Platonizing Jews of Alexandria, who, as he says, ^' had
** learned almost to personify the mind or reason of God, as may
'' be seen in the works of Philo Judseus -/' while " it may be
*' demonstrated, that these Alexandrian Jews did not reaUy mean
'' to speak of Wisdom, 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, Hippolytus calls the Son '^co-eternal with
the Father^' r^ ITorpi <rvvaibLos,^ there can be no doubt, that,
with his views, he is speaking with reference to His essence ; for

> Testim. of Ante-Nic. FatherB to Div. of Christ. 2d ed. p. 398. .

' Testim. of Ante-Nic Fathers to Trin. p. 30.

' Demonstr. oontr. Jud. c. 7. Op. vol. 2. p. 4. The work " De consmnmatione
mundi et de Antichristo," from which Bishop Bull g^ves an extract, in which
Christ is spoken of (§ 43) as avvdyapxos r^ tlarpl, is now hy almost muTersal con-
sent adjudged spurious. SeeHiFPOL. Op ed. Fahric. vol. 1. App. pp. 3, 4; where
also the work is to be found, pp. 4 — 29.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 241

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 (AoyiK^y). 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 potentiaUy 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 Grod, even before his generation according to the
'^ flesh. And farther, our emperor, beloved of God, argued
" that he was before all ages, even with respect to his Divine
" generation ; since even before he was acttialli/ begotten, he was
^* potentially in the Father without generation ; the Father being
always Father, as also always King and Saviour, and poten-
tially being aU 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.*
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

* "Et* /li V rh iLyaBtfioriitfrOcu rb wpb rov y9inn\Brivtu oiK ^k, oiJic Arowoy ivo'
fu(r0i^, T^ wapd wwriy 6fjLo\oyf7(rO(Uf ttycu cvdrhy Tlby rod Stov Koi irp6 rrjs Kord
<rdpKa ytyrfifffuS' "Hiri 9i 6 $fo<pi\4<rTaTos rifi&y ficuriXthi r^ X<$y9» Karc(r«rc^(c,
fcal icarcl t^k Mtoy ednov yiyvuffiy rh wph wdyruy eu^ywy tlyai adrSy. hrd «ral wpHy
iytpy€Uf ytyytiOriyaif ?ivydfiti ^y iy r^ IXarpl iytyyijrwSj Byros rod Ileerphs &<2
weerpbst its ical ficuri\4ws &ct, koI cvr^pos, fcol 9vyiifA§i miyra Syroi id re teal Kori
ret adri, Kol &ffa6rws Hx^yroi. EUSBB. Epist. ap. Theodoret. Hist. Eocl. lib..i.
c. 11. Op. torn. iii. pp. 781, 2. ed. Schulz.

3 See, as opposite testimony, CoNSTANTnrE'a Letter to Arias, and his Letter to
the Nioomedlans against Eusebius and Theognis, in Gblas. Cyz. De Act. Cone.
Nic. sub fin.; ed. Lntet. 1599. pp. 203—24.

VOL. I. B

€€
€€
(t

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 Son, in order more effectually to refute the error of Arius,
who said that there was a time when the Son was not. The
sense, therefore, in whicfi 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 Arius, scrupled to use
such terms. The objection, in the case of many of them at
least, was, that such terms seemed equiV)Edent to a denial of the
generation of the Son, and made Him a Person originally self-
existent in the Godhead,^ and did not proceed from their denying
his rtrft/a/ co-eternity, as the effulgence proceeding from light is
virtually co-eternal with it. Their difference, therefore, m 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 the Father before all worlds or ages {irpb TrivTonv
T&v aldviov ^K Tov TTorpoy y€yevvr)y,ivov). 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,
ixpovos. This the Arians themselves allowed.^ Indeed, the very
words of the Constantinopolitan Creed occur in a Creed given by
Athanasius, as one of the numerous semiarian formulse drawn up
about the middle of the fourth century.* But certainly, as Dr.
Burton says, ^' Our powers of abstraction will perhaps not allow
us to have a more definite idea of eternal existence than this.^^
(Testim. of Ante-Nic. Fathers to Doctrine of Trinity, pp.
146, 7.) It does no doubt imply eternity, and I suppose was

" See Athanis. De Synod. § 26. Op. torn. i. P. 2. p. 739. ed. Bened.
' Sfee Athanas. De Synod. § 16. torn. i. P. 2. pp. 729, 30.
' See Athanas. De Synod. § 27. torn. i. P. 2. p. 742.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 243

intended to imply a virtual co-etemity 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. ^

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

^ And in this lower sense they were used bj the AriAos. See Athanab. De
Synod. § 16. torn. i. P. 2. pp. 729, 30; and HiLAB. De Trin. ir. § 12. col. 838.

244 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

almost coseval 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 &om orthodoxy on one side as
that of Petavius on the other.

The fact 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 pretty much divided about the question of eternal
generation, though there was no question about the eternal
existence : Whether the A&yos might be rightly said to be begot^
ten in respect of the state which was antecedent to the irpoikeva-is
" was the point in question, Athanasius argued strenuously for
'' it, (Contr. Arian. orat. 4.) upon this principle, that whatever is
" of another and referred to that other as his head {as the A6yos
" 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 Aoyos ever existed
'^ and was not in the capacity of Son, and the Church had never
" been used to the language of two unbegottens. These con-
" 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 more pre-
" vailing language, and has prevailed ever since. There is nothing
" new in the doctrine more than this, the calling that etemd
'^ generation which others would have styled the eternal ex-
" istence and relation of the A&yos to the Father, which at
" length amounts only to a difference in words and names,"

i€

€t
€€
it

> Tlicjre are some observations of Hiulbt on this point in his Treatise on the
Trinity, (Ub 12. §§ 30—45. col. 1127—36. ed. Ben.) which are remarkable.
"Natmn semper esse," he says, " hoc est, seusum temporum nascendo prsecurrere,
neque inteUigentuB patere aliquando fiiisse non natmn." (§ 80.) " Iddroo nunc
Sapientia natam se ante ssecnla docens anteriorem se non solum his quo) creata
sunt docet, sed rotemis coffitemam, prcBparationi gcilieet caliet discretioni sedis
Dei. . . . Perpctua enim et atema rerum creandarum est preeparatio." (§§ 39, 40.)
"Omnis horum prasparatio Deo est coatema." (§ 40.) **Ubi ante saxnilum est
nativitas, infinitae generatioms ajtemitas est." (§ 45.) See also Ctbill. Alex.
Thesaur. c. 11. Op. torn. 5, Part. i. p. 87.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 245

(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 coetemity 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

t€

246 FATRISTICAL TRADITION

*' light existing always^ it is manifest that the eflFulgence always
exists ; for in this it is known that it is lights 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
^^ no child, how and of whom could he be a parent ? But both
^' exist, and eanst 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.' ^'1

The difference between these passages and those which we
have just been considering, is apparent. Here 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-

^ Tpd4>9i . . 11^9 tr^pa^ o&tcos- Oi yAp ^y 5r< 6 Bths odK ^y warfip. Kol rovro
oIBcy iy rots i^vfy ^*^ fhy Xpiarhy c7vai, \^oy tvra kojL <ro<play ical Hvya/Aur ov
yiip 8^ ro6ruy iyoyos &y 6 B€hs c7ra iwai^knroi'fiirarot *aW* 8ti fjt^ trap* iavrov 6
vGtSf AAA* iK rod Tlarphs lx<« rh flyai. Kol fitn:^ 6\iya wdKiy w€pl rod avrov ^ffiy
ignUrywrfia 9h t^y tpcorhi &i9(ov, wdyrus ical ainhs &78uJs iariy. tyros yAp &c) rov
^^yrhSf 9fi\oy ws t<my &cl rh iuwaCywrfxa' ro^rtp y^ kcH 5ti <p&s iari r^ Karav-
yd(9ty yottrcUf Kcd <p&s ov Hdyeereu fi^ ^pcoriioy tXyai' JcdKiy y^ $\Owfify M. rA wapa-
(ffy/Aora. el $<my ^Aior, ftrriy abyiif tarty r\ii4pa' cl roio'lnwy fitfity iffriy iroAii
Tff dc7 Kcd Topuyeu I}Aiok* cl fihy oZy AtSiof & l}Aios, ^.iravaros Ky ^y ical ^ ^fi^pa- yvy
9hf oh y^ iariVy hf^oLfiiyov tc, ^p^oro, kojL iravofi4yov, waitrai* 6 94 y^ ^hs al^yi6y
4<m ^f , ot^f ikpldfityoy oCrt \^^6y wort* obicovy cdi&yioy wp6ie€ircu, ical <r&y€ffruf
a,W^ rh inrnvytuTfia Ayapxoy koI ittiywhs .... Kai addis .... 6yros oZy cduylov rov
Tlarphs, aUbyios 6 vl6s iffri, <p&s 4k ^wrhs &y tyros yitp yoy4ws, tan kcUL r4Kyoy.
cl 9h fi^ r4icvov ttr\y vios koX riyos tXyai Hiywrai yoy^its ; &AA* ^laXv ifupw, K€d ttffly
&cl . . . . Kol . . ircUty ^<ri' fUyos 8i 6 vlhs &cl trvyi^y r^ Tlarpi, kcI rov tyros
w\iipo6fi€yos, Kot abrts 4<rriy, &y 4k rov UvrpSs- Athakab. De Sentent. Dionyi.
§ 16. Op. torn. i. pp. 253, 4.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 247

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 firsts 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 allied, 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. e. the Father] another. But
when I say another, I do not mean two Gods, but as light
from light y 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,^ 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
> XAcTAirr. Imtit. lib. 4. c. 29. p. 230. ed. Cant. 1685.

248 PATRI8TICAL 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 He 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,''^

' ** Pater enim tota substantia est ; Illius vero derivatio totins et portio, sicat
ipse profitetur. Quia Pater major me est." Teettll. Adv. Prax. c. ix. Op. p. 504.

' " £t pater Deus est, et judex Deus est ; non tamen ideo pater et judex semper,
quia Deus semper. Nam nee pater potuit esse ante filium, nee judex ante delic-
tum, Fuit autem tempus, cum et delictum et filius non fiiit." Adv. Hermog.
c. 3. p. 234. Bishop Bull's explanation of this may be seen in his Def. Fid.
Nic. ill. 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

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 249

At the same time it would be doing an injustice to him not
to state what his views are on this pointy 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 t^ 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 inteU
ligence (sensus). This the Greeks call \&yo9f 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 confesaons
of Jerome, I will not deny that they sometimes did.

* " Hoc ut firmum non rat, alia me argumenta deducnnt ab ipsa Dei dispori-
tione, qua fuit ante mun^ constitutionem, adusque filii generationem." Adr.
Prax. c. 5. p. 502.

<€
€(

«
«

(t
«

€€

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
" be 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. ^ 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 f to wit, form-
" ing and begetting in his own intelligence. Then take notice
'^ of Wisdom standing by at the moment of separation (assis-
tentem ipsa separatione^), ' 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
out 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
" Word as it proceeds from God ;^ being formed by him first for

1 ** Secundus quodammodo in te estsermo, per quern loqueris oo^tando, et per
qnem oogitas loquendo. Ipse sermo alius est." Adv. Prax. c 5. p. 603.

' " In ratione sermonem quern secundum a se &oeret agitando intra se." lb.

' The word aeparaHo, if Tertullian's, must have been used hastily here by him,
as in oc. 8, 9, he denies that there is any teparoHo between the iVither and Son.
He uses elsewhere the word prolaHo in this connexion. The true reading here
must, I think, be, pr€Bparaiione.

* ** Hsec est nativitas perfecta sermonis, dum ox Deo procedit." lb. c. 7.

€i
t€
it

€€
it

«
(i

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 251

'' 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 him.' " ^

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 vdth-
" out generation or creation but God alone. For if within the
" Lord that which was from him and in him, was 710/ without
beginning y namely, his wisdom, which was bom 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.^'^

Here, then,, it appears, that Tertullian, though he denied the
eternal generation of the Word or Sod, 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 Tertullian

1 Adr. Prax. cc. 5—7. pp. 502, 8.

' '* Denique ut neoeasariam [i. e. Sophiam] sensit ad opera mundi, statim eft
[earn] oondit et generat in Bemetipso. Dominns, inquit, oondidit me iniiiiim
vianim goanun in opera sua ; ante secula fbndavit me, prius qnam fiuseret terram ;
prins qnam monies oollocarentnr ; ante omnes antem oolles generavit me; prior
autem abyaw genita som. Agnoecat ergo Hermogenes iddroo etaam Sophiam Dei
natam et conditam prsedicari, ne quid innatnm et inoonditum praeter solnm Deom
crederemns. Si enim intra Dominmn qnod ex ipso et in ipso fnit, mne initio non
Mt : Sophia adlioet ipnuB, exinde nata et oondita ex qno mi gentu Dei ad opera
mwuU diepanenda cctpU (igitari : molto magis non capit line initio qmoquam
fnisse qnod extra Dominnm ftierit." Adv. Hermog. c 18. p. 289.

252 PATBISTICAL TRADITION

considered personality to commence upon the generation of the
Son. Thus he says : — "Everything 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 are 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 oeco-
" nomy, which makes a plwality of persons/'^

This last passage reminds me of the observation previously
made respecting the third summary of the faith given by Ter-
tuUian, 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 Grodhead, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
was only a dispehsational or ceconomical and temporary mode
of existence of the Godhead, for it was the notion of Marcellus
that the Grodhead was extended and contracted according to
different dispensations {oUovoixCas). Had the passage in that
summary stood alone, one might have been contented to aflSx 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 £ftr remains in its own 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

the Father,' "^ Here he evidently supposes, that there might

^ ** Omne quod prodit ex aliquo, secundum sit qjus neoesse est^ de quo prodit,
non ideo tamen est separatum. Secundus autem ubi est, duo sunt. £t tertius
nln est, tres sunt. Tertius enim est Spiritus a Deo et Filio." Adv. Ftax. c. 8.
p. 604.

s ** Duos quidem definimus, Patrem et Filium, et jam tres cum Spiritu Sancto,
secundum rationcm (economic, qua faoU mumerum,** Adv. Prax. c. 13, p. 507.
See also c. 16. And observe the following : — " Quscunque ergo substantia sermonis
ftdt, illam dioo personam, et ill! nomen filii vindioo." Adv. Ftax. c 7, p. 504.

' " Vide ergo ne tu potius monarchiam destruas. qui dispositionem et dispensa-
tionem ejus evertis in tot nominUnu consHtutam in quot Deus voluit. Adeo autem
manet in suo statu, licbt Tbhtitab nrvsAATUB, ut etiam restitui babeat Flotri a

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 253

have been, if the Father had so willed it, more than three
Persons in the Grodhead, and that the tripersonal state as now
existing was not from all eternity, and was only an (Bconomical
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 Sender^
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 Axians, because they spoke
of the generation of the Son as a creation, and of the Son as being
made from that which was not {k^ ovk Svroiv), 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 Grennadius, an author of the 5th century,
" Nihil ex Trinitatis essentia ad creaturarum naturam deductum,
ut Plato et Tertullianus."^ 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 regnmn Deo et
Patri." Adv. Prax. c. 4. p. 502. Observe also the following :— " Videmur [videmtw]
igitnr non obesse monarchisD filimn, etsi hodie apud filinm est ; quia et in sno stata
est apud fllium, et cum suo statu restitnetur Patri a ¥llio. Ita eam nemo hoc
nomine destruet, si filium admittat^ cxd et traditam eam a Rktre, et a quo quan-
doque restituendam Patri constat." Adv. Prax. c. 4. p. 502.

^ De ecdes. dogmat. c. 4. — Inter Op. August, ed. Ben. torn. viii. app. coL 76.

a
it

254* PATRISTIC A L TRADITION

nuous defenders^ that he argued deceitfully^ and cared little what
he said of God in rejutation of his opponent P^

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 the following passage of Dr. Waterland^
in which it is described. " Tertullian is known to have dis-
tinguished between raiio and sermo, both of them names of
the selfsame A6yos, considered at different times under dif-
ferent capacities ; firsts 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
" supposes, AS DO MANY OTHERS, the Sonship properly to com-
'' mence. So that though the A6yos 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 ?'

1 Bull. Def. Rd. Nic. iii. 10. 4

' Bishop Bull supposeft, that when the Arians at the Council of Nice affirmed of
the Son, that he was not, before he was begotten, they meant to oppose the notion
advanced (as he thinks) by some at that time, 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 Qod, and the first-begotten, maintained
also that he existed before by an eternal generation from the Father, and that
many of the cathoUcs at Nice, understanding the term begotten as used by the
Arians to refer to that temporal generation, meant to maintain, in their condemna-
tion of the Arians, that he was before he 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 spoke of the original generation of the Son from the Father,
without any particular reference to such views. (See Athanas. De Synod. § 16.
tom. i. p. 729. HiLAB. De Trin. lib. xii. c 18—31. Basil. Adv. Eunom. lib. 2.
c 14s 15.) Whether there were any 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 certmnly
Hilary in his replies to the Arians treats the question as one relating to the original
generation of the Son, (De Trin. lib 12,) and particularly opposes any supposition
that the catholics in condemning the Arian statement^ " he was not before he

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 255

I proceed to Novatian,^ 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 are 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 ; Grod, namely, proceeding from Grod,
" 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 (Jod, thought it not robbery to be
equal with Grod.'' 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 bom and brought forth of him. Although,
" therefore, he was in the form of God, [non est rapinam arbi-
" tratus sequalem se esse Deo ; which, from the remarks that
" follow, he must have translated, as some others have done,
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 affirm, that he was before he was begotten, and contends
against that statement only on the ground of its seeming to impugn the eternity
of the Son. (lb. §§ 30, 31. col. 1127, 8.)— Since the first edition of this work,
which contained the above note, Mr. Newman has published a Dissertation in
defence of precisely the same criticism on Bishop Bull's view.

* If it is objected, that Novatian was a heretic, the reply is obxHous, namely,
that he was never accused of heresy except on one point connected with ecde-
siastical discipline.

' " Hie ergo, quando Pfeter voluit, processit ex Patre ; et qui in Patre fuit, pro-
cessit ex Patre ; et qui in Patre fuit, quia ex Patre fuit, cmn Patre postmodum
fuit, quia ex Patre processit; Substantia scilicet ilia divina, cigus nomen est
Verbum, per quod facta sunt omnia, et sine quo factum est nihil. Omnia enim
post ipsum sunt, quia per ipsum sunt ; et merito ipse est ante omnia, quando per
illimi facta sunt omnia, qui processit ex eo ex cijus voluntate facta sunt omnia :
Deus utique procedens ex Deo secundam personam effidens, sed non eripiens illud
Patri qudd unus est Deus." NovATiAir. De Trin. c. 31. Ad fin. Tertull. Op. ed.
Paris. 1664 p. 729, or. Col. Agripp. 1617. p. 743.

256 FATBISTICAL TRADITION

" Ood the Father^ he never either compared or likened himself
'' to Ood the Father, remembering that he was of his own
'^ Father, and that Repossessed existence, because the Father had
'' ffiven it. Hence, then, both before his incarnation, and after
" his assumption of a body, nay, moreover, after the resnrrec-
" 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 feU 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 (Jod. 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
be 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
part 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, are we to reconcile with the orthodox doctrine

^ " Hoc ipsnm tamen a Pfttre proprio oonsecatus, ut omnium et Dens esset, et
Dominns eeset, et Dens ad fbrmam Dei Pfttris ex ipso genitns atqne prolatns. Hie
ergo qnamvis esset in forma Dei, non est rapinam arbitratns eeqnalem se Deo esse.
Qnamvis enim se ex Deo Pfttre Demn esse meminisset, nnnqnam se Deo Flatri ant
oomparavit ant contnlit^ memor se esse ex sno Pfttrev et hoc ipsnm, qnod est,
habere se, qnia Pater dedisset. Ind« deniqne et ante camis assnmptaonem, sed et
post assmnptionem corporis, post ipsam prsBterea resnrrectionem, omnem F&tri in
onmibns rebns obedientiam prestitit pariter ac pnsstat. Ex qno probatnr, nnn-
qnam arbitratnm illnm esse rapinam qnandam diTinitotem, nt seqnaret se Pfttri
Deo : qninimo contra, omni ipsins imperio et Tolnntati obediens atqne snbjectns,
nt fbrmam servi snsdperet oontentns fnit," Ac NoTATiAir. De Trin. c 17. lb.
p. 717, or, p. 734.

> " Est ergo Deus, sed in hoc ipsnm genitns, nt esset Dens. Est et Dominns,
■ed in hoc ipsom ex Patre, nt esset Dominns." Id. ib. c 81. lb. p. 730, or 748.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 257

those words of Methodius^ where he calls the Son *^ the most
antient of seons^ and the first of Archangels ?''^

And as to Lactantius^ there can be no question about the
matter^ with a writer who can speak thus : — " Since God was
*' most wise in designings 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 dtd^oAos [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."*

More may be found in him elsewhere to the same effect.' It
is useless to attempt to reconcile such statements with the ortho-
dox doctrine ; and so Bishop Bull admits. i

Nay, what says Dr. Cave, who, perhaps, wa$ as well entitled
as any one to give a judgment in the case ? — '* The errors which
'^ are 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 of

* Thv irpffffivraToy ray alwrvy Koi irp&Toy r&y 'Apxiyy^^tay' METHOD. Con-
viv. decern virg. orat. 3a. § 4. Bibl. Ptotr. ed. Qalland. torn. iii. p 686.

^ " Cum esset Deoa ad exoogitandnm prudentiBsimus, ad fiidendum solertis-
slmus, anteqoam ordiretur hoc opus mundi : quoniam pleni et consummati boni
fons in ipso erat, sicut est semper, ut ab eo bono tanquam rivus oriretur longeque
proflueret, produxit similem sui spiritum, qui esset virtutibus Dei Patris praDditus.
Quomodo autem id feoerit, in quarto libro dooere oonabimur. Deinde fecit alteram
in quo indoles divina) stirpis non permansit .... Hunc .... Qrsdo. ZidfioXoy appel-
lant, nos criminatorem vocamus .... Exorsus igitur Deus fabricam mundi ilium
primum et maximum filium pnofedt open universo, eoque simul et consiliatore
iisuB est, et artifice, in exoogitandis, ornandis, pcrfidendisque rebus, quoniam is et
providentia et raHone et potestate perfectus est." Lacta2<t. Instit. lib. 2. c 8.
od. Cant. 1685. p. 84.

» See Lactant. Instit. lib. iv. cc 6, Ac.

VOL. I. 8

i€
€i
it

258 PATEISTICAL 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 ike 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 Fetavius. 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 imanimous 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 BuU. It is evident,

' Cate, Hist. Liter, sub nom. " Lactantius," voL L p. 162. See also his Articles
on Origen and Eusebios.
« Lib. ii. q. 2. §§ 10, 14, and 26. In Op. Orig. ed. Ben. torn, iv. app. pp. 122—84.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 259

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
^' Petavhis at large proves, (Dogm. Theol. tom. ii. in Prsef.) 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. § 2.) that Arius did follow the opinion of many of
" the aniients 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 difficulty 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. Hierorae, (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, how 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

€C
(i

((

260 FATBISTICAL TRADITION

'^ incompetency of tradition for giving a certain sense of Scripture,
" wlien that tradition is to be taken from the writers of the for e-
" 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 tnie/^^

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 ?* 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 Creneral 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
instiTiment 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

* Answer to several Treat, pp. 245, 6. Second edition, 1674. Nor arc his
statements in his subsequent work on the doctrine of the Trinity contradictory
to these remarkfi, 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 fVill
orthodox doctrine of the Trinity against Arian or Scmiarian errors.

- Sec SozoMEK. Hist. lib. i. c. 14.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 261

Fathers^ I tave 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 virovpyclv,) 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 Grodhead, 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

262 PATRI8TICAL TRADITION

as the essence of the stream is the same as that of the fountain^
and all the goodness^ Tirtoes, 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 Grodhead,
originate all things. Hence it is said by Origen, that as it
respects the Father, it would be said, all things were made
1^ avTov, but as it respects the Son, that all things were made
bi' airrov. 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 modem 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-

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 263

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 fuU 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

264 PATBISTICAL 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 byit; but with how little reason, I shall show hereafter.^
Aixd 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

* See AUGUBT. Contr. Maxim, lib. 2. c. 14 « See c. 10. § 3, below.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 265

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 Borne, 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 Anomoean, he, as far as we
" know, was the first that supplied the seeds. But I think
'' that the cause of this was not any error in his own views, but
'' his vehement desire to oppose Sabellius. I am therefore in
'' the habit of comparing him to a gardener straightening a
young plant that is bent, and by drawing it back too much
missing the middle and leading away the plant in the 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
" su£Scient for him to show that the Father and Son were not
'* the same subjectively,^ and thus to gain the victory against

* Ov rainhy r^ inroK^Hkivi^ Uvr^ip K(d vibs.

€€

€i
it

€€
l€

266 FATBISTICAL TRADITION

€t

€i
t€
C€
t€
€i
€€
it
€1
€(
if

the blasphemer, he, that he might most clearly triumph and
'' gain more than a victory, not only lays down a distinction of
'^ hypostases, but also a difference of essence, and degrees of
power, and diversity of glory. ^ So that it thus happened,
that he 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.^ 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,^ Such is this man.'^*

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 Dionysius 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-

^ ObX irfp^rrira fUyoy rS»v (nroffrdceMy riOercu, &AA^ ical olaias Huupopiiyf ical
Hvydfifws (i<pftriy koI 96^ris irapaWay^y.

' Ta^TT^ rot Kcd iFcarro^enr6s iariy iy ro7s avyypofificuriy, vvy fi^y kyaxfAy rh 6fiO'
o^aioy, 9^ rhy hi^ &0eHi(r€i rS»y (nroffriff^oty Kucm abr^ KtxpVM'^yoy yvy tk trpoa"'
U/ifyos iy lis &iro\oyc<rai irphs rhy Sfi^yvfioy.

' Ilphs 9^ ro6rois Koi irtpl rod Tlyfifiaros &^ice ifwyiiSf ^Kiffra iFpnro6<ras r^
Jlyt^fioTi, rijs irpoirKvyovfA^yris ainh $f6rrp'os i^oplCuy, Koi Kdrct irov r^ Kriarp koI
Xttrovpy^ ^<^ci (TvyapiOfiuy, With this testunony it is difficult to know what to
determine respecting the genmnencss of the " Letter to Fftul of Samosata," attri-
bated to Dionysius, which on other grounds is, as Dr. Cave tells us, " suspected
by many" (multis suspecta). The testimonies it contains to the true and proper
divinity (in the highest sense of the term) of the Son and Holy Spirit are very
strong and dear. 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.

< Basil. CiBS. Ep. 9. Op. ed. Ben. torn. iii. pp. 90, 91.

* "Nihil creatum aut serviens in Trinitate credendum, ut vult Dionysius fons
Alii" GsiOfAD. De ecdes. dogmat. c. 4. Inter Op. Augustin. ed. Ben. tom. viii.
app. od. 76.

€(
C€
l€
€C
Ct

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 267

rectly, 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. ; but 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.''^

The same charge is repeated, with various weighty additions,
by Photius, who accuses him of calling the Son a creature (icr^cr/ia),
and asserting that he has rule only over rational beings ; and
also of speaking of the Holy Spirit in an unorthodox way.'

So the work of Novatian on the Trinity, above quoted, is
accused by Rufinus (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.'

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
*^ name."* 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
often called the Holy Spirit. And while we ought clearly to

^ OvfiSvos iv ro{rr<fif€ir\dyifTcu Kwrh r^r krowtcty rov 96yfiaros 6 EwSfuor &XX*
(cm Kttl iv rots ^^oyv^ffrtf xeiroytifi4pois rh laoy §{tpuir ts ^ai rhy Bthy fiov\6^
fi€¥ow r69t rh iray KorcurKfvdo'ai, wpwroy rhv vlbr oloytl riva Koufhra rrjs Srifuovpylas
irpovwtHrHia-curBcu, Qbso. Ntsb. Contr. Eunoin. Orat. 8a. torn. ii. p. 132. ed.
ParU. 1615.

« Photh BibUoth. Art. 107. ooL 280. ed. 1653.

' Apol. pro Orig. Inter Op. Orig. ed. Ben. torn. iv. app. p. 53. Jerome
corrects him in his reply, as fiu* as respects the name of the author, intimating
that it was known to be Novatian's.

^ See p. 238 abore.

268 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."^

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
" learnings 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." ^

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 sciiiple 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.

^ See p. 233 above.

3 " Alios autem ita lego, ut quantolibet sonctitate doctrinaqne prffipoUeant, non
ideo venim pntem, quia ipei ita senBerunt, sod qma mihi vel per illos auctores
canoiiiooB, vel probabili ratione, quoda vero non abhorreat, persuadcro potaerunt/'
ArouST. Epist. ad Hicix>n. ep. 82. (fil. 19.) Op. torn. ii. col. 190. ed. Bened.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 269

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 " innumer(d}le" 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 poiut of doctrine now controverted, in matters at all dis-
cussed in the Primitive Church, in which an adversary of the
oHhodox 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 ?'
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.^ To attribute
it to partiality is equally unreasonable, for what object had he to

^ Cave, speaking of his Bihliotheca, to which work I am here allnding more
particularly, says, — " Opus in quo ingenii acumen, jndicii gravitatem, legentis
industrixun an lectionis varietatem quis magis admiratur, hand facile dixerim."
Hist. Lit. ii. p. 48.

2 See his observations on Origcn, Thcognostus, Pierius, Methodius, Ac.

» See liis Biblioth. Art. 225 on Eulogius, col. 761. ed. 1653.

270 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

» Phot. Biblioth. Art. 107. De Theognosto, col. 280. ed. 1653.
' " Jam dudnm observarunt Docti, Patres BGepenmnero rectiiu sensisse qiiam
locates ftiiafle." Luhpeb. Hist. Crit. Patr. vol. iii. p. 157.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 271

would have been had we foand 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 whai those sentiments were, and consequently a discre-
pancy in tne statements of those that remain leaves us alto-
gether uncertam 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 Fatristical 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 are 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 modem
times very dangerous tenets may be propagated by writers with-

272 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,^ 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 opiniou 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

> Sco p. 230 above.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 278

'^ shall reject this as blasphemous and impious/'^ And it is
maintained by the adherents of this doctrine in the Greek
Churchy 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/'*

And certainly, as far as Patristical testimony is concerned, it
forms a strong negative argument in favour of those who deny
the procession from the Son, that the Creed, as agreed upon at
the Coimcil of Constantinople, had only the words, ^^ who pro-
ceedeth from the Father ;" the words " and the Son*' having
been added long after by the Latins.^

Others of the Greek Fathers appear to have approached nearer
the doctrine of the Latin Church in this point than Theodoret,
but hardly any of the antient Greek Fathers, as far as I am
aware, held properly the procession fix>m 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,

^ "liioy 9^ rh nvfvfxa rov Tlov, <l fi^y &s dfio^w^s, koI iK Jlarphs iKirop^v6iuvov
1^, avyofJLoKoyfio'Ofityt koL &s tlHrtfiTJ 9€^6fif$a r^v ^rfiir cl 8* i»s i^ Tlov, ^ 8i*
Tlov r^y fhrap^iy fx^^t ^' fiKdurtpDifww rovroj Kctt its bwrtrtfi^s iiro^l^ofitv.
Thsodoset. Beprehens. Anathem. CyrilL ; adv. Anath. 9. — Op. torn. y. p. 47. ed.
Schnlze.

^ *H ayta Koi KoBoXttcii *EicicXi)0'(a .... 9oyfutrl(u .... rh Tlyfvfia imrop^vrhv iic
fi6yov rov florp^f , &XX* o^l Kot ix rov Tlov. MiCH. PsELLi Cap. TheoL andedm
ad Mich. Conm. c. 10. — Inter Opera in Dobithei T6fios iydmis Korh Aarlymw.
Jassii in Molday. 1698. foL p. 493.

> See PearBon on the Creed, Art 8, (pp. 486, 7. Dohson,) and Burton's Testim.
to Doctr. of Trin. p. 144.

VOL. I. T

€€
€1

274! PATBI8TICAL TRADITION

says, *^ the hypostatical union we altogether reject^ as oatlandish
and foreign to the divine Scriptures and the Fathers who have
interpreted them/*^
Let us next inquire^ whether these Fathers bore a consentient
testimony on the points connected with what are now called
Pelagian errors. So far from it, that we find many passages in
them very pointedly in favour of those errors.

Thus, Clement of Alexandria, when disputing against the
Tatianists, says, " Let them tell us where the newborn infant
" hath committed fornication, or how one who has done nothing
^' hath fallen under Adam's curse ''^i — ^where in eflfect the doc-
trine of original sin is clearly denied.

As it respects the doctrine of freewill, it is notorious, that the
early Fathers have often expressed themselves most erroneously
on the subject. It is satisfactory, 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 Romish Apologie, in which a sarcastic allusion had been
made to the complaints of the Protestants as to the erroneous
statements of some of the Fathers on this point, he speaks
thus, — ^'The censure which the judicious 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
opposition rather affected (as may be feared) seducement than
judgment, they might have taught their reader from their own

€€

^ T^y Koff {nr6trr<unv timtriy xamAwcuriv ikyyoovfifVf &s ^^ytiv, ical iiW.6<f>v\oy rwy
9§Uov yfxup&v kcDl r&v ra^as iipfiriy€VK^wy iror^pwy. Thbodobbt. Repr. Ana-
them. CyrilL ; adv. Aiiath. 2. — Op. torn. v. p. 10. ed. Scbulze. And see the obser-
vations of Gamier, ib. pp. 464 and 478, &c.

' Atydrwaay iffuyt irov hrSpy^vo'ty rh yeyvuB^y wcuiloy ; fj w&s ^h r^y rod
A8^ &wow4irrttK€y iipiiy rh ftrfi^y iytpyriaay; Clem. Alex. Strom, lib. iii. § 16.
Op. ed. Potter. Oxon. 1715. pp. 656, 7. And if we are to suppose, that the work
called " Hypotyposes,'' attributed to him, and mentioned bj Photius, was really
his, he is chargeable with statements far more unorthodox than this.

€<

((

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 275

'' Sixtus Senensis^ and from three of their principal Jesuits^
" that in the root of the doctrine of freewill, ^ Chrysostom, Cyril,
^^ Theophylact, Euthymius, CEcumenius, 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 gtand justifiable tmto 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 biant
TIMES they pleaded for the freeunll 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 contrarUy yield too much tmto the power of the
'' wilU'^

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

1 Mobton'8 Catholique Appeal for Protestants. Lond. 1610. pp. 201, 2.

' This view is abundantly confirmed by oar learned Dr. Whitaker, in his Trea-
tise, De peocato original!, lib. ii. c. 2; but Bishop Morton is one of our opponents'
own witnesses for the doctrine of our Church on tins whole subject.

T 2

€€
€<

CC
CC

276 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 /w 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 Irenseus 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 j 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.

t€

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 277

" 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 Grod immediately after their
death, heretical.

The same doctrine is delivered by Justin Martyr, who, in his
Dialogue with Trypho, says, that '^the souls of the pious remain
'^ somewhere in a better sort of place, and the unjust and wicked
^^ souls in a worse, awaiting the time of the judgment."^ And
he, like Irenseus, classes the doctrine that the souls of the just
are immediately received into heaven among the notions of the
heretics ; — '^ IS/' he says, " ye meet with some who are called
'^ Christians, who do not admit this, [i. e. the doctrine of the

'' milleunium] and who say, that there is no resurrec-

^^ tion of the dead, but that as soon as they die, their souk are
^' taken up into heaven, you must not suppose them to be Chris-
" tians.'** 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 Ood, because
'^ he was also man, having died according to the Scriptures, and
been buried according to the same, complied 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,

' "Cum enim Dominns in medio nmbne mortds abierit, nbi animffi mortaorum
erant, post deinde oorporaliter resorrezit, et post resurrectionem assmnptus est ;
manifestmn est quia et disdpulorum gus, propter quoe ct hffic operatus est Domi-
nu8, ai 4^a2 iLir4pxotrrai fls .... rhp r6'wov [invisibilem locum. Vet, Lot. mi/.]
rhv ifpuTfih^otf odncus iirh rod Btov, jcficct fi^XP' ''^^ iiycurrdatMS ^irw(ri, ircpi/i^"
vowrai r^v hyiarturw firftra iaroKafiowreu t& ff^iuera, fral dXjoKk^pvs &Murra<rai,
rovr4im (rafutruc&Sj KoBits frcd 6 Kipios dy^any, ofhnt iXticoyrcu tis r^w Sr^uf rov
Bfov. Ibek. lib. y. c. 31. ed. Mass. p. 331. ed. Grab. p. 461, 2. There is also a
passage, lib. v. c. 5. which seems of similar import.

' T^ fA^y r&r finrtfiAVf iv Kpfirrowl iroi x^f^ ii4vftv, rh,t Z\ 6JHkovs koI irotnipks
iy x^^poyh Tbf T^s Kplat^s ^KScxo/i^mi XP^"^^ ''^* [iror^ Thirlb.]. JuSTiir.
Mabt. Dial, cum Tryph. § 5. ed. Bencd. p. 107.

' Ei yiip Kol avycfidXert Ofitis rial KtyofUyois Xpurriayoist ical rovro fi^i 6fio\o-
yowriv^ .... o\ ical Ktynvci ft^ ttfoi ytKpvy iufdtrrcuriy, dAAd ifui r^ inro$rfi<rK€iy
riis ^X^ albr&v iumXafifidy^aSai ff2t rhrotfpetyhy, fiii iwo\dfifrr€ airols Xpiaruutois,
Id. ib. § 80 p. 17a

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.
'^ Be 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
the reception 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.''^

^ "Quod si Christns Dens, quia et homo, mortuus sccrmdmn Scripturas et
sepultus secos easdcm, hnic quoqne legi satisfecit, forma hmnana) mortb apnd
inferos functus; nee ante ascendit in sublimiora coelorum, quam dcscendit in
inferiora terrarum, ut illic Patriarchas et Prophetas compotes sui &ccret, habea
et regionem inferOm subterrancam credere, et illos cubito pellere qui satis superbe
non putant animas fidelium inferis dignas: servi super Dominum, et disdpuli
super Magistrum, aspemati si forte in AbrahsB sinu expectandsB resurrectioniB
solatium capere. . . . Nulli patet coelum terra adhuc salva, ne dixerim clausa. Cum
transactione enim mundi resorabuntur regna ccelorum. . . . Habes etiam de Para-
diso a nobis libcllum, quo constituimus omnem animam apud inferos sequestrari
in diem Domini." Tebttxl. De Anima. c. 55. Op. ed. 1664. p. 304.

' " Omnes ergo animsB penes inferos ? Inquis. Yelis ac nolis, et supplida jam
illic et refrigeria." Id. ib. c. 58. p. 806.

' '* Unde apparet sapienti cuique. . . . esse aliqnam localem determinationena.

€€

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 279

Other similar passages may be found elsewhere in his
writings.^

There is also a passage of Clement of Alexandria, which
seems 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/'^
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
^' which 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.''' 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

tc
i(

€€
€€

€€
€t
€1

((

quae smns dicta sit AbrahsB, ad redpiendaB ammas filiormn gas, etiam ex nationi-
biis. . . . Earn itaqne regionem, nnum dioo Abrahse, etri non oGelestem, sablimiorem
tamen inferis, interim refrigerimn pnelntoram animabiu justormn donee conmmi-
matio remm resorrectionem omninm plenitadine meroedis expongat." Id. Ady.
Marc. lib. iv. c. 34. pp. 450, 461.

^ See Tebtxtll. Apologet. c. 47. p. 87. Scorp. c. 12. p. 498.

' 'Aycurrdatofs i\in(ofi4y7ify fPror, if rfj (rvrrcXcif rov ol&vos, ot Hyf^Xot robs
&\ri6ws fteroMoowTcu 94^wyTcu cIs iwovpaylovs amiydf, . . wph H^ xdm^v ainht 6
JUtrlip wpoawarr^ Ht^io^fitvos, ^s 6p4y»v tUricioy, iL'wawrT6tr i^nriywv tls rohs kSx-
irovs rov Harphsj els r^y alt&tfioy (^^y, fh rify ^curiKtiay ruy ohpay&y, Clex.
Alex. Quis Dives salvetur. Op. ed. Potter. Ozon. 1716. pp. 960, 961.

' '' Nondnm enim receperont betitiam snam ne Apostoli qoidem, sed et ipsi
^ exspectant, nt et ego IstitiBD eomm partioepe fiam. Noque enim decedentes hinc
sancti, continno integra meritonun snorom pnemia consequmitur; sed exspedant
etiam nos. . . . Tides ergo quia exspectat adhnc Abraham, nt qusD perfecta sunt
conseqnatnr. Exspectat et Isaac, et Jacob, et omnes Propheto exspectant nos, at
nobiscnm perfectam beatitndinem capiant. Propter hsc ergo etiam mysterimn
illud in nltimam diem dilati jndicii cnstoditnr." Obio. Horn. 7. in Levit. § 2.
Op. torn. iL p. 222. See also Horn. 26. in Num. § 4. p. 872.

280 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

'' earthy 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 reconcileahle 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

place of custody, until the time comes when the great Judge
" will 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.* Whence the writer got his information,
he does not tell us.*

^ " Pato enim quod sancti qnique discedentes de hac vita permanelrant in looo
aliquo in terra posito, quern paradisum didt Scriptura divina, velut in quodam
emditionis looo." Obio. De Princip. lib. 2. c. xi. § 6. Op. torn. i. p. 106.
ed. Ben.

> "Nee tamen quisquam putet, animas port mortem protinus judicari. Nam
omnes in una communique custodia detinentur, donee tempus adveniat, quo «
maximus judex meritorum faciat examen." Lactai^t. Instit. lib. 7. § 21. Op.
ed. Cant. 1685. p. 396.

' See the fragm. in the notes of Hoeschclius on Fhotii Biblioth. ed. 1653. ad fin.
pp. 10, 11 ; or in Hippol. Op. ed. Fabric, vol. i. p. 220. And 8ee respecting it.
Phot Biblioth. Cod. 48. col. 36., and Routh. Reliq. Sacr. vol. ii. pp. 81, 2.

^ Tertullian in his Treatise De anima, and the Author of the QtKF^t. ad orthod.

NO DIVINB INFORMANT. 281

We shall find^ however^ that it only affords us a proofs 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.' ''»

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 I 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 1 You
" are suddenly taken from the earth, that you may be placed in
" a state of rest in the heavenly kingdom J* ^

attributed to Justin Martyr (qnsest. 75, 76» 85), venture upon the strange notion,
that the place of happy departed souls, is the paradise in which Adam was ;
another instance of the way in which the Fathers' statements oppose each other
in such points.

^ "A^cT^ ftM Oripittv ttimi fiopi», 81* Sv (yfariy B€ov hrvrvxiiw. lOKATn Ep. ad
Bom. § 4. Patr. Apost. ed. Jacobs. Oxon. 1838. torn. iL pp. 352, 4. A similar
ezprosdon occurs § 2. p. 348, and § 9. p. 368.

' *T8a^ (&p . . i<rtt64y fiot \4yo9f, Atvpo xphs rhi^ Har^pa. Id. ib. § 7. pp. 364^
* 366.

' " Quanta est dignitas et quanta securitas ezire hinc Uetum, exire inter pres-
suras et angustias gloriosum, daudere in momento oculos quibus homines vide-
bantur et mundus, et aperire eosdem statim ut Deus videatur et Christus ! Tam
feliciter migrandi quanta yelodtas ! Terris repente subtrahcris, ut in regnit ccBlet-
tibus reponaris." Ctpbian. De exhort, mart, ad fin. — Op. ed. Fell. Pt. 1. p. 183, 4.

282 PATRISnCAL 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,^ Am-
brose,' (though perhaps inconsistently with himself in other
parts,') and others.^

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 tis, 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 Father Sy from the very times of the Apostles to the ^

Pontificate of Gregory XL and the Council of Florence, that is.

* Adv. hflir. ; hiBr. 78. Antidioomar. f 24. Op. torn. i. p. 1056.
» De fide, lib. 4. cc 1, 2.

' Seo Admon. ed. Bened. in libr. De bono mortis. Ambroe. Op. torn. i. col. 385
et seq.

4 See King on the Creed, pp. 204—22. 4th ed. 1719.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 288

a
a
tt

tt
tt

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. 8, adv. hser.) Sixtus Senen-
" sis, (Bibl. 1. 6. Annot. 845^) Bellarmine^ (lib. 1. De Beat.
^* c. 1^ et seq.) Fetavius (Theolog. dogm. de Deo^ c. 18 and
14^) and others. We here only observe^ that all that con-
trariety sprung from the different ideas (principiis) which the
" reading of the Holy Scriptures supplied to those holy men.^'^

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 Amfaros. libr. De bono mortis. See Ambroe. Op. ed. B«l. torn. i.
col. 885, 6.

284 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

This passage is^ by most of the Ante-Nicene Fathers that
remain to ub, applied to the divine generation of the Son.
Thos^ for instance^ it is applied by (among others) Justin
Martyr,^ Athenagoras/ Clement of Alexandria/ and Tertullian.^
But Irenseus 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 Athanasius* and Augustine;^
and the same meaning is attached to it by Basil® and Epipha^
nius/ if ike passage is applied to Christ at ally 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 ;^^
and Basil is evidently inclined to the same opinion.^^

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.^^

(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

1 Dial cam Tryph. pp. 158 and 222. ed. Ben.
' Leg. pro Christianifl, ^ 10. p. 287. ed. Ben.

• Cohort, ad gent. Op. torn. i. pp. 67, 8. ed. Potter.
^ See pauages quoted above, p. 251.

* Adv. haer. iv. 20. ed. Mass. iv. 37. ed. Grab.

• De deer. Nic Syn. § 14. Op. torn. i. p. 220. ed. Ben. Ac. &c.

' De fide et symb. § 6. Op. torn. vi. coL 154. De Trin. lib. i. § 24. torn. viii.
col. 765.

* *Aj^7ioj tls T^K iiy$pwK6rrira ainou potty. Adv. Ennom. lib. iv. Op. torn. i.
p. 293. ed. Ben.

' See the passage below, near the end of this section.

w lb.

" lb.

^ " Creatus est in vias Dei a seculo, cum ad conspicabilcm specicm subditus
croatura) balntum croationis assumsit." De Trin. lib. xii. § 45. Op. col. 1136.
cd. BeD.

ti
tt
It

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 285

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, — -'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 J* (1 Cor. iii. 8.)^

Upon which Famelius 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.' "^

To these might perhaps be added Tertullian^ and Athena-
goras,^ 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 * more wisely have given him up. He says, '^ For as he
** said, that he and the Father were one, saying, ' I and the
'^ Father are one,' so he prays that we all, in imitation of him.

' " Unnm quod ait, ad oonoordiam et eandem sententiam et ad ipsam charitatiB
Bocietatem pertinet, at merito nnmn rit IHtter et f^ns per oonoordiam et per
amorem et per dilecdonem. . . . Deniqne novit banc oonoordiffi imitatem et Aposto-
lus Paulas, cam peraonarom tamen distinctioiiie," Ac. [1 Cor. iii. 8.] Novatiaki
De Trin. c. 22. ad fin. Op. TertaU. ed. 1664. p. 720; or in ed. PtoieL

^ Funelias in loc.

' AtXriov ^v rov \4y€t¥ rhy vUy, fy^ Ktd 6 ircrr^p & icf/^y. Obig. In Johann.
torn. xiii. § 86; Op. tom. iT. p. 24i5. See also De Prindp. lib. i. § 8. tom. i. p. 66;
and Contra Cels. lib. viii. § 12. torn. i. p. 760 ; and Comment, in Ezek. bom. 9.
tom. iiL p. 388. ed. Ben.

* Adv. Prax. c. 22.

* Leg. pro Christianis, § 10. ed. Ben. p. 287.

* See Divinitfls Christi, Ac pp. 679, et aeq.

286 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

'^ may partake of the same unity; not tliat^ as Marcellus thinks^
'^ the Word is united to (jod^ and connected with him in
'' essence/'^

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 Axians, 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,^ whose words I need not quote, because their view
of the passage is well known and admitted.

(8) 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. Irenseus 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
€t I .> '>3 ^here it is evident, that Irenseus considered the words as
applying to the divine nature of Christ; though, I suppose, from
his orthodoxy elsewhere, only with reference to the order of the
Persons in the Trinity, and not to their nature or essence.

But, as it respects Novatian and Origen, they not merely
apply the words to the divine nature of Christ, but seem to
acknowledge a real inferiority of nature.

Thus, Novatian says, — '' For who will not acknowledge, that
*' the person of the Son is second after the Father, when he
*' finds it said . . . ' He who sent me is greater than I.' ''
To which he adds, shortly after, — ''The Son aflirms, that he

floT^p $y icTfjLfir oSrv Ktd trdyras ^fias, Korh r^y o^roD fiifirieruf, r^f iyirrfTos rrit
wbrov firraaxtiy c^x*^^* ^^t kot^ MdipxtWoy^ rov Aiyov iyvfi4yov r^ Bc^, Ktd rp
oturUf, infycup$ti(rofi4yov. EusEBn De EocL Theolog. lib. iii. c 19. p. Id3. ad fin.
Demonstr. ErangeL ed. Col. 1688.

' See Maldonatus or Lampe in loc.

' " Si qxiifl exqnirat causam, propter qnam in omnibus Futer oommtmicans Filio
solus scire horam et diem a Domino manifestatus est, neque aptabilem magis neque
deoentiorem nee sine periculo alteram quam banc inveniat in prsesenti, (quoniam
enim solus verax magister est Dominus) ut discamus per ipsum super omnia esse
Patrem. Etenim Pftter, ait, miyor me est." Iben. Adv. haer. lib. 2. c. 28. ©d.
Mass. c. 49. ed. Grab.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 287

*' 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 who 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.' ''^
And the same view of this passage is maintained by him
elsewhere.*

Nor do I see how Tertullian can be explained otherwise than
as deducing'^the same doctrine firom this passage, when he says,

' " Quia enim non secundam i^ post Pfttrem agnoecat esse personam, com
legat dictum, &c. . . . ant dmn invenit pontmn, ' Qnoniam qui me misit, m^or me
est.' " — " fllius. . . . sanctificatmn se a soo Patre esse proponit. Dmn [mwpr*
Deom] ergo aocipit sanctificationem a Patre, minor Patre est ; minor autem Fatre
conseqoenter est, sed fllins. Pftter enim si fiiisset, sanctificationem dedisset, non
aocepisBet. Et nunc autem profitendo se aocepisse sanctificationem a Patre, hoc
ipso quo Patre se minorem, accipiendo ab ipso sanctificationem, probat, filimn se
esse non Patrem monstravit." Novatiak. De Trin. cc 21, 22. ad fin. Tertnll. Op.
od. 1664. pp. 720, 721 ; orTin ed. PtaneL

xpoir^ctoy ^oTidt<r0ai rhif Xoorrjpa elvo* rhy fi4yieroy iwl wdun 0€6y iXA' otfr* yt
ilfuis roiovToy, ol ir€iB6fi€yoi ain^ \4yovriy *0 nor^p, i irifv^as /*e, /ac^^w A^w ^<'^**
.... Houp&s yiip ^fUis, ol \4yoyT€s rou irdyra Krlctarros Kcti rhy edaOrirhy K6erfxoy
tlyeu, ^ofi^y rhy vlhy ohx Itrx^p^^poy rou Ilarp^f , &AA* bwo^^ifrrtpoy, Ka2 rovro
Kiyofity, atn^ xci9^/acvoi tMyrt, k, t. X. OBia. Cont. Cels. lib. viii. §§ 14, 15.
Op. tom. L pp. 752, 3.

' See his Comment, in Matth. tom. 15. § 10. Op. tom. iii. p. 665., and Com-
ment, in Johann. tom. 13. § 25. Op. tom. iv. p. 235., and lb. tom. 32. § 18. Op.
tom. iv. p. 451.

<{
ii

€(

ii
u
tt

€t
it

t€
€€
tt

288 TAtmismcAL tmaditiox

— ^^The Father is tke wliole mbstmiice, but the Soa a demr»-
" tion and portkm of the whole, as he hhnaelf professes; ' For
"^ the Father is greater than L' "^

Bat by others of the Fathers, eqieciany those engaged in dis-
putes with the Arians^ these words are explained as referring^ to
the human nature of oar Lord.

Thas, Athjoiaaas says, — " Whatsoever, therefore, the Scrip-
tore says as to the Son receifing, and the Son being glorified,
it says this with respeet to his hamanity, not with respect to
kis ifirtas/y. And when he says, ' My Father who sent me is
greater than I,' ^^ ^7^ ^^ ^® Father was greater than he,
firom his haying become man. Bat as the Word of the Father,
*' he is eqoal to him.''*

And Cyrfl of Alexandria says, — " The Word of God is above
hamanity as one who is by natare God and the Son ; but not
disdaining to appear to be in sabjecdon, on account of his
having taken human nature. Therefore, at one time he said,
'' ' He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,' ' I and the
'' Father are one ;' at another, on the other hand, ' My Father
is greater than I.' For, being not inferior to the Father as
regarded identity of essence or anything else whatever, in
which he could be compared to the Father, he says, that he
is among things inferior on account of his human nature"^
And so Augustine,^ Ambrose,' and others have explained it.
Many, however, maintain the opinion, that it refers to the

^ *' Filter tota substantia est, IWub vero derivatio totius et portio, meat ipse
profitetur. Quia FtAer major me est." Tbbtxtll. Adv. Prax. c 9. Op. p. 504.

' 'Oaa chf \4y€i ^ ypa^t 9ri IXo^cy 6 vlhs, icat Ho^dirOfi 6 vtbsy 8iA -H^k h^fm-
irimrra cdnov X^/ct, oh Zih. r^v B^&nrrcu Kcd 8t« \4y^ij 6 Ilarfip fwv, 6 ir4fufms
/AC, ti4i(»p fwv i<rTiP, hrtl Mpwiros yiyoyw ful(» otfTov \4y€t rhw Tlardpei. a6'
TOf 8^ &¥ rov llarphst teas atrrov iarw. Atrasab. De Inoum. § 4. Op. torn. i.
Pt. 2. p. 873.

' 'O ix 940V hSyoi . . .^. itp^^poi fihy kyOpmrimtros^ &i ^6<r€i 0«^f , nai vlos'
o^K irifid(c»y 5i, Ktd rh iy b^4<ru ytyMcu 9oKuy, 8i^ rh hfep^iyoy. Torydproi
xot4 fi^y, t^offKWj 6 iwpoK^s ifU^ idpcuet rhy nar4pa' ^y«b ica2 6 Ilar^p ty i<r/jL€y.
ITori 9h aZ 'wdkiy^ 6 Ilttrfip fwv iAt((»y yuov itrriy Oh fittwy yiip f^y rov Tlarpifs,
icotA y§ rh iy ohtrUf t' ahrhy, itai icotA iray Ariovy, rh Icroararovy, iy i\drro<riy ttyai
^cri, 8i^ T^ iu^pd^tyoy, Ctbil. Albx. De recta fide ad Theodos. c 28. Op.
tom. V. Pt. 2. p. 25. ed. Auberti.

* De Trin. lib. ii. cc. 6 and 7.

» 1)0 fldo, lib. ii. c. 4.

it
tt
tt
tt

ti
{f

€<

€€
€t

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 289

divine nature of Christy 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 say, ' My Father is superior to me,' lest any one should
suppose, that he was of a different nature from him, but he
said, ^greateTy not indeed in magnitude nor time, but on
'^ account of his generation from the Father ; nevertheless
'^ even in saying he is greater, he showed the quality of the
'^ essence."^

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
beginning, he himself having a beginning only as it respects
his generation from him, although he has a similar subsistence
with him/'^ In the context,' 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.^

^ Ai& ToOro 7^ Koi aJtnhs 6 vlbs oitK ^(fniKtVj 6 Tlttrfip ftov np^irrwf fwv iirrlw,
lya fiii ^4ifov ris rrjs iictlpov ^^c»s wbrhp WoAdfior &XAA fA€i(tt¥ cTxcy, olt fuy40€t
rtyly ob9h XP^^Vf &XAA 9iii r^y i^ o^rov rod Tlarphs yiwvriaur irX^y Sri koL iv r^
cixciIk, tAti(»y iirrly, llSct|c ird\ty r^y r^s oiKrlas lUiSnfra. Athanas. Orat. 1.
oontr. Arian. § 58. Op. torn. i. pp. 462, 8. And see his treatifle De Synod, f 28.
torn. i. Pt. 2. p. 745.

' 'l<roi rotyapovy xarii rhy riji oiHrias Xirfoy ^rdpxoty 6 vths ry Tlarpij koI Bfiotos
Korii trdyra, fi€l(oya ainhy ^ciy &s Ayapxoy, lx«>' ^X^*' *"'''*^ ti6yoy rh i^ oZ, ft
Koi trMpofioy ahr^ r^y Ihrap^iy tx^i, Cnu Alex. Thesaurus, c. 11. Op. torn. t.
pt. 1. pp. 85, 6.

' See ib. pp. 85, 86, and 91.

* See these and several others in Bishop Pearson on the Creed, Art 1, who
takes this view of the text. Forbes 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. L c 25.) Many modem com-
mentators, as Laxnpe, consider it as spoken in reference to the complex person of
the Mediator, in which the divine and human natures were united.
VOL. I. U

290 PATRI8TICAL TRADITION

Even in such texts as —

(4) Phil. ii. 6. ''Who being in the form of God thought it not
robbery [as our translation runs] to be equal with God '* — we find
Fatristical authority for an unorthodox interpretation.

These words have been used as evidence in the controversies
respecting the divinity of our Lord in precisely opposite signifi*
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 Chrysostom,^ Theodo-
ret,* Augustine,* 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 did not think it
'' fell to his lot to be equal with God. For, although heremem-
'* 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 Alius,
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
" God.''«

Other instances, in points of less importance, the reader will

* Thus Tertitll. Adv. Prax. c. 7. Adv. Marc. lib. v. c. 2Cff and De resurr.
cam. c. 6.

^ In loc.
^ In loc.

* Contr. Maximin. lib. 1. c. 5.

* De Trin. c. 17. See p. 265, 6. above. It is remarkable that Dr. Burton, when
giving, in his Testimonies 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, 126, 133, 136. 2d ed.) I have not referred to the
passage he has quoted (p. 124) from the letter written by the churches of Vienna
and Lyons, prsscrved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. v. 2.), because it appears to me
very open to opposite interpretations.

* Elire [i. c. Arius], Jhi iv tiofxp^ ^tou {nrdpxoyf ohx fifnrcurt rh ttyau lera Scy.
Chrysost. Comment, in Phil. hom. 6. § 2. 0^. tom. xi. p. 236. On the various
meanings that have been given to this passage see Wolf in loc.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 291

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
ahsurd.

These instances are adduced merely as a specimen, but any
inquirer into this matter will find, that they a£ford 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.^'^

^ See particularly Cornelius a Lapide, and Maldonatus ; and Dr. Whitby's Dis-
sertatio de SS. interpret, sec. Patrum comment. Lond. 1714. 8vo. where many
similar instances are adduced.

' Answ. to Touchstone, p. 15.

' Liberty of proph. $ 5.

u 2

it
tt

€€

292 PATRI8TICAL TRADITION

And so Pincette, as translated and published by our Arch-
bishop Tenison^ says^ — '^ How little help there is for Scriptare
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 m^
one text of Scripture may be much doubted. It was a hard
condition^ therefore^ which Pope Pius lY. 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 othenvise 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 are 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 anouy-

*' mous writer of the * Treatise of the liberties of the Gallican

€€

€€
€t
€€
€€

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 293

f' Church* maintains^ that there are few places of Scripture which
" the holy Fathers have not differently interpreted. As wiU
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 j 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-
^* pretiny Scripture among the antient Fathers as among our modem
" interpreters ; that there are very few, if any y 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

1 Incurable soeptidon of the Church of Rome, c 2.; r^nrinted in Gibsou'i
Pretervativey voL 3.

€€

it
tt

€t
tt
tf
tt

294 PATRI8TICAL TRADITION

^^ them, whether these Fathers were iofallible or traditiooary
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 ex-
" 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 best ages
^' did believe the same doctrines, and expound Scripture in great
^' and concerning points, 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 Sanptures, or put per-
'* verse senses on them, . . . There is no other way, then, left of
understanding Scripture, but to expound 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-
tament, and the like. JVhen they dispute with Protestants, they
can reasonably pretend to no other way of expounding Scripture,
" because we admit op no other.*'^ And so elsewhere on the
general question of doctrinal consent among the Fathers, whcfn
his opponent had urged '^ how great and manifest" primitive
consent was '^ to those good men who inquire,'^ he sarcastically
replies, ^' Yea, how great indeed, for nobody can find it but the
Vicar of Putney J' ^

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

* Sherlock's Preservative against Popery, Pt. 1. pp. 52 — 4; reprinted in Bp.
Gibson's Collection, vol. 2.

' Sheblock's Vindication of Discourse of Notes of Church, 1687. p. 13. re-
printed in Bishop Gibson's Preservative against Popery, vol. i. tit. 3. c. 2. p. 56.
The allusion is to the " Consensus Veterum ** of Sclatcr, who for a time left the
Church of England for that of Rome, but afterwards returned. .

ft
tt
tt

t€

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 295

" in this, that from the very beginning there were differences
" among believers respecting the meaning of the books that were
"believed to be divine;''^ 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 thQ 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 some 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 thoiight 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 natxiral 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 he 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 opponents, 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 men would come with all manner of

iy rots ireiri<rT€Vfi4yois 6€iois thcu fiifixiois ix^ox^y yry6vaffL Zia<p<oyiai r&y Tier-
Ttv^yrwy. OBiasx. Contr. Cels. lib. iii. § 11. Op. torn. L p. 453.

' Ai& rh tnrovdd^fiy ffwiiyai rit xp«'^(o^«'>(oi^ koX r&y pi\o\dyuy 'n-Ktloyas.
To^ff 8* iiKo\o60riir€f 9uup6p<»s iK^t^ofi^ytay robs Afxa iracri irurrtvBiyras ftyai Btiovs
\6yovSt rh, yiy4<rOcu cdptfftis hrtoyvfwvs r&y davfuurdyrwy fiky r^y rod \^ov &f>x^^>
Kiyri$4yrwy 8* 5irctfs tot* ody {nr6 riyuy mBctyorfirvy xphs rits ets ^AA^Aovf Sio^Wof .
Obioen. Contr. CeU. lib. iii. § 12. Op. torn. i. p. 454, 6.

296 PATRISnCAL TRADITION

preconceived views and prejudices to the revelation Grod 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
Churchy 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 fi*om their consentient interpretation of Scripture what is
its true meanings they are sending us to that which has no exists
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 please very well those who are satisfied to
pin their faith upon the representations of others, and accept a
few quotations from four or five Fathers as proving the consent
of the whole Primitive Church, but the moment 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,

NO DIVINE INFOKICANT. 297

there have been but few who have not practically confessed this
to be the case.

Bat 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 tmjrequently 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, vpon our opponent^, 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 /^oo/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 earthy where they should live
with Christ for a thousand years^ previous to the general resur-
rection and the final judgment.

This^ I admits they attempted to prove partly from Scripture ;
but they also claimed an Apostolical tradition in its favour.
Thus^ Irenseus says^ — ^' The above-mentioned blessing belongs
*' undeniably to the times of the kingdom^ when the just shall
^' rise from the dead and reign^ when the creation/ renovated
'^ and freed [from the curse] ^ shall bring forth abundantly of
^' all kinds of food^ from the dew of heaven and the fertility of
'' the earth ; as the Presbyters, who saw John the disciple of the
" Lord, have related that they heard from him in accordance with
" what the Lord taught concerning those times, and said^ ' The
" days shall come in which vines shall spring up, having each
'* ten thousand branches/ &c. . . . These things also Papias, a

298 PATRISTICAL 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 ; — " TheUy as the Presbyters say y 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 f the disciples of the Apostles, teU us, and that they
'^ advance through such stages; and ascend through the Spirit
" to the Son^ aQd throu|^ 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.] *

From these passages it appears^ that this doctrine was de-
livered as an Apostolical tradition^ not upon the authority of
Fapias only, as is sometimes stated, but of others, who were also
the immediate disciples of the Apostles. And as it respects
Fapias^ 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, " to set down in order for you, with
the interpretations^ those things which I formerly fully learnt

tc
It
It
It
it

€€

' " Preedicta itaqne benedictio ad tempora Regni nne oontradictione pertinet,
quando regnabnnt justi stirgentes a mortms : quando et creatura renovata et
liberata multitadiiiem firactificabit univensB escce, ex rore ooeli et ex fertilitate
teme : quemadmodam Presbyteri meminenmt, qui Johannem disdpalam Domini
Tidenmt, audisse se ab eo, quemadmodam de temporibns illiB docebat Dominus,
et dioebat : ' Venient dira in quibas vineeB nasoentur, singolse decern millia pal-

mitmn habentes,' " &c Tavra 8^ Ktd Tlanrlas 'Iwdyyov fikt^ iucovar^St

noKvKdffwov 8^ h'cupos y^yovits^ itpxtuos &i^p» iyypd/^s iirifiaprvpti iv rp TCT<l(f>ri|
rwv ctinov 0ifi\iuir Hort yiip abr^ ir/yrc fiifiKia (rvyrer(gyfi4ya. Iben. Adv. baer.
lib. V. c 33. ed. Man. p. 333. ed. Grab. p. 455.

^ 'fix ol wp€<rfi6r€poi X^toimti, t^€ irai ol fi^v Kcn-a^iud^trrts r^s iy ohpoM^ HiaTpi-
fi^Sf iKtuFt Xo»p^o'ova'iy, ol 8i rris rod irt^KJi€ia'ov rpv^s iaroKa{nTowrufj ol hi r^w
Xafurft^nrra rris ir^Accvs Ka04^ov(ritr iraunaxov yhp 6 ^car^p Spad-ficerai, KoBifS i4ioi
Utrorrai ol Sp&rrts abr6y .... Hanc esse adordinationem et dispositionem eorum
qui salyantur, dicunt Presbyteri Apostolonun discipuli, et per htgusmodi gradus
profioere, et per Spiritum quidem [ad] Filimn, per Filium autem asoendere ad
Pitrem, Ulio deinceps cedente Patri opns suum, quemadmodum et ab Apostolo
dictom est : " quoniam oportet," &c. [1 Cor. xv. 26, 6.] lb. c. 36. p. 337, or, p. 461.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 299

" firom 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 James, 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 from 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 opposed
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 Irenseus is mentioned as one, to embrace the
Millennarian doctrine, for Irenseus 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 which 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 Lremeus, Justin, and others, whom no man pretends to
accuse of a want of understanding, stoutly defend.^

' "Oca irori wapii r&v irptfffivripoov koXSos ffui0o¥ Ktd koXms ifur/iftdyfiHreu
' Papue tngm, in Enseb. Hist. EocL lib. iii. c. ult., and in Bouth, Reliq. Sacr.
vol. i. p. 8.

' The words of Ensebins are these. Kod ix\a 8^ 6 ainhs avyypapths its in
'K^apaS6<r€ws iypd^ov els o^r^ IJKOirra wapariBttreUy ^4yas r4 rit^as TapafioXiis rov
^tvrripos Ktd itioffKoXtas abrov, Kol riva &AAa fivBuc^tpeu *Ev oU Jtoi x*^^^^
TiyiL <p>ri<r\p irw K(rta0eu firrh riiv ix vtKpSo¥ itydarcuriyy aufAoruc&s rris rod Xpio"'
rod /3a<riAc(af M ravryi&i rris yris tinHmiirofi4rns. *A iroi iryovfuu rits ikvoaro'
Kuchs xc^>c«c8c(c(ficror Sury^trcif , 6iroXa3«<y, fk iv 6wo9tiyftafft "^p^s abrmy fiwrruc&s
tlfnifi^ya fi^ avytwpoK^eu 2<^pa ydp roi trtwep^s t^p rhv rovr, its &r 4k r&w ad-
rov Xiymv rtKfiripdfUPOw clvciy, ^ah^rrat' w\iiw ical rots fur* abrhw «-A.«(<rroif Bffois
ruw iKKXtiffiotrrucAw, rift 6taioias aifrf S^tnf vapairtos y4y9t^, r^y ^x'^^^^'^V**

€<
€€
ii
i€

800 PATBISTICAL TRADITION

Moreover^ as this doctrine was maistained as one derived by
successional delivery firom the Apostles^ so was it more especially
defended as one supported by numerous testimonies of Scrip-
ture.

Thus^ Justin Martyr afBrms^ that Ezekiel and Isaiah and the
rest of the prophets maintain it ; and having quoted some pas-
sages^ (viz. Isa. Ixv. 17 — 2b, and Fsa. Ixxzix. 4^) he adds^
'' And one of us^ by name John^ one of the Apostles of Christy
'' in the revelation made to him^ predicted that those that
'' believe in our Christy should live a thousand years in Jeru-
'^ salem^ and that after this should be the general^ and^ in
'^ shorty the eternal resurrection of all together with one accord^

and 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.]''i

Similar evidence for the doctrine is still more largely ad-
duced by Irenseus, who quotes &om 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.'

J*urther; they maintain this doctrine with the greatest con-
fidence 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, Irenseus 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
f' creature which God promises to give in the kingdom of the
'' just.'^^ And again; "These and all other such things are
undeniably spoken respecting the resurrection of the just.''®

rhfhff^s wpofi€$kfifi4yois' &(nr€p oly Elpriyedtpf Kai cT ris &XAos rit Sfiota ^pou&¥
hyair4^¥w, EuSEB. Hist. EocL lib. iii. c. alt. ; ed. Beading, p. 137.

1 JusTiK. M. DiaL com Tryph. $ 81. ed. Ben. pp. 178» 9. (ed. 1686. p. 807.)

^ See Ibsn. Adv. hasr. lib. v. cc 83 — 86, edd. Mass. et Grab.

* Tebtull. Adv. Marc lib. iiL c 24.

< See p. 297, 8. above.

' " Tales itaque promianoneB manifestiflBinie in Begno justorom istiiis creators
epnlationem ngnificant, quam Dens repromittit ministrstumm se." Ibsk. lib. v.
c. 84. ed. Mass. p. 834. ed. Qrab. p. 467.

' ** HiBC emm [ct] alia universa in resurrectionem justorum sine oontroveraia
dicta aunt." lb. c 85. ed. Mass. p. 886. ed. Qrab. p. 468.

NO DIVINE informant; 801

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
'' 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 f^ 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 are habituated
by degrees to enjoy communion with God, it is necessary to
speak concerning these things,'' &c.^
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 patriarchs and prophets, and those of our race, and those
" that became proselytes before your Christ came, or have you
^' proceeded to affirm these things that you might seem ta over-
come us in argument ?" To which Justin replies,-^-" I am
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. '^. . . . But I have also

' " Qmdam ex his qui putantur recte credidiBse."

' " Hieretioos sensna in se habentes/'

' "Transfenmtur qnoromdam sententiffi ab htereticiB sermonibu^"

* Ibeh. Adv. hsr. lib. ▼. oc 81, 32. ed. Mass. pp. 330, 831. ed. Qrab. pp. 460—2.

' The words here omitted are, &s ical wdrrus iwUrreurBt rovro y€ni<r6fi€¥ow,
which seem clearly corrupt. Thirlby ooi\jectiire8 iwiordoBai, which the Benedic-
tine Editor adopts, but which does not appear to remove the ^fficulty. The
sentence appears to me evidently to require iwiordfitBti, (which occurs in the
latter part of the paragraph,) and then the sense would be, "as also we fully
know that this will be." The words rovro iwurrdfi^a y§irnv6iAMPw occur in § 49.

(€
€(

(t
€€
€€

302 PATRI8TICAL 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^
f( 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 Grod of Abraham^
'^ and the Grod of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and who say^
'' that there is no resxirrection of the dead, but that their souls^
as soon as they die, are taken up into heaven, you must not
suppose them to be Christians. As neither would any one
who rightly inquired into the matter, afBrm the Sadducees or
the similar sects of the G^nistae and Meristae, and Galilseans,
and Hellenists, 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

€i
€€
€t
tl
l€

€1

*' God himself exclaimed, but having their heart far from him.
'' But I, and all Christians altogether orthodox,^ know, both
*^ that there will be 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 coiTCctness of which is doubted by
many^) 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,

' *Zyi» 8^, kcDl cf rivts tiff Of ipBoyw&fAovts icar& irdyra Xpurruufoi.
' Justin. Mabt. Dial, cum Tiyph. $ 80. ed. Ben. pp. 177, 8. (ecL 1686. p. 306.)
' It has been thought by many, Uiat instead of wohAohs 8* aZ Koi ruv rris
KoBapas kcUl t^atfiovs tvrotv Xpumaywp yyi&fiiiSt we should read iroAAo6« 8* ad
aro) Twy fiii rTJt^KaBafAsf k. t. A. which certainly would suit the context better, but
is an emendation hardly admissible on coi\jecture, and is not necessary. Arch-
bishop TiUotson, however, in his " Rule of fiuth," pleads strongly for it ; and he
supposes the passage here referred to by Justin, to be that occurring in § 35.
pp. 132, 8. (ed. 1686. p. 253.) The words of Irensus, however, quoted in the
preceduag page, (note 1,) support the reading of the MSS.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 303

And to those already mentioned^ we may add^ as defenders
of this doctrine^ among others^ Nepos,^ Victorinus Petavio-
nensis/ Lactantius/ ApoUinarins Junior/ and Sulpicius
Severus/ to whom some add even the Nieene Council.*

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 it.^

It is impossible, then, to deny, that the testimony in favour

1 See EusBB. Hist Ecd viL 24; and Hisbon. De vir. illustr. c 69.
' See HiBBON. De vir. ilL c. 18; and Comm. in Ezeeb. c. 86; and Akok.
Fragm. op. De &br. mnndi, in Cave, Hist. Lit. sab nom.
' See Lactant. Inst. viL 2^ and Epit. § 11 ; and Hibbon. De vir. ill. c. 18.

* See Hibbon. De vir. ilL c 18; and Comm. in Is. in Pnef. ad lib. 18 : also,
Basil. C^s. Ep. 263. Op. ed. Ben. torn. iii. p. 406. (al. Ep. 74.)

' See Hibbon. Comm. in Ezech. c. 36.

' Their words, according to Qelasins Cyzicenns, were these; — " Wherefore we
expect new heavens and a new earth, according to the Holy Scriptures, when the
appearance and kingdom of the great God 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 be pure, a holy earth of the living, and not of the
dead; whidi David foreseeing, by the eye of faith, exclaims, 'I bdieve that I shall
see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living, the land of the meek and
humble.' Per ' blessed,' suth he, ' are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.'
And the Prophet, ' The feet of the meek and humble,' saith he, ' shall tread upon
it.'" Oelas. Crzic. Acta Cone. Nic lib. 2. c. 31. ed. Lutet. 1599. pp. 166, 7.

7 " Quse licet non sequamur, tamen damnare non possumus, quia multi Ecde-
siasticcrum virorum et martyres ista dixerunt. Et unusquisque in suo sensu
abundet, et Domini cuncta judido reserventur." Hibbon. Comm. in Hierem.
c 19. Op. tom. iv. col. 975, 6. ed- Yallars. Ven.

* " De repromissionibus futurorum, quomodo debeant accipi, et qua ratione
inteUigenda sit Apocalypsis Johannis, quam n juxta literam aodpimus, judaizandum
est, si spirituality ut scripta est <]Qs8erimu8, multomm veterum videbimur opinio-
nibus oontraire. Latinorum, Tertulliani, Victorini, Lactantii; Grsecorum, ut
cseteros prsetermittam, Irensei tantimi Lugd. Episc faciam mentionem, adver-
simi quem vir eloquentissimus Dionysius Alexandrinse EodesisB pontifex elegantem
scribit librum, irridens mille annorum &bulam. . . . Cui duobus voluminibus re-
spondet ApoUinarins, quem non solum sua tectm homines sed et nostrorum, in hoc
parte dumtaxat, plurima sequitur multitudo, ut prcuaga mente jam cemam,
quantorum in me rabies concitanda sit." HiKBON. Comm. in Is. in Pr8ef.ad libr.
18. Op. tom. iv. coL 767, 8. ed. VaUars. Ven.

804 PATRI8TICAL TRADITION

of this doctrine^ as an Apostolical tradition^ is sucli as can be
adduced for hardly any other ; and by the earliest Fathers it is
delivered to ns ais 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.^ About that time we find^ from an incidental notice of
the matter in Eusebius^ and Jerome/ that Bionysius of Alex-
andria wrote a book against it^ in refutation of one by Nepos^.
according to Eusebius^ or^ as Jerome says^ against IremeuS';
and was answered by Apollinarius^ who (as Jerome tells us in
the passage above quoted/) was followed in this 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 point in dispute ; nor will I press the arffumentum
ad hominem 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 Irenseus, that there were those
among Christians who did not embrace it, as showing that there

•

^ Unless we think, that the answer of the relations of our Lord to Domitian,
when questioned concerning the fnture kingdom of Christ, is pertinent to this
matter; and it certainly appears to me worthy of observation, in connexion with
it. '' Being asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, what it would be, and
when and where it was to appear, they answered that it was not mundane or
earthly, but heavenly and angelical ; and would be at the end of the world, when
he should come in glory and judge the quick and the dead, and give to each
according to his works." (^Epvrne^yras 8i irtpl rov Xptorov kcU t^j fiaaiKtias
ainovf Swola rls cfi), koI w6r€ Kcd wot <p<unri<rofi4yriy \6yoy Bovyai, its oh KOCfiuc^
fi^y oW Mytiost hrovpdifios 8i Koi ikyytXiK^ rvyx^tt, M. <rwT€\§iq, rod ad&t^os
y€yri(rofi4yrif dwrjylKa i\B&>y J$f li6^Ti Kpiyu ^yros Kcd ytKpobs, koI inro9A<ru Udar^
Korii ri, iiriTriMfiaTa odnov, EusBB. Hist. Ecd. iii. 20. ed. BeatUng, p. 110.)

* EusEB. Hist. Eccl. lib. vii. c. 24. ; and see lib. iii. c 28.

* HiERON. Comm. in Is. in Prsef. ad libr. 18.

* See the preceding page.

* See EusEB. Hist. Eccl. iii. c. ult. Heebon. in loc. dt. et passim. Thbodobbt.
Heret. Fab. lib. 2. c 3. Op. torn. iv. p. 830. ed. Schulze; &c. &c

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 305

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 ahall 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 ;"^ 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 concem-
" 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 Irenseus and
Justin. And I would ask, what " matter of doctrine" has a
tradition in its favour, during the earliest times of the Church,
so catholic as this ? Mr. Newman adds, — " Certainly in Egypt

' Lect. on RomaDism, &c. p. 203. ' lb. p. 203.

VOL. I. X

306 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

in the third century they seem to have had their origin in a
misconstruction of Scripture. Euseb. Hist. vii. 24/^^ I can see
nothing more^ however^ in this passage^ than that those who
supported the doctrine^ supported it^ as Justin and Irenseus did
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 doctrine ; in which he tells us, in praise
of his opponents, that they, " acting most conscientiously and
sincerely, and with hearts laid open to God's view, fully re-
ceived those things that were established by proofs and testi-
monies taken from the Holy 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 {irapoi"
KCat) of all Asia supposed, as Jrom 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

^ I^ect. p. 203.

- See the pasKi^c quoted below, ch. 10, under " Dionysiufl of Alexandria."

€€
(C
Ci

€t

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 30'

(€

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 [ypai^T]) of those who then were as-
" sembled in Palestine^ over whom Theophilus, bishop of the
'^ church in Csesarea^ 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 Pal mas, as being the most antient, presided. Also of
" the churches in Gallia, of which Irenseus 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."i

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 day unaltered, hav-
ing neither added to nor taken from [what has been delivered
to us] . For in Asia died the great founders (orotxeui) [of
" our Church], who shall rise in the day of the Lord's advent,
" in which he shall come from heaven with glory, and raise all
" the saints : viz. Philip, one of the twelve Apostles who died
at Hierapolis, and his two daughters that lived to a great age
as virgins, and his other daughter who possessed, during her
life, the extraordinary gifts ofthe Spirit, who rests at Ephesus.
And moreover, John, who reposed on the bosom of our Lord,
'' who became a priest, and wore a golden plate, who was also a
martyr and a teacher. He died at Ephesus. Moreover, also,

1 EusEB. Hist. Eocl. lib. v. c. 23. ed. Reading, pp. 241—3.
' Id. ib. lib. ▼. c. 24. ed. Reading, p. 243.

X 2

€€

t<
€€
((
€€

((

308 FATRISTICAL TRADITION

€€
i(

((

Polycarp the bishop and martyr of Smyrna. And Thraseas^
the bishop and martyr from Eumenia^ who died at Smyrna.
And why need I mention Sagaris^ bishop and martyr^ who
died at Laodicea ? Moreover^ the blessed Papirius also ; and
*' Melito the eunuch, who acted in all things under the influence
" of the Holy Spirit, who lies at Sardis, awaiting the visitation
from heaven, in which he shall rise from the dead. These aU
observed Easter on tJie fourteenth day, according to the Gospel;
transgressing in nothing, but walking strictly according to the
rule of faith. And I also, the least of all of you, Polycrates,
'' [so act], according to the tradition of my relations, some of
" whom I have followed. There were, indeed, seven bishops
'^ related to me. And I am the eighth. And my relations
" always observed the day when the people [i. e. the Jews]
removed the leaven. I therefore, brethren, being sixty-five
years old in the Lord, and having had communication with
brethren from all parts of the world, and having read through
^^ all the Holy Scriptures, am not alarmed at the threats directed
" against me. For those who are greater than I have said, It
^' behoves us to obey God, rather than men.^' And he adds
afterwards, that he had called together very many bishops to
give their opinion on the matter ; and that they entirely ap-
proved of what he had written.* And Irenseus, in his letter to
Victor, reminds him that Polycarp had thus observed the day ;
and, that, when he came to Rome, Anicetus, the bishop of
Rome, who observed the contrary practice, could not induce
him to forsake it ; '^ inasmuch/^ says Irenseus, " as he had
" always so observed it with John the disciple of the Lord,

" and the rest of the Apostles, with whom he had been conver-
" sant.''3

And the difierence, as we learn from Irenseus, extended also
to the previous fast ; for he tells us, that ^^ some think they
ought to fast one day ; others, two; others, more.^'^ And he
thinks it probable, that the difierence might arise from some
bishops being neghgent, and allowing that to go down to posterity
as a custom, which was introduced through simplicity and igno--

€€

ranee. "^

» EusEB. H. E. Ub. v. c. 24. ed. Reading, p. 213. ^ n,. s n,. 4 ib.

€C
€€

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 309

Here, then, surely we have a remarkable instance how easily
even a practice might be introduced, under the name of an
Apostolical tradition, which had no such sanction for it;
and this, as Irenseus thinks, might arise, even in the pecond
century, from the negligence of bishops allowing that to go
down to posterity as a custom, which was introduced through
simplicity and ignorance ; and thus the name of Apostolical tra-
dition be pleaded for that which was altogether abhorrent to
the usages of the Apostles. And, be it observed, that, in the
case before us, the evidence (taking that which remains to us)
appears to preponderate in favour of that usage which is not
now followed.^

So that our learned Dean Comber remarks on this matter.
Though Binius^s notes brag of Apostolical and universal
tradition, the bishops of Asia produced a contrary tradition,
and called it Apostolical, for keeping Easter at a di£ferent
" time ; which shows how uncertain a ground tradition is for
'' articles of faithy when it varied so much in delivering down a
" practical rite through little more than one century."^

Before we pass on, let us observe the way in which this whole
dispute is spoken of early in the fifth century, by one whose
'' peculiar judgment and diligence^' are praised both by Valesius
and our own Cave, — the historian Socrates. " I think it not
unreasonable,'* he says, " to declare in short what comes into
'^ my mind concerning Easter. Neither the antients nor the
'^ modems who have studiously followed the Jews, had, in my
'^ judgment, any just or rational cause of contending so much
" about this festival. For they considered not with themselves,
" that when the Jewish religion was changed into Christianity,
" those accurate observances of the Mosaic law and the types of
*' things future wholly ceased. And this carries along with it
'^ its own demonstration. For no one of Christ's laws has per-

^ See Airther particulars relating to tliifi matter, in Epifhan. Adv. hser. in
hfiBT. 70. §§9, 10, and Athanas. Dc Synod. Arim. § 5. Op. torn. i. pt. 2. p. 719. ed-
Ben., and £p. ad African. Episc. $ 2. ib. p. 892, where Athanasins acknowledges,
that the churches of Syria, Cilida, and Mesopatamia, at the time of the Nicene
Council, all celebrated Easter at the time of the Jewish Fiissover.

* CoiCBEB's Roman Forgeries, p. 33 ; reprinted in Bp. Gibson*s Preservative,
voL 3.

«
C€
it

((
f(
t€

310 PATRI8T1CAL TRADITION

'' mitted the Christians to observe the rites of the Jews. More-
" over, on the contrary, the Apostle has expressly forbid this,
'^ and does not only reject circumcision, but also advises against
" contending about festival days. Wherefore, in his Epistle to
" the Galatians, his words are these, ' Tell me, ye that desire to
be under the Law, do ye not hear the Law V [iv. 21.] And
having spent some few words in his discourse hereof, he de-
monstrates that the people of the Jews are servants, but that
those who have followed Christ are called to Uberty. More-
over it is his admonition, that days, and months, and years,
'^ should in no wise be observed. Besides, in his Epistle to
'^ the Colossians, he does loudly affirm that such observations
are a shadow. Wherefore he says, ' Let no man judge you
in meat, or in drink, or in respect of any holy day, or of the
new moon, or of the sabbath days, which are a shadow of
things to come.^ [ii. 16, 17.] And in the Epistle to the
'^ Hebrews, this very Apostle does confirm the same things in
'^ these words, ' For the priesthood being changed, there is
^^ made of necessity a change also of the Law.' [vii. 12.] The
Apostle therefore and the Gospels have no where imposed the
yoke of servitude on those who have approached the preaching of
the faith, but have left the feast of Easter and the other festivals
to be honoured by their gratitude and benevolence who have had
benefits conferred upon them on those days. Wherefore in regard
" men love festivals, because thereon they have a cessation fi'om
^' their labours, each person in every place according to his own
pleasure has by a certain custom celebrated the memory of
the saving passion. For neither our Saviour nor his Apostles
'' have enjoined us by any law to observe this festival. Nor have
" the Gospels or the Apostles threatened us with any mulct y punish-
" ment, or curse, as the Mosaic Law does the Jews. For it is
'^ merely for the history^s sake, in order to a publishing of the
" reproach of the Jews, because they polluted themselves with
" blood on their very festivals, that it has been recorded in the
" gospels that our Saviour suffered even on the days of unlea-
" vened bread. Moreover it was not the Apostles' design to
" make laws concerning festival days, but to introduce good
" life and piety. And it seems to me, that as many other

€(

«
(€
(€

€€

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 311

€€
C€
€€

€t
€€

€(

things in several places have been established by custom^ so
the feast of Easter also had a peculiar observation amongst
all persons from some old usage^ in regard none of the Apostles
" as I have said have made any determinate decree about it. Now
'' that the observation of this festival had its original amongst
" all men in the primitive times from custom rather than law,
" the things themselves do demonstrate/' He then notices, as
a proof, the great variety there was as to the time of observing
it, and adds, '' 7%^ Quartodecimans do affirm, that the observation
of the fourteenth day of the moon was delivered to them by
John the Apostle. But the Romans and those in the western
parts say, that the usage in force with them was delivered by
" the Apostles Peter and Paul, Notwithstanding neither of these
'^ two parties can produce any written [or, scriptural] tes-
^' TiMONY in confirmation hereof^'

And having hence taken occasion to notice ^^ the different
usages of churches'' respecting rites, particularly as to the
time and mode of fasting, he adds, " And in regard no one can
"produce a command in writing [or, scripture] concerning
" this thing, it is manifest, that the Apostles left every one to his
" own unll and free choice in this case, to the end that no person
" might be compelled through fear or necessity to the performmfice
" of what is good."

Hence he proceeds to notice the variety in the time and mode
of conducting their religious assemblies, and respecting divers
ecclesiastical usages, the diversity of which, according to the
account he there gives, is not a little remarkable, and thus con-
cludes,— ^^That there happened many differences upon this
account even in the Apostles' times, was a thing not unknown
even to the Apostles themselves, as the book of the Acts does
attest. For when the Apostles understood that a disturbance
" was raised amongst the faithful by reason of a dissension of
" the Gentiles, being all met together, they promulged a divine
" law, drawing it up in form of a Letter ; whereby they freed
" believers from a most burthensome servitude and vain con-
'^ tention about these things, and taught them a most exact
way of living well, which would lead them to true piety, men-
tioning to them only* such things as necessarily ought to be

€€
t<

€€

812 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

€€
€€

€€
€€
€t
€<
€€

observed For these are the express words of the

Letter^ ' It seemed good to the Holy Ghost to lay upon you
no greater burthen than these necessaries to be observed/
Notwithstanding^ there are some^ who^ disregarding these
** precepts^ suppose all fornication to be a thing indifferent^ but
contend about holy days, as if it were for their lives. These
persons invert the commands of God, and make laws for them*
selves, not valuing the decree of the Apostles, nor do they
consider^ that they practise the contrary to those things which
'seemed good * to God."^
Leaving this passage to the careful consideration of the
reader^ and of the Tractators more especially^ I proceed to

(3) The question relating to the rebaptization of those bap-
tized by heretics.

A controversy arose on this subject in the middle of the
third century between Cyprian and Stephen, Bishop of Rome ;
and the question^ says Eusebius^ was^ '^ whether it was proper,
that those who went over to the Church firom any heresy should
be purged by baptism."*

Stephen, Bishop of Rome, held, that " from whatever heresy '*
any one should go over to the Church, having been baptized
by the heretics with whom he had been associated, he should
be admitted by the imposition of hands,^ including even such
heresies as those of Marcion, Valentinus and Apelles.^

Cyprian on the contrary held, that those who had been
baptized out of the Church among heretics or schismatics ought
to be baptized when they went over to the Church, and that
it was of little use to lay hands upon them that they might
receive the Holy Spirit, unless they also received the baptism
of the Church.^

' SoCBAT. SCHOLIST. Hist. Ecdefl. lib. v. c. 22. I havo given this passage
according to the English translation published with Eusebios, Ac, Lond. 1709. fol.

' El 94oif ro^s ^1 oTocrS* oZv alp4<r€MS hri<rrp4ipovTaSy Jiik Kovrpov KoBalp^iv,
EUBEB. Hist. Ecd. vii. 2. ed. Reading, p. 322.

* " Si quis ergo a quacnnqne ha^resi venerit ad nos, nihil innovetur nisi quod
traditum est, ut manus illi imponatur in poonitentiam." Stefh. Pap. Bom.
cit. a Cypr. in Ep. 74. Ad Pompdom. Op. ed. Fell. pt. 2. p. 210.

* Cypr. Ep. 74. Ad Pomp. ib.

* '* Eos qui sint foris extra Ecdesiam tincti, et apud hsereticoB et schismatiooa

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 313

The former opinion was defended by Stephen upon the
ground of its being an Apostolical tradition, '^ If any one^'^ he
says^ " shall have come over to us from any heresy, let no new
'* practice be introduced^ but that observed which was delivered
'^ (traditum)^ namely that there be imposition of hands for re-
'' pentance/' ^ And we are told by Firmilian, that he defended
his opinion on the ground, that 'Uhe Apostles forbade, that
those who came over from any heresy should be baptized, and
delivered this to posterity to be observed/' *

And to this no doubt it is that Cyprian refers, when he says,
on this subject, " Nor let any one say, we follow that which we
" have received from the Apostles, since the Apostles delivered
'' that there was only one Church, and one baptism, which
'^ cannot be had but in that same Church/'^ And Eusebius
tells us, that the reason of Stephen's anger was, that he thought
it was not right to introduce anything new and beyond the
tradition that had been in force from the beginning.^

The real state of the case was, that it was the custom at that
time in Rome, and some other churches, and therefore was
dignified, as every other custom of that Church was and is,
with the most unscrupulous audacity, with the title of an Apos-
tolical tradition, such a name being well known to be with the
multitude an immediate passport to its reception; but to which
many of the customs so observed even in the third century, as
Firmilian tells us,^ had no right.

profiuue aqusB labe maculali, quando ad noe atque ad Eodesiam, qiifl9 una est,
venerinty baptizari oportere; eo qaod pamm sit &b manum imponere ad aodpien-
dum Spiiitmn Sanctum, niai acdpiant et Ecdesise baptbmnm." Cypb. £p. 72. Ad
Steph. Op. ed. FelL pt. 2. p. 196.

^ See preceding page» note 3.

' " Quantum ad id pertineat quod Stephanus dixit, quasi Apostoli cos qm ab
hseresi veniant, baptizari prohibuerint^ et hoc custodiendum posteris tradiderint,
pleniwrime vos respondistis." FisiOL. Ep. ad Cypr. — Inter Op. Cypr. Ep. 76. ed.
FelL pt. 2. p. 219.

k * "Nee quisquam dicat, quod acoepimus ab Apostolis, hoc sequimur; quando
Apostoli non nisi unam Eodesiam tradiderunt, et baptisma unum, quod non nisi
in eadem Eodesia sit constitutum." Ctfb. £p. 73. ed. Fell. pt. 2. p. 204.

* *AAX* 871 Sr^^oyof fiii 9uy ri yt^tpoy wapk r^y Kparii<riuray ipxTJOcy wapd-
hoffuf iwuceuyoTOfitiy oUfiwoSt M ro{nip HaiyaydKru. EUBEB. Hist. Ecd. vii. 3.
ed. Bea^ng. p. 323.

* See FnuiiL. Ep. ad Cypr., inter Cypr. Ep. 75. ed. FelL pt. 2. p. 220.

314 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

Now it is commonly represented^ that on the other side the
charge of innovation was admitted, but that Cyprian^ arguing
from Scripture^ followed a practice which he confessed might
be new to the Church. This notion^ however, is altogether
erroneous, as the statements of Cyprian and Firmilian, and
others, fully show.

Thus, Cyprian says, that his opinion was '^ not new, but long
before laid doivn by his predecessors, and observed by him"^ And
again : — " It is not a new or suddenly introduced thing with us,
" that we should hold, that those who come over to the Church
" from heretics should be baptized, since it is many years and a
" long period since a great number of bishops, meeting under
'' Agrippinus, a man whose memory is to be bad in honour,
'^ decreed this ; and between that time and this many thousand
*^ heretics in our provinces, being converted to the Church,*'
have been baptized.^ And this decree of Agrippinus and the
bishops who were assembled with him, Cyprian says he followed,
as being ''pious and legitimate and salutary, and agreeable to
the catholic faith and Church"^ And he clearly denies the
antiquity of the custom pleaded on the other side. For he
says, — '' They say, that in this they follow antient custom, when
'' among the antients were the first beginnings of heresy and
'' schisms, so that they formed the heretics, who departed from
*' the Church, and had been previously baptized among us,
whom, when they returned to the Church as penitents, it was
not necessary to baptize. Which we also observe at this
day; so that as it respects those whom we know to have
been baptized in the Church, and to have gone over from us

^ " Sententiam nostram non novam promimos, sed jam pridem ab anteoesso-
ribufl nostrisstatutam, et a nobis observatam." Cypb. £p. 70. Ad Januarium. ed.
FeU. pt. 2. p. 189.

3 " Apnd nos autem non nova, ant repentina res est, nt baptizandos oenseamoa
eos qui ab hssreticis ad Eocleaam veniunt, qnando multi jam anni sint, et longa
setas, ex quo sub Agrippino bonae memorise viro oonvenientes in mmm episoopi
plnrimi hoc statnerint, atque exinde in hodiemum tot millia hanretioorom in
provindis nostris, ad Eoclesiam conversi, non aspemati sint, &c. . . . ut lavacri
vitalis et salntaris baptismi gratiam conseqaerentur." Cypb. Ep. 73. Ad Jabaian.
ed. Fell. pt. 2. p. 199.

' "Quormn sententiam et religiosam, et legitimam, et salutarem, fidei et
EcdcsisB Catholics congruentem, nos etiam secuti smnus." Cypb. Ep. 71. Ad
Quintum. ed. Fell, pt 2. p. 196.

€<
€i

€€

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 315

*' to the heretics^ if afterwards acknowledging their offence^ and
'' rejecting their error, they return to the truth and their
'^ mother (matricem), it is sufficient to lay hands upon them
'' for repentance/' *

Such, also, is the testimony of every one of the eighty-seven
bishops convened on this matter by Cyprian, in the third
Carthaginian synod. They one and all declare, that the baptism
of heretics is altogether null and void ; and that, not as men
laying down any new rule on the subject, but merely as
witnesses to what had been a principle of the Christian faith
from the beginning. The testimonies of these bishops were
given by each separately, and are still to be seen in the works
of Cyprian.*

The same testimony is borne by Dionysius of Alexandria,
the contemporary of Cyprian, who, writing on this subject,
says, — '' I have learnt this also, that it is not the case, that
now at this time the Africans only have introduced this, [as
some appear to have represented that it was,] but that long ago
" this opinion was maintained by the bishops before tis, in the most
" populous churches [or, assemblies'], and the synods of the brethren
at Iconium and Synada, and in many places, whose determina-
tions I cannot allow myself to subvert, and throw them into
'^ strife and contention ; for it is said. Thou shalt not remove
" thy neighbour's landmarks which thy fathers have set.''*
And lastly, Firmilian, who was Bishop of Csesarea in Cappa-

^ " £t diciint, 86 in hoc veterem oonsoetadmem sequi ; quando apud veteras
haereseos et tehismatom prima adhac fnerint initia, nt hi illic essent, qui de
Eodesia recedebant, et hie baptizati prios fnerant : qnot tunc tamen ad Eocleaiam
revertentes, et poenit«ntiam agentes, necesse non erat baptizare. Quod nos quoque
hodie observamua, ut quos oonstet hie baptizatoa esse, et a nobis ad hseretieos
transisae, si postmodum, peocato suo oognito, et errore digesto, ad veritatem et
matrioem redeat [redeant], satiB sit in poenitentiam manum imponere." Cyfb.
£p. 71. Ad Quintum. ed. FelL pt. 2. p. 194.

> See Condi. Carthag^n. De baptiz. hseret. ; inter Op. Cypriani, ed. FelL pt. 1.
p. 229 et seq.

^ ' VitfJuiBriKa kcX rovrOf tri fiii yvy ol iw *K^piK^ fUyow rovro wtiptuHiyayoyf
AAA^ Koi wph woWov Korii robs wph ^fi&y iitifftc6vovSt iv reus woKvaydpofTordrcus
iKKkufflais, Koi reus <rvv6Zois rvy &9cX^v, iy *ltcoyi^ K<d StWdoif , K<d wapk woWalis
rovro ^8o|cv* £1^ riis fiovXiis ivarphrwv^ us tpuf KcijL ipiXovtuclay airrohs ififiaXtip
oifx* ^oii4yw, Ob yiip furoKirfiiruSi ^fflMt fyui rod wKtiaiow aov, h tOtvro ol wa-
r4pts ffou, En0SB. Hist. Eccl. lib. viL c. 7. ed. Reading, p. 328.

€<
(€
It
tt
€€

816 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

docia^ still more plainly says, — "We to truth ^oin also custom ,
" and to the custom of the Romans oppose custom, but the
custom of truth ; holding this to have been from the begin-
ning which was delivered by Christ and by the Apostle. Nor
do we recollect, that this had any beginning with us, since it was
always observed here, that we should acknowledge but one
Church of God, and that we should reckon that only to be
holy baptism which was of the holy Church/'^ And in this
he speaks, not as an individual, but as representing the senti-
ments of a synod of bishops from the neighbouring parts
assembled at Iconium.^

So far, then, from admitting that their practice was a novelty
in the Church, they stoutly maintained the antiquity of the
custom. And certainly TertuUian was on their side of the
question, for, in his Treatise on baptism, written before his
departure from the Church, he says, that the heretics, " with-
out doubt, have nof baptism;* upon which the learned Pame-
lius remarks, that it is impossible to deny, (negare non possumus,)
that he was of the same opinion as Cyprian, and that perhaps
his Greek treatise on baptism in which this opinion was more
fidly stated was on that account suppressed ; a plain confession of
his opinion of the mode in which the writings of the Primitive
Church were dealt with by the dominant parties of after times.*
And such also appears to have been the opinion of Clement
of Alexandria. ^

So that our own learned Bishop Fell says, that " it is suffi-

' ** Cetemm nos veritati et consnetudinem jungimus, et oonsnetudini Romano-
rum consuetndinem, sed veritatis, opponimus; ab initio hoc tenentes, qaod a
Christo et ab Apostolo traditmn est. Nee meminimus, hoc apnd nos aliqiiando
ooepifise, cum semper istic observatum sit, ut non nisi unam Dei Eoclesiam nosse-
musy et sanctum baptisma non nisi sanctae EcclesisB computaremus." Fibmil. ad
Cypr. — Inter Cypr. Ep. 75. ed. Fell. pt. 2. p. 226.

^ *' Flurimi mmul oonvenientes in loonio diligcntissime tractavimus; et confir-
mtvimus repudiandum esse omne omnino baptisma, quod sit extra Eoclesiam
constitutum." lb. p. 226.

' "Quem [i. e. baptismum] quum rite non habeant> sine dubio non habent;
nee capit niunerari, quod non liabctur ; ita nee possunt acdpere, quia non habent."
Tbbttjll. De bapt. c. 15. Op. ed. 1664. p. 230.

* Vide Pajcel. Annot. in Tertull. p. 650. ed. CoL Agripp. 1617.

» Clem. Albx. Strom. Hb. i. § 19. p. 375. od. Potter, (p. 817. ed. Sylburg.)

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 317

ciently evident, that Cyprian's view was of old maintained
throughout the African churches and those of the East/* ^

But says Mr. Newman, '^ Cyprian did not profess any Apo-
stolical tradition on his side/' (p. 204.) No doubt he did not as
far as their oral tradition was concerned; and the question is,
whether he did not herein show more sense and judgment thau
those who did make a claim which they could not substantiate.
'' The Roman Church/' says Mr. Newman, " rested her doctrine
simply on Apostolical tradition," i. e. what she chose to call
so, being at most a supposed correct report of it by others ;
^' which/' he adds, " by itself might fairly be taken as a sufficient
witness in such a point," No doubt the Roman Church is under
great obligations to Mr. Newman for his favourable judgment
of their reports of " Apostolical tradition ;" and on the same
ground he may add to these '^ Apostolical traditions'' the wor-
ship of images, which Pope Adrian declared to the Second Nicene
Council that the Church of Rome had received by tradition from
St. Peter.- But Cyprian thought differently, and therefore ven-
tures to ask how this claim can be verified. Whence, saith he,
is this tradition ? Does it come from Scripture ? For Grod tells
us to do that which is written.^ And he adds observations to
which I shall have hereafter to call the attention of the reader,
showing that he held, that the Scripture only could certify us
assuredly of what the Apostles had delivered ; and that what
they had there delivered was (as he considered) opposed to the
practice defended by Stephen.

And Firmilian still more plainly ridicules this pretence of
" Apostolical tradition." " That those," he says, " who are at
" Rome do not in all things observe those things which were
" delivered from the beginning, and in vain pretend the authority
'' of the Apostles, any one may know from hence, that he may
'^ see, that there are among them some differences respecting the

^ ** SatiB constat, et apnd ipsum Valesiam est in confesso, sententiam illam per
Airicanas ut et Orientis Eoclesias olim receptam." Fell. not. in Epist. FirmiL
ap. Cypr. Op. pt. 2. p. 218.

• I need hardly remind the reader of the result to which these views of Mr.
Newman have led him since the first edition of this work was published.

» " Unde est ista traditio," &c Ctpb. Ep. 74. Ad. Pomp. ed. Fell. pt. 2. p. 211.
See the passage fiilly quoted ch. 10 below.

818 PATRISTIC AL TRADITION

" celebration of Easter, and respecting many other ordinances of
" divine worship, and that all things are not alike observed there
'' as are observed at Jerusalem/'^

The diflTerence, then, between the two parties is just this;
that Stephen, in the true Romish spirit, boldly says. The cus-
tom which we observe was laid down by the Apostles in their
oral teaching, and therefore ought to be observed ; just as his
successor Adrian said to the Second Nicene Council respecting
the worship of images ; while Cyprian and his party, while they
maintain that the argument from antiquity is, as far as it goes,
in favour of their practice, ground its claim to Apostolicity upon
Scripture as the chief and necessary and only sure evidence. And
having both those witnesses (as they supposed) with them, they
willingly leave Stephen and his party to boast of their know-
ledge of the oral traditions of the Apostles, and Firmilian in
particular tells him, it is vain for him to pretend to it.

A more full and clear testimony (I would observe by the way)
in favour of the view for which we contend, than is here pre-
sented to us in the remarks of Cyprian and Firmilian, can hardly
be conceived.

But say our opponents ; — ^True, but this shows how the adop-
tion of such a view leads to error, for Cyprian was here in the
wrong.*

Now, in replying to this, I will not stop to remark upon the
invalidity of this argument to decide between the principles
upon which each acted, but I pass on to ask this question, — Was
Stephen right ? K not, then is the argument of our opponents
from this case in favour of their view completely overthrown ;
aye, and an additional reason afforded us for discrediting such
claims as that made by Stephen. The Apostles, said Stephen
and the Church of Rome of his day, ordered, that from whatever
heresy any one should come over to the Church, such a convert

1 " Eo8 antem qtd RomaB Bunt non ea in omnibus observare quse snnt ab originc
tradita, et froBtra Apoetolorom auctoritatem pnetendere, scire quis etiam inde
potest, qnod drca oelebrandos ^es paschse, et drca multa alia divino) rei sacra-
menta, videat esse apad illos aliquas diversitates, noc obeervari illic omnia a^qnaliter,
qniB Hieroflolymis observantnr." Fibmil. Ep. ad Cy^ir. — Int. Cypr. Ep. 75. ed.
Fell. pt. 2. p. 220.

^ See Newman's Lectures on Romanism, &c. p. 205.

€<

((
it
it

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 319

should not be baptized^ but only have hands laid upon him. But
what said the most eminent Councils and Fathers on this sub-
ject afterwards ? '^ As to those that become Paulianists/^ saith
the Council of Nice, '' and afterwards betake themselves to the

Catholic Church, it has already been decreed, that they be by

all means re-baptized.^^ ^ ''They that turn from the heresy
of the Phrygians,^' saith the Council of Laodicea, " are with
'' great care to be catechised and baptized by the bishops and
'' priests of the church, though they were among their clergy,
" and were reckoned of the first rank among them.^^^ " Those,'*
saith the Council of Constantinople, "who from among theheretics
'' betake themselves to orthodoxy and to the party of the saved,

we receive according to the order and custom subjoined ; viz.

we receive the Arians, Macedonians, &c., anathematizing all
'' heresy and having anointed them with the sacred

ointment we seal them, &c The Eunomians, who are

baptized only with one immersion, and the Montanists, who

are here called Phrygians, and the Sabellians, who maintain
" the Father and Son to be the same .... and aU other
" heretics, for there are many of them here .... all those of
" them who are willing to betake themselves to orthodoxy, we
'' receive as we do the Greeks ... we make them continue a

long time in the Church and hear the Scriptures, and then

we bcqitize them,''^

Similar directions are given in the 95 th canon of the Qui-
nisext Council, (or the TruUan canons,) the 8th canon of the
Second Nicene Council, the 47th of the Apostolical canons,
and the 1st and 47th of the canons of Basil. The opinion of
Basil,* indeed, is almost wholly in favour of the view taken by
Cyprian and Firmilian, whom he mentions by name in his first
canon, and apparently as approving their determinations even
with respect to those baptized by schismatics, though, as the

* Utpi rSov Tlav\iaviffAyrt0¥y cTra itpo<npvy6yTW¥ rp KoBoKucf itcxXnaitfj Zpos
iKrtBfircu, &yafiairrlCt<r$eu ainovs d^dwcun-os. CONCIL. NiC. Can. 19. Biblioth. Jar.
Can. Vct.ed. Voell. et Justell. torn. i. p. 34; or, in any edition of the Coundln.

3 Coxciii. Laod. Can. 8. lb. p. 50; or, in any edition of the Coundk.

' CoNCiL. CoNSTAATDfOP. I. Can. 7. lb. p. 68 ; or, in any edition of the Coundls.

* See Basil. C^es. Ep. ad Amphiloch. Ep. 188. Op. torn. iii. pp. 268 — 70, and
Ep. 199. ib. pp. 296, 7.

tf
ft

820 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

custom was different in different places^ he holds it best^ that
the custom of the place should be followed. And as to those
baptized by heretics^ he expressly says^ " It has seemed good to
" the antients^om the beginning, altogether to reject the bap-
" tism of heretics/^ ^

And Athanasius pronounces even the baptism of the Arians
as well as that of the Manichees^ the Phrygians^ and the
Samosatenians to be '^altogether useless and unprofitable.'^^
While the notion of Augustine (and which has been very pre-
valent in the Western Church since his time) seems to have
been^ that the baptism of heretics was not valid if not performed
in the name of the Three Persons of the Trinity, but that if so
performed, it was valid, whatever sentiments they might hold.p

What now becomes of Stephen's '^Apostolical tradition/^
which, Mr. Newman tells us, ''might by itself fairly be taken
as a sufficient witness in such a point ?"

Our learned Bishop Fell deduces a far different inference from
this case. He says, — '' How easy a thing and open to all is
" the pretext of Apostolical tradition, is sufficiently apparent
" from this very controversy of the baptism of heretics ; for the

advocates of each side, Stephen and Firmilian, both claimed

it with equal confidence as in their own favour."*

And yet this very case is brought by our opponents as a
proof of the safety of being guided by " Apostolical tradition,"
i. e. some Patristical report of it.

Be it observed, also, that Augustine, though he maintains
that the custom he followed was derived from Apostolical tradi-
tion, maintains this upon grounds that are not trustworthy, and
is evidently conscious, that his cause needed better support.
For he affirms this on two grounds, one, that it was a custom

rriaai. Basil. Cjes. lb. p. 269.

^ riomrcAws K€yhy Koi &Xv(riTcXis. Atkajsab. Orat. 2. oontr. Arian. § 42. Op.
torn. i. p. 510. ed. Ben. And see $ 43, ib. pp. 510, 11.

* August. Cont. litt. Petil. lib. ii. § 67. Op. torn. ix. col. 236. De unic bapt.
c. 3. ib. col. 529.

* " Qiiam obvia et exposita omnibus res sit traditioms Apostolicee praetextus, ex
hac ipsa baptismi bsBreticonim controversia satis apparet, quara utriiisque partis
patroni, Stepbanos et Firmilianus, pari fiducia sibi arrognbant." Fell. not. in
Ep. Pinnil. inter Cypr. Op. pt. 2. p. 219.

(t
it

€€

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 321

maintained by the Universal Church/ which is abundantly dis-
proved by the facts and statements referred to above ; the other,
that a custom the institution of which could not be traced to
those who came after the Apostles ought to be considered
Apostolical/ on which evidence of Apostolicity (not to say that
it was just as applicable to the practice of Cyprian and his
party, if we may believe them, as to the opposite practice)
Bishop Taylor justly remarks in the last work he wrote, " which
" in plain meaning is this, we find a custom in the Church, and
'' we know not whence it comes, and it is so in this as in many
other things, and therefore, let us think the best, and believe
it came by tradition from the Apostles ;"^ and again further
on; — "which kind of rule is something like what a witty
" gentleman said of an old man and an old woman in Ireland,
*' that if they should agree to say that they were Adam and
" Eve, no man living could disprove them . . . This rule is
" but a precarious pitiful presumption, since every antient
" custom that any succeeding age hath a mind to continue,
" may for the credit of it and the ignorance of the original,
" like new upstart gentlemen, be entitled to an honourable
house. ' Every one believes the commandments of his ances-
tors to be traditions apostolical,^ said St. Jerome ; and that
these came in by private authority, and yet obtained a public
name, we have competent warranty from Tertullian. (De cor.
" mil. c. 4.)'^^

In another part of the same work,^ Augustine has put these
two requisites together, as forming yotn/Zy a sufficient proof of
Apostolical tradition ; in which case the argument for the Apos-
tolicity of the custom in question drops at once, from the want of
universality in the practice.

Nor does Augustine, while in his controversial zeal against

* August. Dc bapt. contr. Donat. lib. v. c. 31. Op. torn. ix. col. 156.

' " nia consuetudo quam etiam tunc [i. e. tempore Cypriani] homines sursnm
versus respicientes non videbant a posterioribus institutam, recte ab Apostolis
tradita creditur." August. De bapt. contr. Don. lib. iv. c. 6. Op. torn. ix. col. 126.

3 Dissuasive from Popery, Pt. 2. $ 3. Works, vol. x. p. 433.

■• Di88uasive from Popery, Pt. 2. $ 3. Works, x. 445.

* " Quod universa tenet Ecdesia, nee conciHis institutum sed semper retentmn
est, non nisi auctoritate apostolica traditum rectissime cre<litur." August. De
bapt. contr. Don. lib. iv. c. 24. Op. torn. ix. ool. 140.

VOL. I. Y

€<
<€

322 PATUISTICAL TRADITION

the Donatists he opposes the sentiments of Cyprian^ and espouses
the cause of his opponent Stephen^ seem to remember^ that his
own view was not the same as that of Stephen^ and therefore
that he must either give up Stephen too, or the apostolicity of
his own practice ; and certainly the apostolicity of his own prac-
tice was not only destitute of proof but against evidence.

It is manifest, also, that Augustine himself felt the necessity
of supporting his cause by some better proofs, and by showing
that Scripture was on his side. '^ Lest,'' saith he, " I should
'' seem to treat the matter with human arguments, since the
'' obscurity of this question drove great men, in former times of
'* the Church, before the schism of Donatus, and men endued
'' with much Christian charity, episcopal Fathers, to differ from
'' one another, &c I produce from the Gospel certain

proofs, by which, the Lord helping me, I prove how rightly

and truly, according to the Divine will, it has been or-
'' dained,'' fec.^

And so it appeared to Bishop Taylor, who, after the observa-
tions quoted above, adds, ''But it seems himself was not sure,
" that so little a foundation could carry so big a weight ; he
" therefore plainly hath recourse to Scripture in this question :
" 'Whether *is more pernicious, not to be baptized, or to be
" rebaptized, is hard to judge ; nevertheless, having recourse to
" the standard of our Lord, where the monuments of this are
" not estimated by human sense but by Divine authority, I

find concerning each of them the sentence of our Lord,'

(Contr. Don. lib. iv. c. 14, &c., 17 and 24) to wit in the
" Scriptures."^

And this reference to Scripture-proof is repeated in many
other parts of the same treatise.

Are we to be told, then, that Cyprian erred, because he rested
upon the authority of Scripture ?

There is one more remark, also, which the consideration of

' "Jam enim ne videar humanis argumcntis id agere, quoniam qucestionis
liujns obscnritas, prioribos Eoclesis temporibus, ante schisma Donati, magnos viros
et magna caritate pneditoB patres episoopos ita inter se compulit salva pace dis-
ceptare, &c. ... ex Evangelio profero certa docmnenta» quibus. Domino adjuvante,
demongtro, quam recte placaerit et vere secundum Deum/' &c. August. I)e bapt.
oontr. Donat. lib. i. c. 7. Op. torn. ix. ool. 84.

' DiflsuBsive from Popery, Ft. 2. § 3. Works, vol. x. p. 434.

NO DIVINB- INFORMANT. 323

this case suggests, viz. how little we can trust the reports given
by many of the Fathers with respect to such matters. For in
the case before us, we are told by Eusebius, that Cyprian was
i\ie first, of those who lived in his time, to introduce the practice
he followed.* Nor are the statements of Augustine free from
similar error.^ But the Monk of Lerins has, as usual, settled
everything without hesitation to his own liking, and thus/flt'M-
fuUy chronicles this matter. "This,*' saith he, "hath ever
" been usual in the Church, that the more religious a man hath
" been, the more readily hath he always resisted novel inven-
" tions ; examples whereof everywhere are plentiful, but for
" brevity's sake I will only make choice of some one, which
shall be taken from the Apostolic See, by which all men may
see most plainly with what force always, what zeal, what
*' endeavour, the blessed Succession of the blessed Apostles have
" defended the integrity of that religion which they once
" received. Therefore, in times past, Agrippinus, of venerable
" memory, bishop of Carthage, the first of all mortal men,
" maintained this assertion against the divine Scripture, against
the rule of the Universal Church, against the mind of all

THE PRIESTS OF HIS TIME, AGAINST THE CUSTOM AND TRADI-

" TiON OF HIS FOREFATHERS, that rcbaptizatiou was to be prac-
" tised. Which presumption of his procured so great hurt to
the Church, that not only it gave all heretics a pattern of
sacrilege, but also ministered occasion of error to some
" Catholics. When, therefore, everfwhere all men exclaimed
" against the novelty of the doctrine, and aU priests in all places,
" each one according to his zeal did oppose, then Pope Stephen,
" of blessed memory, bishop of the Apostolic See, resisted, in
" common indeed with the rest of his fellow-bishops, but yet
" more than the rest, thinking it, as I suppose, reason so much
" to excel all other in devotion towards the faith, as he was
" superior to them in authority of place. To conclude, in his
" Epistle, which then was sent to Africa, he decreed the same

^ TlpwTOi rSov rirt Kvwpiavhs, rjjs Korh, Kapxyi^^i^ci trapouclas woifi^yy iv8* &\A»f
fl 8i^ \ovTpov wp^Ttpov r^s wKdyris iiroKoBripafi^yovs irpo<rU(r$<u 9f7y riytTro. EuSEB.
Hist. Eccl. lib. vii. c. 3. ed. Reading, p. 323.

' Vide August. De bapt. contr. Donat. lib. iv. c. 6. Op. torn. ix. col. 126.

Y 2

€€
€<

€<

324 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

" in these words ; That nothing was to be innovated, but that
which came by tradition ought to be observed. For that
holy and prudent man knew well, that the .nature of piety
" could admit nothing else, but only to deliver to our children
all things with the same fidelity with which we received them
of our forefathers, and that we ought to follow religion
** whither it doth lead us, and not to lead religion whither it
^' pleases us ; and that it is proper to Christian modesty and
*' gravity not to leave unto posterity our own inventions, but to
" keep that which our predecessors left us. What, therefore,
'' was the end of that whole business ? What but that which
^' is common and usual, to wit, antiquity was retained, novelty
*' exploded. But perhaps that very invention of novelty lacked
** patrons and defenders ? To which I say, on the contrary,
" that it had such pregnant wits, such flow of eloquence, such
*^ number of defenders, such show of truth, such testimonies of
divine Scripture, but understood evidently after a new and
naughty fashion, that all that conspiracy and schism should
*' have seemed unto me invincible, had not the sole cause of
" such turmoil, thb very profession itself of novelty, so
'' taken in hand, so defended, so recommended, left it without
" support. To conclude, what force had the council or decree of
Africa? By God's providence none, but all was abolished,
disannulled, abrogated, as dreams, as fables, as superfluous.
" And, O strange change of the world ! the authors of that
" opinion are judged to be Catholics, but the followers of the
^^ same heretics ; the masters discharged, the scholars con-
" demned ; the writers of those books shall be children of the
kingdom, but hell shall receive then maintainers. For who is
so mad as to doubt, but that that light of all saints, bishops
and martyrs, the most blessed Cyprian, with the rest of his
companions, shall reign with Christ for ever ? And contrari-
^' wise, who is so wicked to deny, that the Donatists, and such
'' other pests, which vaunt that they do practise rebaptization
*' by the authority of that Council, shall bum for ever with the
" devUr^

' ViNC. Lib. Commonit. § 6. I g^ve it in the tranfllation lately published at
Oxford.

€<

€€
it
(<
((

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 325

I leave this passage to the reader's reflections^ only remarking^
that we have here very sufficient evidence how far this writer
is to be trusted in his accounts^ and also an exemplification of
what his phrase ^' all men everywhere *' practically means.

The excuse of ignorance may be his ; for^ as Basil tells us^
the Western Church often neither knew the true state of affairs
in the Eastern^ nor went the way to learn it ; ^ but this is but
a poor apology for one who professes to know what " everybody
always everywhere '' thought about the matter^ and to ground
his determinations thereon ; and^ indeed^ cannot^ after all^ fully
account for the statements he has here made; which^ I sup-
pose^ no candid mind can read but with disgust.

(4) Even in points in which it might have been expected
that " tradition '' would have preserved the truth for at least
some time, we find it fail.

Thus, as to the duration of our Lord's public ministry, we
are told by Clement of Alexandria, that he preached only one
year^ and by Origen that he preached a year and a few months.*
Irenaeus, on the other hand, shows how contrary this notion
is to the testimony of the Gospels themselves, but with equal
error asserts, that our Lord was forty or fifty years old at the
time of his death, for which he refers to Scripture,* and /ra-
dition, asserting, that all the elders who had been acquainted
with St. John in Asia, testified, that he had delivered this to
them ; some of whom had seen other Apostles, and heard the
same account from them.^ I do not understand, therefore,
what Mr. Newman can mean, when he tells us, that this state-
ment of Irenaeus is one of the things which '' improperly go by

^ Olht Iffcuri rwy rap* iifuy r^y iX^Ocuu', otht r^y Mhy 9i* ^s &k fuiyOdyoity
KaraSfxoyTcu. Basil. Ep. 239. ad Euseb. — Op. torn. iii. p. 368. ed. Ben.

' 'Eyiavrhy fi6yoy. Clem. Axex. Strom, lib. i. Op. ed. Potter, p. 407. And see
other similar testimonies in the note of Potter on this place.

' *Eyiavrhy xov Kcd fAriytu 6?dyovs iHlHa^ty. Ofiia. PhilocaL c 1. In his
Commentary on Luke iv. he makes the time ons tfear. See Potter's note on the
above passage of Clemens Alex. p. 407.

^ Iben. Adv. hser. lib. ii. c. 22. ed. Mass. p. 148. (c 39. ed. Grab. p. 161.)

* netyrcs ol wptafi&rtpoi fiaprvpovfftyy ol Karh r^y *Aa'liu^ *la»dyyp r^ rod Kvpiov
Haffrrrp <n;fi^c/3X7}/c<frc5, xapaitHwK^yat ravra rhy *l»dyKqy. Uap4fitiyf yitp avrots
fitXP'^ r&y TpaXayov xi>6yu»v. Quidam aatem eomm non solum Joannem sed et
alios Apostolos viderunt, et hiec eadem ab ipsis aacUeront, et testantur de hiigus-
modi relatione. Id. ib. The Greek is preserved by Eussb. Hist. EocL lib. iiL c 23.

326 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

the name of traditions/' and " make out no claim to be considered
Apostolical." *

And were we to proceed to a general review of the rites and
customs of the Church, we should find many instances of claims
made by various Fathers to the sanction of Apostolical tradition
for rites and customs which no one in the present day would
affirm were ordained by the Apostles ; as, for instance, the trine
immersion in baptism, which Athanasius, Jerome, Augustine,
and Ambrose, all call an Apostolical tradition.^

So that even in matters of fact, and ecclesiastical rites and
ordinances, we find the Fathers that remain to us very insuffi-
cient witnesses to assure us of what is or is not an ApostoUcal
tradition. A fortiori, then, is their testimony insufficient in
doctrinal points, where the liability to misapprehension and
mistake is so much greater.

There is one remark, however, which I would here make to
prevent being misunderstood, viz. that I am not here ques-
tioning the competency or fidelity of the Fathers as witnesses
to those facts and practices of which they were themselves
cognizant; or the value of their testimony in such matters.
Thus, for instance, their testimony to Episcopacy, infant bap-
tism and the observance of the Lord's day, as usages in force in
tneir time, is invaluable, as giving us an important confirmation
of the correctness of our interpretation of those passages of Scrip-
ture from which we infer the apostolicity of those usages.

But that we have any Patristical testimony which of itself is
sufficient to assure us, what was the oral teaching of the Apostles,
cither in a matter of doctrine or practice, we altogether dcny.^

^ Newmait'b Loct. on Romanism, &c. p. 203.

' Another instance may be seen in Epiphan. Hror. 28. § 6. torn. i. p. 114; on
wliich see the remarks of Whitby in his Comm. on 1 Cor. xv. 29.
- * The degree of deference due to the rites and customs of the Primitive Church
is a question which it would be out of place to discuss here; but I would observe,
that the remarks made above must not be taken as denying that they have a claim
upon our respect and regard. Of him who claims more tlian this in their behalf
T would ask, how it is, that all parties have for ages given up many that were
esteemed of necessary observation in the Primitive Church, as, for instance,
Rtanding at public prayers on Sundays, and from Easter to WHiitsuntide, ordered
by the Council of Nice, of the non-observance of which Tertullian says, ne/as duct-
mus, (Dc Cor. c. 3.) Hut on this subject we shall have U> speak more at large
hereafter. (See chapt. 8.)

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 327

When taunted therefore^ as our opponents sometimes seem
inclined to taunt us^ with despising " Apostolical traditions/' we
say with their ovm chosen witness, Bishop Patrick, " This is a
" downright calumny ; for we have ever owned, that Apostolical
" traditions, if we knew where to find them in any place but the
" Bible, are to be received and followed, if delivered by them as
" of necessary obligation. But we do likewise say, that we

" KNOW NO such traditions.''^

Moreover, as the sanction of Apostolical tradition was thus
groundlessly pleaded by some of the Fathers in favour of various
points, so also is their testimony not fully to be depended upon,
when they claim, as they not unfrequently do, the sanction of
the Church,

We have already seen, in a former page, how Origen's predi-
lections influenced him in this respect, and that, according to
Jerome, he made his own fancies mysteries of the Chttrch?

And the reader of the Fathers will find this to be constantly
the case. Their own views are often unhesitatingly stamped by
them with the authority of '' the Church,^' when to impartial
observers it is evident, that such a claim is wholly unfounded.

Thus, Jerome, in more than one place,^ maintains it to be the
doctrine of the Church, that the souls of infants are created by
God, and transfused into them before their birth ; and he is
exceedingly indignant at Rufiuus for venturing to express a doubt

* Pateick's Answer to Touchst. p. 27.

« See p. 221 above.

' ** Cain et Abel, primi ex primis hominibns, nnde habaere animas ? Omne
deinceps humanum gcnns quibns animamm oensetnr exordiis ? Utrmn ex traduce
joxta bmta animalia, nt, quomodo corpus ex corpore, nc anima generetnr ex
anima? An rationabilcs creatnrsD desiderio oorponim paulatim ad terram de-
lapsee, novissimc ctiam hmnanis illigatse corporibns sint ? An certe, quod eccUi'
siasticum est, secundum eloquia Salvatoris, Pater meus usque modo operatur, et
ego operor; [Jo. 6. 17,] et illud Isuse [? Zech. xii. 1.], Qui format spiritum '
homiuis in ipso ; et in Psaknis, Qui fin^t per singulos corda eorum [Ps. xxxiL 15],
quoHdie Deus fahricatur animaa" HiESOir. Ad Pammach. adv. error. Job.
Hieroflol. § 22. Op. tom. ii. c. 427. ed. Vail. Ven. (tom. iv. p. 2. col. 818. ed. Ben.)
— " Qua>ris a me, quid ipse de animabus sentiam ; ut cum professus fuero, statim
invadas. Et si dixcro Ulud eccUsiasticum^ Quotidie Deus operatur ammas, et
in corporc eas mittit nascentiuro, iUico magistri tendiculas proferas, et, Ubi est
justitia Pei, ut de adulterio incsestuque nasoentibus imimas largiatur P" HissoN.
Adv. Rufin. lib. iiL $ 28. Op. tom. ii. c. 657, ed. Vail. Ven. (tom. iv. p. 2. col. 464.
ed. Ben.)

328 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

on the matter^ and to say that though he had read much on the
subject on all sides^ he still felt ignorant as to the origin of the
soul. ^' Do you wonder/' saith he, " that the reproaches of the
" brethren are raised against you, when you declare that you
*' are ignorant of that which the churches of Christ profess to
'^ know ?''^ And what makes this more remarkable is, that he
admits elsewhere, that TertuUian, ApoUinaris, and the greatest
part of the Western ecclesiastics maintained, that the soul was
ex traduce?

The same assertion, however, was made by Theodoret and by
Gennadius.

Thus, Theodoret says, — '^ The Church. . . . believing the Divine
^' Scripture, affirms, that the soul is created together with the
" body, not having its origin from man, but brought into
" existence after the formation of the body by the will of the
'' Creator/'^

And Genuadius reckons it among the doctrines of tlie Church,
that the souls of men are not derived from their parents, but
that the body only is thus propagated, and that after the forma-
tion of the body the soul is created by God and infused into it
before the birth.*

^ " Miraiis, si contra te iratnim scandala condtentor, quum id nescirc te jures,
quod Christi Ecclesiffi se nosse fatcantor ?" HiEBOJf. Adv. Rufin. lib. ii. § 10.
Op. torn. iL c. 600. ed. Vail. Ven. (torn. iv. p. 2 col. 399. ed. Ben.)

' " Super anima) statu memini vcstrsB qutestiunculse, immo maxiinse ecclesiaa-
ticsd qusestioms, Utruin lapsa dc ccelo sit, ut Pythagoras philosopbus, omnesque
Flatonid et Origenes putant, an a propria I>ei subetantia, ut Stoid Manidieeus et
Hispana Prisdlliani heeresb suspicantur ; an in thesauro babcantur Dei oliui con-
ditie, ut quidam ccdesiastid stulta persuadone confidunt ; an quotidie a Deo fiant,
et mittantur in corpora, secundum iUud quod in Evangclio scriptum est, ' I^utor
mens usque modo operatur, et ego operor ;' an certc ex traduce, ut Tertiilliauus,
ApoUinaris, et maxima pars Ooddentalium autumant; ut quomodo ooq)us ex
oorpore, dc anima nascatur ex anima, et simili cum brutis animantibns conditiono
subdstat. Super quo quid mihi videretur, in opusculis contra Kufiuum scripsisse
me noyi," &c HiEBON. £p. ad MarceU. et Anapsych. £p. 126. ed. Vail. Ven. — Inter
Aug^. £p. 165. Op. August torn. iL coL 582.

' 'H 9h *EKK\rj(rla, . . . rp BtUf irtiBofAdyTi ypcupp A.^ci, r^y ^x^^ awHrifuovp-
7c7<r0ai r^ a&iueriy oIk 4k r^t SKrjs rov ffrrdpfuiTOS flxovcay rris Sri/uovpylas riis
k^opfiiiSy kKKh. rp fiovK'tiffwi rov Woiffrov fierdt r^v rov ct^ftaros avvtarafi^tnuv
9tdwXaffuf. Thsodobbt. HsBret. Fab. lib. v. c. 9. Op. torn. iv. pp. 413, 14. ed.
Schulze.

^ ** Animas bominum uon esse ab initio inter ceteras intellectuales naturas nee
simul creatas, dcut Origenes fingit; neque cum corporihut per coUum tenUnaUu

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 329

But that this claim to the sanction of the Church for this doc-
trine was wholly unfounded^ we have abundant proof. For
Origen expressly tells us, as we have already seen,^ that with
respect to the origin of the soul there was no clear testimony
preserved in the Church. This also clearly follows from the
words of Jerome himseK in the last of the passages we have
quoted from him above.

Augustine openly professes, that he could not make up his
mind in the matter ;^ and he is evidently disinclined to the re-
ception of the opinion advocated by Jerome, since in his letter to
him, adverting to the passages we have quoted from him above,
he asks him, how his opinion can be reconciled with the doctrine
of original sin;^ and in his last work (The Retractations) he
repeats the expression of his doubt in the matter, remarking
that "with respect to the origin of the soul, how it becomes
" united to the body, whether it springs from that one which
" was first created, when man was made a living soul, or whether
" the souls of all are created alike, neither did I then [i. e. when
" he wrote his book ** Contra Academicos'^] know, nor do I yet
" know."* And again, alluding to his letter of inquiry on the
subject to Jerome, he tells us, that Jerome replied, that he had
not leisure to answer it, which had induced him not to publish
his letter to Jerome until after Jerome^s death, but that he then
published the letter '' for this purpose, that the reader might be
" admonished, either not to inquire at all how the soul was given
" to those who were born, or at any rate to admit, on a most

aicut Luciferiani et Cyrillus et aliqui Latinomm prsesnmtoreB affirmant, quasi
naturse conseqaentiam sexrantes. Sed dicimus creationem aninue solam Crea-
torem omniam nosse, et corpus tantum per conjuffii copulam teminari, Dei vero
judicio ooagulari in vulva et oompingi atqne fonnan, ac fornuUo jam corpore
animam ereari et infundi, at vivat in ntero homo ex auima oonstanii et corpore^
et e^ediatur viviu ex utero plenos hmnana substantia." Qekkad. De eodee. dog-
mat, c. 14. — Inter Op. August, torn. viii. app. ooL 77.

> See p. 218 above.

^ AuausT. Ep. 166. Ad Hieron. Op. torn. ii. ool. 583 et seq. ; and Ep. 190.
Ad Optat. ib. col. 700 et seq.

» August. Ep. 166. Ad Hieron. § 10. Op. torn. ii. ooL 687.

^ " Quod attinet ad ejus [i. e. animi] originem, qua fit ut sit in oorpore, utrum
do illo uno sit, qui primum creatus est, quando factus est homo in animam vivam,
an similiter ita fiant singulis singuli, nee time sdebam, nee adhuc sdo." August.
Retract, lib. i. c. 1. Op. tom. i. col. 4, 5.

880 PATKISTICAL TRADITION

€€

obscure pointy such a solution of the question as should not be
opposed to things which are most clear^ which the Catholic faith
maintains concerning original sin in the indubitable damna-
^' tion of infants unless they are regenerated in Christ."^

And^ lastly^ this division of opinion among the Fathers on this
point is particularly noted by Gregory the Great^ and the ques-
tion admitted to be one which could not be determined.^

Before I pass on^ I would point the reader's attention to a
remark of Augustine in the passage just quoted^ as another
illustration of what we are now endeavouring to prove^ viz. that
in which he says^ that it was *^ the Catholic faith" that unbap-
tized infants were indubitably lost. Nothing can more fully
show^ how unhesitatingly the sanction of ^^ the Church" and
" the Catholic faith" was claimed by the Fathers for doctrines
which had no pretence to such a distinction. It is here claimed
by Augustine in a case where he is strongly accused by many
of being himseK the father of the doctrine.^

So again it is reckoned by Gennadius among the doctrines
of the Churchy that " nothing is to be believed to be by nature
" incorporeal and invisible^ but God alone^ that is^ Father^ Son^
and Holy Spirit .... Every creature is corporeal, the angels
and all the heavenly powers are corporeal, although not of a
'^ fleshly subsistence/'* And the same is asserted by John,

* " Ad hoc edidi, at qui legit admoneatnr aut non qusBrere omnino qnomodo
detur anima naacentibuBy aut carte de re obecurissima cam solutionem qosestionia
kajus admittere quse contraria non sit apertissimiB rebus, quas de originali pec-
cato fides catholica novit in parynlis, nisi regenerentm* in Christo, sine dubita-
tione damnani^." Auoubt. Retract, lib. it c 45. Op. torn. L coL 67.

' "De ori^e animse inter aanctos Patres reqnintio non parva versata est; scd
utrum ipsa ab Adam desoenderit, an certe sing^olis detor, incertum remansit;
eamqne in hac vita insolnbilem faasi sunt esse qnsestionem. Gravis cnim est
qnsBstio, nee valet ab bomine oomprehendi ; qma si de Adam substantia anima
cum came nasdtur, cur non etiam cum came moritur ? Si vero cum came non
nascitur, cur in ea came qusB de Adam prolata est, obligata peccatis tenctur ?
Sed cum hoc sit incertum, illud incertum non est, quia nisi sacri baptisniatis
gratia fuerit renatus homo, omnis anima originalis peccati vinculis est obstricta.*'
Gbeo. Magn. Epist. lib. ix. indict. 2. £p. 52. Op. tom. ii. coL 970. od. Par. 1705.

» See Jeb. Tatlob's lib. of Proph. § 8, &c.

* ** Nihil incorporeum et inviabile natnra credendum, nisi solum Deum, id est,
Patrem et Filium et Sinritum Sanctum. . . . Creatura omnis corporca est ; angeli
et omnes coelestes virtutes oorporefe, licet non came snbsistant." Gennaix De
cedes, dogmat. cc. 11, 12. Inter Op. Aug. tom. viii. app. col. 77.

€(
€€

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 381

bishop of Thessalonica^ who says^ ^' The Catholic Church acknow-
'^ ledges them [i. e. the angels] to be beings of an intellectual
^^ nature^ not indeed altogether incorporeal and invisible^ but
'^ having bodies of a subtile texture^ and airy or fiery^ according
'' to that which is written^ ' who maketh his angels spirits, his
" ministers a flame of fire/ " ^

But this certainly was not the doctrine of the Churchy for
the contrary is distinctly maintained by Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Gregory Nyssen, and many others.*

Thus, Chrysostom speaks of the angels as being incorpareaL^
And Theodoret says, — '^ We know that the angels are of an
" incorporeal nature, but they assume appearances for the
" benefit of the beholders.*'* And again, — " Their natures are
not seen, for they are incorporeal ; '^ and after adding that they
assume various appearances for the sake of those to whom they
appear, he observes, " they are not however of various forms,
being, as intellectual natures, incorporeal ; but, as need may re-
quire, their Lord clothes them with certain forms to appear
in.'*^ And Gregory Nyssen speaks of the angels as having
an incorporeal nature,'* ' and being " incorporeal and imma-
terial.** 7

Thus, also, Gennadius reckons it as a doctrine of the Church,
that the angels and all the heavenly powers were made when

* Nocpoirt fjikv aibrohs if Ka0o\ucii *EKKkrj(ria yu^icci, oh fA^iy iurttuJerovs mCrrp
Kol iopdrovSf its itfjLUs ol *E\X9}yct ^or^, Kerroirttfidravs 9k Kid &ffH68cit ^ wvp^
8c(t, Kcerii rh ytypofifUvoy 6 'woi&v rohs kyy4\ous aibrov xwtifuera^ ical robs A.ci-
rovpyohs ainov wvp ^\4ycv. JoHAiTN. THESSALoyio. dt. in Condi. Nic. Sec Act. 6.
CondL ed. Labb. et Cossart. FariB. 1671. torn. vii. ooL 3&3 ; or, ed. Hard. Faria.
1714 torn. iv. coL 293.

' See the notes of Elmenhorst on Qennadina, oc 11, 12. ed. Hamburg. 1614.
pp. 128—30.

' CiTBYBOfiTOH. Comment, in Gen. hom. 22. § 2. Op. torn. iv. p. 195, ed. Ben^

^ 'Ac^fxarov 8* Hfius Xcfiw r&v &77^A»y r^v ^{mtiv, <rx*lfUfTl(owri 9k riu i^ts
irp6s rh xjyfio'it">y 'T&v hp^vrttv. Thsodoset. Comment, in Dan. xii. 7. Op. torn. ii.
p. 1298. ed. Schulze.

^ 'OpwvTcu 8i wnStv ohx ol ip6ir€ts' iurt&fuiToi yiip oZtm. . . . o& troKifioptpoi M,
&XX* dur^naroi cd yorirtd ip^eis' irphs 9k rh Xf^o'tftoy 6 roirw A§<nrSrris oxn/M-
rl(€i rks $€<itplas, Theodobet. Comment, in Zedi. c. i. ver. 8 — 11. tom. ii.
pp. 1597, 8. See also his Qosest. in Qen. q. 47. tom. i. p. 58.

^ Tuv r^y iurti/xaroy tiXifx^tf^ ^wriv, GsBO. Nybs. De vita Moos. Op. tom. i.
p. 195. ed. 1616.

" 'Ao-wftoTc^f Tc Kol iAXos &y, 1d. De pauper, amand. orat. lb. p. 884.

332 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

the darkness yet covered the waters.^ But, as we have already
seen^ Origen tells us, that when and how the angels were
created, is a point not clearly manifested in the teaching of
the Church.* And so say others.*

Many other of the doctrines attributed by Gennadius to the
Churchy are equally destitute of such authority.

Innumerable examples of such unfounded claims might be
adduced from the Fathers. But these are amply sufficient for
our purpose ; viz., to show how little we can depend upon such
claims when resting merely on the authority of a few indi-
viduals.

Nor must we fail to recollect, that such claims were equally
made by the heretics and by Eusebius (as we shall show pre-
sently*,) in favour of unorthodox doctrine, even on the highest
points of faith. Whatever was maintained, was sure to be
described by its supporters as the doctrine of the holy Catholic
Church.

We have thus considered the writings of the Fathers in all
the three points of view under which their authors appear;
viz., as private teachers, as witnesses of what they professed to
derive by successional delivery from the Apostles, and as wit-
nesses of what they claimed to be considered the belief of " the
Church;'' and we have found that, in all these characters,
they oppose and contradict one another on various important
points; and therefore that no such consent existed in the
nominal Primitive Church as our opponents suppose.

Lastly, it must be added, that neither did the determinations
of the Fathers, when assembled together in Councils, even the
largest and most general which the Church has ever seen, agree
together.

For the proof of this, we have not far to seek. In less than

1 ** Cum adhuo tenebns ipnm aquam oocultarent, et aquam terra absconderet,
iacii Bunt angeli et omnes ocelestes virtutes. Gsknad. De eoclee. dog^ c 10.
Int. Op. Augustini^ torn. viiL app. ool. 77.

' See p. 218 abore.

' See the notes of Elmenhont on Qennad. c. 10. p. 126 — 8.

< See $ 7. bebw.

€<

SC
(t
tt

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 338

twenty-five years after the meeting of the fiirst Council which
had any pretence to a right to be called a General Council —
namely, the first Nicene, — the orthodox creed there established^
was contradicted (as we have already observed) by a far more
numerous assembly of bishops, which met for the Western
Church at Ariminum, and for the Eastern at Seleucia ; and of
which Bishop Stillingfleet says, ''The Council of Ariminum,
together with that of Seleucia, which sat at the same time,
make up the most General Council we read of in Church History.
'' For Bellarmine owns, that there were six hundred bishops in
the Western part of it. So that there were many more
bishops assembled, than were in the Council of Nice ; there
was no exception against the summons, or the bishops
" present.^' ^

And this discrepancy between the two is (as we have already
observed) noticed and admitted by Augustine, as rendering it
useless to refer to either as an authority in the point in dispute.
To speak of the motives which actuated, or the influence
brought to bear upon, one or the other of these assemblies, as
accounting for their determination, is quite beside the mark ;
or rather is an additional proof how little such assemblies can
be relied upon.

Again, another proof of this is afforded us, in the con-
tradictory determinations of the Second Council of Ephesus
in 449 and the Council of Chalcedon (called the fourth General
Council) in 451. It is a well-known fact, that the great
question upon which both these Councils were assembled, that
relating to the Eutychian error respecting the person of Christ,
was determined by them in a precisely opposite manner ; and
the leading advocate of each opinion punished and sent into
exile by these Councils respectively; Flavianus by that of
Ephesus, Dioscorus by that of Chalcedon.

Nor can the force of this example be taken off by the plea
which has been urged by some of the Romanists, that the latter
was a General Council, but the former not so. For this is not
the case, as has been already shown by Bishops Jewel ^ and

J Stillinqflekt*8 Vindication of the Answer to some late Papers, pp. 63, 4.
^ See Jewel's Letters to Dr. Cole, in his Works, pp. 34, 6.

334 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

Stillingfleet ^ (our ^opponents' own witnesses). The former
Council was summoned as the other oecumenical Councils were ;
and in all respects^ as to the presence of patriarchs^ and the
number of bishops, and all such matters, had as good a right
to be considered a General Council, as almost any of those
that are so called.

This Council is cited by Bishop Jewel as a proof that General
Councils may err; and he remarks to his Romish adversary,
" Where ye say, ye could never yet find the error of one
" Greneral Council, I trow this escaped you for default of
'' memory. Albertus Pigghius, the greatest learned man of
your side, hath found out such errors to our hands, namely^
in his book that he calleth Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, Speak-
ing of the Second Council holden at Ephesus, which ye
cannot deny but it was general, and yet took part with

€€
€€
€€
€i

'' the heretic Abbot Eutyches against the godly man Flavianus,
" he writeth thus. Concilia umversalia etiam congregata legUime

€t
€t

ut bene itaperperam injuste impieque judicare ac defimrepos-
sunt ; that is, Greneral Councils, yea even such as be lawfully
'' summoned, as they may conclude things well, so may they
" likewise judge and determine things rashly, unjustly, and
" wickedly/'

And when his adversary accused Pigghius of error in this,
and denied that it was a General Council, he replies, — " Theo-
'' dosius the emperor that summoned the bishops together, as
" it may appear by his words, took it to be general. For thus
'' he writeth to the Council ; Cogitantes non esse tutum absque
" vestra sancta Synodo et ubique sanctorum Ecclesiarum prasvH-
" bus, hujusmodi quastionem defide renovari necessarium duxinms
" vestram sanctitatem convenire. These words, Sanctamm Eccle-
siarum qua ubique sunt, import a generality of all churches
through the world. Further, there was the Emperor's autho-
rity, the Bishop of Rome's Legate, which, as some men think,
'^ maketh up all together ; and other bishops of all nations.
'' And how could such a Council not be general ?" And having
shown that both Eutyches and Dioscorus spoke of this as a
Genercd [universali] Council, he adds, — "But if perhaps ye

^ Stillikoplixt'b Vindication of Answer to Papers, p. 54.

t€
€€

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 335

€€
€<

doubt of these words^ because the one was Eutyches^ the other

was Dioscorus, by whom they were spoken^ (howbeit notwith-
'' standing they were heretics, yet could they not lightly make
^^ an open lie in a matter that was so evident,) then read ye
'' the old father Liberatus, that was Archidiaconus Ccarthagtnen"
" sis, and lived under Vigilius, bishop of Rome, at the least a
" thousand years ago, and writeth the very story of this Council :
'^ his words be these, lit Ephesi generate concitium ad quod con-
^' venerunt Flavianus et Eutyches tanquam judicandi. There is
^^ appointed, saith he, at Ephesus a General Council, in the

which Flavianus and Eutyches made their appearance as men

standing to be judged/'^

This extract from Bishop Jewel may, I hope, serve, not
only to show, that the decisions of what are called General
Councils are not of final and binding authority in themselves,
but that such also was the opinion of our Reformers ; and thus
abate the pretensions of some among us, who seem desirous of
identifying the reception by our Church of what are called the
first four General Councils, with an acknowledgment of an
intrinsic binding authority in their decisions over the consciences
of men.

What, then, is the ground upon which this Council is denied
the title of General ? Because of its violence, forsooth I A
sufficiently disgraceful charge, certainly, against an assembly
of Christian bishops met together for the promotion of the faith
of Christ. But is it possible, that any one who acknowledges
i\iQ first Ephesine Council to be a General Council, can deny
that appellation to the second, because of its violence ? Never,
perhaps, was there exhibited in the Church a worse specimen
of indecent haste, party spirit, tumult and violence, than in the
first Council at Ephesus, called the third General Council,
where the party attached to Cyril had not even the decency to
wait till the arrival of the Eastern bishops. No one can read
the accounts left us of its proceedings without feeling that the
truth owes nothing to it, but the disgrace of having been so
supported. And yet this assembly, because its determination
happened to be in favour of orthodoxy, is to be dignified as

^ Jewel's Letter to Dr. Cole in his Works, pp. 34^ 5.

336 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

holy^ and venerable^ and sacred^ and oecumenical, (to which last
title, by the way, it could have had no pretensions, whatever its
conduct had been,) while another, called in the same way, and
precisely of the same kind, is to be dismissed at once, on ac-
count of a similar spirit having been displayed in it, as a paltry
Synod that met in a corner, of which no account is to be made.
Some men seem to think, that they can change the nature of
things, by imposing certain names on them ; and the truth is,
that with the majority of men who will not give themselves the
trouble to think and examine, especially in religion, names are
often taken in the place of realities ; and to this the Romanists
and our opponents owe nine-tenths of the success they have
met with.

To the above instances of the variety of sentiment that pre-
vailed in the antient Church even on the most important points,
it would be easy to add, but the task is a melancholy and un-
grateful one. I have produced amply sufficient proof, that the
notion of our opponents, that there is to be found in the writings
of the early Fathers a consentient delivery of the faith, derived
from the oral teaching of the Apostles, fuller than what is clearly
and plainly delivered in the Scriptures, is a dream which a
very little acquaintance with the writings of the Fathers will at
once put an end to. My object, therefore, is answered. " For "
(to use the words of one of our opponents' best and most learned
witnesses. Bishop Jeremy Taylor,) " if I should inquire into the
" particular probations of this article [i. e. ' the inconsistencies
of the Fathers '], I must do to them as I should be forced to
do now, if any*man should say that the writings of the school-
" men were excellent argument and authority to determine
" men's persuasions. I must consider their writings, and
" observe their defailances, their contradictions, the weakness
of their arguments, the misallegations of Scripture, their in-
consequent deductions, their false opinions, and all the weak-
" nesses of humanity, and the failings of their persons, which
'^ no good man is willing to do, unless he be compelled to it by a
" pretence that they are infallible, or that they are followed by
men even into errors or impiety. And, therefore, since there
is enough in the former instances to cure any such misper-

€€

€<

€€

NO DITINE informant; 337

€(
i(

suasion and prejudice^ I will instance in the innumerable
particularities that might persuade us to keep our liberty
entire, or to use it discreetly. For it is not to be denied,
'^ but that great advantages are to be made by their writings,
^' SLui probabile est quod omnibus, quod pluribus, quod sapientibus
'^ videtur ; if one wise man says a thing, it is an argument to
'^ me to believe it in its degree of probation ; that is, pro-
'^ pQrtionable to such an assent as the authority of a wise man
^^ can produce, and when there is nothing against it that is
" greater ; and so in proportion, higher and higher, as more
wise men, such as the old doctors were, do affirm it. But
that which I complain of is, that we look upon wise men that
lived long ago with so much veneration and mistake, that we
reverence them, not for having been wise men, but that they
lived long since.'' ^

C€
€€
€C

To these direct proofs, that there is no such consent as our op-
ponents suppose in the writings of the early Fathers, we may
add very strong collateral evidence.

We have this, first, in the statements of some of the best
authors, both among the Protestants and the Romanists, to this
eflFect. Thus, for instance, Gregory de Valentia says, — " It must
be confessed, that it can rarely happen, that we can sufficiently
know what was the opinion of all the doctors.'' ^ Bellarmiue
is forced constantly to acknowledge their disagreement on im-
portant points.^ Huetius and Petavius, two of the most learned
of the modems in such matters, so far from dreaming of such
consent, accuse many of the Fathers of error on the most impor-
tant points. And our own Dr. Cave agrees with them herein,
as we have already seen. Our learned Bishop WUite, in his
Answer to the Jesuit Fisher, says, — " Whereas the Jesuit com-
pareth unanimous tradition of the sense of Scripture with the
written letter and text of the Scripture, unless he equivocate
in the name, terming that tradition which is collected from

(€
t(
(t

* Lib. of ppoph. Sect. viii. § 3.

' " Fatendom est raro aocidere posse, at qtuB sit doctoram omiuam &c. de
religione sententia satis cognoscatur." Gbeo. Val. torn. iiL d. Trad. p. 377. As
quoted by Bp. White, in his Answer to the Jesuit, p. 121.

' See BELI.A.BM. De Controversiis, p(usim.

VOL. I. Z

C(
€€
€€

888 PAT&I8TICAL T&ADITION

*' the Scripture^ such uniform tradition as he boasteth of is very
'' rare^ for it must be such as in all ages^ and in all orthodoxal
*' churches^ hath been the same. Now the most undoubted and
uniform tradition of all other, is concerning the number and
integrity of the books of Holy Scripture, and yet in this dif-
ference hath been between one church and another. (Euseb.
Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 23, and lib. iii. c. 3 and 22.)''^ And so,
still more clearly, speaks the able prelate recently quoted, whom
our opponents, drawn by his great name, would fain persuade
us is on their side of the question, I mean Bishop Jeremy
Taylor. '^ Since nothing,^' he says, '^ can require our supreme
assent but that which is truly catholic and apostolic, and to
such a tradition is required, as Irenseus says, the consent of all
'' those churches which the Apostles planted, and where they
'^ did preside, this topic will be of so little use in judging heresies,
" that (besides what is deposited in Scripture) it cannot be
" proved in anything but in the canon of Scripture itself; and,
'' as it is now received, even in that there is some variety.^'
. . . . ^' There is scarce anything but what is written in Scripture
'^ that can, with any confidence of argument, pretend to derive
" from the Apostles, except rituals and manners of ministration;
but no doctrines or speculative mysteries are so transmitted
to us by so clear a current, that we may see a visible channel,
" and trace it to the primitive fountains.'^ " Either for the
difficulty of their being proved, the incompetency of the testi-
mony that transmits them, or the indifferency of the thing
'^ transmitted, all traditions, both ritual and doctrinal, are dis-
" abled from determining our consciences either to a necessary
'^ believing or obeying.'^ ^ And speaking of the ^' inconsistencies
of the Fathers,'^ having shown, in the case of Augustine, that
there could be no intrinsic authority in the writings even of such a
Father, he adds, '^ TTie same I say of any company of them ; 1 say
" not so of all of them ; it is to no purpose to say it, for there

" IS NO QUESTION THIS DAY IN CONTESTATION IN THE EXPLICA-
" TION OP WHICH ALL THE OLD WRITERS DID CONSENT. In

'^ the assignation of the canon of Scripture they never did con-

' White'b Reply to the Jesmt Fisher, pp. 124, 6.
' Tatlob*s Liberty of prophesyisg. Section v. § 5.

<€

it
€€

(€

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 839

€t

sent for six hundred years together ; and then by that time
'' the bishops had agreed indifferently well, and but indifferently,

upon that, they fell out in twenty more ; and except it be in

the Apostles' creed and articles of such nature, there is nothing
^^ which may, with any colour, be called a consent, much less
" tradition universal/'^ And as to Mr. Keble's notion, that
Bishop Taylor afterwards changed his mind on this matter, I
shall show hereafter,^ from the very last work he wrote, that
there is not the slightest foundation for the idea.

It would be easy to multiply such statements; and as it
respects the Anglican divines, many similar ones will be found
in a subsequent chapter.

We have similar evidence, secondly, in the way in which the
Fathers are quoted by all sides and all parties, as, more or less,
some or other, favourable to their views.

Thus, at the second Nicene Coimcil image-worship was de-
fended on the authority of the Fathers ; and all the errors of , the
Romish Church itseK have, if you will believe the Romanists, the
argument from antiquity altogether with them. On the other
hand, the Protestants are universally agreed, that the weight of
Fatristical testimony is altogether against those errors. And
the Eastern Churches, agreeing neither with the Romanists nor
the Frotestants, are equally persuaded, that the Fathers are on
their side.

Again, among Frotestants themselves, all the great parties
into which they are divided, have, over and over again, claimed
antiquity as on their side. All the different views entertained
by them, on the doctrines of the sacraments, justification, &c.
have been supported by the testimony of Fathers. And zealots
on all sides have been foimd to apply even the '' everybody
always everywhere agreed with me'' argument. And still further,
it is a notorious fact, that most of the most learned modem
Arians have urged more or less Fatristical testimony as in their
favour.

Now I admit, that this is not a sufficient proof, that there is
not a consentient testimony in the writings of all the Fathers
on these points. But the question is, whether there is not some

1 lb. Section yiiL § 8. ' See Ch. 11 below.

z 2

840 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

ground for their being so quoted ; whether the admission made
by almost all those best qualified to judge on such a pointy that
their writings abound in hasty and incorrect statements^ does
not at once show^ that such consent cannot be proved, and there-
fore cannot be a final standard of appeal^ or judge of controver-
sies ; and that our opponents' plan for ending controversies by
appealing to the Fathers is perfectly nugatory and chimerical.

And this argument gathers tenfold force^ when we find^ that
many of the most learned and able Patristical scholars have
openly confessed^ that many of the Fathers are against them in
some of the most important points. For here we have some-
thing more than a mere reference to the Fathers for opposite
doctrines^ we have an admission to reason upon, made contrary
to the prejudices of him who made it.

Moreover, as an argumentum ad hominem, it is unanswerable.
For our opponents charge Scripture with being obscure and
unfit to be a rule of faith and judge of controversies, because it
is quoted on opposite sides. If, then, this reasoning is correct,
their appeal to the Fathers for the interpretation of Scripture
and the decision of controversies is, on their own showing,
absurd ; for not only are they quoted on opposite sides, but it is
allowed, by those best able to judge, that their writings abound
in hasty and incorrect statements, and it is confessed by many of
the most learned judges, that they disagree even on the most
important points.

The mistakes to which we are liable when relying on such a
foundation as a supposed consent of the Fathers, are remarkably
illustrated by some instances selected by our opponents them-
selves as instances of consent, and of course selected in the
conviction that they were among those that would best stand
the test of examination.

" How else," asks Mr. Keble, [i. e. how but by " catholic
tradition,'^] " could we know with tolerable certainty , that
" Melchizedek^s feast is a type of the blessed eucharist ? or
'' that the book of Canticles is an allegory representing the
" mystical union betwixt Christ and his Church ? or that
" Wisdom in the book of Proverbs is a name of the Second
*' Person in the Most- Holy Trinity V* "All which interpreta-

i€
it

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 841

tions/' he adds^ " the moment they are heard^ approve them-
" selves to an unprejudiced mind^ and must in all likelihood
^^ have come spontaneously into many readers' thoughts. But
it may be questioned^ whether we could ever have arrived at
more than a plausible conjecture regarding them^ but for the
constant agreement of the early Churchy taking notice every
'^ where in these and the like instances of the manner in whidi
" the Old Testament was divinely accommodated to the wonders
" of Christ's religion."^

Here^ then, is a specimen (I allude more particularly to the
first and last of the examples mentioned) of what is the prac-
tical meaning of ^' catholic tradition,'' and " the constant agree-
ment of the early Church." It is just the consent of some
half a dozen Fathers falling in with the hmnour of the individual
quoting them. I will not now stay to inquire, whether the
notion of Melchizedek's feast being a type of the eucharist
approves itself the moment it is heard to an unprejudiced mind,
though I must take leave to doubt it. But that it is delivered
to us by the consent even of the Fathers that remain to us, is
altogether a mistake. Mr. Keble's proof is as follows ; — '^ For
this see S. Cyprian, Ep. 63. p. 149. ed. Fell ; S. Augustine,
De Civ. Dei, xviii. 20. [? xvi. 22.] S. Jero&e, Ep. ad Mar-
cellam, 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 Gren. xiv.)
'^ clearly implies the same construction. But the reserve main-
^' tained by them on all liturgical subjects may account for their
^' comparative silence on this point, even supposing them to
*' have received the same interpretation." Such is the proof of
'^catholic tradition" and "the constant agreement of the early
Church /"

Now it is quite true, that Augustine and some other Fathers
considered, that the bread and wine were brought forth by
Melchizedek in his sacerdotal character, and were a eucharistical
sacrifice to God ; but the notion that this was held by the Fathers
generally, is a mistake not easy to be accounted for.

1 Keble's Sermon, pp. 36, 7.

€(
(C

€€

342 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

One of Mr. Keble's own most learned witnesses^ Bishop
Morton, will tell him, that other Fathers held it to have been
" an offering proceeding from the bounty and magnificence of
" Melchizedek, for the refreshing of the soldiers of Abraham, and

not from an act belonging to the function of his priesthood by

way of sacrifice unto Grod/'^ And though, perhaps, all the
Bishop's references may not be correct, yet Epiphanius at least
is clear in the matter. " He brought forth,'' says Epiphanius,
''bread and wine for Abraham and those that were with him,
" to entertain the patriarch coming from [the slaughter of] the
" kings.''* And hence, even some of the Romanists themselves
(most of whom have adopted the other meaning in the hope of
obtaining therefrom some support for their cause) have admitted,
that the latter is the true meaning. Thus Pagninus and
Yatablus interpret the passage as meaning, that Melchizedek
"refreshed the weary and hungry army with royal liberality."^
And Andradius says, '' I am of their opinion who affirm, that
" Melchizedek did refresh Abraham and his soldiers with bread
" and wine."*

Again, Mr. Keble's allegation that catholic consent and the
constant agreement of the early Church assure us, ''that
" Wisdom in the book of Proverbs is a name of the Second
" Person in the Most Holy Trinity," is equally unfounded. His
proof is, "the disputes on the text, Prov. viii. 22. at the
Nicene Council are sufficient to prove agreement on this point."
A very small foundation surely for such a large superstructure
as a claim to catholic consent.

Now let us hear what Epiphanius says on this matter. Having
referred to this very text, he observes, " And the Scripture has

not at all any where fixed the meaning of this passage, nor has

any one of the Apostles mentioned it, so as to apply it for a name

* MoBTOK's Catholic Appeal, p. 166.

* "Aproy Kal otvov. . . . i^4fia\ty ain^ re, jcoi rols fiei^ abrov, &s hrh rStv
"bturiKiw ^wo^t^datyos rhy 4px6fityoy Ilarpidpxn*'* EPIPHAIT. Adv. Hair. Iuet. 55.
§ 8. Op. torn. L p. 475.

■ "Laasum et fiunelicam exerdtum regia liberalitato refecit." As cited by
Morton, Cath. App. p. 895.

* " Ego cum iUifl sentio, qtii lassos Abralia) milites et diutuma pugna fractos
Melchizedechum pane et vino refedsse aiunt." Def. Cone. Trid. lib. iv. fol. 371. b. ;
as cited by Morton, Cath. App. p. 895.

€€

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 343

*' of Christ. So that consequently it does not altogether speak con-
" ceming the Son of God. . . . For the word itself [i. e. wisdom]
'' does not wholly compel me to apply it with reference to the
" Son of God. For he [Solomon] has not signified this^ nor
" has any of the Apostles mentioned it, nor the Gospel either/'^
And having proceeded to observe, that some '^ dared '^^ so to
apply the passage, he adds, that it must not be considered as
spoken of his divinity, but only of his humanity,^ and that
after all it is quite optional with us to suppose it to be spoken
of Christ at all or not,^ and that though ''some orthodox
Fathers ^^ had so interpreted the passage,^ and that it was ''a
sense consistent with piety, because some great Fathers had so
understood it,^^ yet that it is optional with all to receive this
interpretation or not as they please.'

And the same was evidently the opinion of the great St. Basil ;
for, (when meeting the objections of Eunomius, derived from
this passage,) having said that it was necessary to apply this
passage to the human nature, he adds, — '' It is open also to any
" one to say, that-Solomon spoke these things concerning that
" wisdom which the Apostle mentions, when he says, ' When in
" the wisdom of Grod the world by wisdom knew not God.' *'^
And in his homily on Proverbs he has himself thus interpreted
the passage.^

' ' KaX ov vdmofs vov ififfidi»<r9 ypapiit oM ifu^irOfi rit r&y *Kiroar6hMy r^s
\4^f09i ra&niSf Xya vapetydyp a^r^y elf Srofia XpurroG. &<rrt otr oh ftdmcts w9fA
rov Tlov rod B€ov A.^yci. . . . Ainh yiip rh ^/m ov «t(rr«f AnryircCfci fi€ wtpl rov
Tlov rod Btov \4ytar oh yiip it^XMaty, oh94 ru rw 'AwoirrSXuy 4funifi6y9wr€Vf
&AA' oCrt rh Eheeyy^Ktoy, EpiPHAjr. Adv. Hsres. in hier. 69. adv. Arian. §§20, 21.
Op. torn. L pp. 743, 5.

' ToXfiAci riyks iwi rhy Tlhy rov 9€ov rovro ^p§iy. Id. ib. p. 746.

' Id. ib. p. 745.

* OhitU 4ifMS iawyicdati^ ftdyrws ircpl rod Xpurrov K4y^iy rh prjfia rovro. Id.
ib. § 24. p. 748.

* Kol ydp riycs r&y irar4pwy 4ifi&y ical 6p6oS^cty inr49tfKay rovro tls r^y
iytrapKoy wapowriay Suuyofi04yr€S, Id. ib.

* Mtyd\oi 'Wttr4p€S rovro h^rffiiffayro, icoi c2 /x^ ns fiovKtiOtiri rwy hpBMfyty
icarai4^€ujr€ai, oh KarayayK€ur$4iir€rai. Id. ib.

7 Efiroi 8* iy ris icoi rhy loKofuiyra ircpi rris iro^ias 4Mlyris tlfniK4yai rovra,
^s icoi 6 *Air<WoXos fi4furrrrai thr^y irtiS^ yiip 4y rg tro^Uf rov 8coG ohK (yyw 6
K6<rfios BiiL rris ffo^las rhy 9€6y. Basil. Cjeb. Adv. Eonom. lib. iv. Op. torn. L
p. 293.

> Basil. CiES. Uoinil. in priucip. Prorerb. Op. torn. ii. p. 99. See abo Adv.
Ennom. lib. ii. § 20. torn. L p. 266.

844 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

Now 1 do not deny, but on the contrary maintain, that very
many, probably the majority, both of the antient writers that
remain to us, and also of the moderns, have affirmed, that this
passage in the book of Proverbs refers to Christ, but this only
shows us the more, how easily we may be deceived in inferring
catholic consent from the testimony of a great number of
writers.

Hence if we adopt the views of our opponents, we may call
that an Apostolical tradition, and consequently a divine revela-
tion, one day, which we find the next, by happening to meet
with some other remains of antiquity, to be nothing of the kind.

It is evident, then, that the notion that there is consentient
testimony to the doctrines of revelation, even among the
authors that remain to us, is a mere dream of the imagina-
tion, and that, even as it respects the very highest points of
faith.

And the discrepancy we have thus shown to exist in their
statements, proves, that we may have the consent of a num-
ber of Fathers to that which had not the consent of the whole
Church in its favour, and consequently that with the scanty
remains we possess of the writings of the antient Church, it
is impossible to infer the consent of the Church in any case ;
for though a doctrine may be supported by many of the Fathers
whose writings remain to us, and not directly opposed in the
other writings known to us, yet this may be merely accidental,
from our not happening to possess other works of the Fathers,
or having the opportunity to know the sentiments of others in
the Primitive Church ; of which we must ever recollect also that
we have but a partial and limited representation in the writings of
those who chose to become authors, and who were many of them
probably far less fitted to give a sober and judicious account of
the faith of the Church, than many others who have left nothing
behind them. Hence we must observe, that even if some of the
Fathers whose writings happen to remain to us, agreed together
in any particular point, and the rest were silent, — which is the
very utmost that the boasted " catholic consent" of our oppo-
nents could amount to, — this would be wholly insufficient to as-
sure us of such a consent of the whole Primitive Church in the
matter as could be to us a sure record of the teaching of the

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 343

Apostles^ or be on any ground a divine informant or authorita-
tive guide.

But in fact, though the theory put forward by our opponents
is, that " catholic consent " only can be relied upon, (a testi-
mony, however, which by a voluntary self-deception they iden-
tify with the consentient witness of the few remains of the
Fathers that happen to have come down to us,) that which our
opponents practically rely upon to prove this consent, is often
the dictum of some half a dozen Fathers. In theory they hold
it necessary to establish the consent of the Fathers, but their
practice is totally different. And in truth, they must be well
aware, that otherwise they must give up their ground altogether,
as both their favourite Vincent of Lerins, and Bellarmine, will
bear reluctant witness. For, notwithstanding the magnificent
rule proposed by Vincent, that we should be guided in our
search after truth by what " everybody always everywhere '* in
the Catholic Church testified respecting it, we find in the latter
part of his treatise, that his practical proof of the doctrine held
by " everybody always everywhere" may be derived from the
testimony of less than a dozen authors. And Bellarmine can-
didly admits, that of doctrine supported by the consentient tes-
timony of all the Fathers, " an example is hardly to be found,"
(vix invenitur exemplum,) but he thinks, that if a few Fathers
of great name have supported it, and others when mentioning
the subject have not contradicted it, that will do as well.^ And
thus our " divine informant," " catholic consent,'^ is practically
the dictum of a few fallible men.

This evident failure of the theory, when reduced to practice,
is probably the reason why the Tractators are so shy of drawing
out the proofs of " catholic consent" and traditive interpretations
of Scripture, delivered by the unanimous voice of the Primitive
Church. Certainly their success in the cases upon which they
have ventured, has not, as we have just seen, been such as is
likely to encourage them to enter further into particulars than
may be necessary. But, it might be supposed, that, maintain-

^ " Mdetur sufficere, si aliquot Pfttres magni nominis expresse id asserant, et
ccteri non contradicant, cum tamen ejus rei meminerint." Bktj«akm. De Y«rlx
Dei. lib. iv. c. 9.

346 PATRISTIC A L TRADITION

ing, as they do^ that antiquity unanimously consents in the de-
livery of a certain system of theology^ they would be anxious to
bring before the public the proofs of such consent ; and beyond
doubt they would advance their cause much more^ in the eyes of
all impartial men, by so doing, than by those general and vague
appeals and claims, accompanied with but few definite references,
with which they usually content themselves.

Instead of brandishing high-sounding words against us about
the infallibility of " the Catholic Church," and the certainty of
what '' everybody always everywhere '' has believed, let them
set themselves to produce the passages in which such tradition of
doctrine or traditive interpretation of Scripture is delivered, and
thus prove its reception by "everybody always everywhere/*
In this they might afford us some proof of that Patristical learn-
ing for which they take credit ; and of which they certainly
have not yet favoured the public with any very abundant
testimony.

And to show them that we have no wish to be hard upon
them, we will offer them a doctrine upon which to try their
powers in such a research, which they have themselves very
prominently put forward as derived from " tradition ;*' viz., the
consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. Will any one of
our opponents give us a Catena Patrum for this doctrine for the
first few centuries, showing, that during that period not only did
no Father speak somewhat inconsistently with such a doctrine,
but, on the contrary, that all delivered that doctrine with one con.
sent ? Let us see the evidence traced and drawn out. And be it
remembered, that it is to be so clear, as to counterbalance the
(alleged) obscurity of Scripture in this point. The doctrine is
not clear, say our opponents, in Scripture: but only go to
Church-tradition, and you will find that all the Fathers have
clearly, and unambiguously, and with one consent, delivered it.
X beg to ask, then, for the proofs upon which this statement
rests. I do not by any means deny, that it has been, in my
belief, a truth held by the orthodox part of the visible Church
from the beginning, because I hold it to be a fundamental
truth revealed in Scripture ; and I believe, that we can find
a stream of testimony in its favour, running down to us from the

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 347

beginniDg. But I ask for the proofs of this boasted catholic
consent for it.

Suppose the attempt made. Will our opponents include all
those who have belonged to the visible Church ? No, they will
say, we must go to the Fathers of the Catholic Church only, and
not think that the agreement of such heretics as those that
opposed the doctrine, is necessary. So, then, in the first step,
the truth of the doctrine to be established, is assumed. But
suppose it granted, that we are to go only to the Fathers of the
Catholic Church. What evidence, I would ask, could we show,
that there was catholic consent for it in the first three centuries ?
Moreover, Arius appealed to tradition as in his own favour.
And Athanasius, though he referred to the tradition of a few
antient authors as in favour of the doctrine, does not claim
catholic consent from the beginning in its favour; a claim,
indeed, which, had he made it, could not have been alone a
sufficient ground for faith to build upon ; and as to Mr. Keble^s
notion, that the Fathers at Nice affirmed, that the doctrine
there agreed upon had been taught in all their churches from
the beginning, it has not the least particle of evidence to rest
upon.

Or, let them take the doctrine of the divinity of the Holy
Spirit, and show us the proofs of catholic consent in its favour,
for the first three centuries ; and they will find, if they attempt
it, that both Basil and Jerome will laugh at them for their
pains ; the one telling them, that the doctrine was passed over
in silence and left unexplained, and that some were unorthodox
respecting it ; and the latter, that many, through ignorance of
the Scriptures, and Lactantius among the number, erred re-
specting it.^

Again, then, I say to our opponents. You talk about catholic
consent and traditive interpretations of Scripture received by
"the Catholic Church '' for the whole Christian faith, produce
your proofs of such consent ; deal no longer in vague gene-i
ralities, but let us know how many and what points of doctrine
can be thus proved, and present us with the proofs ; and I will
venture to say, that the leanness and partiality of the Catena,—^

1 See pp. 23?, 4. above.

348 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

where some ten or a dozen men will appear as the uncommis-
stoned representatives of as many millions^ and a few sentences
(some probably ambiguous and equivocal) of fallible men^ pre-
tending to nothing more than to deliver what^ to the best of
their knowledge and belief, was the truth, will be offered
to us as an infallible interpretation of Scripture, — will be the
best answer in itself to all the claims made for " tradition/'

SECTION V. CONSENT EVEN IN THE WEIT1NG8 THAT REMAIN

TO US, NOT TO BE EXPECTED.

From the extracts abeady given from the writings of the
early Fathers, it is very evident, that there was much division
of sentiment among them, even upon the highest points of faith,
and consequently, that some among them were involved in very
serious error. And I would ask. Are we to be surprised, that
such was the case, in a vast society consisting of an immense
number of distinct and independent bodies, like the Primitive
Church ? It must ever be remembered, that the Church, as left
by the Apostles, consisted of a great number of bishoprics, all
independent of each other ; and each bishop having no head or
superior but the great Head of the Church, to whom alone he
was responsible. Archbishops, Patriarchs, and Popes were a
creation of the Church. There was no common earthly Head,
nor even any representative assembly, to act as a check upon
the prejudices and fancies of men. Had there even been such
checks, experience would hardly warrant us in expecting perfect
unanimity in the teaching of such a number of men as the
pastors of the Church even then amounted to. For, let me ask.
Is there such consent, even among the teachers of any one
single body of Christians at this day, however full and explicit
their confession of faith may be ? We have already seen, that
Mr. Newman confesses, nay, strongly urges, that it is not the
case, even in our own Church. Is it not, then, most imreason-

NO DIVINE INFORMANT* 349

able to assume^ that such must have been the case in such
a body as the Primitive Church ?

For, how was such unanimity to be obtained ? True, in the
first instance every church was, no doubt, sound in the essen-
tials of the faith. But the cases of Galatia, of Sardis and
Laodicea, prove how soon orthodoxy may be exchanged for
grievous error. And how, I would ask, were such cases dealt
with ? It is easy to say, that all the other churches that were
sound in the faith might convene a representative council and
excommunicate those churches. But did they do so ? Nay,
was it possible for them to do so, until, by the favour of the
Emperor, they were allowed to call together such an assembly ?
But such permission was not given^ nor consequently any such
Council assembled, for more than three centuries after the
time of our Lord's incarnation. There were, no doubt, local
assemblies of bishops ; but these had no pretence for concluding
the whole Church by their decisions. They had weight propor-
tionable to the character and conduct of the bishops of whom
they were composed, and no more.

But our opponents reason, as if the whole nominal and
external Church, consisting of all these various independent
parts, had been from the beginning one united body, all whose
members were amenable to some common tribunal, and who
were immediately separated from the body upon any defection
from the pure orthodox faith ; a notion which is very pleasing
and alluring in theory, but utterly groundless.

Further, it is obvious, that in those details of fundamental
points which had not been particularly the subjects of dis-
cussion in the Church, the early Fathers might easily express
themselves so as to appear favourable to views which they did
not entertain. For instance, it was easy for writers who pre-
ceded the Arian and Nestorian and similar controversies, even
though orthodox, to have expressed themselves in language
apparently favourable to those errors. These are slips '^ quas
aut incuria fudit, — aut humana parum cavit natura," and which,
on points not in the immediate contemplation of the writer,
are surely, in the case of human authors, by no means uncommon.
And certainly they are not likely to have given, as a body, such

350 FATRISTICAL TRADITION

statements as should serve for the refutation of errors not con-
templated by them. And if from probability we come to fact,
we find this to be the case.

Moreover, most of their writings are controversial ; and, in
zealously refuting one error, men are very apt to use language
easy of application in favour of some opposite error not in their
minds at the time. And to this, in the infancy of the Church,
before the rise of almost all the great controversies that have
agitated her, men would be peculiarly liable. Extracts, there-
fore, from such writings, upon points not in the contemplation
of the author, are very unsatisfactory arguments. It would be
easy to bring examples to show this ; but the objection is so
manifestly well-grounded, and the point has been already so
well illustrated by Daille, that I need not here enlarge upon it.^

I might add, and not without reason, as the author just
referred to has shown,^ that upon these occasions they were
sometimes too apt to strive for victory rather than truth ; but
I have no wish to depend upon such arguments, and would
rather hope, that such cases were not of frequent occurrence,
notwithstanding the ingenuous statements of Jerome.^

Add to this, that they spoke sometimes with an intentional
obsciirity, in order to veil their meaning from the uninitiated.*

Further, it is undeniable, that their language is often of a
highly coloured, exaggerated, and rhetorical kind, but little
calculated to give a sober and correct view of Christian truth.
They speak in the language they had learned in the schools
of philosophy and rhetoric, suited rather to attract and dazzle
the hearer, than to give him definite notions respecting the
faith.s

Now, all these facts render it most improbable, that we
should be able to obtain from them any clear and definite con-

' See Daille, On the use of the Fathers, bk. I c. 5. Engl. ed. pp. 94r— 7. I
refer to this work, not as agreeing in all its statements, but as one that contaitis
much valmable matter on this subject,

' lb. bk. L c. 6. EngL ed. pp. 112—16.

" HiERON. Ep. ad Pammach. ep. 48. (al. 60.) § 13. Op. torn. i. col. 222. ed.
Vallars. Venet.

< Daille, bk. i. c 5. pp. S3, 4., and c. 6. pp. 107—10.

* See again Daille, bk. i. c. 5. pp. 86 — ^9.

tf
tt

t€

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 351

sentient testimony to the faith. Nay^ as we have ahready seen,

the statements of many of the Ante-Nicene Fathers are accused

of direct error by some of the great lights of the fourth and

fifth centuries. And if I am askedj as fiufinus seemed disposed

to ask Jerome, " How it is, that there are some errors in their

books," I reply with Jerome, — " If I shall answer, that I know

not the causes of those errors, I will not immediately set

them down as heretics. For it may be, that either they

simply erred, or wrote with another meaning, or their writings

were gradually corrupted by unskilful copyists ; or, certainly,

'^ before that meridian daemon, Arius, arose in Alexandria,

^' they may have spoken some things innocently and incau-

" tiously, and such as cannot escape the calumny of perverse

" men."^ But then I beg to inquire, with our learned Bishop

Stillingfleet, " How comes the testimony of erroneous or unwary

" writers to be the certain means of giving the sense of Scrip-
"ture?"3

To establish, also, such a consent as our opponents speak of,
namely, such as can practically end controversies, we need
peculiar clearness and accuracy of expression, such as can fix
the meaning of the passage even in the view of those who would
be glad to interpret it otherwise. And to claim consent in
favour of what we hold to be the orthodox view, while at the
same time we are compelled to admit, that the testimonies of
some Fathers on the subject are of doubtful meaning, and those
of others expressed so as to appear rather to favour the opposite
view, is merely to expose ourselves to just ridicule. If the
Fathers have used imguarded and incorrect language, as far as
they have done so, so far it is absurd to claim their consent, or
to go to them for a definite decision on any point in controversy.

It must be added, without any wish to depreciate the value of

^ " QuomodOy inqtiies, in libris eorum vitiofla nonnalla sunt ? Si me cauflns
Yitiorum nescire respondero, non statim illos hseretioos judicabo. Fieri enim
potest, ut vel simpliciter erraverint, vel alio sensa scripflerint, rel a librariis ixn-
peritis eomm paulatim scripta corrapta sint. Vel eerie anteqnam in Alexandria
quasi dsemonium meridiannm Arius nasceretur, innocenter qnsBdam et minna
cante loquuti sunt, et quae non possint perversorum hominum «tlnmmimi dedi*
nare." Hiebon. Adv. Rof. lib. ii. § 17. Op. torn, it col. 608, 9.

2 See p. 259 above.

352 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

those remains of antiqaity we possess^ that it is more than pro-
bable, that there were hundreds of bishops in the Primitive
Church far better able to give us a correct view of the faith of
the Church, than some of those whose writings happen to have
come down to us. A man may be very eloquent, who is not
very correct in his theological statements, as all ages of the
Church have shown us. The learning of a converted philo-
sopher may give him great weight and celebrity in his generation,
but he is not generally the best teacher of the Christian faith.

Nay, is it within the bounds of probability, however high a
view we take of the character of the early Christians, that the
oral instructions of the Apostles should be perpetuated by the
consentient testimony of such a body of fallible men as com-
posed the nominal and external Catholic Church ? Liable as
some at least of those who were merely nominal Christians
would be to misunderstand and misreport, liable as all would be
to use inadequate and uncertain language, and by a change of
phraseology open the door to errors which they might never
contemplate, how is it possible, that all these should consent in
giving a definite and certain testimony for the true faith and
that alone, and one moreover so definite as distinctly to exclude
and negative all error ?

Further, is it likely, that the Apostles should have left with
the Church, either interpretations of Scripture, or statements of
doctrine beyond those contained in Scripture, framed so as to ne-
gative all the various heresies that might arise in the Church? Yet
in order to magnify the authority of the Church as an infallible
witness of the Christian faith in all controversies, she is supposed
to be the depositary of oral Apostolical teaching sufficiently de-
finite and extensive to do this, and all her members are said to
have ever consented in handing down this Apostolical tradition.

For instance, in the case of the Arian heresy, we maintain, that
Scripture bears a clear testimony against it, the direct and ne-
cessary inference from its teaching being, that the Son is con-
substantial with the Father. No, say our opponents, Scripture
is not clear upon the point, but '^ tradition " tells us, that the true
doctrine is, that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and
this express traditional testimony is the only evidence that is

VO DIVINE INFORMANT. 853

sufficient to end the controversy. The same is averred for
the Nestorian, Eutychian, Pelagian, and in fact all the other
errors that ever arose in the Church. So that the supposition
is, that the Apostles not only published the true faith as we find
it delivered in the Scriptures, but also in their oral instructions
added such a description of it as would suit — ^not merely as
Scripture does, for an inferential condemnation, but — for an ex-
press, and verbal, and direct condemnation of every error that
would arise : nay more, not only that the Apostles did this, but
that this teaching in all its fulness was perpetuated and handed
down for centuries, ready to be applied as each error arose.
Is this likely ? True, our opponents attempt to prove that it
was so a posteriori, namely, from the argument of the consent of
all the churches ; which, they say, is not to be accounted for
but on such a supposition. With this argument we have already
dealt, and shown that there is no such consent ; but we wish
here still further to point the attention of the reader to the
extreme improbability of the hypothesis which this argument of
our opponents calls into existence.

However much, then, we must regret the absence of such a
consentient testimony in favour of the full orthodox faith, it is
not a matter which, under the circumstances of the case, ought
to occasion us any surprise. Rather is it a matter of astonish-
ment, that any one should expect to find it, and still more to
assume it without, and even against, evidence. Its absence is
no evidence, that there has not been in all ages a Church of
Christ, a " blessed company of faithful people " ^ in the world.
Nay, it is no evidence, that there have not always been local
communities of Christians publicly professing the true faith.
While Origen was venting his errors at Alexandria, and for his
learning and eloquence was followed and admired by vast num-
bers in his time, and his errors never publicly condemned, there
may nevertheless have been, at the same period, and no doubt
were, many churches that retained the true faith. And the
same we may say in the case of others who remained, notwith-
standing their errors, free from any public condemnation by any
body of men calling itself the Church. At a time when there

^ See oar Commmuon Service.
VOL. I. A A

854 PATBISTICAL TRADITION

were no (jeneral Councils of the Church to adjudicate on such
matters^ the difficulties were great in the way of any public cen-
sure being issued by the whole Church. And probably much
depended upon the weight and influence of the individual among
the neighbouring bishops. If he was sanctioned by them^ that
is, if the error had spread but a little, then where was the tribu-
nal that ever did or could call him to account ? True, it does
seem surprising, that no public censure should have been passed
upon Origen's doctrines in his lifetime by the sound portion of
the Church. But such is the fact, at least as far as appears
from the documents that have come down to us.

And let me ask, Had the other churches passed any public
censure upon the churches of Sardis and Laodicea when our
Lord rebuked them by his Apostle ? We know of nothing of
the kind ; nor is it likely. Nevertheless the errors of these un-
excommunicated members of the Catholic Church did not pre-
vent there being other members sound in the faith. Nay, even in
those local communities that were sound in the faith, there
might be those who propagated erroneous doctrines, and yet,
from being aided by circumstances, escaped a public condemna-
tion ; as even Jezebel was suffered to teach and to seduce others
to error in the church of Thyatira. (Rev. ii. 20.)

The notion, then, that all the members of the nominal and
external Catholic Church must have given a consentient testi-
mony respecting the faith, is on the face of it most improbable.
And if all the writers whose remains we possess had done so, it
would only have shown, how extremely partial a representation
we have in them of the sentiments of the antient Christians.

In this want of consent, also, there is nothing at all to alarm
the Christian ; nothing to show, that the promises of Christ
have failed ; nothing to show, that there has not been in all ages
a company of faithful people, visible to the world as Christ^s
mystical body ; nothing to obscure the light of divine revelation
in the Holy Scriptures or the teaching of those more orthodox
portions of Christ^s followers that have shone as lights in the
world, holding forth the word of truth ; nothing in fact to dis-
turb any, but one who wishes to erect upon earth an infallible
tribunal to which the consciences of men are to bow in blind
submission.

NO DITINB INFORMANT. 855

SECTION VI. — THE UNCERTAINTIES AND DIFFICULTIES WITH
WHICH EVEN THAT SMALL AND PARTIAL CONSENT WHICH
MAT SOMETIMES BE ATTAINABLE^ AND IS CALLED BY OUR
OPPONENTS '^ CATHOLIC CONSENT/^ IS EMBARRASSED.

Let US now proceed to consider more particularly the value of
that partial consent that may perhaps be in some cases attain-
able, and which is dignified by the Tractators with the name of
" catholic consent/'

And first, we must observe, that when they speak of such
consent as necessarily showing, that the truth of which it tes-
tifies had its origin with the Apostles, they seem to be making
a hasty and unwarranted assumption. Even allowing such con-
sent to be more general than we can prove it to be, still it by
no means follows that it is due to Apostolical teaching. Sup-
posing it to be strictly universal, then indeed we need not hesitate
to admit such an inference. But as for any proveable consent,
it might originate as easily in the imaginations of the natural
mind as in Apostolical teaching. It needs no proof, that
any corruptions of the faith suited to the natural feelings and
prejudices of the human mind would be likely, at the very ear-
liest period of the Church, to obtain extensive circulation, espe-
cially if they were supported by a few able and influential men.
No man who knows anything of history or human nature, needs
to be told, how great the influence of even one able and zealous
individual may be over a whole community, especially if his
teaching falls in with the bias of human nature. Nor will any
Christian deny, that in a vast body such as that which composed
the nominal Christian Church, the tendency would be towards
a corruption of the faith.

But a still greater difficulty with respect to any producible
consent is, that in many cases the expressions used are uncer-
tain and of doubtful meaning, and open to different and even
opposite interpretations.

We have already noticed, in the last section, how little suited
many of the writings of the Fathers are, from their loose and

A A 2

356 PATRISTICAX TRADITION

inaccurate and rhetorical phraseology^ their obscurity, and other
similar causes^ to give a definitive sentence on controverted
points ; and especially in the case of controversies subsequent
to their times, in which the point in dispute was, as far as we
know, never distinctly brought under their notice. And this will
be found to render every attempt to show, that they have borne
a consentient testimony in favour of any particidar view, almost
useless and nugatory. For passages of doubtful meaning will
of course be interpreted according to the view of the reader.
And hence, as we have already observed, the Fathers are quoted
on a]l sides. Thus, for instance. Bishop Bull claims them for
his doctrine of justification, as does Bishop Jebb,^ while others
claim them for the doctrine of the Reformers on this point.'
Granting that these opposing references do not prove, that the
Fathers really dissent from each other on the point, (though
upon our opponents' principles they would seem to do so,) is it
not nevertheless undeniable, that their loose, uncertain, and
inaccurate expressions give just ground for such opposite re-
ferences ?

Moreover, almost all the great controversies that have agitated
the Church, have been raised since the third century. The
writers, therefore, that preceded the fourth century, wrote
without any eye to such controversies. Their notices therefore
of such points are generally indirect and incidental. They
no more give a verbally definitive sentence respecting them than
Holy Scripture. They cannot serve, then, for determining
them ; for we cannot reason inferentially from them, as we can
from Scripture, because no man holds their words to be in-
spired, or their indirect observations to be sufficiently to be de-
pended upon for such a purpose. In human writings we
meet with much that, if applied to a point not in the mind
of the writer at the time, would convey a very false im»
pression of his views respecting it. With the writings of the
early Fathers, therefore, there is, on almost every controverted
doctrine on which they are quoted, this drawback, that the con*
troversy had either not been mooted in their times, or was not

» See Kbblb's "Catena," p. 114.

' See, for instance, the " Corpus oonfesaionam."

No DIVINE INFORMANT. 357

in their immediate contemplation when they wrote^ and conse-
quently that they may have expressed themselves differently
from what they would have done^ had the point in question been
immediately before them. With Scripture the case is different.
That is perfect^ as indited by an Omniscient Being. From that
we may safely reason inferentially, and there is no drawback to
weaken the force of the inference.

Now, much of this is admitted by the lovers of the Fathers ;
but then they seem to think, that they may be permitted to
decide upon the allowances to be made for it, and so by a
little ingenuity, contrive to bring even doubtful and indirect
passages among their witnesses for catholic consent. And if
we come to investigate what is put forth as the catholic consent
of the Fathers in behalf of any doctrine, we shall generally find
that it has been obtained by a process strongly resembling that
for which the bed of Procrustes is famed. The compiler, hav-
ing a model of doctrine in his own mind, finds perhaps some
statements that seem exactly to fit his standard, but for his
'' catholic consent *' will encounter many that are not so well
suited to it. Nevertheless, the haste of the author when he
wrote, his ignorance of the controversies that were afterwards
to arise, the circumstances of the times or of the treatise in
which the passages occur, will afford many excellent reasons
why his statements should be either too long or too short. It is
therefore a kindness to him, for which he would, no doubt, be
grateful, could he know of it, to pare down his statements if
they are somewhat too large, or put them on the rack if they
need a little stretching, so as to make them speak the language
of perfect orthodoxy. And thus, by a little contrivance, we get a
Catena, that, to those who made it, is very convincing, but,
somehow or other, generally fails in producing much effect upon
opponents able and willing to investigate for themselves. And
the argument from Patristical testimony, in itself a valuable
one, when thus pressed too far sometimes loses even its le-
gitimate weight.

To the generality of readers, however, it must be admitted,
such a mode of arguing often answers very well. And if we
may judge, what people are ready to believe when it suits their

858 PATRISTICAL TRABITION

fancy^ firom what writers have said on this subject, we need never
be at a loss for the support of the Primitive Church. For if all
other methods of obtaining it should fail, the Benedictine Edi-
tors of Hilary seem to me to have given us a sure recipe for it^
in the following very ingenious remark when speaking on the doc-
trine of the millennium. Being, of course, anti-millennarians^
and therefore desirous of finding some support in that age for
their own view, they remark, — " Moreover, that our doctrine
'^ was already received in their age, is proved by the efforts of
" Irenseus and Tertullian to root it out of the minds of the faith-
" ful/'^ Whatever the Fathers may say, then, we can thus get
good support for the doctrine we wish to maintain. If the
Fathers uphold it, well and good; if they oppose it, then their
efforts to root it out of the minds of the faithful show that the
faithful believed it, and so either way we get good testimony for
it. A little ingenuity will do great things in this matter.

Moreover, it is admitted, that instead of having positive state-
ments from all the Fathers to depend upon for our " catholic
consent,'^ we must always content ourselves with having from
some of them the testimony of silence, because they have only
written on the particular points which were brought more im-
mediately under their notice. But this surely is a strange
demand to make upon us, that because five persons have given
their testimony for a doctrine, and four are altogether silent
about it, we are to be so sure that we have the consent of all the
nine in the matter, that we are to make that consent the founda-
tion for our belief that the doctrine is true.

Further, we must observe, that, in matters of church polity,
nothing would be more likely, than that the Fathers should
suppose and represent all that the Apostles had ordained, to be
so absolutely essential to the being of a church, that that could
be no church that wanted anything of the kind ; speaking only
in contemplation of the times then present, and never dreaming
of such a different state of things in the Church as was to be
found previous to the Reformation. It was very natural, that,

^ " Immo fidem nostram jam aero suo receptam, probat Ireiuei atque Tertnl-
liani labor, ut earn ex animis fideliam extorqueant." Edit. Beitedict. Pref. ad
Op. Hilar. Pictov. p. 68.

NO DIVINB INFORMANT, 869

without any authority for the statement firom the Apostles^ they
should so represent the matter. It would be the notion sure to
be entertained^ and one which probably^ for the time and circum-
stances contemplated, was not far from the correct view of the
case, though, with our experience and in our times, they might
have judged dififerently. We cannot therefore conclude^ that
such a notion was necessarily derived from the Apostles. It is
obvious, that even antient consent on such a point, if it could
be proved, would not show derivation from the Apostles, be-
cause it is easily accounted for on other grounds. What we find,
for instance, on this subject in the Epistles of Ignatius, (even if
it is genuine,) was said with reference to the circumstances of his
day, and is not forthwith to be applied as a test by which the
churches that were the ofi^pring of the Reformation are to be
tried. Granting fully, that, under ordinary circumstances, the
ordinances of the Apostles on important points have a paramount
claim to our regard, it nevertheless does not follow, that under
extraordinary circumstances they are so necessary that all who
do not comply with them are forthwith to be unchurched. For
such a view of the case we want direct Apostolical authority,
and are not to be bound by those Patristical representations
which might be very just and true for the time then present,
but are not applicable to a completely altered state of things.
In the absence of any direct Apostolical injunction, the Christian
revelation must be looked ^t as a whole, and the preservation of
its essentials, as delivered to us in the Holy Scriptures, be our
first and great concern, to which every thing else must give way.

Moreover, in some important points the Fathers changed
their minds, holding different views on the same subject at dif-
ferent periods of life.

We have a whole treatise of Augustine, written at the close
of his life, entitled his '^ Retractations,^' in which he corrects
various statements made in his former works. We find similar
changes of sentiment in other Fathers, and passages in their
works contradictory to each other. And consequently an exception
is often taken, and justly, to passages adduced on any controverted
point, on the ground that they were written when the author's
judgment was immature. And hence Yincentius himself re-

860 PATBISTICAL TRADITION'

quires, that our judgment be formed from what the Fathers
persevered in maintaining^ and held to the end of their course.^

To perfect our catholic consent, then, we ought to know,
whether the authors we quote persevered in the view maintained
in the passages we refer to, and were of sufficiently ripe judg-
ment when they wrote to make their testimony valid. But how
we are to ascertain this, it is difficult to understand. Few have
been so ingenuous as Augustine to confess such change of views.
And if they had, it is a mere matter of chance as to such con-
fessions coming' down to us. Jerome tells us,^ that such a letter
was written by Origen to Fabianus, bishop of Rome, expressing
his regret at having written such things as he had ; but we
know nothing of this letter, but from this incidental notice of it
by Jerome.

And this variation of sentiment, by the way, as far as it
exists, completely overthrows the idea of there being any tra-
ditionary teaching pervading the whole Church upon the point ;
for had there been, there would have been no room for such
change of views. So that it not only shows us the difficulty of
proving consent, but also thai there was not such consent, and
that the views held varied with the private opinions and judg-
ment of individuals.

Again ; to know the degree of value to be attached to even a
consentient testimony of the Fathers in favour of any view, we
ought also to know whether the point be a fundamental article ;
because otherwise we can have no security against even such a
testimony being erroneous.

Now, how we can ascertain this, but for those points which
are laid down in Scripture as fundamental, (and for which,
therefore, we need not Patristical testimony,) I know not ; for
it does not by any means follow, that because the Fathers were
not likely to have all erred in fundamentals, therefore they could
not be wrong in determining what points are fundamental. And
if we were willing to admit their testimony on the point, we

^ *' PerseverarUer tenmBse, scripsisse, docuiase." Vincbkt. Lib. Commonit. § 8.
al. 4.) et § 28. (aL 89.)

3 " Ipse Origenes, in epistola quam scribit ad Fabianmn Bomanse urbis episoo-
pum, poenitentiam agit, cor talia scripserit." Hiebok. Ep. ad Pammach. et
Ocean, ep. 84. (al. 65.) Op. torn. i. ooL 581, 2. ed. Vallars. Yen.

NO DIVINE INFORMANt. 861

should be unable to get anything like a sufficient testimony
from them ; and at most the brief summaries of Irenseus and
TertuUian would be all that could be established as funda-
mental^ by such testimony.

Lastly^ our opponents^ to avoid the obligation of admitting
anything they dislike^ have themselves added to these another
difficulty^ and one which will be found altogether insuperable.

There are some points^ it seems^ to which the Fathers have
borne what our opponents^ upon their own principles^ are
obliged to recognise as a consentient testimony, but which,
nevertheless, are not quite to their mind (some specimens of
which we shall give hereafter) ; and accordingly they have been
compelled to maintain, not only that we must have catholic
consent, but that such catholic consent must be accompanied
with the declaration that it is " traditionary teaching."

It is ludicrous, indeed, to see the straits to which our adver-
saries are reduced, when they come to the practical application
of their principles to particular points. This may be remarkably
seen in the Tract on Purgatory.^ Speaking of Purgatory, they
say, — ^^ Now it can only be an article of faith, supposing it is
held by antiquity, and that imanimously. For such things
only are we allowed to maintain, as come to us from the
Apostles ; and that only (ordinarily speaking) has evidence of
so originating, which is witnessed by a number of independent
witnesses in the early Church. We must have the unanimous
^' ^ consent of doctors,' as an assurance that the Apostles have
" spoken.'* (p. 25.) Here, then, it is evident, that what they
mean by ^' the unanimous consent of Doctors,'' is the consent of
'^ a number." But, being obliged afterwards to admit, that a
number of the best witnesses among the Fathers speak contrary
to their views, they are driven to the necessity of making some
further nice distinctions in the matter, and shifting their rule to
one which it is still more impossible to apply. ^'What has
been said," observes the Tractator, "will illustrate what is
" meant by Catholic Tradition, and how it may be received,
" without binding us to accept everything which the Fathers
" say. It must be catholic, to be of authority; that is^ all the

1 Tracts for the TimoB, Ko.79.

€€

€€
«

862 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

" writers who mention the subject^ must agree together in their
'' view of it^ or the exceptions^ if there be any^ must be such as
" probare regvUam. And again^ they must prof ess it is traditionary
" teaching. For instance^ supposing aU the Fathers agreed tO'
" gether in their interpretation of a certain text, I consider that
" agreement would invest that interpretation with such a degree
'' of authority^ as to make it at first sight most rash (to say the
" very least) to differ from them ; yet it is conceivable that on
<' some points, as the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy, they
'' might be mistaken. It is abstractedly conceivable^ that a
'' modem commentator might, on certain occasions, plausibly
" justify his dissent from them : — ^this is conceivable, I say,
'' unless they were explaining a doctrine of the Creed, which is
" otherwise known to come from the Apostles,— or professed
" (which would be equivalent) that such an interpretation
*' had ever been received in their respective churches, as coming
'' from the Apostles. Catholic tradition is something more
'' than catholic teaching. Great as is the authority of the latter
" (and we cannot well put it too high) tradition is something
'' beyond it. This remark is m point here, for it might be ob-
'' jected, that so many Fathers agree together in the notion of a last-
" day Purgatory, that were it not for the accident of others speaking
'' differently, we should certainly have received it as Catholic Tra-
" dition, I answer, no; whatever the worth of so many wit-
nesses woidd have been, — and it certainly for safety's sake
ought to have been taken for very much, — still Origen,
Hilary, Ambrose, and the rest, do not approximate in their
remarks to the authoritative language in which they would
speak of the Trinity, or the benefits of Baptism. They do not
profess to be delivering an article of the faith once delivered to
" the saints.'' (pp. 37, 8.)

Here, by their own hands, the very foundation of their system
is all but overthrown. For if, as is here allowed, the unanimous
consent of the Fathers that remain to us, is not a sufBcient proof
that what is so delivered came from the Apostles, but it is
required that they should also unanimously declare, that what
they were delivering did come firom the Apostles by a successional
delivery of it from one to another, then is the notion of ant

€C
€€
€€
it
€t

' NO DITINB INFORMANT. 868

doctrine or interpretation of Scripture being so established^ pre-
posterous in the extreme. But this unanimous declaration must
of course be^ as in the former case^ the declaration of a number.''
And we have already given various instances in which this decla-
ration was made by '^ a number /' and yet^ in the judgment of
'' a number*' both of antient and modem divines^ our opponents
included, was made without foundation.^

^ There are lome remarks on this matter by an able writer in the Britiah
Magazine for February, 1840, who signa himself S. T. R., so judidons and per*
tinent to oar present purpose, that I cannot btct direct the attention of the reader
to them. Speaking of the Tract abore quoted, he says, — "The principles of the
Oxford Tract Writers in this tract may lead to every oormption, they bdng un-
happily opposed to the spirit of a Canon which I quoted in a previous letter.
Whether they are harmless or not to their authors I do not know, but I feel sure
that they are capable of being very dangerous when imbibed and acted upon by
others. Upon that Canon Dr. Waterland observes, what cannot be too often
repeated, that 'it does not order that the clergy should teach whatsoever had
been taught by Fathers; no, that would have been setting up a new rule of fiuth :
neither does it say that they shall teach whatsoever the Fathers had collected
from Scripture ; no, that would have been making them infidlible interpreters or
inffdlible reasoners.' And these observations, I submit, apply, however tmmerout
those Fathers may be. 'The doctrine must be^rr^ found in Scripture; only to
be more secure that we have found it there, the Fathers are to be called in, to be»
as it were, constant checks upon the presumption or wantonness of private inter-
pretation.' (vol. V. p. 817.) But the Oxford Tract writers in this tract, lay down
rules which do not require that the doctrine should be first collected out of the
doctrine of the Old and New Testaments; they dispense with them; they rely

upon WHAT THST CALL THE ChUBCH, WHICH IS FBAOTICALLT CSBTAIK WBITBBS
WHOM THEY ICAT CH008B TO CALL THE ChTTBCH. They tell US, (p. 25,) that
' such things only,' (speaking of Articles of faith,) ' are we allowed to maintain at
come to us from the Apostles ; and that only, ordinarily speaking, has evidence
of so originating which is witnessed by a number of independent witnesses in the
early Church. We must have the unanimous consent of doctors as an assurance
that the Apostles have spoken.' This is their rule for selecting doctrine, and
calling it Apostolical, in cases where the holy Scriptures are silent. Let us
examine it. The word 'unanimous* coupled with the 'early Church' in the
other sentence must I should think be intended to mean, not merely the unani-
mous consent of a particular age, but of ages, espedally some of the early onei^ in
order to ^ve some appearance of a connexion with the Apostles; and if so, the
word, 'unanimous' must be construed liberally, and mean what is said in the
former sentence, ' a nmmber,* But then if it be taken liberally, a question will
arise. How many Fathers will make up this number, and on what principle are
they to be selected ! And also out of what centuries are they to be gathered P
And these questions are not to be dedded by merely their opmion; they must be
so decided as to leave no proper fear that we can fidl into error. We have a right
to require this, as, on giving up the guidance of Holy Writ, we are promised, and
ought to have, very dear and intelligible lines, the matter depending ixpcm them
being no less than Apostolical doctri$^e. But if the Oxford Tract writers cannot

864 PATRISTICAL TRADITION^

In laying down these nice distinctions^ I need hardly observe^
that our opponents are^ as usual^ following the guidance of

■o answer these questions, not only is their rule worthless, but they are opening
the door for the maintenance of any early opinion, however erroneous, {since there
are few that have not several patrons in the first fowr or five centuries^ which
may suit the taste of the theologian. The Oxford Tract writers themselves felt
this difficulty in respect of the doctrine of a judgment purgatory, since it might
be said that that doctrine being witnessed by so many doctors must be believed^
and yet it is erroneous; and therefore, in pp. 87, 38, they make a supplemental
role by distinguishing between what they call 'catholic teaching,' and 'catholic
tradition/ and affirm, that not only must all the Fathers 'who mention a doctrine
agree in thdr view of it, or the exceptions, if there be any, must be such as
probare regvlam, but also they must profess it to be traditiomd teaching.' Now,
without stopping to inquire what those unlucky exceptions may be, (unlucky as
leaving matters still in uncertainty,) let us see the way in which they practically
apply it to the overthrow of a judgment purgatory. They allow that the worth
of so many Fathers would, for safety's sake, be very great> but that ' they do not
approximate in their remarks to the auUioritative language in which they would
speak of the Trinity or the benefits of baptism. They do not profess to be deliver-
ing an article of the fidth once delivered to the siunts.' Now, since the Fathers
in general express their doctrines rather confidently, or at least make no such
difference as would afford those 'dear and intelligible lines' which are promised,
and which ought in a case of such importance to be ^ven to us, — ^whUe such a
distinction, if not most clearly marked, allows a very unfortunate licence fbr
abuse, — I suppose that the Oxford Tract writers mean, that nothing is to be
received as unwritten apostolical doctrine but what is declared in as many words
to be traditional teaching by this 'number of independent witnesses in the early
Church.' If so, here we have, apparently, a tangible rule, and if it be hastily
read, as most books and tracts are now-a-days, it will pass very well ; but a more
dose inspection will, I fear, show, that however it may apply, being perhaps made
fbr it> to the case of the judgment purgatory, it will not answer our purpose, the
discovery of unwritten apostolical doctrine, unless we are also sure that whatever
the individual Fathers and the bishops of the Catholic Church teU us is traditional
teaching, is in truth apostolical doctrine. Will the Oxford Tract writers affirm
this ? Perhaps they will. But will they prove it ? Until that be done, we have
no 'dear and intelligible lines.' Among the various doctrines, and many of them
erroneous, like the judgment purgatory, which the Fathers held, the touchstone
of truth will still, practically, be the taste of the inquirer. Having lost the sure
guidance of Holy Writ, he will adopt either what he likes or what he thinks
right in all the wantonness or weakness of private judgment.

" Having thus examined these rules, and seen, I think, how very insuffident they
are for the discovery of unwritten apostolical doctrine, and how liable, on the
other hand, they are to be abused to the maintenance of error, let us see how the
Oxford Tract writers are able, when an erroneous doctrine is advanced against
them, to meet it. How do they meet the Romanist, for instance, on this doctrine
of purgatory ? The holy Scriptures, — ^those ' safe and substantial bulwarks' — ^not
bdng required by them, not even their testimony through the light of early
Christian writings, they have nothing wherewith to repel the Romanist but these
two arguments: first, that the Fathers adduced, though teaching more than
themsdveB, do not teach porgatofy ; and secondly, that their testimony is contra-

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 866

their friends the Bomamsts. ''Our adversaries require two
things to make the testimony of the Fathers worthy to be
relied on,^' says Placettej^ ''first, that they consent^ and.

dictory. A Romanist, I think, would smile, and say to them, ' Gentlemen, yon do
not require the doctrine to be seen in the Scriptures, as your own is not there;
ndther do you require it to be seen in the Fathers of the two first centuries^ as
your own is not there. Now in the third century we have all the 'independent
witnesses' that exist in support of our doctrine. It may be true that each witness
does not in all pcnnts fully exhibit it as it is now defined, yet all present some
portion of it. And allow me to recal to your recollection your own opinion, that
the more diffkue teaching of a Uxter ctge may fairUf he considered at the dme
development of the brief and sententious doctrinal declarations of an earlier
period, I recal this with the greater pleasure, mnce it is so well supported by an
instance of your own connected with our present subject. I allude to a passage
referred to in the British Critic, No. 49, p. 73, from the Epistle of Ignatius to the
Mag^esians, $ 9. . . . This passage you very properly, as we Romanists consider,
adduce as an apparent recognition by Ignatius, of the doctrine more fblly deve-
loped in later times of the Limbus Fkitrum. Now, if this passage, which, it must
be confessed, is somewhat indistinct, exhibiting at the most but a fiunt outline qf
one portion of the doctrine, and which the generality of Protestants, not so free
from prejudice as yourselves, would reject altogether as having nothing to do
with it, I say, if such a passage, so indistinct and so defective, be admitted by
you as apparently recognising and sanctioning the more full development of a
later age, surely you cannot resist our evidence for the doctrine of purgatory ?
I must really insist, that, as far as the three first centuries are concerned, (and
if you wish it I will pursue the inquiry further down,) all the writers who
"mention'' the subject agree more or less in thdr view of it, each of them exhi-
biting some peculiar element of our doctrine ; and that, consequently, this may
fidrly be conridered as one of those admitted cases in which, in the silence of the
apostolic writings, we have "suffident assurance that the apostles have spoken.^
As a matter of course, as centuries roll on, and we have more writers, we hav^
also more full and comprehensive views of the doctrine, which enable us, as in the
case of the Limbus Fkitrum, more fully to exhibit it; but supported as these early
and brief statements are by later and more fully developed ones, their evidence
must, I beg leave to submit, on our common prindples, be deemed conclusive^
And with respect to your other objection, if it have any force at all, it will be
fiital to your own doctrine also ; except that in your case you have, I believe, Uie
unanimity of nlence. But should your doctrine have any existence, it cannot be
with the "unanimous consent" of doctors. Doctors in every age from the third
are opposed to you ; while in our case, fh>m the third century to the present day,
we can show you an uninterrupted descent — the stream of our doctrine flowing
more full and dear in every succeeding age ' I know not how the Oxford Tract
writers would meet such observations as these; but I fear that the Anglican
believer, if he yields to the prindple of this tracts instead of ' expatiating in the
rich pastures of Catholicism,' will soon find himself in 'the snare of popery.'^
Brit. Mag. for Feb. 1840. pp. I74r— 7.

^ In his " Incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome," translated and pub-
lished by Archbishop Tenison, 1688. 4to, and reprinted by Bishop Qibson in th«
third volume of hb Preservative agunst Popery.

a
it
ft

866 PATBISTICAL TRADITION

'' secondly, that they do not merely propose what seems most
'' true to themselves, but testify moreover that what they teach
" was either delivered by Christ, or is of faith, or which is all
one, the opposite of it heresy. If either of these fail, then
their testimony is not secure. The first condition is required
by many, and particularly by Alphonsus a Castro, who, in-
" quiring out the ways whereby a proposition may be convinced
" to be heretical, in the fourth place assigns ' the unanimous
" consent of all the Fathers who have written upon that argu-
'* ment.' The latter condition is made necessary by many
'* more. Driedo tells us the authority of the Fathers is of no
'' value ' any otherwise than as they demonstrate their opinion
^' either from the canonical Scriptures, or the belief of the Uni-
'' versal Church since the Apostles' times ; and that they do
'' not always deliver their sense as matters of faith, but by way
" of judgment, opinion, and probable reason,' '' &c. '^ Both
'' conditions are required by Canus and Bannes, who, laying
'' down rules whereby true traditions may be discerned from
*' false, both assign this in the second place and in the same
words ; ' If the Fathers have unanimously from the begin-
ning all along the succession of their times held any article
'' of faith, and refuted the contrary as heretical/ BeUarmine
'' and Gretser give this for their fourth rule, — ' When all the
doctors of the Church teach anything by common consent to
have descended from Apostolical tradition, either gathered
together in a Council or each one apart in their writings'. . . .
^' Martinonus, that ' none of the holy Fathers or doctors taken
" separately is the rule of faith, nor all yet together conjunctly,
'' unless they assert their common opinion to be of faith/ and
'' not merely propose their own judgment.' Lastly, Natalia
'^ Alexander affirms, that ' when all the Fathers conspire in the
'^ same opinion, defend it, and propose it as Apostolic doctrine^
" and an article of the Church to be believed by catholic faith,
'^ then doth their authority afford a necessary argument of
'^ sacred doctrine/ " '' It sufficeth not therefore," observes
Placette, " either that many Fathers deliver an opinion as of
'' faith, or that all should simply teach it, but not affirm it to
*' be of faith. Now if these two conditions be observed, how few

tf
tt

tt
it
it

NO DIVINE INVOBHANT. 867

*' articles of Christian faith shall we receive from tradition. For
" the Fathers seldom all offree, and more rarely admonish us thai
what they teach is of faith. So that iv Tou take away

ALL articles WHEREIN EITHER OF THESE CONDITIONS IS

€€

** WANTING^ IT MAT WELL BE DOUBTED WHETHER ANT ONE

€€

WILL REMAIN. . • . FVom whot hath been said, it appears that
matters of tradition and belief cannot be learned from the
Fathers. Hence ^gidius Estrix vehemently inveighs against
" Peter van Buscum, a Divine of Oaunt^ who in his * Instruc-
^* tion ' had remitted young divines to the Fathers to learn the
'' Christian doctrine from them. And Nuetos the Jesuit likens
" those writers of controversy, who, passing by the Scripture,
" betake themselves to the Fathers, to thieves and rogues, who,
deserting the cities flee into thick woods that they may more
securely hide themselves," ^
In fact, our opponents, when brought to the point, are
compelled to admit the uncertainty of their boasted ^' catholic
consent." *' We, for our parts," says Mr. Newman, speaking
on this subject, " have been taught to consider, that faith in its
'^ degree as well as conduct must be guided by probabilities^
*' and that dotJtt is ever our portion in this life • . • we are but
*^ striking a balance between difficulties existing on both sides.^'^
And therefore they have very little difficulty, when *^ striking
the balance/^ to make it pro or con in any particular case,
according to their own taste and convenience. And the refuge
which they have provided for themselves against an objector is
twofold, first that if this " consent " be not admitted, notwith-
standing its imcertainty, as a sufficient foundation for faith to
rest upon, we shall be left without any ground for believing
the Scriptures to be the word of (jod, a statement for which
the sceptics of the day will no doubt feel greatly obliged to
them ; and secondly (to make all right) that faith means belief
upon imperfect and uncertain evidence; both which proposi-
tions we shall consider in the next chapter, but we notice them
here, that the reader may know how far our opponents them-

^ Incur. Soept. of Church of Rome, c. 3.

' NswiCAir'sLectonRom. &cp. 129. See also pp. 69 and 829.

868 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

iBelves have been driven towards the admission of the doctrine
for which we have been contending in this chapter.

So far^ then^ from shrinking from such a charge as that which
Placette brings against the Church of Rome for patronizing such
doctrines, namely, that of ^' incurable scepticism,'^ Mr. Newman
at once avows, that such is his state of mind, and that he is so
fully conscious of the insufficiency of the grounds upon which
his faith rests, that he feels that '^ doubt is ever his portion in
this life.'' The reader will do well to consider, whether he is
desirous that such should be his own portion, and if not, to take
heed how he embraces sentiments which, by the confession of
their authors^ will lead him to it.

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.

We must now proceed to observe, that the claim made to
catholic consent in favour of the orthodox faith, is opposed
by the rival claims of antient heretics to a portion at least of
Patristical Tradition in their favour. And as they possessed the
writings of the Fathers to a far greater extent and in a far more
correct state than we now do, it is impossible for us precisely to
determine what grounds they may or may not have had for such-
an appeal.

And in noticing this point, I must caution the reader against
the misrepresentations that are so common on this subject.
Many seem to take it for granted, that those who did not re-
ceive the orthodox doctrine are to be set down as men who had
not common honesty, and uttered falsehoods without hesitation;
which, however true it may be of some, is not to be assumed of
all of them. Moreover, the Somanists^ to answer their own

€(
€(

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 369

purposes^ almost always represent the heretics as men who
admitted, that their views were new, and that they could plead
no sanction for them in antiquity, and who appealed only to
Scripture ; and our opponents (somewhat strangely for men who
profess so much knowledge of antiquity) evidently proceed upon
the same notion ; either from having fallen into the Romish
snare, or from having been misled by their great master the
monk of Lerins, who misrepresents this matter as much as the
Romanists. For he universally represents the heretics as ap-
pealing only to Scripture, and bringing forward what they knew
and confessed to be new doctrines, repudiating any appeal to
antiquity ; and yet with an inconsistency not uncommon in such
writers, tells us with respect to some of those heretics, that they
commonly lay hold of some rather darkly expressed writings of
one antient Father or other, which by reason of the obscurity
may seem as it were to make for their opinion, to the end they
may be thought, whatsoever, I know not what, they bring forth
to the world, neither to have been the first that so taught, neither
" alone of that opinion ;" (§ 7 ;) and accuses them (not without
reason probably as it respected many) of corrupting the writings
of the Fathers, (§ 28,) forgetting, that if they repudiated any
appeal to antiquity, they would not have given themselves the
trouble to do this ; and with respect to Nestorius, he pens the
following direct misstatement; that he '^boasted, that he was
^' the FIRST and only man who understood the Scriptures, and that
all others were in ignorance, which, before his days, in their office of
teachers, had expounded the divine sayings, that is, aU priests, all
confessors and martyrs, of whom some had expounded God's law,
others allowed and believed them so expounding : to conclude, he
maintained that the whole Church both now doth err, and always
had erred, because, as he thought, she had followed and was fol-
" lowing ignorant and erroneous doctors," (§ 32.) Now, it is no-
torious, that Nestorius and his followers have always main-
tained, that their doctrine has been handed down from the ear-
liest times of the Christian Church. It is painful to see such
statements made in defence of the truth. And it is not the
only one of this kind which Vincentius has made. A statement
of the same kind, and even much more incorrect, is made by

VOL. I. B B

«
«

870 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

him with respect to Agrippinus, on the question of the rebap-
tization of heretics,^ as we have akeady seen.

On this head^ then^ we remark^ in the first place, that the
appeal of the early heretics was very frequently made^ not to
Scripture, but to their own corruptions of Scripture, or to Scrip-
ture mutilated to serve their purposes.

Thus Marcion mutilated the gospel of Luke, and removed
from St. PauFs Epistles all those things that were contrary to
his views, and rejected some whole books.^

And TertuUian, speaking of these corruptions of Scripture as
common among the heretics, says — " They, who purposed teach-
ing a different doctrine, were compelled by necessity to make al-
terations in the documents that deliver the doctrine. For they
could not otherwise have taught a different doctrine, unless they
" had different documents to teach with. As their corruption of
" doctrine could not have succeeded, without a corruption of the
*' documents that deliver the Christian faith, so our integrity of
'' doctrine would not have belonged to us, but for the integrity of
" the documents by which the doctrine is expressed.''*

So the author of " The Little Labyrinth," (sometimes attri-
buted to Caius, but probably written by Hippolytus,) speaking
of those that followed the heresy of Artemon, (who denied the
divinity of our Saviour,) says, — " They have fearlessly adulte-
rated the Scriptures, and have rejected the canon of the antient
faith, and have ignored Christ ; 710/ inquiring what the divine
" Scriptures say, [showing what he thought they ought to have
^^ done,] but labouring diligently to find out what kind of syllo-
" gism might be discovered for the confirmation of their impiety.
" , , , , They have fearlessly laid their hands upon the divine
'^ Scriptures, saying that they have amended them.'' And he
goes on to say, that any one who will inspect their copies,
will at once see the proof of this from the way in which
they differed one from another, and because they could not
point out the copies from which any one of theirs was taken ;

* Seec. 9.

' Irbx. Adv. hajr. lib. i. c. 27. ed. MaKs. (c. 29. cd. Grab.) and lib. iii. c 12.
Teetttll. Adv. Marc. lib. iv. and v. Epiphan. in ba?r. Marcionit.
' Tbrtull. Dc Pnescr. c. 38. See the original onder TertuUian in c 10. below.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 371

adding^ that some of them had gone so far as to reject the whole
of the Law and the Prophets.^

So Clement of Alexandria accused the heretics of refusing to
admit some portions of Scripture which went against them^ and
blamed them^ not because they reasoned from Scripture, but
because they caught at words that might appear favourable,
instead of looking to the general sense of the passage, and
reasoned from a few isolated passages, instead of taking a general
and connected view of what Scripture delivers on the subject y^
a fault which, as Tertullian tells us, was common to all the
heretics.*

Other instances may easily be found. I will add only one
more, viz., the case of the Manichees, who charged the Scrip-
tures with having been corrupted subsequently to the times of
the Apostles,^ and rejected all the passages that were opposed
to their heresy.^ And they who look further into the matter,
will find, that, in the appeals of heretics to Scripture, there was
generally some slippery dealing with Scripture of this kind.

Nay^ many of them were noted for deterring men from the study
of the Scriptures,

For Eutherius, after an emphatic exhortation to men to search
for the truth in the Scriptures, which we shall notice elsewhere,
lays it down, as one mark of heretics, that they are glad to keep
men from the Scriptures ; — " They who desire,'^ he says, " to
be judges in their own cause, drive men from the Scriptures,
under the pretext, indeed, of not daring to penetrate into
their mysteries as inaccessible ; but, in truth, in order to avoid
" their condemnation of their own false doctrine.'^®

* EuSEB. Hist. Eccles. lib. v. c. 28; or, Routh. Reliq. Sacr. voL ii.pp. 10 — 12.
2 Clem. Alex. Strom, lib. vii. Op. ed. Potter, p. 891.

* " His tribuB capitulis totum iiistrumentum utriusquc Testamenti volant
ccdcrc, cum oporteat sccmidum plmn intelligi pauciora; sed proprium hoc est
omnium luBreHcorwn." Teetull. Adv. Prax. c. 20. Op. ed. 1664. p. 611.

* See August. De util. cred. c 3. Op. tom. viii. col. 49.

5 See August. Contr. Faust, lib. xi. c. 2. Op. tom. viii. col. 218 ; and. Lib. do
Hacr. hffir. 46. tom. viii. col. 16, 17.

* 'Ot fiov\6fifyoi ri icunoiy Kplytiy iLWfipyovtrt rww ypw^Vy wpo^dffti fi^y rov
fi^ KoraroKfiayy &s htrpoffirwy rg Bh &A.T}9c(f ^^p rod iptvyuy rhy i^ avr&y
i\tyXoy rris oiKtias kokoBoHos. Eutheb. Serm. 2. Inter Theodoret. Op. ed.
Schulz. tom. V. p. 1126.

B b2

tt
((

372 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

And 80 TertuUian calls them " men that fly from the light of
the Scriptures/'^

And Basil brings this as an especial charge against the Arians,
that it was '^ always their great care not to teach simple souls
'' from the divine Scriptures, but to circumvent the truth by
'' wisdom derived from without/' ^

But further ; and this is what I am here more particularly
concerned to show ; they were in the habit of appealing to Patris-
tical Tradition as in their favour.

Thus, Irenaeus tells us of the heretics of his time, *' when
'' they are reproved from the Scriptures, they immediately begin
'* to accuse the Scriptures themselves ; as if they were not cor-
'' rect, nor of authority, and that they are not consistent ; and
'^ that the truth cannot be found out from them, by those who are
'' ignorant of tradition/'^ So far, then, from being opposed to
tradition, it seems that they were as zealous supporters of it as
our opponents ; and accordingly we find Irenseus, m order to
refute them upon their own ground, proceeding to show them, that
tradition was against them, as well as Scripture ; for which he
has been himself set down by the Romanists, and our opponents,
as one of the great champions for the necessity of tradition ;
with what truth, we shall see more fully hereafter.

And so, elsewhere, he tells us of the Marcosians* and Carpo-
cratians^ in particular, that they pretended a tradition in favour
of their notions.

And Clement of Alexandria informs us, that Valentinus,
Marcion, and Basilides, all professed to preach what was delivered
by Matthias f and that the followers of Basilides boasted, that

^ "LucifiigaD isti Scripturarum." Tektitll. De resurr. camis. c. 47. Op,
ed. 1664. p. 854.

' Tovro yhp ainois &c( iariv irififkhst M ^f '»*«•' ^'^w" ypap€ty ii^dtrKtiy rks
iu€€pcuoT4pas y^n/x^Sy AAA* ^k rrjs ^caOty trwpias irapaKpo{tta$tu r^¥ AA^cioy.
Basil. Cjes. Ep. 8. Op. ed. Bened. torn. iii. p. 81.

' " Cum enim ex Scripturis arguuntur, in aocusationein oonvertnntur ipsamm
Scripturarum, quasi non recte babeant, neque sint ex authoritate, et quia vane
sint dictse ; et quia non possit ex his inveniri Veritas ab his qui nesdant tradi-
tionem." iREy. Adv. hwr. iii. 2. edd. Mass. et Grab.

* lb. lib. i. c. 20. ed. Mass. (c. 17. ed. Grab.)
» lb. lib. i. c 25. ed. Mass. (c. 24. ed. Grab.)

• T^v Men-eiov avxoitri iroo<rdy9(r0at 96^ay, Cleic. Alsx. Strom, lib. vii. § 17.
Op. ed. Potter, p. 900.

NO DIVINB INFORMANT. 373

their master was a pupil of Glaucias^ the amanuensis of Peter ;
and those of Valentinus^ that their master was taught by Theodas^
a friend of Paul.^

And Ptolemy, the Valentinian, expressly asserts, that their
doctrine was derived from Apostolical tradition, handed down to
them by a successional delivery from the Apostles.^

And so usual was it for heretics to prefer this claim, that
Jerome says of them, generally, that they were accustomed to
say, — " We are the sons of those wise men who, from the
beginning, have delivered to us the doctrine of the Apostles ;"*
and he contrasts them with those who derive their knowledge
from Scripture.*

It is quite true, that the tradition pleaded by these heretics,
was of a different kind from that claimed by Irenseus, Tertullian,
and Origen, for that which they delivered as the substance of
the faith taught by the Apostles ; because the former was a tra-
dition handed down by certain private individuals only ; whereas
the latter was affirmed to be the tradition of all the Apostolical
churches ; but, nevertheless, it is evidence to an opponent, as
far as it goes, against the universality of the orthodox doctrine ;
and evidence which it is not fair altogether to keep out of sights
and say that the heretics did not dare to appeal to tradition, for
that it was altogether against them, and rested upon interpreta-
tions of Scripture, which they acknowledged to be new. The
cause of truth gains nothing by such statements.

And these claims must be judged by us, in a measure, upon
their own merits ; because, though the testimony of a few con-
temporary authors, whose writings we possess, affords very strong
evidence against them, this evidence is not conclusive. What

* YjoBiirtp 6 BcunAcf8i}S, «cf v r\av«c(ay hriypd^nrrm diBda-KoXoy, &s ahxowruf
avroi, rhv Tltrpov ipfirjyda* &s <dho»s 8i «ca2 OifoXtyrTyoy B€o9dSi iucrjKOfyM
(eco^a 8i97«ci9iro^ycu, legont Potter et al.) ^4powrar yy<&pifios 8* olros iywy6¥u
UaOKov. Id. ib. p. 898.

2 VLaB4i<rp yhp, Btov 8i8<Jrros, ^rjs «ca2 t^v ro^ov iipx^i' T€ irol yiwuffiv^ hJ^ioV'
fi4yri rrjs Awo<rro\ucris vapaHSatwSt ffv ix HiaSoxvi ftol ^fitts v-a^fiA^^aficv, fitrk
irol rod Ktufovicai Tdvras rohs \6yous rp rod l^oriipos 8i8a4r«caX/f . PlOLEH. £p.
ad Florarn, ap. Epiph. Adv. baer. h. 33. § 7. Op. ed. 1622. p. 222.

' ** Filii smnus eapientdum qui ab initio doctrinam nobis apoetolicam tradide-
runt." HissON. Comm. in Is. c. 19. Op. ed. YaUan. Yen. torn. iv. ooL 293.

< Ib.

374 FATRI8TICAL TRADITION

we want is divine testimony ; and when professing Christians are
divided among themselves as to what is the truth, it is useless to
attempt to affix the title of a divine informant to the testimony
of any one portion of them, however large it may be.

But still further; the appeals of the heretics to Patristical
Tradition, were not all of this kind, but often of a more general
nature ; and especially in those questions which arose at a later
period of the Church, and with which alone almost we are con-
cerned at the present day, I mean those connected with the
Arian, Nestorian, Pelagian, and such like controversies.

From a fragment of a writer on the orthodox side, who wcote
as early as the commencement of the third century, (the frag-
ment is preserved to us by Eusebius,) we find, that the followers
of Artemon, who denied the divinity of our Saviour, claimed
" all the antients and the Apostles themselves as in favour of their
views ;" and maintained, that their doctrine, which they call
" the truth of the Gospel,'^ was " preserved until the times of
Victor/^ ^ The passage has been already quoted more at length
above, and we have seen how the claim was met by their ortho-
dox opponent ; and in dealing with the opponents of the
orthodox doctrine, we should ever remember with him, that
our evidence on the contrary side, is only evidence of the same
nature ; that is, resting upon the testimony of a few indivi-
duals ; and not be hasty in stopping the mouths of our adver-
saries with a claim to a divine informant. I believe that the
claim of these heretics was an impudent assertion, diametrically
opposed to the facts of the case; but one great reason why
I believe it to be so, is derived from .the fact that Scripture
clearly maintains the opposite doctrine.

The similar claims of succeeding heretics were of a still more
plausible kind, being connected with questions which had not
previously been the subjects of public discussion ; and on
which, therefore, the earlier Fathers had not in general spoken
clearly and determinately.

Thus, Arius and his party confidently appealed to Patristical
Tradition as in their favour.

In the Letter to Alexander, written by Arius and his earliest

» EusEB. Hist. Eccl. V. 28. ; or, in Routh. Reliq. Sacr. voL 2. pp. 7, 8. See
p. 225 above.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 375

followers, they call his doctrine '' the faith which we have i-e-
ceived from our ancestors/' ^ And in a fragment preserved by
Athanasius, Arius uses the following language; — ''According
" to the faith of the elect of God, those to whom God hath
given intelligence, holy children, orthodox, and who have
received the Holy Spirit of God, I have learned these things
" from those who are partakers of wisdom, polished, taught of
'' God, and in all things wise. Being of the same mind with
" them, I have closely followed their footsteps,'' &c.*

Two of these are mentioned by their orthodox opponents,
in order to exculpate them from the charge of supporting
Arianism ; viz., Origen * and Dionysius of Alexandria.* The
defence of the latter by Athanasius^ is unanswerable ; but this
very case shows, that we cannot reasonably expect to obtain the
catholic consent of the Fathers, upon a point not under dis-
cussion in their time ; for Athanasius himself allows/ that the
passage cited by the Arians would, if it had stood alone, have
decided the appeal in their favour. It was a passage written
in the heat of controversy against an opposite error to that of
Arius ; but it so happened, that Dionysius was called upon to
explain his views more fully on the point, on account of the
misapprehension his statements had caused; and he satisfac-
torily showed, that he held no such views as those of Arius.
But how many would there be, who, having expressed them-
selves thus uuwariJy, might never have been called upon to
give any further explanation, and whose statements, therefore,
would seem to favour the views of Arius ? Nay, we have found
that this is, in fact, the case, even with some authors whose
writings remain to us. "What becomes, then, of catholic con-
sent in such a case ? We may say, indeed, that such statements

* 'H wltrris rifuiy ri 4k irpoydywy. EpiPHAlf. Adv. haer.; hser. 69. § 7. Op.
ed. 1622. torn. i. p. 732.

3 KariL wlffriy 4K\€Krwy 6coD, awtrwv BcoO, iraiZwv ayloty^ 6p0oT6fiOfy, Syiow
ecoD irytvfia ka06irr<ay, rdSt HfiaBoy tyt/ayt ineh ray co<plr\s iJLtrtx^^^^^t iLffrtluWf
6fo9i9<iKr<ay, Karii wdyra co<pioy t«* roirwy Kur* fx"®* ^^Ooy iyi» ficuyvy 6fxo96^ats
K. T. A. Athanas. orat. la. contra Arian. § 5. Op. ed. Bencd. torn. i. pp. 408, 9.

3 See SocRAT. Hist. Ecd. iv. 21.

< See Athanas. De Sent. Dionys. Op. torn. i. pp. 243 et seq.

« lb.

* lb. p. 246, and see Basil. £p. ad Max. Ep. 9. Op. ed. Ben. torn. liL p. 90.

376 PATBI8TICAL TRADITION

are to be accounted for as those of Dionysius ; and this may
be very true ; but those who are inclined to the opposite doc-
trine are, of course, justified in interpreting the expressions
they find, as they stand ; and it is only trifling with them and
ourselves, to demand that they be interpreted according to our
views, and then boast of catholic consent. It is one thing, to
be able to account for the statements of many of the early
Catholic Fathers, when they seem to deviate from strict or-
thodoxy, and show that they may be r^condferfwith the assertion
of their having held the true doctrine, by a consideration of the
circumstances of the case, and therefore that it is probable that
their meaning was orthodox ; and another, to affirm that that,
and no other doctrine, is clearly and consistently maintained in
their writings, and challenge their consent in its favour. We
shall find, indeed, practically, that we are continually called
upon, in the writings of the Fathers, to make allowances for
the heat of opposition to the controversy they were engaged in
at the moment, which often led them into expressions verging
upon, or even decidedly favourable to, opposite errors. And
this is a fault which entirely prevents the Fathers from bearing
any such consentient testimony as our opponents dream of,
and peculiarly disqualifies them for performing the office of a
judge of controversies. And for the same reason, the Scripture
is peculiarly qualified to be so; because, though it may not
have entered into the particulars of the point in controversy,
it has stated the truth, simply and plainly, and without ever
having, when condemning one error, verged to the opposite ;
or, when stating a truth, overstated it. The elements which it
gives us for determining the point in question, are all such as,
when properly used, lead to the truth. There are no state-
ments calculated to lead us astray, no representations for which
allowances are to be made, either for the words used, or for a
possible bias of mind or ardour of spirit that affected the tone
of the instruction given.

Many other testimonies might be brought of the claim made
by the Arians and Semi-Arians to Patristical tradition. Auxen-
tius, bishop of Milan, in his Letter to Valentinian and Valens
says, — " My creed is that in which I have been tatdffht from my

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 877

mfancy as I have received from the holy Scriptures,*' and he
proceeds to recite the antient creed ;^ and he calls the faith
which he defends, (being as he allows that which was agreed
upon at Ariminum,) the Catholic faith, and declares that the
Catholic bishops had always condemned and anathematized the
opposite doctrine, which he calls heresy.^ And so Eunomius
boasted — '' We adhere to those things which were demonstrated
" both by the saints [or, according to other MSS. the holy
" Fathers] of old and now by us." *

So the Semi-Arians at the Synod of Antioch in 341 say,
" We receive no. other faith than that which was published
from the beginning -" * and at their Synod at Sardica in 347,
they use such language as the following ; '^ It is our constant
" prayer, beloved brethren, first that the holy and catholic
'' Church of the Lord, free from all dissensions and schisms,
" may everywhere preserve the unity of the Spirit and the bond
" of love by a right faith. . . . Secondly, that the Church's rule,
" and the holy tradition and judgments of our fathers may remain
" for ever firm and unmoved,'' ^ &c. And again, '' Since there-
" fore we cannot depart from the tradition of our fathers ® . . .
*' neither do we ourselves receive the aforementioned [i. e. Atha-
'' nasius and Marcellus] to the honour and dignity of the
" Church, and we justly condemn those who do." ^ And so
they speak of themselves afterwards as '' adhering to the laws
of God and the traditions of their fathers,'' ®

And at their Synod at Ancyra in 358, they speak in the same
strain still more strongly, — " We entreat you, venerable Lords
" and fellow worshippers," they say in their synodical epistle,

* "£x infuitia quemadmodum doctus stun sicat aocepi de Sanctis Scriptnris
credidi." Hilab. Contx*. Aoxent. § 14. Op. ed. Bened. ool. 1270.

« lb. § 15. coL 1272.

' 'Hftcis 8i Toif re iirh r&y ayiuy [al. kyittv ^ar4fK»v] koX v-cCxcu, ko) vw 6^*
ilfi&y iLiro9tucyvfi4yois imiivoms. EuNOH. in Basu.. Adv. £iinom. lib. ii. § 18.
Op. ed. Ben. torn. i. p. 253.

* Ofht JiX\r\v rivk Ttlirriy wapiL r^v ^{ ^X^f iiertOiiaay 49€^<ifu0a, SOCB. Hist.
Ecd. ii. 10. ed. Reading. Cant. 1720. p. 87.

* "Ut ecclesia regula sanctaque parentum traditio atqae jadida in perpetunm
firma solidaque permaneant."

' " Qnamobrem quoniam a parentum traditione disoedere non possomus," Ac.
7 HiLABii PiCT. Fragm. in Op. ed. Bened. ool. 1308 and 1319*
' " Adhserentes legibus Dd traditionibusque patemis." lb.

878 FATRISTICAL TRADITION

that^ haviDg read these letters^ you will embrace firmly the
faith delivered to us from our fathers y and that you will signify
that our faith is agreeable to yours ; that those who dare to
'' introduce this impiety, being fully assured that we preserve
'' the faith which we have received from the Apostolical times
*^ through the Fathers that have intervened down to our times, as
'* our patrimony, may either through shame be turned to the
'^ truth, or persisting may be cut off from the Church/' ^
Similar language is usual at the other Arian Councils.^
The same claims we find to be made by the Aetians and Ma-
cedonians^ who accused the orthodox of introducing nov«//te$ into
the Christian faith -^ an accusation met by Gregory Nyssen by
an appeal to Scripture as the judge.*

And when at the Council of Constantinople, at its session in
383, it was proposed by the Emperor, at the suggestion of one
of the orthodox party, that the matters in dispute between them
and the heretics present, viz. the Arians, Euuomians and Mace-
donians, should be determined by an appeal to the writings of
the Fathers, these heretics asserted their reverence for the Fa-
thers as their ^' masters,^' and many of them were desirous that
the points in dispute should be so determined, though others
objected to such a course. The account given by Socrates is as
follows. The Emperor asks the heretics, " if they respect and
receive the writings of the doctors that lived before the divi-
sion of the Church ; and they having not denied that they did,
'' but on the contrary affirming that they altogether honoured them
as masters,^ the king again enquired, whether they would fol-

* napOKoXovfAty fi/iSj, K^pioi rifiidorarot ovWtirovpyolt iyrvx6vr€s Uri ipda^rrrt
T^ 4k irar4ptay irapaSo0fl<rp witrrtt, Koi ots tr^fjufxaifa bfjuv ^povovfjLtv, its irewurrt^KafAty
6iro<ni^jiyourdcu' tvo w\ripo<f>opri0€irrfs oi r)iv airriiv iuri^tuuf hrutriyuv roKfimwrtSj
0T1 KoOdwfp K\rip6y rtva r^v 4k rwv AwotrroKiKuy XP^^*^^ ^^^ "^^ ^^ '''V h^^V ^XP*-
Koi r)iMav Tlarr4po»if viroJi€^<ifityot wltrrty ipvKdiraofity, fj cu<rxt/r6€VTcy hiop0wdii<royrat^
^ 4wifi4yoyr€S inroKupvxBwffi rrfs ZKK\rt(ricts. Epiphan. Adv. Hbbt. ; har. 73. J 2.
Op. torn. i. p. 847.

2 See SocRAT. Hist. Ecd. lib. ii. cc 19, 30 and 37.

' fi€<aT(poiroiovs rifxas Kcd Kaiv<n6fMvs koX 4<p€vptrh.s ^fidruyf «ca2 rl yb^ ohx\
T&y (iroyuUffrwy iLwoKaXowriy. Basil. De Sp. S. c. 6. § 13. Op. torn. iii. p. 10.
And Gbegor. Nrss. De Trin. prope init. Op. ed. 1615. torn. ii. pp. 439, 440.

^ QsEa. Nrss. ut supra. We shall notice the passage more particularly here-
after. See c. 10.

* ndyv riftfy airrovs &s KOl^ffyriTiu,

€€

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 379

" low them as trustworthy witnesses of the Christian faith. The
'^ leaders of the sectaries and the logicians among them^ for
" there were many among them well fitted for disputation,
" doubted what to do. For there was a division among them,
" some saying that the king's proposal was a good one, and others
" that it was not suitable to their object. For they were dif-
ferently affected towards tlie books of the antients ;^ and they no
longer agreed one with the other, and they were divided, not
only some sects towards others, but those of the same heresy
among themselves -/' and he proceeds to say, that, in conse-
quence of this diversity of opinion, the Emperor ordered each
party to present their creed to him.^ The appeal to the Fathers
therefore, though declined by some, was by others willingly
accepted.

And we are told by the learned Henry Wharton, that " Euno-
mius the heretic, in his Apology, extant in MS. in St. Martin's
Library, everywhere pleadeth the tradition of precedent ages, and
professeth to follow that as his only rule of faith. ' It is
" necessary,' saith he, ' for those who treat of matters of faith,
" setting before them the holy tradition which hath all along
*^ obtained from the times of the Fathers, as a rule and canon,
'^ to make use of this accurate rule to judge of those things
'^ which shall be said/^ Afterwards proposing his blasphemous
opinion about the Holy Ghost, he introduceth it with this Pre-
face,* ^ Exactly following the doctrine of the Holy Fathers, and
" receiving it from them, we believe,' " &c. " This, then," he
adds, '' was the artifice and practice of the antient heretics. What
the practice of the Catholic Fathers was in opposing these
heretics, or establishing any necessary article of faith; that
they accounted Scripture to be the only adequate rule of faith,
and to contain in express and plain words all things necessary to

((
((
tt
ii

^ "AAAoi &XX»f tlxov "ff^P^ '^^ fii$XSa rStv mKau&y,

2 SocR. Hist. Keel. V. 10. ed. Reading, p. 273.

^ *AyttyKcuov 8* taus rohs trtpl ro6ro»y \6yovs iroiovfityovs .... t^v Kp«erov4fa¥
&y<a0fv ^K rwy iraripoov wtrffi^ irapdioaiv &air^p rum yviS»nova koUL Kay6va irpotitri'
d(fi€yovs iutpifieT ro^<p <T\rfX<»pf'^v XP^^^^ Kpir7ipi<f irphs riiy r&y \cyofi4ymy iwl"
Kpiciv. Apolc^tic. in fine Prolc^.

* T^y r&y ayiuy iy Simiai ^KirroyrMS ScSod'icaAiay, wop* &y leMirrts .... vert^-
TtifKOfiw, Post med.

€€

880 PATRI8TICAL TRADITION

•

'' be believed; that they rejected all articles which could not be
'' thence deduced as spurious and false^ or at least uncertain
and unnecessary ; and always asserted the sufficiency of Scrip-
ture, I will not here insist to prove : aiTice that point hath been
80 often handled and cleared by the writers of our Church J^^
The same was the case with Nestorius and his favourers among
the oriental bishops^ who claimed Patristical Tradition as in their
favour.

Nestorius appealed to the Nicene Fathers^ as " those holy
Fathers who are beyond all praise^*^^ and maintains that their
confession is in favour of his views ;^ and when John, bishop of
Antioch^ wrote to him on the subject^ to induce him^ for the sake
of peace, to apply the title, mother of God (^eorJicos), to the Vir-
gin Mary, as being one to which his people were accustomed,
and which might be understood in a good sense, the Bishop
admits, that he had heard from many and common friends, that
his sentiments were the same with those of the fathers and doc-
tors of the Church f which shows that he professed to agree
with them.

And the oriental bishops, who favoured his views at the
Council of Ephesus, distinctly claim to be considered the de-
fenders of the antient faith of the Church. ^^We are called,"
they say, iu their Petition to the Emperor, " to confirm the faith
of the holy Fathers."^ And again; "Let not your majesty
** despise the faith which is corrupted, into which both you and
" your progenitors were baptized ; upon which also the founda-*
" tions of the Church are based, for which the most holy mar-

* See Preface to " A Treatise proving Scripture to be the rule of fidth, by
R, Peacock," <fec. Lond. 1688. 4to. pp. viii, ix.

' ** Sancti illi et supra omnem prsedicationem patres.** Nestobh Epist. ad
Coelestin. Pap. ; inter Acta Concil. Ephes. p. 1. c. 16. — Concil. cd. Liabb. et Cossart.
Pto. 1671. torn. iii. coL 350. (ed. Hardouin. torn. i. coL 1309.)

■ Epistalt. ib. c. 17. ib. col. 352. (ed. Hard. i. 1310.)

^ E/ yhp fi iidyotd <rov rov tUrrov raiis Torpdai koI rrjs iKK\ri<rlas dt9<urKd\ots
fPpoirfifiaros ^x^^' fo^o ybip Zih. voXX&if kcUL koivuv <pl\vy irtpl aovy Btairora^
fiffuiBiiKtififir rl \vKu rh €&o'c/3^s <pp6yrifia iroraAA^Xy 6y6fjLari Sij/unticvo'cu ;
JoANN. Ep. Antioch. Epist ad Nestor. ; inter Acta Cone Epb. p. i. c 25. ib.
«ol. 390. (ed. Hard. i. 1328.)

* *' Yocati sumus ad confirmandam sanctorum patrum fidem." Obient. Efisc.
Pet tert. ad Imperat. ; inter Acta Concil. Eph. ad fin. Action. 6. ib. col. 730. (ed.
Hard. L 1666, 7.)

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 881

'' tyrs underwent with joy innumerable kinds of death ; by the
i' aid of which also you have overcome the barbarians. . . . For it
" will be destroyed, if the doctrine which Cyril has introduced inUi
" the faith, and other heretics have confirmed, should prevail."^

And again, in their letter to Rufus, bishop of Thessalonica^
having regretted his absence, they add, ''For your holiness,

had you been present, would have appeased the tumults that

happened, and the disorders perpetrated, and would have con-
'' tended with us against the heresies introduced into the orthodox
''faith, and that evangelical and apostolical doctrine which the
" children ever receiving from their fathers have conveyed down
'' unaltered even to our times. ^^^

It would be easy to add other proofs.

Nor must we forget, that the Nestorians to this day " main-
" tain, that the doctrine he [i. e. Nestorius] taught was much
*' older than himself, and had been handed down from the earliest
" times of the Christian church"^

Pass we next to the Eutychians, who were condemned at the
Council of Chalcedon, and we shall find that they, in like man-
ner, urged the same claim; maintaining, that the orthodox
Fathers were on their side.

At the Synod of Constantinople in 448, Eutyches himself
says, — " I follow the Fathers'' ....'' I have read the blessed
" Cyril, and the holy Fathers, and the holy Athanasius, that
" they said that he was of two natures before the union ; but
'' after the union and incarnation, they no longer spoke of two
" natures, but one.''*

* " Ne despiciat vestra Mf^eetas fidem qtue adulteratur, in qnam et tos baptiati
estis, et vestri progenitores ; in qnam et eoclesis ixindanienta sunt jacta, propter
quam sanctissimi martyres innmnera mortis genera cmn volnptate suaoepenmt ;

cnm qua et barbaros vidstis Disnunpetur enim, si opinio quam Cyrillus

fidei indnxit, et alii liffiretid oonfirmanmt, invalescat." lb. ooL 731. (ed. Hard. i.
1567.)

' "Eirowrf 7^ ^ vapay9yofi4inii [^ (rii ayiafrOtnj] «ca2 t^ yry^tnufiipas tnyxfictu^
Kol rks r9ro\firifi4veis dro^fof , koI trhy iifuy at Kcentywyiffaro rits iirturaxB^Uras
cdp4c9is T^ 6p0M^^ «-i(rrci, jcol rp f{fayy€\uep jcol iirocroKucp SiSouricaXif, ^w
wcuZts irapiL var^pcoy &cl Scxi^Aici'ot* M^XP*' Vh^^^ ralnriv irap4ir9fi^ay. OBinrT,
Episc. Epist. ad Rufmn ; ib. col. 736, 7. (ed. Hard. i. 1572.)

' Mosbeim's Eccl. Hist. Cent. ▼. p. 2. c. 5. § 12. Engl. ed. 1826. voL ill p. 67.

^ *AkoXjov$u rots irarpdffip. . . . 'E^c^ hv4yvtf¥ rov fuuca^v KvpiXXov, jrol r&w
ayloty irar4ptay, not rov hiylov ABarturlovj Sri in 9^ /ti^y ^^9mw throy wp6 rifs

382 ,PATRI8TICAL TRADITION

And in his Letter to Pope Leo^ after his condemnation at
this Synod, he strongly urges the testimony of the Fathers iji
his favour.

So, also, in his Petition to the Synod (or rather, Council,)
of Ephesus, in 449, he says, — "I hold all the holy Fathers

equally with your holinesses as orthodox and faithful, and have

taken them as my masters; anathematizing Manes, Valen-

tinus, Apolinarius and Nestorius, and all the heretics up to
'* Simon Magus/' ^

And at this Synod, where the confession of Eutyches was
received as orthodox, Dioscorus, the president, who favoured
Eutyches, admonished the hishops present, at the commence-
ment of the proceedings, that they were to consider whether the
views advanced by the Eutychians, were agreeable to what had
been ordained by the holy Fathers.^

And when the monks who sided with Eutyches were asked
by Dioscorus, "respecting the presence of the Saviour in the
" flesh. Are your views the same as those of the blessed Atha-
^* nasius, and the blessed Cyril, and the blessed Gregory, and
" all the orthodox bishops ?"^ their leader, Eleusinus, replied,
"We are all of the same mind both with those that met at
" Nice [Nicsea,*] and the holy Fathers who were assembled
" here [i. e. at Ephesus, at the Third General Council.]''^

And in the Council of Chalcedon, Carosus, one of the Euty-
chian leaders, declares ; — " My faith is that of the three hundred

iv6<rtw fitrh 8i r^v tywaiVf Kcd r^y (rdpKUftrtv, oIk^ti Biuo ipvatis tlroy, iiXXit,
fdav. EuTYCH. in Concil. Constantinop. Act. 7.— Inter Act. Cone. Chalc. Act. 1.
Concil. ed. Liabb. et Coss. torn. iv. col. 228. (ed. Hard. ii. 166, 8.)

1 Kal 'rdtrras 8^ Toi>f ayiovs Tar^pas, &s koI ^ ifitr^pa 0to<r4$€ia, ^p9oB6^ovs
iffxoVf KoL witrroifSf Kcd SiSoitkcUovs i/iavr^ i94^j\v^ i,ya0ffiarl(unf Mcboyv, BoXm'-
tIkoi', ATo\iydpioyt «ca2 K€(rr6pioyf Koi initnas robs alptriKohs, ttts ^fivyos rod
fAdyov. lb. col. 186. (ed. Hard. ii. 100.)

' Xp^ rolyvy iKtiya rit ia^cupv4yra irpirtpoy (ffniBriyau^ xol iiyMs HoKifiderat, ci
avytpJiiL rvyx<^ov(ri rols 6pi<rOt7<ri vapb. rwy ayiwy irardpoty, lb. col. 128. (ed.
Hard, il 98.)

' Iltpl rrjs 4y<rdpKov rod "Xo^pos Topoucias athv <ppoy€tr€f ots 6 fuuedptos KBa^-
ffiosy Kol 6 fuuedpios K^piAAos, iccU 6 fuucdpios rpriy6piotf K<d •Kitnts ol opO^o^oi
MffKOiroi; lb. ool 279, 282. (ed. Hard- ii. 236 )

* I have nsed tbe name Nice as more usual among us, but Nicaa seems more
correct.

* nclrrcf offrft* <f>poyovfuy, &s koI oi 4y fiuccd^ (rvy€\06yr9S, #col ol iyravBa (Tuvci-
Ary/i^Koi ir/ioi var4p€s, lb. cxA. 282. (ed. Hard. ii. 236.)

if
((
i(

NO DIVINE INTOBMANT. 383

'^ and eighteen bishops that were at Nice [Nicsea], in which I
'[ was baptized. I know no other/' ^ And the other Eutychian
leaders made a similar declaration.^

To these we might add the case of the Pelagians^ who notori-
ously claimed the support of primitive Fathers.*

Nay, Lactantius tells us, that all heretics reckoned them-
selves to be the best Christians, and their own Church to be
the Catholic Church,^

And Salvian, speaking of heretics, says, " They are heretics
with us, not in their own estimation. For they so completely
reckon themselves to be catholics^ that they decry us as
heretics. What, therefore, they are with us, that we are with
'' them.'' 5

It is quite clear, then, that all these heretics considered that
Patristical Tradition was in their favour. And therefore I
doubt, whether it was wise in Dr. Waterland (to whose learned
and valuable labours in proof of the great preponderance of the
Patristical testimony in favour of the orthodox faith we are deeply
indebted,) to bring forward the charges of novelty made by some
of the orthodox against the Arians,and while he is altogether silent
as to the similar charges made on the other side, quote these as
an undeniable proof that Arianism was a complete novelty,^ —
especially when he must have been fully aware, that even a
worse heresy, on the same point, had long before found its
defenders among nominal Christians. ^

These charges, being reciprocal, prove nothing on either side.
And when we come to investigate the actual evidence produci-

' T^v r&y rptoucotriwy ScKooxTcb r&y iv Hucait^ ytvofiivttv %cn-4po»v iri<mp^ iy ^
Kcd 4fiairrlaBriyt o78a' iird iyit (tWrjy irlffriy ohn oVku Ca&osus in Cone Chalced.
Act. 4. lb. col. 530. (ed. Hard. u. 428.)

' lb. col. 530. (ed. Hard. ii. 428.)

^ See Whitak. De pecc. orig. lib. ii. c 2.

* " Singuli quique castoa bsereticorom se potiwdmnm Christianos et 8iiam esse
Catbolicam ecclesiam putant." Lactakt. Div. Inst. lib. iv. c. ult. ed. Cant.
1685. p. 232.

^ ** Apud no8 sunt hseretici, apud se non sunt. Nam in tantum se catbolioos
esse judicant, ut nos ipsos titulo bsBreticse appellationis infiunent. Quod ergo illi
nobis sunt, boc nos illis.*' Saltian. De Gub. Dei. lib. v. prope init. ed. 1669.
p. 100.

' See tbe Pre&oe to bis Second Defence.

7 In tbe same place be bas suffered bimself to fidl into a mioitatement respect-

884 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

ble from the writings that remain to us^ we find the true state
of the case to be, that the Fathers often wrote hotly and hastily,
and consequently incorrectly : and therefore may be quoted in
almost all the great questions of doctrine that have agitated the
Church since the very earliest period, on both sides. This ia
the case even with those writings that have been preserved to
us ; and these, it must be recollected, form but a few of those
that were published, especially of the earlier ages.

And hence it was, that so many heresies (as an antient writer
tells us) were defended by the citation of passages of the
Fathers in support of them ; and that Eusebius, in his defence
of Origen, was able to give very many testimonies of preceding
Fathers in favour of some of his errors.^

Let me not, however, be misunderstood in the above remarks.
I am very far from meaning to convey the idea by them, that
the heretics had such support in the writings of the primitive
Fathers as they often boasted of. My conviction is, that they
had not. And I maintain, that an accurate examination of the
writings of the primitive Fathers will prove to any impartial
enquirer, that the weight of Patristical testimony is beyond
comparison in favour of the orthodox faith. But my object is,
to urge those who are claiming antiquity, as if it were obviously
and exclusively in their favour, and putting forth pretensions to

ing the conduct of the heretics at Constantinople, with regard to the writings of
the Fathers. Having given a long extract from Socrates, showing the nature of
the proposal made, he stops precisely at the point where the reception given to
the proposal is narrated, and contents himselT with giving the following account
of it. " Whereupon the heads of the different sects were at first much oon«
founded and divided among themselves, some commending what the Emperor
had proposed, and others not ; hut, in concUuum, they all chose rather to rest
the cause solely on logical disputation, than upon the testimonies of the antients."
(pp. 13, 14.) And in his chapter "on the use and value of ecclesiastical anti*
quity,'* in his " Importance of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity," he alludes to it
again as a proof that the heretics, when practically brought to the test^ declined
the appeal to patristical tradition. (Works, vol. 5. pp. 824, 5.) This is clearly a
misrepresentation of the matter ; because the heretics in question asserted that
they "highly honoured the Fathers as their masters;" and when put to the test^
a portion of them (large or small, we know not) were still willing and desirous to
be judged by the tradition of the Fathers. Such statements are to be regretted.
In the end they pr^udice the cause of truth.

* Auctor Synodic! adv. Tragcediam Irensei, cap. 198 ; in Routh. Reliq. Sacr.
vol. in. p. 267. (2d. ed. p. 406.)

NO DIVINB INTORMANT. 385

such a catholic consent as can never be proved^ and^ in fact^
never existed^ — ^and asserting, that the heretics could find
nothing favourable to their views in the writings of the preced-
ing Fathers, and even (as some do) declaring, that they rejected
all appeals to antiquity, — and resting upon these grounds the
claims of the orthodox faith to our belief, — to beware how they
take up such a position, and especially how they make that
supposed consent the sole authorized interpreter of Scripture,
and tell us that Scripture cannot be understood without it.
The preceding extracts (and many more to the same purpose
might easily be added) abundantly show, that the Arians, Nes-
torians, and others, claimed Patristical Tradition in their
favour, as much as their opponents ; and inveighed against the
novelties and heresies of their opponents, and their opposition to
the sentiments of the " Catholic Church,'' as strongly as the
orthodox.

Will it be said, that they all made this claim without any
foundation for it ? It may, by men wedded to a hypothesis, or
by hot and injudicious controversialists. But I suspect, that
men of cooler judgment, when they come to view the whole
case, will take different ground ; and content themselves with
maintaining, that, taking the writings of the early Fathers as a
whole, there is very strong testimony to be found in them in
favour of the orthodox faith, and that passages which appear
favourable to unsound views which did not come into discussion
till a period subsequent to the date of those passages, cannot
always be taken as proofs that the writer supported those views,
because, not having those views in his mind, he might easily
have expressed himself incautiously, especially if he was writing
in opposition to a contrary prevailing error. So far we are on
safe and immovable ground. And such, as it appears to me, is
all the aid we could naturally and reasonably expect from the
writings of the Fathers. But, beyond this, our claims are mere
assertions ; assertions, which, if true, could not be proved, and
which are in reality contrary to the plain facts of the case.

VOL. I. c c

386 PATBI8TICAL TRADITION

SECTION VIII. ^WHAT THE TRACTATOR8 CALL " CATHOLIC CON-
SENT/' IS NOT TREATED BY THEMSELVES, IN M^NT CASES, AS
AFFORDING ANT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE DOCTRINES SO
SUPPORTED.

To illustrate this subject still further, I will now proceed to
point out some cases where there appears to be what our op-
ponents would call ^'catholic consent/' and which may lead
them and others to reflect how far their system is characterized
by consistency.

(1) The doctrine taught by the Fathers of the first three
centuries as to the Divine appearances to man under the Old
Testament dispensation.

These Fathers seem universally to ascribe all these appearances
to the Son. And as the principal passages have been carefully
collected by Dr. Burton, I shall present the reader with his
statement of them, which probably may have more weight with
my opponents than any catena of my own.

'^ It was Christ who talked with Adam, Gen. iii. 8, 9, where
^' the person is said to be the Lord God. v. Theophil. in Autol.
" ii. 22. TertuU. Adv. Prax. c. 16. p. 509. Irenaus iv. 10.
'' p. 239.

^^ It was Christ who spoke to Noah, Gen. vi. 13. Irenaeus,
'' iv. 10.

" It was Christ who went down to confound the tongues at
^' Babel, Gen. xi. 5, where it is said that it was the Lord,
" Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 127. p. 220. Tertull. Adv.
" Prax. c. 16. p. 509. Novatian. c. 25. p. 723.

" It was Christ who appeared to Abram, and said unto him,
" I am the Almighty God, Gen. xvii. 1. Justin. M. Dial, cum
" Tryph. c. 127. p. 220. Clem. Alex. Pad. i. 7. p. 131.

^' It was Christ who appeared to Abraham in the plains of
'^ Mamre, Gen. xviii. 1, where he is called the Lord, and the

Judge of all the earth, ver. 25. Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryph.

c. 56. p. 152. Clem. Alex. P»d. i. 7. p. 131. Tertull. Adv.

Marc. iii. 9. p. 402. Origen. in Gen. Hom. iv. 3.
It was Christ who rained fire upon Sodom, Gen. xix. 24.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 387

((

The Fathers particularly mention the expression^ 'then the
" Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and
" Arefrom the Lord.' Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 56. p. 152 :
" c. 127. p. 221. Irenaeus, iii. 6. p. 180. TertuU. Adv. Prax.

13, 16, p. 507, 509.
It was Christ who tempted Abraham, (}en. xxii. Origen. in
" Gen. Hom. viii. 8. Cyp. Test. ii. 5. p. 286.

''It was Christ who appeared to Jacob, Gen. xxviii. 13,
" where the person calls himself ' the Lord God of Abraham and
" the Crod of Isaac.' Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 58.
" p. 156. Clem. Alex. Paed. i. 7. p. 131.

" It was Christ who spoke to Jacob in a dream, Gen. xxxi.
" 11, 13, where he calls himself the God of Bethel, (see Gen.
" xxriii. 13. 19.) Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 58. p. 155.
" Cyp. Test. ii. 5. Novatian. c. 27. p. 725.

"It was Christ who wrestled with Jacob, Gen. xxxii. 24,
" where it is expressly said that he was God, ver. 28, 30.
"Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 58. p. 155, 156: c. 125.
" p. 218. Irenaeus, p. 239. Clem. Alex. Paed. i. 7. p. 132.
" Concil. Antioch. (Beliq. Sacr. ii. p. 470.)

"It was Christ who appeared to Jacob, Gen. xxxv. 1, 9.
" Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 58. p. 155, where he says,
" ' he is called God, and is God, and will be.' Cyp. Test. ii. 6.

" It was Christ who appeared to Moses in the Bush, Exod.

iii. 2, where the person calls himself ' the God of Abraham,

the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ;' and at ver. 14, ' /
" am that I am.' Justin. M. Apol. i. 62. p. 80. Dial, cum
" Tryph. c. 60, p. 157. Irenaeus, iv. 10, 12. Clem. Alex.
" Cohort, ad Gent. p. 7. Tertull. Adv. Jud. c. 9. p. 194.
It was Christ who said to Moses, (Exod. xx. 2,) ' I am the

Lord thy God which have brought thee out of the land of
Egypt.' Clem. Alex. Paed. i. 7. p. 181.

It was Christ who spoke to Moses, Levit. vi. 1, and conse-
quently who delivered the whole of the Law. Origen. in
" Levit. Hom. iv. init.

" It was Christ who appeared to Joshua near Jericho, Josh.

V. 13. Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 62. p. 159 — 60.

" These instances might be multiplied so as to make a volume;

c c 2

388 PATKISTICAL TRADITION

€€
€€

€€

€<
€€

but enough perhaps has been said to show thai all the Fathers

agreed in entertaining the same opinion J*^

But, notwithstanding this '^ catholic consent/' Dr. Barton
adds, " I again repeat, that I am not concerned to inquire into the
soundness of this opinion ;" which shows, that he at least did not
consider such consent as a sufficient proof of the truth of a
doctrine, or interpretation of Scripture, at any rate, on such a
point. He remarks, however, very justly, that '' the Fathers
'^ who held it could not have believed, that Christ was a mere

man, nor even an angel; they assert over and over again, that

the Person who appeared to the patriarchs could not be an
'' angel, because he is called Qod and Jehovah ; and they as
'^ expressly assert, that he who revealed himself as (xod and
" Jehovah was not the Father, but the Son/' " I may add,"
he observes, " that the Arians openly professed their belief, that
^' it was Christ ' to whom the Father said. Let us make man,
'^ &c., who was seen by the patriarchs face to face, who gave the

law, and spake by the prophets,' &c. (Athanas. De Synodis,

vol. i. p. 740. see also p. 74S.) Eusebius, who has been
'^ suspected of Arianism, devotes the fifth book of his Demon-
*' stratio Evangelica to establishing this point. See also this
*' same work, i. 5. p. 11."

The fact is, the Arians stoutly contended for this opinion as
strengthening their cause, and showing that, though the Son
was God, there was yet some difference between the nature of
the Son and the Father; and the earliest supporters of the
opposite opinion, that is, that some of these appearances might
be attributed to the Father, are, I think, to be found among the
opponents of the Arians.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers very peremptorily contended for the
former opinion as the only one which could be tolerated.

Thus, Justin Martyr, speaking of the appearance to Moses at
the bush, says, ^' No one who has the least understanding will
" dare to say, that the Maker and Father of the universe, having
'' left all things that are above the heaven, appeared in a little
" portion of the earth."*

» Testim. of Ante-Nioene Fathers to Divinity of Chriat. 2nd edit. Oxf.
1829. pp. 38—40.
3 Oh rhv iroinr^iv rhy [rSay conj. Otto] ZKwv kcX iretr4pa KoraXiwSm-a r^ 6wkp

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 889

And elsewhere he Bays^ that he who appeared to Abraham at
Mamre was sent '^ by another^ who remams always in the super-
'^ celestial regions^ and is seen by no one^ and never conversed
" with any one in his own person^ whom we look upon as the
" Maker and Father of the Universe."^ And he says, that the
Jews, who thought that it was God the Father who appeared to
Moses, were on that account reprehended by Isaiah and our
Lord as knowing neither the Father nor the Son.^

The same view is enforced by Theophilus of Antioch, in a
passage already quoted from him in a previous page.^

So also the bishops assembled at Antioch, against Paul of
Samosata, affirm, that it was Christ who appeared to the patriarchs,
sometimes spoken of as an angel, sometimes as Lord, some-
times as God. For it is impious to suppose, that the God of
the Universe is called an angel.^'^
So Tertullian observes, that the (}od who appeared at various
times to men from the beginning, could be no other than the
Word who was about to become flesh,** and ridicule as an
absurdity the supposition, that the omnipotent invisible God,
whom no man hath seen nor can see,* should have walked itbout
in Paradise, adding with his usual vehemence, that these things
were not to be believed concerning the Son of God, if they had
not been written, and perhaps not to be believed of the Father
even though they had been written J

ohpayhy lirorro, iy 6\iy<p y^s fiopl^ vc^^b'tfat, vol 6crurovp, icfy fwcpi^y rovp Ix^^t
roXfiiitru dww, Jf8t. Mart. DiaL cum IVyph. § 60. Op. ed. Bcoi. p. 157. (ed.
Col. 168& p. 283.)

' *'twh &AAOV rov 4» Tius ^€povpaiflois Ac2 fi^povros, iced oiS€wl 6<p$4rroSt ^ 6fU'
Xijceurros 8i* ieurrov itork, hw ironyrV f"**^ ikmw Koi mndpa i^oovfur. JuST. Mabt.
DiaL cum Tryph. § 56. Op. ed. Ben. p. 150. (ed. Col. p. 275.) The some view is
also expreflsod still more strongly in § 127. p. 220. (ed. Col. pp. 856. 7.)

' Just! Mast. ApoL la. § 63. Op. ed. Ben. p. 81. (ApoL 2a. ed. CoL p. 95.)

' See pp. 236, 7. above.

* Ilorh fj^y &s &77cXof , irorh Bh its K^pcof , irori M Ot^f fiapTvpo6fi9pos, rhw fikr
yiip Bthy rHy Z\wy iurtfi^s (kyytXoy yofdcrtu KoXturBau Snr. ANTIOCH. adv. Ftail.
Samos. in Routh. Beliq. Sacr. toL ii. p. 470. (2d. ed.yol. iii. p. 294.)

* "Non alius potuit quam sermo qui caro erat fbtoros." Tkbtull. Adr.
Prax. c xvi. Op. ed. 1664. p. 509.

> "Deus omnipotens ille inviabilis quern nemo Yidit hominum nee Tidere
potest." lb. p. 510.
7 "Scilioet et hsBC nee de FOio Dei Gredeoda fiuaie n icripta Don events for-

890 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

And^ not to multiply authorities unnecessarily^ the same view
is laid down in the same peremptory terms by Novatian^ and
Eusebius.^

I would ask^ then^ Do our opponents consider themselves
bound so to interpret Scripture ? If they do^ it is more than
Augustine did^ for he held^ that it was probably the Father who
appeared on some occasions ;^ and evidently considered^ as many
others have done since^ that the view we have shown to have
been taken by the Ante-Nicene Fathers was an Arian view of
the subject.*

(2) The doctrine taught by the Fathers as to the reappear-
ance of Enoch and Elias hereafter on earth from the place to
which they are translated^ (which Irenseus tells us^ as from
Apostolical tradition^ is the Paradise in which Adam was^) to
wage war with Antichrist.

" The Presbyters, who are the disciples of the Apostles/' says
Irenseus^ " say, that those who were translated, were translated
thither, [i. e. to the Paradise in which Adam was].'*^

tasse non credenda de Fatre licet scripta." lb. p. 510. And see his treatise Adr.
Jud. c. 9. med,

^ " Ecoe idem Moyses refert alio in loco, quod Abrahs visas sit Dens. Atqnin
idem Moyses audit a Deo, quod nemo hominum Deum videat et viirat. Si Tideri
non potest Deus, quomodo visus est Deus P Aut si visus est, quomodo videri non
potest? Nam et Joannes, Deum nemo, inquit, vidit unquam. Et Apostolus
Paulus, Quern vidit hominum nemo, neo Mere potest. Sed non utique Scriptura
mentitur. Ergo vere visus est Deus. Ex quo intelligi potest, quod non Pkter
visus sit, qui nunquam visus est, sed Filius." Noyatian. De Trin. c 26. — ^Ad fin.
Op. Tertull. ed. 1664. p. 724 See also c 25.

3 EuSEB. Cjes. Demonstr. Evangel, lib. v. c 9. ed. Col. 1688. p. 234; and oc
13, 14 pp. 239 — 41, &c. If any passage can be produced from the Ante-Nicens
Fathers opposed to this view, (and I shall not undertake absolutely to deny ihe
pouihUity of such a passage being found,) I have only to observe, that its sole
effect will be to shift this example to the previous head ; but I suspect that it
will be difficult to do so.

• August. De Trin. lib. ii. cc. 7 — 10. Op. ed. Ben. tom. viii. col. 779 — 83.

^ August. Contr. Maximin. Arian. lib. ii. c. 26. Op. tom. viii. ool. 784 et seq.

' At^ KoX \4yown¥ ol irp€€rP6Tfpoi, rwr iLiroirr6Xwy fioBjirai, robs fitTar^S^yras
iK€ifft firrart0rircu, Ibbk. Adv. Haa*. lib. v. c 5. ed. Mass. p. 298. (ed. Grab. p. 406.)
See also lib. iv. c 16. ed. Mass. p. 246, 7. (c 30. ed. Qrab. p. 818, 19.) Augus-
tine intimates the same, — De Peccat. Mer. et Remiss, lib. i. c 8. tom. x. coL 3,
and Op. imperf. contr. Julian, lib. vi. c. 30. tom. x. ool. 1360; but elsewhere
speaks doubtftilly, De peoc orig. c. 23. tom. x. ooL 264 Chbtsostom inUmatee,
that the place where Enoch is, is not kno^n. Comment, in Gen. c 4 horn. 21.
§ 4 Op. tom. iv. p. 187.

€C

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 891

'^ Enoch and Elias^^' says Tertullian^ '^ are translated^ neither

^' is their death found ; that is^ it is delayed ; but they are

'' reserved to die at a future time^ that they may extinguish

'' Antichrist with their blood." ^

So Hippolytus teUs us^ that Enoch and Elias are the two

witnesses spoken of in Rev. zi.^ who are to prophesy 360 days

clothed in sackcloth.^

Justin Martyr in like manner bears witness^ that Elias is to

come '^ when our Lord Jesus Christ is about to come in glory

from heaven."^

A similar testimony is borne by Origen^ though it is not so

confidently stated by him.^

So Pseudo-Cyprian; — *' Likewise Enochs who before the deluge
was a righteous man and pleased Gk)d^ and therefore was trans-
lated alive^ in the flesh in which he was bom^ from that world
to a place which Gk)d knows ; from which place^ at the end of
the worlds he has to be brought again into this world ; whence

" also he is translated to confound and resist Antichrist. And

" being slain by him^ they shall fulfil their witness^ and live for

'' ever to everlasting ages."^

1 ** Tnmslatiis est Enoch et Helias, nee mors eomm reperta est; dilata sdlioet ;
cetemm morituri reservantor, nt Antichristam sanguine soo eztinguant." Teb-
TULL. De anima, c. 60. p. 301. See also c. 85. p. 291.

' Mlor iikv oZv ifiSofidl^ irAy r^y iax^i^y riiy M r^ rfyftari rod trifiwayros
K6(rfiov ierofi4yiiy h^ itrxtkrt^y i<Hifutyfy, [i. e. Daniel ix. 27.] ^s i09ofidJhs
rh fiky lifucrv X^orrai ol 9^ irpwprrrai "Eyitx icat *HAiay. OZroi yitp laifflt^owny
iui4pas x*^^'^ f^ioKOcias i^'^Koyrti, irtpifiefiKrifjJyot crtbcKovs, fAcrcCyoior r^ Xaf
Kot iracri rots tOy^tri tcarayy^KAoyrts, HiPPOL. De Antichristo, § 43. Op. ed.
Fabric, pp. 20, 21. And see §§ 46» 47, where he refers to thb as a fVilfihnent of
MaL iv. 5, and Rev. xi. 8.

' 'O rifitrfpos Kiptos rovro ainh iy rots M^fAJOuriy abrov vap^wjcc yfyrier6fi§'
yoy^ clirctiy Kot *HXlar i\€^€(r0tu' jcol ^fius rovro iwurrdfitOa ytyii<r6fityoyf tratf
fiiKKrji iy Z6^xi i^ ohpay&y irafHMyiy€<r$€u 6 ^fih-fpos x^pios Iricrovs XpurrSs. JXJBT,
Mabt. Dial, cum Ti^ph. § 49. Op ed. Ben. p. 146. (ed. CoL 1688. p. 26a)

* '^1x4 yf 8i2t ro6ruy [i. e. Mai. iv. 6, 6.] SiiXomtAu, 8ri irpo€vrp9wl<ru 6 HX/ay
Tp iy96^tp Xpurrov iwifhifiitf, Obiqbk. Comm. in Matth. torn. xiii. § 2. Op.
torn. iii. p. 672. See also his Comm. in Job. 1. Op. torn. iv. p. 92.

* " Item Enoch, qui ante diluvium Deo Justus complacuit, et ideo de isto mundo
in camis sue nativitate vivus translatus est in loco ubi Deus sdt; ex quo loco in
oonsummatione mundi innovari habet in hoc mundo; unde etiam translatus est
ad confundendum et revincendum antichristum. A quo interfecti maftyria sua
complebunt, viventcs in sternum in secula seculorum. Ion. Auct. De Monti-
bus Sina ct Sion."— Inter Cypr. Op. ed. Fell. app. p. 86. (ed. Flamel. 1617. p. 290.)

892 FATBI8TICAL TBADITION

So Pseud- Ambrose or Hilary the Deacon. ''Therefore, he
'' attributes this to himself^ because he was always in want,
'' suffering persecutions and afflictions beyond others^ as Enoch
'' and Elias shall suffer, who in the last times are to be Apostles.

For they are to be sent before Christ to prepare the people of

God and fortify all churches to resist Antichrist; and the

Apocalypse witnesses^ that they are to suffer persecutions and
'' to be slain." 1

So Augustine intimates, that it is believed that Enoch and
Elias are to return to the earth and there die.'

Chrysostom expressly asserts, that Elias himself is to re-
appear on earth before our Lord's second advent.*

And lastly, Arethas tells us, that '' there is an uninterrupted
'' tradition in the Church, that Enoch shall come with Elias the
'' Thesbite, (for they shall both come to bear witness beforehand

to those that are then living, that they may not be deceived

by the seductive iQiracles of Antichrist,) and bear witness for

the space of three years and a half.^'^

€i
€€
€t

' " Hoc ideo persoiUB bosd depntat quia semper in neoeentate ftdt, peraecntionea
et pressuras ultra oeteros paasusy sicut paflsuri sunt Enoch et Elias, qui ultimo
tempore f\ituri sunt apostolL AGtti enim habent ante Christum ad prsBparandum
populum Dei, et muniendas omnes eodesias ad resistendum Antichristo, quoa et
persecutiones pati et oeddi lectio apocalypds testatur." FBEUD-AMBSoen (or,
probably, Hilabii Diacoki) Comment, in Ep. 1. ad Corinth. Inter Ambroa. Op.
ed. Ben. tom. ii. appendix, ooL 125.

' " Creduntur etiam redituri ad banc vitam, et quod tamdiu dilatum eat mori-
turi." August. De Oen. ad lit. lib. iz. c 6. Op. torn. iii. pt. 1. coL 247.

ravra y^ oitK ii/^iri<ri fiii r28^KU r^y ^fi4payj T€Kfiiipta ivra riis wapovaUts ovr^f .
Chbtsost. Comment, in Ep. 1. ad Thess. c 5. hom. 9. § 2. Op. tom. xi. p. 488.
'Or* hy fi^y yhp ^rp, Zri HAiay /iir Hpx^fu koI iLiroKceraorficru rtlrra, edrrhy HA(ar
^crl, Koi r^y r6rr€ iaofjjyriy r&y Iov8a/o»y hrurrpo^y Zrt^ Kytk cfirp, 8ri 6 fUWmy
fyx^^^i JcoT^ rhy rpiiwoy riis Sicucoylof loMb^r HXiay iraXc? .... &aw€p yitp
iKuyos r^s Btvr^pcu ftrrcu irapovaieis, otrws oZros rijs irpor4p€u iy4ytro wp69pofjLos,
Chbtbobt. Comment, in Matt. xvii. 10. hom. 57. § 1. Op. tom. viL p. 577.

* Kcd iri fi^y H\Uis fi^fi 6 wpo^rfynis ^ijKoy, wpoayoptvtrdffris rrjs ypaip^s Ztit
MaXaxiov .... Ilcpl 8i rov *Lyi»x MOfrrvpfor fi^y Zaoy wpibs r^y wapovtrlay ieirh r^s
yfKuprjs oIk Ix<'M<^> irXV tov 8i2t fi€Ta$4<r€»s i,'iraBayaTtaBfiycu, \6yos 8c ^^pcroi iic
irapaZ6<rtms ^irdy rf iKtcKticriq. i.waptvrp4nr»s koI ainhy f|(ciy fur^ *H\u>v tov
Bta^roVf (f|(ov<r< yiip Afi^ itpoitafiopr^peurBcu rots ohri r<$Tc, fi^ rois inran^Kotf
rov Ayrixplffrov wapdy€<r$tu arifitlois,) iral rp l^ltf fuxprvpU^ rcL^rp rpifiTJyai xp^'om
rpierias iral iiydtr^us. Areth. c 30. Comm. in Apoc. c 11. — Ad fin. (EcuMXK.
Conmi. in Nov. Test. Lutet. Ftar. 1631. tom. ii. pp. 743, 4.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 898

And to these might be added several other similar testi-
monies.

So that^ as it respects the coming of Elias before our Lord's
second advent, it is asserted by* Huetius,^ Maldonatus,^ and
Mede/ three as able witnesses as we could desire in such a
case, that it was declared by the unanimous consent of the
Fathers ; while Mr. Mede, though he ^' thinks that the opinion
.... hath some matter of truth in it,'' adds, '' as for Elias the
Thisbite's coming, I find no ground at ally but the contrary"^

Now, I would ask. Is this to be received as ''revelation V

With respect to Enoch particularly, I might ask, how this is
to be reconciled with the declaration of Holy Scripture that
Enoch was translated that he should not see death, {tov fiii lb€iv
OiyoTov.) (Heb.xi. 5.) I might raise other di£Scu]ties to the
reception of these statements. But I content myself with put-
ting the question to my opponents; Do you yourselves feel
bound to believe this as you would if you found it stated in
Scripture ? If not, then by that very fact you prove that you do
not consider '' catholic consent,'' in such points at least, as a
certain witness of what the Apostles delivered.

(3) The doctrine of the Fathers as to the absolute unlawful-
ness of an oath to a Christian.

Irenaeus says, that our Lord '' hath commanded us not only
not to swear falsely, but not to swear at aU."^

Justin Martyr, that he has commanded us ''not to swear
at all."«

So Clement of Alexandria says, that Plato's precept against
an oath agrees with our Lord's prohibition of it.^

1 "Constans est Fkitmm, omniiunqiie oonsensu probatiMima et reoeptiflrima
Eodesise opinio." Hnsni not. in Orig. Comm. in Matt. torn. xiii. § 2. — In Op.
Orig. ed. Ben. torn. iiL p. 572.

s Maldonat. Comment, in Matth. xL 14.

' See Medb'b Works, pp. 96, 9.

* lb. p. 99.

' " Non solum non peijarare, sed nee jmwre pneoepit." lunr. Adv. hmr, lib. iL
c 82. ed. Mass. p. 165. (c. 56. ed. Qrab. p. 187.)

hfUffirr^ Sx»t, K. r. X. JusT. Mabt. Apd. L § 16w Op. ed. Ben. p. 53. (ed. Col.
1688. Apol. 2. p. 63.)

394 PATRI8TICAL TRADITION

*' I say nothing/' says Tertullian, '' respecting perjury, since
it is not lawful even to swear/' ^

Basilides the martyr^ when required to take an oath, affirmed,
that it was not lawful for him as a Christian to swear at all.^

Cyprian affirms, that Christians are not to take an oath,^ and
comforts them in the prospect of death, on the ground, that if
they lived they might be obliged to take an oath, which was not
lawful.*

Origen expounds our Lord's precept in the same way.^

Lactantius says, that the Christian will not swear at all.^

Eusebios says, that the Christian has learnt from Christ not
to swear at aU J

Basil says, that an oath is altogether forbidden in the Gospel ;^
and of Gregory Thaumatilrgus he tells us, that ''he avoided
'' oaths, not going beyond yea and nay^ on account of the com-
'' mand of Christ, who says, ' I say unto you, Swear not at
''all/"»

Epiphanius says, that our Lord, in Matt. v. 34, ordained, that
it is not lawful to swear, either by the Lord, or by any other

^'Eircuvot 8^ ipKos re irepX iramhs kriortit. Clbm. Albx. Strom, lib. v. c 14. Op.
ed. Potter, p. 707. (Sylb. p. 596.) See also his Psedag. lib. iii. c. 11. p. 299. (Sylb.
p. 255.)

^ ''Taoeo de perjurio, quando ne jurare quidem liceat." Tbbtull. Be IdoL c
11. p. 91.

EusBB. Hist. Ecd. lib. vi. c. 5. ed. Reading, p. 263.

' "Non jurandmn." Cyfbian. Testim. ad Quirin. lib. iii. test 12. Op. ed.
Fell. p. 67. (ed. Pamel 1617. p. 218.)

* " Compelleris jurare, quod non licet," Ctpbiait. De Mortal, prope init. Op.
ed. Fell. p. 157. (ed. Pamel. 1617.' p. 174.)

• " Vetuit omnino jurare." Obiokn. Comment. Series in Matt. § 17. Op. torn,
iii. p. 842. Repeated ib. § 110. p. 910.

^ ** Hie non pqjerabit, ne Deum ludibrio habeat ; sed ne jurabit quidem." Lac-
TAKT. Div. Inst. Epit. c. 6. Op. ed. Cant. 1685. p. 506.

7 T^ firi^ky ehopKicis 8ci(r0at, iroAAoSyc 8r7 IrtopKiiVf 9tiLrh itpibsainov fuufOdB^ip^
fiY|8^ hnv<tvvu 5Aws. Euseb. C£S. Prsep. Evang. lib. i. c. 4. ed. Col. 1688. p. 12.
See also his Demonst. Evang. lib. i. c. 6. ed. Col. 1688. p. 23.

^ *Ey T^ E6a77cX(y irayrcXws Axirx^pcvroi. BASIL. C.£8. Horn. Prim, in Psalm,
xiv. § 5. Op. ed. Ben. tom. i. app. p. 356. See also his Epist. 199. Amphiloch.
Can. 29. tom. iii. p. 294

^ ''FAptvye rohs BpKovs ^ tcaBapii iKtlni ^^fvxh • • • • i-pKOvyAvri r^ vol koX ry ot, Zik
T^ wp6ffrarfixa tov Kvpiov rov €lw6tnos, jc. r. A. BASIL. C^ES. Epist. 207* ad der.
Neocss. § 4. tom. iii. p. 812.

€€

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 893

oath ; for it is wicked to swear ;^ and that the Christian religion
requires us not to swear either truly or falsely^ but to say yea,
yea, nay, nay.*

Chrysostom speaks at large to the same effect, in his homily
on Matt. V. 27 — 87, saying, that it was aUowed in the Law of
Moses, only " on account of the infirmity of those who received the
Law;"^ and elsewhere he says, — " Let the Christian altogether
avoid oaths, attending to the saying of Christ • • [Matt. v.
84.] . . Let no one therefore tell me, * I swear in a just cause,'
" for it is not lawful to swear, either in a just or unjust cause.'^*
And again, in a still more remarkable passage, — '* But if you
reverence nothing else, yet at least reverence the book which
you hold out to swear by, and open the gospel which you take
into your hands, and command men to swear by ; and having
" heard what Christ there says respecting oaths, be alarmed and
" desist. ... I do not weep and lament so much at hearing of
'' men being murdered in the highways, as I weep and lament,
^' and am horror-struck, when I see a man approaching to this
table, and placing his hands upon it, and touching the gos-
pels, and taking an oath. . . . When you are about to adjure
any one, restrain thyself, and prevent it, and say to him who
is about to swear. What shall I do to you ? Gtod hath com«
" manded me not to adjure; he now restrains me. This is suf-
ficient, both for the honour of the Lawgiver, and for thy safety,
and to inspire fear into him who is about to swear. For when
he sees, that we thus fear to adjure others, he will be much
more afraid to swear rashly.'^ ^

€C

€i
€€
C(

€C
<(
it
€€

' 8«nr/<rcu rhv Kbptov^ .... irpdror iiJkv oZv^ tri od 8ci hiunh^tu^ o6t% cobrhv rhw
K^ptoVf oCrf iXkoy riyii ZpKOir rov yiip wonipov iirri rh ifu^irtu. EPIPHAir. Adv.
hseres. ; hser. 19. Oasen. § 6. Op. ed. Par. 1622. torn. 1. p. 44.

^ M^ hturivoi SpKOP, yAfrt ir &Ai^c(f , fi-fyrt 4v ^Mw &AA^ ra2, ra2, iced o5, ot
A,^c<y. Epifhan. Adv. hsores. ; hser. 59. Cathar. § 7. ib. p. 499.

' T^s kuBfv^ias rSap t^xoyuii^y ro\n r6fi9vs, CHBTB06T. Comment, in Matt,
hom. 17. § 5. Op. torn. vii. p. 229. See the whole of §§ 5, 6, 7. pp. 228— 2d8.

* Tohs SpKOvs 8^ irorrcXtfS ^cir/^w, iuco^y r^t iaro^tdo'ttts rov Xpurrov ....
[Matt. V. 34.] .... Mil rolwvw /toi Kiyt, 8ri M. 9ucal^ Sfiyvfu* oOk I(coti 7^ o0rc
M 8ifca(y, oUrt M iiU^ ifu^^wai. Chbtsost. Comment, in G^es. hom. 15. ^ 5.
in c. ii. 20. Op. tom. iv. p. 122.

^ Hb 8i tl fiffihp trtpoy, CBbrh yovw rh fiifixiov €di4o0fiTi h irportii^u tls ZpKov^
ira2 rh tlarffiXtov^ h furii x*H^^ \afA0dit9tp kcAc^ii ifUf^t^Mf &r(ihmi{or, iced iuco^
<ras rl ircpi Spirw 6 Xpurrhs iitti SioX^crcu, ^l^ow md kwian^i .... O^x ^^

896 PATRI8TICAL TRADITION

Jerome says, — " This [i. e. to swear by God] had been allowed
'' by the Law to men as children^ that as they sacrificed victims to
" Grod that they might not offer them to idols^ so they might be
'' permitted to swear by God; not because they might properly do
" this, but because it was better to swear by God than by devils.
'^ But the truth of the gospel does not admit of an oath/'^

" We find/' says Theodoret, " in those laws [i. e. the Grospel],
" that he who swears, though he swears truly, is a partaker of
/' the devil's portion.*'* And again; "The old Law forbids a
" falsehood, but the new even an oath."' And again, — ''Our
" Saviour, making laws respecting oaths, forbids oaths altogether,
*' saying that yea and nay suffice for a confirmation of what is

*' said."*

Lastly, it is said by Basil, bishop of Seleucia, in the Acts of

the Council of Constantinople, under Flavianus, in 448, that

" we have been commanded by our Saviour Christ not to swear ;

neither by heaven, &c. [Matt, v.]"^

cr4wmf iced 9aKp^ ir^{ofi4yovs iuco^p riy&f ip rait MoZr, its ariwrn, kqX Scuc^^,
Kol <l>pi'rrWf hrtMiV {8(» ripii T\ri(rloy rits rpcarifys raOn^s i\B6trraf ictd riis x<<fa»
Biyra, KtCi rup cinrxycAiwy of^dfjifpop Ktd 6/iv^PTa .... 'Evcid^ fi^Wris rtpk
6pKl(fip, Max^s <r€<WThPf Kcd K^Xvtrop, Kcd civ^ wphs rhp fUxkopra 6/ip6pai, Tl
trot woi^trot ; 6 B€hs MXtwrt fiii 6pKi(fur 4k€ip6s fit icar^x^i pvp. *ApKu 7ovto iroi
€ls rifi^p rov pofAoOeHicopros, Kot €ls iur(f>d\€u»y cr^v, Kot cif ^6fiop rov fi4Wotrros
6fiy{fpcu, "Oray yhp iKtipos 1^^, Uri bpK&ffcu Mpovs otfrot it^olKOfitP, toAA^ ftoA-
\op abrhs 6fi6(rcu Tpowtr&s 4>ofiri0^a'ercu. Chbybost. HomiL 15. ad yop. Antiodi.
de Statois. § 5. Op. torn. ii. p. 159.

^ " Hoc quaa parvnlis faent Lege conceasum, ut quomodo yicdmas ixnmola-
bant Deo, ne eas idolis immolarent : sic et jnrare permitterentur in Deum : non
quod recte hoc fooerent, sed quod meliuB eeset Deo id exhibere qnam dmmoiiibus.
Evangelica antem Veritas non redpit joramentmn." Hibbon. Comment, in Matt,
lib. i. in c. 5. tv. 84 et seq. Op. ed. Vallars. Yen. 1769. tom. viL coL 80. See
also bis Comm. in Zech. c 8. w. 16, 17. tom. yi. col. 850.

^ 'EvplffKOfitP ip iK^lpois rots p6fioiS .... rhp ifipvprii, k^p iiX.ri$€^p ifiv^p^ r^s
9ia0o\ucTis 6pra trvfifiopica. Thsodobbt. Qniest. in Genes, q. 87. Op. ed.
Schulze, 1769. tom. L p. 48.

^ 'O fikp ToXaihs iacoyoptiu rh if^cuSof , 6 94 y€ p4os Kcd rhp tpitop, Thxodokbt.
Heeret. Fab. lib. v. c 16. tom. iv. p. 486.

^ litp\ BpKctP p6fiovs riBeUf irol ainohs iarceyop^ti rohs ipKOvs^ iaroxppp X^ywy
rh Nal, Ko) rh Ot, wphs r^p r&p Kwyofuipwp fitfiaiwrip, Thsodobet. Gtsbc Afibct.
Cur. disp. ix. tom. iv. p. 946. See also his Dialog. 1. voeat, " Immutabilis.'' torn,
iv. p. 34; and Ep. 78. tom. iv. p. 1184.

• *tjn-4raXrai 4ifup wapii rov Xurripos Xpitrrov fiii ifUtrai, fi'fir* 4p ry ohpop^^ ic. t. X.
Babel. Sblbuo. inter Acta Condi. Constantinop. dtat. in Act. Cone Chaloed.
-<;ondl. ed. Labb. et Cobs. torn. iv. ool 289. (ed. Haid. ii. 177.)

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 897

Now I would ask both the Romanists and our opponents^
whether^ on account of this consentient testimony of the Fathers,
they consider themselves bound to believe this doctrine, and
interpret Scripture accordingly ; or whether they do not consider
themselves at perfect liberty, as far as that testimony is con-
cerned, to admit or reject it ; and whether they have not in fact
wholly rejected it. If so, then it clearly appears, thst practically
they admit this consentient testimony where they like it, and
reject it where they dislike it, dealing with it in fact as with
any other determination of " a number'' of fallible men. Away,
then, with their pretence of considering themselves bound to
interpret the Scriptures according to the unanimous testimony
of the Fathers. If their notion is good for anything, it is a
principle by which we must abide, and receive all things so
proved. But if they themselves reject this testimony when it
displeases them, it is deceiving men to tell them that they
are bound to believe this or that doctrine or interpretation
of Scripture, because there is a consentient testimony
of the Fathers in its favour, when there are other doc-
trines and interpretations, having the same support, which
they themselves either wholly disbelieve, or at least hold
doubtful.

(4) Standing at prayer on Sundays, and during the period
between Easter and Whitsuntide.

The author of the " Questions and Answers to the orthodox,''
in the works of Justin Martyr, gives the following question and
answer : ^^ Why on Sundays, and firom Easter to Whitsuntide,
^^ do they not kneel when praying ? And whence was this cus-
'^ tom introduced into the churches ? '' The answer is, that we
are to stand at those times, as a sign of the resurrection ; and
it is added, that ^^the custom commenced from apostolical
times, as the blessed Irenseus, martyr, and bishop of Lyons,
says."^

1 AiA rl itf reus KvptoKcus iifidpcuSf icat iarh rod mU'xa ^s 'nis mmiicoffriis,
y6¥u oh K\ipowrw ol €hx6ii*Poi ; ir69€v Z\ Ktdii romdrri 4p reus 4icK\iiaiats cloifXtfc
cvKfi$€ia; .... *Eic rAy kwocroKtic&y xf^'^^ ^ rowdrq vwifS^M HXafi* r^y ^xVt
KoB^s ^<rw 6 fuucdpios Elpnipmos 6 fidprvs Kot hrivtunros AovyMvov, Qiuest. 115.
Inter Op. Just Mart. ed. Ben. pp. 489» 90.

€€
tt

398 PATRI8TICAL TRADITION

Now let US hear Tertullian ; — " We account it a crime to
kneel at prayer on a Sunday/'^

Lastly^ we have the determination of the great Ck>uncil of
Nice ; — '* Since there are some who kneel on the Sunday and
" at Whitsuntide^ in order that all things may be observed alike

in every diocese, the Holy Synod decrees^ that they shall offer

their prayers to God standing/'*

Can our opponents get better testimony in the Fathers to the
apostolicity and the importance of any custom of the Primitive
Church than we have here? But the Bomanists themselves
have wholly rejected this custom.

(5) The threefold immersion in baptism^ which is witnessed
to by Tertullian,* Jerome,* Cyril of Jerusalem,* Ambrose,^ and
writings passing under the names of Dionysius Areopagita,^
Athanasius,^ Augustine,* and Basil.^^

(6) Infant communion, or the giving of the eucharist to infants.
On this point I need only refer to the learned work of Mr.

Bingham on the Antiquities of the Christian Church, who has
fully given the authorities on this subject, and whose opinion is,
that ^^ it is beyond dispute,'^ that this was the practice of the
Church for many ages, and esteemed to be necessary by divine
command ;^^ and even the Bomanist Maldonat, in the face of an
opposite decision of the Council of Trent, ^^ asserts roundly, that
'^ the antients, and particularly St. Austin and Pope Innocent,
'' did believe, that infants could not be saved without partaking

> ** Die Dominico jgunium nefat ducimuSf vel degemmiUa adorare** TebtttxIi.
De Ck>r. Mil. c. S. Op. ed. 1664. p. 102.

' 'EvciS^ riyii €l<riy iy t§ Kvpiaicp y6yv K\lyoyr€Sf Koi iy reus t^j »6Kn|ico<rH|f
ilfi^pcuSf ^ip rod vdyra iy wdaij irapotKi^ Sfiolvs ^\drr€<r6ai, iarSras l^c rp
ayl^ <nfy6l6^ tA* ^hx^s iLToBiB6yai ry Sc^. CoNClL. NiC. Can. xx. ; Biblioth.
Jar. Can. Yet. ed. VoeU. et Jnstell. Paris. 1661. torn. i. p. 34; or, in any edition
of the CoundlB.

• Tertull. De. Cor. Mil. c 3. p. 102.

• HiBBOV. Adv. Lncifer. § 8. Op. torn, il coL 180. ed. ValL Vcnet.

• Cybill. Hiebos. Cat. Mystag. ii. Op. ed. Milles. p. 286.

• Ambbos. De Secram. lib. ii. e. 7.

' PsEimo-DioNYS. Aeeof. De eccles. hierarch. c. 2.

■ Psettd-Athanas. Qosest. in Psalm, q. 92. torn. ii. p. 327.

• PsEiTD.-AuGnsT. Serm. 40. Op. torn. v. app. col. 79. (al, Serm. de temp. 201.)
'® Basil. C-ks. (or, Pseudo-Basil.) De Spir. Sanct. c. 27. Op. torn. iii.

p. 55.

" BivoHAM's Anti(j. bk. xv. c. 4. § 7.

€€
€€
€€

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 899

'^ of the eachaiist^'' and that this was the practice of the Church
for the first six centuries.^

And hence Bishop Stillingfleet, after noticing the points
which had been adduced by his Romish antagonist^ as instances
of cases in which we depend upon " Tradition*' for the know-
ledge of them^ — and most of which^ I need hardly say, are the
same that are relied upon by our opponents, as infant bap-
tism, the observance of the Lord's Day, &c., which the bishop
shows are sufficiently deducible from Scripture, — adds, — " But
'^ methinks an author who would seem so much versed in Au-
'' gustine, might, among all these instances, have found out one
'^ more, which would have looked more like a doctrinal tradition
'^ than most of these, which is the necessity of the eucharist to
baptized infants. The places are so many and so express in
him concerning it, that it would be a needless task to produce
them. I shall only, therefore, refer you to your Espencseus
" (De Eucharist, ad Orat. 1. ii. c. 12.) who hath made some col-
" lection of them. When you have viewed them, I pray bethink
^' yourself of some convenient answer to them, which either
'^ must be by asserting that S. Augustine might be deceived in
judging of doctrinal and apostolical traditions, and then to
what purpose are your eight instances out of him? or else
that might be accounted an apostolical tradition in one age
which may not in another. . • • which leaves us in a greater
dispute than ever what these apostolical traditions are, when
the Church in several ages doth so much differ concerning
" them.'' 3

Now with respect to all those points we have mentioned, I
would ask any impartial reader, whether the testimonies we have
quoted are not at least as good evidence of Patristical consent
for them as the Tractators are accustomed to rely upon, and as

1 Binoham'8 Antiq. ib. See abo ZoRioi Historia Eucharist, infiint. c. xi.
§ 3. <f^ passim. Morton's Cath. App. u. 25. § 10. p. 825. Dall. De vma
P&tr. i. 8. Whitby's Diasert. de S. S. interpret, sec Pbtr. pp. 212 et seq. in
Joh. yi. 53. Watbrlakd has attempted to show that Augustine ooold not have
considered it absolutely necessary, but seems to me only to prove, that some
other passages of his works appear somewhat inconsistent with such a notion,
which, however, cannot outwdgh his clear statements on this sulject. (See
Waterland's Works, vol ix. pp. 473, et seq.) See Daille, and Zomius, c. 12. § 2.

' Stillinofleet's Rational Account, &c. pp. 166, 7.

€€
€€
t(
t<
€(

400 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

can practically be obtained for any doctrine^ interpretation, or
practice.

Again, then, I ask our opponents. Do they hold, that we must
receive them? Will they affirm, that these are part of the
" precious Apostolical relics V* If not^ how are we to find such
relics?

But Sr it be said, that these are not vital points, and therefore
that even consent of Fathers is not sufficient to establish any-
thing respecting them, then let it be clearly understood, that
consent of Fathers is only a valid proof of Apostolical tradition
in matters of vital moment and fundamental importance, which
will cut off a large number of Mr. Keble*s '^ precious apostolical
relics/' especially the new ones to which he has alluded, when
he intimates that he may be '' so happy as to find more'' than
those hitherto brought to light.

And if it must be first determined, whether a point is of fun-
damental importance or not, before we can trust even the testi-
mony of a whole host of Fathers, then how is this to be known
but by Scripture telling us that this or that doctrine is necessary,
and so informing us of the very point in question ; for I sup-
pose it can hardly be left to the Fathers to determine what is
and is not necessary and fundamental ; or at any rate^ if it is, I
know not where we are to find their decision upon the point ;
and if our opponents refer us to the formulae they have given as
^' the Creed/' or ^^ Rule of Faith," as containing the complete
list of fundamentals, then (not to repeat the objections we have
already urged against such a notion^) we get from the earliest
Fathers a list of fundamentals, comprising less than is contained
in " the Apostles' Creed /' and moreover, the assurance that all
the points thus enumerated are clearly and plainly laid down in
Scripture. And if we seek to get beyond even the letter of
this brief elementary summary of the faith, we shall find the
Fathers all at variance on the highest points.

There is one more remark, also^ which I would make upon
the reply (if offered) that catholic consent is not, in such points
as these, a sufficient proof of Apostolical tradition; which is
this, that this admission annihilates the best, if not the only

^ See pp. 146 et seq. above.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 401

ground^ upon which such consent is put forward as a proof of
Apostolical tradition in any case, viz.^ that such consent proves
a common origin for the doctrine so delivered^ and that it was
derived from a quarter to which the whole Church looked up
for instruction. It is said^ how can we account for such consent^
hut by supposing that the doctrine was originally delivered by
those from whom the whole Church learnt the faith? This
argument^ then^ is as valid for the points we have just been
considering^ as for the highest points of fsiith. If " consent/'
as it is called^ proves derivation from the Apostles in one case^
so does it in the other ; and though the points are of very dif-
ferent importance^ yet if they are both the subjects of "revela-
tion/' they have an equal claim to our belief^ as the Word of
God.

It is, therefore, justly remarked by Bishop Taylor, — " It is
not excuse enough to say that singly the Fathers may err,
but if they concur, they are certain testimony ; for there is
no question this day disputed by persons that are willing to
be tried by the Fathers, so generally attested on either side,
as some points are, which both sides dislike severally or con-
" junctly ; and therefore it is not honest for either side to press
" the authority of the Fathers as a concluding argument in
" matter of dispute ; unless themselves will be content to submit
" in all things to the testimony of an equal number of them,
'^ which I am certain neither side will do.''^

€<
€€
€€
€€

SECTION IX. — THE DOCTRINE OP THE TRACTATORS FOUNDED UPON
SUPPOSITIONS WHICH ARE CONTRADICTED BY FACTS.

The system of our opponents rests upon two hypotheses ; —
First, That there was a steady permanent successional delivery,
from one to another, for several ages, throughout the whole
Catholic Church, of all the important doctrines of Christianity,
derived from the oral teaching of the Apostles, and in which
the teaching of all in communion with that Church agreed; —

» Jbb. Tatlob'b Lib. of Proph. § 8.
VOL. I. D D

402 FATRI8TICAL TRADITION

Secondly, that the whole Catholic Church was so united together
as one body^ and discipline so rigidly enforced throughout it^
that no parts or individuals belonging to it could publicly
maintain any errors of importance, without being excommuni-
cated, or at least censured, by the Church, and so as that such
censure must have come down to us.

These two propositions are taicitly assumed by our opponents,
and are, in fact, the foundation upon which their system rests ;
but both of them will be found, upon investigation, to be con-
trary to facts. They are the TrpQra i/ret$dea, the primary false
principles upon which their arguments are founded.

In reply to them, I shall endeavour to show, —

First, That from the very beginning there were many heresies,
errors, and false doctrines prevalent among the professed foU
lowers of Christ ; and secondly, that such errors were main-
tained and propagated among those who formed what was
called the Catholic Church.

Our Lord has aptly compared his Nominal Church to a field
in which tares and wheat grow together ; and such, he tells us^
will be its character, even to the end; for he forbids his angels
to separate them, lest they might inadvertently or by mistake
root out or injure the wheat. Both are to grow together until
the harvest. Such, then, is the state of the Nominal Christian
Church. It contains within it tares sown by Satan, inter-
mingled with the wheat, the produce of the good seed, who are
alone in reality the children of the kingdom. And I suppose
it will readily be admitted, that the tares represent as much
those that maintain false doctrine, as those that are involved in
corrupt practice.

But was it so, it may be asked, from the beginning ? Was
there not a time, when the Church contained wheat only?
The Apostolical Scriptures clearly prove, that, even when they
were being written, the tares were already mingled with the
wheat ; the tares not merely of orthodox but inconsistent pro-
fessors, but also of men altogether unsound in the faith ; and
that, too, among the professed teachers of the faith.

There were, from the very first, " false Apostles ;" (2 Cor. xi.
13.); there were those that preached "another gospel," and

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 403

"perverted the gospel of Christ;" and so successfully, as to
draw over the Galatians to their doctrines ; (Gal. i. 6. 7.) ; there
were " false brethren, unawares brought in ;'' (Gral. ii. 4.) ; there
were some who '^ preached Christ, of envy and strife ;'* whose
doctrine, therefore, as derived from anything but divine teach-
ing, would vary with the prejudices of the preacher; (Phil. i. 15.) ;
there were, even among the brethren, " enemies of the cross of
Christ.*' (Phil. iii. 18.) Still more, there were those whose
teaching was calculated to " spoil " Christians, " through philo-
sophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the
rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.'* (Col. ii. 8.)
There were those who would forge letters in the name of an
Apostle, to promote their views. (2 Thess. ii. 2.) In fact, ''the
mystery of iniquity '* was " already working.*' (2 Thess. ii. 7.)
'' Some, having swerved, had turned aside unto vain jangling,
'' desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what
" they said, nor whereof they aflSrmed." (1 Tim. i. 6, 7.) There
were those who, '' concerning faith, had made shipvrreck," and
''blasphemed.** (1 Tim. i. 19, 20.) There were those that
addicted themselves to " profane and vain babblings, and oppo«
sitions of science, falsely so called,** and had, consequently,
"erred concerning the faith.*' (1 Tim. vi. 20, 21. See also w.
4, 5.) There were those that taught that the resurrection was
then already past. (2 Tim. ii. 18.) There were "many unruly
and vain talkers and deceivers,** who " subverted whole houses,
teaching things which they ought not, for filthy Iucre*s sake.**
(Tit. i. 10, 11.) There were those who, when they "ought to
have been teachers, had need that one should teach them
again which were the first principles of the oracles of God.**
(Heb. V. 12.) There were "unlearned and unstable** persons,
who wrested the Scriptures unto their own destruction. (2. Pet.
iii. 16.) There were already "many false prophets gone out
into the world,** and the people were to " try the spirits whether
they were of God;" for which St. John gave them — not a
direction to follow the Catholic Church or catholic consent, or
submit themselves to certain earthly guides — ^but a doctrinal
test. (1 John iv. 2 ; and see 2 John 7 — 10.)

Such was the condition of the Church, even in the Aposto-

D D 2

(€
tl

€€
€€
t€

.404 PATRI8TICAL TRADITIOK

lical times ; and the warnings given on this point with respect
to the future are clear and decisive. " I know this,'* says St
Paul to the elders of Ephesus^ ''that after my departing^ shall
grievous wolves enter in among you^ not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arisen speaking perverse
things^ to draw away disciples after them.'' (Acts xx. 80.)
There were false prophets also among the people '^ [of the
Jews]^ says St. Feter^ ''even as there shall be false teachers
among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even
denying the Lord that bought them^ and bring upon them-
selves swift destruction. And many shall follow their perni-
cious ways, by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil
spoken of.'' (2 Pet. ii. 1, 2.)
That these prophetic announcements^ moreover^ were fully
accomplished^ even in the next generation after the Apostles,
we have very decisive evidence.

Thus^ we are told by Eusebius, that Ignatius, when on his
way to Rome to suffer martyrdom, (where he was put to death
about the year 116,) admonished the churches of Asia, as he
passed through, "to take especial heed of the heresies that were
then first springing up and increasing."^

So Fapias, who flourished in the year 110, intimates that
there were those in his time who delivered strange and spurious
precepts.^

Again, Hegesippus, who flourished about the year 170, and
is said by Eusebius to have been in the first succession after the
Apostles,* and by Jerome to have bordered on the Apostles'
times,* tells us, (according to Eusebius,) that until the time of
Trajan,^ the Church remained a pure and uncorrupt virgin, those
that endeavoured to corrupt the wholesome doctrine of the gos-
pel of salvation, if there were any, remaining till then concealed ;

^ 'El' wp^ois fAdkurra irpo<pvKd'rr€(r$ai rks cilp4(rtts Apri rArt wp&roy dro^vcfirflbr
irol liriiro\a(o{fcrcu irap4iyu, EuSEB. Hist. EccL ilL 86. ed. Reading, pp. 130, 1.

' Ths iX\oTpias itn-oKiLs fiirtifiove^oviriy. EuSEB. Hist. EccL iiL c. ult. ib. p. 136.

' *Eir2 r^s irfxirris ray 'AwoarrSkoty y€y6fi€yos SioSox^f* Id* ib. ii. 23. ib.
pp. 77, 8.

* Yicinus Apostolicorum temporum. HiEBOK. De Script, c. 22.

* Db. Routh thinks, that the words of Hegesippus refer to even an earlier
period than the times of Tr^'an. See his Rehq. SS. Patr. vol. i. pp. 233^ 4.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 405

but when the sacred company of the Apostles were in different
ways extinct^ and the generation of those who had been thought
worthy to hear the words of divine wisdom with their own ears
had passed away^ then the conspiracy of impious error took
its rise through the deceit of false teachers^ who^ inasmuch as
not one of the Apostles was left, openly and confidently attempt-
ed to inculcate their miscalled knowledge in opposition to the
preaching of the truth.*

One single century therefore had hardly passed away after
our Lord's crucifixion, before the Church became afflicted with
heresies and errors still more openly avowed and propagated
than in the times of the Apostles. For when Hegesippus here
speaks of the Church having remained a virgin till the time of
Trajan, the passages of Scripture quoted above clearly show, that
he must be understood as speaking comparatively , and not as
denying that corruptions existed therein before, or otherwise he
is clearly contradicted by those passages ; from which also we
may correct the statements of Firmilian and others, who, for
the support of their respective hypotheses, have maintained, that

^ For this passage we are indebted to Ensebins^ who, speaking of Hcgcsippns,
says, 'O ainhs atf^p iifiyoi/ityos t& icar& rohs JhiKovfi^yovSf iiriKiyfi' &s &pa fi^xp^
riiy rSrt xp6¥W wapOtyos KoBapii Ktd iJiidupdopos Hfiety^y ri 'Eic«cXi}(r/a, iy iJi^\<^
trov axSrfi ^v\€v6yrtty €la-4ri T<frc, r&yf c2 Kcd riy^s i^px^>'t veipeupOftptiy iwi'
Xfipovyruy rhy iytrj Kay6ya rov (Ttmiplov mipvyfiaTos, &s V 6 Uphs rSty *Aro<rr6\my
XOphs Hidtpopoy ciX^ci rov fiiov r4\oSf irap€KriKvOfi re ^ ytyt^ iKtlyri ruy eUncus
ixocus T^s M4ov tro^ias iiraKOwrai Karri^utfidyttyf rriyuccurra rrjs iiB4ov irXAyiis r^y
i^pxh" ^^cf/A^oycy ^ o^oToirif , 9ih. rris r&y lrtpo9t9curKd\ofy itrdrjir ot irol &t§
firili€yhs frt r&y *Airo<rr6Kny \tiwofi4yoVf yv/iyj \onrhy IjJhi rp kc^oA^, t^ rris
iiX.rid€las mip^fiaTi r^v t^tv9^yufioy yywriy iurnKJipvrrtiy /ircxc/pouy. Kol ravra
ft^y oZros trcp2 ro{n<»y 9uMXa$^y &S4irc»s HXt^ty, EuSBB. Hist. EccL iii. 82. ed.
Reading, p. 128. The Romish ecUtor of Ensebios, Valesins, being very mnch
troubled with tins passage, though he admits that Eusebius understood Hege-
sippus to be speaking of the Church at hirge^ has the fitce to assert, that Eusebius
was in this mistaken, and that Hegesippus was only speaking of the Church of
Jerusalem, though we have nothing left us of Hegesippus but the few fragments
that Eusebius has preserved. A similar passage of Hegesippus on the same sub-
ject is preserved to us by Eusebius in his 4th bk. c 22. Some have supposed it to
be the same passage as is here referred to, thinking thereby to cxuiail the passage
given above ; but if Eusebius is to be trusted, the passages were evidently not
the same ; and why should we suppose, that there oould not be two notices relating
to the same matter in the five books of Hegesippus ? The very passages we are
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 Hegerippus P

406 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; Bev. ii. 6, 15.)'^^ 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 froitfol
in hseresiarchs, 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^ and Irenseua.^

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 Judaea, 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 dwring 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 Fergamos, the

1 Rouxn. Beliq. SS. Fata*. toL l p. 234.

2 lb.

" Tebtull. De Proscr. haret. c. 7 and c 33.
* Iren. Adv. her. lib. i. In. pnsf.

NO DIVINI INFORMANT. 407

i€

it
(€
U

eating of things offered to idols and the doctrine of the Nico-
^' laitans are blamed. Likewise in the case of the angel of the
'^ Thyatyreans^ the prophetess Jezebel and the eating of things
'^ offered to images and fornications are rebuked.'' ^

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
'^ paints J as their dissension is a witness^ since even those who

" are 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*
'^ specting itJ'^

To which we may add the passages already quoted in a pre-

^ " Adhuc apod Judffiam Chiisti aangnine recenti, phantaona Domini oorpua
aaserebatur; QalatasadobservitionemLegis traductot Apostohisitarampai^^
Corinihioe resmrectionein camia non cradentea plnriboa argmnentia ad vemm iter
trahere oonator. Tunc Simon Magna etMenanderdiadpalua qns Dei se aaBemero
Vurtutea : tnnc Banlides sommnm Denm AhrtuMu com treoentia sexaginta qninqne
Editionibns oommentatns ast ; tnnc Nioolana, qni nnna de aeptcm Diaconia fnit^
die noctnqne nnptiaa fiunena, obacsenoe et anditn qnoqne embesoendoe ocntns aom-
niavit. Taceo de Judaiami hsretida. .... Ad ooe venio h»retiooa» qni Evangelia
laniavemnt; Satnminnm quemdam, et Ophitaa, at CainsBos, et Setthmtaa, et
Carpocratem, et Cerinthum, et hi\jn8 sncoeaBorem Ebionem et catena peetea
qnomm plnrimi vivente adhuc Joanne Apoatolo empemnt." " Angelo Epbeai
deserta caritas impntatnr. In angelo Pergamene Eodeaia idolothytomm eana et
Nicolaitamm doctrina reprehenditnr. Item apnd Angelnm Thyatyroram Jexabel
prophetiflsa et nmnlacromm eac» et fornicationea increpantnr." Hftsoimc.
Dialog, adv. Lndferian. §§ 23, 24. Op. torn. ii. col. 196— a

« Obigeit. De Prindp. lib. L Praef. — Op. ed. Ben. tom. i. p. 47.

s ** Utinam soli qni extra ecdeaiam annt sednoerentnr ; fiuale erat cavere aeduc-
tioiiem. Nunc autem ipn qni profitentnr te ecdenaaticoa ene de neceaarib qni-
busquc captulia fidluntnr et soducnntnr, sicnt ipia diiwenaio eorum teatimofiinm

€€

it
tt

408 FATBISTICAL TRADITION

ceding page ;^ where he tells us, that " from the very begiDning
" there were differences among believers respecting the meaning
'* of the books that were believed to be divine.'*

So also Dionysius 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, and
^' made light of the Epistles of the Apostles/'^ 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 eidst 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 Irenseus to some bishops not being so diligent
as they ought, and leaving that as a custom to those that came
after them which had been introduced through simplicity and igno^
rance.^

And we find Firmilian of Csesarea, (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 pretended apostolical authority for them.*

And these corruptions, be it observed, must have been intro-
duced at periods anterior to almost all the records we possess of
the Primitive Church.

est, quoniam et qiii intiw sunt seducantnr;. . . . Malum quidem est invenire ati-
quein secundum mores vitea errantem, multo autem p^us arbitror esse in dogma-
tibus aberrare, et non secundum verissimam regulam scripturanun sentire. . . .

Omnis qui perfcctus est et qui exercitatos liabet seusus ad capiendum, neccsae

est ut qmerens et discutiens in multa incurrat dogmatum pnolia, audict etaam
multos profitentes veritatem et divcrsas de ea traditiones." Obioen. In Matth.
Comment. Scries. §§ 33, 35. Op. tom. iii. pp. 852, 853, 854.

> See p. 29-4, 5. above.

' Ka2 rtycoy 8i8curir<lA.(tfy rhy fi^y v6fiop koI rohs wpo<piiras rh fii}8iir ^yov/ji4va»r
Koi rh rois €ifayyt\lois hrfcr$cu irap4yrwy Kcd tAj r&y * K'iroirr6Kwv InurroKhs
iK<t>av\i€rdyTwy. DiONYS. Ck)B. in EusBB. Hist. Eccles. vii. 24. ed. Readimr
p. 350.

" Tuy iraph rh iucpifits, &S tUhSf Kparodyrofy, riiy Koff awK^rytra irol tBtmria/ib^
auyfidtiay clj t^ firr4ir€ira vciroiijK^rwy. Ibbn. Epist. ad Victor, in KirSEB. Hist,
Eccles. V. 2^4. cd. Reading, p. 248.

< Sec the passage in p. 317, 318, above.

NO DIVINS INFORMANT. 40&

If^ then^ sucli 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. Hcncp

410 PATR18TICAL 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 Gk>d may be in all vital points,
it is not sufBciently 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

> Keblb's Pref. to Hooker, p. liv.

^ See HiEBON. adv. Lucifer. ; Libebii Epist. ad Ursac. Talent, ct Gfrerm. in
Opcr. IIiLABU PiCT. Fra^^. 6. col. 1338, 9, et Ep. ad Vincent, ibid. col. 1340;
Qbsgob. Nazuvz. orat. 21 ; Vnrc. Lib. Commonit. c. 6.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 411

of in ecclesiastical history ;^ 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 al], 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 discipUne 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 CathoUc Epistle,
warns the churches, that there were " certain men crept in im-
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 m the
communion of those churches, (Jude w. 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.);

1 See p. 186, and 332, 333, above.

^ See Jswxll's fiunoiu challenge to the Bomamats, fai his sennon.

412 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

in the Churcli 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 Crod.
(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 Gains 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 receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would,
and casteth them out of the Church:^ (8 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

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 413

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. Wliat will a wise man^ indimduaUy
responsible to God for embracing the true faiths 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

> See p. 407 above.

414 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 ia 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 deUvered 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 <^
" 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

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 415

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 Churchy 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 Churchy or that
ever attempted to make such a separation f 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-

41^

diTidiuia. I -rJl diccdire leave die inquiry in this generBl
fora. Biit tsm inae ae a doubt u to the answer wUdi nnut
be jdv^n Ji •^?* ir any «™'^»^ cue of a regolarly conatitoted
eiiTirdi oai^jiir & ^iiiiue conooHon of fiuth br wluch all her
Biemheis ^ndfaa jJ joufie ? How modi less, then, conld conaent
be expetceii wiere taeee was no socii eonfrsBon of &ith ?

Tbe &ct ia. aa any •»£ wbo will take the tronUe impartiany
to ftody die works oc the Fadicn tfaemaelTCs, will at onee aee,
there ia the zreateK pooHble Jiiciaiii of sentiment amon^ them
even on the Kig4t<>rf pointa, aa in the farmer part ofthia fhaptrr
we have attempted to prtyre.

accTi03r X. — rzflt to objxctio^ri, axd gtxmmal

I now proceed, in the laast place, to reply to the objeetiona
that have been nrged against the views hoe advoeatcd.

One al these has been already dispooed of in the former part
of this chapter. It has been objected, that the position we
maintain is jnst that of all the antient hexeticsy who always
declined the testimony of Tradition. I have already abundantly
ahown^ ^ 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 Catholie
Charch, sm mnch aa the orthodox.

Bat it may be said.

If Scriptnre is oar only divine informant, then if there had
been no Scriptnres we should hare 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
rcasrm 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.

* See Sect. 7. above.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 417

thesis that otherwise there would have been no divine informant.
Now it may be^ that Ood 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 (jodhead 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 can-
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

* Nkwma9*8 Lect. on Rom. &c p. 330. Bellabm. De Verb. Dd, ir. 4.
VOL. I. E £

418 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

dictates of reason, were GliriBtians^ though they might be reckoned
atheists;^ of the orthodoxy of which passage {as of others quoted
below) I say nothing, hut it shows his view on the point now in
question.

Thus also Irenseus identifies the decalogue with ''those
'^ natural precepts which God from the beginning implanted in
" the hearts of men."^

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.''*

Thus, Tertullian says, that " before the law was written by
Moses, the Fathers observed that which nature taught them,'*
and that by this Noah and others were considered righteous.^

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."^

Theodoret says, " that the Abrahamic race received the divine

* Ol firrh, \Ayov fiidotrayrts, XpioTiayol flci, Kf,v ABtoi iyofxlaBrf<rair oTow 4y 'EAAir<n
fi^y TfiiKpdnns KoX 'HpdK\uroSt Kcd ol Hfioioi ainois, JlTBT. Mabt. ApoL 1. § 46.
Op. ed. Benod. p. 71. (ed. Col. Apol. 2. p. 83.)

s " Nam Dcus primo quidem per naturalia praeepta, qu<B ab initio infixa
dedit hominibuSf adinonenB eos [i. e. Judffios], id est, per Decalo^pim, (quts m
quis non feccrit, non habet salutein,) nihil plus ab eis cxqiusivit.'' Ib£n. Adv.
hser. lib. iv. c. 15. cd. Mass. p. 244 (c. 28. ed. Grab. p. 317.)

' *Hk fihy oZv wph rijs rov Kvplov wapovirlas tls Buccuoa^rriy 'EXXi^ctv iuxryxala
<pi\o<ro<p(a .... irduncoy fihy yhp curios rwv KoXvy 6 B€6y iwk t&v l*^y^ jcord
rrpojfyoifitvovy 6»s r^s tc hiaB^icus r^r ira\cuai kcH tiJs wiixv t&p W, jcot^ HtokO'
Xot/0T7/ua, its rris ipiKoffoiplas, Tc^x^ '^ '^^ irpo7jyovfi4yws rots *EXXi}<riy ili6$i^ rt^c,
irpiy fl r6v Kvpioy KaX4(Tcu icol rohi 'EAAijKaj* iirouBay^ti yhp Koi 4wt^ rh "E.K\riwtKhy,
i)$ 6 y6fju)s robs 'EjSpo/ovf fls XptorrSy, Tlpairapaa-Ktvdffi roiyvy ri ^iKoiro^a^
irpoo^oiroiov(ra rhy Ovh XpioTov r(\(to6fi(yoy. Cl£M. Alex. Stxx)m. lib. i. § 5. Op.
ed. Potter, p. 331. (Sylb. p. 121, 122.)

* " Ante legem Moysi scriptam, qua) naturaliter intelligcbatur, et a I^atribiu
custodiebatur. Nam unde Noe Justus inventus, a non ilium natnralislegis justitia
prsBcedobat P unde Abraham amicus Dei deputatus, si non de seqmtate et justitia
legis naturalis ?" &c. Tebtull. Adv. Jud. c. 2. Op. ed. 1664. p. 184.

* Tlph rwy iyypd^y ainov ySfAuy, irXtlovs Ijhi r&y irpowar6p»y 6p$ois Ktr/W"

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 419

" law, and enjoyed the blessing of prophecy, but the Governor
" of the universe led the other nations to piety through nature
" 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 reUgion 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 them having their oriffin 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

funSf 0€oa-f$*las kprtf Kvr9Ko<rtt,4fir\(ray. ErsEB. Cjks. Pnepar. Evang. lib. vii.
c. 7. ed. Col. 1688. p. 305.

* Th fi^y yhp 'Afipaiiiauoy y4yos, <col y6fiov OfTov ^8c|aT0, Kcd 'Kpa^Trrucris iw^-
Aau<re x*^*'^®** '''^ *^ 7* '^^^^ ^^'^» **^ ''^^ ^^««$ #fol rrjs lerio'tms iwo^yti irphs
Ofotr^fifiay rS»¥ t\w 6 irp^ayis, Thbodobxt. Qrec Afifect Curat.; dispat. 1.
prope fin. Op. ed. Schulze, torn. iv. p. 724s 726.

E s 2

420 rATEISTICAL TBAOITIOX

gnidmnee of our nrntnnd reason mnd conadence, to find oar way
among them as Veil as we could.

Now, I need hardly remind the reader, that though the prac-
tieal tmths of Christianity are snch as might be admitted to
earry evidence with them of their divine origin, many of the
doctrines of the Christian faith are not snch as the natural
reason and conscience would thus recognise as divine. We
need very direct proof ot 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
Ood ; 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.

Wc do not, then, think it necessary to deny," that " Tradition"
might band 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 owrcasey
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

i(
<(
t€
it
tt

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 421

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 opponents 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.
'^ For that the former was better, God hath manifested, both by
'^ what he hath said and by what he hath done. For to Noah
" and Abraham, and their descendants, and to Job and Moses,
'^ he did not speak through writings, but he himself addressed
'^ them, finding their mind to be pure. But when the whole
'' nation of the Hebrews fell into the depth of iniquity, then it
'^ was necessary, that there should be for the future writings
'^ and tables, and the remembrance of things be preserved
'^ through these. And this happened, we may observe, not
^^ only with the saints of the Old Testament, but also with
" those of the New. For God did not give any writing to the
Apostles, but instead of writings he promised that he would
give them the grace of the Spirit. For ' he,' saith he, ' shall
bring all things to your remembrance.'. . • . But when, in
process of time, they erred, some on account of doctrines,
'• others in life and manners, [which shows how soon Chry-
" sostom believed such errors to have prevailed,] there was
'^ again need of writings to preserve a remembrance of the
" truth." 1

* "iSZti fi^y ^ftas firiHh HftirOeu r^s inrh r&p ypofAfAdrwy /Soif^f far &AA* oSrct fiiat^
irap4xf<^«u Ka$aph¥f &s rod Tlyf^fun-os r^y X^^^ ^^^ fiifiXlctv yw4<rBai reus
rifier^pcus ^x^** '^^ KoBdirtp ravra 8i& /i^Xoyor, o0t(» t^i KopJOas riis iifier4pas
ilk Tvtitfueros iYyrypd^Bu, 'Eirf 18^ 8i raOrriy BitKpotHrdfitOa r^y X^'^* ^^P^f '4"
rhy Bfirtpoy iunrcur^fi€0a vKovy, *Eir«l 5ti t^ irpirtpoy A/iuyoy ^y^ icol 8i' i»y
cTrf , Kc^ Bi' Siv iiroir)ffty^ iB-fiXacfy 6 BfSs, Kal ykp r^ Nwc «ral r^ *A0pakfit iral
ro7sy6yots roh iKtlyov, K<d r^ *lw$, Kcd r^ MuwruBh ob hk ypofAfidrmy 9i€\4yrro'

a
ct
a
tt

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.

But, 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 suffrages of all Christians is an
impossibility. To select those by whose judgment we will
abide is to constitute ourselves the judges, and make any
appeal to others a mere self-deception. On this point, bow-
ever, we have already spoken in a former page.'

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 tlieory of the Romanists on
the subject of Tradition (and the theory, as we have shown, both
he himself and Dr. Pusey accept,) observes, — " By Tradition

they mean the whole system of faith and ordinances which

they have received from the generation before them, and that

generation again from the generation before itself. And in
" this sense, undoubtedly, we all go by tradition in matters of
" the world. ... At this very time, great part of the law of the

&AX* ahrhs ZC iavrovy KoBapkw fipi<rKuv airr&v r^y ^idyoiou^, *Eirci5^ Si cis e^6^
rris Kcuclas iy^ireat rhy m/B/xiva Awas r&y *E$palctp 6 BijfioSy iuntyKcdus \onrhp TpC^-
flora Kcd irXcUcr, Kcd fi 8(^ roinw ^SfivrfO'is, Kal rovrOf obK M r&v iy rp ToAcuf
ayluy, &X\h Ktd M r&v iy rp Koiyp cvfifiiiy tSot ris &y. OvJih yhp rois &itoaT6\ou
HwKd ri ypanrhy 6 0€<Jy iAA* drrl ypofifuircty r^y rod Ilvtifueros imjyytlKaro
1i<&crfiy x^"'* 'Eiccu'os yitp iffxas iwofiyiiaett (fnjfflf irdyra, . . . *Eirci8^ 8i voAAov
rov xp^f^ov irpoX6yros ^{wKfiAay, ol fi^y Boy/xdrwy jfyciccr, ol 8^ $iov Kol rp6v^w^
iZir)<rt irdXiy rrjs iiirh rwy ypttfifidruy inrofurfic^ws, ChbySOSTOM. Comment, in
Matth. horn. 1. itUt, Op. torn. vii. pp. 1, 2.

' See pp. 48 and 170 et seq. above. > Ibid.

it
a
t(

(€
<{
<(
it
tt

<t
tt

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 423

'' 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^ a9 judges and juries do/' And this custom^
when traced back^ has no beginning short of the Apostles of
Christy 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 13 ot 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

> NsWMiir'B Lect. on Romanism, &c, pp. 38 — 40.

tt
tt
tt
ft
tt
tt

424 PATRI8TICAL 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 sach tradition
'^ is a mere dream and extravagance. . . . mnst^ if they would be
** consistent^ deny the validity of the most important portion of
'^ the laws of this and of most other old countries/'^

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

* KsBLB*8 Serm. on Prim. Trad. p. 83.
3 BzLLABM. De Verb. Dei, iv. 8

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 425

the whole Churchy 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 hi^ving 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

*^.

Mr.

*sne i\ 2ut zierjun uutt a

^tizi-'^s'jss*. iesiar*:! "^if: «b!a ▼!» xi "■'^^"■t ibkxi ant

Ai«t ▼•-nut zrx zidt riniii-t :« a

rtfxzr* tz^ Vxki ^ *ui& C^i T^xxanesz frua tie Jcwk Thov-
ayjri»zT t/^ duf amaiaEt. ▼« ife flrjvad to reeme tibe
Z..J:.? ".f tk^m trxc, tje Jrvi. IVerefcre ve m^ bomd to

'^ W^ cd iji^*s \^ mmiM. jL ^ wart <nr itarmtd Hcnrj WWr-
trx,y ^3 ki:§ Preface to sa ood tmbie br Bobop Pcaeock on
'^ Seii^ULie the nJe of hidL,'' RpobBAed by kirn in tbe ^reat
Pop^ cr/rtrcrrenr at the cxmI o( xht 17th cseBtarr,} '^ diat my

^ zrodisk wtn iDTKiaUr and entireh' witliovt anr addition or

« « «

^' dimisTztM) crjcT^rred dovn to ua br traditioB : met it batb
^ be^% iri all tisaei and azes obserred, that matters cffatt, wmdk
^^ m^/re of Mi^, WA immediatehr eommitted to writingy preacntlT
*' d^^i^rrated into fabies, and were eormpted br die capricioas
*' rnalice or i^nyfranet of men. Nothing can exempt the tra-
^^ dition of the ChriiFtian religion from this fate, at least fitnn
'^ our reasonaJile suspicions of it^ bat the infallibility of that
*' Mrcu^y of men which conveys down this tradition. But the
^^ latt/;r can nerer 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
'^ (ft tradition. In the next place, tradition cannot certainly and
" invariably propose the belief of Christianity to all private per-
** mj\%, Yor, from whence shall this tradition be received ? Prom
'^ a PofMi, or a Council, or both, or from none of these, but only
*' Uie Univenal Church ? In etery one of these cases infinite
'^ difficultieii will occur, which will singly appear insuperable.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 427

€(
tt

((

As, Who is a true Pope, What his intentions in defining
were, Whether he acted canonically, In what sense he hath
defined ? What Councils, whether (Ecumenical, Patriarchal,
*^ or Provincial, may he securely trusted ? What are the neces-
" sartj conditions and qualifications of a general Council ? Whether
" all these conditions were ever observed in any Council ? What
^' these Councils are, what they have defined, what is the true
'^ sense and intention of their definitions ? From whom must we
'' learn the belief of the Universal Church, if Popes and Councils
be rejected ? From all Christians j or only from the clergy ? If
from the lattery whether the assent of every member of the clergy
be required P If not, how great apart may safely dissent from
the rest ? From whom the opinion of the major part is to be
received ? Whether from the writings of doctors or the teaching
of living 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 cuticles must be presupposed to it. For since all
*^ sects propose different traditions, and the truth of none of them
" is self-evident, it must first be known, which is the true Church,
" before it can be determined, which is the true tradition. Now,
the knowledge of the true Church can be obtained only two
ways, either from the truth of her doctrines, or from the
external notes of the true Church. If the first way, then it
must first be known, what are the true and genuine doctrines
of Christianity, the stedfast belief of which causeth 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

«
«
€<
ft
€€
«
«

«
ft

tt
tt
tt
tt
tt

tt
tt
tt
tt

428 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

€€
€<
€t

it
t€
t€

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/' ^

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 cleai*, he says, ^'1. Because it doth not
appear who those doctors are. 2. Because those doctors,

whosoever they are, do not always agree It doth not

'^ appear, who are those doctors whose consent is required [that
" is, as he explains, whether they are bishops only or all the
'' clergy] .... But neither would that suffice, if it were of faith.
" Somewhat else would be yet necessary, viz. to know certainly
" whether to give assent to the doctrine of these pastors and

' Whabton *8 Preface to " A treatise proving Scripture to be the rule of fiuth,
writ by Reginald Peacock, Bishop of Chichester, before the Reformation, about
the year 1450." Lond. 1688. 4to.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 429

€<
tt
it
€(

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
" almost 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-
" sentedi 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

tt
tt

430 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

" from the Europefins about the celebration of Haster. Id t
" third age, all the Africans, and many of the Asiatics, tn
" the rest about the rebaptization of heretics. In the foui
" age, the followers of Theophilui, Epiphanius, and St. Hien>i
" from the favourers ofOrigenabout his condemnation," &c.S
" That the coDsent of doctors, even when it can be had, is mo
" difficult to be known than that we can by the help of it atta

" to the knowledge of the truth This consent, if it could

" had, is not so manifest and obvious as a rule of faith oug
" necesBarily to be, which by the confession of all must be cict
" evident, and easy to be applied. This Duvali adsigna for 'i
" essential condition of a rule of faith,' and acknowledgeth, th
" ' if a rule obscurely proposeth the mysteries of faith, it wou
" thereby become no rule.' And for this reason oar adversarii
" so much exaggerate the obscurity of Scripture, that they mi
" thereby show, it could not be given by God for a rule of fait]
'* To which end Gr. a Valentia layeth down this axiom, which h
" afterwards applicth to the Scripture, ' The sentence of thi
" authority which is to judge of all matters of iaith ought to b
" 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 man;
" others. If, therefore, I shall show, that the consent of pastor
" about mattera of belief is so obscure and difficult to be known
" that even the moat learned, much more illiterate, men cannoi
" avoid error in searching it out, I shall thereby prove, that il
" 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 knowlcc^e 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 controveraies. . . , We proceed to the
" third reason, which eonsisteth in this, TTiai some <^inions are

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 431

«
«

often divulged in the Church as revealed by God and approved
by the Churchy and are everywhere taught, which at last are found
out and knoum 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 ex-
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.'' ^

He 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 ;"^ on each of which points he offers some valuable obser-
vations which I would commend to the notice of the reader.*

* Plicetts's Incur. Soept. of Church of Kome, oc 20, 21, 22.
2 lb. c. 24. » lb. cc 24—27.

«
it

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 some court of appeal by which the differences
dividing the several parties of the Christian world from one
another could be decided, have fancied, like the Tractators, that
they could find such an arbitrator in the consent of the Fathers
of the first few centuries. Such seems to have been the notion
of the 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 ,^ a consumma-
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
respect 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

* Sec Cabsaxdbi Consultatio, prope finem.

' " Eo devenenmt [i. e. G. Calixtus, Conr. Homeius et Christ. Dreierus], ut
ScriptursB SacrsB oonsensum Ecclesise aut Patrrnn, pnesertim quinque prioram
ssBcalomniy adjiingerent, contenderentque in rebus dubiis oonsensum ilium oeu
veritatis regulam amplectendimi, et quidquid istx) consensu niteretur, hoc solum
creditu ad salutem esse necessarium, nee adeo fundamentales errores exprobrari
illis posse, qui crederent quse cum isto Patrum consensu oonvenirent. Hoc
nimirum illud ipsum erat, quod Vincentium Lerinensem docuisse antea observm-
vimus, quern et ducem hie te aeqm ipaimet profitehantwr, BlJOD£l Isag. ad
Theolog. lib. ii. c. 3. vol. i. p. 511. See also Wa^lch. Biblioth. vol. ii. pp. 4d8
et seq.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 488

a right to our implicit /at'M 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 Churchy viz.^
those whose writings remain to us^ have been placed before us
by a party in the Churchy 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 coming 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. r p

434 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

SECTION XI. — MR. NEWMAN's ABANDONMENT OF THE THEORY OF
CATHOLIC CONSENT AND THE CANON OF VINCENTIU8.

Before bringing this chapter to a close in this second edition
of the present work, it becomes almost necessary to notice the
very remark&ble change that has taken place in Mr. Newman's
views since the former edition was published. 1 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 ipiis fatuus by which that party are
endeavouring to guide their steps.

In 1845 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

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 435

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 Churqh 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 Yincentius 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-

F F 2

€€
tt
((
((

€t
tt

436 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

€C

€C
€t
€€

€€

<C
ft
t<
t€

ness of the Catholic doctrine conceiiiing 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 doc-
'^ 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 SabeUian, 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
as 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 Uttle room for ante-
cedent probabilities as for the argument from intimations in
^ the Quod semper, quod 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.

(C
€(

(f
€<

((
fC

€t

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 437

it
«

€<
€<
<€

Now^ let us look at the leading facts of the case, in appeal-
ing to which I must notJ[)e supposed to he ascribing any heresy
to the holy men whose words have not always been suflSciently
^' 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 coiu-se we believe that they imply it,
*' or rather intend it. Grod 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-Nicenc 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 ' Homoiision,' 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. Hippolytus 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 the^e 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*

cc
<i
<(
<c
<t
<t

438 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

" mind us of the Athanasian Creed. If we limit our views of
" the teaching«f the Fathers by what they expressly state^ St.
" Ignatius may be considered as a Fatripassian, St. Justin
'' arianizes^ and St. Hippolytus is a Fhotinian.

" Again, there are three great doctrinal writers of the Ante-
" Nicene centuries, TertuUian, 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 a£Srms either the numerical Unity or the
'^ Coequality of the Three Fersons ; 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, ^c, 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. 8. § 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. 8. 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

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 489

(t
it

very unfavourably for the application of the rule of Vincen-
tius?'^ (Newman's Essay on Development, p|). 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. 8.) [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.'' (lb. p. 16.)
And after other observations of a similar kind, (mixed with inti-
mations 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 IS HARDLY AVAILABLE NOW OR EFFECTIVE OF ANT 8ATIS-
" FACTORY RESULT. ThE SOLUTION IT OFFERS IS AS DIFFICULT
" AS THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM." (lb. p. 24.)

Such is the complete renunciation of the principle upon

i€
i(
ii
<(
ii
<i

440 PATRX8TICAL TRADITION

which it might fairly be said that the whole Tractarian system
is grounded^ by ttie prime author and ^founder of that system.
Notwithstanding all the boastful confidence with which the rule
ofVincentiuswas put forward as the sure method for discovering
the truths 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.)

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 441

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 tmths 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 wiU 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

442 PATBISTICAL 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 temporaij, 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 Umbs, 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 suspense 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 he 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

t€

it
«

€€
€C
(t
€€
€€
€C
t(
t€

€C
€€
€€
iC

it
n
i<

€<
ti
((
it
ti
((
i(
i€
t(
t(

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 443

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 diflSculty 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,^ 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 Scriptwre 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 Efliay on Devel. p. 126.

«
ft
ft

t<
ft

444 PATBISTICAL 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 botU 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 '' priesthood" are exalted to a
place not belonging to them, and the ministry of service is
turned into a ministry of lordly government. 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. Hodgrson, Goiigh Square, Fleet Street.

J ^

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "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"

See other formats