i ! ΠῚ ι | ΤΠ itt ΡΜ ; ἀτγε:: tre ἢ , Π ι : Π ti ' ξ tenet A spree δ : } pitty ' ᾿ : ; εἰ ᾿ ΗΠ δ 4 Fa Ε + ; H ἱ : | 5: ϊ : [2 Π ' ὰ ε ; 5 £ > 1 - : i j ; ‘ e ; ; . + i ; ᾿ mil ι i Η ! Ε | ι ἪΠ ’ | titi i ‘i εἰ ; i itl ΗΠ’ ' ! ' i} ili Ι iif ; i i i ; i : ' i Ι ! if i i i i i ‘ tit i i i ἪΠ iti Ἢ] ΠΙΠΤΠΠΉΗΙ i i i i’ PRESENTED BY THE Church of England Book Sortety, 11, ADAM STREET, LONDON. FOUNDED 1880. Greasurer. Frank A. Bevan, Esq. Secretarp. Joun SHRIMPTON, Esq. . ( “ εὖ ᾿ ΄ ‘ Ν Υ̓ ᾿ i Ξ ; ι δ | , τω J , ὃ ‘ τὴν; δι Ν τ Υ % . ᾿ . ᾶ, δι" ‘ ‘ os ᾽ ~ le : ᾿ i. 4 i ‘ ᾿ ι 7 ‘ 4 : a ; , : a 7 P F ν : ᾿ ᾿ Δ . : ) - Sate = ὧν i . Ns 5 . 7 ᾿ : A a : ’ ale 2 ἔ : ! “ e- ‘. é τ sal - 7 Φ "2 ἢ r ᾿ " ἘΣ Cpe ' 3 ᾿ 4 ᾿ ΓΝ ὶ Ag { . αι ἐν ; ᾿ R { ιν iz A ‘ 4f é ; an ins Ἢ ; a, < | ἐγ: | Ἢ ἐς" δ", ᾿ ᾿ ἱ | Ἷ © Ἀ a : ; =” ti 7 A ῇ , ἱ am, ὲ 7 Ἢ nf ss. ‘ ( ' f » A J , > J 8 - a nee I Ἶ 4 ¥ \ Ξ [ ; 5 2 A = 2o > 2 ws F j % > 4 . > ὺ a ἦν ἢ Ἵ ᾿ ἣ με" Ὶ 1 ἂν ὧν ᾿ - ; ii 8 ᾿ ‘ os a” oe ta ᾿ Poy 7 ͵ Β iv I ΕΣ ἂν ® @ δ᾿ be *. ᾿ = ‘ . 1 ὰ 4 ‘ 7 Ἵ : ie “ τ ‘ a 8 8 . Ἶ ᾿ 7 hs sil ; a mtg , < ' ze ᾿ τ᾿ Ἷ ἵ . ‘ 7 an - a THE Pek VEN E.R GLE ΟΕ _ FAITH AND PRACTICE. Heretici, quum ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum, . . . quia varie sint dicte, et quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciant Traditionem. Non enim per litteras traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem.—IRENZUS. Φανερὰ ἔκπτωσις πίστεως καὶ ὑπερηφανίας κατηγορία, ἢ ἀθετεῖν τι τῶν γεγραμμένων, ἢ ἐπεισάγειν τῶν μὴ γεγραμμένων. --- Basi, Αὐτάρκεις εἰσιν αἱ ἅγιαι καὶ θεόπνευστοι γραφαὶ πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπαγγελίαν.--- ATHANASIUS, I see not how you differ from that opinion which is THE GROUND OF ALL Pa- PISTRY, that is, that all things necessary unto salvation are not EXPRESSED in the Scriptures ... There is nothing necessary to eternal life which is not both com- manded and expressed in the Scripture. I count it expressed, when it is either in manifest words contained in Scripture, or thereof gathered by necessary collection. —ARCHBISHOP WHITGIFT. We of the Church of England affirm, that the Scriptures contain a COMPLETE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE, and we reject every doctrine and precept as essential to salvation, or to be obeyed as divine, which is not supported by their authority—BisHorp ToMLINE. ν. 3 | DIVINE RUE FAITH AND PRACTICE; OR, A DEFENCE OF THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE THAT HOLY SCRIPTURE HAS BEEN, SINCE THE TIMES OF THE APOSTLES, THE SOLE DIVINE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE TO THE CHURCH: AGAINST THE DANGEROUS ERRORS OF THE AUTHORS OF THE TRACTS FOR THE TIMES AND THE ROMANISTS, AS, PARTICULARLY, THAT THE RULE OF FAITH 15 “MADE UP OF SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION TOGETHER; ETC. IN WHICH ALSO THE DOCTRINES OF The Apustolical Succession, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, Kc. ARE FULLY DISCUSSED. By WILLIAM GOODE, M.A., F.S.A., OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE; RECTOR OF ALLHALLOWS THE GREAT AND LESS, LONDON. IN THREE VOLUMES. VOL.. EE. SECOND EDITION, REVISED AND ENLARGED. LONDON : HATCHARD & CO., 187, PICCADILLY. —_— 1853. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2010 with funding from University of Toronto https://archive.org/details/divineruleoffait03good TABLE OF CONTENTS TO] VOL. EEF. PAGE CHAPTER X. THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK 1—317 Principal Contents. Section I. Preliminary remarks ............ SAMO SOO ae oan agers ic ΞΕΙΣ Sane 1—8 SUAMELOLL TICCESSALY wacscncassscecsuavapdeccesaacesevescddccseustscnacdscseadsssceuenheus i Patristical use of the word’ Tradition? .cc.ccc.ccccccsscacuccscecosccssscccass 2—6 General GHSCrVaAtiOUS=..ccsccotsceccescesscavecscocevncceacteveecsede@ucusndssnevevence 6—8 Section II. On the Tractators’ doctrine of Catholic Consent being a divine in- formant, supplementary to, and interpretative of, Scripture...... 8—19 General TEMANKS |. casctvesdan-cdcssedewccncctesduchbescutsacbedvchuavetsaddscacyweust 8—1i1 Testimony of, Juste Martyr (fl 2s :140,)) .ccsevcseusersevesvvwsvoostevedscsevecceusccesesens 11, 12 OTTO (er te, As) ses waueneusvesceswesudsdactoucscceusweoveusensadeseancuenstais 12, 18 Jerome (fl. a. 378.) ..... deenceavess eroelos 14 PATI EIST (Horde hoOn)) «uveeenseacestnnte bebe aesaceersavercenc See a 14 WVidOLOMIS TEStIMONIESscuscvsrsesevscehacs«sseecdscvapeccveasscncrscnstearseddevs 15—19 Section ITI. Whether Scripture is the sole and complete Rule of faith and Judge of controversies. .... πε τῆν Ὁ ἢ ὙΌΣ Oa mrvaleretetsiatate me ΣῈ πο sane sare 19--211 Testimony of ΠΥ ΠΗ ΕΠ (6 PRLS) caw naaswatesassussuvahssicaessnesucsntnncadasasscaccsssvesee Polycarp (fl. a. 108.)........... - Justin Martyr (fl. a. 140.) .. Treneens (f'd. 1672): «νους εν νντονοιι Asterius Urbanus (fl. a. 188.) .... ate a Wertallian (fl. 25192) ~ sexocccansvsticouncsvwexesstuvalacscsescsevenducessan cue lenient of Alexandria:(fl:-a: 1O2:)\cascsietssyissectssissesncactuevecrvest Hippolytus the Martyr (fl. ἃ. 220.) ...... ΣΕ a; 2000) vases οὐνονοσοιεννουτενεν Dionysius of Alexandria (fl. a. 247.) Sal TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE Cyprian (fl. 8. 248.) c.csccececscssesesesecencscesensecssecssensnesesesenenes 60—67 Lactantius (fl. 4. 303.) ....-.2sees00e 67 Eusebius of Cesarea (fl. a. 315.) Kc ἘΞ 67—69 The Council of Nice, or, Nicwa (8. 325.)........cscecccsconcsecsessess 69—100 Athanasius (fl. &. 326.)........ssses000 100—110 Cyril of Jerusalem (fl. a. 350) ..... oa 110—114 Hilary: of Poictiers (Gia. B54.) oo osassaaccontssvrisscssoudussousenusesus 114—120 Epiphantus (fia; N68.) .ccocctencsouveceracsesssnconussncussusatenscract cece 120—126 Optatos (fa. BGS) Coenscosdenucanauadasenessvonserescnessseesnccnesesecunese 126—128 Basil of Cesarea (fl. a. 370.) ........ Bene et croc es eee te 128—140 Gregory Οἱ ΝΎΒΕΒ [{{| 2. 10.) secsosenncsunspeucessressscasewovasdescedvess 140—147 Ephrem Syrus (fl. a. 370.) .........6. sorsccentcconse orc 147 Ambrose (fi. a. 374.) ........200. τς ΞΕ Ύ ΤΕΣ ΡῈ ξοίτθες. 148—150 DELOME (Ho. 518. )escancc-nr--scapsea-uosan Senaeeeseanweaneaseae 150—154 Theophilus of Alexandria (fl. 8. 385.)........c-sssecescsecseceecereee 154—156 Rufinus (fi. a. 390.) . ἘΞ - 157 Augustine (fl. a. 396.) . easter x .... 157—171 (Chrysostems {Π 8. S90.) sececcecccurvee-senecdssaeensn anes sues πα ΞΕ ΒΕ ΠΕ ΕΙΣ 172—181 Cyril of Alexandria (Η- 6. 4150}. recececavaneseuscancapsersesasusanexuouce 181—187 Isidore of Pelusium (fi. a. 412.)..... τες 187 ‘Theodoret (Hs. 2-425.) <c-sncsvconeutensosaenave ἘΞ 5: 5 5:1.5:- 5:55 187—194 Vincentius of Lirins (fl. a. 434) .........0008 seeeeeeres 194—207 Salvian (fl. a. 440.) .....ssccsseseeeeeee -- SOSPER τὸ 207 Prosper (il. 5: 444.) enone ossnauaseesasncean ἘΞ .... 207, 208 Cosmas Indicopleustes (fl. a. 635.) .......... spcceecot 208 Gregory: (Ὁ 5: 000.) eseenesnnes= ney steele eens temsec nace n-eseenesereesaaes 208—211 SEcTIon IV. Whether Scripture is the sole Divine Rule of practice....... o--+-e. 211—219 Some of the Fathers distinctly advocate the view that, in all points, Holy Scripture is the sole Divine Rule of practice, as— Gy Drisin (fl:'n, DAS 1500 10 oavcuccosanenssnsceecradues eaneerods 212 Firmilian of Cesarea (fl. a 233.)........ 212, 213 Socrates the historian (fl. 2. 439.) ........ccssesccssesesccscecccesenes 213 Language of Gregory of Nyssa observable in this respect......... 214 Of those who appear in some parts of their writings to take the opposite view, some have elsewhere so modified their testimony as to leave it upon the whole but little different to all practical purposes from that of the former, as— WErome (ΙΕ ΠΝ ἐς Ὁ) τ 5 ον one cicerapendt<asassaateeeeteeweasasea 214, 215 Augustine (fl. a. 396.) 215—217 Were the testimony of these Fathers different from what it is, our opponents, both Romanists and Tractators, could not con- sistently maintain, that such (supposed) Apostolical traditions are obligatory on the Church, because they do not themselves adopr them: } 5125 -ccedvscnasakeecessdenveteesausBerspeoe Ganda τ ρτ προς 217—219 SEcTION V. Whether Scripture is sufficiently clear to teach the faith, and how its meaning is best ascertained... .............0eseecces ὌΠ. 219-202 Testimony of Justin Martyr (fl. a. 140.) Treviass (8a. 1672) \o-<souseancastrasupivavancscca-wasesspheroic eer eae Theophilus of Antioch (fl. a. 168.) . se cates Terballian (A/a, 105) sccvacsasseonccenvesnsenscet¥ecvesecesteaeoeeieanenee Clement of Alexandria (fl. ἃ. 192.) ......cssssssssssccescssascacsseees 229—232 Origen ἡ {ΠῚ τς ἢ ΒΚ eae Cyprian (fl. a. 248.) TABLE OF CONTENTS. vil PAGE ie yetcane (Η- HAI), i cecccasposasacuccacsacevseseubacnccccusensnatdwonenses 237 Gregory of Neocesarea (fl. a. 254.) ..... ee 238 Lactantius (fl. a. 303.) ....cecsessssecssessoes ee -..» 238, 239 Athanasius (fl. a. S2G.)...cccccccsesecoagsssasccscccrasscsseesecnsesvescrsoss 239—243 RAE προ (flat hats te Me), cael τς aahd ‘sue sucbssacssutavavsasesseeuses-s> este 243, 244 Cyril of Jerusalem (fi. a. 350.) ... -- .... 244, 245 EitiarysOt EOICHOrs (4 8: ΘΕΜΕΣ \ccscccsosesscsousecsuco-doccsccnsccsccnace 245—251 ἘΗΡΗ ΠΡ (11208 GUS) os aoussscnasesenevapsurebnadesaaccarcacessetrs=c ore sep 251—255 Basil of Caesarea (fl. a. 370.) .... ..... 255—258 Gregory of Nyssa (fl. a. 370.)... fe sess, 208, 259 Ephrem Syrus (fl. &. 370.) ......cccssscsscccescceesees .... 259—261 Macarius of Egypt (8. ἃ. 378.) ..scccccsccoscsssacccccnncssssccdacnsecens 261 ὡς πτι TEI EL etal) Στ, pas wansensUuer cctauneesevescpaxwonanntenseeeas ces 261—264 Jerome (fl. a. 378.) ΠΥ τα .... 264, 265 Theophilus of Alexandria (fl. 8. 385.)...cccsesesececerssseesceeersers 265—267 pee RAGA MIE πὶ ἘΡ5 60.) seen muss aWeee voncansenaadeuaedceaaeatiarrsnnsrsneaean 267—273 Chrysostom (fl. 8. 398.) ........ἁἀὁ.ο. ....ὄ 274—281 Cyril of Alexandria (fl. a. 412.)... ses) 281—283 Isidore of Pelusium (fl. a. 412.)... .... 283—285 Theodoret (fl. 2.423.) ....cresssocessoee ἜΣ 285—290 Fulgentius of Ruspa (fl. a. 507.) ... 290, 291 GRRE POR) (lt Be 90>) i tancemnnanensansnvexnesanensaauabins waerSaesnenenecyr es 291, 292 SeEcTION VI. Whether Patristical Tradition is the ground upon which our belief in the inspiration of Scripture must be founded.................... 292-812 Testimony of PUINESH BEAL ny (dl its SACP) aovanssvesscuss>rodadaanaasaasaecssastewadess sie 293—297 Theophilus of Antiogh {{Π|: 6. 168.) ......ccsnccsnacoeasecsassconsesaes 297, 298 Patian. (fl. a. 172.) ..srecsesseoee Weboanuatonn ncaa ease 298, 299 SCTEANENLTETE (tise AGA.) avacnunssonsterdssccucesasenatecrassuasncsassanteerane 299, 300 Clement of Alexandria (fl. &. 192.) ......csesseseesncsseeesees «++» 300—302 Origen (fl. a. 230.) cvecsescsesesescovscsosses 302—304 Lactantius (fl. 8. 303.) .....cceeeceeeees 304, 305 Eusebius of Cesarea (fl, a. 315.) .. Ho Tae 305 inisey Of ῬΟΙΟΠΙΘΤΉ (Hs ὅς GUL.) ccncnccasscucsuscaqnecsancesccpssescrosens ‘306, 307 COTE τι πε τιν {Ὁ κοι το onncesnasens essen penhuesihsaeXcadeus'ddvoataysaiseb cans 307—311 Chrysostom (fl. a. 398.) ....... aoceccconseeerenenevsccnaqecesssccocaccencce 311—312 ; Section VII. TREE NTU BT cs oo ran πὸ τ πος ον eel Se se cces ee 912. -Θ17 CHAPTER XI. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND HER PRINCI- PAL DIVINES ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK ,............. d18—5d24 Principal Contents. ΒΕ ΠΕ ΠΕΣ VOMMAREA The ἀν Res oie σον τ ela’ ne SR tape Sn ,e¥<f, ds 9.9 Testimony of The Church of England (speaking in her authorized docu- BADIRES) a tussles daepussiaeasdasabensestedeinmvas sus coua’s dentyss'cscubuaacehocneas 323—364 PASO κεν ΠΤ - 364—379 MUOURIGD 4. cxstsdvancooccdsouts -sccdedesusenssssaxssddivectigvanesarabeseneVtxonec’ 379—392 Bishop Morton ... ἘΣ 392-- “907 ΤΟΙ ELALL “sagnsavenesuddaravceyseataer Ole jauavenes vatgeeme soscecessccgeereoe BOT —402 Vill TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE Archbishop Laud ...ccccesseeseeceeeseeeeaceeeeceneeeceeeneessaueesenenscanes 402—413 JACKSON ....sececcecssceccccrersecsceecsscecenscsecscesescuecacs ... 413—434 Archbishop Usher ....ssccsescssceseeeeeeeeeesseeenees os. 434—446 Bishop Jeremy Taylor 446—471 Bishop Stillingfleet ......... 471—491 Bishop Patrick ......ssscecceeseseeeeseeeeeeewes 491—502 WAtCrland 2... c..cccnccasccossnsascasscccsocencesses +e. 502—512 Bishop Var Mildert ...sccccseeececceeereeceeceesesneeeseeeceeeeeeerseeens 513--521 Remarks on the preceding extracts.........-......-...0-- «-e. O21, 522 Concluding remarks. ... 2... 622+ ῆΨἿἔΤὀ sees ee cee ee ee eee te ee eee ee 522—524. CHAPTER XII. GENERAL REMARKS ON THE WHOLE SUBJECT..............-- .. 525—545 Principal Contents. The way in which the proofs, given in the preceding chapters, of the groundlessness of the Tractarian system of “ Church-Tradition” and “ Catholic Consent” have been met ............- isjo(ee sicepaeiee| LOLA The erroneous views which appear to have led the minds of the i tators towards the system they have adopted .................. 529—538 The dangerous results which flow from the Tractarian doctrine on the Rule of faith, beyond the errors more immediately involved in it... 538—545 ADDENDA AND ERRATA...... συ cise orotate Sze Uae 546—548 INDEX OF WORKS OPTED: aic:cers τε os ἐς soie ete.) ees ah iter ν᾿ τ INDEX OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE CITED ............00cceee2++22 9] “001 INDEX/OF MATEERS DISCUSSED τος τ τ τοὶ « osiieeieieistere esters «2+. 565—691 THE oe DIVINE RULE &ec. &e. CHAPTER X. THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. SECT. I.—PRELIMINARY REMARKS. In proceeding to review the sentiments of the Fathers on the subject of this work, I would offer, in the first place, a few general remarks, that may tend to assist the reader in forming a right judgment of them. It is always difficult to give, by a few brief extracts, any correct notion of the full spirit and force ofa writer’s testimony to a point like that before us, in which his views are very much shown by the general tone of his remarks, and the whole course of his arguments. And it is still more difficult in the present case, from the misinterpretation to which the works of the Fathers have been subjected from the Romanists and our opponents. . Before I proceed further, therefore, I would caution the reader against allowing himself to be misled by sentences taken apart from their context, or phrases used in common by the Fathers and our opponents, but with a different meaning. For instance, it is easy to find, in the works of the Τ᾽." as in those of Protestant authors, an appeal to the writers,that VOL. {II. B 2 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS preceded them, in confirmation of the orthodoxy of the doctrine they are inculcating. And these appeals are sometimes most incorrectly cited as proofs of their having maintained the pseudo-catholie notion that the Fathers are the authorized inter- preters of Scripture, and Patristical Tradition a practically infallible informant ; whereas it will almost invariably be found, when such passages are examined, that the doctrine has been placed altogether upon the foundation of Scripture-testimony, and the appeal to preceding writers in confirmation of it, made only with the view of showing, that such an exposition of Scripture was no novelty, but not as if the testimony of a few ecclesiastical writers could be taken as an infallible expounder of God’s word, or per se necessary to the right interpretation of it, on account of its imperfection and obscurity. Another misinterpretation to which the writings of the Fathers have been subjected, (to which we have already al- luded},) and which has been more useful than any other to the pseudo-catholic cause, is the perversion of the meaning of the word “Tradition,” as used by the Fathers. The writings of the Romanists in particular abound with citations from the Fathers in which the whole force of the passage depends upon the meaning of this word, and where an examination of the context shows, that it is Scripture to which the writer is re- ferring; and thus, not unfrequently, the quotation which appears the most forcible to a superficial reader, turns out to be not only no evidence of what it is cited to prove, but an evidence of precisely the contrary. And, as we have already seen, our opponents have followed them in this, so that Mr. Newman has actually quoted a passage of Athanasius in defence of his views, which is diametrically opposed to them. In the former part of this work, I have given several passages in proof of what we are here maintaining, namely, that the word “ Tra- dition” is frequently used in the Fathers in reference to Scrip- ture.’ But as the point is of considerable importance, I will here add some further proofs of it, in order to show its constant use by them in this sense. 1 See vol. i. pp. 8, 9; 68, 69; 72—74. 2 Vol. i. pp. 72, 73. 3 See vol. i. pp. 8, 9; 68, 69; 72—74. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 3 Thus, Origen says,—“ If any arrogant person chooses to * slight or despise the declarations of the Apostles, let him look “to it himself. I for my part think it right to cleave close, * as to God and our Lord Jesus Christ, so also to his Apostles, “and to inform myself from the Divine Scriptures according to “ their own tradition.” + Thus, also, Pope Felix III. says, “ Observe, disciples of “ Christ and my children, the traditions which ye have received “ from the Divine Scriptures.’’* So Gregory Nyssen (already quoted) says, “It is believed. ... from the tradition of the Scriptures.?? So Cyril of Jerusalem says, ‘‘ Hold the traditions which ye now receive,”’* where, as his learned editor, Milles, observes, the word traditions refers to what he had just set before his hearers from the Scriptures. So Cyprian (already quoted) frequently speaks of our Lord’s words recorded in the Gospels, under the name of “the Do- minical tradition ;”° and elsewhere, on the question of the rebaptization of heretics, exhorts (in similar language to the passage above quoted from him) a return to “ the Evangelical testimony and the Avpostolical tradition,’® meaning the Gospels of the Evangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles.’ 1 «Si quis vero arrogantia tumidus Apostolica dicta contemnit aut spernit, ipse viderit. Mihi autem, sicut Deo et Domino nostro Jesu Christo, ita et Apostolis ejus adhzrere bonum est, et ex Divinis Scripturis secundum ipsorum traditionem intelligentiam capere.” Οπτα. In Levit. hom. 7. § 4. Op. ed. Ben. tom. ii. p. 224. 2 φυλάξατε, Χριστοῦ μαθηταὶ, ἐμοῦ δὲ viol, τὰς παραδόσεις, ἃς παρελάβετε ἀπὸ τῶν θείων γραφῶν. ἘΈΙΙΧ III. Papa (fi. 483) in Epist. ad Petrum Fullonem Ep. Antioch. sub fin.; Concil. ed. Labb. et Cossart. Paris. 1671. tom. iv. col. 1069. (ed. Hardouin. ii. 825.) 3 Πεπίστευται ἔκ τε τῆς κοινῆς ὑπολήψεως, καὶ ἐκ τῆς τῶν γραφῶν παραδόσεως. Grea. Nyss. De anim. et resurr. Op. ed. Paris. 1615. tom. ii. p. 644. 4 Kparetre τὰς παραδόσεις, ἃς νῦν παραλαμβάνετε. CyRILL. Hreros. Catech. 5. § 8. Op. ed. Milles. Oxon. 1703. p. 76. See the note of Milles in loc. 5 « Traditio Dominica.” Cyprian. Ep. ad Cecil. Ep. 63. Op. ed. Fell. Oxon. 1782. P. 2. p. 148. 6 « Quare si rejectis humane contentionis erroribus, ad Evangelicam aucto- ritatem atque ad Apostolicam traditionem sincera et religiosa fide revertamur, intelligemus,” ὅθ. CyprRIAN. Ep. ad Jubaianum, circa med. Ep. 73. Op. ead. ed. P. 2. p. 205. 7 For the use of the word tradition by the Fathers, see also Tren. Adv. heer. B 2 4 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS The description of the New Testament, occurring in these words of Cyprian, was one in very common use with the Fathers. Thus, we find the Bible frequently referred to under the title, “ The Law, the Prophets, the Evangelists, and the Apostles,” as by the Author of the Epistle to Diognetus,! Hippolytus,? Gre- gory of Neocesarea,? Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius,’ Salvian,® and Hilary.7 So the New Testament is referred to by Origen,® and Ephrem Syrus,® as “the Evangelical and Apostolical say- ings,’ by Hilary as “the Evangelical and Apostolical insti- tutes,”!° and similarly by Gregory of Neoczsarea ;!! just as in the passages formerly referred to it is called “the Evangelical and Apostolical traditions.”!2 The Gospels are referred to lib. iii. c. 21. ed. Mass. p. 216. (ce. 25. p. 256. ed. Grab.) Crem. ALEX. Strom. pp- 806 and 896. ed. Potter. (Paris. 1641, or Col. 1688. pp. 679 and 762); CyRIxu. ALEX. De recta fide ad Theodos. tom. v. P. 2. p. 15. ed. Aubert.; ORIGEN. In Matth. tom. x. § 17. Op. ed. Ben. vol. iii. p. 462. 1 Anon. Epist. ad. Diogn. § 11. Int. Op. Just. Mart. ed. Ben. p. 240. 2 Τὸν νόμον, τοὺς προφήτας, τὴν τῶν εὐαγγελίων φωνὴν, τοὺς ἀποστόλους. Hippo. De Antichrist. ὃ 58. Op. ed. Fabric. vol. i. p. 28. 3 Grecor. Nroces. (THauMATURG.) In Annune. Serm. ii. Op. ed. Par. 1622. p- 19. 4 Οὐχ ἕτερον μὲν ἐν Νόμῳ καὶ Προφήταις, ἕτερον δὲ ἐν Εὐαγγελίοις καὶ ᾿Αποσ- τόλοις, ἀλλ᾽ ἕν ἐστι καὶ Td αὐτὸ Πνεῦμα ἅγίον τὸ ἐν Παλαιᾷ καὶ Καινῇ Διαθήκῃ τὰς θείας λαλῆσαν γραφάς. CYRILL. HreRos. Cat. 17. ὃ 3. Op. ed. Milles. Oxon. 1703. p. 243. 5 Οὐ μόνον ἐκ τῶν Ἐὐαγγελικῶν καὶ τῶν ᾿Αποστολικῶν. . . GAAG καὶ ἐκ Νόμου καὶ Προφητῶν. ἘΡΙΡΗ. Ady. her.; her. 31. ὃ 15. Op. tom. i. pp. 181, 2.--ΞὍτι Θεὸς εἷς ἡμῖν ἐν Néuw καὶ ἐν Προφήταις καὶ ἐν Εὐαγγελίοις καὶ ἐν ᾿Αποστόλοις, ἐν Παλαιᾷ καὶ Καινῇ Διαθήκῃ, κεκήρυκται. ID. ib. Exp. fid. Cath. § 18. Op. tom. i. p- 1101. δ « Legem, Prophetas, Evangelium et Apostolicas lectiones.” Sanyran. De Gubern. Dei.’ lib. iii. ed. Baluz. Paris. 1669. p. 45. 7“ Dilatis igitur . . . Evangelicis atque Apostolicis preconiis, omnis in- terim nobis de Lege et Prophetis adversus impios pugna 510.) Hi~ar. Prior. De Trin. lib. v. § 6. Op. ed. Ben. col. 858. 8 Τῶν εὐαγγελίων καὶ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν φωνῶν. ORIG. Contr. Cels. lib. iii. § 15. Op. ed. Ben. tom. i. p. 457. ® «Diem semper adventus Domini predictum Propheticis et Evangelicis atque Apostolicis vocibus contempleris.” Epur.Syr. De Penit. Op. ed. Rom. 1732 et seq. tom. iii. p. 599. 10 “ Evangelicis atque Apostolicis institutis.’ Har. Pict. De Trin. Lb. iv. § 1. Op. ed. Ben. col. 827. See also § 5. col. 829, and lib. vi. § 8. col. 882. Also Tract. in Psalm. § 23. col. 38. N“Oray ἀναγινώσκεται τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ἢ ἀποστολικὸν, μὴ προσχῆς TH βίβλῳ, κι 7.A. GREG, Neocms. (THAUMATURG.) In Annune. Serm. ii. p. 19. 12 See vol. i. pp. 72, 73. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 5 by Theophilus of Antioch and Cornelius as “the evangelical voice ;”! by Epiphanius as “the evangelical witness ;”*? by Theodoret as “ the evangelical declarations;” * by Gregory Nyssen as “the evangelical sayings ;”* “the evangelical teaching,” ὃ “the teaching of the gospel,’’® just as in the passage of Atha- nasius already referred to they are called “ the evangelical tradi- tion.””? And, in like manner, the Apostolical Epistles are referred to by Gregory of Neoczsarea, under the title of “ the Apostolical teaching.” And hence we may see the meaning of a passage in Epi- phanius, (which the Romanists have as usual misrepresented,) and add another example to the foregoing as to the use of the word “ Tradition.” Epiphanius, at the close of his work against heresies, having noticed many usages that were received in the Church, adds, ‘‘ But as it respects the other mysteries, namely “ concerning baptism and the more sacred mysteries, they “ are observed according as the tradition of the Gospel and the “ Apostles directs ; 5 where the reference is clearly to the New Testament, and an important testimony is afforded us as to the source whence Epiphanius considered our instructions for the celebration of the sacraments should be derived. These passages may serve to put us on our guard against the representations of the Romanists and our opponents, as they clearly show us, that the Fathers have been grievously mis- 1 Ἡ εὐαγγέλιος φωνὴ THEOPH. ANTIOCH. Ad Autol. lib. iii. § 18. Cum Op. Just. Marz. ed. Ben. 388. (ed. Col. 1686. p. 126.) ‘Sequentes evangeli- cam vocem dicentem, Beatos esse puros corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt.” CorNEL. Ep. ad Cypr. ap. Cypr. Epist. 49. ed. Fell. P. 2. p. 93. 2 EvayyeAucijs μαρτυρίας. EprpHan. Adv. her.; in her. 76. Op. tom. i. . 935. 3 ΕἘὐαγγελικῶν κηρυγμάτων. THEODORET. Her. Fab. lib. v. c. 22. Op. ed. Schulz. tom. iv. p. 452. 4 Ἐὐαγγελικῶν φωνῶν. GREG. Nyss. Procm. in Cant. Op. ed. 1615. tom. i. p- 471. 5 Τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς διδασκαλίας. ID. ib. p. 473. § Τῆς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου διδασκαλίας. Ip. De anim. et resurr. tom. ii. p. 639. 7 See vol. i. pp. 72, 73. 8 Ἡ ἀποστολικὴ διδασκαλία. GREGOR. NEoc#HS. (THAUMATURG.) In Annune. Serm. ii. Op. ed. 1622. p. 19. 9 Ta δὲ ἄλλα μυστήρια περὶ λουτροῦ καὶ τῶν ἔνδοθεν μυστηρίων, ws ἔχει ἣ παράδοσις τοῦ τε Εὐαγγελίου καὶ τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων, οὕτως ἐπιτελεῖται. EPIPH. Ady. her. in Expos. fid. cath. § 22. Op. tom. i. pp. 1105, 6. 6 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS quoted, and their meaning often altogether perverted. When the Fathers speak of “ the Apostolical Tradition,” or “the Tra- dition of the Apostles,” they are almost always referring to the Scriptures of the Apostles. And to this we may add, that when they speak of “ the Tradition of the Fathers,” they are sometimes referring to some- thing which those Fathers gathered from Scripture. For, thus speaks Basil; ““ That therefore which our fathers said, that also “ we say.... But it is not sufficient for us, that this is the tra- “ dition of the Fathers; for they also followed the mind of “ Scripture, taking their first principles from those testimonies “ which we just now placed before you from the-Scripture.””* And to this other instances might be added. In short the word ¢radition is often used, not to denote any- thing which has come down by successional delivery from the Apostles, but merely as equivalent to the teaching or doctrine of the persons referred to. Thus, Polycrates speaks of having observed Easter “according to the tradition of my relations,” where the word “tradition” is translated by Jerome by the word teaching or doctrines There are, indeed, few passages of the Fathers in which, considering the sense usually affixed by the moderns to the word “ traditions,”’ the meaning of παραδόσεις would not be more accurately conveyed by translating it doc- trines or instructions. I shall now, then, endeavour to show, more particularly, that on al] the five points in which we have summed up the views of our opponents,* the weight of Patristical testimony is mcom- parably in our favour. I say, the weight of Patristical testimony, as I make no pretensions to the consent of all the Fathers on 1 “Ὅπερ ἔλεγον τοίνυν of πατέρες ἡμῶν, καὶ ἡμεῖς λέγομεν . . . ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐ τοῦτο ἡμῖν ἐξαρκεῖ, ὅτι τῶν πατέρων ἣ παράδοσις" κἀκεῖνοι yap τῷ βουλήματι τῆς Γρα- φῆς ἠκολούθησαν, ἐκ τῶν μαρτυριῶν, ἃς μικρῷ πρόσθεν ὑμῖν ἐκ τῆς Γραφῆς παρε- θέμεθα, τὰς ἀρχὰς λαβόντες. Bastu. (25. De Sp. 8. ο. 7. Op. ed. Ben. tom. iii. Ρ. 15. 5 Κατὰ παράδοσιν τῶν συγγενῶν μου. Potycor, in ΕΤ5ΕΒ. Hist. Eccl. v. 24. or in Rouru. Relig. Sacr. vol. i. p. 371. (ed. 2a. 1845. vol. 2. p. 15.) 3 “Secundum doctrinam propinquorum meorum.” See RovutH. Reliq. Sacr. ib, 4 Which are as follows (as given vol. i. pp. 36, 37) :— 1. That consentient Patristical Tradition, or “ Catholic Consent,” is an unwritten ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 7 these or any other points. And I would remind the reader, that as to passages in any of those from whom we shall hereafter quote, in which, in other parts of their works, they have spoken strongly of the value of the testimony of those who preceded them, or the necessity of following the doctrine of “the Church,” those passages must be interpreted in conformity with the views clearly expressed in the passages we have cited. Such language depends for its meaning upon the principles of the writers, and is quite consistent with the maintenance of the Protestant view. All writers when engaged in controversy (and most of the Patristical writings that remain to us are of a controversial kind) justly avail themselves of the testimony of preceding writers in their favor; and every man holds, that in fundamental points, it is neces- sary to receive the doctrines maintained by what he considers to be “the Church.” But the question,—What testimony did they regard as having authority over the conscience ?—is one which cannot be determined by such appeals; and for their answer to this question we appeal to the extracts given from them in this chapter. And as to any (if there are any of them) that have not always spo- ken quite consistently with themselves upon the point, that very inconsistency shows, that our opponents’ view was not a received doctrine of the early Church; and at least nullifies any state- ments they may have made, adverse to us ; not to say, that when 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 ac- count of the defectiveness of Scripture, for that (1) Though it does not reveal to us any fundamental articles of faith or prac- tice not noticed in Scripture, Holy Scripture containing, that is, giving hints or notices of, all the fundamental articles of faith and practice, it is yet a necessary part of the divine Rule of faith and practice as the interpreter of Scripture, and as giving the full development of many points, some of which are fundamental, which are but imperfectly developed in Scripture, and (2) It is an important part of that Rule,as conveying to us various important divinely-revealed doctrines and rules not contained in Scripture. 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. 8 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS we recollect how the works of the Fathers have been exposed to corruption by those who denied the doctrine for which we con- tend, the only wonder is, that so many and such clear testi- monies remain on the subject in our favor. And as it respects the general character of their views on the subject, it is admitted by Mr. Newman himself, that while, upon the supposition of their holding the views he advocates, (which he takes it for granted they did,) it is difficult to see, why they should not have made “Tradition” a sufficient informant in matters of necessary faith, independent of Scripture, yet they did not do so :} a tolerably clear proof, that he has altogether misapprehended the mind of the Fathers. Nor, indeed, is it easy to see, why the early Church, ifit held the views of our opponents, should have been so careful and diligent as we find it to have been in multiplying the copies of the Scriptures, translating them into all languages, and circu- lating them as the Gospel of our salvation. The Divine Scrip- ture, Augustine tells us, was diffused far and wide by the various translations made of it, that it might become known to the nations to their salvation. SECT. II.—ON THE TRACTATORS’ DOCTRINE OF CATHOLIC CON- SENT BEING A DIVINE INFORMANT SUPPLEMENTARY TO AND INTERPRETATIVE OF SCRIPTURE. It is obvious that wherever so important a doctrine is held as that Scripture is but an obscure and imperfect informant even on the highest points of faith, and that our interpretation of it must be gathered from the consentient testimony of the whole Primitive Church as a practically infallible witness of the oral teaching of the Apostles, we may expect it to be brought forward in a very direct way, and to occupy a prominent place in the instructions of those who maintain it. If, then, the Fathers generally had held this doctrine, we should surely not ? NEwman’s Lect. on Rom. &e. pp. 342, 3. * “Tnnotesceret gentibus ad salutem.” Aveusr. De doctr. Christ. lib. ii. ¢. 5. Op. tom. iii. col. 21, ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 9 be left to gather it by inferences from passages only indirectly bearing upon it, but have had it distinctly placed before us as a necessary direction for our guidance. But it is undeniable, that the Fathers generally have given us no such direction. If they had, we should not have been sent to Vincent, a monk of Lerins, as the great authority for this doctrine, but to some earlier and more estimable writer ; though, by the way, even Vincent himself (as we shall show presently) is not answerable for all that our opponents have stretched his rule to mean. There are, indeed, (as we have already had occasion to observe,) appeals made by Irenzus, Tertullian and Origen, to the consent of the Apostolical Churches in favor of certain doctrines; and that consent they urge as a sufficient testimony to show that those doctrines were preached by the Apostles. How far such appeals support our opponents’ cause, we shall consider, when we come to review the statements of those authors under our next head, and hope to show, that they-are altogether adequate for that purpose. Moreover, it is evident, that some of those who lived near the times of the Apostles received the reports of individuals as suffi- cient testimony of the oral tradition of the Apostles on various points. Thus, for instance, we are referred by Irenzeus to such reports in proof of the apostolicity of the doctrine he advocated on the subject of the Millennium. And statements are made by others on other points, respecting the oral teaching of the Apostles, grounded upon similar testimony. But it was soon found, even at that early period, that a ready entrance was thus afforded into the Church to errors of all kinds. We have already shown, that even the orthodox Fathers were led into error by such reports. And the heretics frequently made them the foundation of their extravagances. It was on this account, indeed, chiefly, namely from the heretics pleading a private tradition of this kind in proof of the apostolicity of their errors, that the early Fathers appealed to the Tradition of the Aposto- lical Churches in support of the orthodox faith. The Fathers do not point to this Tradition as anything supplementary to Scripture, nor ever give the slightest intimation, that the Scrip- ture needs such Tradition as its interpreter, but, on the contrary, always refer to Scripture as manifestly and clearly teaching their 10 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS doctrine. They cite that Tradition only as an additional proof in favor of the orthodox faith in a few of the most elementary points, to those who pretended a “ Tradition” from the Apostles, coming to them through certain individuals, in favor of their errors; and who said (as Irenzus tells us), that without a knowledge of that Tradition, Scripture could not be rightly interpreted. So thought our opponents’ own witnesses Bishop Patrick! and Bishop Taylor. The words of the latter are so well worth the consideration of our opponents that I will here subjoin them. “ In the first ages of the Church, the Fathers disputing with “ heretics did oftentimes urge against them the constant and “ universal Tradition of the Church; and it was for these “ yeasons—l. Because the heretics denied the Scriptures .... «2. The heretics did rely upon this topic for advantage, and * would be tried by Tradition, as hoping because there were in “ several churches contrary customs, there might be differing “ doctrines, or they might plausibly be pretended; and there- * fore the Fathers had reason to urge Tradition, and to wrest it “from their hands who would fain have used it ill..... To “such as these there were but two ways of confutation ; one “ was, which they most insisted upon, that the Holy Scriptures “ were a perfect Rule of faith and manners, and that there was “NO NEED OF ANY OTHER TRADITION ; the other, that the tra- ““ ditions which they pretended were false ; and that the contrary “was the doctrine which all the Churches of God did preach “ always. Now thus far Tradition was useful to be pleaded ; “ that is, though the heretics would not admit the doctrine of “ Christianity as it was consigned in Scripture, yet they might “be convinced that this was the doctrine of Christianity, be- “ cause it was also preached by all bishops and confessed by all * churches.”” In the Catholic Church itself that doctrine which in one age had been, through such reports, attributed to the Apostles, I mean the millennial doctrine of Irenzeus and others, was in another spoken of as the offspring of ignorance and folly. 1 See his “ Discourse about Tradition.” ? Jer. Taytor’s Rule of Conse. ii, 3. 14. Works, (Heber’s ed.) xiii. 116. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. $y It is evident, then, that many at least of the Fathers, even if they chose to avail themselves of such reports where they were consonant with their own views, did not, in the abstract, regard such testimony as of any authority. Nor, indeed, do the Trac- tators themselves appear to contend for the authority of “ tradi- tions ” so derived. The only testimonies that could be adduced in support of the doctrine of our opponents, would be such as declared, that in all important points there was a universal consent among all the teachers of the Catholic Church, and appealed to such consent as a “ practically infallible” informant of the oral teaching of the Apostles. I shall now, then, proceed to point out some passages in various of the early Fathers showing, that the doctrine of the Tractators was not recognised by them. A more stringent proof of this will be found in the positive statements occurring under our next head as to the claims of Scripture, but it may be desirable first to give a few passages showing, that the notion of catholic consent being a divine informant supplementary to and interpretative of Scripture, and forming a necessary part of the Rule of faith even in the highest points, was altogether un- known to them.! Justin Martyr. (fl. a. 140.) Can we suppose, for instance, that Justin Martyr held such a view, who says, “ There are some, I admitted, of our com- “ munity (yévovs,) 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 commanded “ by Christ himself to be ruled by, not the doctrines of men, 1 The Tractarian Review, already quoted, of the first edition of this work, triumphs in the fact that so few citations are given under this head. The reply is obvious, namely, first, that it was unnecessary to give many, because the positive statements of the Fathers as to the claims of Scripture quoted in the fol- lowing sections are a better testimony on the subject ; and, secondly, that we cannot expect to find statements in the Fathers formally repudiating a course which they never thought of following. ἘΦ THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS “but those preached by the blessed Prophets and taught by dm? OricEN. (fl. a. 230.) Let us proceed to Origen. We have already noticed the Creed which he considered himself able to establish by the con- sent of the Apostolical Churches at that time.” So much, then, we will leave for the present undisputed. But does this em- brace all the vital articles of the faith? No; for Origen him- self was unorthodox as to some of the highest. This Creed, as it respects any of the questions now at issue in the Church, is practically useless. And as to anything beyond this, Origen not only makes no claim for the consent of the various Churches, but expressly speaks of it as open ground. And in his reply to Celsus he says, “Celsus remarks, that they [i. 6. the earliest ““ Christians] were all of one mind ; not observing im 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 complained, he says, that this arose “from many of the learned among the heathen “ being desirous of understanding the Christian 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.”* Clearly, then, Origen knew nothing of that traditive interpretation of Scripture, delivered by Catholic con- sent, which our opponents pretend to find sixteen centuries later. And as to the state of the Church in Origen’s own time, ' Εἰσί τινες, ὦ φίλοι, ἔλεγον, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡμετέρου γένους ὁμολογοῦντες αὐτὸν Χριστὸν εἶναι, ἄνθρωπον δὲ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γενόμενον ἀποφαινόμενοι" οἷς οὐ συντί- θεμαι, οὐδ᾽ ἂν πλεῖστοι ταὐτά μοι δοξάσαντες εἴποιεν" ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἀνθρωπείοις δι- δάγμασι κεκελεύσμεθα ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ πείθεσθαι, ἀλλὰ τοῖς διὰ τῶν μα- καρίων προφητῶν κηρυχθεῖσι καὶ δὲ αὐτοῦ διδαχθεῖσι. Just. Marr. Dial. cum Tryph. § 48. Op. ed. Ben. pp. 144, 5. (ed. Col. 1686. p. 267.) ? See vol. i. pp. 216 et seq. 3 See vol. i. pp. 294, 295. 4 See vol. i. pp. 294, 295. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 13 he himself tells us, ““ Many of those who profess to believe in “ Christ, disagree, not only in small points, and those of no “ moment, but also in important points, and those of the highest “ moment.”! And this difference of opinion existed among those who were in the Catholic Church ; for again he says,— “1 wish that those only who are without the Church were de- “ ceived ; 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 .... 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 understanding the truth, will necessarily, in his inquiries, fall in with many doc- “ trines opposed to one another, and will hear many professing “to know the truth, and different traditions respecting it.”* What then, I ask, would have been Origen’s opinion of the doc- trine of our opponents, that there was universal consent among all the teachers of the Catholic Church, in all the important doctrines of Christianity, for the first four or five centuries ? JEROME. (fl. a. 378.) Again, what is the testimony of Jerome? “ While,” saith he, “ the blood of Christ was yet but recently shed in Judea, it was “ὁ maintained that the Lord’s body was but an appearance,” ἕο. And after enumerating several cases of error, he points out, as other instances, that “ To the angel of Ephesus there is imputed “ the loss of love. In the angel of the Church of Pergamos the “ eating of things offered to idols, and the doctrine of the Ni- * colaitans, are blamed ;” &c.,? showing that he held, that there were many, even at that time, in the nominal Catholic Church, involved in serious error. And as to any notion that he could have maintained the doctrine of our opponents as to the truth being supported by the catholic consent of the writers of 1 See vol. i. p. 216. 2. See vol. i. p. 407. 5 See vol. i. pp. 406, 407. 14. ᾽ THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS the preceding ages, it is summarily overthrown by his language respecting the testimony of those writers on the great question that formed the subject of the Arian controversy. He admits fully, that their works contain erroneous statements ; and when asked how he accounts for it, he replies,—-“It may be that “ they merely erred, or wrote with another meaning, or their “ writings were gradually corrupted by unskilful copyists ; or “ certainly before that that meridian demon, Arius, arose in ““ Alexandria, they may have spoken some things innocently and “ incautiously, and that cannot escape the calumny of perverse “men.”! He, then, who wrote thus, could not have supposed that the Catholic Consent of these writers formed part of the Rule of faith. AvGusTINE. (fl. a. 396.) Let us pass on to Augustine. Having stated that to the Scriptures alone he had learned to give such honour as te sup- pose the writers of them certainly inerrable, he adds, respecting all other authors,—“ But others, however distinguished they “ may be for holiness and learning, I so read as not to think * anything true, because they thought it to be so, but because “ they are able to persuade me, either by those canonical au- “ thors, or by some probable reason, that it is agreeable to the “ truth.” Now these words are quite irreconcileable with the notion that Augustine supposed the consent of those writers formed part of the Rule of faith, and was a practically infal- lible informant of the oral Tradition of the Apostles. And, as we have already shown,’ we find the Fathers of the Nicene and subsequent ages frequently blaming earlier Fathers of the Catholic Church for unorthodox statements. Here, then, however strongly the Fathers may sometimes find it convenient to speak of the testimony of writers that preceded them, we have at least sufficient evidence, that no such doctrine as that of our opponents—that the Catholic Consent of all the teachers of the Primitive Church forms part of the Rule of faith—was maintained by the early Church. 1 See vol. i. p. 351. 2 See vol. i. p. 268. 3 Vol. i. pp. 265 et seq. See, also, p. 234. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 15 We are far, indeed, from denying, that the Fathers were in the habit of appealing to those who had preceded them in con- firmation of the correctness of their doctrines. Such appeals we ourselves make. Nay, some evidence of the kind might fairly be required by us for doctrines proposed to us as fundamental, not from any obscurity or insufficiency in the Scripture-proof, but from its being impossible to suppose that all who pre- ceded us were in error in fundamentals. But unless we can show real catholic consent, the testimony of a few witnesses on the subject is anything but infallible. Now such catholic consent the Fathers generally did not pretend to claim. Nor conse- quently did they put forward the Patristical testimonies to which they referred as any divine informant, or authoritative witness, or practically infallible record of the oral teaching of the Apostles. A remarkable passage in proof of this occurs in a fragment of a work called “the little Labyrinth,” generally attributed to Caius, and written in the early part of the third century, against the heresy of Artemon. In this passage, which we have given at length m a preceding page,’ it is said,—“ the heretics say, 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 was preserved until the times of Victor, who was * the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter ; but that from the “ time of his successor, Zephyrinus, 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 defence of the truth, and against “ the heresies of that time. . . . 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 ?” Now here (as we have already observed) 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 Divine Scriptures delivered a different doctrine, and secondly, because some of the earliest followers of the Apostles had left 1 See vol. i. pp. 225, 226. 16 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS writings in which the contrary was maintained. In a word, the preposterous claim to Catholic Consent, or the everybody-always- every-where-agreed-with-me argument, is left with the heretics, who, as we here see, could even ¢hen venture to make use of 16; and heresy is refuted first by Scripture, and then Antiquity 15 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. Further, that our opponents’ doctrine on this subject was no received doctrine of the Church, is evident from the account given us by Socrates! of the proceedings at the Council of Con- stantinople in 381. For there we find the person put forward by the orthodox party as their champion, advising them, as a matter of prudence, and an expedient method of dealing with the heretics, to appeal to the writings of the Fathers, and make them the Judge of the controversy in hand. And the way in which this proposition was received by Nectarius, the bishop of Constantinople, and the Emperor, shows that the notion, so far from being a received doctrine of the Church, had not before occurred to them. Moreover, when the appeal is made by the Fathers to those that preceded them, we find no claim made to the universal consent of all the teachers of the Catholic Church. The state- ments of the Fathers above quoted show us, how inconsistent and untenable such a claim would have been, when there is hardly a Father who does not, more or less, find fault with some of those who had preceded him, as involved in some error. Their appeal was made to those whom they considered most worthy of being followed. And if in the heat of controversy they may have sometimes used words that seem to have a wider scope, those words must be interpreted with a recollection of their own ad- missions elsewhere. Let us observe in what way Augustine introduces his reference to the Fathers in the Pelagian controversy. After having refuted the Pelagian errors by the testimony of Scripture, he pro- ceeds to say,— But, since they say, that their enemies have “ adopted our language from hatred to the truth, &c. . . . when 1 Socrar. Hist. Eccles. lib. vy. ο. 10. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 17 “ rather the Church of Christ, both of the West and the East, “ has been horror-struck at their profane and novel language ; “1 think it concerns us, not only to produce the testimony of “ the sacred canonical Scriptures against them, which we have “ already sufficiently done, but also to bring forward some testi- “ monies from the writings of the saints who before our time “have, with very great honour and renown, expounded those “ Scriptures ; not that the authority of any disputant is put by “ us on a level with the canonical] books, just as it cannot be, “ that the opinion of one catholic is better or more true than that “ of another catholic, but that those who think that such persons “ have some ground for what they say, may be admonished, how “ on these points, before the Pelagians introduced their new and “ foolish phrases, catholic prelates followed the divine deelara- “ tions, and may know that the true and antiently established “ catholic faith is defended by us against the new presumption “ and destructive error of the Pelagian heretics.”' And he then proceeds to quote Cyprian and others in defence of his doctrines. Now this language, as the reader will have observed, 15 altogether different from that of our opponents. In short, the mode of arguing adopted by the Fathers was like that of the Church of England. They said, The Scripture clearly affirms such and such a doctrine, therefore it is the or- thodox faith. But to those who denied the correctness of their interpretation of Scripture, they urged this argument, among others, to show that it was the true one, namely, that such and such catholic Fathers had maintained it, and therefore that it 1 « Sed quoniam dicunt, Inimicos suos dicta nostra in veritatis odium susce- pisse, &. .... cum potius eorum profanas vocum novitates Ecclesia Christi et occidentalis et orientalis horruerit; ad curam nostram existimo pertinere, non solum Scripturas sanctas canonicas adversus eos testes adhibere, quod jam satis fecimus, verum etiam de sanctorum litteris, qui eas ante nos fama cele- berrima et ingenti gloria tractaverunt, aliqua documenta proferre ; non quo ca- nonicis libris a nobis ullius disputatoris equetur auctoritas, tamquam omnino non sit, quod melius seu verius ab aliquo catholico quam ab alio itidem catholico sentiatur, sed ut admoneantur, qui putant istos aliquid dicere, quemadmodum de his rebus ante nova istorum vaniloquia catholici antistites eloquia divina secuti sint; et sciant a nobis rectam et antiquitus fundatam catholicam fidem adversus recentem Pelagianorum hereticorum prasumtionem perniciemque defendi.” Avausr. Contr. duas epist. Pelag. lib. iv. c. 8, Op. ed. Ben. tom. x. col. 480. VOL. IIT. Cc 18 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS was a doctrine that had been all along held in the Catholic Church. And they probably held, that, im vital points, a doc- trine opposed to the teaching of all the remaining testimonies of the doctors of the earlier Church could hardly be true, and that the absence of all testimony in favor of a doctrine of any moment formed ordinarily a strong argument against it; and therefore they referred to Patristical Tradition in support of the doctrines they advocated on such points; though even here the remarks of Basil upon the silence of the preceding Fathers on — the doctrine of the divinity of the Holy Ghost,' show, that the existence of an absolute testimony in favor of such doctrines was not always esteemed essential. But as it respects such a “ catholic consent” as our opponents talk of, and the uses to be made of it, they evidently recognised nothing of the kind ; still less did they dream of there being any such Patristical testimony as could be proposed to all as a divine informant. In fact, many of them have expressly declared, directly or indirectly, (as we shall see in the next section,) that the only divine revelation we possess as that contained in the Scriptures. The Fathers might say, as we should now, Such and such is the faith of the Church in fundamental points, and he who does not embrace that faith is in fundamental error. But this is not putting forward the dictum of that which we choose to call “ the Church,” as the ground upon which such doctrines are to be believed. It is merely an expression of our views, a bearing witness to what we hold to be the true Church and the true faith. And such alone is the character of the teaching which it becomes the Church on earth to offer. She is a witness for the truth. But never ought she to forget, that the treasure of the Gospel has been committed to earthen vessels, to those who are encompassed with infirmity, and that her delivery of the message is subject to all the drawbacks upon its authority to which the imperfection of a frail and fallible messenger renders it justly liable. The truth of this is more especially apparent, when we recol- lect, that “the Church” cannot teach as “the Church,” but only through the agency of individuals. There is searcely any- thing extant which can be called the teaching of “the Catholic 1 See vol. i. pp. 233, 234. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 19 Church ;” nothing, indeed, that in strictness of speech is entitled to that character. Because the Catholic Church cannot be re- presented. Its suffrages never were and never could be collected on any one point. The utmost that was ever accomplished was a probable representation of the sentiments of the majority. The teaching of the Church, therefore, is practically the teaching of individuals belonging to the Church ; and how uncertain it is what that teaching may be, even where definite articles of belief on all the important points of the Christian religion have been voluntarily signed, has been proved to demonstration by the writ- ings of our opponents themselves. SECT. III.—-WHETHER SCRIPTURE IS THE SOLE AND COMPLETE RULE OF FAITH AND JUDGE OF CONTROVERSIES. In considering the testimony of the Fathers upon this subject, we need not fear to begin with some of the earliest ; though it is obvious, that their language respecting it cannot be expected to be identical with that which they themselves would have used at the present day. The immediate disciples of the Apostles, for in- ‘stance, may be expected to refer to the oral teaching of the Apostles, which to them was as authoritative, as much the word of God, as their writings ; especially when we consider, that the Scriptures had not then been circulated, in a collected form, through the Church. But, consequently, any notices from them, tending to confirm the view which we here advocate, are proportionably forcible. Let us observe, then, the following passage of Ienatius. (fl. a. 101.) In his Epistle to the Philadelphians, written at the com- mencement of the second century, he says,— 1 Hence, for instance, Ignatius, of course, considered the instructions given to the Churches in his Letters as conveying the tradition of the Apostles; and as Eusebius Says, προὔτρεπέ τε ἀπρὶξ ἔχεσθαι τῆς τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων παραδόσεως, ἣν ὑπὲρ ἀσφαλείας καὶ ἐγγράφως ἤδη μαρτυρόμενος διατυποῦσθαι ἀναγκαῖον ἡγεῖτο. KusEB. Hist. Eccl. iii. 86. ed. Reading. p.131. But by such reports of Apostolical teach- ing, given by individuals, our opponents themselves would refuse to be bound. c 2 20 THE DOCTRINE, OF THE FATHERS «1 exhort you that you do nothing out of strife, but accord- “ ing to the instruction of Christ ; because I have heard of some “ who say, Unless I find it written in the originals, I will not. “ believe it to be written in the Gospel. And when I said, It is “ written, they answered what lay before them in their corrupted “ copies.” (ᾧ 8. Wake’s transl.)? Even at this early period, then, and in the presence of those who were the immediate disciples of the Apostles, the great question as to any disputed point was, Js it written ὃ For, the animad- version upon those here alluded to, is not on the ground of their reference to Scripture, but of their cavilling at well-authenticated copies, and refusing to yield to anything but the Apostolical autograph. From Ignatius, let us pass on to Porycarp. (fl. a. 108.) In his Epistle to the Philippians, written in the year 116 or 117, we meet with the following passages: “ These things, my “brethren, I took not the liberty of myself to write unto you “ concerning righteousness, but you yourselves before encouraged 1 Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς μηδὲν κατ᾽ ἐριθείαν πράσσειν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ Χριστομαθίαν" ἐπεὶ ἤκουσά τινων λεγόντων, ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις εὕρω, ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ οὐ πιστεύω: καὶ λέγοντος μοῦ αὐτοῖς, ὅτι γέγραπται, ἀπεκρίθησάν μοι, ὅτι πρόκειται. Ἐμοὶ δὲ ἀρχεῖά ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, τὰ ἄθηκτα (ἄθικτα) ἀρχεῖα ὃ σταυρὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ 6 θάνατος, x. T.A. Ianat. Epist. ad Philadelph. §8. Int. Parr. Apost. ed. Cotel. 1724. tom. ii. p.32. The evident correspondence of the word ἀρχαίοις to the word ἀρχεῖα, occurring twice in the latter part of this passage, has caused Vossius, Cotelerius, Smith, and others to suppose, that ἀρχείοις is the true reading ; and this is the reading in the interpolated copy of these Epistles. The word ἀρχαίοις however may have the same meaning, for we are told in the lexicon of Suidas that the word is written both ways,—Apxeia ... . ἢ ἀρχαῖα, ὡς Ἐενοφῶν Ἱστοριῶν H’. And Cotelerius says, “ ᾿Αρχαῖον pro ἀρχεῖον archivum legitur in Athenzo, Pol- luce, Suida et Josepho.” There is as little reason, therefore, against translating both by the word archivum, as by the word antiquus ; the evident correspondence of the words clearly showing an identity in their intended signification, and the sense of the sentence appears to me to forbid the latter. I confess, however, I do not feel satisfied with the above translation of ὅτι πρόκειται, nor with any which I have yet seen proposed. An account of the various modes of rendering this passage may be scen in the notes of Dr. Jacobson’s edition of the Patres Aposto- lici. I should be inclined to translate the passage thus,—“ And when I said, It ts written, they answered me, It is set forth thus ;” (or, It és in the copies before us thus ;)—meaning that it was thus se¢ forth in the common copies, but that it might not be so in the originals ; and therefore that they would not allow the emphatic word γέγραπται to be used respecting it, till they had seen it in the original, ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 21 “ me to it; for neither can I, nor any other such as I am, come “up to the wisdom of the blessed and renowned Paul, who “ being himself in person with those who then lived, did, with “ all exactness and soundness, teach the word of truth, and being “ gone from you, wrote an Epistle to you, into which if you look, “ you will be able to edify yourselves in the faith that has been “ delivered unto you, which is the mother of us all.” (§3. Wake’s transl.)* Again; “ Whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his “own lusts, and says that there shall neither be any resur- “ rection nor judgment, he is the firstborn of Satan. Where- “ fore, leaving the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let “ us return to the word that was delivered to us from the beginning ; “‘ watching unto prayer, [1 Pet. 4.7,] and persevering in fast- “ing; with supplication, beseeching the all-seeing God not to “ lead us into temptation [Matt. 6.13]; as the Lord hath said, “The Spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak. [Matt. “© 26.41.]”? (δ 7. Wake’s transl.) And again ; “ For I trust that ye are WELL EXERCISED IN THE Hoxy Scriprurss, and nothing is hid from you.” (ἢ 12.)° These passages are worth observing, as showing how, even at that early period, when the oral teaching of the Apostles might properly be, and no doubt was, referred to by their immediate disciples, the Scriptures were considered the authoritative expo- nents of the faith. 1 Ταῦτα, ἀδελφοὶ, οὐκ ἐμαυτῷ ἐπιτρέψας, γράφω ὑμῖν ἐπὶ τῆς δικαιοσύνης" ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ ὑμεῖς προεπεκαλέσασθέ με. Οὔτε γὰρ ἐγὼ, οὔτε ἄλλος ὅμοιος ἐμοὶ δύναται κατακολουθῆσαι τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ μακαρίου καὶ ἐνδόξου Παύλου: ὃς γενόμενος ἐν ὑμῖν κατὰ πρόσωπον τῶν τότε ἀνθρώπων, ἐδίδαξεν ἀκριβῶς καὶ βεβαίως τὸν περὶ GAn- θείας λόγον: ὃς καὶ ἀπὼν ὑμῖν ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολὰς, εἰς ἂς ἐὰν ἐγκύπτητε, δυνηθή- σεσθε οἰκοδομεῖσθαι εἰς τὴν δοθεῖσαν ὑμῖν πίστιν, ἥτις ἐστὶ μήτηρ πάντων ὑμῶν. Potycarp. Ep. ad Philipp. ὃ 3. Inter Parr. Apost. ed. Cotel. 1724. vol. ii. p- 187, 2*Os ἂν μεθοδεύῃ τὰ λόγια τοῦ Κυρίου πρὸς τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας, καὶ λέγῃ μήτε ἀνάστασιν, μήτε κρίσιν εἶναι, οὗτος πρωτότοκός ἐστί τοῦ Σατανᾶ. Διὸ ἀπολι- πόντες τὴν ματαιότητα τῶν πολλῶν, καὶ τὰς ψευδοδιδασκαλίας, ἐπὶ τὸν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἡμῖν παραδοθέντα λόγον ἐπιστρέψωμεν, νήφοντες πρὸς τὰς εὐχὰς, καὶ προσκαρτε- ροῦντες νηστείαις, δεήσεσιν αἰτούμενοι τὸν παντεπόπτην Θεὸν, μὴ εἰσενεγκεῖν ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμὸν, καθὼς εἶπεν ὅ Κύριος" Τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα πρόθυμον, ἣ δὲ σὰρξ ἀσθενής. Ip. ib. ὃ 7. ed. ead. vol. ii. pp. 188, 9. 3 “ Confido enim vos bene exercitatos esse in sacris litteris ; et nihil vos latet.’”’ Ip. ib. § 12. ed. ead. vol. ii. p. 191. 22 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS Justin Martyr. (fl. a. 140.) I proceed to Justin Martyr, of whom we may observe, first, that in his conference with Trypho the Jew, he makes it a rule to ground all his statements upon Scripture, and Scripture only ;! and exhorts Trypho to despise the tradition of his Jewish teachers, as under that name they palmed their own fancies upon the world. As these remarks, however, apply only to Jewish traditions, and not to those of the Christian Church, (though it is hard to see why one should be secure from error, though the others were not,) I shall not press them as evidence on our present subject. Again, in a passage just quoted, he says,—alluding to a heterodox doctrine prevailing among some professed Christians at the time,—‘ With whom I do not agree, nor could agree, “even though the great majority of those who are of my own “yeligion should say so; since we are commanded by Christ ‘ himself to be ruled by not the doctrines of men, but those “ yreached by the blessed prophets, and taught by him.” p Σ prophets, ΞΟ Further, as to the question of the fulness of the revelation made in the Scriptures, we may observe the following passages. — Those,”’ saith he, ‘ who have left us a relation of all things that concern our Saviour Jesus Christ have thus taught us.” Again; ‘ Neither did God ask Adam where he was, as one who “ knew not, nor Cain where Abel was; but for the purpose of “ convincing each of them what he was, and that the knowledge “© of all things might be conveyed to us by their being committed ta “ writing.” * 1 Κἀγὼ, ἐπειδὴ ἀπό τε τῶν γραφῶν καὶ τῶν πραγμάτων, τάς τε ἀποδείξεις καὶ τὰς ὁμιλίας ποιοῦμαι, ἔλεγον, μὴ ὑπερτίθεσθε, μηδὲ διστάζετε πιστεῦσαι τῷ ἀπε- ριτμήτῳ ἐμοί. JUSTIN. Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. ὃ 28, Op. ed. Bened. Paris. 1742. p. 126. (Ed. Colon. 1686. p. 245.) 2 Ἔτι καὶ mapadototépous δοκοῦντας ἄλλους λόγους ἀκούσετε" μὴ ταράσσεσθε δὲ, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον προθυμότεροι γενόμενοι ἀκροαταὶ καὶ ἐξετασταὶ μένετε, καταφρο- νοῦντες τῆς παραδόσεως τῶν ὑμετέρων διδασκάλων" ἐπεὶ οὐ τὰ διὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπὸ τοῦ προφητικοῦ Πνεύματος ἐλέγχονται νοεῖν δυνάμενοι, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἴδια μᾶλλον δι- δάσκειν προαιρούμενοι. In. ib. ὃ 58, p. 185. (Ed. Col. p. 256.) 3 Os of ἀπομνημονεύσαντες πάντα τὰ περὶ TOD Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐδίδαξαν. Tn. Apolog. Prim. § 33. p. 64. (Ed. Col. Apolog. Sec. p. 75.) 4 Οὐδὲ τῷ Θεῷ εἰς ἄνοιαν ἦν τὸ ἐρωτᾷν τὸν ᾿Αδὰμ, ποῦ ἐστὶν, οὐδὲ τὸν Κάϊν, ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 23 Trenzvus (fl. a. 167.) We now come to an author who is very confidently appealed to, both by the Romanists and our opponents, as a supporter of their views, viz., Ireneeus. The claim is made upon the authority of one or two passages, which need only to be compared with other parts of the work in which they occur, to show that they afford no support to the views in defence of which they are adduced. “ΒΥ no others,” says Irenzeus, “ have we come to the know- “ledge of the plan of our salvation, but those through whom “ the Gospel came to us, which they then preached, but after- “ wards, by the will of God, delivered to us in the Scriptures to “be THE FOUNDATION AND PILLAR OF OUR FAITH;”! a testi- mony which one might suppose would be suflicient of itself to settle the question. But it stands not alone. After having spoken of the witness borne by Scripture to the truth of his doctrine respecting God, he says,—‘ Having, there- “ fore, the truth itself as our rule, and the testimony respecting “ God placed clearly before us, we ought not to cast away the “ firm and true knowledge of God,” &c.? And again ;—“ But we, following the one only true God as “ our teacher, and taking jus words as our rule of truth, always “ teach the same all of us on the same points.”® And again ;—‘‘ Therefore the disciple of the Lord, wishing “ to proscribe all such things, and to constitute a rule of truth ποῦ “ABeA; GAN εἰς τὸ ἕκαστον ἐλέγξαι ὁποῖος ἐστι, καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς Thy γνῶσιν πάν- των διὰ τοῦ ἀναγραφῆναι ἐλθεῖν. Ip. Dialog. cum Tryph. § 99. p. 195. (Ed. Col. p. 326.) 1 « Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis nostree cognovimus, quam per eos per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos: quod quidem tune preconaverunt, postea vero per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt, fundamentum et columnam fidei nostre futurum.” JTrenmi Ady. Her. lib. iii. c. 1. Op. ed. Massuet. Paris. 1710. p. 173. (ed. Grab. Oxon. 1702. iii. 1. p. 198.) 2 « Habentes itaque regulam ipsam veritatem, et in aperto positum de Deo testimonium, non debemus per questionum declinantes in alias atque alias ab- solutiones ejicere firmam et veram de Deo scientiam.” I. ib. 11, 28, p. 156. (ii. 47. p. 173.) 3 “ Nos autem unum et solum verum Deum doctorem sequentes, et regulam veritatis habentes ejus sermones, de iisdem semper eadem dicimus omnes.” Lp, ib. iv. 35. p. 277. (iv. 69. p. 368.) 24. THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS “in the Church.... thus commenced the doctrine taught “in his Gospel,—‘In the beginning was the Word, and the “Word? ” &e* And when, after having in his first and second books explained and shown the absurdity of the doctrines of the heretics whom he was opposing, he proceeds to prove their opposition to the doctrine of the Apostles, he professes only to be about to give that proof from their writings ;? and he manifestly alludes to the Tradition preserved in the Churches founded by the Apostles, only for the sake of convincing the heretics with whom he had to deal, who, he tells us, “ When reproved from the Scriptures, “ immediately began to accuse the Scriptures themselves, as if “they were not correct, nor of authority, and as if they were “ ambiguous ; and as if the truth could not be discovered from “ them, by those who were ignorant of Tradition, FOR THAT THE “ TRUTH WAS NOT DELIVERED IN WRITING BUT ORALLY.”? To meet these heretics, therefore, on their own ground, (to the simi- larity of whose views to those of our opponents, I need hardly point the attention of the reader,) he introduces incidentally, and beyond his professed design, the testimony borne by the creed professed in the various Churches founded by the Apostles, to the correctness of his doctrine on the points in dispute. So evident is this, that the learned Romanist, Erasmus, scruples not to say, that Irenzeus in this work “ fights against a host of heretics, with the soLE aid of THE Scriprures.’’* T will add two more passages in proof of this. “On this account,” he says, “we labour to adduce those ? “Omnia igitur talia circumscribere volens discipulus Domini et regulam veritatis constituere in Ecclesia. . . . sic inchoavit in ea, que est secundum Evangelium, doctrina.” In. ib. iii. 11. p. 188. (iii. 11. p. 218.) * « Ex ipsis demonstrabimus Scripturis in libris consequentibus.... Ex Scripturis divinis probationes apponemus.” In. ib. ii. 35. pp. 170, 1. (ii. 66. pp. 194, 5.) “In hoe tertio ex Seripturis inferemus ostensiones.” iii. Pref. p. 173. (p. 198.) 3 “ Cum enim ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, neque sint ex auctoritate, et quia varie sint dicta, et quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciant Tradi- tionem. Non enim per literas traditam illam, sed per vivam yocem.” Ib. ib. iii. 2. p. 174. (pp. 199, 200.) * Solis Scripturarum presidiis pugnat adversus catervam hereticorum.” ERAsMI Preef. in Iren, Vide ed. Mass. Append. p. 2. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 25 “‘ proofs which are derived from the Scriptures, that confuting “ them by the very words of God, we may, as far as is in our * power, drive them from their enormous blasphemy.” } And again ;—“ Using those proofs which are from the Scrip- “ tures, you may easily overturn, as we have demonstrated, all “ those heretical notions which were afterwards invented.” ” I add below some further references to passages which may show the reader how constant was this reference to Scripture as the Rule of faith.’ And, when reading his works, we must observe, that he, like the rest of the Fathers, sometimes uses the phrase “ the Tradition of the Apostles” with reference to their writings.‘ But our opponents will say, Look at those other passages to which you have just alluded, in which he so clearly directs us to the Tradition preserved in the Church. We have no hesitation in accepting the challenge, and fear not to direct the reader’s attention to those passages. There is nothing in them which, in a writer of the second century, occa- sions us any surprise, or leads us to conclude, that had Irenzeus lived in our day, he would have taken any other view of our pre- sent subject, than that which we have taken; and which, in other passages, he has himself sanctioned. I shall now, without any intentional reserve, quote those passages that may be sup- posed to oppose our view. We have already observed, that his professed object, in his 1 « Propter hoe enim et laboramus eas, que sunt ex Scripturis, adhibere osten- siones; ut ipsis sermonibus confutantes eos, quantum in nobis est, cohibeamus eos a grandi blasphemia.” Ib. ib. iv. 34. p. 276. (iv. 68. p. 367.) 2 «<Utens etiam his ostensionibus, que sunt ex Scripturis, facile evertis, quem- admodum demonstravimus, omnes eas, qux postea afficte sunt, hereticorum sententias.” Ib. ib. v. 14. p. 811. (Ὁ. 422.) 3 “Ὅσα τε κεῖται ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς ἀναπτύσσειν. i. 10. p. 51. (i. 4. p. 48.) “ Si Scripturas cognovissent, et a veritate docti essent, scirent,” &c. ii. 13. p. 130. (ii. 16. p. 136.) “ Ex Dominicis Scripturis ostendimus,” &e. ii. 30. p. 162. (ii. 54. pp- 182, 3.) ‘‘ Revertamur ad eam que est ex Scripturis ostensionem.” iii. 5. p. 179. (p. 206.) “ Ex ipsis Scripturis ostenditur.” iii. 11. p. 192. (p. 224.) “ Nobis conlabo- rantibus his ostensionibus que ex Scripturis sunt.” iii. 12. p. 197. (p. 230.) “Ex Scripturis demonstravimus.”’ iii. 19. p. 212. (iii. 21. p. 249.) “ Quando ex ipsis Scripturis arguantur a nobis .... Quee secundum nos est fides, manifestam osten- sionem habens ex his Scripturis.’’ iii. 21. p. 216. (iii, 25. p. 256.) 4 “ Apostolorum traditioni. Etenim Petrus et Joannes et Matthzus et Paulus et reliqui deinceps,” &c. Lib. iii. c. 21. p. 216. (iii. 25. p. 256.) 26 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS third and following books, is to refute the heretics whom he was opposing from Scripture. But seeing, as he tells us in the com- mencement of his third book, that these heretics, when convicted from Scripture, accused the Scriptures of bemg incorrect and ambiguous; and that the truth could not be found out from them, by those who were ignorant of Tradition ;* he, on that account, and in order to bring an additional confutation of their errors from the source to which they professed to defer, refers them to Tradition, viz., “that Tradition which was from the ‘< Apostles, and was preserved in the Churches by the succession “ of Presbyters ;” which Tradition, it seems, they opposed also ; and when thus driven to their last shift, boldly said, that they were wiser than the Apostles.? ‘“ Wherefore,’ says Irenzus, “ we must oppose them in all ways ; if by any means confound- “ing any of them by our refutation of their errors, we can “induce them to turn and confess the truth. For if it is not “easy for the mind, caught by error, to repent, yet it is not “ impossible for it to avoid error, when the truth is placed by “ the side of it.” And then, postponing for the moment his Scriptural demonstration, that he may bring forward the evi- dence derived from Tradition, in order that he may oppose the heretics “in all ways,” he adds,—* Therefore it is open to all ‘who wish to see the truth, to behold in every Church that “ Tradition of the Apostles which was published throughout the ‘“‘ whole world ; and we can enumerate those who were appointed ‘ bishops in the Churches by the Apostles, and their successors “ even to our times, who have neither taught nor known any- ‘ thing of the kind, such as these persons dream of.” * And then, having referred to Rome as at that time one of the principal of the Apostolical Churches, he reminds us, that 1 See note 8 p. 24 above. 2 « Dicentes se non solum Presbyteris, sed etiam Apostolis exsistentes sapien- tiores.” In. ib. iii. 2. p. 175. (p. 200.) 3 “ Quapropter undique resistendum est illis, si quos ex his retusione confun- dentes, ad conversionem veritatis adducere possimus. Etenim si non facile est ab crrore apprehensam resipiscere animam, sed non omnimodo impossibile est errorem effugere, apposita veritate.” In. ib. iii. 2. p. 175. (p. 200.) * “Traditionem itaque Apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in omni Ecclesia adest respicere omnibus qui vera velint videre; et habemus annumerare ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 27 Clement has given us, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, “ the “ Tradition which he had lately received from the Apostles, an- “ nouncing one God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, the “former of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abra- “ham, who led the people out of Egypt, who conversed with “ Moses, who ordained the law, and sent the Prophets, who “ hath prepared fire for the devil and his angels. They who “ will, may learn from the Epistle itself, that He was proclaimed “ by the Churches to be the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, “ and may understand the Apostolical Tradition of the Church, “since this Epistle is more antient than those who now teach “ falsehoods, and feign that there is another God above the “ Demiurgus and Maker of all those things which exist.” Ὁ And then, having proceeded to give the succession from Clement to his own time, he adds, “ By this ordination and “ succession the Tradition which is in the Church from the ** Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, hath come down “even to us. And this is a full proof that there is one and the “same lifegiving faith, which, derived from the Apostles, is still “ preserved in the Church, and delivered in truth.”.... “And “ Polycarp always taught these things, which he had learned “ from the Apostles, which also the Church delivers, and which “alone are true. All the Churches in Asia bear witness to “ these things, and those who have succeeded to Polycarp up “ to this time.””? eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis, et successores eorum usque ad nos, qui nihil tale docuerunt, neque cognoverunt, quale ab his deliratur.” I. ib. iii. p. 175. (p. 200.) 1<*Hy νεωστὶ amd τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων παράδοσιν εἰλήφει, annunciantem unum Deum omnipotentem, factorem cceli et terre, plasmatorem hominis, qui induxerit cataclysmum, et advocaverit Abraham, qui eduxerit populum de terra Hgypti, qui colloquutus sit Moysi, qui legem disposuerit, et Prophetas miserit, qui ignem preparaverit diabolo et angelis ejus. Hune Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi ab Ecelesiis annunciari, ex ipsa Scriptura, qui velint, discere possunt, et Apo- stolicam Ecclesie Traditionem intelligere, cum sit vetustior Epistola his qui nune falso docent, et alterum Deum super Demiurgum et Factorem horum omnium, quz sunt, commentiuntur.’’ In. ib. iii. 3. p.176. (p. 202.) 2 τῇ αὐτῇ τάξει, καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ διδαχῇ ἥτε ἀπὸ τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ παράδοσις, καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀληθείας κήρυγμα κατήντηκεν εἰς ἡμᾶς. Et est plenissima hze ostensio, unam-et eamdem vivificatricem fidem esse, que in Ecclesia ab Apostolis usque nunc sit conservata, et tradita in veritate..... Ταῦτα διδάξας 28 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS The reader will not fail to observe, in the above notice of the Tradition to which Irenzeus refers, as having been given by Clement, wHat THAT TRADITION Is, and how utterly useless it is to those who are appealing to Tradition as something supple- mentary to Scripture, or even with reference to any of the more modern controversies of the Church. Z The same remark applies to the passage I am now about to quote. “Since, therefore,” he says, “there are such proofs, it is not “ right yet to seek the truth among others, which it is easy to “ take from the Church, since the Apostles fully treasured up “in it, as in a rich storehouse, all things belonging to the “ truth, that every one who wished may take from it the water “ of life. For this is the door of life ; but all the rest are thieves “and robbers.... But what if the Apostles had not left the “‘ Scriptures to us? Would it not have behoved us to follow “the order of the Tradition which they delivered to those to “whom they committed the Churches? Which rule many “ barbarous nations, of those who believe in Christ, follow, “ having salvation written, without paper and ink, by the Spirit “in their hearts, and diligently keeping the old Tradition ; be- “ hieving in one God, maker of heaven and earth, and of all “ things which are in them, through Jesus Christ, the Son of “ God; who, from his extraordinary love for his creature, con- “ descended to be born of a virgin, himself uniting man to God, “through himself, and suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising “ again, and being received up in splendour, will come in glory “as the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those “‘ who are condemned, and send into eternal fire the corrupters “ of the truth, and the despisers of his Father and his advent. “They who have believed this faith without written testimony, “are, as far as regards our language, barbarians; but, as it re- “ gards sentiment, and custom, and conversation, are, through “ their faith, extraordinarily wise, and please God, living in the ἀεὶ [1. 6. Πολύκαρπος], ἃ kal παρὰ τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων ἔμαθεν, ἃ καὶ ἡ Ἐκκλησία πα- ραδίδωσιν, ἃ καὶ μόνα ἐστὶν ἀληθῆ. Μαρτυροῦσιν τούτοις αἱ κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν ἐκκλησίαι πᾶσαι, καὶ οἱ μέχρι νῦν διαδεδεγμένοι τὸν Πολύκαρπον. Ip. ib, iii. 3. pp. 176, 7. (p. 208.) ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 29 “ exercise of all justice, and chastity, and wisdom. To whom if “ any one should announce those things which the heretics have “ invented, speaking to them in their own language, they would “immediately stop their ears and fly far away, not enduring to “ hear such blasphemous discourse. Thus, through that antient “ Tradition of the Apostles, they do not admit into their minds a “ thought of any of the monstrous doctrines of those hereties.’’! These are the passages usually adduced from Ireneus in support of the authority of Tradition; and though there are some others (which I have referred to below”) im which the Church is spoken of as the depositary of the Tradition of the Apostles, the above will, I suppose, be allowed to be as strong in favor of the authority of the Tradition preserved in the Church as any that can be adduced from his writings. From these passages it certainly follows, that Irenzus held, that in the Churches founded by the Apostles there was preserved ¢o his day a correct tradition of certain fundamental 1 “Tante igitur ostensiones cum sint, non oportet adhuc querere apud alios veritatem, quam facile est ab Ecclesia sumere; cum Apostoli, quasi in depo- sitorium dives, plenissime in eam contulerint omnia que sint veritatis: uti omnis, quicumque velit, sumat ex ea potum vite. Heec est enim vite introitus; omnes autem reliquifures sunt et latrones. Propter quod oportet devitare quidem illos ; quz autem sunt Eccl@siz, cum summa diligentia diligere, et apprehendere veri- tatis traditionem. Quid enim? Εὖ si de aliqua modica quiestione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere Ecclesias, in quibus Apostoli conversati sunt, et ab eis de presenti queestione sumere quod certum et re liqui- dum est ? Quid autem si neque Apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis quibus committe- bant Ecclesias? Cui ordinationi assentiunt multe gentes barbarorum, eorum qui in Christum credunt, sine charta et atramento scriptam habentes per Spiritum in cordibus suis salutem, et veterem Traditionem diligenter custodientes; in unum Deum credentes fabricatorem cceli et terre, Kc... .. Hance fidem qui sine literis crediderunt, quantum ad sermonem nostrum barbari sunt: quantum autem ad sententiam, et consuetudinem, et conversationem, propter fidem perquam sapien- tissimi sunt, et placent Deo, conversantes in omni justitia et castitate et sapientia. Quibus si aliquis annunciaverit ea que ab hereticis adinventa sunt, proprio ser- mone eorum colloquens, statim concludentes aures, longo longius fugient, ne audire quidem sustinentes blasphemum colloquium. Sic per illam veterem Apostolorum traditionem, ne in conceptionem quidem mentis admittunt, quodeumque eorum portentiloquium est.” Ib. ib. iii. 4. p. 178. (p. 206.) 2 See lib. iii. 24. pp. 222, 3. (iii. 40. p. 266.); iv. 26. pp. 261—3. Civ. 48—45. pp- 343—5.); iv. 32. p. 270. (iv. 52. p. 355.); iv. 33. p. 272. (iv. 62, 63. pp. 360, 1.) ; v. 20. p. 317. (v. 20. pp. 430, 1.) 30 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS truths orally delivered to them by the Apostles, handed down to that time through the succession of the pastors of those Churches, and that this was an independent proof at that time of the truth of certain doctrines against the heretics he was opposing. Now,—to defer for a moment the consideration whether those doctrines at all affect any of the controversies of the present day—let me ask, What is the use of this fact to us? Does it follow from it, that we can reason in the same way ? Obviously not. The principle applied by Irenzeus is not applicable at the present day. He made these observations when the Church bore a totally different aspect ; and therefore to use the name of Trenzeus in defence of the authority of Tradition in the present day, from his having made this appeal to the concurrent testi- mony of the Apostolical Churches in his own day, is to put forward a very false claim to confidence. He appeals to a fact which might then be verified ; but this is anything but evidence, that, had he lived sixteen centuries later, he would have con- sidered the testimony of a few antient authors as to the Tradi- tion preserved in their time m the Apostolical Churches, suffi- cient to clothe what they delivered as such with the authority of a divine informant. The present controversy may teach us the absurdity of such a notion; for even with respect to our own Church, with her written Confessions, and varied documents of appeal, we and our opponents are directly opposed to each other, as to the fact of what her views are on several important points, Further ; he makes no appeal to that Tradition for more than an enunciation of a few prime articles of the Christian faith, which, in the fullest form in which he has given it, we have quoted in a former page ;' and which embraces nothing more than a few leading facts, such as the Incarnation, Resurrection, future Judgment, &e. never questioned in the Christian Church since the earliest ages. His appeal, therefore, goes not far enough to make it of any real use to our opponents, for however useful it might be against the imaginary deities of Valentinus, or such like absurdities, as to any of the points for which our opponents want it, it will be of no avail; not to say, that his 1 See vol. i. pp. 111, 112, and 139, 140. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 31 affirmation of the consent of all the Apostolical churches is far from being a sufficient proof of it. The Tractators say, that Irenzeus himself tells us, that if we had not Scripture we must follow Tradition. True, he thus spoke to those of his own time as it respected a few of the prime facts of the Christian faith. But it does not follow that he would have said so to the present generation. Still less does it follow, that he would have recommended those who have Scripture to follow Tradition. The very fact that the truths of the Gospel were so carefully recorded in writing, and that the earliest heralds of it took such care to have the Gospels transcribed, and leave them with their new converts, (as Eusebius tells us was the case,!) shows that Tradition was not considered a safe mode of transmit- ting doctrines. We deny not, that God might have preserved his Church from error as easily without as with the Scriptures, but so he could under any circumstances. And still further, Irenzeus does not refer to this Tradition as containing anything beyond what is in the Scriptures, but only as an additional argument that his doctrine was true; for the sake of those who, when convicted of error by the Scriptures, accused the Scriptures of imperfection and ambiguity. His opponents, when referred to Scripture, replied, that this was not to be considered a full representation of what the Apostles had delivered, and could not be understood but by a reference to what Tradition had delivered of the oral teaching of the Apostles. To which Irenzeus replies, Let us then go to the Apostolical Churches, to see what they preach ; for, you must admit, that they are the most likely depositaries of the oral teaching of the Apostles, and seeing that they are unanimously against you, you are refuted on your own ground. And think not to urge, that they have declined from the true faith, for we can tell you who all their bishops have been, from the times of the Apostles, and defy you to challenge any one of them as having corrupted the faith or preached your doctrines.” 1 Koses. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 37. ed. Reading. 1720. p. 133. 5. So far Episcopal Succession in a Church may afford us a useful argument in disproof of corruption of doctrine in that Church, i. e. when all the links in the 32 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS Nay, as we shall now. proceed to show, he clearly sets forth Scripture as containing fully αἰ the Christian faith. Thus, in a passage just quoted, he tells us, that what the in- spired authors preached, tHaT they afterwards, by the will of God, delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. And he speaks of “the most full statements of the Scriptures, admitting neither addition nor subtraction.” * Holy Scripture, therefore, delivers the faith, not imperfectly and partially, but fully. And if we are unable to explain all things in the Scriptures, “we ought to leave such things with God “ who made us, knowing well that the Scriptures are perfect as “ having been uttered by the Word of God and his Spirit; but “* we, in proportion as we are inferior and far removed from the “ Word of God and his Spirit, so far we lack the knowledge of *‘ his mysteries. And it is not wonderful, if, in spiritual and “ heavenly things, and those things which have to be revealed, “this should be the case.... and we leave those things with ς God.” 3 Far from supposing that the faith is imperfectly delivered in the Scriptures, and that the Church is in possession of a sup- plementary revelation, he warns us to recollect, that the Serip- tures are a perfect revelation of the Christian faith, and that so much as we cannot understand in the Scriptures we must leave with God. And when about to refute the heretics from the Apostolical Scriptures, he says, that, considering their various errors, “ we “ hold it necessary to produce the whole doctrine of the Apostles “ concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, and show that they held no chain can be pointed out, and none accused of error. But how far this will sanction the notions of our opponents on the value of that Succession, is worth their consideration. 1 See note }, p. 23 above. 2 “Que pervenit usque ad nos, custoditione sine fictione, Scripturarum tractatio plenissima, neque additamentum neque ablationem recipiens.” IrEn. Adv. her. iv. 33. ed. Mass. p. 272. (ed. Grab. iv. 63. p. 361.) % « Cedere autem hee talia debemus Deo, qui et nos fecit, rectissime scientes, quia Scripture: quidem perfectz sunt, quippe a Verbo Dei et Spiritu ejus dictz ; nos autem secundum quod minores sumus et novissimi a Verbo Dei et Spiritu ejus, secundum hoc et scientia mysteriorum ejus indigemus. Et non est mirum, ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 33 * such notion respecting him ;”! and that whole doctrine he then proceeds to derive from the Scriptures. He tells us, also, that “ the precepts of a perfect life” are delivered “in both Testaments,’ so that the Holy Scriptures of each Testament are sufficient to reveal that portion of Divine truth which God intended for those who possessed them under each. And the exposition of the doctrine of the Apostles given by the true Church is “ according to the Scriptures.”’® And he says, that when in his youth he heard Polycarp relating what he had heard from John and others, who had seen the Lord, of his miracles and doctrine, all things that he men- tioned were “agreeable to the Scriptures ;”’* which testimony, however it may be explained away by those who are desirous of doing so, is, notwithstanding, not a little in favor of the view for which we are contending. And he speaks of the Valentinians as persons who in relying upon traditions not delivered in the Scriptures were attempting to make ropes of sand.* And hence he says, “If any one should ask, what God did * before he made the world, we reply, that the answer to that “vests with God. For, that this world was made perfect by * God, receiving a beginning in time, the Scriptures teach us, “ but what God did before this, no Scripture manifests. There- « fore the answer to this rests with God.” ® si in spiritalibus et ccelestibus, et in his que habent revelari, hoc patimur nos.... et Deo hec ipsa committimus.” In. ib. ii. 28. p. 156. (ii. 47. p. 173.) 1 « Necesse habemus, universam Apostolorum de Domino nostro Jesu Christo sententiam adhibere, et ostendere, eos non solum nihil tale sensisse de eo, verum amplius,” ἄς. In. ib. iii. 16. p. 204. (iii. 17. p. 238.) 2 « Consummate enim vite pracepta in utroque Testamento cum sint eadem, eumdem ostenderunt Deum.” I). ib. iv. 12. p. 241. (iv. 26. p. 312.) 3 “Secundum Scripturas expositio.” In. ib. iv. 33. p. 272. (iv. 63. p. 361.) 4 ᾿Απήγγελλε πάντα σύμφωνα ταῖς Γραφαῖς. Fragm. (ex Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 20.) ed. Mass. p. 340. (ed. Grab. p. 464.) 5 Ἐξ ἀγράφων ἀναγινώσκοντες, καὶ τὸ δὴ λεγόμενον, ἐξ ἄμμου σχοινία πλέκειν ἐπιτηδεύοντες. Adv. her. i. 8. p. 86. (i. 1. 8 15. p. 35.) 6 “Ut puta, si quis interroget; Antequam mundum faceret Deus, quid agebat ? dicimus quoniam ista responsio subjacet Deo. Quoniam autem mundus hie factus est apotelestos a Deo, temporale initium accipiens, Scripture nos docent; quid autem ante hoc Deus sit operatus, nulla Scriptura manifestat. Subjacet ergo hae responsio Deo.” Ib. ii. 28. p. 157. (ii. 47. p. 175.) VOL. 111. D 94. THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS And again,—“ We have learned from the Scriptures, that “ God is supreme over all; but whence or how he sent it fi. 6. ἐς the substance of the Word] forth, neither hath any Scripture “ explained, nor does it become us to conjecture.”! He must have added, “nor Tradition revealed,” had he held the views of our opponents. In conclusion, then, we may remark, that even if Irenzeus supposed himself to know anythmg of Apostolical teaching, through the reports of the Asian presbyters, or otherwise, beyond what was in Scripture, he makes such “Tradition” no part of the Rule of faith for Christians generally. At that early period, many might speak with respect of such reports of Apostolical teaching, who did not set them down as indubitable divine informants, and forming part of the Rule of faith to mankind. Astertus Urpanvs. (fl. a. 188.) In a work against the Montanists written by a contemporary author, probably Asterius Urbanus, of which a fragment is pre- served to us by Eusebius, we have a very remarkable evidence of the opinion of the early Church as to the complete perfection of Scripture, and the uniqueness of its character as a divine informant. This author having been requested (as he tells us) to write a work against Montanism, he remained for some time doubtful what to do; “not [he adds] through any doubt of my being “able to refute falsehood, and bear witness to the truth; but “ from being fearful and cautious, lest by any means I should ‘“appear to some to write or determine anything beyond the “word of the New Covenant of the Gospel, which must not be “added to nor diminished by him who has resolved to order his “ life according to the Gospel itself.’’ 1 “Didicimus enim ex Scripturis principatum tenere super omnia Deum. Unde autem vel quemadmodum emisit eam, neque Scriptura aliqua exposuit, neque nos phantasmari oportet.” Ib. ii. 28. p. 158. (ii. 49. p. 177.) " Οὐκ ἀπορίᾳ τοῦ δύνασθαι ἐλέγχειν μὲν τὸ ψεῦδος, μαρτυρεῖν δὲ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ" δεδιὼς δὲ καὶ ἐξευλαβούμενος, μή πη δόξω τισὶν ἐπισυγγράφειν ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεσθαι τῷ τῆς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου καινῆς διαθήκης λόγῳ' ᾧ μήτε προσθεῖναι μήτ᾽ ἀφελεῖν δυνατὸν, τῷ κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον αὐτὸ πολιτεύεσθαι προῃρημένῳ.: ASTERIUS ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 35 How totally different this language from that of one who possessed another divine informant by the successional delivery of the oral teaching of the Apostles, and had in that Tradition a full development of doctrines of which Scripture contained only “notices !”? And yet this is the language of one who lived only about a century after the times of the Apostles. TERTULLIAN. (fl. a. 192.) Next in importance to the testimony of Irenzeus is that of Tertullian, and their views on our present subject appear to be precisely the same. In considering his testimony we shall follow the same course as in the case of Irenzeus; we shall notice first those passages that support the view we have been maintaining upon the points under discussion, and then consider those which are likely to be referred to as adverse to it. Is, then, Scripture the sole authoritative Rule of faith with Tertullian ? The following passages will show how frequently it is referred to by him as the authoritative Rule of faith, (not indeed under that name, because he uses that term more particularly for the creed established by the consent of the Apostolical Churches, but as being what that title signifies with us,) and we shall show hereafter, what were the only exceptions he would have made against its being regarded as the sole authoritative Rule of faith. In his Treatise, then, “ Against Hermogenes,” he distinctly calls it “the rule of truth;”! and elsewhere he says of a doc- trine in question, “ Nothing is certain respecting it, because the Scripture does not declare it.” And in his Treatise “ Against Praxeas,” he says,—“ You ought to prove this as clearly from the Scriptures as we prove that He made his Word his Son.’’? URBANUS in Fragm. op. Ady. Montanist. in Evsrprt Hist. Eccles. lib. v. 6. 16. (ed. Reading. vol. i. p. 228.) 1 “Veritatis regula prior que etiam futuras hereses prenuntiavit,” &e. TEr- TULLIAN. Adv. Hermog. c. 1. Op. ed. Paris. 1664. fol. p. 233. 2 «Nihil de eo constat, quia Scriptura non exhibet.” Ip. De carne Christi, c. 6. p. 312. See also the immediately preceding context, “Si non probant, guia nec scriptum est, nec,” ἄς. 3 ἐς Probare autem tam aperte debebis ex Scripturis, quam nos probamus illum sibi filium fecisse sermonem suum.” Ip. Ady. Prax. ο. 11. p. 505. vp 2 36 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS And elsewhere he urges the refutation of error by “ referring the points in dispute to the Scriptures of God.”? Nay, in his Treatise “ Against Hermogenes,” he says plainly, “ That all things were made of some subjacent matter, 1 have “ nowhere as yet read. Let the shop of Hermogenes show that “ it is written. If it is not written, let him fear that woe that “is destined for those who add to or take from Scripture.” And so he says elsewhere,—“ Take from the heretics the prin- “ciples they hold in common with the heathen, so that they “ may be left to prove their points from the Scriptures alone, and “ they will not be able to stand.’’* And hence in his Treatise “On preescription of heretics,” he calls the Scriptures “the documents of the doctrme [of religion |.”’4 And, in a word, throughout all his Treatises, with the few ex- ceptions which shall be hereafter noted, he refers to the Serip- tures alone for the proof of the doctrines of religion ; and he does so, not as Mr. Newman does, who would have us suppose that it would be no proof unless Tradition had previously de- livered the doctrine to us, that is, in other words, that it is no proof at all, but as a real proof speaking to the common sense of every man. Moreover, that Scripture contains all the points of faith be- longing to the Christian religion, we have these testimonies. “1 adore,” he says, “ the fuiness of Scripture, which manifests “ to me both the Creator and his works. But in the Gospel I * find discourse very abundantly serving as the minister and ‘“‘ witness of the Creator. But that all things were made of 1 “Urgemur et communes sententias ab argumentationibus philosophorum liberare et communes argumentationes a sententiis eorum separare, revocando questiones ad Dei literas.” Tp. De anima, ec. 2. p. 265. ? Ip. Ady, Hermog. ο. 22. p. 241, The passage occurs in a following note. 8 « Aufer denique hereticis que cum ethnicis sapiunt, ut de Seripturis solis queestiones suas sistant, et stare non poterunt.” In, De resurr. carn. ¢. 3. p- 327. That the arguments of the hereties from Scripture may be refuted from Seripture, he also intimates, ib. c. ult. p. 365.“ Pristina instrumenta quasdam materias illis [i. e. hwresibus] videntur subministrasse, οὐ ipsas quidem iisdem litteris revin- cibiles.” ‘ Ip. De Prescript, heret. ς, 38. The passage is given in a following note. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 37 ** some subjacent matter, I have nowhere as yet read. Let the “shop of Hermogenes show that it is written. If it is not “ written, let him fear that woe that is destined for those who * add to or take from Scripture.”’! This testimony is surely plain and distinct. The cavil of the Romanists that it applies only to one particular article is too absurd to need refutation. The latter part of the passage in particular is so utterly irreconcileable with such a notion, that no impartial reader could entertain it for a moment. Again, in his Treatise “On prescription of heretics,” he says, speaking of the Church of Rome, “ She joins the Law and ** the Prophets with the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, “ and THENCE she draws the faith.” * In those writings, then, * the faith” is to be found; and in another part of the same Treatise is a passage strongly, though indirectly, showing his mind in this matter. “The heretics,” he says, “to show the “ ignorance of the Apostles, bring forward the fact, that Peter * and they that were with him were blamed by Paul.... But ** we might here say to those who reject the Acts of the Apostles, “ you have fitst to show, who that Paul was, both what he was “ before he was an Apostle, and how he was an Apostle.... But “ they may believe forsooth without the Scriptures, that they may * believe contrary to the Scriptures.”* 1 « Adoro Scripture plenitudinem, qua [‘ que alii, teste Junio.” Semler] mihi et factorem manifestat et facta. In evangelio vero amplius et ministrum atque arbitrum rectoris [factoris, MS. ap. Rigalt.] invenio sermonem. An autem de aliqua subjacenti materia facta sint omnia, nusquam adhue legi. Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina. Si non est seriptum, timeat ve illud adjicientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum.” Ip. Adv. Hermog. c. 22. p. 241. See also his reference to Scripture in c, 33 of same Treatise, p. 245; and, De carne Christi, c. 7. p. 312. 2 «“ Legem et prophetas cum Evangelicis et Apostolicis litteris miscet, et inde potat fidem.” Ip. De Prescr. heret.c. 36. p. 215. A passage implying the same occurs, according to the text of Pamelius, in ce, 44 of this Treatise, “Si vero memores Dominicarum et Apostolicarum Scripturarum et denuntiationum in fide integra steterint,” &e. The words “Scripturarum et” are omitted in the subse~ quent editions of Rigaltius and Priorius, and without notice. 3 « Proponunt ergo ad suggillandam ignorantiam aliquam Apostolorum, quod Petrus et qui cum eo reprehensi sint a Paulo.... Possumus et hic Acta Aposto- lorum repudiantibus dicere, Prius est uti ostendatis, quis iste Paulus, et quid ante Apostolum, et quomodo Apostolus....Sed credant sine Scripturis, ut credant adversus Scripturas.” In. De Prescr. heret. c. 23. p. 210. See also ο. 8. p. 205. 38 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS Having thus given Tertullian’s general view of the subject before us, I now proceed to consider what objections may be urged against it. It may be urged, then, that the greater part of the works of Tertullian, and almost all those quoted above, were written after he had embraced Montanism, and believed that the effusions of Prisca and others were divinely-imspired, and therefore that he could not have looked upon the Scripture as the only divine informant. This objection is so far valid, that it must be admitted, that Tertullian’s reference to Scripture as the authoritative Rule of faith must be supposed not to exclude the interpretations of Scripture given by Montanus and his prophetesses, which were received by Tertullian as proceeding from the Divine Spirit. But the admission must not be extended to any new points of doctrine, for such he did not believe to have been introduced by the “ New Prophecy,” but only improvements in the discipline of the Church. His view of the benefits accruing to the Church from the supposed inspiration of Montanus and his prophetesses is summarily expressed in the following sentence in his Treatise on yeiling virgins,—‘‘ What, therefore, is the administration “of the Paraclete but this, that discipline is directed, that “the Scriptures are unfolded, that the understanding is im- ““ proved, that an advance is made to better things.’’! But, nevertheless, this did not prevent him, when reasoning with those who did not receive the “ New Prophecy,” from making Scripture the authoritative Rule of faith; and as far as regards any exception made by him in favour of Montanus and his prophetesses, as authoritative guides for the interpretation of that Rule, so far, I suppose, it is needless here to offer any re- mark. Our opponents are not in this prepared to follow him. And, therefore, as far as this exception is concerned, his lan- guage is to us equivalent to the making Scripture the sole autho- ritative Rule of faith. But there remains certainly a limitation to be made to the * “Qui est ergo Paracleti administratio nisi bee, quod disciplina dirigitur, quod Scripture revelantur, quod intellectus reformatur, quod ad meliora proficitur.” Ib. De virg. vel. ¢. i. p. 173 ; and see De resurr. c. ult. ad fin. p. 365. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 39 general view of his sentiments given above, as it respects certain elementary points of the Christian faith, which, like Irenzeus, he speaks of as proveable, at that time, even independently of Scrip- ture, by the united testimony of all the Apostolical Churches.! He thinks, and perhaps justly, considering the period at which he wrote, when the facts upon which he rested his view might be verified, that such a testimony established the apostolical origin of the doctrines for which he cites it.” These doctrines he has enumerated, with some little variation, in three of his Treatises, where he has given them under the 1 The strange way in which this remark has been perverted by the Tractarian Reviewer of the first edition of this work (Brit. Crit. for July, 1842. p. 100.) requires a brief notice. He says,—‘‘ That the strong expressions of the Fathers concerning Scripture, whatever they mean, do zot imply the Protestant principle, Mr. Goode shows us himself by quoting passages to the full as strong from SS. Irenzeus and Tertullian, of whom he acknowledges (p. 285, 295) [in this edition, pp. 29, 30, and 39] that they ‘knew certain prime points of the Christian faith. ...as provable... .. even independently of Scripture, by the united testimony of all the Apostolical Churches.’ Their strong language then about Scripture did not mean that they resorted to it for instruction on fundamentals; and therefore the language of the other Fathers, which is no whit stronger, need not have meant so either.” The writer of this has completely forgotten, that Irenzus and Ter- tullian do not mention the “ united testimony of all the Apostolical Churches” as that to which they themselves had “resorted” for thet own “instruction,” but only used it as an argument against certain heretics who corrupted the Scriptures and professed to refer to Tradition. And in order to elicit his required sense from my words, he has been obliged to alter them, by making me say, that Irenzeus and Tertullian “new” those points “as provable.... by the united testimony,” ἄς. The introduction of the word “knew,” which is quite different from what I used in either place, has completely changed the character of my remark. Trenzeus and Tertullian repeatedly refer to Scripture as that from which they had learned this and that doctrine, and speak of the Scriptures as containing a full account of the whole faith, admitting neither addition nor diminution ; and (as we shall see hereafter) an account clear enough to be understood by those willing to be taught by it. This is all that is wanted for the support of “the Pro- testant principle.” That, at that early period, the “united testimony of all the Apostolical Churches” might be considered by Irenzeus and Tertullian sufficient, even without Scripture, to prove that the incarnation of the Son of God, his and our resurrection, anda future Judgment, were doctrines of Christianity, and that the Pagan dreams of the early heretics about a multiplicity of Gods and such like were not so, and that those by whom Scripture was corrupted were at that time referred by those Fathers to that testimony as conclusive against them, is a matter which does not in the least affect the witness borne by Irenzeus and Ter- tullian to the soundness of “ the Protestant principle.”’ 2 Ip. De Prescript. heret. ο. 21. p. 209. 3 De virg. vel. c. 1. p. 173. De Prescr. heret. 6. 13. pp. 206, 7. Adv. Prax. c.2.p.501. See these formule above, vol. i. pp. 112—113. 40 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS title of “the rule of faith,’ and in one of those Treatises, viz. that “On prescription of heretics,’ he has distinctly stated, that these truths may be proved to be of Apostolical origin by the unanimous consent of the Apostolical Churches, mdepen- dently of Scripture, and that consequently any interpretation of Scripture contrary to these must be false ; and that since the heretics had corrupted the Scriptures, and that by allegation of the Scriptures the door was open to much argumentation, foreign to the immediate subject, about the true text of Scripture and such points, it was better not to argue with them on these points from Scripture, but to allege at once against them the “rule of faith ” supported by the unanimous consent of all the Aposto- lical Churches.! But, for more than the truths so enumerated, and which we have given in a preceding page,” he does not challenge the con- sent of the Apostolical Churches. Nay, he as much as inti- mates, that more could not be so established, for he says, “ while this form of faith remains in its proper place in your “ regard, however much you may seek and discuss matters, and * pour out the whole excess of your curiosity, if anything ap- “ nears to you either to be doubtful or overshadowed with obscurity, “ there is some brother, a doctor; gifted with the grace of know- “ ledge, or some one conversant with those exercised in such “ matters, some one alike curious with yourself [who can advise “ you]; but while seeking alone, it is better for you to be “ ignorant to the last, lest you know what you ought not, be- “ cause what is necessary you already know. ‘Thy faith,’ saith “he, ‘hath saved thee ; not exercitation in the Scriptures.”® He does not, then, refer the inquirer on other points to the con- sentient testimony of the Churches, but advises the ordinary inquirer, if he be over curious in his researches into all the 1 De Prescr. heret. ec. 15—21. p. 207—9. 2 See vol. i. pp. 112, 113. 3 “ Manente forma ejus in suo ordine, quantumlibet queras et tractes, et omnem libidinem curiositatis effundas, si quid tibi videtur vel ambiguitate pendere vel obscuritate obumbrari, est utique frater aliqui doctor gratia scien- tie donatus, est aliqui inter exercitatos conversatus, aliqui tecum curiosus. Tecum tamen querens, novissime ignorare melius est, ne quod non debeas noris, quia quod debeas nosti. Fides, inquit, tua te salyum fecit; non exer- citatio Scripturarum.” Lp. De Preser. heret. ο. 14. p. 207. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 41 points treated of in the Scriptures, and finds something which appears to him doubtful or obscure, to have recourse to some skilful teacher as a preservative against error; advice, of the prudence and propriety of which there can, I suppose, be no question, while it is equally unquestionable, that such a teacher is not, nor is proposed by Tertullian as, an infallible guide. Among other objections to this mode of arguing, the heretics urged, that possibly the Churches might have put an erroneous sense upon the teaching of the Apostles, to which he justly replies, “Is it Akely that such Churches and so many should “ have corrupted the faith precisely in the same way? Nothing “that happens to many different individuals has precisely the “ same event in the case of all. There would have been some dif- *< ference in their doctrine had it been corrupted ; that which is “ found the same among many, 15 not a corruption, but what was “ delivered to them.”? Let the reader observe, that we meet with nothing here about episcopal grace preserving the pure deposit of the faith ; nor even the more sober argument of Irenzus, that all the bishops might be enumerated from the times of the Apostles, and none accused of corrupting the faith. And, further, he maintained, that it was easy to show the novelty of the heresies he was combating, and consequently their error ; and he calls upon the heretics, if they pretended to deduce their origin from the Apostles, to point out the succession through which their doctrine had come down to them, which was a very just challenge at that time.” And, lastly, he, like Irenreus, uses this mode of argument against the heretics, on account apparently of the way in which they dealt with Scripture, corrupting it, and cavilling with the correctness of the text, and raising questions and arguments thi t prevented a fair appeal to Scripture. This Treatise, viz. “ On prescription of heretics,” is, as far as Tertullian is concerned, the supposed stronghold of our op- 1 « Ecquid verisimile est, ut tot ac tante in unam fidem erraverint? Nullus inter multos eventus unus est. LExitus variasse debuerat error doctrine Eccle- siarum. Ceterum quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum, sed tra- ditum.” Ip. ib. c. 28. See cc. 27, 8. pp. 211, 12. 2 Ip. ib. cc. 29—32. pp. 212, 19. 42 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS ponents, for though he has spoken favorably of Tradition in two other places, namely, in his Treatise “On the Crown,” and that “Against Marcion,” yet his notice of it in the former is only with respect to matters of discipline,' and, in the latter, consists of two passing allusions to it in a Treatise of five books, of which the whole argumentation is derived from Scrip- ture, and those referring only to a point contained in the Creed he has given as established by the consent of the Apostolical Churches, viz. a refutation of Marcion’s idea that the God of the Old Testament was different from the God of the New.? His argumentation elsewhere is derived wholly from the Scriptures, nor does he attempt to press his interpretations of Scripture upon the authority of Tradition, except im the case already noticed, i. 6. in the points contained in the Creed he has given. Now, in all this, it is difficult to see what support Tertullian gives to the views of our opponents. Af the time he wrote, he held that the agreement of all the Apostolical Churches in a few elementary doctrines, (to which agreement he appeals as a fact that might be verified,) proved that those doctrmes came from the Apostles ; and, therefore, that the shortest way of dealing with the heretics of that day, (for he tells us himself that he used the argument “ for the sake of brevity,”*) was by adducing this evidence against them. What then? Does it follow that Ter- tullian would pursue the same course now? Nay, this is not a question apparently, for we are not sent to learn the truth thus, but from a few antient fallible authors. So, then, what is as- sumed must be, that, because Tertullian made such an appeal to the Apostolical Churches of his day, therefore he would now have appealed to a few fallible antient authors, as affording in- fallible proof of what was the universal opinion of all the Apostolical Churches sixteen centuries ago. And after all, as we have already observed, the Creed he gives as established by the consent of the Apostolical Churches, 1 Ip. De Corona, ee. 8, 4. pp. 101, 102. 3 Ip. Ady. Mare. lib. i. ο. 21, and lib. iii. ¢. i. * “ Solemus hereticis compendii gratia de posteritate prescribere.” Ip. Adv. Hermog. ¢. 1. p. 233. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 48 is limited to matters about which there has not been for many centuries any controversy in the Church. If our opponents were as moderate as he is in this respect, we should feel little inclined to disturb their position. But when, in the nineteenth century, they pretend to a knowledge of antient catholic consent, more extensive and minute than Tertullian pretended to in the second century, let them beware how they claim him as a supporter of their pretensions. And as to any notion that the Creed of the Apostolical Churches, as given by Tertullian, adds anything to Scripture, it is directly opposed to Tertullian’s views, for he is most careful to maintain its identity with the declarations of Scripture.! And whether Tertullian’s statement as to these Churches was correct, no one can now tell. As Dr. Pusey, in the Tract to which we have referred in a former page,” has referred to a work on Tertullian, written by a learned prelate of ourChurch, I willingly join him in the appeal ; and the reader will find it distinctly stated by that learned author, that Tertullian held, that “ the Scriptures contained the whole rule of faith,’> and that he agrees with Dr. Neander, that, * though on some occasions the Christians of those days might * appeal solely to the authority of Tradition, they uniformly “ maintained, that the doctrine of Christianity IN ALL ITS PARTS “ might be deduced from Holy Writ,’* and that “though inter- “ pretations which had received the sanction of the Church were “ not to be lightly rejected, yet the practice of Tertullian himself “* proves, that he believed every Christian to be at liberty to exercise * fas own judgment upon them.” ὅ And in a note in the same place, speaking of Tertullian’s argument in his Treatise, “ De prescr. heret.” he adds,—“ To “me he [Tertullian] appears to have appealed to it [Tradition | “ from necessity—because he could not, from the nature of the 1 Ip. De Prescr. heret. ec. 33, 34, and 38. pp. 214 and 216. 2 See vol. i. pp. 23 and 35. 3 The ecclesiastical history of the second and third centuries illustrated from the writings of Tertullian, by John [Kaye], Bishop of Bristol. 2nd edit. 1826. p- 296. 3d ed. 1845. p. 278. 4 Ib. Pref. pp. xvi, xvii; or 3d ed. 1845. p. xxvi. 5 ΤΌ. pp. 296, 7; or, 3d ed. 1845. p. 279. 44. THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS 4 « dispute in which he was engaged, directly appeal to Scripture. «« The heretics, with whom he was contending, not only proposed “a different rule of faith, but in defence of it produced a dif- “ ferent set of Scriptures. How then was Tertullian to confute “them? By showing that the faith which he professed, and “the Scriptures to which he appealed, were, and had always “ been, the faith and Scriptures of those Churches of which the “ origin could be traced to the Apostles—the first depositaries “ of the faith. In this case Tertullian had no alternative: he “ was compelled to appeal to Apostolic Tradition. But when he ‘is contending against Praxeas, a Heretic who acknowledged “ the Scriptures received by the Church, though he begins with “ Jaying down the rule of faith nearly in the same words as in “the Tract ‘De Prescriptione Hereticorum,’ yet he conducts the controversy by a constant appeal to Scripture.” CLEMENT oF ALEXANDRIA. (fl. a. 192.) We now come to Clement of Alexandria, one of the most learned of the early Fathers whose remains are extant, but one whose works, valuable as they are, exhibit strong traces of feelings and habits of thought derived more from human philo- sophy than from divine revelation.1 In entermg upon a review of his opinions on the subject before us, we have at once to remark his advocacy of a notion somewhat similar to that of our opponents, and which might by an incautious reader be confounded with it, but which never- theless is far from being the same, and moreover is one almost peculvar to himself, of the Fathers yet extant. It was his opinion, as we learn from Eusebius, that “ the Lord, after his resurrec- “ tion, conferred the gift of knowledge upon James the Just, “John and Peter, which they delivered to the rest of the “ Apostles, and those to the seventy disciples.”* And in the 1 See especially the first book of his “ Stromata.” 2 Ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς [i. 6. Κλήμης} ἐν ἑβδόμῳ τῆς αὐτῆς ὑποθέσεως [i. 6. Ὑποτυπώ- cewy |, ἔτι καὶ ταῦτα περὶ αὐτοῦ φησίν' ᾿Ιακώβῳ τῷ δικαίῳ καὶ ᾿Ιωάννῃ καὶ Πέτρῳ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν παρέδωκε τὴν γνῶσιν 5 Κύριος" οὗτοι τοῖς λοιποῖς ᾿Αποστόλοις παρέδωκαν: οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ ᾿Απόστολοι τοῖς ἑβδομήκοντα. Ἐσ5ΕΒ. Hist. Eccl. lib. ἢ, 9. 1. ed. Reading. p. 44. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 45 first Book of his Stromata, he says that the teachers from whom he had learned the Christian doctrine, “ preserved the true “ Tradition of the blessed Gospel as delivered by Peter, and « James, and John, and Paul, the holy Apostles, having received “it in succession the son from his father, though few are like “the fathers; and at length, by God’s help, are depositing “ with us those seeds received from their forefathers and the * Apostles.” ! A knowledge of this Tradition he considers to be necessary to constitute a perfect Christian, whom he calls a Gnostic, distinguishing him from the ordinary Christian, whom he speaks of as having only common faith.? This “ Gnostic Tradition,” however, as he frequently calls it,* was not intended for Christians in general. The Lord, he tells us, “permitted the Divine mysteries and the holy light to be “ communicated to those who were capable of receiving them. “ He did not immediately reveal them to many, because they * were not adapted to many, but to a few, to whom he knew “ them to be adapted, and who were both able to receive them * and to be conformed to them. Secret things, like God, are * entrusted to speech, not to writing.”* And hence he exhorts the Gnostic, “ Be cautious in the use of the word, lest any one * who has fallen in with the knowledge taught by you, and is “‘ unable to receive the truth, should disobey and be ensnared “by it; and to those who come without understanding, shut “ the fountain, whose waters are in the deep, but give drink to “those who are athirst for truth. Conceal, therefore, this * fountain from those who are not able to receive the profundity “ of the knowledge. The Gnostic, who is master of this foun- 1°AAN of μὲν Thy ἀληθῆ τῆς μακαρίας σώζοντες διδασκαλίας παράδοσιν, εὐθὺς ἀπὸ Πέτρου τε καὶ Ἰακώβου, Ἰωάννου τε καὶ Παύλου, τῶν ἁγίων ᾿Αποστόλων, παῖς παρὰ πατρὸς ἐκδεχόμενος" ὀλίγοι δὲ οἱ πατράσιν ὅμοιοι: ἧκον δὴ σὺν Θεῷ καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς τὰ προγονικὰ ἐκεῖνα καὶ ᾿Αποστολικὰ καταθησόμενοι σπέρματα. CLEM. ALEX. Strom. lib. i. § 1. pp. 322, 3. Op. ed. Potter. Ox. 1715. (pp. 274, 5. edd. Par. 1641. and Col. 1688.)—See also Strom. lib. vi. p. 771. (or, 645.) 2 See Strom. lib. v. pp. 659, 60. (or, 557, 8.) 3 Ip. Strom. lib. iv. p. 564; (or, 475) ; and, lib. v. p. 683; (or, 577); &e. 4 Μεταδιδόναι δὲ τῶν θείων μυστηρίων καὶ τοῦ φωτὸς ἐκείνου τοῦ ἁγίου τοῖς χωρεῖν δυναμένοις συγκεχώρηκεν [i. 6. 6 Κύριος]. Αὐτίκα οὐ πολλοῖς ἀπεκάλυψεν & μὴ πολλῶν ἦν, ὀλίγοις δὲ οἷς προσήκειν ἢπίστατο, τοῖς οἵοις τε ἐκδέξασθαι καὶ τυπωθῆναι πρὸς αὐτά: τὰ δὲ ἀπόῤῥητα, καθάπερ ὁ Θεὸς, λόγῳ πιστεύεται, οὐ γράμ- vart. Ip. Strom. lib. i. § 1. p. 323. (or, 275.) 46 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS tain, will himself suffer punishment, if he gives occasion to “ one who as yet is only conversant with little things of taking “ offence, and of being swallowed up as it were by the great- * ness of his discourse, or if he transfers one who is only an “ operative to speculation, and leads him away by occasion of a “ momentary faith [which has no solid grounds in his mind to rest upon. |”? Of this Tradition Clement professes to give in his Stromata some account, though not of the whole of it, concealing some part intentionally, as too profound for common ears, and deli- vering the rest so that a common reader would not understand its full Gnostic sense,” and, moreover, acknowledging that some part of what had been dehvered to him had escaped his recol- lection, not being committed to writing, and other parts par- tially obliterated by the lapse of time, a tolerably good proof of the insufficiency of oral tradition for the conveyance of truth. But we will quote his own words. After stating that he is about to deliver the Tradition which he had been taught by his Christian instructors, he adds,— * But I well know, that many things have escaped us, having “ by the length of time fallen from my recollection, being un- “ written; whence, in order to assist the weakness of my memory, “ and supply myself with a systematic exposition of the prin- * cipal points, as a useful record for keeping them in remem- *“‘ brance, I have found it necessary to use this delineation of “them. There are indeed some things ‘which I do not recollect, “ for there was in those blessed men great power. And there ** are some things which remained unnoted for some time, and 1 “Iva οὖν μή τις τούτων ἐμπεσὼν εἰς τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ διδασκομένην γνῶσιν, ἀκρατὴς γενόμενος τῆς ἀληθείας, παρακούσῃ τε καὶ παραπέσῃ, ἀσφαλὴς, φησὶ, περὶ τὴν χρῆσιν τοῦ λόγου γίνου: καὶ πρὸς μὲν τοὺς ἀλόγως προσίοντας, ἄπόκλειε τὴν ζῶσαν ἐν βάθει πηγήν' ποτὸν δὲ ὄρεγε τοῖς ἀληθείας δεδιψηκόσιν. ᾿ἘἘπικρυπτόμενος δ᾽ οὖν πρὸς τοὺς οὐχ οἵους τε ὄντας παραδέξασθαι τὸ βάθος τῆς γνώσεως, κατακά- λυπτε τὸν λάκκον. ‘O κύριος οὖν τοῦ λάκκου, ὃ γνωστικὸς, αὐτὸς (ημιωθήσεται, φησὶ, τὴν αἰτίαν ὑπέχων τοῦ σκανδαλισθέντος, ἤτοι καταποθέντος τῷ μεγέθει τοῦ λόγου, μικρολόγου ἔτι ὄντος" ἢ μετακινήσας τὸν ἐργάτην ἐπὶ τὴν θεωρίαν, καὶ ἄπο- στήσας διὰ προφάσεως τῆς αὐτοσχεδίου πίστεως. In. Strom. lib. v. ὃ 8. p. 678, (or, 573.) ? Ib. Stom. lib. i. pp. 323, 4; (or, 275); and, lib. vii. p. 901; (or, 766); and see lib. i. p. 326. (or, 278.) ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 47 “ which have now escaped me; and some things are nearly ob- “ literated from my memory, perishing in my own mind, since “ such a service is not easy to those who are not experienced. « But reviving the recollection of these things in my writings, “1 purposely omit some things, making a prudent choice, “« fearing to write what I even speak with caution and reserve ; “ not in the spirit of envy, for that would be unjust; but, “ fearing for my readers, lest by any means they should other- «( wise be made to fall, and we should be found putting, as « those who speak in proverbs say, a sword into the hands of a ehald,”? 4 Now certainly our opponents have here a patron not only of Oral Tradition, but also of “reserve in the communication of religious knowledge,” but, unfortunately for their cause, not the sort of Tradition for which they are contending. The notion of this Gnostic Tradition, delivered only by our Lord to three or four of the Apostles, and disclosing certain hidden meanings of the truths and doctrines of Christianity not in- tended for Christians in general, is one of which Clement is, out of those whose writings remain to us, almost the only supporter. Nay, his statements on this point are directly opposed to those of Irenzeus and Tertullian, who both inveigh strongly against any such notion. The former speaks of it as a tenet of the Carpocratian heretics, who, he tells us, “said, that Jesus “ spoke some things privately in a mysterious manner to his “ disciples and Apostles, and commanded them to deliver those “ things to those that were worthy and obedient.”* And he 1 Πολλὰ δὲ, εὖ οἶδα, παρεῤῥύηκεν ἡμᾶς χρόνου μήκει ἀγράφως διαπεσόντα. “Ὅθεν τὸ ἀσθενὲς τῆς μνήμης τῆς ἐμῆς ἐπικουφίζων, κεφαλαίων συστηματικὴν ἔκθεσιν, μνήμης ὑπόμνημα σωτήριον πορίζων ἐμαυτῷ, ἀναγκαίως κέχρημαι τῇδε τῇ ὑποτυπώσει. Ἔστι μὲν οὖν τινὰ μηδὲ ἀπομνημονευθέντα ἡμῖν" πολλὴ γὰρ ἡ παρὰ τοῖς μακαρίοις δύναμις ἦν ἀνδράσιν" ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἀνυποσημείωτα μεμενηκότα τῷ χρόνῳ: & νῦν ἀπέδρα: τὰ δὲ, ὅσα ἐσβέννυτο, ἐν αὐτῇ μαραινόμενα τῇ διανοίᾳ, ἐπεὶ μὴ ῥάδιος ἢ τοιάδε διακονία τοῖς μὴ δεδοκιμασμένοις, ταῦτα δὲ ἀναζωπυρῶν ὗπο- μνήμασι, τὰ μὲν ἑκὼν παραπέμπομαι, ἐκλέγων ἐπιστημόνως, φοβούμενος γράφειν, & καὶ λέγειν ἐφυλαξάμην: οὔ τι που φθονῶν" οὐ γὰρ θέμις" δεδιὼς δὲ ἄρα περὶ τῶν ἐντυγχανόντων, μή πῃ ἑτέρως σφαλεῖεν, καὶ παιδὶ μάχαιραν, ἧ φασιν of παροι- μιαζόμενοι, ὀρέγοντες ἑυρεθῶμεν. ΤΡ. Strom. lib. i. § 1. p. 324. (or, 276.) 3 Ἔν δὲ τοῖς συγγράμμασιν αὐτῶν οὕτως ἀναγέγραπται, καὶ αὐτοὶ οὕτως ἐξη- γοῦνται, τὸν Ἰησοῦν λέγοντες ἐν μυστηρίῳ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ ᾿Αποστόλοις 48 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS says, “ That Paul taught plainly what he knew, not only to his “ companions, but to all who heard him, he himself manifests. “ For, in Miletus, the bishops and presbyters being assembled, « . . . he says, ‘I have not shunned to declare to you the whole “ counsel of God’ Thus, the Apostles plainly and willingly “ delivered ¢o all those things which they had themselves “ learned from the Lord.”! And again, he says, ‘ The doc- “ trine of the Apostles is manifest, and firm, and conceals no- “ thing, and is not that of men who teach one thing in secret “and another openly. For this is the contrivance of counter- “ feits, and seducers, and hypocrites, as the Valentinians do.” * And thus Tertullian ;—* All the sayings of the Lord are proposed to all.” And he accuses those of “ madness,” who “think that the Apostles did not reveal all things to all, but “ that they committed some things openly to all, without exception, “ and some secretly to a few.’’* Most justly, therefore, is this notion of Clement, as to a secret Tradition reserved for a few, pronounced by a learned prelate of our Church, who is referred to with approbation by our opponents, to be “ destitute of solid foundation.”’* And the reserve recommended, is a reserve only in communi- κατ᾽ ἰδίαν λελαληκέναι, Kal αὐτοὺς ἀξιῶσαι, τοῖς ἀξίοις καὶ τοῖς πειθομένοις ταῦτα παραδιδόναι. IREN. Adv. Her. lib. i. c. 25. ed. Mass. 1710. p. 104. (ed. Grab. i. 24. p. 101.) 1 «Quoniam autem Paulus simpliciter que sciebat hec et docuit, non solum eos qui cum eo erant, verum omnes audientes se, ipse facit manifestum. In Mileto enim conyocatis Episcopis et Presbyteris....‘ Non subtraxi,’ inquit, ‘uti non annunciarem omnem sententiam Dei vobis.’ Sic Apostoli simpliciter, et nemini invidentes, que didicerant ipsi a Domino, hee omnibus tradebant.” Ip. ib. lib. iii. c. 14. pp. 201, 202. (p. 235.) 2 «“Doctrina Apostolorum manifesta, et firma, et nihil subtrahens, neque alia quidem in abscondito, alia vero in manifesto docentium. Hoc enim fictorum, et prave seducentium, et hypocritarum est molimen, quemadmodum faciunt hi, qui a Valentino sunt.” Ib. ib. ο. 15. p. 208. (p. 237.) 3 “Omnia quidem dicta Domini omnibus posita sunt.” Trrtuxn. De Pre- script. heret. c. 8. Op. ed. 1664. p. 205. * “Eadem dementia est, cum confitentur quidem nihil Apostolos ignorasse, nec diversa inter se praedicasse, non tamen omnia volunt illos omnibus revelasse, quze- dam enim palam et universis, quedam secreto et paucis demandasse.” TERTULL. De Prescript. heret. c. 25. p 210. δ᾽ Bishop Kaye's Account of the writings and opinions of Clement of Alex- andria, ch. 8. p. 368. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 49 cating this Gnostic Tradition, not in preaching the great doc- trines of Christianity ; and one which even to this limited extent is entirely opposed, as we have shown, to the views of Irenzeus and Tertullian. At any rate, as this Gnostic Tradition is confessedly delivered by Clement so that the uninitiated cannot avail themselves of it, his writings will not serve to show us its true nature; and unless our opponents can lay claim to the possession of the key which unlocks this treasure, his Tradition, and his notions re- specting it, are to us equally useless and inapplicable. The knowledge of the profundities of this Mystic Tradition is gone, and with it the applicability to any practical purpose of all that is said respecting it. But, with this exception, he speaks agreeably to the view we have been attempting to establish, as I shall now proceed to show. For, First, he acknowledges no divine informant but Scripture, and this supposed Gnostic Tradition. Secondly, with respect to the claims of Scripture, as the Rule of faith, he speaks thus. “ He, therefore,” he says, “‘ who believes the divine Scriptures with a firm conviction, receives an incontrovertible demonstra- “ tion, namely, the voice of God, who gave the Scriptures.” ! Again ; “ But the just shall live by faith ; that faith, namely, “which is according to the Testament and the commandments ; * since these [Testaments], which are two as it respects name “ and time, having been given, by a wise ceconomy, according “to age and proficiency, are one in effect. Both the Old and “ the New were given by one God, through the Son.” * Again; “ But, since a happy life is set before us by the com- “ mandments, it behoves us all to follow it, not disobeying “ anything that is said, nor lightly esteeming what is becoming, 1‘O πιστεύσας τοίνυν ταῖς Γραφαῖς ταῖς θείαις, τὴν κρίσιν βεβαίαν ἔχων, ἀπόδειξιν ἀναντίῤῥητον, τὴν τοῦ τὰς Γραφὰς δεδωρημένου φωνὴν λαμβάνει Θεοῦ. In. Strom. lib. ii. § 2. p. 433. (or, 362.) 3 Ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται, τῆς κατὰ THY Διαθήκην καὶ Tas evToAas: ἐπειδὴ δύο αὗται ὀνόματι καὶ χρόνῳ, καθ᾽ ἡλικίαν καὶ προκοπὴν οἰκονομικῶς δεδο- μέναι, δυνάμει μία οὖσαι: ἣ μὲν, παλαιά: ἣ δὲ, καινὴ, διὰ υἱοῦ παρ᾽ ἑνὸς Θεοῦ χορηγοῦνται. Ip. Strom. lib. ii. § 6. p. 444. (or, 372.) VOL. III. E 50 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS “ though of the most trifling nature, but following whithersoever “ the word may lead ; if we err from it, we must necessarily fall “ into endless evil. But they who follow the divine Scripture, “ by which believers walk, that they may become, as far as they “ can, like the Lord, ought not to live carelessly, but,” &c.+ Again, he tells us, that for those who, “for the benefit of “their neighbours, betake themselves, some to writing, and “others to the oral delivery of the word, while learning of “ another kind is useful, the perusal of the Dominical Scriptures “is necessary for the proof of what they say.”? And in the seventh book of his Stromata, repiyg to the objection of the heathen to Christianity, on the ground of its followers being divided into so many sects, he says,—“ But “when proof is being given, it is necessary to descend to the ‘particular questions, and to learn demonstratively, from the “ Scriptures themselves, how, on the one hand, the sects were “ deceived, and how, on the other, both the most perfect know- “ ledge, and that which is in reality the best sect, are in the “ truth alone and the antient Church.”’® Nor let it be supposed, that by the words “the antient Church,” he says anything opposed to our views; for, by that phrase, he means the Church under the Apostles ; as is evident, not only by the time when he wrote, but from his own words a little further on.* Again, he says,—“ They who are willing to labour for the “ acquisition of those things which are of the greatest excellence, 1 °-Eze) δὲ βίος τὶς ἡμῖν μακάριος δι’ ἐντολῶν ἐπιδέδεικται" ᾧ χρὴ πάντας ἕπο- μένους, μὴ παρακούοντας τῶν εἰρημένων τινὸς, μηδὲ ὀλιγωροῦντας τῶν προσηκόντων, κἂν ἐλάχιστον ἢ, ἕπεσθαι ἣ ἂν ὃ Λόγος ἡγῆται: εἰ σφαλείημεν αὐτοῦ, ἀθανάτῳ κακῷ περιπεσεῖν ἀνάγκη" κατακολουθήσασι δὲ τῇ θείᾳ Γραφῇ, δι’ js ὁδεύουσιν of πεπιστευκότες, ἐξομοιοῦσθαι κατὰ δύναμιν τῷ Κυρίῳ, οὐκ ἀδιαφόρως βιωτέον, ἀλλὰ k.7.A. Ip. Strom. lib. iii. § 5. p. 530. (or, 443.) 2 Διὰ. δὲ Thy τῶν πέλας ὠφέλειαν, τῶν μὲν, ἐπὶ τὸ γράφειν ἱεμένων" τῶν δὲ, ἐπὶ τὸ παραδιδόναι στελλομένων τὸν λόγον" ἥτε ἄλλη παιδεία χρήσιμος, ἥτε τῶν γραφῶν τῶν Κυριακῶν ἀνάγνωσις εἰς ἀπόδειξιν τῶν λεγομένων ἀναγκαία. Το. Strom. lib. vi. § 11. p. 786. (or, 660.) 3 ῬΑποδείξεως δ᾽ οὔσης, ἀνάγκη συγκαταβαίνειν εἰς τὰς ζητήσεις, καὶ δι᾽ αὐτῶν τῶν γραφῶν ἐκμανθάνειν ἀποδεικτικῶς, ὅπως μὲν ἀπεσφάλησαν αἱ αἱρέσεις, ὅπως δὲ ἐν μόνῃ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, καὶ τῇ ἀρχαίᾳ Ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἥτε ἀκριβεστάτη γνῶσις, καὶ ἣ τῷ ὄντι ἀρίστη αἵρεσις. Ip. Strom. lib. vii. § 15. p. 888. (or, 755). 4 Ip. Strom. lib. vii. § 17. pp. 898, 9. (or 764, 5.) ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 51 “will not desist from their search for truth, before they have “ received a proof from the Scriptures themselves.” } And again,—®“ Thus, therefore, we, giving perfect proof “respecting the Scriptures, from the Scriptures themselves, “ believe through faith with demonstrative evidence.” 3 “ The truth,” he says,.... “is found, by considering atten- “ tively what is perfectly proper and becoming for the Lord and “the Almighty God, and by confirming each of the things de- “ monstrated by the Scriptures from like Scriptures.’”’? And a little further on his language clearly shows, that he appealed to the Scripture alone as the Rule and Judge of controversies, in disputing with those who differed from him, where he says,—‘‘ When we have overthrown them by demon- “ strating that they are clearly opposed to the Scriptures, you will “ see the leaders of the doctrine opposed, do one of two things ; “ for either they give up the consequence of their own doctrines, “ or the prophecy itself, or rather their own hope.’’* “ They,” he says, “who do not follow God whithersoever “ he may lead them, fall away from that exalted state [which “he has been describing]; and God leads by the divinely- “ inspwred Scriptures.” ὃ 2 °AAN of πονεῖν ἕτοιμοι ἐπὶ τοῖς καλλίστοις, ov πρότερον ἀποστήσονται ζητοῦντες τὴν ἀλήθειαν, πρὶν ἂν τὴν ἀπόδειξιν ἀπ’ αὐτῶν λάβωσι τῶν γραφῶν. In. Strom. lib. vii. § 16. p. 889. (or, 755.) 2 Οὕτως οὖν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀπ’ αὐτῶν περὶ αὐτῶν τῶν γραφῶν τελείως ἀποδεικνύντες ἐκ πίστεως πειθόμεθα ἀποδεικτικῶς. ID. Strom. lib. vii. § 16. p. 891. (or, 757.) See also the preceding context of this passage,—Tj τοῦ Κυρίου φωνῇ πιστούμεθα τὸ ζητούμενον: ἣ πασῶν ἀποδείξεων ἐχεγγυωτέρα, μᾶλλον δὲ, ἣ μόνη ἀπόδειξις οὖσα τυγχάνε. But as the meaning of the phrase Κυρίου φωνῇ is con- tested, I shall not here press this testimony; though I have the authority of Bisnor Kaye (Account of writings, &c. of Clement of Alexandria, p. 219) for interpreting the phrase as meaning the Scriptuies,—which renders the passage a remarkably strong testimony in our favor. 8 Ἢ ἀλήθεια δὲ. .. εὑρίσκεται... ἐν τῷ διασκέψασθαι τί τῷ Κυρίῳ καὶ τῷ παντοκράτορι Θεῷ τελείως οἰκεῖόν τε καὶ πρέπον" κἂν τῷ βεβαιοῦν ἕκαστον τῶν ἀποδεικνυμένων κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς, ἐξ αὐτῶν πάλιν τῶν ὁμοίων γραφῶν. Ib. Strom. lib. vii. § 16. p. 891. (or, 758.) 4 "Ἐπειδὰν γὰρ ἀνατρέπωνται πρὸς ἡμῶν, δεικνύντων αὐτοὺς σαφῶς ἐναντιουμένους ταῖς γραφαῖς, δυοῖν θάτερον ὑπὸ τῶν προεστώτων τοῦ δόγματός ἐστι θεάσασθαι γινόμενον" ἢ γὰρ τῆς ἀκολουθίας τῶν σφετέρων δογμάτων, ἣ τῆς προφητείας αὐτῆς, μᾶλλον δὲ τῆς ἑαυτῶν ἐλπίδος καταφρονοῦσιν. Ip. Strom. lib. vii. § 16. Ῥ. 892. (or, 758.) 5 ᾿Αποπίπτουσιν ἄρὰ τοῦδε τοῦ ὕψους, of μὴ ἑπόμενοι Θεῷ, ἐὰν (ἣ ἂν Potter) E2 52 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS From these passages, I think, it is evident, that the Holy Scriptures were proposed by Clement, as the authoritative Rule of faith and Judge of controversies for all Christians, and to all but his Gnostic Christian, the sole and exclusive Rule and Judge. Unless, then, our opponents are willing to contend for his notions about a Gnostic Tradition, delivered to four of the Apostles, and left as a deposit with certain rabbies of the Church for the benefit of a few mature Christians,! they will derive no benefit from Clement’s testimony on this matter. Moreover, notwithstanding his notions about a Gnostic Tra- dition, it is evident, that he considered it to be only an exposition of Scripture, and not as containing any additional doctrines or points of faith ; for he says ;—‘ We offer them that which cannot “ be contradicted, even that of which God is the author ; and of “ each one of those things which form the subject of our inquiries, “ he has taught us inthe Scriptures.” * And it is clear from many passages, that he considered the Gnostic Tradition as only explanatory of Scripture, and not as adding to it any new points of faith. Thus, he says, when about to give a description of the Christian faith,—* We shall “bring testimonies from the Scriptures hereafter, in their “proper places; but we shall give what they deliver, and “ describe the Christian faith (or Christianity) in a summary “way....and if what we say should appear to any of the “ vulgar contrary to the Dominical Scriptures, they must know, “ that, from that source, they have their breath and life; and “ taking their origin from them, profess to give the sense only, “ not the words.’’® So, also, he intimates elsewhere, that the Gnostic Tradition de- ἡγῆται: ἡγεῖται δὲ κατὰ τὰς θεοπνεύστους γραφάς. Ip. Strom. lib. vii. § 16. Ὁ. 894. (or, 761.) 1 See Strom. lib. vii. § 10. pp. 864, 5. (or, 731, 2.) 3 Προτείνομεν γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἀναντίῤῥητον ἐκεῖνο, ὃ ὁ Θεός ἐστιν ὁ λέγων, καὶ περὶ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου ὧν ἐπιζητῶ, παριστὰς ἐγγράφως. Ip. Strom. lib. v. § 1. p. 646. (or, 547.) 3 Κατὰ τοὺς ἐπικαίρους τόπους ὕστερον ταῖς γραφαῖς συγχρησόμενοι" τὰ δ᾽ ἐὲ αὐτῶν δηλούμενα σημανοῦμεν κεφαλαιωδῶς τὸν χριστιανισμὸν ὑπογράφοντες . .. κἂν ἑτεροῖα τισὶ τῶν πολλῶν καταφαίνηται τὰ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν λεγόμενα τῶν Κυριακῶν γραφῶν. ἰστεον ὅτι ἐκεῖθεν ἀναπνεῖ τε καὶ Gh, καὶ τὰς ἀφορμὰς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἔχοντα, ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK, 53 lvered only things “ agreeable to the divinely-inspired oracles.”’! And that “the Gnostic knows antient things, and conjectures things to come, by the Scriptures.””” Hence, he says, that “they who have only tasted the Scrip- “ tures, are believers ; but they who have advanced further are ““ perfect indexes of the truth, namely, the Gnostics, as, in things “ pertaining to this life, those who understand any art, possess “ something more than the ignorant, and produce that which is * superior to the ideas of the vulgar.’# It is evident, therefore, that, (as the learned prelate already quoted has observed,)—‘ The same Scriptures were placed in “ the hands of Clement’s Gnostic, and of the common believer ; “but he interpreted them on different principles; he affixed “to them a higher and more spiritual meanmg. The same “ doctrines were proposed as the objects of his faith ; but he ex- “‘ nlained them in a different manner; he discovered in them ‘hidden meanings, which are not discernible by the vulgar ce eye’ * Hirrotytus THE Marryr. (fl. a. 220.) I pass on to a venerable and much-esteemed name, Hip- polytus the Martyr, who thus bears his testimony on all the great points in question. “There is one God, of whom, brethren, we have no knowledge, “ but from the Holy Scriptures. For as, if any one should wish ** to cultivate the wisdom of this world, he will not be able to “ obtain it otherwise than by reading the doctrines of the philo- “« sophers ; in the same way, as many of us as would cultivate reli- ** gion, shall not be able to learn it anywhere else than from the τὸν νοῦν μόνον, ov Thy λέξιν παριστᾷν ἐπαγγέλληται. Ip. Strom. lib. vii. § 1. p- 829. (or, 699, 700.) 1 Τὰ προσφυῆ τοῖς θεοπνεύστοις λόγοις ὑπὸ τῶν μακαρίων ᾿Αποστόλων τε καὶ διδασκάλων παραδιδόμενα. Ip. Strom. lib. vii. § 16. p. 896. (or. 762.) 3 Ὃ γνωστικὸς γὰρ oldev κατὰ Thy γραφὴν Ta ἀρχαῖα, καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα εἰκάζει. Ip. Strom. lib. vi. § 11. p. 786. (or, 660.) See also lib. vi. § 15. p. 802. (or, 676.) 3 Of μὲν ὀπογευσάμενοι μόνον τῶν γραφῶν, πιστόι' of δὲ καὶ προσωτέρω χωρή- σαντες, ἀκριβεῖς γνώμονες τῆς ἀληθείας ὑπάρχουσιν, οἱ γνωστικοί: ἐπεὶ κἂν τοῖς κατὰ τὸν βίον ἔχουσί τι πλέον οἱ τεχνίται τῶν ἰδιωτῶν, καὶ παρὰ τὰς κοινὰς ἐννοίας ἐκτυποῦσι τὺ βέλτιον. ΤΡ. Strom. lib. vii. § 16. p. 891. (or, 757.) 4 Br. Kaye’s Account &c. of Clem. of Alex. pp. 367, 8, 54 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS *¢ oracles of God. Whatsoever, therefore, the divine writings pro- “ claim, let us observe ; and whatsoever they teach, let us make “ ourselves acquainted with ; and let us believe in the Father, as “ the Father wills to be believed in ; and let us glorify the Son, as “ he wills that the Son should be glorified ; and let us receive the “ Holy Spirit, as he wills that the Holy Spirit should be given. “ Not [viewing these things] according to our own preconceived “ prejudices, nor according to our own notions, nor putting a “ forced construction upon what God has delivered, but according “to the form which he purposed to point out to us by the Holy * Scriptures, thus let us view it.””} OricEn. (fl. a. 230.) Our next witness shall be Origen. And nothing can be more to the point, than the passage we have quoted from him above, in illustration of another question, where he says,—‘ To “ me it seems good to cleave close, as to God and our Lord Jesus “ Christ, so also to his Apostles, and to take my information from “ the divine Scriptures, according to their own tradition.”* Again ;—“ These two things are the works of a priest ; that “ he should either be learning from God, by reading and frequently “ meditating upon the divine Scriptures, or be teaching the people. “« But let him teach those thingswhich he himself shall have learnt “ from God, not from his own heart, or from the human under- “ standing, but what the Holy Spirit teaches.’’* 1 Εἷς Θεὸς, ὃν οὐκ ἄλλοθεν ἐπιγινώσκομεν, ἀδελφοὶ, ἢ [ex] τῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν. “Ov γὰρ τρόπον ἐάν τις βουληθῆ τὴν σοφίαν τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἀσκεῖν, οὐκ ἄλλως δυνήσεται τούτου τυχεῖν, ἐὰν μὴ δόγμασι φιλοσόφων ἐντύχῃ, τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον ὅσοι θεοσέβειαν ἀσκειν βουλόμεθα, οὐκ ἄλλοθεν ἀσκήσομεν ἢ ἐκ τῶν λογίων τοῦ Θεοῦ. Ὅσα τοίνυν κηρύσσουσιν αἱ θεῖαι γραφαὶ, ἴδωμεν, καὶ ὅσα διδάσκουσιν, ἐπιγνῶμεν, καὶ ὡς θέλει πατὴρ πιστεύεσθαι, πιστεύσωμεν, καὶ ὡς θέλει υἱὸν δοξά- εσθαι, δοξάσωμεν, καὶ ὡς θέλει πνεῦμα ἅγιον δωρεῖσθαι, λάβωμεν. Μὴ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν προαίρεσιν, μηδὲ κατ᾽ ἴδιον νοῦν, μηδὲ βιαζόμενοι τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ δεδομένα, ἀλλ᾽ dv τρόπον αὐτὸς ἐβουλήθη διὰ τῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν δεῖξαι, οὕτως ἴδωμεν. HIPPOL. Mart. Homil. contra Noet. § 9. Op. ed. Fabric. 1716—1718. vol. ii. pp. 12, 13. 2 See p. 3 above. 8 “Hee duo sunt pontificis opera; ut aut a Deo discat legendo Scripturas divinas, et seepius meditando, aut populum doceat. Sed illa doceat, qui ipse a Deo didicerit, non ex proprio corde, vel ex humano sensu, sed que Spiritus Sanctus docet.” OnrtcEen. In Levit. hom. 6. ὃ 6. Op. ed. Ben. Paris. 1733 et seq. tom. il. p. 219. ~ ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 55 “We must take the Scriptures as witnesses [to prove the “ truth of what we say]. For our doctrines and interpretations ** without such witness, are not to be believed.” ! “ If the oracles of God are in the Law and Prophets and Gospels “and Apostles, it will behove one who has been taught by the ** oracles of God, to reckon God his master.”? Speaking of our Saviour silencing the Sadducees by a refer- ence to Scripture, he says,—‘ As our Saviour imposed silence “ on the Sadducees by the word of his doctrine, and confidently “ refuted the false dogma which they esteemed to be the truth, so “‘ will the followers of Christ also do by instances from the “ Scriptures, to which, according to sound doctrine, it behoves “every voice of Pharaoh to submit im silence... .. We “ ought to treat of those things that are not written, according “ to the things that are written.” Again ;—St. Paul, “as is his custom, is desirous of confirming ** what he had said from the Holy Scriptures; and at the same “ time affords an example to the teachers of the Church, that in “ what they preach to the people, they should bring forward not “ their own imaginations, but things that are supported by the *« divine testimonies.”* Similarly to what he says elsewhere, that “ he is circumcised and clean, who always speaks the word of “ God, and brings forward sound doctrine, supported by Evan- “ selical and Apostolical admonitions.” ® 1 Mdprupas δεῖ λαβεῖν τὰς γραφὰς" ἀμάρτυροι γὰρ αἱ ἐπιβολαὶ ἡμῶν καὶ αἱ ἐξηγήσεις ἄπιστοί εἰσιν. Ld, In Jerem. hom. 1. § 7. tom. iii. p. 129, 2 Ei Θεοῦ λόγιά ἐστιν ἐν Νόμῳ, καὶ Προφήταις, Εὐαγγελίοις τε καὶ ᾿Αποστόλοις, δεήσει τὸν μαθητευόμενον Θεοῦ λογίοις διδάσκαλον ἐπιγράφεσθαι Θεόν. Ip. In Jerem. hom. 10. init. (sec. Hieron. hom. 8.) tom. ili. p. 182. 3 « Sicut Salvator verbo doctrine sue silentium imposuit Sadduceeis, et falsum dogma, quod apud illos veritas putabatur, convicit fiducialiter; sic facient et Christi imitatores exemplis scripturarum, quibus oportet, secundum sacram doc- trinam, omnem vocem obmutescere Pharaonis....Secundum ea enim que scripta sunt, tractare debemus et ea que scripta non sunt.” Ip. In Matt. Comment. Series, § 1. (al. Tract. 23.) tom. iii. p. 830, 4 « Ut ei moris est, de Scripturis sanctis vult affirmare quod dixerat: simul et doctoribus Ecclesie prabet exemplum, ut ea que loquuntur ad populum non propriis presumpta sententiis, sed divinis munita testimoniis proferant.’’ Ip. In Epist. ad Rom. lib. iii. § 2. tom. iv. p. 504. 5 “Circumcisus et mundus est, qui semper verbum Dei loquitur, et sacram doctrinam Evangelicis et Apostolicis munitam regulis profert.” Ip. In Genes. hom. iii. § 5. tom. ii. p. 69. : 56 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS “See,” he says, “how close they are upon danger, who “ neglect to be versed in the divine Scriptures, which alone ought “ to direct our judgment in such an examination,” that 15, as to who are true and who are false ministers of Christ. A very remarkable testimony this as it respects other poimts in the present controversy, beside that immediately before us. For we here see, that the Scriptures are considered by Origen as the proper test of orthodoxy and the true Church. And hence we see what is meant by those passages that are often triumphantly adduced in defence of pseudo-catholic views, such for instance as the following,—* It is a capital sin,” says Origen, “to think otherwise of the divine doctrines than the faith of ‘*the Church contains.” No doubt it is; but it is not here intended, that the dictum of any certain body of men should be laid down as the ground upon which our faith is to rest. It is true in the mouth of all parties, that he who in fundamental points does not hold the faith of the true Church of Christ is in fundamental error. But before we can make the creed of that Church the ground of our faith, we must determine infal- libly who constitute that Church, and one of the necessary evi- dences by which we must discern that Church, is its holding the orthodox faith, which therefore must be determined before we can discover that Church. And when we consider these words in connection with him who uttered them, we shall see most forcibly how little practical meaning they have. For what sort of exposition would Origen have given of the doctrines of the Church? An exposition unsound even in the highest points, and full (as Jerome will tell us*) of his own vagaries. Further, Holy Scripture is with him the complete Rule of faith. For, commenting on Lev. vil. 17, 18, on the words that the sacrifice was to be eaten within two days, and that if any 1“ Unde vide quam proximi periculo fiant hi qui exerceri in divinis literis negligunt, ex quibus solis hujusmodi examinationis agnoscenda discretio est.” Ip. In Ep. ad Rom. lib. x. ὃ 35. tom. iv. p. 684. And he says elsewhere,—* Divi- nare magis est quam explanare, ubi quod dicitur non de Seripturarum auctoritate maunitur.” In Exod. hom. xiii. § 2. tom. ii. p. 176. * “Capitis peecatum est, aliter quam fides Ecclesiz continet de divinis sentire dogmatibus.” Ip. In Levit. hom. viii. § 11. tom. ii. p. 235. 3 See the notes in vol. i. pp. 247, 18 and p. 221 of this work. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 57 remained to the third day it was to be burnt, he says ;—“ By “ these two days I think that the two Testaments may be under- * stood, in which every word which belongs to God (for this is “ΚΕ the sacrifice) may be sought and discovered, and a knowledge of “all things obtained from them. But if anything shall remain * which the Divine Scripture does not determine, no other third “ scripture must be taken as an authority for our information, “ because this is called the third day, but we must put into the ** fire what remains, that is, we must leave it with God. For God “ does not intend that in the present lifewe should know all things «.... . Lest, therefore, our sacrifice should not be accepted, “ and this very thing, namely, that we desire to inform ourselves “‘ from the divine Scriptures, become to us a cause of sin, let us “ keep ourselves within those limits which the spiritual law an- “ nounces to us by the legislator.’ Absurdly fanciful as this interpretation is, it shows most forcibly Origen’s views upon the point now in question. Again ;—“ Therefore in proof of all the words we utter when “ teaching, we ought to produce the doctrine of Scripture as “ confirming the doctrine we utter. For, as all the gold that “is without the temple is not sanctified, so every doctrine that “ is not in the divine Scripture, although it may seem admirable “ to some, is not sacred, because it is not comprehended within “ the doctrine of Scripture, which sanctifies that doctrine alone « which it contains within itself, as the temple [renders sacred ] “ the gold that is in it. We ought not, therefore, for the con- “ firmation of our instructions, to swear by and take as evidence “ our own notions, which we individually hold, and think to be “‘ agreeable to truth, unless we are able to show, that they are 1 “Tn hoe biduo puto duo Testamenta posse intelligi, in quibus liceat omne verbum quod ad Deum pertinet, (hoc enim est sacrificium,) requiri et discuti, atque ex ipsis omnem rerum scientiam capi. Si quid autem superfuerit, quod non divina Scriptura decernat, nullam aliam tertiam scripturam debere ad auctoritatem scientiz suscipi, quia hee dies tertia nominatur, sed igni tradamus quod superest, id est Deo reservemus. Neque enim in presenti vita Deus scire nos omnia voluit ...- Ne forte ergo non fiat acceptum sacrificium nostrum, et hoc ipsum, quod ex divinis Scripturis cupimus scientiam capere, vertatur nobis in peccatum, servemus eas mensuras quas nobis per legislatorem lex spiritalis enunciat.” Ip. In Levit. hom. v. § 9. tom. ii. p. 212. 58 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS , * sacred, as being contained in the divine Scriptures as in some * temples of God.”! And hence, when discussing the question concerning the guardian angels of children, at what period they are appointed to them, at their birth or baptism, he says, (if the antient Latin version may be trusted,)—“ You see, that it is the duty of one ‘© who would discuss both of them with caution, to show which ““ of them is true, and to adduce in proof Scripture-testimony “ aereeing with one of the two.”? To the strong testimony given in favor of our position in the above passages, I know of no drawback, except what may be supposed to arise from his language when delivering the Creed of the Church, already quoted from him in a previous page? Of this Creed he speaks as having been delivered by the Apostles, and “remaining up to that time in the Churches ;” and says, that “that alone was to be held as the truth, which “in no respect disagreed with the ecclesiastical and Apostolical “ Tradition.”4 And elsewhere, arguing against the heresies of Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, and others, he says,— But we “ ought not to believe them, nor to depart from the original “and ecclesiastical Tradition, nor to believe otherwise than * according to what the Churches of God have by succession delivered to τι5.᾽ ὅ 1 « Debemus ergo ad testimonium omnium verborum que proferimus in doc- trina, proferre sensum Scripture quasi confirmantem quem exponimus sensum. Sicut enim omne aurum quod fuerit extra templum non est sanctificatum, sic omnis sensus qui fuerit extra divinam Scripturam, quamvis admirabilis videatur quibusdam, non est sanctus, quia non continetur a sensu Scripture, que solet eum solum sensum sanctificare quem habet in se, sicut templum proprium aurum. Non ergo debemus ad confirmandam doctrinam nostram nostros proprios intel- lectus jurare, et quasi testimonia assumere, quos unusquisque nostrum intelligit, et secundum veritatem existimat esse, ni ostenderit eos sanctos esse, ex eo quod in Scripturis continentur divinis quasi in templis quibusdam Dei.” Ib. In Matt. Comment. Series, § 18. (al. Tract. 23.) tom. iii. p. 842. 2 «Vides quoniam qui caute utrumque discusserit, illius est affirmare utrum eorum sit verum, et ad testimonium proferre Scripturam uni ex duobus consen- tientem.” Ip. In Matth. tom. xiii. § 27. sec. vet. interpret. tom. 111. p. 607. 5 See vol. i. pp. 216—20. 4 “Cum multi sint, qui se putant sentire que Christi sunt, et nonnulli eorum diversa a prioribus sentiant, servetur vero ecclesiastica preedicatio per successionis ordinem ab Apostolis tradita, et usque ad presens in ecclesiis permanens : illa sola credenda est veritas, que in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione.” Ip. De princip. lib. i. Preef. § 2. tom. i. p. 47. 5 “Sed nos illis credere non debemus, nec exire a prima et ecclesiastica tra- ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 59 Now from these words it no doubt follows, that for the truth of the doctrines contained in that Creed he considered that there was proof, independent of Scripture, in the consentient teaching of the Apostolical Churches. But first let us consider, to what points this Creed, for which the consent of the Apostolical Churches is challenged by Origen, extends. Hardly to one of the points in controversy in the present day. How, then, can the authority of Origen be now pleaded for a reference to “ Tradition” in proof of points for which he does not challenge the evidence of Tradition in his own day? He professes to give in this Creed the whole of that for which the consent of the Apostolical Churches could be claimed. We cannot, then, quote him as sanctioning an appeal to “ Tradition ” on other points. Moreover, he gives no intimation that these points are not all fully and clearly delivered in Scripture, but, on the contrary, his language in other places shows, that he was altogether op- posed to any such notion. Further; his appeal is of a totally different nature from any that can be made now. His comparative proximity to the times of the Apostles, made his reference to the testimony then borne by the Apostolical Churches altogether different from a reference in the present day to the witness of the works accidentally re- maining to us of a few antient authors. His statements, there- fore, fall far short of affordmg any countenance to the theory of the Romanists or the Tractators. On the contrary, when taken as a whole, and viewed with reference to the present day, they will, I think, be considered by an impartial reader clearly to support the opposite view. Lastly, whatever may be thought of such passages, an appeal to Origen in support of the views which we are here opposing, is a most unfortunate mistake. For, as we have already seen, he makes this “Tradition” to which he refers responsible for some of his own errors.' His case, then, ditione, nec aliter credere, nisi quemadmodum per successionem ecclesiz Dei tradiderunt nobis.” Ib, In Matth. Comment. Series, § 46. (al. Tract. 29.) tom. ili. p. 864. ΠῚ See notes in vol. i. pp. 217, 18 and p. 221. Also Hirron. Ep. ad Avit. ep. 124. ed. Vallars. Venet. 1766 et seq. 60 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS affords a clear proof, that, even at that early period, men might make great mistakes, and embrace serious errors, and at the same time claim “ Church-Tradition ” in their favor; and, conse- quently, that the statements of even the earlier Fathers as to the doctrine of the Apostolical Churches cannot be fully de- pended upon. Dionysius or ALEXANDRIA. (fl. a. 247.) There is also a remarkable testimony to Scripture as the Rule of faith, in an extract given us by Eusebius, from the writings of Dionysius of Alexandria. Dionysius there gives us an account of his going into the province of the Arsinoite, and convening a meeting of the presbyters and others of those parts, to discuss the doctrines of the Millenarians, to which many in those parts were attached. What, then, was the Rule of judgment to this meeting? At that early period one might not have been sur- prised if some reference had been made to Tradition. But we find nothing of the kind. On the contrary, we are told by Dionysius, in praise of the spirit and mode of proceeding of the assembly, that while they attempted to maintain, as far as they could, their own notions, they were not ashamed, when the argument went against them, to confess their error; “ but, “on the contrary, acting most conscientiously and sincerely, “and with hearts laid open to God’s view, fully received those “ things that were established by proofs and testimonies of the “« Holy Scriptures,” + Cyprian. (fl. a. 248.) I proceed to the venerable Cyprian, whose testimony is beyond exception in our favor, and remarkably strong. In the celebrated contest between him and Stephen, bishop of Rome, respecting the rebaptization of those baptized by heretics, it was pleaded by Stephen, that “Tradition” was against it. To this Cyprian replies, —“ ‘ Let nothing new be introduced,’ says ‘Stephen, ‘but what is delivered [tradited] to us.? Whence “is that tradition ? Does it descend from Dominical and Evan- 'PAAN εὐσυνειδήτως καὶ ἀνυποκρίτως, καὶ ταῖς καρδίαις πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἥπλω- μέναις, τὰ ταῖς ἀποδείξεσι καὶ διδασκαλίαις τῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν συνιστανόμενα κατα- δεχόμενοι. Dionys. ALEX. in Evses. Hist. Eccl. lib. vii. c. 24. ed. Reading. Ρ. 351. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 61 “ gelical testimony, or does it come from the commands and “ epistles of the Apostles? For, God declares that those things “ are to be done, that are written .... If, therefore, it is either “ commanded in the Gospel, or contained in the Epistles or * Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any heresy “ should not be baptized, but only hands be placed upon them “ for repentance, let that divine and holy tradition be observed “.... But if there is but one baptism, which is among us, and “is internal, and, of the divine favor, has been granted to the “ Church alone, what obstinacy and presumption it is to prefer “a human tradition to the divine appointment, and not to per- “ ceive, that God is indignant and angry as often as human “ tradition annuls and neglects the divine precepts... . Custom “ without truth is merely old error; wherefore, leaving the “error, let us follow truth.... But it is reckoned a gain by “‘ pious and simple minds both to lay aside the error, and to find * and search out the truth. For, if we return to the head and “ original of the Divine Tradition, human error ceases.... If “an aqueduct, which before flowed largely and in abundance, “ suddenly fails, do not we go to the fountain, that the reason of “ the failure may there be ascertained, whether the water is dried * up through the exhaustion of the supply at the fountain-head, “ or whether flowing thence freely and fully it has failed in the “ middle of its course ; that if it has been caused through the “‘ pipe being broken or porous, so that the water could not flow “on in a continuous stream, the pipe may be repaired and made “‘ good, and the water collected may be supplied for the use and “ drink of the city, with the same fulness and perfection with “ which it rises from the fountain-head ? And this it now be- “* comes the priests of God to do, observing the divine precepts, “so that if the truth has in anything wavered, we may return “ to the Dominical original and the Evangelical and Apostolical “ Tradition, and the form of our actions may take its rise from *‘ thence whence their order and origin took their rise. For it “is delivered to us, that there is one God, and one Christ, and “one hope, and one faith, and one Church, and one baptism « (Eph. iv. 4—6.], ordained only in one Church ; and whcever “ departs from this unity, he must necessarily be found among “heretics; whom while he [1.. 6. Stephen] defends against 62 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS “ the Church, he impugns the sacred mystery of the Divine “ Tradition.” Ὁ Here, then, we clearly see, that, even in a matter of Church- order, Cyprian allows that only to be a divine tradition which is to be found in Scripture, and characterizes everything else as human tradition; thereby affirming in the strongest way the whole of that for which we are here contending against the Ro- manists and the Tractators. And if this was the case in the middle of the third century, how much more in the middle of the nineteenth!* The testimony of Augustine is no doubt op- posed to this, who, speaking of this matter, maintains, in opposi- tion to Cyprian, that there are some points of Church-order, 1 « «Nihil innovetur,’ inquit, ‘nisi quod traditum est.’ Unde est ista traditio ἢ utrumne de Dominica et Evangelica auctoritate descendens, an de Apostolorum mandatis atque epistolis veniens? Ea enim facienda esse que scripta sunt, Deus testatur.... Si ergo aut in Evangelio precipitur, aut in Apostolorum Epistolis aut Actibus continetur, ut a quacunque heresi venientes non baptizentur, sed tantum manus illis imponatur in peenitentiam, observetur divina hec et sancta traditio .--- Quod si .. baptisma non nisi unum est, quod apud nos est, et intus est, et soli Ecclesiz de divina dignatione concessum est, que ista obstinatio est, queeve pre- sumptio, humanam traditionem divine dispositioni anteponere, nec animadvertere, indignari et irasci Deum quotiens divina precepta solvit et preterit humana traditio .... Consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est; propter quod relicto errore sequamur veritatem .... In compendio est autem apud religiosas et sim- plices mentes et errorem deponere et invenire atque eruere veritatem. Nam si ad Divine Traditionis caput et originem revertamur, cessat error humanus.... Si canalis aquam ducens, qui copiose prius et largiter profluebat, subito deficiat ; nonne ad fontem pergitur, ut illic defectionis ratio noscatur, utrumne arescentibus venis in capite unda siccaverit ; an vero integra inde et plena procurrens in medio itinere destiterit ; ut si vitio interrupti aut bibuli canalis effectum est, quo minus aqua continua perseveranter ac jugiter flueret, refecto et confirmato canali, ad usum atque ad potum civitatis aqua collecta eadem ubertate atque integritate representetur, qua de fonte proficiscitur? Quod et nunc facere oportet Dei sacerdotes preecepta divina servantes, ut si in aliquo nutaverit et vacillaverit veritas, ad originem Dominicam et Evangelicam et Apostolicam Traditionem revertamur, et inde surgat actus nostri ratio, unde et ordo et origo surrexit. Traditum est enim nobis quod sit unus Deus, et Christus unus, et una spes, et fides una, et una Ecclesia, et baptisma unum [ Eph. iv. 4—6], non nisi in una Ecclesia constitutum, a qua unitate quisquis discesserit, cum hzereticis necesse est inveniatur ; quos dum contra Ecclesiam vindicat, sacramentum divine traditionis impugnat.” Cypriani Epist. ad Pompeium contra epist. Stephani. Op. ed. Fell. Oxon. 1682. Ep. 74. P. ii. pp. 211—16.—See, also, the Letter of Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea, to Cyprian, in approbation of these statements of Cyprian, which follows this Letter of Cyprian in all the editions of his works. * The question referred to in the above passage of Cyprian is fully discussed, vol. i. pp. 312 et seq. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 63 which may properly be believed to have been constituted by the Apostles, and which are not to be found in Scripture.’ But this, as far as Cyprian is concerned, only strengthens our cause, because it shows, that we are under no mistake as to the views of Cyprian. And the views advocated in the above passage are abundantly confirmed in other parts of his works. Thus, in his Epistle to Cecilius, on the question of using water only in the eucharist, he writes thus,—‘ Although, dear “ brother, I am aware, that most of the bishops that by divine “ favor have been set over the Lord’s Churches in the whole “‘ world adhere to the directions of the Evangelical truth and “« Dominical Tradition, and do not depart from that which our “ Master Christ both commanded and performed, to follow a “human and upstart ordinance; yet, since some, either igno- yantly or foolishly, when consecrating the Dominical cup, and “ ministering to the people, do not do that which Jesus Christ “our Lord and God, the author and teacher of this sacrifice, “ did and taught, I have thought it both an act of piety and “necessity to address this letter to you, that if any one is “ still held by this error, he may, by seeing the light of truth, “return to the root and original of the Dominical tradition « |... Taking the cup on the day of his passion, he blessed “it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘ Drink ye all of this, for “ this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many “ for the remission of sins. I say unto you, [ will not drink “ henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall “ drink new wine with you in the kingdom of my Father.’ “ Where we find, that the cup which our Lord offered was mixed. “and that it was wine which he called his blood. Whence “ it is evident, that the blood of Christ is not offered, if there “is no wine in the cup; nor is the Dominical sacrifice duly “ celebrated, unless our oblation and sacrifice correspond with 1 “Consuetudo ila que opponebatur Cypriano ab eorum [i. e. Apostolorum ] traditione exordium sumsisse credenda est, sicut sunt multa que universa tenet Ecclesia, et ob hoc ab Apostolis pracepta bene creduntur, quamquam scripta non reperiantur.” AvGustTiIN. De bapt. contr. Donat. lib. y. ο. 31. Op. ed. Ben. vol. ix. col. 156. 64 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS “ the Passion. But how shall we drink new wine of the fruit “ of the vine with Christ in the kingdom of the Father, if, in “ the sacrifice of God the Father, and Christ, we do not offer “wine, and do not mix the cup of the Lord according to the “ Dominical tradition? Also the blessed Apostle Paul, chosen “ and sent by the Lord, and appointed a preacher of the evan- “ eelical truth, delivers the same things in his Epistle, saying, “ «The Lord Jesus, in the same night in which he was betrayed, “ took bread,’ &c. [quoting 1 Cor. xi. 23, 24.] But if it is “ ordered by the Lord, and the same thing is confirmed and * delivered by his Apostle, that as often as we drink in com- “ memoration of the Lord, we ought to do that which the Lord “ also did, we find, that that which is commanded is not ob- “ served by us, unless we do the very same things which the “ Lord did, and depart not from the divine precept, mixing the “cup of the Lord in the same way as he did..... If, “in the sacrifice which Christ offered, Christ only is to be “‘ followed, it becomes us to follow, and do that which Christ «* did, and which he commanded to be done ..... Where- “ fore if Christ only is to be attended to, we ought not to regard “ what any of our predecessors thought was to be done, but what *‘ he who preceded all, namely Christ, first did. For we must “* not follow the custom of man, but the truth of God...... “ And concerning this, also, let us send letters to our colleagues, “ that the Evangelical law and the Dominical tradition may be “ everywhere observed, and a departure not be made from that “ which Christ both taught and did.’’? Here, again, in a very similar case to the former, Cyprian refers to Scripture as the only authoritative guide in the matter. And there is nothing, perhaps, which more shows how much the Fathers have often been misrepresented by the Romanists, than the fact, that they have constantly availed themselves of 1 «Quanquam sciam, frater carissime, episcopos plurimos ecclesiis Dominicis in toto mundo divina dignatione prepositos Evangelice veritatis ac Dominicz tradi- tionis tenere rationem, nec ab eo quod Christus magister et precepit et gessit, humana et novella institutione decedere; tamen quoniam quidam vel ignoranter vel simpliciter in calice Dominico sanctificando et plebi ininistrando non hoe faciunt, quod Jesus Christus, Dominus et Deus noster, sacrificii hujus auctor et doctor, fecit et docuit ; religiosum pariter ac necessarium duxi, has ad vos literas facere, ut si quis in isto errore adhuc teneatur, veritatis luce perspecta ad radicem ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 65 the word “tradition” in this, and the preceding passage, to make men believe that Cyprian was a supporter of their views of Patristical Tradition. That it is a misrepresentation, and that the Romanists are in the habit of making it, is admitted by Lumper himself, who says,—“ When catholic theologians “ endeavour to prove the existence of divine traditions from the “holy Fathers, they quote, in proof of them, the following “ passages from St. Cyprian.” And he instances the learned Ceillier (Hist. gener. des Auteurs. tom. 2. p. 165 et seq.) “ But,” he adds, “by the leave of that most learned man and “ others, I must say, that neither in this, nor the preceding * passages, do St. Cyprian’s words refer to divine traditions, ** distinct from Holy Scripture. Any one will easily be convinced “ of the truth of this my assertion, if he will only at his leisure read “ the whole of the letters quoted ...... .. CYPRIAN ACKNOW- “ LEDGED NO OTHER TRADITION THAN WHAT IS CONTAINED IN “que Scriptures... . And the illustrious Ceillier is both atque originem traditionis Dominice revertatur ....Calicem sub die passionis accipiens, benedixit, et dedit discipulis suis, dicens; ‘ Bibite ex hoc omnes; hic est enim sanguis Novi Testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem pec- catorum. Dicovobis, non bibam ἃ modo ex ista creatura vitis usque in diem illum quo vobiscum bibam novum vinum in regno Patris mei.’ Qua in parte inve- nimus calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit, et vinum fuisse quod san- guinem suum dixit. Unde apparet sanguinem Christi non offerri, si desit vinum ealici; nec sacrificium Dominicum legitima sanctificatione celebrari, nisi oblatio et sacrificium nostrum responderit passioni. Quomodo autem de creatura vitis novum vinum cum Christo in regno Patris bibemus, si in sacrificio Dei Patris et Christi vinum non offerimus, nec calicem Domini Dominica traditione miscemus ? Beatus quoque Apostolus Paulus a Domino electus et missus, et predicator veri- tatis Evangelice constitutus, hec eadem in Epistola sua ponit, dicens; ‘ Dominus Jesus, in qua nocte tradebatur, accepit panem,’ ἄς. [1 Cor. xi. 23, 24.] Quod si et a Domino precipitur, et ab Apostolo ejus hoc idem confirmatur et traditur, ut quotiescumque biberimus in commemorationem Domini hoc faciamus, quod fecit et Dominus, invenimus non observari a nobis quod mandatumest, nisi eadem que Dominus fecit, nos quoque faciamus, et calicem Domini pari ratione miscentes a divino magisterio non recedamus .. .. Si in sacrificio quod Christus. obtulerit, non nisi Christus sequendus est, utique id nos obaudire et facere oportet, quod Christus fecit, et quod faciendum esse mandavit .. .. Quare si solus Christus audiendus est, non debemus attendere, quid alius ante nos faciendum putaverit, sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prior fecerit. Neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed Dei veritatem.... Et de hoe quoque ad collegas nostros literas diri- gamus, ut ubique lex Evangelica et traditio Dominica servetur, et ab eo quod Christus et docuit et fecit non recedatur.” Cyprian Epist. ad Cacilium. Op. ed. Fell. Oxon. 1682. Ep. 63. P. 2. pp. 148—57. VOL, IIl. F 66 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS “‘ mistaken, and leads others into error, when he asserts, that “δι. Cyprian defends infant baptism by the authority of Tra- * dition ; since the contrary is obvious, from the letter of the “ holy bishop to Fidus, where he defends the baptism of infants “« by the clearest reasons, derived from holy Scripture, without “ making any mention of Tradition.”? Such is the testimony of one who was himself a Romanist, after which I think there can be no doubt what are the views supported by Cyprian. As connected, however, with our present subject, I would commend the following passages to the attention of the reader. “That they may understand from you, and be structed, and “ learn what ecclesiastical discipline demands, according to the *< dictates of the Scriptures.’’* “This happens, dear brethren, in consequence of a return not “ being made to the source of the truth, and the fountain-head * not being sought, nor the doctrine of our heavenly Master “ being adhered to. Which if any one considers and examines, “ there will be no need of a long discussion and arguments.” “ Wherefore we also, holding a middle course, and contem- “ plating the Lord’s balance, and meditating on the mercy and 1“ Quando Theologi Catholici existentiam traditionum divinarum ex SS. Patribus probare conantur, sequentia ex S. Cypriano loca proiisdem comprobandis adducunt ....Sed pace hujus doctissimi viri aliorumque dixerim, neque in hoc neque in precedentibus locis S. Cyprianum de traditionibus divinis a Scriptura sacra distinctis serrmonem habere. De hujus asserti mei veritate quilibet facile convincetur, si laudatas Epistolas per otium integre evolvere voluerit.... Nul- lam aliam traditionem agnoscebat Cyprianus quam que in Scripturis continetur, Fallitur autem et fallit Cl. Ceillierius dum asserit S. Cyprianum Pzedobaptismum per traditionis auctoritatem defendisse ; siquidem contrarium ad oculum patet ex Epistola sancti antistitis ad Fidum in ordine Baluziano 59, ubi baptisma infantium preclarissimis rationum momentis e Scriptura sacra depromtis nulla traditionis facta mentione defendit.” Lumprer Hist. Theol.—Crit. de vita, ἄς. Patrum. Aug. Vind. 1785 et seq. vol. xi. pp. 521—3. 2 “ Ut sciant ex vobis, et instruantur, et discant, quid secundum Scripturarum magisterium ecclesiastica disciplina deposcat.” Cypr. Ep. ad clerum de cura paup. &. Op. ed. Fell. Ep. 14. p. 32. 3 “ Hoc eo fit, fratres dilectissimi, dum ad veritatis originem non reditur, nec caput queritur, nec magistri ccelestis doctrina servatur. Que si quis consideret et examinet, tractatu longo atque argumentis opus non est.” In. De unit. Eccles. Op. ed. Fell. Oxon. 1682. P. 1. p. 105. On the fraudulent corruption of this Treatise by the Romanists, see James’s Corruption of Scripture and Fathers. Part 2. init. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 67 “ compassion of God the Father, after much and long discussion “with each other, held a steady course between extremes in “ determining what was to be done.” ** We came together, and after the Scriptures had been cited “for a long time on both sides, we, with a happy moderation, “ determined upon a middle course.” * “1 have received your letters, dear brother, which are truly * sensible and full of integrity and faith. Nor am I surprised, “ that being well versed and skilful in the Dominical Scriptures, * you do all things prudently and advisedly.”* Lacrantivs. (fl. a. 303.) Proceeding to Lactantius, we are told, that “ the faith consists of that which is contained in the divine Scriptures.’’4 Evusesius or Casares. (fl. a. 315.) Our next witness is the learned Eusebius of Cesarea ; who, though not apparently in all respects orthodox,® may, I suppose, be considered a witness not to be despised on the question before us. In his Letter to the people of his own Diocese concerning the Council of Nice, he thus speaks of the Anathema which that 1 « Propter quod et nos temperamentum tenentes, et libram Domini contem- plantes, et Dei Patris pietatem ac misericordiam cogitantes, din multumque tractatu inter nos habito, justa moderamine agenda libravimus.” Ib, Ep. ad Max. Presb. &e. Op. ed. Fell. Ep. 54. P. 2. p. 100. 2 «Jn unum convenimus, et Scripturis diu ex utraque parte prolatis tempera- mentum salubri moderatione libravimus.” Ip. Ep. ad Antonian. Op. ed. Fell. Ep. 55. P. 2. p. 102. 3 “ Accepimus literas tuas, frater carissime, satis sobrias et integritatis ac fidei plenas. Nec miramur, si exercitatus et in Scripturis Dominicis peritus caute omnia et consulte geras.” Ip. Ep. ad Caldon. Op. ed. Fell. Ox. 1682. Ep. 25. P. 2. p. 50. 4 “ Quod quia ille [i.e.Cyprianus} non fecit, raptus eximia ernditione divi- narum literarum, ut iis solis contentus esset, quibus fides constat, accessi, Deo inspirante, ut ego facerem,” &. Lacrant. Diy. Instit. lib. v. ὁ. 4. Op. ed. Cant. 1685. p. 243. ed. Paris. 1748. vol. i. p. 372. 5 Many of the antients, and some of the moderns, speak of him as a ring- leader among the Arians. This, however, is evidently unfair, as he expressly repudiated the statements of Arius as to the Son, though his notions on the sub- ject do not appear to have been strictly orthodox. Dv Pin and Cavs, the latter particularly, will give full information on the point. q F2 68 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS Council annexed to the Creed which it published ;—‘ Moreover “ we considered the anathematism published by them at the end “ of the Creed to be unobjectionable, inasmuch as it prohibits the “use of expressions not found in the Scriptures, through which “has come nearly all the confusion and disturbance that has “arisen in the Church. No part, therefore, of Holy Scripture “ having used the phrase, ‘out of nothing,’ or ‘ there was a time “ when he was not,’ or those which follow, it appeared improper “ to say or teach these things; to which, as appearing reason- “able, we assented.”! Can anything show more clearly, how completely Scripture was made the sole authoritative Rule of faith by Eusebius, and, as far as his testimony goes, by the Bishops at Nice? We shall hereafter see, that the introduction of the word “ consubstantial” into their Confession is not inconsistent with this decision, for that word was made use of as one imme- diately flowing from the language of Scripture, and only equi- valent to that which was clearly expressed in Scripture. Again ; in the disputation with the Philosopher in the Council of Nice recorded by Gelasius, Eusebius, replying in the name of the bishops there assembled, makes in one of his answers the following observations,—“ Believe those things which are written, * the things which are not written, neither consider nor inquire * after ;” and shortly after, having expounded what he considered the true doctrine respecting the Son, he adds, “which we, “knowing by faith, preach according to the teaching of the Holy ““ Scriptures.””? 1 Kal τὸν ἀναθεματισμὸν δὲ τὸν μετὰ Thy πίστιν πρὸς αὐτῶν ἐκτεθέντα, ἄλυπον εἶναι ἡγησάμεθα, διὰ τὸ ἀπείργειν ἀγράφοις χρήσασθαι φωναῖς" διὸ σχεδὸν ἣ πᾶσα γέγονε σύὐγχυσίς τε καὶ ἀκαταστασία τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν" μηδεμιᾶς γοῦν θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς τὸ, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, καὶ τὸ, ἣν ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ τοῖς ἑξῆς ἐπιλεγομένοις κεχρημένης, οὐκ εὔλογον ἐφάνη ταῦτα λέγειν καὶ διδάσκειν. ᾧ καὶ αὐτῷ καλῶς δόξαντι συνεθέμεθα. ἘΒΕΒΙΙ Epist. ad Cesariens. in Socrar. Hist. Eccles. lib. i. ce. 8. Inter Hist. Eccles. Grac. ed. Reading. vol. ii. p. 26. See also THEODORET. Hist. Eccles. lib. i. c. 12; and, Grnas. Cyzro. Comment. Act. Cone. Nic. P. 2. c. 36. ed. Balf. p. 185. 2 Τοῖς γεγραμμένοις πίστευε, τὰ μὴ γεγραμμένα μὴ ἐννόει, μηδὲ ζήτει ...... ὅπερ ἡμεῖς πίστει νοοῦντες κηρύττομεν, κατὰ τὴν διδασκαλίαν τῶν ἱερῶν γραφῶν. Evses. ad Philosoph. in Grnas. Cyzic. Comment. Act. Cone. Nie. P. 2. ο. 19. ed. Balf. Lutet. 1599. p.124. It is right that I should here add, that some modern authors have doubted the authenticity of the statements made by Gelasius as to what took place in the Council of Nice, that is, those which rest upon his authority alone. The Romanists, in particular, find it convenient to call his ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 69 Still more plainly in the Preface to his Oration in praise of the Emperor Constantine, in which he discourses at large re- specting God and his providence, the incarnation of our Saviour, and the blessings we derive through him, he speaks of the Holy Scriptures as our great Teacher in these points. “Let the de- “clarations of the Oracles, not those uttered by divination or ‘rather foolish madness, but those uttered by the light of “ divine inspiration, be our teachers in the sacred mysteries ; “ [let them teach us] concerning the kingdom itself, and con- “ cerning the supreme King, and the divine Guard which sur- “ rounds the universal King; as also concerning that example “ of royalty which is among us, and concerning that which “ falsely counterfeits its character ; and those things which ac- “ company each rank. From these [oracles] therefore, having “learnt the sacrifices suitable to God, as from some Hiero- “ phantz, let us thus commence handling the divine mysteries.””! Tue Covncit or Nice, or, Nic#a.? (a. 825.) From Eusebius let us pass on to the consideration of the pro- ceedings at the great Council of Nice, or, Niczea, (in Bithynia,) and see what is the testimony borne by the conduct of that as- sembly to the subject under discussion. The Tractators, with the Romanists, would fain make us believe, that the Fathers there assembled, pronounced judg- ment, not directly from Scripture, but from the interpretation given to Scripture by Ecclesiastical Tradition. Mr. Keble, in statements in question. As to this particular passage, therefore, I leave the matter to the reader’s judgment. See respecting Gelasius, Mirzr Auctarium De Scriptor. Eccles. p. 21. in Fasric, Biblioth. Eccles. Hamb. 1718. and Cave, Hist. Liter. ' Λογίων δὲ χρησμοὶ, οὐκ ἐκ μαντείας μᾶλλον ἢ μανίας παράφρονος, φωτὸς δ᾽ ἐπιπνοίας ἐνθέου προσπεφωνημένοι, τῶν τελείων ἡμῖν γενέσθωσαν διδάσκαλοι" ἀμφὶ βασιλείας αὐτῆς" ἀμφί τε βασιλέως τοῦ ἀνωτάτου" δορυφορίας τε θείας, ἀμφὶ τὸν πάντων βασιλέα: τοῦ τε καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς βασιλικοῦ παραδείγματος, καὶ τοῦ τὸ χάραγμα κεκιβδηλευμένου" τῶν θ᾽ ἑκατέρῳ συνομαρτούντων τάγματι' οἷς δὴ τὰς θεοπρεπεῖς τελετὰς ἱεροφαντούμενοι, ὡδέπη θείων ὀργίων ἐφαψώμεθα. EUSEB. Pref. ad Orat. in laud. Constant. Inter Hist. Eccles. Greece. ed. Reading. vol. i. p- 716. 2 Tuse the name “Nice” as that? which has been ordinarily used by English divines, but “ Nicswea” is the more correct name, 70 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS particular, has devoted many pages to the endeavour to prove, that the Nicene Fathers were “ earnest and constant in resort- “ing to Tradition in order to decide among conflicting inter- “ pretations of Scripture, and settle the fundamentals of our “‘ most holy faith ;” (p. 141 ;) and asserts, that they “ went to “« Church-Tradition for the critical and decisive phrase ‘of one ** substance with the Father; ” (p. 138 ;) all which, I hope to prove, is very far from a correct representation of what there took place. I shall, first, give the reader some extracts from the accounts remaining to us of the proceedings of this Council, and then offer a few observations on what appear to me the very incorrect and delusive statements of Mr. Keble. After an address on the part of the bishops to the Emperor Constantine, the discussion was opened by a speech from Con- stantine to the assembly, at the close of which he makes the following remarks,—“It would be grievous,” he says, “ yea, “very grievous, our enemies being destroyed, and no one “ daring to oppose us, that we should wound one another, and “ afford pleasure and laughter to our adversaries. And especially “‘ when we are discussing divine things, and have the teaching of “ the most holy Spirit fully committed to writing. For, the Evan- “ gelical and Apostolical books, and the oracles of the antient “ Prophets, CLEARLY AND FULLY TEACH Us, what should be our “ views respecting the Godhead. Let us, therefore, banish hostile * contention, and TAKE THE SOLUTION OF THE POINTS IN QUES- “ TION FROM THE WORDS OF DIVINE INSPIRATION.”* Such were the sentiments of the Emperor Constantine, who was at that time not a novice in the Christian faith, and who 1 Δεινὸν εἴη, καὶ ἄγαν δεινὸν, τῶν πολεμίων καταλυθέντων, καὶ μηδενὸς ἄντι- τείνειν τολμῶντος, ἀλλήλους βάλλειν, καὶ τοῖς δυσμενέσιν ἡδονὴν καὶ γέλωτα προξενεῖν" ἄλλως τε καὶ περὶ θείων διαλεγομένους πραγμάτων, καὶ τοῦ παναγίον Πνεύματος τὴν διδασκαλίαν ἀνάγραπτον ἔχοντας. Ἐὐαγγελικαὶ γὰρ, φησὶ, βίβλοι καὶ ᾿Αποστολικαὶ, καὶ τῶν παλαιῶν προφητῶν τὰ θεσπίσματα, σαφῶς ἡμᾶς ἃ χρὴ περὶ τοῦ Θείου φρονεῖν ἐκπαιδεύουσι. Τὴν πολεμοποιὸν οὖν ἄπελάσαντες ἔριν, ἐκ τῶν θεοπνεύστων λόγων λάβωμεν τῶν ζητουμένων τὴν λύσιν. THEODORET. Hist. Eccles, lib. i. c. 6. Op. ed. Schulz. Hale, 1769 et seq. vol. iii. p. 757. (Inter Hist. Eccles, Gree. ed. Reading. tom. iii. p. 26, 27. lib.i. c.7.) See, also, GeLasii Cyzic. Comment. Act. Conc. Nic. lib. ii. c. 7, ed. Balf. Lutet. 1599, pp. 84, 5. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 71 had certainly enjoyed every advantage of instruction in it. A tes- timony more decisively in favor of the views for which we are contending could not have been pronounced, and whatever slight may have been put upon it by Bellarmine, in saying that Con- stantine was a great Emperor, but not a great doctor, or by Mr. Keble in passing it over in silence, there will be those who will regard it as evidence of something more than the mere private notion of an individual ; not to mention, that it is stated by Theodoret, that, immediately upon the conclusion of this speech, “ the greater part of the Synod assented to what he had said,”! and that the language in which he is spoken of by all who have written concerning him, point him out as no mean _authority in the matter. I need hardly observe, how completely this language proves, that the Emperor Constantine recognised no other record of revelation or inspired teaching but the Holy Scriptures. But further; we are not without ample evidence of the way in which the discussion was conducted. It will be remembered, that the points in question, and upon which the Council was called to decide, were those which had been mooted by Arius ; and of the conduct of the discussion on these points we have the following clear and particular account given us by Athanasius, “ The assembled bishops being desirous to reject the impious “ phrases invented by the Arians, namely, [that the Son was “ created] ‘ from things that were not,’ and the saying, ‘ that the “ Son is a being created and made,’ and ‘ there was a time when “he was not,’ and that ‘he is of a changeable nature,’ and “ to write words that were confessedly words of Scripture ; namely, “ that the only-begotten Word is of God by nature, the Power, “ the alone Wisdom of the Father, the true God, as John said; “and as Paul has written, the brightness of the glory and the “image of the Father’s substance ; the followers of Eusebius “ [of Nicomedia], being led astray by their own erroneous “notions, said among themselves,—Let us assent to these “‘ things, for even we also are of God, for ‘there is one God of “ whom are all things,’ and ‘ old things are passed away, behold 1 Τῆς συνόδου τὸ πλεῖστον τοῖς λεγομένοις ἐπείθετο, THEODORET. cod. loc, 72 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS “ all things are become new, but all things are of God’ And “ they thought also of that which is written in ‘The Shepherd,’ “ ¢ First of all believe, that there is one God, who created and “ verfected all things, and brought them into existence out of “ nothing.’ But the bishops seeing their deceitfulness and impious artfulness, used a plainer expression than ‘ of God,’ “and wrote, that the Son was ‘of the substance of God ;’ so “ that creatures, from their not being produced from themselves “ without a cause, but having a beginning of their existence, “ might be said to be of God, but the Son only to be properly “ of the substance of the Father, for this is peculiar to the only- “ begotten and true Word with respect to the Father. And “ this was the reason why those words were written ‘of the sub- “ stance.’ Again, the bishops asking those who appeared to be “a small party, if they would say, that the Son was not a “ creature, but the Power, the alone Wisdom of the Father, and * his eternal image, like to the Father in all things, and true ““ God, the Eusebians were caught intimating to one another, “ that these things also apply to us, for ever. we also are said to “‘ be the image and glory of God,” &e..... “ But here also the “ bishops, having observed their deceit, collected together out of “ the Scriptures these words, the brightness, the fountain and the “river, and the image of the substance, and that expression, ‘ In “ thy light shall we see light,” and that, ‘I and my Father are “ one,’ and then at last they wrote more plainly and compendiously, *« thai the Son was consubstantial with the Father, for all the pre- ** ylous expressions have this meaning.” + 1 τῶν συνελθόντων ἐπισκόπων βουλομένων τὰς μὲν παρὰ τῶν Ἀρειανῶν ἐφευ- ρεθείσας τῆς ἀσεβείας λέξεις ἀνελεῖν: τὸ, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων" καὶ τὸ λέγειν κτίσμα καὶ 14 ε <7 A a 5 > “ ~ > , A A ~ ποίημα τὸν υἱόν" Kal, ἣν ποτὲ, ὅτε οὐκ Hy Kad ὅτι τρεπτῆς ἐστι φύσεως" τὰς δὲ τῶν γραφῶν ὁμολογουμένας γράψαι: ὅτι τε ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῇ φύσει μονογενής ἐστιν ὃ λόγος, δύναμις, σοφία μόνη τοῦ Πατρὺς, θεὸς ἀληθινὸς, ὡς εἶπεν ὃ Ἰωάννης" καὶ ὡς ἔγραψεν ὃ Παῦλος, ἀπαυγάσμα τῆς δόξης, καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑποστά- σεως" οἱ περὶ Εὐσέβιον ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας κακοδοξίας ἑλκόμενοι, διελάλουν ἀλλήλοις" συνθώμεθα: καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐσμεν" εἷς γὰρ θεὺς, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα: καὶ, 4.3 ~ -“ > Αἴ , εὖ ͵ Ul x A i > ~ σι > τὰ ἀρχαῖα παρῆλθεν, ἰδοὺ γέγονε TA πάντα Kava τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ" ἐλο- γίζντο δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐν τῷ Ποιμένι γραφέν: πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον, ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν ὃ θεὸς, ὃ τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ καταρτίσας, καὶ ποίησας ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οἱ ἐπίσκοποι θεωρήσαντες τὴν πανουργίαν ἐκείνων, καὶ τὴν τῆς ἀσεβείας κακοτεχνίαν, λευκότερον εἰρήκασι τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἔγραψαν, ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ θεοῦ εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν, ἵνα τὰ μὲν κτίσματα, διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν χωρὶς αἰτίου εἶναι, ~ ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 79 This account is repeated by Athanasius in another place in almost the same words, the last sentence being, if possible, still more clear in proof of the cause being determined directly from Scripture. “ But the bishops having observed their hypocrisy “jin this... . . were compelled again to collect the sense of “ the matter from the Scriptures, and to repeat in plainer words “ what they had said before, and write that the Son was con- * substantial with the Father.”! How, with this clear and particular account of the mode in which the discussion was conducted, any one can affirm, that the matter was determined by a reference to the traditional inter- pretation of the Church, is almost inconceivable. And yet, in the face of these passages, Mr. Keble scruples not to state, that “the three hundred bishops who joined in its [i. e. the “ Nicene Creed’s] promulgation, did not profess to have col- “lected it out of the Bible, but simply to express the faith * which each of them had found in the Chureh which he re- “ presented, received by tradition from the Apostles.” (p. 35.) ! And these passages, containing a plain and clear account of the way im which the discussion was conducted, though occurring in ἀλλὰ ἀρχὴν ἔχειν τοῦ γενέσθαι, λέγηται ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. ὃ δὲ vids μόνος ἴδιος τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας' τοῦτο γὰρ ἴδιον μονογενοῦς καὶ ἀληθινοῦ λόγου πρὸς Πατέρα. Καὶ περὶ μὲν τοῦ γεγράφθαι ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας, ἣ πρόφασις αὕτη. Πάλιν δὲ τῶν ἐπισ- κόπων ἐρωτώντων τοὺς δοκοῦντας ὀλίγους, εἴπερ λέγοιεν, τὸν υἱὸν οὐ κτίσμα, ἀλλὰ δύναμιν, σοφίαν μόνην τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ εἱκόνα ἀΐδιον, ἀπαράλλακτον κατὰ πάντα τοῦ Πατρὺς, καὶ θεὸν ἀληθινὸν, κατελήφθησαν οἱ περὶ Ἐὐσέβιον διανεύοντες ἀλλή- λοις, ὅτι καὶ ταῦτα φθάνει καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς, καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἡμεῖς, καὶ εἴκων καὶ δόξα θεοῦ λεγόμεθα, kK. τ. A. .... ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ ἐνταῦθα οἱ ἐπίσκοποι θεωρήσαντες ἐκείνων τὸ δόλιον, συνήγαγον ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν, τὸ ἀπαύγασμα, τήν τε πηγὴν καὶ τὸν ποτα- μὸν, καὶ τὸν χαρακτῆρα πρὸς τὴν ὑπόστασιν, καὶ τὸ, ἐν τῷ φωτί σου ὄψομεθα φῶς, καὶ τὸ, ἐγὼ καὶ 6 Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν" καὶ λευκότερον λοιπὸν καὶ συντόμως ἔγραψαν, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρὶ τὸν υἱὸν" τὰ γὰρ προειρημένα πάντα ταύτην ἔχει τὴν σημασίαν. ΑΤΉΑΝΑΒ. Ad Afros Epise. Epist. §§ 5, 6. Op. ed. Bened. tom. i. P. 2. pp. 895, 6. This passage is quoted by THEODORET, Hist. Eccl. lib. i. ὁ. 7. (c. 8. ed. Reading.) 1°AAN of ἐπίσκοποι καὶ ἐν τούτῳ θεωρήσαντες Thy ὑπόκρισιν ἐκείνων, καὶ ὅτι, κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον, ἐν καρδίαις τῶν ἀσεβῶν δόλος ἐστὶ τεκταινομένων κακὰ, ἠναγκάσθησαν καὶ αὐτοὶ αὖθις συναγαγεῖν ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν τὴν διάνοιαν, καὶ ἅπερ πρότερον ἔλεγον, ταῦτα πάλιν λευκότερον εἰπεῖν, καὶ γράψαι, ὁμοούσιον εἶναι τῷ Πατρὶ τὸν υἱόν. ATHANAS. De Decret. Synod. Nic. § 20. tom. i. pp. 225, 6. In accordance with this statement of Athanasius, it is said by Phebadius, “ Quid egistis, O beatze memorize viri, qui ex omnibus orbis partibus Niceeam congregati, et sacris voluminibus pertractis perfectam fidei Catholic regulam circuminspecto sermone fecistis.” PaHmBaD. Contr. Arian, lib. i. § 6. Bibl, Patrum, ed. Galland. tom. v. p. 251. 74. THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS Treatises from which Mr. Keble has quoted, are passed over n complete silence; and his evidence as to the conduct of the debate is derived wholly from inferences drawn from indirect sources of information. The case is so important, that it may be worth while to sift that evidence, and it will afford an op- portunity of strengthening the conclusions to which the pre- ceding extracts necessarily lead. The representation which Mr. Keble has given us of the matter is this ; “ The method of proceeding at Niczea appears to “have been nearly as follows; each bishop was required to “ yehearse the faith which he and his Church professed, and *‘ into which they were baptized,” and when all, with but few exceptions, “agreed substantially in the orthodox interpreta- tion,” “the burthen of proof was of course thrown on the here- *‘ siarch, and he was required to make good his theory by “ allegations from Scripture,” “ but his allegations being over- “ thrown by large arguments from Scripture itself, the ortho- “ dox creed was considered as sufficiently established,” and “ the orthodox TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION was incorporated “into a written creed, being first thoroughly vindicated both “in the substance and wording of it, and also in the annexed “ anathema, by reasoning out of Holy Writ. The result was “ the Nicene Creed with its anathema.” (pp. 119, 20.) Now, the whole of this statement as to the bishops “re- hearsing their faith,” and this “ orthodox traditional interpreta- tion,” in which they “ agreed substantially,” being “ incorpo- rated into a written creed,” is a pure fiction, utterly destitute of any testimony in its favor im all the various accounts given us by the antients of this Council, and clearly opposed to the ac- counts quoted above of its proceedings. Not one of those who have left us an account of this Council, has given us the slight- est hint that the bishops there assembled so gave in their Con- fessions of faith; and Bishop Taylor, after saying, “it is not “ certain that they at their meeting recited any other Creed “ than the Apostolical,” adds, “ for that they did not, Lauren- “ tius Valla, a Canon in the Lateran Church, affirms, that him- ““ self hath read in the antient books of Isidore, who collected “ the canons of the antient councils.”! 1 Works, ed. Heber, x. 462. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 75 Further, as to the notion that these Creeds, containing the “ orthodox traditional interpretation,” were incorporated, and thus formed the Nicene Creed, we have demonstrative evidence that it is incorrect ; for Eusebius, in his Letter to his own Dio- cese, giving an account of the proceedings of the Council, gives us the Creed which he proposed to the Council as that which he had received from the bishops who had preceded him and his early instructors, and had professed at baptism, and “ learned from the Holy Scriptures,” and which he tells us was approved (i.e. as far as it went) by the bishops there assembled, and in which those very phrases, which alone were obnoxious to the Arian party, and were controverted m the Council, were not to be found; and which is condemned by Athanasius as unsatisfac- tory on the points in question ;+ and by the extracts given above from Athanasius, we see clearly, in what way, and by what con- siderations, the Council was induced to add to this proposed and approved Creed of Eusebius the words which alone decisively condemned the heresy of Arius, and in which more particularly the Nicene Creed differs from the Apostolical, namely, by reasoning drawn directly from Scripture. Indeed it is obvious, that if the baptismal Creeds of the Churches had contained a condemnation of the errors of Arius, there would have been no need of the Council of Nice. Nay, Mr. Keble himself tells us, that “additions” were made at Nice to “ the old baptismal Creed.” (pp. 1387, 8.) How, then, can he say at the same time, that the Nicene Creed is merely an incorporation of a number of different forms of “the old baptismal Creed?” And further, the agreement of the bishops assembled at Nice respecting the doctrine there debated upon, is expressly attributed by Constantine to their being under the influence of the Holy Spirit.” . Let us see, then, in what way Mr. Keble attempts to defend his view of the matter. “First,” he says, “there is the general presumption in favour of it.” (p. 121.) A most extraordinary argument, surely, to begin with, in a matter which must rest upon testimony, and which bodes ill for what follows. 1 See ArHanas. De Decret. Synod. Nic. § 3. tom. i, pp. 210, 11. 2 See Sockar. Hist. Eccl. i. 9. 76 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS He then refers to the circular letter of Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria, giving notice of his condemnation of Arius, and that which he wrote on the same subject to Alexander, Patriarch of Constantinople; and having given two extracts, says, «Thus much may suffice to show the opinion of the venerable “« Alexander concerning the best way of dealing with the con- “ troversy which led to the Nicene Council.” (p. 123.) But these extracts do anything but suffice to show this, for they would give the reader a very erroneous view of the matter. For the extract from the first letter is merely this,—“ Who ever heard “ such things? or who now hearing them, is not astonished, “ and stoppeth his ears, that the contamination of these words “ may not touch his hearing ?” But Alexander proceeds thus,—“ For, who is there, who, “‘ when he hears John saying, ‘ In the beginning was the word,’ “ does not condemn these men, saying, ‘ There was a time when “he was not’? Or who, hearing in the Gospel, ‘the only- “ begotten Son,’ and ‘ by him all things were made,’ will not “ abhor these men when they declare that he is a creature ?” And then having proceeded to adduce many other passages of Scripture in behalf of the orthodox faith, he adds,—“Saying “ these things, and unfolding the divine Scriptures, we oftentimes “ overthrew them, and then, like chameleons, they immediately “ changed their ground.”! Now, “thus much” may “ suffice “to show the opinion of the venerable Alexander concerning “the best way of dealing with the controversy,” and that that opinion was, that it was to be decided by a reference to Scrip- ture and Scripture only, for to that only does he refer. And so Theodoret says of him, that “he following the divine oracles, said that the Son is equally to be honoured with the Father, “and that he is of the same substance with the Father who “ begot him; but Arius, fighting against the truth, called him a ““ being created and made.’’? 1 Kal ταῦτα λέγοντες, καὶ ἀναπτύσσοντες Tas θείας γραφὰς, πολλάκις ἂνετρέ- ψαμεν αὐτούς" καὶ πάλιν ὡς χαμαιλέοντες μετεβάλλοντος. ALEXANDRI Epist. ad fratres qui ubique gentium sunt, in Socrat. Hist. Ecel. lib. i. ο. 6. (al. 8.) ed. Reading. p. 13; and in Getas. Cyzio. lib. ii. c. 3. pp. 56, 7. 2 Kal 6 μὲν [i. 6, ᾿Αλεξάνδρος) τοῖς θείοις λόγοις ἑπόμενος, ὁμότιμον ἔλεγε τοῦ Πατρὸς τὸν υἱὸν, καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν οὐσίαν ἔχειν τῷ γεγεννηκότι Θεῷ" ὁ δὲ “Apetos ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 77 With respect to the second letter) I know not what advan- tage Mr. Keble can suppose his cause to gain by it, for he himself allows, that the refutation contained in it of Arian errors is derived solely from Scripture. But, it is said by Mr. Keble, he concludes with “a distinct enunciation of his own “ and his Church’s faith, conceived in such terms, and with “ such arrangement, as evidently show it to be a paraphrase on “ the baptismal or Apostolical Creed then in use at Alexandria.” (p. 123.) What then? May we not repeat the Apostolical or Nicene Creed, as containing our belief, without its being sup- posed that we accept them on the ground of the authority of ecclesiastical Tradition, and not on the ground of our belief in their conformity to Scripture? Nay, the words of Alexander himself preclude all doubt as to his view of the subject, for he expressly refers the Creed which he gives to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. “ Besides this religious opinion concerning “ the Father and Son, as the Sacred Scriptures teach, we confess “one Holy Ghost,” &e. The form of words in which he ex- pressed his belief might be similar to that of many who lived before him ; but the sole authority upon which he spoke was the testimony of Holy Scripture. So the orthodox Presbyters who opposed Noetus, after giving a statement of their faith almost in the words of the Apostles’ Creed, add, “These are * the doctrines we profess, having LEARNT them from the divine “ Scriptures, and these doctrines we believe.”’? His next reference is to Athanasius, to whom he refers as supporting the position that we are to go to Tradition as our authoritative teacher as to what is the faith, and then find, as we may, the proof in Scripture; and hence deduces the in- ference, that the Council of Nice, in which Athanasius took so prominent a part, must have also acted upon this principle. This inference we might fairly leave to its fate, after the quota- tions given above respecting the actual proceedings of the Council; but I will just observe, that the only two passages ἄντικρυς τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μαχόμενος, κτίσμα καὶ ποίημα mpoonydpeve. THEOD. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 1. Op. ed. Schulz. tom. iii. p. 726. (ed. Reading. lib. i. ο. 2. p. 7.) 1 See TuEop. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 3. (c. 4. ed, Reading.) 2 Ταῦτα λέγομεν μεμαθηκότες ἀπὸ τῶν θείων γραφῶν, ἃ καὶ ἐπιστάμεθα. See Epipnan. Ady. her, in her, ὅ7. ὃ 1. Op. ed. Petav. tom. i. p. 480, 78 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS quoted from Athanasius, which would seem to prove that such was his view, are the two upon which we have already com- mented in a preceding chapter, to which therefore I refer the reader.! “Proceeding,” says Mr. Keble, “to the few details which “ yemain of what took place in the Council, we find nothing to “ contradict, and much to strengthen the idea, that not only « St. Athanasius’s doctrine, but also his mode of establishing it, “ was there sanctioned.” Here, then, we might fairly expect some notice of the passages we have given above from Athana- sius, describing “‘ what took place in the Council.” But to these not the most remote allusion is made, and we hear of nothing but some circumstances and remarks incidental to the discussion, which prove nothing. The first is an observation of Sozomen relating to what took place at a meeting of the bishops a few days before the Council was opened. ‘“ Some,” he says, “ were * for discouraging all innovation on the faith delivered down “from the beginning; those especially whose simplicity of “ character taught them, without nice inquiry, to accept the “faith in God. Others were peremptory, that it was wrong, * without trial, to follow after the more antient opinions.” Upon which Mr. Keble remarks, “ In a word, the question lay ““ between traditive and private interpretation. Which of the “ two prevailed, Sozomen does not expressly say; but he does “ say, that this preliminary discussion proved an effectual trial “* of the skill of the principal debaters on each side ; and that * from that time St. Athanasius being there in attendance on ““ Alexander, obtained the lead in the proceedings of the Council. * This does not look as if Athanasius had failed in the prelimi- “‘ nary debate, and we know which side he must have taken erat ate Such is another of the far-fetched extraordinary arguments by which, keeping out of sight the account given by Athanasius of the actual proceedings, our author would support his view of the 1 See vol. i. pp. 65—71. * SozomeEN. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. e. 17. (al. 16.) sub fin. Inter Hist. Eccles. Gree. ed. Reading. tom. ii. pp. 35, 36. 3 ΚΈΒΙ ΕΒ Serm. pp. 128, 9. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 79 conduct of this Council. According to him, then, the Council thought it right, “ without trial, to follow after the more antient opinions,’ and contented themselves with simply following Church-Tradition. Now, not to mention the real facts of the case, as given by Athanasius, the very author here quoted by Mr. Keble tells us just after, that there was a long disputation concerning the faith, and that at last they all agreed together, and decreed that the Son was consubstantial with the Father, except a few ;'—which passage alone might have led him to doubt the soundness of his far-fetched inference. And the Emperor Constantine, in his Letter to the Churches respecting the Council, distinctly says, that all the points in dispute were thoroughly searched into, until a determination acceptable to God was brought to light.* His next argument is, however, still more extraordinary. * Moreover, Sozomen goes on to record, in immediate connec- tion with this discussion, the well-known anecdote of the aged “ and unlearned confessor, who silenced a pagan disputer, present “ at the Council, by the bare recital of his baptismal Creed ;” and having given the anecdote, he adds,— Not to dwell on the “ possibility that here is something of a DIVINE SANCTION GIVEN “TO THE APPEAL TO ANTIQUITY, WHICH OUR ARGUMENT SUP- “ poss, even the lowest statement, that of Socrates, implies a “ decided preference there given to traditional over private in- * terpretations. It shows what bias the Fathers were under the “ day before the Council was holden.”? Ifthis reasoning were correct, it would follow, that we cannot refer to the Creed as expressing our belief, without showing, to a demonstration, that we uphold Mr. Keble’s views of Tradition. But the fact is, that 1 Ἔκ τούτου δὲ ἣ περὶ τοῦ δόγματος διάλεξις ἐκινήθῃ τοῖς ἱερεῦσι: Σχολῇ δὲ καὶ μάλα ἀνεξικάκως ἠκροᾶτο ὃ βασιλεὺς τῶν ἑκατέρωθεν λόγων. .. τὸ δὴ τελευταῖον, συνέβησαν ἀλλήλοις πάντες οἱ ἱερεῖς, καὶ ὁμοούσιον εἶναι τῷ Πατρὶ τὸν υἱὸν ἐψηφίσαντο" μόνοι δὲ, τὰ μὲν πρῶτα, δέκα καὶ ἑπτὰ λέγονται τὴν ᾿Αρείου δόξαν ἐπαινέσαι" x. τ. A. ΒΌΖΟΜΕΝ. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 20. (al. 19.) init. ed. ead, p. 38. 2 “Axpt τοσούτου ἅπαντα τῆς προσηκούσης τετύχηκεν ἐξετάσεως, ἄχρις οὗ ἡ τῷ πάντων ἐφόρῳ Θεῷ ἀρέσκουσα γνώμη, πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἑνότητος συμφωνίαν εἰς φῶς προήχθη" ὡς μηδὲν ἔτι πρὸς διχόνοιαν ἢ πίστεως ἀμφισβήτησιν ὑπολείπεσθαι. Evses. Vit. Constant, lib. iii. c. 17. (al. 16.) Inter Hist. Eccles. Gree. ed. Reading, tom, i. pp. 586, 7. 3 KEBLE’S Serm. pp. 129, 30. 30 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS any one who will take the trouble of referring to Sozomen’s ac- count of this matter, will find that it is utterly irrelevant to the point in hand. Sozomen tells us, that several philosophers were present at the Council of Nice, for the sake of knowing what was the Christian faith; and that upon one of them talking boastingly and derisively on the subject, a simple and unlearned confessor said, “In the name of Jesus Christ, hear me, O phi- “ Josopher. There is one God, the maker of heaven and earth, “ and all things visible and invisible, who made all things by “ the power of the Word, and established them by the sacred “ influence of the Holy Spirit. This Word, therefore, whom we “ call the Son of God, pitying men for their errors and wretched “ mode of living, vouchsafed to be born of a woman, and live “ among men, and die for them, and he will come again to pro- “ nounce sentence upon all for their deeds. That these things “ are so, we believe, without curious investigation. Do not, “ therefore, labour in vain, seeking for proofs of those things “ which are understood by faith, and the manner in which these “ things may or may not be done. But answer me, whether * you believe ; to which the philosopher, struck with astonish- “ ment, replies, I believe.”! Such is the anecdote from which Mr. Keble’s inference is derived. The reader will at once per- ceive, that there is not the slightest reference to Church-Tradition, or even any form of Creed, but simply an enunciation of the great pots of the Christian faith revealed in Scripture. Mr. Keble must be hard pressed indeed for arguments when he makes use of such as these. Had he been opposing the views of those who think that the credibility of revealed truth is to be judged by natural reason, then indeed this anecdote might have had its weight in his favor; but how it can be quoted as tending to establish the authority of Church-Tradition, I cannot under- stand. He then cites the reply of Acesius to Constantine ;—“ It is “no new matter, Ὁ Emperor, which the Synod hath determined ; “ for so, from of old, from the beginning, even from the times of the Apostles, I have received the definition of the faith.” * Sozomen. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 18. (al. 17.) ed. Reading. pp. 36, 37. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 81 (p. 130.)1 But this is nothing to the purpose; for we do not affirm, that the doctrine maintained at Nice was new to the Church, but the contrary. The only point in question is, Upon what foundation the doctrine was placed. Then it is said, (p. 31,) Eustathius tells us, that the blasphemy of Eusebius of Nieomedia “ caused, at first hearing, inconceivable grief to the audience, on account of its great deviation.”* Well, deviation from what? My reply would be, deviation from the truth which they believed to be revealed in Scripture ; and which, consequently, they had been in the habit of considering the orthodox Christian faith. The last argument is derived from the words with which Eusebius of Czesarea prefaces the Creed which he proposed to the Couneil, which were these,—‘‘ As we have received from “ the bishops before us, in our first catechetical instruction, and “ when we were baptized, as also we have learned out of the “ divine Scriptures, and as we have both believed and taught “....we offer unto you our faith ;”* from which Mr. Keble would wish us to conclude, that Eusebius supported our op- ponents’ view of the authority of Church-Tradition ; and this, notwithstanding that in these very words Eusebius has himself told us, that he learned these things out of the divine Scriptures. Mr. Keble appears to have forgotten, that the question is,—not whether a certain form of words, by which many of those who 1 Ὁ δὲ, οὐδὲν καινὸν, ἔφη, ὦ βασιλεῦ, ἣ σύνοδος ὥρισεν" οὕτω γὰρ ἄνωθεν καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς, ἐκ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν χρόνων παρείληφα καὶ τὸν ὅρον τῆς πίστεως καὶ τὸν χρόνον τῆς τοῦ Πάσχα ἑορτῆς. Socr. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 10. (al. 7.) ed. Read. p-38. See also Gras. Cyz. lib. ii. e. 80. ed. 1599. pp. 169, 70. 2 The words of Eustathius are these:—‘Os δὲ ἐζητεῖτο τῆς πίστεως ὃ τρόπος, ἐναργὴς μὲν ἔλεγχος τὸ γράμμα τῆς Εὐσεβίου προὐβάλλετο βλασφημίας: ἐπὶ πάντων δὲ ἀναγνωσθὲν, αὐτίκα συμφορὰν μὲν ἀστάθμητον τῆς ἐκτροπῆς ἕνεκα τοῖς αὐτηκόοις προὐξένει. THEODOR. Hist. Eccl. lib. 1. ο. 7. Op. ed. Schulz. tom. iii. p. 759. (ed. Reading. lib. i. c. 8. p. 28.) 3 Καθὼς παρελάβομεν παρὰ τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν ἐπισκόπων, ἐν TH πρώτῃ κατηχήσει, καὶ ὅτε τὸ λουτρὸν ἐλαμβάνομεν, καθὼς καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν θείων γραφῶν μεμαθήκομεν, καὶ ὡς ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ, καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἐπισκοπῇ ἐπιστεύομέν τε καὶ ἐδι- δάσκομεν, οὕτω καὶ νῦν πιστεύοντες τὴν ἡμετέραν πίστιν προσαναφέρομεν. EUSEB. Cs. Epist. ad Diceces. in THEop. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. ο. 11. 64. Schulz. pp. 776, 7. (ed. Read. lib. i.c. 12. p. 38.) This letter of Eusebius is alsoto be found in Soorat. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 8. ed. Read. p. 23. (al. lib. 1. ο. 56.) Gras. Cyzic, Comment. Act. Cone. Nic. lib. ii. c. 35. ed. 1599. pp. 179 et seq. andin the Bene- dictine edition of ATHANASIUS at the end of his Treatise De Decr. Syn. Nic. VOL. (II. G 89 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS have gone before us have expressed their belief, may or may not be used by us to express our belief, but—what are the grounds of our belief ; and whether Scripture only is the foundation upon which our belief (however expressed) rests; in other words, whether we accept the Creed as the authoritative interpretation of Scripture, derived from Church-Tradition, from which it would not have been allowable for us to depart, whatever might have been its testimony ; or, as, in our view, a faithful represen- tation of the truth, as revealed in Scripture. And im these words of Eusebius, as in most other similar references to the Creed by the early Fathers, he may clearly see, that the /atter was the view which they held of the matter. Further ; as to the word “ consubstantial :” Mr. Keble tells us, that “ the Fathers went to Church-Tradition for the critical and decisive phrase ‘ of one substance with the Father, ” (p. 188.) And he refers us, in a note, to Athanasius (De Deer. Syn. Nic. § 25—27. i. 230), as his authority for the assertion. But Athanasius, neither here nor anywhere else, says anything like this. What he says, is this ;— They, therefore, who were “ assembled at Nice, (Nicza,) holding this view, used also such “ expressions [here is the reason given why they used the terms “in question]. Moreover let us also proceed to show, that they “ did not invent these terms for themselves, since this, also, is “ nretended [by the Arians]; but used expressions which they “ had received from former times, from those who went before “ them ; so that not even THIS pretence may be left to them. Learn, “ therefore, O ye Arians, enemies of Christ, that Theognostus, “a man of repute, hesitated not to use the expression ‘ of the “ substance.’ .... Dionysius, moreover, that was Bishop of Alex- “ andria.... affirmed, that he confessed the Son to be ‘ consub- “ stantial.” ”’! That is, some few of the Fathers, who lived 1 Of μὲν οὖν ἐν τῇ Νικαίᾳ συνελθόντες, ταύτην ἔχοντες Thy διάνοιαν, τοιαύτας καὶ τὰς λέξεις ἔγραψαν. Ὅτι δὲ οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς πλάσαντες ἐπενόησαν ταύτας, ἐπείδὰν καὶ τοῦτο προφασίζονται, ἀλλ᾽ ἄνωθεν παρὰ τῶν πρὸ αὐτῶν παραλαβόντες εἰρήκασι, φέρε καὶ τοῦτο διελέγξωμεν, ἵνα μηδὲ αὕτη αὐτοῖς ἣ πρόφασις περιλείπηται. Μάθετε τοίνυν, ὦ Χριστομάχοι ᾿Αρειανοὶ, ὅτι Θεόγνωστος μὲν, ἀνὴρ λόγιος, οὐ παρη- τήσατο τὸ ἐκ THs οὐσίας εἰπεῖν... .. Διονύσιος δὲ 6 γενομένος ἐπίσκοπος τῆς ᾿Αλεξανδρείας .... ὁμοούσιον αὐτὸν [1. 6. τὸν υἱὸν] ὁμολογεῖν διεβεβαιώσατο. ATHANAS. De Decret. Nic. Synod. ὃ 25. Op. ed. Ben. tom. i. p. 290. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 83 before the Council of Nice, had used the phrase. But this is a totally different thing from saying that the Fathers “went to Church-Tradition for the phrase.” And so, a little further on, he still more plainly shows, that the Fathers at Nice selected the word consubstantial on the ground—not of any Church-Tradition in its favor, but—of its expressing their view of the sense of Scripture; and that his reference to the use of the word by former Fathers, was merely by way of a confirmation, as far as it went, of the correctness of their view. “I have already related,” he says, “the reason and “ [16 meaning which the Synod had in using the words ‘ of the “ substance’ and ‘ consubstantial,’ agreeably to what is said of “the Saviour out of the Scriptures ; and what Fathers before “ them made use of the same expressions.”! Such, also, is the account he gives of the matter, in his Letter to the African bishops.—“ The bishops,” he says, “ did not invent these phrases “‘ for themselves ; but had testimony from Fathers for them, “when they wrote thus. For, antient bishops, nearly one ““ hundred and thirty years before, of great Rome, and of our “* own city, blamed in their writings those who said that the Son ** was a created being, and not consubstantial with the Father. * And of this, Eusebius, who was Bishop of Czsarea, was con- ** scious, who at first was disposed towards the Arian heresy. ““ But afterwards, having subscribed in the Nicene Synod itself, “he wrote to his people, affirming, ‘We know, that certain “ learned and illustrious bishops and writers of the antients used “the word, consubstantial, in relation to the divinity of the « Father and Son, ” ? 1 °Ey® μὲν yap τὴν αἰτίαν καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν, καθ᾽ ἣν ἣ σύνοδος Td ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας καὶ τὸ ὁμοούσιον συμφώνως τοῖς ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν περὶ τοῦ Σωτῆρος εἰρημένοις, καὶ ὅσοι πρὸ αὐτῶν ἐξέθεντο πατέρες καὶ ἔγραψαν, διηγησάμην. ATHANAS. De Decret. Syn. Nic. § 28. tom. i. p. 234. © 2 Of δὲ ἐπίσκοποι, οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς εὑρόντες Tas λέξεις, GAA” ἐκ πατέρων ἔχοντες τὴν μαρτυρίαν, οὕτως ἔγραψαν" ἐπίσκοποι γὰρ ἀρχαῖοι πρὸ ἐτῶν ἐγγύς που ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα, τῆς μεγάλης Ῥώμης, καὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας πόλεως, γράφοντες ἡτιάσαντο τοὺς ποίημα λέγοντας τὸν υἱὸν καὶ μὴ ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί. Καὶ τοῦτο ἐγίνωσκεν Εὐσέβιος ὅ γενόμενος ἐπίσκοπος τῆς Καισαρείας, πρότερον μὲν συντρέχων τῇ ᾿Αρειανῇ αἱρέσει" ὕστερον δὲ ὑπογράψας ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἐν Νικαίᾳ συνόδῳ, ἔγραψε τοῖς ἰδίοις dic βεβαιούμενος, ὅτι καὶ τῶν παλαιῶν τινας λογίους καὶ ἐπιφανεῖς ἐπισκό- πους καὶ συγγράφεας ἔγνωμεν ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὺς καὶ υἱοῦ θεότητος τῷ τοῦ ὅμοου- σίου χρησαμένους ὀνόματι. ATHANAS. Ad Afros Episc. Ep. § 6. tom.i. P. 2. p- 896. G 2 84. THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS All, then, that was contended for in behalf of the word on this ground was, that some authors of good name had used it before ; and this notice of its previous use, by some of the earlier Fathers, was evidently merely intended by Athanasius to make it a little more palatable to those whe objected to it, by showing them that some, whose opinion they might esteem, had sane- tioned the use of it. It is clear, however, that whatever might be the claims of Church-Tradition, the use of a word by two or three writers, spread over three centuries, could not give it a right to participate in those claims. And certainly Augustine knew nothing of this Tradition; for he tells us, in a passage already quoted in a previous page,’ that the Nicene Fathers “ made the word to meet the impiety of the Arian heretics ; ” which, I admit, is a mistake in the other extreme; but which, nevertheless, shows, that he did not believe it to be derived from Church-Tradition. Nay, more, it had not the sanction of Church-Tradition, for its use had been directly opposed, and that by orthodox Fathers, as Athanasius himself tells us. The Fathers assembled at a Synod at Antioch against Paul of Samosata, in the latter part of the third century,’ determined, as we are informed by Athanasius,” and Basil,* and Hilary,® that “the Son is not consubstantial with the Father ;” rejecting the word “ consubstantial,” as Basil tells us, as not appropriate ; “ giving the idea of substance “ and things derived from it; so that a divided substance would * give the appellation of consubstantial to those things into “ which it was divided.’® The word was rejected, where the 1 See above, vol. ii. p. 185. 2 The first Council at Antioch held against Paulus Samosatenus, met about the year 264, at which, according to Theodoret, (Her. Fab. lib. 2. § 8. Op. ed. Schulz. tom. iv. p. 334.) the famous Gregory of Neocesarea, called Thaumaturgus, presided, and Firmilian of Czesarea and other eminent bishops were present. It is said, that they did not pass sentence against him in this Synod, on account of his promising to give up his error; but that he did not do so, The second Council held against him at Antioch, and in which he was formally condemned, was held about the year 270. Which of these two Synods is referred to by the writers quoted above, is somewhat doubtful. 5 See ArHanas. De Synod. Arimin. et Seleuc. habitis. ὃ 49 and 44. tom. i. P. 2. p. 757. 4 Basiu. Cams. Ep. 52. Op. ed. Bened. tom. iii. p. 145. 5 Hirar. Prorav. De Synod. § 81. Op. ed. Bened. col. 1196. δ Kal γὰρ τῷ ὄντι, of ἐπὶ Παύλῳ τῷ Σαμοσατεῖ συνελθόντες διέβαλον τὴν λέξιν ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 85 orthodox opinion was maintained; as was the case, as Atha- nasius tells us, with some in his time; of whom, nevertheless, he says, “ With respect to those who fully receive everything “else of the things written at Nice, (Nicza,) but doubt only * respecting the word ‘ consubstantial,’ it is not right to look * upon them as enemies ; for we also do not contend with them ‘as against Arians, nor as persons fighting against the Fathers, “ [that is, the Nicene bishops, according to the frequent use of * the word by Athanasius,|] but reason with them as brethren * with brethren, holding the same view with us, but differing “ only about the word.”! And, a little further on, he allows, “that “of the Fathers [1. e. the Fathers in general] some “ spoke in favor of, and some against, the word ‘ consubstan- “ tial.’”? The phrase “ consubstantial with the Father,” there- fore, had not the sanction of Church- Tradition. Consequently, when the bishops assembled at Nice used it, the responsibility of so using it, rested upon them; and it was evidently so used by them, because, in their judgment, it best expressed the Scriptural doctrine. So, indeed, Athanasius him- self tells us; for, having explained and defended the phrase from Scripture, and supported it on the ground, that, though not in Scripture, it expressed the sense we derive from Scripture of the matter, he adds, (in the passage quoted above)—“ They, * therefore, who were assembled at Nice, holding this view, “ used, also, such expressions.” And then he proceeds to say, that ‘‘ moreover” they did not invent the word, but made use of one which had been used by some who went before them. Mr. Keble’s argument, therefore, in favor of the authority of Church-Tradition, because “the Fathers went to Church- Tradition for the word consubstantial,” is altogether a mistake. [i. 6. ὁμοούσιον) ὡς σὺκ εὔηχον.. Ἔφασαν γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι, τὴν τοῦ ὁμοουσίου φωνὴν παριστᾷν ἔννοιαν οὐσίας τε καὶ τῶν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς, ὥστε καταμερισθεῖσαν τὴν οὐσίαν παρέχειν τοῦ ὁμοουσίου τὴν προσηγορίαν τοῖς εἰς ἃ διηρέθη. Basin. Czs, Ep. 52, (al. 800.) Op. ed. Bened. tom. iii. p. 145. 1 Πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ἀποδεχομένους τὰ μὲν ἄλλα πάντα τῶν ἐν Νικαίᾳ γραφέντων, περὶ δὲ μόνον τὸ ὁμοούσιον ἀμφιβάλλοντας, χρὴ μὴ ὡς πρὸς ἐχθροὺς διακεῖσθαι" καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἡμεῖς οὐχ ὡς πρὸς ᾿Αρειομανίτας, οὐδ᾽ ὡς μαχομένους πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἐνιστάμεθα, ἀλλ᾽ ds ἀδελφοὶ πρὸς ἀδελφοὺς διαλεγόμεθα, τὴν αὐτὴν μὲν ἡμῖν διά- νοιαν ἔχοντας, περὶ δὲ τὸ ὄνομα μόνον διστάζοντας. ATHANAS. De Syn. Arim. et Seleuc. hab. ὃ 41. tom. i. Pt. 2. p. 755. 2 Οὕτως εἰ καὶ τῶν πατέρων, οἱ μὲν οὕτως, οἱ δὲ οὕτως εἰρήκασι περὶ τοῦ ὁμοου- σίου, μὴ φιλονείκωμεν ἡμεῖς, κι τι A. ATHANAS. ib. § 46, p. 761. 86 THE DOCTRINE‘ OF THE FATHERS What is perhaps still more extraordinary in Mr. Keble’s account of the acts of the Council, is, that he brings in the name of Bishop Taylor as one who has, in his review of the proceedings at Nice, sanctioned his statements. For, at the close of his account, heading his page with the words, “ Proceedings at “ Nicea, how related by Jackson, by Leslie, and by Bishop Taylor,’ he gives the following passage from the bishop,— «Bishop Taylor says, (x. 462.) ‘It is not certain that the “ Nicene Fathers, at their meeting, recited any other Creed than “the Apostolical,” assuming that they recited some Creed.” (p. 139.) What support Mr. Keble’s views can receive from this statement, I do not see; but the obvious intention is, to lead the reader to suppose, that the bishop’s account of the “ proceedings at Nicza,” is similar to that we are reviewing. Now, in the very same work from which Mr. Keble has quoted this passage, Bishop Taylor says,—‘‘ Whatever it was which “ was there |i. 6. at Nice] determined, I am sure zt was not “ determined by Tradition, but by Scripture.”’—“ When Constan- “tine the emperor exhorted the Nicene Fathers to concord in “ the question then to be disputed, they being divme matters, *‘ he would they should be ended by the authority of the divine “ Seriptures. ‘ For, saith he, the books of the Evangelists and “ the Apostles, as also the oracles of the old prophets, do evi- “ dently teach us, what we are to think of the Deity. There- ** fore all seditious contention being laid aside, let us determine “the things brought into question by the testimonies of the “ divinely-inspired Scriptures.’ And they did so. And by re- “ lying on Scriptures only, we shall never be constrained to quit “ these glorious portions of evangelical truth, the incarnation of “ the Eternal Word, and the consubstantiality of the Father and “ the Son.”—“ The Arians offered to be tried by Tradition.... “ St. Athanasius did sometimes pretend to it, though not always ; *‘ and this shows, that there was no clear, indubitate, notorious, “ universal tradition in the question ; and if there were not such “an one, as good none at all; for it could not be such a founda- “tion as was fit to build our faith upon, especially in such “mysterious articles. But it is remarkable what Eusebius “ (Eccl. Hist. lib. 5. ¢. 28) recites out of an old author, who * wrote against the heresy of Artemon, which afterwards Samo- ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 87 * satenus renewed, and Arius made public with some alteration. << «They all say,’ says he, ‘that our ancestors and the Apostles “themselves not only received from our Lord those things “ which they now affirm, but that they taught it to others; and “ the preaching or tradition of it run on to the days of Pope “« Victor, and was kept entire, but was depraved by Pope Zephy- “yinus. And truly that which was said by them, might seem “ to have in it much of probability, if the Divine Scriptures did ** not first of all contradict them; and that there were writings “< of some brethren elder than the times of Victor.’ The brethren, “‘ whose writings he names, are Justin, Miltiades, Tatian, Cle- “mens, Irenzeus, and the psalms and hymns of divers, made in “honour of Christ. From all which it is evident, that the ques- “ tions at Nice were not, and could net be determined by Tradition. “2. That tradition might be, and was, pretended on both sides. «3. That when it is pretended by the contradicting parties, “‘ with some probability, it can effectually serve neither. 4. That “ the tradition the Samosatenians and Arians boasted of, had in “it much probability, when looked upon in its own series and “* proper state. 5. That the divine Scriptures were at that time “the best firmament of the Church, and defended her from “that abuse which might have been imposed upon her, under “ the title of Tradition,” &e.1 Such is the clear statement of Bishop Taylor, in opposition te the account given us by Mr. Keble. The quotation from Dr. Jackson is certainly more in his favor. But, of course, no statements of modern writers can have any authority in the matter, except so far as they are borne out by the reports left us by the antients of the proceedings of the Council. The statement quoted from Leslie, referring, not to the Council of Nice, but to the preceding provincial Synod at Alex- andria against Arius, is so glaringly incorrect, that it is worth no one’s picking up. “This,” says Leslie, “was the method “ taken in the Council called at Alexandria against Arius ; it * was asked by Alexander, the Archbishop, who presided, Quis “ unguam talia audivit? Who ever heard of this doctrine be- 1 Br. Taytor’s Dissuasive from Popery, Pt. 2. bk. 1. § 3. Works, vol. x. pp. 428—230. 88 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS “ fore? And it being answered by all the bishops there assembled “in the negative, it was concluded a novel doctrine, and contrary “ to what had been universally received in the Christian Church.” Let the reader only compare this statement with the extracts given above from Alexander’s letter, from which it professes to be taken, and he will then be able to judge, how far he can trust to such loose references to antient writings, even when made by men of the highest integrity. The whole statement about the bishops answering in the negative, and its being therefore concluded a novel doctrine, &c., is not only ἃ com- plete fiction, but directly contrary to the representation actually given in the letter of Alexander; to which we may add, that Sozomen expressly tells us, that the matter was so hotly de- bated in this Council, that its members could not agree among themselves in the matter; but that Alexander at last decided in favor of those who supported the view of the Son’s consub- stantiality and co-eternity with the Father. Mr. Keble concludes with three more references to Athana- sius, and one to Epiphanius, upon which it is necessary to offer a few remarks. The first passage *® is adduced to prove “the instinctive and “inevitable comparison which the new doctrines underwent “with those before received,” and (as I suppose Mr. Keble would have us conclude) the consequent rejection of the new. But the passage is merely an appeal to the reader, whether he had not always understood the word Son, learned in his first catechism, as implying identity of substance with the Father, and consequently whether he had not been surprised at the doc- trine of Arius, as something different from what he had been always taught ; an appeal which the strongest opponents of Mr. 1 Kpiths καθίσας [i. 6. ᾿Αλέξανδρος) σὺν τοῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ κλήρου, εἰς ἅμιλλαν ἀμφοτέρους ἤγαγεν" ὡς δὲ συμβαίνειν φιλεῖ περὶ τὰς ἔριδας τῶν λόγων, ἑκάτερος ἐπειρᾶτο νικᾷν. Συνίσταται δὲ “Apes μὲν τοῖς παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰρημένοις" οἱ δὲ, ὡς ὁμοούσιος καὶ συναΐδιος ἐστὶν ὁ υἱὸς τῷ Πατρί. ΣΣυνεδρίου δὲ πάλιν γενομένου, τοσαύτας διαλέξεις ἀνακινήσαντες, οὐ συνέβησαν ἀλλήλοις. ᾿Αμφηρίστου δὲ τῆς Cnthoews ἔτι δοκούσης εἶναι, πέπονθέ τι καὶ ᾿Αλέξανδρος τὰ πρῶτα, πῆ μὲν τούτους, πῆ δὲ ἐκείνους ἐπαινῶν" τελευτῶν δὲ, τοῖς ὁμοούσιον καὶ συναΐδιον εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν ἀποφαινομένοις ἔθετο, καὶ τὸν ἴΑρειον ὁμοίως φρονεῖν ἐκέλευσε, τῶν ἐναντίων λόγων ἀφέμενον. SozoMEN. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 15. (al. 14.) Inter Hist. Eccles. Gree. ed. Reading. tom. ii. pp. 31, 32. ? ATHANAS. Orat. 2a, contra Arian. § 34. tom. {. p. 502. See Keble’s Serm. pp. 139, 140. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 89 Keble’s views would not hesitate to make in a similar case, and which, therefore, we may pass over without further remark. “Secondly,” adds Mr. Keble, “ he [i. e. Athanasius] presents “«‘ the Creed to the Emperor Jovian, not merely as the judgment “ of the present Church on the meaning of the Scriptures, but “rather as her testimony to the fact that ‘this faith had all “ along been known to all in the Church, being learned and “ yead out of the divine Scriptures. For, in this, the saints “ being perfected, endured martyrdom.’”! Now, in the origi- nal, there is not one word to authorize the observation with which this citation is introduced, as to the presentation of the Creed to the Emperor Jovian, as the Church’s testimony to the fact, &c.; nor anything corresponding to the apparent quota- tion, that “ this faith had all along been known to all in the Church.” The passage, with the preceding context, is this. “ Your piety, therefore, being desirous of learning from us the “ faith of the Catholic Church, having given thanks for this to “ the Lord, we have thought good above all things to bring to “the remembrance of your piety the Creed confessed by the « Fathers at Nice (Niczea). For, some having rejected this, have ‘* in various ways plotted against us, because we do not assent to “ the Arian heresy, and have become the causes of heresy and “ schisms im the Catholic Church. For, the true and pious * faith in the Lord hath stood forth evident to all, being known *< and read out of the divine Scriptures. For, in this, the saints ‘« being perfected, endured martyrdom,” &c.? Now this pas- sage, so far from being favorable to Mr. Keble’s view, is directly opposed to it; for it expressly tells us, that the true faith is evident to all, as being known and read out of the divine Scriptures. 1 KEBLE’s Serm. p: 140, 2 Θελησάσης τοίνυν τῆς σῆς εὐσεβείας μαθεῖν παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τὴν τῆς καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας πίστιν, εὐχαριστήσαντες ἐπὶ τούτοις τῷ Κυρίῳ, ἐβουλευσάμεθα μᾶλλον πάντων τὴν παρὰ τῶν Πατέρων ἐν Νικαίᾳ ὁμολογηθεῖσαν πίστιν ὑπομνῆσαι τὴν σὴν εὐσέβειαν: ταύτην γὰρ ἀθετήσαντές τινες, ἡμῖν μὲν ποικίλως ἐπεβούλευσαν; ὅτι μὴ ἐπειθόμεθα τῇ ᾿Αρειανῇ αἱρέσει" αἴτιοι δὲ γεγόνασιν αἱρέσεως καὶ σχισμάτων τῇ καθολικῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀληθὴς καὶ εὐσεβὴς εἰς τὸν Κύριον πίστις φανερὰ πᾶσι καθέστηκεν, ἐκ τῶν θείων γραφῶν γινωσκομένη τε καὶ ἄναγινωσκομένη" ἐν ταὐτῃ γὰρ καὶ οἱ ἅγιοι τελειωθέντες ἐμαρτύρησαν, κ. τ. A. ATHANAS. Epist. ad Jovian. § 1. tom. 1. P. 2. p. 780. The Benedictine translation of the latter part is,—nemini tamen obscura esse potest vera et pia in Dominum fides, ut quar ex divinis Scripturis haberi et internosci queat, 90 THE DOCTRINE OF THE .FATHERS The next quotation stands thus ;—“ The Fathers inserted the * clause of the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father, and ana- “ thematized those who affirmed a diversity of substance, not in * terms which they had framed for themselves, but which they too “ had learned from the Fathers before them .... which being so, “ the Creed of Niczea is sufficient, agreeing as it does also with “the antient bishops.” “ This,” adds Mr. Keble, “ shows in “ what light the framers of the Creed wished it to be viewed.” Now the real passage, as it stands in Athanasius, is, in more than one point, very different, and runs thus ;—“ The Fathers, “ having taken this view of the matter, wrote that the Son was * consubstantial with the Father, and anathematized those “ who say, that the Son is of a different substance ; not having * invented phrases for themselves, but having themselves learnt “ them from the Fathers before them, as we have said. These * things, therefore, being thus demonstrated, their Synod at Arimi- “ num is superfluous ; and the other Synod concerning the faith “ named by them, is superfluous; for that at Nice (Nicaea) is * sufficient, being also in agreement with the antient bishops, in * which also their Fathers subscribed.”?! Now, here, all is con- sistent with the accounts we have already quoted from Athana- sius. The Fathers, taking that view of the matter, which Athanasius had been just before describig,—that is, as to the doctrine of Holy Scripture on the subject,—wrote, on that authority, that the Son was consubstantial with the Father; and in so domg, did not use an expression which was entirely new ; for some of the earlier Fathers had used it, which, of course, as far as it went, was an argument in its favor. And these matters having been in the Nicene Council fully in- vestigated, and demonstrated to be as the Nicene Creed repre- sented them to be, it was unnecessary that any other Council should be called upon the same matter; the decision of the Council of Nice having also the argument in its favor, as it appeared to him, that it was in unison with that of many antient 1 Οὕτω νοήσαντες οἱ Πατέρες ἔγραψαν ὁμοούσιον εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ ἀνεθεμάτισαν τοὺς λέγοντας, ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως εἶναι τὸν υἱόν" οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς πλασάμενοι λέξεις, GAAG καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀπὸ τῶν πρὸ αὐτῶν πατέρων μαθόντες, καθάπερ Ud \ “ , > “A ς ᾽ ί Υ εἴπομεν. Τούτων δὲ οὕτω δεικνυμένων, περιττὴ αὐτῶν ἣ ᾿Αρίμηνος, περιττὴ καὶ ε > > ~ > 4 ΄ , > “ A c > , ἡ ἄλλη παρ᾽ αὐτῶν ὀνομαζομένη περὶ πίστεως σύνοδος" ἀρκεῖ γὰρ H ἐν Νικαίᾳ, σύμ- φωνος οὖσα καὶ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ἐπισκόποις, ἐν ἥ καὶ οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν ὑπέγραψαν. Araanas. Epist a1 Afros Episc. § 9. tom. i. P. 2. p. 898, ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 91 bishops. The reader will observe, not only the different turn given to the sentence by the words omitted by Mr. Keble at the beginning of it, but more especially that the stringent words, “ which being so, the Creed of Nicea is sufficient,’ are a complete (no doubt unintentional) misrepresentation of the passage. To these three passages of Athanasius, quoted by Mr. Keble, I would add for Ais consideration the two following. In his Letter concerning the decrees of the Nicene Council, Athanasius, after discussing the points controverted at Nice, adds these words,— And of these things we are certified, not from any external source, but from the Scriptures.”! Moreover, how un- willingly even a word was used, not found expressly in the Serip- tures, we may judge from the following passage in the same Letter. ‘“ But, perhaps, being reproved for the word uncreated, “ they will themselves, in their impiety, say, It behoves us, also, * with respect to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to speak « from the Scriptures those things which are written respecting him, “ and not to introduce phrases not to be found in the Scriptures. “ I? DOES, INDEED, BEHOVE US 80 TO DO, | SHOULD MYSELF ALSO “ say, for the representations of the truth derwed from the Scriptures “ are much more exact, than those derived from any other source ; * but the perverseness, and artful and versatile impiety of the “ς Kusebians, compelled the bishops, as I before said, to set forth * words more plainly subversive of their impiety; and those “ words which were written by the Council have been proved to * have a right sense.”” From which we may see, that the use of the words by preceding bishops, formed no sufficient autho- rity, in the estimation of Athanasius, for their being considered 1 Kal τούτων οὐκ ἔξωθεν ἡμεῖς, GAN ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν ἔχομεν τὴν πίστιν. ΑΤΗΑΝΑΒ. De Decret. Nic. Syn. § 17. tom. i. p. 222. 2°AAN ἴσως καὶ διὰ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ἀγένητον ἐλεγχθέντες, πονηροὶ τὸν τρόπον ὄντες, ἐθελήσουσι καὶ αὐτοὶ λέγειν" ἔδει καὶ περὶ τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ γεγραμμένα λέγεσθαι, καὶ μὴ ἀγρά- φους ἐπεισάγεσθαι λέξεις. Ναὶ ἔδει, φαίην ἂν καὶ ἔγωγε" ἀκριβέστερα γὰρ ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν μᾶλλον ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρων ἐστὶ τὰ τῆς ἀληθείας γνωρίσματα: ἀλλ᾽ 7 κακοήθεια καὶ μετὰ πανουργίας παλίμβολοϑ ἀσέβεια τῶν περὶ Εὐσέβιον ἠνάγκασε, καθὰ προεῖπον, τοὺς ἐπισκόπους λευκότερον ἐκθέσθαι τὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν αὐτῶν ἀνατρέποντα ῥήματα: καὶ τὰ μὲν παρὰ τῆς συνόδου γραφέντα διάνοιαν ὀρθὴν ἔχοντα δέδεικται. AtHanas. De Decret. Nic. Syn. § 32. tom. i. p, 237. 92 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS orthodox ; and that Scripture was so completely the sole autho- rity followed, that even words not found therein, though appear- ing to express a Scriptural sense, were very reluctantly used. I might add many similar passages, as where he says, that the bishops “collecting from the Scriptures their meaning, expressed the matter more clearly, and used the term ‘ consubstantial.’”’+ But more can hardly be desired. There remains one more of Mr. Keble’s citations, to be noticed, viz., that from Epiphanius,—which, according to Mr. Keble, runs thus;— “They professed the faith of the * Fathers, orthodox and unswerving; and delivered down “to us from the Apostles and Prophets,” (p. 141); the real passage being this; ‘They profess the orthodox faith of *‘ the Fathers, which is also immutable, and was delivered by “ the Apostles and Prophets.”* The notion of successional de- livery, implied in the terms “ down to us,” has no place in the original, and if it had, the passage would only state a matter of fact which we do not call in question. Wearisome as the examination of these passages may have been, the result will, 1 think, have proved the necessity of it, and produce at least one good effect, namely, that the reader will be set on his guard in this matter, and prevented from hastily putting credence in such representations, without com- paring them with the originals ; as it is evident, from the speci- mens given above, how completely he may be misled, even where, as in the case before us, he may have every motive for confidence which character can give. I have now gone through the whole of Mr. Keble’s arguments and authorities, by which he has attempted to support his view of the mode of proceeding adopted at Nice, and shall leave the reader to judge how far his conclusion holds good, that the Nicene Fathers were “ earnest and constant in resorting to Tra- “dition, in order to decide among conflicting interpretations “ of Scripture, and settle the fundamentals of our most holy 1 Suvayaydyres ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν Thy διάνοιαν, λευκότερον γράφοντες εἰρήκασι Td ὁμοούσιον. ΤΡ. De Synod. i. P. 2. p. 760. 2 Ὁμολογοῦσι tiv τῶν Πατέρων ὀρθόδοξον πίστιν καὶ akAwh, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων καὶ Προφητῶν παραδοθεῖσαν. ἘΡΙΡΗ. Adv. her. ; in heer. Arian. 8.11. Op. ed. Petay. tom. i. p. 735. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 93 * faith.” (p. 141.) One thing only I would add, and that is, that when he speaks as if those who opposed his views discarded the testimony of the Primitive Church to the faith as useless, and no help to the understanding of Scripture, or argument in favor of that interpretation which it supports, he very sadly misrepresents their sentiments. The question, the sole question is, whether we have an infallible Church-Tradition, binding the conscience to receive what it delivers as the meaning of Scripture, or whether our faith ought to rest on Scripture only. We affirm the latter, and also thatsuch was the mind ofthe Nicene and earlier Fathers, who appealed to the testimony of Fathers who went before them, not as a testimony binding upon the conscience, (and thus practically superseding Scripture,) but as one which might reasonably be an additional moral inducement to lead men | to believe, that the doctrine they supported was the doctrine of Scripture ; and in the consciousness that it was but reasonable, that such testimony in favor of their views should be required of them, to show that they were not novelists. Church-Tradition, in that sense in which alone it could be considered “ practically infallible,” as Mr. Keble calls it, namely, as implying a strictly universal consent, never could and never can be had, even for any one moment, during the whole period of the Church’s existence. That such was the mind of the Nicene Fathers, is evident from the course of their deliberations, as described by Athanasius. Had they held the notions of our opponents on the subject, there would have been some reference made by them to Ecclesiastical Tradition as the authoritative interpreter of Scripture, and consequently their authority for the interpretation they gave to Scripture in their decision. But, on the contrary, we find from the various passages given above from Athanasius, that their judgment was given directly from Scripture, without any such reference. Nay, they had evidently no idea of being in possession of any such authoritative interpretation, for it appears that their intention and great desire was to use nothing but phrases occurring in Scripture, and that they very reluctantly adopted a word not found in Scripture, and then only on the consideration that that word seemed compendiously to express the meaning of a number of Scriptural phrases they had collected 94 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS together for the purpose of obtaining the sense of Scripture on the subject. Let our opponents hear one of their own chosen witnesses, Bishop Patrick,— This tradition [i. 6. the Nicene Creed] sup- “‘ poses the Scripture for its ground; and delivers nothing but “‘ what the Fathers assembled at Nice believed to be contained “ there, and was first fetched from thence.” + Nay, even a Romanist may be found giving the same account of the matter. “The Council,” says Tillemont, “ perceiving * their hypocrisy, collected together all the Scripture expressions “ which related to the Son, and comprehended them all under “ the word consubstantial, which is to say, of the same substance ; “and all the bishops, after long considering it, agreed to that “term. It was thus that, after having thoroughly examined * all the doctrine of the Evangelists and Apostles, the Prelates, “ grounding their determination upon the Holy Scriptures, settled “ with great caution the perfect rule of the catholic faith. They “ had hkewise a more particular reason for using that term. “For, the Council having seen, by the Letter of Eusebius of “ Nicomedia, which we spoke of before, that the Arians looked “upon the consubstantiality as diametrically opposite to their £ heresy, they were willing to make use of that sword against “ them which they had drawn out of the scabbard themselves.” * The same reference to Scripture as the sole authority upon which our faith is to rest in this matter, is observable in the passage of Dionysius Romanus, given to us by Athanasius on this subject, from a work of his against the Sabellians. “ Not “ less also,” he says, ‘‘ must one blame those who think that the “ Son is a creature, and suppose that the Lord was made like * any one of things truly made, since the divine oracles bear wit- “ ness, that his generation was such as was meet and fitting for * him, and that he is not a creature formed and made. It is no “shght, but rather the greatest blasphemy, therefore, to say, “that the Lord was in any way made by hands. For if the “ Son was made, there was a time when he was not ; but he was 1 Bishop Parricx’s Discourse about Tradition. Lond. 1683. p. 18. * Ti1LEMoNt’s History of the Arians, translated by Deacon, vol. ii. p. 623, The last statement in the above passage is derived from AmBnros. De fide, lib, iii. c. 7, ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK, 95 “in existence always, if he is in the Father, [Jo. xiv. 11.] ashe “himself says; and if Christ is the Word, and Wisdom, and “ Power ; for the divine Scriptures say, that Christ is these, as ye “know .... To the absurdities that follow from saying that the “ Son is a creature, the leaders of this opinion do not appear to “ me to have attended, and consequently to have erred altogether “ from the truth, having understood the passage, ‘The Lord created me in the beginning of his ways,’ [Prov. vi. 22.] con- “ trary to the meaning of the divine and prophetic Scripture in this “respect. For, the word ‘created,’ as ye know, has more than “ one signification .... And any one may see, that the Son is often said by the divine oracles to have been begotten, but not, “ to have been made ; by which they who embrace false notions * respecting the generation of the Lord, are evidently condemned, “who dare to say that his divine and unutterable generation “ was acreation. Therefore, we must not divide the wonderful “and divine unity into three divinities, nor diminish by “ the notion of creation the dignity and excellent greatness “ of the Lord, but believe in God the Father Almighty, and in “ Jesus Christ his Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and that the “ Word is united to the God of the Universe ; for he says, “1 “and my Father are one ;’ [Jo. x. 30.] and, ‘I am in the « Father and the Father in me.’ [Jo. xiv. 10.1᾽} There is not in the whole passage the slightest allusion to anything but Scripture ; not one word to lead us to suppose, that he knew anything of Ecclesiastical Tradition as the authoritative interpreter of Scripture. In conclusion, 1 will add a few words on an argument which, as it has been used by the Romanists, may possibly be resorted to by the Tractators. They will perhaps be disposed to reply,— True, these Fathers did go to Scripture only for their proof, and appeared to draw their conclusions directly from Scripture, but this was only because their adversaries refused and rejected Eccle- siastical Tradition ; but the authority upon which they rested in their own minds for their interpretation of Scripture, and which they felt themselves bound in conscience to obey, was Ecclesias- 1 Dionys. Rom. Ady. Sabell. cit. in ATHanas. De Decret. Nic. Synod. § 26. tom. i. p. 291, 96 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS tical Tradition. This is in fact their last hold; and, like the Ro- manists, they studiously endeavour to make us suppose, that the heretics rejected Ecclesiastical Tradition ;} but it is a refuge wholly untenable. For, the supposed fact upon which the argu- ment is founded, is anything but a fact. The heretics were re- markable for appealing to Tradition. In the case of Arius, now before us, we find him making a direct appeal to the testimony of Antiquity as in his favor, and in a Letter of his to Pope Alexander, preserved by Epiphanius, he introduces his Creed as the Creed which he had learnt from his ancestors.’ This is a point, however, to which we have already directed the reader’s atten- tion,? and therefore I would only observe here, that it is a complete reply to any such objection as we have supposed against our availing ourselves of the full value of the testimony which the conduct of the Nicene Council bears to the correctness of the views we are advocating. And hence we may estimate the ac- curacy of Mr. Newman’s statement, that “when the history of * Arianism is examined, this peculiarity will be found respecting it, that it appealed only to Scripture, not to Catholic Tradi- * tion ;”* which, from one who professes to have examined its history, and has published a book on the subject, is somewhat extraordinary. The Tractators must pardon me for saying, that their state- ments, when taken as a whole, incontestably prove, that they have taken up their views not from a careful and impartial pe- rusal of the Fathers themselves, but from the works of Romish and semi-Romish writers ; for they are involved in almost all their misrepresentations and mistakes. In the preceding observations I have abstained from noticing the statements of Gelasius of Cyzicus respecting the proceedings of the Council, because their authority has been questioned by some ; but I may here add some passages from that author, showing 1 See Newman’s Lect. on Rom. &e. Lect. 7; &e. 2. Ἡ πίστις ἡμῶν ἣ ἐκ προγόνων, hy καὶ ἀπὸ cod μεμαθήκαμεν, μακάριε Πάπα, ἔστιν αὕτη. EpipHaN. Ady. her.; in her. Arian. § 7. Op. ed. Petav. tom. i. p. 732. 3 See vol. i. pp. 374—378. See, also, besides the passages there mentioned, Soorat. Hist. Eccl. i. 26. * Newman’s Lect. on Rom. &e. p. 205. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 97 that his account agrees with the view we have taken above, or rather, I should say, with the account we have quoted from Athanasius, of those proceedings; and certainly they afford a probable testimony of at least the principles by which the Council was governed ; for, even supposing that we are indebted to the inventive powers of Gelasius, or the more antient author from whom he professes to quote, for much of the matter con- tained in his details, yet the great principles by which the Council was governed, are surely not likely to have been mis- represented so soon after it was held. Thus, then, speaks Gelasius ;—“ That divine assembly of or- “ thodox priests of God that, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, in. “ vestigated and set forth, by means of the Prophetical and Evan- “¢ gelical and Apostolical Scriptures, concerning the Word of Life, * that is, the Son of God, that he is truly uncreated in his Divine * nature, and not a creature, as that most impious enemy of * God, Arius, blasphemously said against him, is truly Sion, * and Jerusalem, and the high mountain of the Lord, and the *“ house of the God of Jacob...... And this venerable and “ holy rule of the spotless faith hath been to us im very deed a “high mountain of God from aboye, according as the word “ spoken by the Lord himself first manifested, and which was * delivered by the Apostles, and has now been declared by his * priests assembled at Nice by Scriptural testimonies.” “ And “ they [the Fathers at Nice] proclaimed him to be the Maker « and Former of the things visible and invisible, according to “ the Apostolical faith delivered to his Church from the begin- “ning, having set forth the proofs by Scriptural testimonies.”? 1 ᾿Αληθῶς γὰρ Σιὼν καὶ Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ ὄρος Κυρίου ὑψηλότατον καὶ οἶκος τοῦ Θεοῦ Ἰακὼβ, ὁ θεῖος ἐκεῖνος τῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ ὀρθοδόξων ἱερέων ὅμιλος" πνεύματι ἁγίῳ διασκεψαμένων καὶ παραστησάντων διά τε γραφῶν Προφητικῶν καὶ Εὐαγγελικῶν καὶ ᾿Αποστολικῶν περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ds ἀληθῶς ἄκτιστος τῇ τῆς θεότητος φύσει, καὶ οὐ κτίσμα" καθὼς ὃ θεομάχος καὶ ἀσεβέστατος κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐβλασφήμησεν Αρειος. .... .- Καὶ ἀληθῶς ὑψηλὺν ὄρος Θεοῦ ἄνωθεν ἡμῖν, (καθὰ προεδήλωσεν ὃ λόγος παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου, διὰ τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων δοθεὶς, καὶ νῦν διὰ τῶν αὐτοῦ ἱερέων κατὰ τὴν Νικαέων γραφικαῖς μαρτυρίαις τρανωθείς,) ὅ προσκυνητὸς οὗτος καὶ ἅγιος τῆς ἀμωμήτου πίστεως ὅρος. GELAS. Cyzic. Com- ment. Act. Cone. Nic. ed. Balf. 1599. lib. i. c. 9. pp. 28, 9. 2 Krlorhy τε αὐτὸν καὶ δημιουργὸν ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ἐκήρυξαν, κατὰ τὴν ἀνέκαθεν παραδοθεῖσαν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ αὐτοῦ ἀποστολικὴν πίστιν, γραφικαῖς μαρτυ- plas τὰς ἀποδείξεις ἐκδώσαντες. Ib. lib. ii. ο. 11. p. 94. -VOL, III. H 98 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS Further on, having spoken of the disputation between the bishops and a philosopher who was advocating the cause of Arius, he says, “ By the divine word, as with fire, they con- sumed all the subtle pretences of the philosopher like tow.”+* And so in a response made to the philosopher by Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, in the name of the Council, we find the bishop speaking thus,—‘“‘ We have already admonished you, “ that we must not by any means use the word, ‘ how,’ with “respect to the divine mysteries. For they are unutterable “and incomprehensible. But, according as we have been taught * out of the sacred oracles, we will speak, so far as words will “enable us to set them forth.’’® The weight necessarily attaching to the proceedings of such a Council will, I am.convinced, render any apology needless for the space here given to it; and I trust that the testimonies adduced above can leave no doubt on the mind of the impartial reader what was the authority, the sole authority recognised by the bishops there assembled, in their deliberations respecting the faith. How little the notions of Dr. Pusey and his party respecting this Council, either as to the nature of its proceedings, or its authority, agree with those of the Fathers, may be judged from the following passage of the excellent Hilary of Poictiers. “ As. “in winter, in a stormy sea, it is the safest course to be ob- ‘served by mariners, that when a storm rages, they should *‘ return to the port whence they set out; or, as it befits care- “less youths, that when, in maintaining their own family, “ having exceeded the mode of living adopted by their parents, “they have made an undue use of their liberty, there should “ be a return, as the only safe and necessary course, under fear “ of losing their patrimony, to parental habits ; so amidst these “ shipwrecks of the faith, the heirship of the heavenly patri- “mony being almost lost, ἐξ is safest for us to retain the first 1 Πάσας yap τὰς τοῦ φιλοσόφου πολυπλόκους προτάσεις, ὡς πυρὶ, τῷ θείῳ λόγῳ, στυππίου δίκην, κατανήλισκον. Ib. lib. ii. c. 13. p. 99 (misprinted 89.) 2 Ἤδη εἰρήκαμέν σοι, ὦ βέλτιστε, μηδαμῶς ἐπὶ τῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ μυστηρίων λέγειν τὸ ὅπως. ᾿Απόῤῥητα γὰρ εἰσὶ καὶ ἀνεπιλόγιστα. ‘Os δὲ ἐκ τῶν ἱερῶν λόγων ἐδι- δάχθημεν, ἐροῦμεν ὅσον 5 λόγος παραστῆσαι δυνήσεται. Ib, lib, ii. ο. 24, p. 154. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 99 ** and sole evangelical faith confessed and understood at baptism, ““ [which he tells us elsewhere was not the Nicene Creed, which “he did not hear of till long after,}! and not to change that “which alone, as received and heard, I am disposed to accept as “ my Creed; not indeed that those things which are contained “in the Creed agreed to at the synod of our Fathers are to be “ condemned as irreligiously and wickedly written, but because * through the boldness of men they are used as a handle for “objections . . . [and having added an intimation that one ** emendation leads to another, he proceeds thus:] How much “ do I now admire thee, Lord Constantius our Emperor, for your “ blessed and religious resolve, who dost wish to know the faith “ONLY ACCORDING TO THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN ; “and deservedly address yourself to those very declarations them- “ selves of the only-begotten of God, that your heart, charged with “ the cares of empire, may also be filled with the knowledge of the “ divine words. He who repudiates this is antichrist, and he who « feigns it is anathema.”* A passage more eompletely condemnatory of the views of Dr. Pusey and his party could hardly be penned. So far from telling us, that the additions made to the Creed at Nice were 1 « Regeneratus pridem et in episcopatu aliquantisper manens, fidem Ni- eznam nunquam nisi exsulaturus audivi.” Hiiar. Pict. De Synod. ὃ 91. Op.ed. Bened. col. 1205. 2 « Quod hieme undoso mari observari a navigantibus maxime tutum est, ut, naufragio deszviente, in portum ex quo solverant revertantur; vel incautis adolescentibus convenit, ut cum in tuenda domo sua, mores paternez obser- vantie transgressi, profusa libertate sua usi sunt, jam sub ipso amittendi pa- trimonii metu solus illis ad paternam consuetudinem necessarius et tutus recursus sit; ita inter hee fidei naufragia, ccelestis patrimonii jam pene pro- fligata hereditate, tutissimum nobis est, primam et solam evangelicam fidem confessam in baptismo intellectamque retinere, nec demutare quod solum acceptum atque auditum habeo bene credere: non ut ea, que synodo patrum nostrorum continentur, tamquam irreligiose et impie scripta damnanda sint, sed quia per temeritatem humanam usurpantur ad contradictionem.... In quantum ego nunc beate religioseque voluntatis vere te, Domine Con- stanti Imperator, admiror, fidem tantum secundum ea que scripta sunt desi- derantem; et merito plane ad illa ipsa Unigeniti Dei eloquia festinans, ut imperatorie sollicitudinis capax pectus etiam divinorum dictorum conscientia plenum sit. Hoe qui repudiat, antichristus est; et qui simulat, anathema est.” Hinar. Prorav. Ad Constant. Aug. lib. ii. §§ 7, 8. Op. ed. Bened. col, 1229, 30. H 2 100 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS derived through Tradition from the oral teaching of the Apostles, : he very pointedly intimates, that it would have been better to have made no change at all in the Creed commonly received, and the praises the Emperor for looking tu Scripture alone for the faith. Aruanastius, (fl. a. 326.) From the Council of Nice we proceed to the writings of Atha- nasius, who is so confidently claimed by the Tractators as main- taining their views, that an appeal by one of their opponents to some passages in his writings, as testifying against them, was thought worth only a contemptuous sneer.1 Whether it was wise, or becoming, or suitable to their own proficiency in Patris- tical learning to assume such a tone, I leave the reader to judge. Certainly it would be most easy to retort, especially upon one who has so blundered in the signification of a phrase of common occurrence, as to have quoted a passage of Athanasius in a sense directly opposed to its obvious meaning ;* but I shall do no more than bespeak from the reader an impartial consideration of the passages I am about to quote. After explaining the doctrine relative to the Second Person in the sacred Trinity, Athanasius remarks,—“ But these things, “ the whole inspired Scripture teaches more clearly and fully ; “in reliance upon whose testimony, indeed, we also write these “ things to you; and you, if you read those i ie may be * certified of the truth of what I have said.’’® Words more clearly overthrowing the whole system of our opponents, could hardly be found. Again, he says of the Arians, “If, therefore, they deny that “ which isin Scripture, they immediately deprive themselves of “ any right to the name of Christians, and may properly be “ called by all Atheists, and enemies of Christ ; for this name 1 See Review of Dr. Shuttleworth on Tradition, in the British Critic for April, 1839. 2 See vol. i. pp. 72—74. 3 Ταῦτα δὲ Kal πᾶσα θεόπνευστος γραφὴ φανερώτερον καὶ κατὰ μεῖζον κηρύττει, ἀφ᾽ ὧν δὴ καὶ ἡμεῖς τεθαῤῥηκότες ταῦτά σοι γράφομεν, καὶ σὺ ταύταις ἐντυγχάνων, δυνήσῃ τῶν λεγομένων ἔχειν τὴν πίστιν. ATHANASII Orat. contr. Gent. ὃ 4, Op. ed. Ben. tom, i. p. 43. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 101 * they have thus given to themselves. But, ifthey confess with “us that the words of Scripture are inspired, let them dare *‘ openly to say what they secretly think, that God was once * without reason and without wisdom.” + Is not Scripture plainly referred to here, as the Rule of faith and Judge of controversies in the matter in question ? And so, a little further on, (as, indeed, continually through- out his writings,) the Arians are blamed for “ not attending to the Scriptures.” * And, of his own doctrine, he continually tells us, that he learned it from the Scriptures.’ Nay, in the same treatise, he says (as already quoted), “ Of “ these things we are certified, not from any external source, but «¢ from the Scriptures.””* And so completely was Scripture his sole Rule of faith, that even the use of a word not in Scripture, to define the faith, was thought by him, under ordinary circumstances, objectionable. “ Perhaps,” says Athanasius in a passage already quoted with reference to the Council of Nice, but which we must repeat here as showing his own views, “ they will say, It behoves us also, “ with respect to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to speak “ from the Scriptures those things which are written respecting “him, and not to introduce phrases not to be found in the Scrip- “ tures. It DOES, INDEED, BEHOVE US so To ΡΟ, I sHOULD “ MYSELF ALSO say; for the representations of the truth derived « from the Scriptures, are much more exact than those derwed from “ any other source ; but the perverseness, and artful, and versatile “impiety of the Eusebians, compelled the bishops, as I before “said, to set forth words more plainly subversive of their im- “ piety; and those words which were written by the Council, “ have been proved to have a right sense.” ὃ Hence, in another 1 Ei μὲν οὖν ἀρνοῦνται τὰ γεγραμμένα, αὐτόθεν ἀλλότριοι Kal τοῦ ὀνόματος ὄντες, οἰκείως ἂν καλοῖντο καὶ παρὰ πάντων ἄθεοι καὶ χριστομάχοι: οὕτω γὰρ ἑαυτοὺς ἐπωνόμασαν καὶ αὐτοί. Ei δὲ συνομολογοῦσιν ἡμῖν εἶναι θεόπνευστα τὰ τῆς γραφῆς ῥήματα, τολμησάτωσαν φανερῶς εἰπεῖν & κεκρυμμένως φρονοῦσιν" ὅτι. ἄλογος καὶ ἄσοφος ἦν ὅ θεός ποτε. κ- τ. A. Inv. De decret. Nic. Syn. § 15. i. 221. 2 τῶν γραφῶν ἄνήκοοι. Ip. De decret. Nic. Syn. § 29. i. 235. 3 Μεμαθήκαμεν ἐκ τῶν θείων γραφῶν. Ip. De decret. Nic. Syn. ὃ 15. i. 220. See also ὃ 21. p. 227. Et alibi passim. 4 Ip.i. § 17. See p. 91 above. 5 Ip. De decret. Nic. Syn. ὃ 32.i. 237. See p. 91 above. Similar. remarks occur, ib. § 28. i. 234, 102 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS passage, also quoted above, he says,—‘ To all created beings, “ and especially to us men, it is impossible to speak worthily “ of things which are beyond our power of expression; and “it is still more audacious for those who cannot express “ them to excogitate new words beyond those of the Scriptures.” * Hence, he says to the Arians,—“ Let them tell us from what “ Scriptures they have learnt, or from which of the sacred “‘ writers they have heard, the phrases which they have heaped “ together for themselves,—namely, ‘ From things not existing ;’ “ and, ‘ He was not before he was begotten,’ ” ἕο. And when the Nicene Fathers entered upon their delibera- tions, their great desire and intention was, he tells us, to deter- mine the controversy by “words that were confessedly words of Scripture,’ *® and that they adopted the word “ consubstantial ” on the consideration that it was merely equivalent to the expres- sions used in several passages of Scripture, which they collected together, in order to obtain the sense of Scripture on the doc- trine in question.* And therefore he says further to the Arians,—“ But if they “‘ again complain, that these words are not in Scripture, let them “ be at once rejected as empty talkers, and of unsound mind. « And for this they may blame themselves; inasmuch as they “ themselves first gave cause for the use of such phrases, when “ they began to fight against God, by words not in Scripture- « But, nevertheless, let any one who wishes to know the truth, “ understand, that, although the phrases do not literally exist “in the Scriptures, yet, as has before been said, they have * the meaning that is derived from the Scriptures; and when “ pronounced, convey this meaning to those whose ears are “ sound for piety.”® 1 ΤΡ. Ep. 1. ad Serap. ὃ 17. i. 666. See vol. ii. pp. 189, 190 above. 2 Εἰπάτωσαν ἡμῖν ἐκ ποίων αὐτοὶ γραφῶν μαθόντες, ἢ mapa τίνος τῶν ἁγίων ἀκούσαντες, συμπεφορήκασιν ἑαυτοῖς ῥημάτια, τὸ, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, καὶ, οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῇ, κι τ. A. Ip. De decret. Nic. Syn. § 18. i. 228. 3 Ip. Ad Afros Episc. Epist. § 5. i. 895. See p. 71 above. * Ip. ib. ὃ 6. 1. 896. See p. 72 above. 5 Ei δὲ ὅτι καὶ μὴ ἔγγραφοί εἰσι πάλιν γογγύζουσιν, αὐτόθεν μὲν αὐτοὶ ἐκβαλ- λέσθωσαν ὡς κενολογοῦντες καὶ τὸν νοῦν οὐχ ὑγιαίνοντες" ἑαυτοὺς δὲ καὶ ἐν τούτοις αἰτιάσθωσαν, ὅτι πρῶτοι παρασχόντες τὴν τοιαύτην πρόφασιν, ἐξ ἀγράφων θεομα- χεῖν ἤρξαντο. Γινωσκέτω δὲ ὅμως, εἴ τίς ἐστὶ φιλομαθὴς, ὅτι εἰ καὶ μὴ οὕτως ἐν Ταῖς γραφαῖς εἰσιν αἱ λέξεις, ἀλλὰ, καθάπερ εἴρηται πρότερον, τὴν ἐκ τῶν γρα- ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 103 How, in the face of these passages, the Tractators can have made such statements as they have respecting the way in which Athanasius and the Nicene Council arrived at the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son, and adopted the phrase “ con- substantial,” is inconceivable. And before I pass on, I would direct the attention of the reader to the direct mis-translation of the Benedictines of a passage just quoted, where the word I have translated “ the sacred writers” (τῶν ἁγίων), meaning “ the writers of Scripture,” is interpreted “‘the Fathers” (Patribus). To any one at all ac- quainted with the phraseology of the Fathers, I need not add a word to show that this is a mis-translation; but, in a note below, I have given some references which will enable any one to judge.* Let us proceed, however, to other passages in the writings of Athanasius, illustrative of this question. In his first Oration against the Arians, he says,—“ If they “should be suspected of such sentiments, they shall be over- ** whelmed by proofs from the Scriptures,’”—not by the inter- pretation given to Scripture by Tradition, but by “ proofs from the Scriptures.”’? Again : “ This,” he says, “ we must especially inquire, Whether “he is Son; and respecting this, must before all things search “the Scriptures.” ὃ av διάνοιαν ἔχουσι, καὶ ταύτην ἐκφωνούμεναι σημαΐνουσι τοῖς ἔχουσιν εἰς εὐσέ- βειαν τὴν ἀκοὴν ὁλόκληρον. Ip. De decret. Nic. Syn. § 21. i. 226, 7. 1 Thus, in a passage in the same treatise, but just preceding that quoted above, it is said, with reference to the writers of Scripture, Οὕτω yap ἡμᾶς οἱ ἅγιοι βουλόμενοι νοεῖν, τοιαῦτα Kal παραδείγματα δεδώκασι. De decret. Nic. Syn. ὃ 12. i. 219. The phrase occurs also in the same sense in his treatise, De sent. Dionys. § 2. i. 244. And frequently in his Orations against the Arians, as Orat. i. § 63. i. 467. Orat. 2. § 5. 1, 473. ib. § 6. 1. 474. ib. § 63. 1.531. And elsewhere passim. And so the phrase is used continually by the other Fathers. As, for instance, by GREGORY NyssEN, Contra Eunom. orat. 9. ii. 254. ed. 1615. It is quite true, that the word ayiwy may some- times be found connected with πατέρων, in reference to the Nicene, or other Fathers; but the emphatic phrase, of ἅγιοι, when applied to the writers of the Church, belongs peculiarly to the inspired writers. 2 Ἐάν τε ὑπονοηθῶσι, βληθήσονται παρὰ πάντων τοῖς ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν ἐλέγχοις, In. Orat. i. contr. Arian. ὃ 10. i. 414. 3 τοῦτο yap πρὸ πάντων δεῖ (ζητεῖν, εἰ vids ἐστι, καὶ περὶ τούτον τὰς γραφὰξ προηγουμένως ἐρευνᾶν. In, Orat. 2. contr. Arian. ὃ 79, i. 641. 104 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS Again ; “ Where did they find, that the counsel or will of God “ was before his Word; unless, neglecting the Scriptures, they “ deceitfully embrace the errors of Valentinus?........ Let “ them, if they please, defend the notions of Valentinus ; but we, “ having read the divine oracles, have found it written respecting “ the Son, that ‘he was.’ 21} Again; “ Who delivered these doctrines to them? Who “taught them these doctrines? No one, certainly, from the “ Divine Scriptures.”* This testimony, though indirect, very forcibly show, how completely the Divine Scriptures were con- sidered by Athanasius as the only source whence such doctrine should be taught. Again; “ Vainly, therefore, do they run about pretending “ that they demand that there should be councils held for the *“ sake of the faith. For, the Divine Scripture ts more competent ““ [to determine the faith] than all other things.” ὃ Again ; “ Either, therefore, reject the Divine Scriptures, or, “aif you admit them, do not think to speak words of incurable ‘ deceit, other than and beyond those that are written.” * Again ; “ If, therefore, ye are disciples of the Gospels, speak “ not injustice against God, but walk by those things that are “ written, and have been done. But if you wish to speak other “ things beyond those that are written, why do you contend “ against us, who can endure neither to hear or speak anything “ beyond the things that are written.... What enormous folly “is this of yours to speak things that are not written, and to * think things contrary to piety ἢ ὃ 1 Αὐτοὶ δὲ ποῦ ἄρα βούλησιν ἢ θέλησιν προηγουμένην εὗρον τοῦ λόγου τοῦ Θεοῦ, εἰ μὴ ἄρα τὰς γραφὰς ἀφέντες, ὑποκρίνονται καὶ τὴν Οὐαλεντίνου κακόνοιαν ; tetas ἐκεῖνοι μὲν οὖν τὰ Οὐαλεντίνου (ζηλεύτωσαν: ἡμεῖς δὲ ἐντυχόντες τοῖς θείοις Χόγοις, ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ υἱοῦ, τὸ ἦν, εὕρομεν. Ld. Orat. iii. contr. Arian. § 60. i. 608, 9. 2 Tis γὰρ αὐτοῖς παρέδωκε ταῦτα; τίς ὁ διδάξας ; ἀλλ᾽ οὐδεὶς ἐκ τῶν θείων γραφῶν. ΤΡ. Ep. 4. ad Serap. § ὅ. i. P. 2. p. 700. 3 Μάτην γοῦν περιτρέχοντες προφασίζνται διὰ πίστιν ἠξιωκέναι γενέσθαι τὰς συνόδους. Ἔστι μὲν γὰρ ἱκανωτέρα πάντων ἣ θεία γραφή. ΤΡ. De Synod. § 6. i. P. 2. p. 720. 4*H τοίνυν ἀρνήσασθε τὰς θείας γραφὰς, ἢ ταύτας ὁμολογοῦντες, μὴ ἕτερα παρὰ τὰ γεγραμμένα ἐπινοεῖτε λαλεῖν ῥήματα ἀπάτης dvidrov. Ip, Contr. Apoll. lib. i. § 6. i. P. 2. p. 926. ἢ Εἰ τοίνυν μαθηταί ἐστε τῶν εὐαγγελίων, μὴ λαλεῖτε κατὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀδικίαν" ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 105 And, in the Fragment of his Festal Epistle, after having enumerated the books of the Old and New Testament, he adds, —* These are the wells of salvation, that he who thirsts may be “ filled with the oracles contained in these books. In these “alone the doctrine (or, school) of true religion is proclaimed. “ Tet no one add to them, nor take away anything from “them.” } Lastly, I would recall to the remembrance of the reader a passage already quoted in a former page,” which, however, occurs in a treatise that is classed by the Benedictines among those of doubtful authorship, and with which, therefore, he may deal as he pleases.® Moreover, Athanasius distinctly recognises the completeness of Scripture as the Rule of faith. « As you desire,” he says, on one occasion to a person to whom he was writing, “to hear something on this subject, we will, as “ far as we are able, give a brief exposition of the Christian “ faith; which, indeed, you might have found from the divine “« oracles ; but, nevertheless, politely hear also from others. “ For, INDEED, THE HOLY AND INSPIRED SCRIPTURES ARE “‘ SUFFICIENT OF THEMSELVES TO MAKE KNOWN THE TRUTH.”* ἀλλὰ στοιχεῖτε τοῖς γεγραμμένοις καὶ γενομένοις. Ei de ἕτερα παρὰ τὰ γεγραμ- μένα λαλεῖν βούχεσθε, τί πρὸς ἡμᾶς διαμάχεσθε, τοὺς μὴτε ἀκούειν, μὴτε λέγειν» παρὰ τὰ γεγραμμένα πειθομένους ; .... Τίς ὑμῶν ἣ τοσαύτη ἀπόνοια τῆς ἀμετρίας, λαλεῖν τὰ μὴ γεγραμμένα, καὶ φρονεῖν ἀλλότρια τῆς εὐσεβείας - ID. Contr. Apoll. lib. i. 88 8, 9. i. P. 2. pp. 928, 9. 1 Ταῦτα πηγαὶ τοῦ σωτηρίου, ὥστε τὸν διψῶντα τῶν ἐν τούτοις ἐμφορεῖσθαι λογίων: ἐν τούτοις μόνοις τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας διδασκαλεῖον εὐαγγελίζεται. Μηδεὶς τούτοις ἐπιβαλλέτω, μηδὲ τούτων ἀφαιρείσθω τι. ID. Fragm. ex Epist. Fest. i. P. 2. p. 962. 2 See vol. i. pp. 68, 69. 3 The passage in the original is as follows:—’Eme) τοίνυν ἠκούσαμεν παρ᾽ ὑμῖν τινας ταράττεσθαι καὶ (ζητεῖν. γράμματα παρ᾽ ἡμῶν περὶ τῆς κοινῆς Kal ἐξ ἄπο- στόλων εἰσαχθείσης πίστεως, γράφομεν, ὅτι τὴν μὲν ἀκρίβειαν αὐτῆς ἐπιζητεῖν ὀλίγων ἐστὶ, τὴν δὲ πίστιν κατέχειν, ἁπάντων τῶν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν εὐπειθῶν, οἵ καὶ μέγιστον ἔπαινον ἀποφέρονται τῆς ἐπιθυμίας. ὋὉ μὲν γὰρ ζητῶν τὰ ὑπὲρ ἑαυτὸν, ἐπικίνδυνος" ὃ δὲ τοῖς παροδοθείσιν ἐμμένων, ἀκίνδυνος. Παραινοῦμεν δὲ ὑμῖν, ὅπερ καὶ ἑαυτοῖς παραινοῦμεν, τὴν παραδοθεῖσαν πίστιν φυλάττειν, ἐκτρέπεσθαι δὲ τὰς βεβήλους καινοφωνίας, καὶ τοῦτο πᾶσι παρεγγυᾷν φοβεῖσθαι τὴν περὶ τοῦ τηλικαύτου μυστηρίου ζήτησιν' ὁμολογεῖν δὲ, ὅτι πεφανέρωται Θεὸς ἐν σαρκὶ, κατὰ τὴν ἀπο- στολικὴν παράδοσιν. ΤΡ. De incarn. Verbi Dei. § 2, tom. ii. p. 84. 4 Ποθοῦντι δέ σοι ὕμως τὰ περὶ ταύτης ἀκοῦσαι, φέρε, ὦ μακάριε, ws by οἷοί τε 106 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS Again; in the passage which has been so misquoted by Mr. Newman, he bears a similar testimony in the very words which have been cited against us. “I have written these things, “ beloved ; although, indeed, there was no need to write any- “ thing more, for the Evangelical Tradition is sufficient of itself ; “ but because you inquired respecting our faith, and on account “« of those who love to make sport with the faith by their inven- “ tions, and do not consider, that he who speaks from his own private fancies, speaks a lie. For it is not possible for the “( wit of man to declare fully the beauty or glory of the body of “ Christ. But it is possible for us both to confess the things that “ have been done, according as they are recorded in Scripture, and ““ to worship the true God.’”? And, as it respects its full delivery of particular doctrines, we have clear testimonies in Athanasius affirmative of this, in both the doctrines which his writings were more particularly intended to support, namely, the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father (as we have seen in the passages but just now quoted), and that of the divinity of the Holy Spirit ; respect- ing which he says, “ Let not any one any longer ask such * questions, but learn only what is in the Scriptures ; for the “ illustrations we have of this matter in them, are sufficient of them- * selves, and need no addition.” 3 From these passages, then, I suppose we may conclude, that, in Athanasius’s view, Scripture was the sole and entire Rule of faith ; Tradition forming no part of it, either as adding doctrines to those there revealed, or as interpretative of the revelation there made. ὦμεν, ὀλίγα τῆς κατὰ Χριστὸν πίστεως ἐκθώμεθα, δυναμένῳ μέν σοι καὶ ἀπὸ τῶι θείων λογίων ταὐτὴν εὑρεῖν, φιλοκάλως δὲ ὅμως καὶ wap’ ἑτέρων ἀκούοντι. *AuTdp- κεις μὲν γάρ εἶσιν αἱ ἅγιαι καὶ θεόπνευστοι γραφαὶ πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας ἄπαγ- γελίαν. ΤΡ. Orat. contr. Gent. § 1. 1. 1. 1 Ταῦτα ἔγραψα, ἀγαπητέ: κἂν ὅτι μάλιστα οὐδὲν πλέον ἔδεί γράφειν" αὐτάρκης yap ἣ εὐαγγελικὴ παράδοσις" ἄλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ ἠρώτησας περὶ τῆς ἐν ἡμῖν πίστεως, καὶ ἕνεκά γε τῶν ἐρεσχελεῖν βουλομένων ταῖς ἐφευρέσεσι, καὶ οὐ λογιζομένων, ὅτι ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων λαλῶν, τὸ ψεῦδος λαλεῖ. Οὔτε γὰρ κάλλος, οὔτε δόξαν σώματος Χριστοῦ ἐφικτὸν διανοίᾳ ἀνθρώπου ἐξειπεῖν. ᾿Αλλά γε καὶ τὰ γενόμενα, ὡς γέγραπται, ὁμολογεῖν, καὶ τὸν ὄντα Θεὸν προσκυνεῖν, κι τ. A. Ip. Contr. Apoll. lib. i. § ult. P. 2. pp- 939, 40. ® Ip, Ep. i. ad Serap. ὃ 19. i. P. 2. p. 667. See vol. ii. 189, 190 above. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 107 But, as some passages are adduced both by the Romanists and the Tractators, as if they affirmed their views, we will con- sider them before we proceed further. Some of these passages we have formerly noticed; and for them, therefore, refer the reader to what has been already said respecting them.! Others are quoted, through a mistaken view of the meaning of the phrases used ; and the rest imply no more than what we will- ingly allow, namely, that the Fathers, like ourselves, referred to the testimony of those who preceded them, in confirmation of the truth of their doctrines. Thus, Mr. Keble quotes, as supporting his view of Tradition, the passage in the Second Epistle to Serapion, in which Atha- nasius, laying down what he calls the form or outline (χαρακτὴρ) of the faith in Christ, says, “ This form comes from the Apostles, through the Fathers.” * But, in the first place, the Fathers here mentioned are, as will be seen by a reference to the context, the Nicene Fathers,* a sense in which the word is continually used by Athanasius,‘not “the Fathers,” in Mr. Keble’s sense of the phrase, as indicating the Catholic Consent of all from the begining. This is a mistake we have already had occasion to point out in ano- ther passage, quoted both by Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble, where the context alike shows the error.’ Moreover, the passage only states a fact which we are far from questioning, and far from reckoning a poor argument for that which is so confirmed, namely, that the doctrine in question was taught by many bishops of the Primitive Church. But Athanasius neither here nor anywhere else, makes their testimony part of the Rule of faith. And as to Mr. Keble’s notion that this passage shows us, that Atha- nasius held, that, for “ the form of the faith m Christ,’ we must go to the Fathers, as if it was not as fully and clearly delivered in the Scriptures, it is altogether overthrown by a passage in a 1 See vol. i. pp. 65 et seq.; and pp. 88—91 of this volume. 2 Ὁ μὲν χαρακτὴρ οὗτος ἐκ τῶν ἀποστόλων διὰ τῶν πατέρων. ID. Ep. 2. ad Serap. § 8, i. P. 2. p. 688. See Keble’s Serm. App. pp. 124, 5. 3 Οὕτω yap καὶ of πατέρες νοήσαντες, ὡμολόγησαν ἐν TH κατὰ Νίκαιαν συνόδῳ, k.7T. A. Io. ib. § ὅ. 1. P. 2. p. 686. 4 See De Synod. ὃ 6. i. P. 2. p. 720. Ep. ad Jovian. §§ 1, 2. passim. i. P. 2. p. 780) 781. De incarn. Dom. contr. Apoll. lib, i. §§ 1, 2. i, P. 2. p. 922. 5 See vol. i. pp. 69—71. 108 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS fragment of a Letter to the Monks, in which Athanasius, speaking on the very same point, says,—“ I might also have considerably extended my letter, by subjoining the form of “ such doctrines from the Divine Scriptures.” * The appeal which Athanasius makes in the above, and other passages, is not to the “ Catholic Consent” of all the Fathers, as a “divine informant,” and part of the Rule of faith, but to the testimony of certain Fathers, whose suffrage he justly con- siders as a confirmatory argument in favor of his doctrine. And his words have the same meaning in several other pas- sages, which are often quoted against our views; as the context will at once show. Again ; after having quoted four of the preceding Fathers in defence of the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, he says,—“ Lo, we give you proof that this doctrine “has passed down from Fathers to Fathers ; but you, ye new “ Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, what Fathers have you to “ show as supporters of your phrases? You could name none “ of the prudent and wise. For all abhor you, except the devil “ only.”® New, certainly, this language is sufficiently violent, especially when we recollect that one of the four, to whom he appealed, was Origen, who was subsequently condemned by the majority of the Church for opposing the doctrine which Atha- nasius here quotes him as maintainmg; and that Jerome admits, that many of the earlier writers had spoken erroneously on the point; but, nevertheless, all that it amounts to is, that certain of the Fathers had maintained the doctrine, and that Athanasius did not believe, that Arius could produce any such authority for his views; and consequently that besides the Scripture-proof, he had a strong argument from Antiquity m favor of the doctrine. But what then? Weare far from deny- 1 “ Possibile quidem erat mihi etiam per multa extendere epistolam, appo- nenti ex Scripturis divinis formam ejusmodi doctrine,” ἄς, Ip. Ep. ad Mon. i. BP. 2.9. 96%. 2 "Ιδοὺ ἡμεῖς μὲν ἐκ πατέρων εἰς πατέρας διαβεβηκέναι Thy τοιαύτην διάνοιαν ἂπο- δεικνύομεν" ὑμεῖς δὲ, ὦ νέοι Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ τοῦ Καιάφα μαθηταὶ, τίνας ἄρα τῶν ῥημά- των ὑμῶν ἔχετε δεῖξαι πατέρας ; ἀλλ᾽ ὀυδένα τῶν φρονίμων καὶ σοφῶν ἂν εἴποιτε. πάντες γὰρ ὑμᾶς ἀποστρέφονται, πλὴν μόνου τοῦ διαβόλου, Ip. De decret. Nic. Syn. ὃ 27. i. 233. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 109 ing the successional preaching of the orthodox doctrine in the Church, or that the indications of that delivery of it contained in the writings of the Fathers, are an important confirmation of the true faith. Nay, we think that in the case of any fundamental doctrine, it would be absurd to suppose, that all the writers of the Primitive Church should have erred; and therefore that, considering the number of writings that remain to us of the first four or five centuries, it is but reasonable to require, that any doctrine, put forth as fundamental, should have some support in those writings. And therefore we quite agree with Athanasius in his remark respecting the Arians,— If they “ confess, that they have now first heard these things, let them “not deny, that this heresy is foreign [to the Church], and “‘ not from Fathers. But that which is not from Fathers, but “ invented now, what else can it be, but that of which the “blessed Paul foretold, ‘In the last times some shall depart “ from the sound faith,’ &c.”’! The truth of this, few, I suppose, will deny. But where, I ask, is it intimated in these, or any other pas- sages of Athanasius, that the testimony of a few Fathers is to be taken as an adequate proof and representation of Catholic Consent for several centuries, infallibly conveying to us the oral teaching of the Apostles; and giving us a revelation of divine truth, more full and clear than what we have in Scripture ; and thus forming part of the Rule of faith? No; on the contrary, the writings of Athanasius clearly and abundantly show, (as we have seen,) that he considered Scripture the sole and entire Rule of faith ; yes, and the source from which all were to certify themselves of the faith, for he says,—“ The true and pious faith ‘in the Lord has stood forth evident ¢o al/, bemg known and “ yead out of the divine Scriptures.’’? In fact, of Tradition, in the sense in which the Romanists and the Tractators use the term, namely, as something coming 1 Εἰ δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ πρῶτον νῦν ὁμολογοῦσιν ἀκηκοέναι τὰ τοιαῦτα, μή ἄρνείσθωσαν ἀλλοτρίαν καὶ μὴ ἐκ πατέρων εἶναι τὴν αἵρεσιν ταύτην. Τὸ δὲ μὴ ἐκ πατέρων, ἀλλὰ νῦν ἐφευρεθὲν, τί ἂν εἴη ἕτερον ἢ περὶ οὗ προείρηκεν ὅ μακάριος Παῦλος" ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς ἀποστήσονταί τινες τῆς ὑγιαινούσης πίστεως, kK. τ. A. ID, Orat. 1. contr. Arian. § 8. i. 412. 3 Ip. Ep. ad Jovian. 8 1. i. P. 2. p. 780. See p. 89 above. 110 THE DOCTRINE.OF THE FATHERS to us from the oral teaching of the Apostles, above and beyond Scripture, through a successional delivery by all the Fathers, we meet with not one syllable in the writings of Athanasius. Cyrit or JERUSALEM. (fl. a. 350.) I proceed to Cyril of Jerusalem, and offer to the reader the following extracts from his Catechetical Lectures to those about to be baptized. First, as it respects Scripture being the sole authoritative Rule of faith. After giving a brief account of the principal articles of the Christian faith, he says,—‘ Retain this seal ever in thy mind, “the principal points of which have now been briefly enu- “ merated. But if the Lord permit, they shall be discussed, as “far as I am able, with Scripture-proof. For, as it respects - “the divine and holy mysteries of.the faith, not even the least “not ought to be delivered without the divine Scriptures, “ nothing asserted nakedly without proof, by probable reason- “‘ ing and oratorical statements. Nay, YoU MUST NOT BELIEVE ‘ME, WHEN I] DECLARE THESE THINGS TO YOU NAKEDLY ““ WITHOUT PROOF, IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE THE PROOF OF THE *‘ THINGS SPOKEN FROM THE Divine Scriprures.”! To see the full force of this passage, we must recollect, that it is addressed to the young, to those about to be baptized ; and to them it is said by Cyril, that they were not to believe him, except so far as they should find him to be borne out by the declarations of Scripture; so far is he from asserting, that the interpretation of Scripture which he gave, was binding - upon the conscience, and the proper object of faith. And, moreover, this is said with reference to the Creed, which is em- 1 Ταύτην ἔχε τὴν σφραγίδα ἐν τῇ διανοίᾳ σου πάντοτε, ἥτις νῦν μὲν κατὰ ἄνα- κεφαλαίωσιν ἀκροθιγῶς εἴρηται. Ei δὲ παράσχοι ὃ Κύριος, μετὰ τῆς τῶν γραφῶν ἀποδείξεως κατὰ δύναμιν ῥηθήσεται. Δεῖ γὰρ περὶ τῶν θείων καὶ ἁγίων τῆς πίστεως μυστηρίων, μηδὲ τὸ τυχὺν ἄνευ τῶν θείων παραδίδοσθαι γραφῶν, μηδὲ ἁπλῶς πιθα- νότητι καὶ λόγων κατασκευαῖς παραφέρεσθαι. Μηδὲ ἐμοὶ τῷ ταῦτά σοι λέγοντι ἁπλῶς πιστεύσῃς, ἐὰν τὴν ἀπόδειξιν τῶν καταγγελλομένων ἀπὸ τῶν θείων μὴ λάβῃς γραφῶν. CYRILL, H1ERosot. Catech. 4. § 12. Op. ed. Milles. Oxon. 1703. p. 56. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 117 phatically put forward by the Tractators as part of the Rule of faith, and a divine revelation, quite independent of Scripture. Again, he says,—“ There is need truly of spiritual grace, “that we may discourse of the Holy Spirit. Not that we may “ speak worthily of the subject, for that is impossible ; but that, “ speaking the things which we learn from the Divine Scrip- “ tures, we may proceed without danger.’’! He knew nothing of an infallible interpretation of Scrip- ture, derived from the oral teaching of the Apostles, and handed down by “ Tradition.” Further; as to the perfection of Scripture. He says,— *‘ What else is there that knows the deep things of God, but “only the Holy Spirit that uttered the Divine Scriptures ? * But neither hath the Holy Spirit himself spoken in the “ Scriptures concerning the generation of the Son from the “ Father. Why, therefore, do you curiously inquire after that “ which the Holy Spirit hath not written in the Scriptures? “Do you, who know not what is written, curiously imquire “ after that which is not written? There are many subjects * for inquiry in the Divine Scriptures, [and] we do not fully “comprehend that which is written; why do we curiously * inquire after what is not written ?”’* Again; “Therefore let those things be spoken by us con- * cerning the Holy Spirit which are written. And if anything “is not written, let us not curiously inquire after it. The Holy “ Spirit himself hath uttered the Scriptures, and hath himself * snoken concerning himself as much as he pleased, and as much as “we are capable of receiving. Therefore let those things be “ spoken which he has uttered ; for what he hath not spoken, we “ dare not speak.”’* 1 Πνευματικῆς ἀληθῶς χρεία τῆς χάριτος, ἵνα περὶ Πνεύματος ἁγίου διαλεχθῶμεν" οὐχ ἵνα κατ᾽ ἀξίαν εἴπωμεν: ἀδύνατον yap: GAN ἵνα τὰ ἀπὸ τῶν θεῖων γραφῶν εἰπόντες ἀκινδύνως διέλθωμεν. ΤΡ. Cat. 16. ὃ 1. p. 223. 3 τί ἐστιν ἕτερον γινώσκον τὰ βάθη τοῦ Θεοῦ, εἰ μὴ μόνον τὸ Πνεῦμα το ἅγιον τὸ λαλῆσαν τὰς θείας γραφάς: ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον περὶ τῆς ἐκ Πατρὸς τοῦ Ὑἱοῦ γεννήσεως ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς ἐλάλησεν. Τί τοίνυν πολυπραγμονεῖς, ἃ μηδὲ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔγραψεν ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς ; ὁ τὰ γεγραμμένα μὴ γινώ- σκων, τὰ μὴ γεγραμμένα πολυπραγμονεῖς ; Πολλὰ ζητήματά ἐστιν ἐν ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς, τὸ γεγραμμένον οὐ καταλαμβάνομεν, τί τὸ μὴ γεγραμμένον πολυπραγ- μονοῦμεν ; Ip. Cat. 11. § 4. pp. 140, 1. 3 Λεγέσθω τοίνυν ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν περὶ ἁγίου Πνεύματος τὰ γεγραμμένα. El δέ τι μὴ 112 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS Again; “It is sufficient for us to know these things. But “as to nature or hypostasis, do not curiously search into it. « For, if it was written, we would declare it. It is not written, “ Jet us not dare to do so. It is sufficient for our salvation, to “ know that there is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”? Again; “Not using, even to-day, human imaginations, for “ that would be unprofitable; but only puTTING YOU IN MIND « or those things which we learn from the Divine Scriptures ; for “that is the safest; according to the blessed Apostle, who “ says, ‘which things we speak, not in the words which man’s “ wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, com- “ paring spiritual things with spiritual.’ 5 But it may be said, (for it has been said by those who would fain make us believe that every passage in the Fathers, in which the word tradition (παράδοσις) is mentioned with favor, is a support to the views we are opposing,) that Cyril says, in another place, “ Be careful, therefore, brethren, and hold fast the * traditions which ye now receive.... God will require of you “an account of the deposit committed to your keeping.”? True ; and what does he mean by these “traditions” ? Let his own words in the previous context explain,— Hold fast the faith “ Tor, Creed] both in knowledge and profession, and keep it ; “ that only, I mean, which is now delivered (tradited) to thee by “ the Church, and which is established from the whole Scrip- “ ture ;”* and of this Creed he adds, “ The articles of the Creed γέγραπται, μὴ πολυπραγμονῶμεν. Αὐτὸ τὸ Πνεῦμα Td ἅγιον ἐλάλησε τὰς γραφάς" αὐτὸ καὶ περὶ αὑτοῦ εἴρηκεν ὕσα ἐβούλετο, καὶ ὅσα ἐχωροῦμεν: λεγέσθω οὖν ἃ εἴρηκεν" ὅσα γὰρ οὐκ εἴρηκεν, ἡμεῖς οὐ τολμῶμεν. Id. Cat, 16, § 1. p. 294. " Καὶ αὔταρκες ἡμῖν εἰδέναι ταῦτα’ φύσιν δὲ, ἢ ὑπόστασιν μὴ πολυπραγμόνει" εἰ γὰρ ἦν γεγραμμένον, ἐλέγομεν’ οὐ γέγραπται, μὴ τολμήσωμεν: αὕταρκες ἡμῖν εἰδέναι πρὸς σωτηρίαν, ὅτι ἐστὶ πατὴρ, καὶ vids, καὶ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα. Ip. Cat. 16. § 12. pp. 236, 7. 3. Οὐκ ἀνθρωπίνοις καὶ σήμερον κεχρημένοι σοφίσμασιν: ἀσύμφορον yap: ἀλλὰ τὰ ἐκ τῶν θείων γραφῶν μόνον ὑπομιμνήσκοντες" ἀσφαλέστατον γὰρ, κατὰ τὸν μακά- ριον ᾿Απόστολον, ὃς καί φησιν" & καὶ λαλοῦμεν, οὐκ ἐν διδακτοῖς ἀνθρωπίνης σοφίας λόγοις, GAN ἐν διδακτοῖς Πνεύματος, πνευματικοῖς πνευματικὰ συγκρίνοντες. ID. Cat, 17, ὃ 1, p. 241. 3 Βλέπετε οὖν, ἀδελφοὶ, καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις, ἃς νῦν παραλαμβάνετε sees Θεὸς δὲ παρ᾽ ὑμῶν ἀπαιτεῖ τῆς παρακαταθήκης τοὺς λόγους. ID. Cat. ὅ. § 8. p. 76. ὲ 4 Πίστιν δὲ ἐν μαθήσει καὶ ἐπαγγελίᾳ κτῆσαι, καὶ τήρησον, μόνην τὴν ὑπὸ τῆς ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 113 “ were not, as it appears, composed by men; but the most suit- * able passages collected together out of the whole Scripture, “ make up one form of instruction in the faith. And asa grain “ of mustard seed contains, in a small grain, many branches, “ thus, also, the Creed itself embraces, in a few words, the whole “ knowledge of religion revealed to us in the Old and New Testa- “ment. Be careful, therefore, and hold fast the traditions, “ &c.”1 These traditions, therefore, were the articles of the Creed; which articles were expressed in language carefully taken from Scripture ; the Creed being a collection of suitable passages selected from the whole Scripture, to give a brief and comprehensive view of the principal points of the Christian faith. The word “traditions,” therefore, is here evidently merely equivalent to “instructions ;” or at least has not the meaning in which the Tractators use the word “ traditions.” The translation and comment given by Mr. Newman to the above passage, are worthy of notice. He translates it thus; “ Learn and hold fast thy faith in what is taught and promised ; “ that faith which alone is now delivered to thee BY TRADITIONS “ op THE Cuurcu, and established from Scripture.”* And he quotes it as showing, that Cyril “distinguishes between Tradi- tion as teaching, and Scripture as proving, verifying doctrine.” Upon the various errors in the translation of these few lines» I say nothing; but to its bad faith, in the introduction of the phrase, “ traditions of the Church,’ I cannot but call the atten- tion of the reader. The passage is merely a request by Cyril to his hearers, to attend to that which the Church, through him, was delivering to them as the Christian faith. And there is not one word about “ Tradition teaching.” And what possible ad- vantage could Mr. Newman’s cause gain by it, if there was ; when Cyril himself cautions his hearers not to believe one word ἐκκλησίας νυνί σοι παραδιδομένην, τὴν ἐκ πάσης γραφῆς ὀχυρωμένην. Ib. Cat. 5. ; : Ae ὡς ἔδοξεν, ἀνθρώποις συνετέθη τὰ τῆς πίστεως, GAA’ ἐκ πάσης γραφῆς τὰ καιριώτατα συλλεχθέντα, μίαν ἀναπληροῖ τὴν τῆς πίστεως διδασκαλίαν. Καὶ ὅνπερ τρόπον ὃ τοῦ σινάπεως σπόρος ἐν μικρῷ κόκκῳ πολλοὺς περιέχει τοὺς κλάδους, οὕτω καὶ ἣ πίστις αὕτη ἐν ὀλίγοις ῥήμασι πᾶσαν τὴν ἐν τῇ παλαιᾷ καὶ καινῇ τῆς εὐσεβείας γνῶσιν ἐγκεκόλπισται. Βλέπετε οὖν, ἀδελφοὶ, κ. τ. A. μέ supra. Iv. Cat. 5. §§ 7, 8. p. 76. 2 NewMan’s Lect. on Rom. &c. pp. 385, 6. VOL. ΤΙ. I 114 THE DOCTRINE, OF THE FATHERS he was about to say, but as they should see it to be proved by Scripture? The sole question is, whether there is any authori- tative teaching, forming part of the Rule of faith, but Seripture ; and Cyril here expressly affirms the negative. That Patristical Tradition, or the instruction of the Fathers, teaches, and, so far as it proceeds from orthodox Fathers, teaches the true faith, and that the ministers of the Church teach the faith, and the Church through them, is all perfectly true; and, we may add, that they teach it from Scripture, and refer their hearers to Serip- ture, as Cyril does here, to test their instructions, and see that they teach the true faith, is equally true. But what then? Does that avail Mr. Newman’s cause? No; the only thing that would serve his cause, would be a statement that the oral teaching of the Apostles had been perpetuated, by a succes- sional delivery, from one to another in the Church, and is still to us the authoritative mterpreter of Scripture, teaching us its meaning with sovereign authority, and forming part of the Rule of faith, under the name of “ Tradition ;” in which sense, chiefly, the word “Tradition” has been used by the moderns, and is exclusively applied by the Tractators. And to make the Fathers appear to intimate this, Mr. Newman translates the words “ delivered to thee by the Church,” thus—“ delivered to thee by traditions of the Church ;” thereby leading into error both himself and others. For Cyril himself tells us, that the articles delivered, were gathered from the Scriptures. They were not, therefore, traditions in that technical sense of the word in which the Tractators use it. And, as it often happens in such eases, Mr. Newman’s cause would gain nothing by his mis- translation, when it came to be compared with the context ; for, if it had been correct, the context would only have testified the more strongly in condemnation of his views of the authority of “Tradition.” Hirary or Poicriers. (fl. a. 354.) I proceed to the excellent Hilary of Poictiers, whose writings deserve more attention than they have received. “No one,” saith Hilary, “ought to doubt, that, for the ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 115 “ knowledge of divine things, we must use divine instructions “.... Therefore, in opposition to the wicked and impious in- “ structions that are given respecting God, we follow the autho- “ yitative testimonies themselves of the divine words.”! These words, undeniably spoken with reference to Scripture, clearly prove, that Hilary recognised no other divine informant but Scripture ; and hence considered Scripture the sole authori- tative Rule in matters of faith. Again; “How much do we stand in need of God’s grace, “ that we may entertain correct views, and, from the Prophetical “and Evangelical authorities, maintain one and the same doc- “trine!””? This passage appears to me particularly forcible in proof of Scripture being looked to by Hilary as the sole Rule of faith ; and that he considered unity of view in its correct inter- pretation, to flow, not from “ Tradition,’ but from “ God’s grace,” enlightening the mind, and enabling it to receive the truth. Again; “ When the discourse shall relate to the things of “ God, let us grant to God the knowledge of himself, and wait “upon his words with pious veneration ;”* where, by the words of God, he evidently means Scripture. Again ; “‘ We are compelled, by the follies of heretics and “blasphemers, to do that which is not lawful, to climb up to “ things beyond our reach, to speak clearly of things that are “ ineffable, to assume a knowledge of things not revealed. And * when it became us to fulfil the things that are commanded us, “ with a simple faith, namely, to adore the Father, and venerate “with him the Son, and abound in the Holy Spirit, we are “ obliged to stretch the meanness of our discourse to those things “ that are unspeakable, and are forced into an act of folly, by “ the folly of others; so that those things that ought to have 1 “Nemini dubium esse oportet, ad divinarum rerum cognitionem divinis utendum esse doctrinis.... Sequimur ergo adversus irreligiosas et impias de Deo institutiones, ipsas illas divinorum dictorum auctoritates.” HILARII ΡΙΟΤΑΥ. De Trin. lib. 4. ὃ 14. Op. ed. Bened. Par. 1693. col. 835. 2 «Quanta opus est nobis Dei gratia, ut recta sapiamus, ut ex propheticis atque evangelicis auctoritatibus unum idemque teneamus.” IpEM. Tract. in Ps. 118. [119 apud nos] Litt. i. § 12. col. 249. 3 «Cum de rebus Dei erit sermo, concedamus cognitionem sui Deo, dictisque ejus pia veneratione famulemur.”’ Ip. De Trin. lib, 1. § 18. col. 777. 12 116 THE DOCTRINE. OF THE FATHERS ce ce been only matters of religious contemplation, are now exposed to the danger of human language [which can but imperfectly express them]. For there have been many who were resolved to understand the plain declarations of the heavenly oracles, in the meaning which their own wishes dictated, not with a simple regard to truth ; interpreting them differently from what the force of the words demanded. For heresy is derived from the meaning given to Scripture, not from Scripture .... Their unbelief, therefore, draws us into a position of doubt and dan- ger, rendering it necessary to produce, respecting things so great and recondite, something beyond the heavenly Rule. The Lord had said, that the nations were to be baptized ‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ The form of the faith is certain; but as far as the heretics are concerned, the whole sense is uncertain. Nothing, therefore, is to be added to the [divine] precepts, but a limit is to be assigned to human audacity ; that since the malignity that has been roused at the instigation of diabolical deceit eludes the truth of things through the names of nature, we may show the nature and meaning of the names; and the dignity and office of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being set forth, as far as words will enable us so to do, the names may not be defrauded of what belongs to their nature, but at the same time may by the force of the names be restrained within the limits of the signification that belongs to their nature.... But that which is required is vast, that of which we are to make free to speak is incomprehensible, that we should discourse respecting God beyond what God has declared. He has laid down the names of nature, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. What- ever is inquired beyond this is beyond the power of language to express, beyond what sense can reach, beyond what the mind can conceive ; it is not expressed, it is not reached, it is not understood by us.... But we, humbly praying for par- don for yielding to this necessity from him who is all these, will venture, will inquire, will speak ; and (which alone we promise in so vast a question) will believe those things which shall be made known to us.”’! * “Compellimur hereticorum et blasphemantium vitiis illicita agere, ardua scandere, ineffabilia eloqui, inconcessa prasumere., Et cum sola fide expleri que ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 117 In this remarkable passage we see, that Hilary, far from sup- posing that he had an infallible guide in Patristical Tradition or anything else, conveying to him the doctrine of the Tr:nity more fully or clearly than it is revealed in Scripture, trembles at the thought of endeavouring to add anything to what Scrip- ture says respecting it. Again; speaking of the true faith as just explained by him, he says, “ This is the catholic and apostolic confession derived from the Gospels.” } Again; he tells us, that “ with respect to all things, he be- lieved only what had been said by God respecting them ;”? adding a little further on,— Let us understand, that that only “ ought to be believed respecting God, for the belief of which “concerning himself he himself is both the witness and “ author.” Nay, “ We must not,” he says, “ speak otherwise precepta sunt, oporteret, adorare videlicet Patrem, et venerari cum eo Filium, Sancto Spiritu abundare, cogimur sermonis nostri humilitatem ad ea que in- enarrabilia sunt extendere, et in vitium vitio coartamur alieno; ut qu contineri religione mentium opportuissent, nunc in periculum humani eloquii proferantur. Exstiterunt enim plures qui ccelestium verborum simplicitatem pro voluntatis sue sensu non pro veritatis ipsius absolutione susciperent, aliter interpretantes quam dictorum virtus postularet. De intelligentia enim hzresis, non de Scriptura est.... Horum igitur infidelitas in anceps nos ac periculum protrahit, ut necesse sit de tantis ac tam reconditis rebus aliquid ultra preescriptum cceleste proferre. Dixerat Dominus baptizandas gentes ‘in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.’ Forma fidei certa est; sed quantum ad hereticos omnis sensus incertus est. Ergo non preceptis aliquid addendum est, sed modus est constituendus audaciz ; ut quia malignitas instinctu diabolice fraudulentiz excitata veritatem rerum per nature nomina eludit, nos naturam nominum proferamus; et editis, prout in verbis habebimus, dignitate atque officio Patris, Filii, Spiritus Sancti, non frus- trentur nature proprietatibus nomina, sed intra nature significationem nominibus coartentur.... Immensum est autem quod exigitur, incomprehensibile est quod audetur, ut ultra preefinitionem Dei sermo de Deo sit. Posuit nature nomina, Patrem, Filium, Spiritum Sanctum. Extra significantiam sermonis est, extra sensus intentionem, extra intelligentize conceptionem, quidquid ultra queritur ; non enuntiatur, non attingitur, non tenetur.... Sed nos necessitatis hujus ab eo, qui hee omnia est, veniam deprecantes, audebimus, quzeremus, loquemur ; et, quod solum in tanta rerum questione promittimus, ea que erunt significata crede- mus.” Ip. ib. lib. ii. §§ 2, 3, 5. col. 788—91. 1 “Hee de Evangeliis catholica et apostolica confessio est.” Ip. ib. ὃ 22. col. 799. The context shows the meaning of “de” to be as translated above. 2 “Mihi....tantum de omnibus Deo, ut sunt ab eo dicta, credenti.” In. ib. lib. iii. § 20. col. 818. 3 « Hoe solum de Deo bene credi intelligamus, ad quod de se credendum ipse sibi nobiscum et testis et auctor exsistat.” Ip. ib. § 26. col. 824. 118 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS “ respecting God, than as he himself hath spoken concerning * himself to our apprehension.”! And,—“ For the discourses of κε man concerning the things of God, God’s words only are left to ec us 333 Again; he says,—‘ Either there are other -Gospels to be pro- “ duced to teach us, or if these only have taught us respecting “ God, why do we not believe these things as we are there “taught? But if our knowledge is taken from these enly, why is “ not our faith derived thence whence our knowledge is derived ?””* To the Scripture also he directs us to go to confute hereties. “ Above all things,” he says, “ we hasten to confound their “madness and ignorance from the Prophetical and Evangelical “ declarations.”* “I am of opinion that we must reply to the “ perverseness of the heretics and confute all their foolish and “ deadly instructions by Evangelical and Apostolical testimonies. “ For they appear to themselves to give a reason for everything “‘ which they assert, inasmuch as they have attached to each of “their assertions some testimonies from the divine volumes, “ which, bemg perverted from their true meaning, please only “the ignorant, and give the appearance of truth only from the “ pravity of the interpreters.... When abcut to answer each “ of their propositions, and expose the unsoundness of their im- “ pious doctrine by the testimonies of the divine oracles, we ought, “ &e.”> And having adduced his proofs from Seripture, he 1 «TLoquendum non aliter de Deo est, quam ut ipse ad intelligentiam nostram de se locutus est.” In. ib. lib. v. § 21. col. 866. 2 “Non relictus est hominum eloquiis de Dei rebus alius preter quam Dei sermo.” Ip. lib. vii. § 38. col. 941. 3 “ Aut enim alia sunt Evangelia proferenda que doceant, aut si de Deo sola ista docuerunt, cur non ita credimus ut docemur? Quod si ex his tantum sumta cognitio est, cur non exinde fides sit unde cognitio?” In. ib. lib. vii. ὃ 22. col. $30. 4 «Maxime ergo properamus ex propheticis atque evangelicis preconiis ve- saniam eorum ignorantiamque confundere.” In. De Trin. lib. i. § 17. col. 776. > “ Respondendum esse existimo hereticorum perversitati, et omnes eorum stultas ac mortiferas institutiones evangelicis atque apostolicis testimoniis eoarguendas. Videntur enim sibi de singulis que asserunt prestare rationem, quia singulis assertionibus suis quedam ex divinis voluminibus testimonia subdi- derunt, que corrupto intelligentiz sensu solis tantum ignorantibus blandiantur, speciem veritatis secundum pravitatem interpretantium prestatura.... Respon- suri singulis eorum propositionibus, et divinorum dictorum testimoniis irreli- giosam eorum doctrinam predituri, debemus,” ἄς. Ip. ib. lib. iv. §§ 7, 11. col. 830, 832. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 119 says, “ Hence, O wicked heretic, you may be confuted by Apo- stolical, by Evangelical, by Prophetical testimonies.”’} Here, then, we see, that on the very ground on which the Tractators plead for the necessity of “ Tradition,’ and declare that heretics can be confuted only by “ Tradition,” namely, that heretics plead Scripture in their favor, on that very same ground Hilary tells us, that we must go to Scripture to confute them. He knew nothing, then, of our opponents’ notion, that as long as we keep to Scripture only, heretics have a reasonable founda- tion to rest their errors upon. Lastly, he thus addresses the Emperor Constantius ;—* Truly * do I admire thee, Lord Constantius our Emperor, desirous of “ believing only according to what is delivered in the Scriptures ; ** and, with justice, evidently hastening to those very words them- “ selves of the only-begotten God, that your breast, though filled “ with royal cares, may also be filled with the knowledge of the “ divme words. He who repudiates this, is antichrist; and he “ who feigns it, is anathema. .... You seek the faith, O Em- “peror: hear it, not from new writings, but from God’s books. « ,... Remember, nevertheless, that there is not one of the * heretics who does not now falsely affirm, that he follows the “* Scriptures when preaching his blasphemies ... . Hear, THEN, ““ Tentreat you, those things that are written concerning Christ, “ lest under them those things that are not written be preached. * Incline your ears to those things which I am about to utter “ from those books ; rouse your faith towards God. Hear what “ avails for faith, for unity, for eternity.”* 1 “Hine apostolicis, hine evangelicis, hine propheticis dictis, impie heretice, concluderis.” In. lib. v. ὃ 33. col. 873. 2 “Vere te, Domine Constanti Imperator, admiror, fidem tantum secundum ea que scripta sunt desiderantem; et merito plane ad ila ipsa unigeniti Dei eloquia festinans, ut imperatoriz sollicitudinis capax pectus etiam divinorum dictorum conscientia plenum sit. Hoe qui repudiat, antichristus est; et qui simulat, anathema est .... Fidem, Imperator, queris: audi eam non de novis chartulis, sed de Dei libris. .... Memento tamen neminem hereticorum esse qui se nunc non secundum Scripturas predicare ea quibus blasphemat mentiatur .. .. Andi, rogo, ea que de Christo sunt scripta: ne sub eis ea quz non scripta sunt predicentur. Submitte ad ea que de libris locuturus sum aures tuas; fidem tuam ad Deum erigas. Audi quod proficit ad fidem, ad unitatem, ad 2ternitatem.” In. Ad Constant. Aug. lib. ii. §§ 8—10. col. 1229, 30. 120 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS A more pointed and express condemnation of the views of the Tractators could not be uttered ; and here again we see, that the very fact that the heretics pretended to Scripture authority in their favor, formed, in Hilary’s view, a decisive reason in itself for going to Scripture to ascertain the faith, and taking it only upon Scripture-testimony. And this passage shows us, that Hilary looked to Seripture — for the whole faith; as he states also still more strongly else- where. “ Those things,” he says, “‘ which are not contained in the Book of the law, we ought not even to be acquainted with.” Again; “It is quite right, that you should be contented with those things that are written.’’? And as it respects its full revelation of the doctrine of the consubstantiality, and that that doctrine was to be derived thence, he says,—“I never heard the Nicene Creed until 1 κε was about to be sent into exile; but the Gospels and Apostles “told me the meaning of ‘consubstantial,’ and ‘of a similar * substance.’ 73 Errpuantvs.. (fl. a. 368.) I proceed to the testimony of Epiphanius. “ We,” he says, “ believe that which the truth clearly declares, and sound reason persuades, and is agreeable to the canon of true religion, the law and the prophets, and the patriarchs, who “ succeeded each other from the beginning, and the teaching of our Saviour himself, and his Apostles, who clearly teach us to “ confess one God the Father,” &c.* n c ΄ι ΄ι 1 “Que libro legis non continentur, ea nee nosse debemus.” Ip. In Ps. 132. § 6. col. 463. 7 “Bene habet, ut iis que sunt scripta contentus sis.” Ip. De Trin. lib. iii. § 23. col. 822. % “Fidem Nicenam nunquam nisi exsulaturus audivi; sed mihi homousii et homeeusii intelligentiam Evangelia et Apostoli intimaverunt.” Ip. De Synod. § 91. col. 1205. 4 Ἡμεῖς γὰρ πιστεύομεν, ds πάντη ἣ ἀλήθεια ὑποφαίνει, καὶ ὃ εὔλογος λογισμὸς ὑποτίθεται, καὶ τῷ τῆς εὐσεβείας κανόνι συμπεφώνηται, τῷ τε Νόμῳ καὶ τοῖς Προφήταις, καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνέκαθεν Πατριάρχαις κατ᾽ ἀκολουθίαν, τῇ τε αὐτοῦ τοῦ Σωτῆρος διδαχῇ, καὶ τῶν αὐτοῦ ᾿Αποστόλων σαφῶς ἡμᾶς διδασκόντων, ἕνα ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 121 Again ; reproving the errors of the Noetian heretics, he says, “That is agreeable to sound reason, not what these men “imagine, but what the truth declares to us through the “ Divine Scripture.” } Again ; “ For an answer to every inquiry we cannot speak “ from our own reasonings, but from consequences drawn from “ the Scriptures.”’? Again; speaking of his work called “ Ancoratus,” he says,— “* But I have already discussed all those points in a large work * concerning the faith....to which I have given the name “ ¢ Ancoratus.’ For, as far as my poor mind was able by God’s “ help, having collected together from the whole Scripture the true “ doctrines of the divine revelation, 1 have clearly set forth, as an “ anchor as it were, for those who please to make use of it, the “holy faith of the Fathers, the faith both of the Apostles and “ Prophets, and that which has been preached in the holy “ Church of God from the beginning to the present time, to “ fortify the mind, and preserve it from danger,” &c.3 When writing respecting the faith, then, he knew no other source from which to obtain it but Scripture, and the faith so derived he calls the faith of the Fathers, meaning by the word Fathers, as the context shows, the Apostles and Prophets; in which sense he has also used the word elsewhere, as we shall show in a future page.* Again ; “ But we who are of the Catholic Church, having taken ὁμολογεῖν Θεὸν πατέρα, κ. τ. A. ΕΡΙΡΗΑΝ. De Heres. her. 34. Marcos. ὃ 21. Op. ed. Paris. 1622. vol. i. p. 257. 1 Ἔστι γὰρ τὸ εὔλογον, οὐχ ὧς οὗτοι δοξάζουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ τῆς θείας γραφῆς ἡμῖν ὑποδείκνυσιν. Ib. ib. her. 57. Noetian. § 3. vol. i. p. 482. 5 Ἡμεῖς δὲ ἑκάστην ζητήματος εὕρεσιν οὐκ amd ἰδίων λογισμῶν δυνάμεθα λέγειν, ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν γραφῶν ἀκολουθίας. ΤΡ. ib. her. 65. Paul. Samos. § 5. i. 611. 3 °AAN ἤδη μοι πεπραγμάτευται περὶ τούτων πάντων, ἐν τῷ μεγάλῳ περὶ πίστεως λόγῳ .... ᾧ λόγῳ ἐπεθέμεθα ὄνομα ᾿Αγκυρωτόν. Καὶ γὰρ καθάπερ 6 ἡμέτερος ἐξίσχυσε πτωχὺς νοῦς διὰ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ βοηθείας, ἐκ πάσης γραφῆς συνάγοντες τὰ ἀληθινὰ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ διδασκαλίας, ἄγκυραν ὥσπερ τοῖς βουλομένοις τὴν ἁγίαν πατέρων πίστιν, ᾿Αποστολικήν τε καὶ Προφητικὴν, καὶ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἄχρι τοῦ δεῦρο ἐν τῇ ἁγίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκλησίᾳ κεκηρυγμένην, σαφῶς παρεθέμεθα, εἰς τὸ κατέχεσθαι τὴν διάνοιαν, καὶ ἀσφαλίζεσθαι, x. τ. A. Ib. ib. her. 69. Arian. § 27. i. 751, 2. 4 See under Cyrit or ALEX. in § 5 of this chapter. 122 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS “ our confession of faith from the divine Scriptures, have it thus, “ that the Father,” &c.} Again ; when about to reply to the errors of the Anomzans, he says, But now, having arranged in order the fundamental ** points of your chapters, I shall bring against each phrase and “ chapter refutatory arguments from the divine Scriptures, and “ from right reason, and confutations of your logical question- ”2 How is it, then, that we hear nothing here of the interpretation possessed by the Church, and derived from the oral teaching of the Apostles? Had Epiphanius held the views we are commenting upon, he must necessarily have adverted here to that interpretation, as his authority for the sense he gave to Scripture; but as it is, we hear of nothing but Seripture and right reason. And so, a little further on, he accuses Aetius, the leader of these heretics, because that, being a man by nature, and seeking to understand things beyond nature, (viz. questions relating to the nature of God,) he sought to know them, not by the tenor of Scripture, but by the syllogisms of human reason- ings ;° whence, I suppose, it follows, that Epiphanius thought that such questions should be determined by the tenor of Scrip- ture only, and that too by each individual. Again; he says to the same heretics,—“ But we must yield “ our assent with a pious mind and sincere confidence to “ that which the Holy Spirit teaches us through the holy Scrip- “ tures.”4 And he concludes, “I conceive that I have now, “ according to my ability, sufficiently met his arguments, in a “ simple style indeed, but with proofs from the divine Scriptures “and pious reasoning.”*® But all. this while we hear nothing “ ings. 1 Ἡμεῖς δὲ of τῆς Καθολικῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας ἐκ τῶν θείων γραφῶν τὴν ὁμολογίαν τῆς πίστεως παρειληφότες, οὕτως ἔχομεν, ὅτι ὁ Πατὴρ ὁμοίου ἐστὶν ἑαυτοῦ Ὑἱοῦ πατὴρ, κ.- τ. Χ. Ip. ib. her. 73. Semiarian. ὃ 14. i. 860. 2 ᾿Αρχὴν δὲ αὖθις τῶν ὑπὸ cod κεφαλαίων καθεξῆς κατατάξας, ἄντικρυς ἑκάστης λέξεως καὶ κεφαλαίου ἀντιπαραθήσομαι τὰς ἐκ τῶν θείων γραφῶν καὶ ἐξ ὀρθοῦ λο- γισμοῦ ἀντιῤῥήσεις τε, καὶ ζητημάτων παρά σοι λογικῶν ἄνατροπάς. Ib. ib. her. 76. Anom. § 8.1. 933. 3 “AvOpwros ὧν τῇ φύσει, καὶ τὰ ὑπὲρ φύσιν βουλόμενος εἰδέναι" εἰδέναι δὲ ov κατ᾽ ἀκολουθίαν γραφῆς ἄλλ᾽ ἐκ συλλογισμῶν βροτείων διανοημάτων, K. τ. λ. Ip. ib. her. 76. Anom. i. p. 949. 4 Ἔξ εὐσεβοῦς δὲ λογισμοῦ, καὶ δικαίας ἀσφαλείας ἐπὶ Thy Tod ἁγίου Πνεύματος διὰ τῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν διδασκαλίαν ἀνακαμπτέον. ΤΡ. ib. her. 76. Anom. i. 985. 7. “΄“- ~ ΄- - > Νομίζω δὲ καὶ ἱκανῶς ἡμᾶς πρὸς τὰς αὐτοῦ προτάσεις κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν ἰδιωτικῷ ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 23 of the Church being in possession of an Apostolical traditionary interpretation of Scripture, though this would have cut the matter short at once. And as to the completeness of the record of the faith contained in Scripture, we may observe the following passage. Writing against the Valentinians, he says,— Their idle fables are * destitute of confirmation, the Scripture nowhere mentioning “ them, neither the Law of Moses, nor any prophet of those who “ came after Moses, nor, moreover, the Saviour, nor his Evan- “ gelists, nor the Apostles. For, if these things were true, the “ Lord who came to lighten the world, and the Prophets before “ him, and then also the Apostles, who reproved idolatry, and “ every act of impiety, and feared not to write against every evil * doctrine and opposition to the truth, would have declared such “ things to us plainly.” } And as to the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, he says, even as to the word consubstantial, “ But if “ the word were not in the Divine Scriptures, though it is, and * plainly occurs in the Law, and in the Apostles and Prophets ; “ for, ‘ by two or three witnesses shall every word be established; * yet, nevertheless, it would be lawful for us to use, for the in- “ terests of true religion, a convenient word,” &c.? And again, still more clearly,—‘‘ The word substance does not occur in the “ letter in the Old and New Testament, BUT THE SENSE IS TO BE “ FOUND EVERYWHERE.” ? λόγῳ, συστάσει δὲ τῶν ἀπὸ τῶν θείων γραφῶν, Kal αὐτοῦ τοῦ εὐσεβοῦς λογισμοῦ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀπηντηκέναι. ΤΌ. ib. p. 989. 1 ῬΑσύστατα τὰ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς μυθοποιήματα, οὔτέ που γραφῆς εἰπούσης, οὔτε τοῦ Μωῦσέως νόμου, οὔτέ τινος Προφήτου τῶν μετὰ Μωῦσεὰ, ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε τοῦ Σωτῆρος, οὔτε τῶν αὐτοῦ Εὐαγγελιστῶν, ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε μὴν τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων. Ei γὰρ ταῦτα ἀληθινὰ ὑπῆρχεν, 6 ἐλθὼν φωτίσαι τὴν οἰκουμένην Κύριος, καὶ πρὸ αὐτοῦ οἱ Προ- φῆται, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ οἱ ᾿Απόστολοι of ἐλέγξαντες τὴν εἰδωλολατρείαν, πᾶσάν τε παράνομον πρᾶξιν, καὶ μὴ δειλιάσαντες γράφειν κατὰ πάσης παρανόμου διδασκαλίας καὶ ἐναντιότητος, σαφῶς ἂν τὰ τοιαῦτα ἡμῖν κατήγγελλον. ΤΡ. ib. her. 31. Valent. § 34. i. 205. 2 Ei δὲ μὴ ἦν ἡ λέξις ἐν ταῖς θείαις γρα φαῖς, ἔστι δὲ, καὶ σαφῶς ἔγκειται ἐν νόμῳ καὶ παρὰ ᾿Αποστόλοις, καὶ τοῖς Προφήται5" ἐκ γὰρ δύο μαρτύρων, ἢ τριῶν σταθήσεται πᾶν ῥῆμα" ὅμως ἐξὸν ἣν ἡμῖν δὲ εὐσέβειαν χρήσασθαι λέξει χρησίμῃ, K.T. A. Ib. ib. her. 69. Arian. § 70. i. 797. 3 Τὸ τῆς οὐσίας ὄνομα, γυμνῶς μὲν ἐν παλαιᾷ καὶ καινῇ οὐ κεῖται γραφῇ, ὁ νοῦς δὲ πανταχοῦ φέρεται. Ip. ib. her. 73. Semiarian. ὃ. 12. i. 859. ‘ 124 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS But it may be said,—Does not Epiphanius himself, in other places, tell us that there is need of “Tradition?” He does so; and we will now consider those passages, and show that they touch not the question of the Rule of faith. The sentiments of the Fathers respecting the Rule of practice, will be considered presently. The first is as follows ;—“ But it is necessary to use Tradition “ also. For, all things cannot be gathered from the divine Serip- “ture. Wherefore, the holy Apostles delivered some things by “ writing, and some by tradition.” ἢ But what is it of which Epiphanius is here speaking? The context will show us, for it immediately follows ;—“ Therefore “ the holy Apostles of God delivered the precept to the holy “ Church of God, that it was sinful for any one, after having “ vowed virginity, to betake himself to marriage.”? He is not speaking of any doctrine of the Christian faith, but has in view only directions relating to ecclesiastical duties, and the rites and ordinances of the Christian Church. In his “ Exposition of the Catholic faith,’ at the latter end of the work from which we have been quoting, he draws a clear line of distinction between the two. Having laid down the principal doctrines of the Christian faith, he says,—‘ And these are what the undivided Catholic « Church herself holds respecting the faith . . . . both with respect “ to the consubstantiality of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, “and concerning the true appearance of Christ in human “ nature, and the other parts of the faith. But with respect “to her laws, it is now necessary for me briefly to bring for- “ ward, in a measure, the form of her laws ; such as have been “ more especially observed in her; and are observed, some by “ command, and others by a voluntary reception. .... And in “ the first place the base, and, so to speak, the foundation in “ her, is virginity.”> And he proceeds to notice various other 1 Δεῖ δὲ καὶ παραδόσει κεχρῆσθαι: ov γὰρ πάντα ἀπὸ τῆς θείας γραφῆς δύναται λαμβάνεσθαι. Διὸ τὰ μὲν ἐν γραφαῖς, τὰ δὲ ἐν παραδόσει παρέδωκαν οἱ ἅγιοι ᾿Από- στολοι. In. ib. her. Apostol. 61. ὃ 6. i. 511. 35. Παρέδωκαν τοίνυν οἱ ἅγιοι Θεοῦ ᾿Απόστολοι τῇ ἁγίᾳ Θεοῦ Ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἐφάμαρτον εἶναι τὸ, μετὰ τὸ ὁρίσαι παρθενίαν, εἰς γάμον τρέπεσθαι. In. ib. 3 Καὶ & μὲν περὶ πίστεως ἔχει αὕτη ἣ μόνη Καθολικὴ Ἐκκλησία... .. περί τε Πατρὸς καὶ Ὑἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ὁμοουσιότητος, καὶ περὶ τῆς ἐνσάρκου Χριστοῦ, ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 135 customs, rites, and ordinances in use in the Church. And then concludes with the remark, already quoted in a former page,' namely, that, “as it respects the other mysteries, namely, con- “ cerning baptism, and the more sacred mysteries, they are ob- “ served, according as the tradition of the Gospel and the Apostles « Ti. 6. the New Testament Scripture] directs.” There is but one other passage, as far as I am aware, which appears opposed to our view; and that, when taken with the con- text, offers no real difficulty. Standing alone it reads thus,— “ For, limits are prescribed to us, and foundations laid, both the * structure of the faith, and the traditions of the Apostles, and * the holy Scriptures, and the instructions delivered from one to “ another; and through all these, the truth of God is preserved “ safe, and let no one be deceived by new fables.”? But take the passage with what precedes, and there is no difficulty ; for, Epiphanius is not there discussing any point of the faith, but merely some historical matters, namely, the genealogy of some persons mentioned in Scripture. His words are these,—“ How “ many others are there whose genealogies are not clearly given ; “ for instance, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Elijah “the Tishbite ; even their fathers and mothers are nowhere ἐς mentioned in all the books of Scripture ; but that no error may “hence arise, I shall not hesitate to mention what we have *“ received by Tradition.... [and then having given the name “ of Daniel’s father, and the genealogy of Elijah, he proceeds]. “ But certainly with respect to the three children, Shadrach, “* Meshach, and Abednego, we find nothing either in Apocryphal * books, or in traditions. What shall we say, therefore? Shall “ these persons, I mean Shadrach’s companions, delude us into “ imagining what it behoves us not; and into holding in high καὶ τελείας παρουσίας, καὶ ἄλλων μερῶν τῆς πίστεως" περὶ θεσμῶν δὲ τῆς αὐτῆς ἐν ὀλίγῳ μέν μοι ἐστὶ πάλιν ἀνάγκη τοῦ παραθέσθαι τῶν αὐτῶν θεσμῶν amd μέρους τὸ εἶδος, ὅσαπερ φύσει πεφύλακται ἐν αὐτῇ, καὶ φυλάσσεται, τὰ μὲν ἐκ προστάγ- ματος, τὰ δὲ κατὰ ἀποδοχὴν προαιρέσεως ...... Καὶ πρῶτον μὲν κρηπὶς, καὶ, ὡς εἰπεῖν, βαθμὸς ἐν αὐτῇ, ἢ παρθενία. ΤΡ. ib. Expos. fid. Cathol. ὃ 21. 1. 1103. 1 See p. 5 above. 2 “Ὅροι γὰρ ἐτέθησαν ἡμῖν, καὶ θεμέλιοι, καὶ οἰκοδομὴ τῆς πίστεως, καὶ ᾿Απο- στόλων παραδόσεις, καὶ γραφαὶ ἅγιαι, καὶ διαδοχαὶ διδασκαλίας, καὶ ἐκ πανταχόθεν ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ Θεοῦ ἠσφάλισται" καὶ μηδεὶς ἀπατάσθω καινοῖς μύθοις. ΤΌ. ib. her, Melchis. 55. § 3. i. 471. 126 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS “ yegard and excessive admiration the reports of every conjec- “ture? God forbid. For, limits are prescribed to us, and “ foundations laid, both the structure of the faith and the tra- “ditions of the Apostles, and the holy Scriptures, and the “ instructions delivered from one to another ; and through all “ these, the truth of God is preserved safe; and let no one be “* deceived by new fables.”? When we take this passage with its context, then, it opposes not the doctrine we are endeavouring to establish; for it is written with reference to points which form no part of the Christian faith. The mind of Epiphanius upon our present sub- ject, must be judged by other passages ; for no conclusion re- specting it can be drawn from this ; and in other passages, as we have seen, he supports the view we are defending. The other references to Tradition, to be found in his works, so evidently respect only points either of history or discipline, that it is unnecessary here to consider them. Orratvs. (fl. a. 368.) The next author that demands our attention, is Optatus; whose clear reference to Scripture, as the Rule of faith, and Judge of controversies, has often been quoted on this subject. Addressing the Donatists, he says,—“ Ye say, It is lawful: we “ say, It is not lawful. Between your declaration of its lawful- “ness, and ours of its unlawfulness, the minds of the people “ are in suspense and agitation. Let neither of us be trusted in “the matter. We are all party-men. We must inquire for “judges. If they are Christians, neither of us can supply “them; because truth is impeded by party-spirit. We must “ seek a judge from without. If he is a Pagan, he cannot know 1 Πόσοι δὲ ἄλλοι οὐ γενεαλογοῦνται κατὰ τὸ φανερώτατον ; Δανιὴλ, Σεδρὰχ, Μισὰκ, Αβδεναγὼ, Ἠλίας 6 Θεσβίτης' καὶ ἐν πάσαις ῥηταῖς βίβλοις οὐδαμοῦ ἐμ- φέρονται τούτων οἱ πατέρες τε καὶ μητέρες" ἵνα δὲ μὴ κατὰ τοῦτο πλάνη τις γένηται, οὐδὲν λυπήσει ἃ καὶ ἐν παραδόσεσι κατειλήφαμεν λέγειν .... φύσει δὲ τῶν τριῶν παίδων, Σεδρὰχ, Μισὰκ, Αβδεναγὼ, οὔτε ἐν ἀποκρύφοις οὔτε ἐν παραδόσεσιν εὕρομεν" τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν ; ἄρα κἀκεῖνοι, of περὶ Σεδρὰχ λέγω, φαντασιάσουσιν ἡμᾶς λογίζεσθαι & μὴ χρὴ, καὶ ὑπερόγκως θαυμάζειν ὑπὲρ τὸ μέτρον τὰ ἑκάστης ὑπο- θέσεως; ἀλλὰ μὴ γένοιτο: καὶ ὅροι γὰρ ἐτέθησαν ἡμῖν, κ. τ. A. (ut supra.) Ip. ib. pp. 470, 1. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 127 “the Christian mysteries ; if a Jew, he is the enemy of Christian “ baptism. Therefore, no verdict can be had on this matter on “ earth ; we must seek a heavenly judge. But why do we apply “‘ to heaven, when we have the Will here in the Gospel? For, “in this matter, earthly things may properly be compared with “heavenly. Like as when any man, having many sons, as long “ as he, the father, is present himself, he himself gives his com- “ mands to each of them; and there is as yet no need of a Will; “ so Christ, also, as long as he was present upon earth, (although, “‘ indeed, he is not now absent,) gave commands to his Apostles “ for everything that was necessary, as occasion required. But, “as an earthly father, when he perceives himself to be near “ death, fearing Jest, after his death, the brothers should quarrel “ with one another, and go to law, calls witnesses and transfers « his wishes from his dying breast to tablets that will endure ; “ and if a contention shall have arisen between the brothers, the “ rave is not applied to, but the Will is sought ; and he who “ rests in the grave, speaks in silence from the tablets ; [so it is “ with us]. He, whose Will we have, is alive in heaven; there- fore, let his direction be sought in the Gospel as his Will.” Ὁ How completely contrary this language to that of the Ro- manists and the Tractators! Here Optatus, a Catholic, fully admits, that the judgment of the Catholics upon a question, had 1 “Vos dicitis, licet: nos dicimus, non licet: inter licet vestrum et non licet nostrum, nutant et remigant anime populorum. Nemo vobis credat, nemo nobis: omnes contentiosi homines sumus. Qurendi sunt judices: si Christiani, de utraque parte dari non possunt; quia studiis veritas impeditur. De foris queerendus est judex: si paganus, non potest Christiana nosse secreta: si Judzus, inimicus est Christiani baptismatis: ergo in terris de hac re nullum poterit reperiri judicium; de ccelo querendus est judex. Sed ut quid pulsamus ad celum, cum habeamus hic in Evangelio testamentum? Quia hoe loco recte possunt terrena ccelestibus comparari: tale est quod quivis hominum habens numerosos filios, quamdiu pater preesens est, ipse imperat singulis; non est adhue necessarium testamentum: sic et Christus, quamdiu presens in terris fuit, (quamvis nee modo desit,) pro tempore quidquid necessarium erat Apostolis im- peravit. Sed quomodo terrenus pater, dum se in confinio senserit mortis, timens ne post mortem suam, rupta pace, litigent fratres, adhibitis testibus, voluntatem suam de pectore morituro transfert in tabulas diu duraturas: et si fuerit inter fratres nata contentio, non itur ad tumulum, sed queritur testamentum: et qui in tumulo quiescit, tacitus de tabulis loquitur. Vivus, cujus est testamentum, in ceelo est: ergo voluntas ejus, velut in testamento sic in Evangelio requiratur.” Optati De Schism. Donat. ady. Parmen. lib. v. ὃ 3. Op. ed. Par. 1700. p. 81. 128 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS intrinsically no more weight than that of the Donatists; and that Scripture only could give a decisive and authoritative ver- dict. Basit or Casarea. (fl. a. 870.) We now come to Basil of Cesarea, whose witness is as fol- lows. : “ ΤΆ is,” saith he, “a manifest defection from the faith, and “ mark of pride, either to reject anything of what is written, or “ to introduce anything of what is not written; our Lord Jesus “‘ Christ saying, My sheep hear my voice....and the Apostle, “‘ by an example taken from human things, very earnestly for- “bidding us to add to, or take away from, anything in the “inspired Scriptures, when he says, ‘A man’s Will, when “ confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth to.’ [Gal. πὶ. 15].᾽} No words, surely, can more strongly declare the exclusive claims of Scripture, as the Rule of faith and record of revelation, than these. And in the context, also, the same doctrine is clearly enforced. “Ye also, yourselves,” he says, “well know, that it is the “ duty of the faithful servant, whatsoever he may have been “ entrusted with by the good master to administer to his fellow- ““ servants, to preserve these things for them safe, and neither “‘ corrupt nor purloin them. Thus, I also am bound to place “before you, agreeably to the will of God, for the common “ benefit, whatsoever I have learned from the inspired Scripture.” ....“ While, therefore, I had to contend against the heresies “ that have arisen at various times, following those who have “‘ preceded me, I considered it convenient, out of regard to the “‘ jmpieties vented by the devil, to stop the spread of them, by “‘ words directly opposed to the error, and also to overturn the “‘ blasphemies introduced ; and to use different words at different 1 Φανερὰ ἔκπτωσις πίστεως καὶ ὑπερηφανίας κατηγορία, ἢ ἀθετεῖν τι τῶν γεγραμμένων, ἢ ἐπεισάγειν τῶν μὴ γεγραμμένων, τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰπόντος, τὰ ἐμὰ πρόβατα τῆς ἐμῆς φωνῆς axover...,.. καὶ τοῦ ἀποστόλου ἐν ὑποδείγματι ἀνθρωπίνῳ σφοδρότερον ἀπαγορεύοντος τὸ προσθεῖναι ἢ, ὑφελεῖν τι ἐν ταῖς θεοπνεύστοις γραφαῖς, δι᾽ ὧν φησίν: “Ὅμως ἀνθρώπου κεκυρωμένην διαθήκην οὐδεὶς ἀθετεῖ, ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεται. Basin. CHSAR. Serm. de fide, § i. Op. ed. Ben. tom. ii. p. 224. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 129 “ times, as the necessities of those who were’ labouring under “ error required ; and those oftentimes not words of Scripture ; “ but, nevertheless, not alien to the orthodox meaning of Scrip- “tnre: the Apostle often not disdaining to use heathen words suitable to his subject.” [Where, as Archbishop Laud re- marks, “ he makes the Scripture the Touchstone or trial” of those unwritten words.!] “ But now I have considered it suitable, “ both to your and my object, in the simplicity of a sound faith, “in fulfilling the command of your love in Christ, to speak “ what I have been taught by the inspired Scripture, sparingly “‘ using even those names and words which are not found in the “ very letters in the Divine Scripture, though they preserve the *‘ meaning of Scripture.”* And soon after follows the passage already quoted. And in the latter part of the same treatise, ie proceeds to say,—“ We have neither power nor leisure to collect together, “ on the present occasion, all the things that are everywhere “ spoken by the inspired Scripture concerning the Father, and “ Son, and Holy Spirit. But having placed before you a few * out of all these, we think these sufficient for your conviction, * and for a demonstration that our views are from the Scriptures ; “and for the satisfaction, both of yourselves, and those who “ desire it of us.””> And he then proceeds to give the articles 1 App. Lavp’s Conference with Fisher, &c. ὃ 16. n. 26. p. 59. ed. 1686. 2 Διακόνου δὲ πιστοῦ ἴδιον ἴστε πάντως καὶ αὐτοὶ, Td, ἅπερ ἂν εἰς τοὺς συνδούλους οἰκονομῆσαι παρὰ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ δεσπότου πιστευθῇ, ταῦτα διασῶσαι τούτοις ἄνοθεύ- τως καὶ ἀκαπηλεύτως" ὥστε κἀγὼ, ἅπερ ἔμαθον ἐκ τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς, ταῦτα ὑμῖν παραθέσθαι κατὰ τὸ ἀρέσκον Θεῷ, πρὸς τὸ κοινῇ συμφέρον ὀφειλέτης εἰμί..... Ἕως μὲν οὖν ἀγωνίζεσθαι πρὸς τὰς ἐπανισταμένας κατὰ καιρὸν αἱρέσεις ἐχρῆν, ἑπόμενος τοῖς προειληφόσιν, ἀκόλουθον ἡγούμην τῇ διαφορᾷ τῆς ἐπισπειρομένης ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου ἀσεβείας, ταῖς ἂντιθέτοις φωναῖς κωλύειν, ἢ καὶ ἀνατρέπειν τὰς ἐπαγομένας βλασφημίας, καὶ ἄλλοτε ἄλλαις, ws ἂν ἡ χρεία τῶν νοσούντων κατην- άγκασε, καὶ ταύταις πολλάκις ἄγράφοις μὲν, ὅμως δ᾽ οὖν οὐκ ἀπεξενωμέναις τῆς κατὰ τὴν γραφὴν εὐσεβοῦς διανοίαΞ' τοῦ ἀποστόλου πολλάκις καὶ Ἑλληνικοῖς ῥήμασι χρήσασθαι μὴ παραιτησαμένου πρὸς τὸν ἴδιον σκοπόν. Νῦν δὲ πρὸς τὸν κοινὸν ἡμῶν τε καὶ ὑμῶν σκοπὸν ἁρμόζον ἐλογισάμην, ἐν ἁπλότητι τῆς ὑγιαινούσης πίστεως, τὸ ἐπίταγμα τῆς ὑμετέρας ἐν Χριστῷ ἀγάπης πληρῶσαι, εἰπὼν ἃ ἐδι- δάχθην παρὰ τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς: φειδόμενος μὲν καὶ τῶν ὀνομάτων, καὶ ῥημάτων ἐκείνων, ἃ λέξεσι μὲν αὐταῖς οὐκ ἐμφέρεται τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ, διάνοιάν γε μὴν τὴν ἐκείνην ἐγκειμένην τῇ γραφῇ διασώζει. ΤΡ. ib. § 1. li. 223, 224. 3 Ἡμῖν δὲ πάντα μὲν τὰ πανταχοῦ ὑπὸ τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς περί τε Πατρὸς καὶ Tiod καὶ ᾿Αγίου Πνεύματος εἰρημένα, τὸ παρὸν ἀναλέγειν οὔτε δύναμις, οὔτε VOL. III. K 130 THE DOCTRINE’OF THE FATHERS of the Creed, with Scripture-proofs, showing that even these he derived from Scripture ; and goes on to say,—‘‘ Wherefore I “ exhort and beseech you to refrain from useless inquiries, and “ unseemly contentions about words, and to be satisfied with what “ ἧς said by the sacred writers and the Lord himself, and to be of “a mind worthy your heavenly calling, and to conduct your- “ selves worthily of the gospel of Christ,” &c.;* adding, a little further on,—-‘“‘ Observing that admonition, ‘Beware of “ false prophets’ [Matth. vi. 15.], and that, ‘ Withdraw your- “selves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not “ after the tradition which they received of us,’ [2 Thess. m1. 6.] “ let us walk by the rule (or, canon,) of the sacred writers, as “built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, “ Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone, ὅσο. [Eph, sen. 20.)7) Σ And he concludes by saying, that having, in what had pre- ceded, spoken sufficiently for the occasion respecting the ortho- dox faith, he would then proceed to give the instructions he had promised respecting morals; and that he had drawn up his rules, by collecting together whatever things were spoken of with approbation or reprehension in the New Testament.* In the Treatise on Morals which follows, we have three other forcible testimonies of the same kind. The subject of one of his “ Rules” is given by him thus,— “ That it is right that every word or thing should be accredited CRON ς ἶρις ὀλίγα δὲ ἐκ πάντων παραθέμενοι, ἀρκεῖν ἡγούμεθα καὶ ταῦτα τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ συνειδήσει, πρός τε τὴν τοῦ ἡμετέρου ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν φρονήματος φανέρω- σιν, καὶ τὴν ὑμῶν αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν βουλομένων ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν πληροφορίαν. In. ib. ὃ 3. li. 227. 1 Διόπερ παρακαλῶ καὶ δέομαι, παυσαμένους τῆς περιέργου ζητήσεως καὶ ἂπρε- ποῦς Aoyouaxlas, ἀρκεῖσθαι τοῖς ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου εἰρημένοις, ἄξια δὲ τῆς ἐπουρανίου κλήσεως φρονεῖν, καὶ ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ πολιτεύεσθαι, x. τ. A. ID. ib. § ὅ. ii. 228, If any proof is required that τῶν ἁγίων here means the sacred writers, see Basil. Adv. Eunom. lib. ii. § 2. init. uoted p. 133 note 3 below, and (if supposed genuine) De Sp. S. ¢. 18. iii, 24. q PP Ξ I 2 Τηροῦντες κἀκεῖνο Td, Προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν" καὶ τὸ, Στέλλεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ παντὺς ἀδελφοῦ ἀτάκτως περιπατοῦντος, καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ἣν παρέλαβον παρ᾽ ἡμῶν, στοιχῶμεν τῷ κανόνι τῶν ἁγίων, ὡς ἐποικοδομηθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν, kK. τ. A. ID. ib. § 5. ii. 229. 3 "Oca τοίνυν εὑρίσκομεν κατὰ Thy Καινὴν τέως Διαθήκην σποράδην ἀπηγορευμένα ἢ ἐγκεκριμένα, ταῦτα, κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν ἡμῖν, εἰς ὅρους κεφαλαιώδεις πρὸς τὸ εὔληπτον τοῖς βουλομένοις ἐσπουδάσαμεν συναγαγεῖν. ID, ib. § 6. ii. 229. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 131 “ by the testimony of the inspired Scripture, for the full assur- “ ance of the good, and the confusion of the wicked.” 1 Again, still more decisively ;—“ 7 ts right that those hearers “ who have learned the Scriptures, should test what ts said by their “ teachers, and receive those things that are agreeable to the Scrip- “ tures, and reject those that are contrary; and earnestly avoid “ those that persevere in maintaining such doctrines.” * And again ; “ What is the peculiar characteristic of a Chris- “tian? Faith that worketh by love. What is the peculiar “ characteristic of faith? A firm and unwavering assurance “ of the truth of the inspired words, not to be shaken by any “ yeasoning ; either such as is introduced under the plea of “ physical necessity, or such as comes under the garb of piety. “ What is the peculiar characteristic of a believer? To rest in “ such an assurance, through the power of the words spoken, and “not to dare to reject anything contained therein, or to add “anything to them. For if, as the Apostle says, everything “ that is not of faith is sin, and faith is by hearing, and hearing “ by the word of God, everything that is not contained in the w.- “ spired Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.’’? We hence see, how entire was his conviction, that the word of God was only to be found in the Scriptures; and that the Scriptures were the entire and perfect Rule of faith. Moreover, in a treatise of the same kind, but thrown into the form of question and answer, we meet with several passages to the same effect. 1 σοτι δεῖ πᾶν ῥῆμα ἢ πρᾶγμα πιστοῦσθαι τῇ μαρτυρίᾳ τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς εἰς πληροφορίαν μὲν τῶν ἀγαθῶν, ἐντροπὴν δὲ τῶν πονηρῶν. ΤΡ. Moral. Regul. xxvi. c. 1. ii. 256. 2"Ori δεῖ τῶν ἀκροατῶν τοὺς πεπαιδευμένους τὰς γραφὰς δοκιμάζειν τὰ παρὰ τῶν διδασκάλων λεγόμενα" καὶ τὰ μὲν σύμφωνα ταῖς γραφαῖς δέχεσθαι, τὰ δὲ you μφ ἀλλότρια ἀποβάλλειν: καὶ τοῦς τοιούτοις διδάγμασιν ἐπιμένοντας ἀποστρέφεσθαι σφοδρότερον. In. ib. Reg. Ixxii. ο. 1. ii. 306. 3 Ti ἴδιον Χριστιανοῦ; πίστις δ᾽ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη. Τί ἴδιον πίστεως : ἀδιάκριτος πληροφορία τῆς ἀληθείας τῶν θεοπνεύστων ῥημάτων, οὐδενὶ λογισμῷ, οὔτε ὑπὸ φυσικῆς ἀνάγκης εἰσαγομένῳ, οὔτε πρὸς εὐσέβειαν ἐσχηματισμένῳ διασα- λευομένη. Τί ἴδιον πιστοῦ ; τὸ ἐν τοιαύτῃ πληροφορίᾳ συνδιατίθεσθαι τῇ δυνάμει τῶν εἰρημένων, καὶ μηδὲν τολμᾷν ἀθετεῖν ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεσθαι. Ei γὰρ πᾶν ὃ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως, ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν, ὥς φησιν 6 ἀπόστολος, ἡ δὲ πίστις ἐξ ἀκοῆς, 7 δὲ ἀκοὴ διὰ ῥήματος Θεοῦ, πᾶν τὸ ἐκτὸς τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως ὃν, ἁμαρτία ἐστίν. Ip. ib. Reg. Ιχχχ. ο. 22, ii. 317. K 2 1382 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS The first is as follows, — Whether it is lawful or desirable “ for any one to allow himself even to do or say what he thinks “ sood, without the testimony of the inspired Scriptures :”? and in his answer he discountenances such conduct. This goes much further than we should have any wish to contend for. Again ;—“ Whether it is desirable for new converts immedi- ately to learn things from the Scriptures ;” to which the answer is, that it is “ proper and necessary that each one should learn “ that which is useful from the inspired Scripture, both for the “ establishment of his piety, and that he may not be accustomed * to human traditions.” * Again ;—“ What mind ought a prelate to have in those things which he commands or appoints?” To which the reply is,—“ Towards God, as a servant of Christ, and a steward of “ the mysteries of God, fearing lest he should either speak or “ order anything beyond the will of God, as declared in the “ Scriptures, and be found a false witness of God, or sacri- “ legious, in either introducing anything foreign to the doc- | “ trine of the Lord, or omitting anything acceptable to God.”® To these testimonies, many others may be added from other parts of his works. Thus, in his homily on repentance, he says,—“ We shall treat “ of repentance from the Old and New Testament; for these “ are the Church’s treasures.” 4 And, in a passage cited in a former part of this chapter, he 1 Εἰ ἔξεστιν ἢ συμφέρει tw) ἑαυτῷ ἐπιτρέπειν, καὶ ποιεῖν ἢ λέγειν ἃ νομίζει καλὰ, ἄνευ τῆς μαρτυρίας τῶν θεοπνεύστων γραφῶν. ΤΡ. Reg. brev. Interrog. 1. ii. 414. 2 Εἰ συμφέρει τοῖς ἄρτι προσερχομένοις εὐθὺς τὰ ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν ἐκμανθάνειν ; eesees Τὸ πρὸς τὴν χρείαν ἕκαστον ἐκμανθάνειν ἐκ τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς ἀκόλουθον καὶ ἀναγκαῖον εἴς τε πληροφορίαν τῆς θεοςεβείας, καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ προσ- εθισθῆναι ἀνθρωπίναις παραδόσεσιν. Ip. ib. Interrog. et resp. xev. ii. 449. 3 Ποταπὸν φρόνημα ὀφείλει ἔχειν ὁ προεστὼς ἐν ois ἐπιτάσσει, ἢ διατάσσεται. Resp. Πρὸς μὲν τὸν Θεὸν, ὡς ὑπηρέτης Χριστοῦ, καὶ οἰκονόμος μυστηρίων Θεοῦ" φοβούμενος μή τι παρὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς ὁμολογούμενον ἢ εἴπῃ, ἢ τυπώσῃ, καὶ εὑρεθῇ ψευδόμαρτυς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἢ ἱερόσυλος, ἐν τῷ ἢ ἐπεισάγειν τι ἀλλότριον τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου διδασκαλίας, ἢ παραλεῖψαί τι τῶν ἀρεσκόντων Θεῷ. θησαυροί. Ip. Homil. de Peenit. ᾧ 1. ii. 608. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 133 says, speaking of a thing derived from “the Fathers,” “ But it “‘ is not sufficient for us, that it is the tradition of the Fathers. “ For they also followed the mind of Scripture; having taken “ their first principles from the testimonies which, a short time “ since, we placed before you, from the Scripture.” 1 Again ;—“ It is the duty of a pious mind to fear to speak, of “the Holy Spirit, things that are not mentioned in the Holy “ Scriptures ; and to believe, that the knowledge and accurate “comprehension of the Holy Spirit are reserved for us to the “ future world.” ? Moreover, he very expressly refers to Scripture as the Judge of controversies, and that in the highest points of faith. Thus, in his controversy with Eunomius, he says,—‘“ What “ mode of investigation could be more proper, than that we “ should compare what is said with the documents given to us “ by the Spirit, and receive that which we find to agree with “ them, and give no credence to that which is opposed to them, “but avoid it as an enemy. First, therefore, let him show ἐς this,—Which of the sacred writers have called Christ an off- “ spring and a thing made ? What passages of the Scriptures “ has he to prove this ἢν ὃ And in the Epistle to Eustathius, ascribed to him, occurs a similar and still stronger passage to the same effect ;* but as this Epistle is with greater probability attributed to his brother, Gre- gory of Nyssa, I shall cite it when considering the testimony of the latter. Further, to the passages already quoted, declarative of the perfection of Scripture as the Rule of faith, we may add the fol- 1 Ip. De Spir. S. ο. 7. iii. 18. See p. 6 above. 2 Εὐσεβοῦς γάρ ἐστι διανοίας τὰ ἀποσιωπηθέντα ἐν ταῖς ἁγίαις γραφαῖς evAa- βεῖσθαι ἐπιφημίζειν τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, πεπεῖσθαι δὲ τὴν ἐμπειρίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκριβῆ κατάληψιν εἰς τὸν ὕστερον ἡμῖν ἀποκεῖσθαι αἰῶνα. Ip. Ady. Eunom. lib. ii. § 7. i. 278. 3 Tis ἂν οὖν τρόπος τῆς ἐξετάσεως δικαιότερος γένοιτο, ἢ τοῖς διδάγμασι τοῖς παρὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἡμῖν δεδομένοις τὸν λόγον συγκρίνοντας, ὃ μὲν ἂν ἐκείνοις συμφωνοῦν εὕρωμεν καταδέχεσθαι, τῷ δὲ ἐναντίως ἔχοντι ἀπιστεῖν καὶ ὡς ἐχθρὸν ἀποφεύγειν ; Πρῶτον τοίνυν ἐκεῖνο δεικνύτω, τίνες τῶν ἁγίων γέννημα καὶ ποίημα τὸν Χριστὸν προσειρήκασι; ποίας ἔχει φωνὰς τῶν γραφῶν εἰς ἀπόδειξιν; ID Ady. Eunom. lib. ii. §§ 1, 2. i. 238, 9. 4 Ip. Epist. 189. § 3. iii. 277. 134 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS lowing ; which occur, however, in Treatises placed by the Bene- dictines in their Appendix, as, in their opinion, not genuine works of Basil. The reader may judge for himself, as we need not their testimony. “ Believe those things that are written. What is not written, inquire not into.”’} And elsewhere he tells us, that “all the commands of Christ are written.” ἢ Now, from these passages, it is very obvious, that if Basil has elsewhere advocated the views of the Tractators, he has most pointedly contradicted himself. Let us see, however, whether he is so chargeable. The chief passage always adduced from him against our views, is from the latter part of the Treatise on the Holy Spirit, and consequently from a part which has been very generally adjudged by our best divines, and by Erasmus, if not others, among the Romanists, to be spurious. Tothe judgment of Erasmus and of Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Bishop Stillingfleet and Robert Cooke, of our own divines, I have already directed the attention of the reader.® And to these we may add many others. Thus, Bishop Patrick says of it, that itis “a counterfeit part of “a book of St. Basil, into which somebody hath foisted a dis- “‘ course about Tradition, which as it belongs not at all to his ** subject, so it contradicts his sense im another place; particu- “ larly in his book of Confession of Faith, where he saith, ‘ It is “a manifest infidelity and arrogance, either to reject what is ““ written, or to add anything that is not written.” But admit ** those words which this man quotes to be St. Basil’s, they are “‘ manifestly false by the confession of the Roman Church in that “ sense wherein he takes them. For if those things which he “ yeckons up as Apostolical traditions have equal force with those “things which are written in the Scripture, how comes the “ Church of Rome to lay aside several of them? For instance, “the words of invocation at the ostension of the bread of the 1 Τοῖς γεγραμμένοις πίστευε, τὰ μὴ γεγραμμένα μὴ ζήτει. Ip. Homil, adv. calumn. 8. Trin. 8 4. ii. 611. 3 Ei ph πάντα ἡμῖν πρὸς τὸν τῆς σωτηρίας σκοπὸν avaryKaia ἦν, οὔτ᾽ ἂν ἔγρά- φησαν πάσαι αἱ ἐντολαὶ. Ip. Serm. de virt. et vit. § 1. iii. 469, 3 See vol. i. pp. 201, 202. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 135 “ eucharist and the cup of blessing; the consecration of him “ that is baptized; standing in prayer on the first day of the “ week and all the time between Haster and Whitsuntide ? And “ how comes it about, that others of them are left at liberty, “such as praying towards the East, and the threefold immer- “ sion in baptism? Both which they themselves acknowledge “to be indifferent ; and yet are mentioned by this false St. “ Basil (so I cannot but esteem him that wrote this) among the ‘* things which are of equal force unto godliness with those de- “ livered in Scripture. Nay, he proceeds so far as to say in the “ words following, that if we should reject such unwritten tra- “ ditions, we should give a deadly wound to the gospel, or “ rather contract it into a bare name. A saying so senseless, or “* rather impious, that if these men had but a grain of common “ honesty, they could not thus endeavour to impose upon the world “ by such spurious stuff, as I would willingly think they have wit “ enough to see this 15.) Ὁ And so Archbishop Laud, quoting Bishop Andrews as his authority, says,— The learned take exceptions to this book of St. Basil as corrupted. Bp. Andr. Opusc. contr. Perron. p. 9.7’? The passage relates to the wording of the Doxology, and the writer defends the use of the words “ with the Holy Spirit,” on the ground of Patristical Tradition being im their favor, observ- ing, that, “ Of the doctrines and instructions preserved in the “ Church, some we have from the teaching of Scripture, and “ others we have received delivered down to us secretly from the “ Tradition of the Apostles; both of which have the like force “ towards piety; and no one will contradict these things, no “ one at least who has any experience of the laws of the Church ; “ for if we should attempt to repudiate the unwritten customs “ as not having avy great weight, we should unwittingly injure “the Gospel in the very principal points, or rather reduce the “ Gospel to a mere name.”? And he then instances the sign of 1 Be. Parrice’s Answer to Touchstone of Reformed Gospel, pp. 33—5. 2 Laun’s Conference with Fisher, ὃ 16. n. 26. p. 59. ed. 1686. 3 τῶν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ πεφυλαγμένων δογμάτων Kal κηρυγμάτων, τὰ μὲν ἐκ τῆς ἐγγράφου διδασκαλίας ἔχομεν, τὰ δὲ ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων παραδόσεως διαδο- θέντα ἡμῖν ἐν μυστηρίῳ παρεδεξάμεθα' ἅπερ ἀμφότερα τὴν αὐτὴν ἰσχὺν ἔχει πρὸς τὴν εὐσέβειαν: καὶ τούτοις οὐδεὶς ἀντερεῖ, οὐκοῦν ὅστις γε κατὰ μικρὸν γοῦν 136 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS the cross in baptism, and other points ofalike kmd. A similar passage occurs shortly after.! That the author of these passages should be the same as the one who wrote what we have quoted above, it is hardly possible to conceive. Indeed, they are directly opposed to a passage (already quoted) occurring in the former part of the same treatise, where, speaking of a similar phrase with relation to the Son, Basil says, that though it was from the Fathers, it was not enough that it was the tradition of the Fathers, but that they had derived it from the Scriptures.” That this work has been, to say the least, interpolated and corrupted, must, I think, be clear to every impartial reader. Moreover, this author, whoever he is, when he descends to particulars, seems only to apply his observations to customs and matters of form and discipline, not to points of faith, as if Tradition was any part of the Rule of faith. And in such matters it might perhaps be said, that there are some unwritten customs that have the same force towards piety as some customs commanded in Scripture. The force of the passage, according to Bishop Stillingfleet, is this ;—“ It was objected, that the form “Ὁ, Basil used, was not found in Scripture; he answers, that “ the equivalent is there found, and that there were some things “ yeceived by Tradition which had the same force towards piety. “ And if we take away all unwritten customs, we shall do wrong “ to the gospel, and leave a bare name to the public preaching. “ And from thence he insists on some traditionary rites, as the “ sion of the cross, praying towards the East, &c. His business “is, to show that to the greater solemnity of Christian worship “‘ several customs were observed in the Church, which are not “ to be found in Scripture. And if other antient customs were “ received which are not commanded in Seripture, he sees no “ reason that they should find such fault with this.” ὃ θεσμῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν πεπείραται. Ei γὰρ ἐπιχειρήσαιμεν τὰ ἄγραφα τῶν ἐθῶν ὡς μὴ μεγάλην ἔχοντα τὴν δύναμιν παραιτεῖσθαι, λάθοιμεν ἂν εἰς αὐτὰ τὰ καίρια ζημιοῦντες τὸ εὐαγγέλιον" μᾶλλον δὲ εἰς ὄνομα ψιλὸν περιϊστῶντες τὸ κήρυγμα. De Spir. S. ¢. 27. iii. 54. 1 ῬΑποστολικὺν οἶμαι, Kal τὸ ταῖς ἀγράφοις παραδόσεσι παραμένειν. Ib. c. 29. iii. 60. 2 De Sp. S. ο. 7. iii. 13. See p. 6 above. 3 SYILLINGFLEET’s Council of Trent examined, p. 25. See also his Grounds of ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 137 The passage, therefore, seems at any rate intended only to apply to matters of form and ecclesiastical rites. And what is more, the view which the author of it takes is essentially different from that of the Romanists and the Tracta- tors, for he speaks of his “traditions” as secretly and silently conveyed down under the veil of mystery, and not published abroad in the writings of the Fathers.! Let us proceed, however, to some passages that are quoted against our view from the genuine works of Basil, and we shall find, that not one of them advocates more than what we readily admit, namely, that the works of the Fathers are to be referred to as affording a confirmatory argument for the orthodox faith. For instance, the first passage merely amounts to a general declaration of regard for the statements of the Fathers, more particularly when compared with those of the heretic Eunomius, —in which we most fully agree. The passage with its context stands thus;—Eunomius having spoken slightingly of the Fathers, and of the sentiments of the great body of Christians either then living or of any former age, Basil replies,—‘* What “do you say? are we not to attribute the greater weight to “ those who have preceded us? Are we not to hold in respect “the multitude both of the Christians of the present time and “ of those who have lived since the Gospel was first preached ? “ Are we not to take into account the dignity of those who have “been distinguished by spiritual gifts of all kinds, in opposi- “tion and hostility to all of whom you have now introduced “ this wicked path of impiety? But having altogether closed ‘‘the eyes of our mind and driven out of our memory the “ recollection of every holy man, are we each of us to come and “ subject his mind in a passive state, cleared of all former im- “ pressions, to your vagaries and sophisms? You would be “ possessed of great power indeed, if it shall fall to your lot to Protestant religion, pp. 242—4, ed. 1665, and ArcuBisHop Lavp’s Conference with Fisher, § 16. n. 26. p. 59. ed. 1686. 1 ᾿Απὸ τῆς σιωπωμένης καὶ μυστικῆς παραδόσεως ...... ἐκ τῆς ἀδημοσιεύτου ταύτης καὶ ἀποῤῥήτου διδασκαλίας, ἣν ἐν ἀπολυπραγμονήτῳ καὶ ἀπεριεργάστῳ σιγῇ οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν ἐφύλαξαν, καλῶς ἐκεῖνο δεδιδαγμένοι, τῶν μυστηρίων τὸ σεμνὸν σιωπῇ διασώζεσθαι; ἃ γὰρ οὐδὲ ἐποπτεύειν ἔξεστι τοῖς ἀμυήτοις, τουτων πῶς ἂν ἦν εἰκὸς τὴν διδασκαλίαν ἐκϑριαμβεύειν ἐν γράμμασιν; De Sp. 5. c. 27. iii. 55. 138 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS “have the command of those things which the devil himself “ with his various artifices has not obtained; if, that is, in “ obedience to you, we should judge the tradition that has been “held by so many holy men [he was too wise a man to talk of “ every body always everywhere] in all past time less valuable “than your impious conceits.””! In all this, I need not say, there is not one word from which we dissent. Again, Basil says in his Homily against the Sabellians and others,—“ But let the tradition deter you from separating the “ Holy Spirit from the Father and Son. The Lord hath thus “taught, Apostles have proclaimed this doctrine, Fathers have “kept it, martyrs have confirmed it. Be satisfied to speak as “ you have been taught.” But this passage confirms our view ; for, by consulting the preceding context, we find that “the tra- dition” referred to is “ the tradition of baptism,’ ὅ that is, our Lord’s tradition delivered Matt. xxviii. 19; and, in fact, the grounds upon which the matter is placed, are precisely those for which we contend, namely, the teaching of our Lord and his Apostles as the foundation, and that of Fathers and martyrs as, in their place, confirmatory of the correctness of our view of a doctrine. And, therefore, we agree fully with the admonition of Basil in the context,—“I entreat you, not to seek in every “ way to hear from me that which is agreeable to you, but that 1 τί λέγεις ; μὴ νείμωμεν τὸ πλέον τοῖς προλαβοῦσι; μὴ αἰδεσθῶμεν τὸ πλῆθος τῶν τε νῦν ὄντων Χριστιανῶν, καὶ τῶν ὅσοι γεγόνασιν ἀφ᾽ οὗ κατηγγέλη τὸ εὐαγ- γέλιον ; μὴ λογισώμεθα τὸ ἀξίωμα τῶν ἐν παντοίοις χαρίσμασι διαφανέντων πνεὺ- ματικοῖς, οἷς ἅπασιν ἐχθρὰν καὶ πολεμίαν τὴν πονηρὰν ὁδὸν ταύτην τῆς ἀσεβείας ἐκαινοτόμησας ; ἄλλά μύσαντες ἁπαξαπλῶς τοὺς τῆς ψυχῆς ὀφθαλμοὺς, καὶ παντὸς ἁγίου μνήμην τῆς διανοίας ὑπερορίσαντες, σχολάζουσαν καὶ σεσαρωμένην τὴν ἑαυτοῦ καρδίαν ἕκαστος ταῖς παραγωγαῖς σου καὶ τοῖς σοφίσμασι φέροντες ὑποθῶ- μεν ; μεγάλης μέντ᾽ ἂν εἴης τῆς δυναστείας ἐπειλημμένος, εἴπερ ὧν ταῖς ποικίλαις ἑαυτοῦ μεθοδείαις 5 διάβολος οὐκ ἐπέτυχε, τούτων σοὶ τυχεῖν ἐξ. ἐπιτάγματος πε- ριέσται: ἐάν περ πεισθέντες σοι, τὴν ἐν παντὶ τῷ παρελθόντι χρόνῳ ὑπὸ τοσούτων ἁγίων κεκρατηκυῖαν παράδοσιν ἀτιμοτέραν κρίνωμεν τῆς δυσσεβοῦς ὑμῶν ἐπινοίας. Basin. Cms. Adv. Eunom. lib. i. ὃ 3. i. 210, 11. 2 ᾿Αλλὰ μὴ χωρίσῃς Πατρὸς καὶ Tiod τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, δυσωπείτω σε ἣ παρά- docis. ὋὉ Κύριος οὕτως ἐδίδαξεν, ἀπόστολοι ἐκήρυξαν, πατέρες διετήρησαν, μάρ- τυρες ἐβεβαίωσαν: ἀρκέσθητι λέγειν ὡς ἐδιδάχθης. Iv. Hom. contra Sabell. Arium et Anom. § 6. ii. 194. 3. Ἢ παράδοσις τοῦ βαπτίσματος. Ib. The passage is very similar to one of Athanasius quoted above, vol. i. pp. 118, 119. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 139 ‘‘ which is well pleasing to the Lord, and accordant with the “ Scriptures, and not at variance with the Fathers.” 1 Thus, also, he says elsewhere, after having laid down what he considered to be the orthodox faith,—“ These, brethren, are “the mysteries of the Church, these are the traditions of the “ Fathers ; 2 where he states what he justly considered as a strin- gent argument for the reception of what he had been delivering, but not as any part of the Rule of faith, for he immediately adds, “‘ We adjure every man who fears the Lord and expects the “ judgment of God, not to be carried away by divers doctrines. “ Tf any one teaches otherwise and adheres not to the wholesome “ words of the faith, but, rejecting the oracles of the Spirit, holds “ his own teaching to be of more authority than the Evangelical “ documents, avoid such a man ;”? where we plainly see, what was his sole Rule of faith. Again ; he says,— But as to the faith, we neither receive “ that which is written by others, junior to us, nor dare our- “ selves to deliver the offspring of our own conceits, that we “ may not make the words of the orthodox faith dependent upon “ men; but what we have been taught by the holy Fathers, that “we deliver to those who question us.”* But “the holy Fathers” here mentioned are only “ the Nicene Fathers,” for it follows,— Therefore the Creed written by the holy Fathers, “ those, I mean, that met at Niczea, has been received in our “‘ Church from the times of our Fathers,”° and he then pro- ceeds to deliver the Nicene Creed. 1 «μᾶς δὲ παρακαλοῦμεν, μὴ ἐκ παντὸς τρόπου ζητεῖν τὸ ὑμῖν ἀρέσκον παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀκοῦσαι, ἀλλ᾽ ὃ τῷ Κυρίῳ εὐάρεστόν ἐστι, καὶ σύμφωνον ταῖς γραφαῖς, καὶ μὴ μαχόμενον τοῖς πατράσιν. Ib. § 4. ii. 193. 2 Ταῦτά ἐστιν, ἀδελφοὶ, Ta τῆς ἐκκλησίας μυστήρια, αὗται τῶν πατέρων at παραδόσεις. Ep. ad Sozopolit. ep. 261. ὃ 3. iii. 403. 3 Διαμαρτυρόμεθα παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ φοβουμένῳ τὸν Κύριον, καὶ κρίσιν Θεοῦ ava- μένοντι, διδαχαῖς ποικίλαις μὴ παραφέρεσθαι. Et τις ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ, καὶ μὴ προσ- έρχεται ὑγιαίνουσι λόγοις τῆς πίστεως, ἀλλὰ παρωθούμενος τὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος λόγια, τὴν οἰκείαν διδασκαλίαν κυριωτέραν ποιεῖται τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν διδαγμάτων, φυλάσσεσθε τὸν τοιοῦτον. Ib. 4 πίστιν δὲ ἡμεῖς, οὔτε παρ᾽ ἄλλων γραφομένην ἡμῖν νεωτέραν [ἢ νεωτέρων] παραδεχόμεθα, οὔτε αὐτοὶ τὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας διανοίας γεννήματα παραδιδόναι τολ- μῶμεν, ἵνα μὴ ἀνθρώπινα ποιήσωμεν τὰ τῆς εὐσεβείας ῥήματα" GAN ἅπερ παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων δεδιδάγμεθα, ταῦτα τοῖς ἐρωτῶσιν ἡμᾶς διαγγέλλομεν. Ἐρἰδῦ. ad eccles, Antioch. ep. 140. § 2. iii. 233. 5 Ἔστι τοίνυν ἐκ πατέρων ἐμπολιτευομένη TH ἑκκλησίᾳ ἡμῶν 7 γραφεῖσα παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων πίστις, τῶν κατὰ τὴν Νίκαιαν συνελθόντων. Ib, 140 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS And this assembly that met at Nicza, or Nice, he justly con- siders to have strong claims upon our regard, though not to de- mand our faith; for, having spoken of the Creed promulgated by the Fathers that met at Niczea, and noticed the fact that some persons did not receive the word “ consubstantial,’” which they had introduced into it, he says,—‘‘ Whom any one might per- “ haps justly blame, and yet again might judge them excusable. “ For, on the one hand, not to follow the Fathers, and esteem “ their word of more authority than their own notions, 15 worthy “ of blame as a very arrogant thing; while again, on the other “ hand, to be suspicious of a word blamed by others, this seems “ pretty well to clear them from blame. For, in truth, those “ that met in the matter of Paul of Samosata, found fault with “ the phrase as not sounding correct.’ + In all these passages, then, (which, if not all, are at least the strongest that can be brought from the writings of Basil, that have any show of supporting the views of our opponents,) we find nothing which, when compared with his clear statements as to the claims of Holy Scripture, given above, presents any diffi- culty as to his views on the subject. Grecory oF Nyssa. (fl. a. 370.) From Basil let us pass to his brother, Gregory of Nyssa. First ; Is Scripture solely and exclusively the authoritative Rule of faith? The following passages will show us bis opimion on this point. In his treatise, ‘‘ On the soul and the resurrection,” written in the form of a dialogue between himself and his celebrated sister Macrina, he says,— “ We have not this power, the power I mean of saying what “‘ we please, inasmuch as we use the holy Scripture as our rule 1 Obs καὶ μέμψαιτο ἄν τις δικαίως, καὶ πάλιν μέντοι συγγνώμης αὐτούς ἀξιώ- σειεν. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ πατράσι μὴ ἀκολουθεῖν, καὶ τὴν ἐκείνων φωνὴν κυριωτέραν τίθεσθαι τῆς ἑαυτῶν γνώμης, ἐγκλήματος ἄξιον, ὡς αὐθαδείας γέμον. Td δὲ πάλιν ip’ ἑτέρων διαβληθεῖσαν αὐτὴν ὕποπτον ἔχειν, τοῦτό πως δοκεῖ τοῦ ἐγκλήματος αὐτοὺς μετρίως ἐλευθεροῦν: καὶ γὰρ τῷ ὄντι, οἱ ἐπὶ Παύλῳ τῷ Σαμοσατεῖ συνελ- θόντες, διέβαλον τὴν λέξιν ὡς οὐκ εὔηχον. Ep. ad Canonicas. ep. 52. ὃ 1. iii. 145. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 1.11 “ for every doctrine and our law ; and being under the necessity of referring to this, we receive that only whatsoever may be agree- “ able to the scope of what is there written.” 1 And a little further on the dialogue runs thus ;—“I think it ἐς hehoves us to inquire, with respect to what has been said, “ whether that which divine inspiration has taught us, is conso- “nant with these things. But, said she, [1. 6. Macrina] who “ could possibly deny, but that we must consider that alone to “ be truth, for which there is the seal of Scriptural testimony 2” * Again; writing against Eunomius, he says,—‘‘ But let us “ proceed to that which follows of his discourse, after we have “ added a few words directed to the confirmation of our doctrine. « For, since the inspired testimony is the sure criterion of truth “in the case of EveRY doctrine, I think it well to prove the “ truth of what I have said by citing the divine oracles.” * And so, in other passages, when challenging Eunomius for a proof of his doctrines, he speaks so as clearly to show, that Scrip- ture was the only authority by which doctrines were to be established. Thus, speaking of a doctrine advanced by Eunomius, he says, —< Tf, indeed, these are the doctrines of any of the heathen “ philosophers, let not the Gospels, or the rest of the revela- “ tions of the inspired Scripture, be at all troubled about the “ matter ; for what communion is there between the Christian “ doctrine and the wisdom that has become folly ? [1 Cor. 1. 22.] “ But if they depend upon the Scriptures, [as he manifestly “ thinks they ought to do, to the exclusion of all other autho- 1 Ἡμεῖς δὲ τῆς εξουσίας ἄμοιροι ταύτης ἐσμὲν τῆς λέγειν φημὶ ἅπερ βουλόμεθα, κανόνι παντὸς δόγματος καὶ νόμῳ κεχρημένοι τῇ ἁγίᾳ γραφῇ" ἀναγκαίως πρὸς ταύτην βλέποντες τοῦτο δεχόμεθα μόνον" ὅτιπερ ἂν ἢ συμφωνοῦν τῷ τῶν γεγραμ- μένων σκοπῷ. GREGOR. ΝΎΞΒ, De anim. et resurrect. Op. ed. Paris. 1615—18. tom. ii. pp. 632, 3. (ed. 1638. tom. iii. pp. 200, 201.) 2 Ζητεῖν οἶμαι δεῖν ἐπὶ τοῖς εἰρημένοις, εἰ ἢ θεόπνευστος διδασκαλία τούτοις συμφέρεται. “H δὲ, Κἄν τις ἂν ἀντείποι, φησὶ, μὴ οὐχὶ ἐν τούτῳ μόνῳ τὴν ἀλή- θειαν τιθέσθω; ᾧ σφραγὶς ἐπέστι τῆς γραφικῆς μαρτυρίας. ΤΌ. 10. tom. ii. p. 639. (tom. iii. p. 207. ed. 1638.) 3 Ἡμεῖς δὲ πρὸς τὰ ἐφεξῆς τοῦ λόγου προέλθωμεν μικρῶν ἔτι πρὸς σύστασιν τοῦ ἡμετέρου δόγματος προσδιορθηθέντων [ὃ προσδιορθωθέντων 1" ἐπειδὴ γὰρ κριτήριον ἀσφαλὲς τῆς ἀληθείας ἐπὶ παντὸς δόγματος ἣ θεόπνευστός ἐστι μαρτυρία, καλῶς ἔχειν ἡγοῦμαι τῇ παραθέσει τῶν θείων, καὶ τὸν ἡμέτερον λόγον πιστῶσασθαι, Ip. Contr. Eunom. lib. i. Appendix, p. 82. (tom. ii. p. 346. ed. 1638.) 142 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS “ rities,] let him give an instance of such language from the “ holy writers, and we will be silent.” 1 And, after charging him with saying, that the Word or Son of God is “ not uncreated,” (μὴ ἄκτιστον) he adds,—‘‘ Let him “ say, whence he derives the boldness to affirm this: from what * divinely-inspired testimony ? What Evangelist, what Apostle “uttered such a saying? What prophet, or lawgiver, or pa- “ triarch, or any one else of those who were divinely inspired by “the Holy Spirit, whose words are committed to writing,” taught * such a phrase? We have learnt in the tradition of the faith “ by the Truth to believe in the Father, and Son, and Holy “ Spirit. Ought we to believe that he is created? How is it “ that the Truth when delivering to us the mystery has enjoined “ faith in the Son and not in acreature? And how is it that “the divinely-inspired Apostle, while he worships Christ, de- “ clares that those who extend their worship beyond the Creator “ to the creature are idolaters ?” ® 1 El μὲν οὖν τινὶ τῶν ἔξω σοφῶν ταῦτα δοκεῖ, μηδὲν ἐνοχλείσθω τὰ εὐαγγέλια, μηδὲ ἣ λοιπὴ τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς διδασκαλία. Tis γὰρ κοινωνία τῷ Χριστιανῷ λόγῳ πρὸς τὴν μωρανθεῖσαν σοφίαν ; εἰ δὲ τοῖς γραφικοῖς ἐπερείδεται, δειξάτω τοιαύτην ἐκ τῶν ἁγίων φωνὴν, καὶ ἡμεῖς σιωπήσομεν. Ip. Contr. Eunom. Orat. 9. tom. ii. p. 254. (Orat. vel lib. 10. tom. ii. p. 682. ed. 1638.) 2 In the somewhat celebrated work among the Romanists, compiled by the Rev. Messrs. Berington and Kirk, entitled “The faith of Catholics confirmed by Scripture, and attested by the Fathers,” &c., intended to show by a large collec- tion of Patristical testimonies that the witness of the Fathers is altogether in favor of the Romish Creed, the unfortunate mistake has been made of adducing this very passage in support of the Romish doctrine of Tradition, the word ἀνά- parrot, “committed to writing, ” being interpreted, in just the opposite sense to its meaning, “ Unwritten.” (See 3d. ed. 1846. vol. i. p. 421.) The work is one which may look very formidable to an uninstructed reader, but to one at all versed in the writings of the Fathers and acquainted with the nature of the con- troversies in question, can hardly, I conceive, give much trouble. But it would be out of place to notice it further here. 5. Πόθεν ἔχει Thy παῤῥησίαν, εἰπάτω: ἐκ ποίας θεοπνεύστου φωνῆς; Tis εὐαγ- γελιστὴς, ποῖος ἀπόστολος τὴν τοιαύτην ἀφῆκε φωνήν ; τίς προφήτης, ἢ νομοθέτης, ἢ πατριάρχης, ἢ ἄλλος τίς τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ ‘Aylov Πνεύματος θεοφορουμένων, ὧν ἀνάγραπτοι εἰσὶν af φωναὶ, τῆς τοιαύτης ῥήσεως κατηγήσατο; Πατέρα καὶ Tidy καὶ Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον ἐν τῇ παραδόσει τῆς πίστεως παρὰ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐμάθομεν. Ἢ κτιστὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι πιστεύειν ἐχρῆν ; πῶς παραδιδοῦσα ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον ἣ ἀλήθεια τὴν εἰς τὸν Ὑἱὸν πίστιν καὶ οὐκ εἰς τὸ κτῖσμα ἐνομοθέτησε; πῶς δὲ προσκυνῶν τὸν Χριστὸν ὃ θεῖος ἀπόστολος, τοὺς τῇ κτίσει λατρεύοντας παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα, εἰδωλολατρεῖν διορίζεται ; Lp. Contr. Eunom. Orat. 1. tom. ii. p. 33. (Orat. vel lib. 2. tom. ii. p. 461. ed. 1638.) 1 have placed a full stop after ἐμάθομεν, instead of a comma, as the sense evidently requires. Both the punctuation and the Latin yersion of these editions are often very incorrect. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 143 Here Scripture alone is referred to as the source from which Eunomius could obtain any authority for his doctrme. And we may observe, that the phrase “the tradition of the faith,” so often misunderstood as meaning church-tradition, is clearly used for the tradition of Scripture on the subject. Another passage precisely similar occurs in another part of the same work, which we have given below.! And to the Holy Scripture he distinctly appeals, as the Judge of controversies among Christians. . In his Treatise respecting the Trinity, he says of certain heretics, —“‘ They charge us with introducing novelties, forming “ their accusation against us thus. When we confess three ““ hypostases, they accuse us of saying, that there is one good- “ ness, one power, and one Godhead. And they affirm this not “ without reason. For such is our language. But they blame “us for this, and object against us, that the faith, as customably “ received among them, does not contain this, and the Scripture “5 does not agree with it. What, then, do we say to this? We “ do not think it just, that the custom that prevails among them, * should be made the law and rule of right doctrine. For, if “ the plea of custom is valid asa proof of the correctness of what “ is said, it will be lawful for us also, without doubt, to brmg “ forward in opposition the custom that prevails among us. *« But if they repudiate this, neither doubtless can we be called “ upon to follow them. Therefore let the inspired Scripture be “ the arbiter of the controversy between us, and the suffrage of the “ truth will, beyond doubt, fall to the lot of those whose doctrines shall be found agreeable to the divine words.” * In these words, 1 Ποίαν εὑρὼν ἐκ τῆς γραφῆς σκιὰν τοῦ τοιούτου νοήματος, ταῦτα τολμᾶ; ἐκ ποίας ἀρχῆς δι ἀκολούθου πρὸς τὸ τοιοῦτο πέρας προήγαγε τὴν ἀσέβειαν ; τίς τῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν φησί; τίς ἀπόστολος ; Tis προφήτης ; πᾶν μὲν οὖν τὸ ἐναντίον πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος, ἣ διὰ τὴς ἐπιπνοίας τοῦ Πνεύματος ἀναγραφεῖσα, μαρτυρεῖ τῷ Πνεύματι τὴν θεότητα. In. Contr. Eunom. Orat. 1. tom. ii. p. 59. (Orat. vel lib. 2. tom. ii. ed. 1638.) 2 ᾿Αλλὰ καινοτομίαν ἡμῖν προφέρουσιν, οὑτωσὶ τὸ ἔγκλημα καθ᾽ ἡμῶν συντι- θέντες" τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις ὁμολογούντων, μίαν ἀγαθότητα, μίαν δύναμιν, καὶ μίαν θεότητα λέγειν ἡμᾶς αἰτιῶνται. Καὶ οὐκ ἔξω τοῦτο τῆς ἀληθέιας φασίν" λέγομεν γὰρ, ἀλλ᾽ [read, φασίν: λέγομεν γὰρ. ᾿Αλλ᾽] ἐγκαλοῦντες τοῦτο προφέρουσιν, ὅτι ἣ συνήθεια αὐτῶν τοῦτο οὐκ ἔχει, καὶ ἣ γραφὴ οὐ συντίθεται. Τί οὖν καὶ πρὸς 144. THE DOCTRINE ‘OF THE FATHERS then, the Holy Scripture is clearly and distinctly put forward in that character to which Dr. Pusey and his party tell us it has no claim, and for a purpose which the same persons tell us it cannot fulfil, namely, as the proper arbiter of controversies among Christians. The appeal which those heretics made to the Scripture, saying that the orthodox doctrine was not agreeable to Scripture, did not for a moment prevent Gregory’s appeal to it as the arbiter of the controversy. Nay more, he even speaks of it in one passage as our sole authoritative rule in points of ecclesiastical duty. In his treatise, « Respecting those who visit Jerusalem,” he says,—“ I assert “ that it is proper for those who have once dedicated themselves “to a heavenly course of life, to refer in everything to the words “ of the Gospel; and, as men shaping their work by a rule, “ἐ reduce the crooked things in their hands to straightness by “ the straight line of the rule, so I think it proper, that those “ persons applying to these things a certain right and immu- “ table rule as it were, I mean the course of life laid down in the ““ Gospel, should shape their course to God by it. Since, there- “ fore, there are some of those who have chosen for themselves “ a solitary life in retirement, by whom it has been determined “to be a part of religion to see those places in Jerusalem in “which are seen the evidences of our Lord’s sojourn in the * flesh, it would be well to look to the rule ; and if the tendency * of the precepts there given is such as to exhort us to it, to * yerform the act as a command of the Lord ; but ifit is not con- * tained in the commands of the Lord, I know not what precept “ there is, that a man becoming a law of what is good to himself, * should desire to do something not commanded.” ἢ τοῦτο ἡμεῖς ; οὐ νομίζομεν δίκαιον εἶναι Thy παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐπικρατοῦσαν συνήθειαν νόμον καὶ κανόνα τοῦ ὀρθοῦ ποιεῖσθαι λόγου: Ei γὰρ ἰσχυρόν ἐστι εἰς ὀρθότητα λόγου ἡ συνήθεια, ἐξέσται καὶ ἡμῖν πάντως ἀντιπροβάλλεσθαι τὴν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἐπι- κρατοῦσαν συνήθειαν" εἰ δὲ παραγράφονται ταύτην ἐκεῖνοι, οὐδὲ ἡμῖν πάντως ἄκο- λουθητέον ἐκείνοις. Οὐκοῦν ἣ θεόπνευστος ἡμῖν διαιτησάτω γραφή, καὶ παρ᾽ οἷς ἂν εὑρεθῇ τὰ δόγματα συνωδὰ τοῖς θείοις λόγοις, ἐπὶ τούτοις ἥξει πάντως τῆς GAn- θείας ἣ ψῆφος. Ip. De 8S. Trin. ep. ad Eustath. tom. ii. pp. 439, 40. (tom. iii. p. 8. ed. 1638.) This Letter is also ascribed to Basil, and is given among his Letters (ep. 189. ed. Ben.), but probably belongs to Gregory Nyssen. 1 ᾿Εγὼ τοὺς ἅπαξ ἀνατεθεικότας ἑαυτοὺς TH ὑψηλῇ πολιτείᾳ, καλῶς ἔχειν φημὶ ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 145 Here, then, the Scripture is proposed to us as our Rule, even in a more extended sense than that for which we are now contending. In several of these passages, also, we must observe, that he places it before us as a full and complete Rule in respect of extent, that is, as embracing not only all the necessary, but all the doctrines of the Christian faith. There is, however, one passage in his writings, (I am not at present aware of more than one,) which requires a remark ; but which, especially when taken in connexion with the passages we have just quoted, as of course it must in fairness be taken, admits of an easy and satisfactory explanation. The passage occurs in one of his Orations against Eunomius, and is as follows ;—“ Let no one murmur against me, and say, “ that that also which is confessed by us, needs to be certified “ by a demonstration. For it is sufficient as a proof of our “ doctrine, that we have the Tradition that has come to us from * our fathers transmitted as a sort of inheritance by succession *< from the Apostles through the succeeding saints. But they “who have changed the doctrines [of the Gospel] to this new “ faith, would indeed need much aid from argumentative reasonings, “ if they should be anxious to bring over to their opinion not “merely those who are easily excited and fickle-minded, but “ also those of a steady mind and fixed views. But while their “ doctrine is brought forward destitute of foundation and proof, “ who would be so foolish and brutish, as to make the doctrine “of the Evangelists and Apostles, and those who succes- πρὸς Tas τοῦ εὐαγγελίου διὰ παντὸς ἀποβλέπειν φωνάς" καὶ ὥσπερ of τῷ κανόνι Td ὑποκείμενον ἀπευθύνοντες, κατὰ τὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ κανόνος εὐθεῖαν τὰ σκολιὰ τὰ ἐν χερσὶν εἰς εὐθύτητα μεταβάλλουσιν, οὕτως προσήκειν ἡγοῦμαι oiovel τινα κανόνα ὀρθὸν καὶ ἀδιάστροφον, τὴν εὐαγγελικὴν λέγω δὴ πολιτείαν, τούτοις ἐπιβάλλοντας, κατ᾽ ἐκείνην πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἀπευθύνεσθαι. ᾿Ἐπεὶ τοίνυν εἰσί τινες τῶν τὸν μονήρη καὶ ἰδιάζοντα βίον ἐπανῃρημένων, οἷς ἐν μέρει εὐσεβείας νενόμισται τὸ τοὺς ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις τόπους ἰδεῖν, ἐν οἷς τὰ σύμβολα τῆς διὰ σαρκὸς ἐπιδημίας τοῦ ἹΚυρίου ὁρᾶται, καλῶς ἂν ἔχοι πρὸς τὸν κακόνα βλέπειν" καὶ εἰ ταῦτα βούλεται ἣ παρὰ τῶν ἐντολῶν χειραγωγία, ποιεῖν τὸ ἔργον, ὡς πρόσταγμα Κυρίου: εἰ δὲ ἔξω ἐστὶ τῶν ἐντολῶν τοῦ Δεσπότου, ovK olda τί ἐστι τὸ διατεταγμένον τι θέλειν ποιεῖν αὐτὸν ἑαυτοῦ τοῦ καλοῦ νόμον γινόμενον. Ip. Orat. de iis qui adeunt Hierosol. tom. ii. p. 1084. (tom. iii. pp. 651, 2. ed. 1638.) VOL. 111. L 146 THE DOCTRINE ‘OF THE FATHERS “sively shone in the Churches, of less weight than his idle “ prattle, which is destitute of atu evidence in its favor ?” * Now, to understand this passage, we must observe, that his opponents had been resting their doctrines upon human reason- ings and logical arguments, and are charged by Gregory with having taken, as the foundation of their statements, positions the truth of which they had not even thus demonstrated” Re- plying, then, by anticipation, toa similar charge against himself, he says, in the words we have quoted above, Let no one say, that what I have advanced needs such a demonstration, because my doctrine is that of the Evangelists and Apostles, and there- fore needs no such demonstration, as being founded upon the statements of persons inspired. If even we suppose, therefore, that the Tradition to which he alludes was something indepen- dent of the Scriptures, this will not make the passage adverse to our views ; for, the only point on which he was insisting was, in reply to the objection that his doctrine needed logical demonstra- tion, that, being “ the doctrine of the Evangelists and Apostles,” it needed no such proof of itstruth. But if it had further been questioned, whether his doctrine really was “ the doctrine of the Evangelists and Apostles,” the passages we have quoted from him above clearly show, to what he would have appealed as the Judge, namely, the testimony of Scripture.. And his use of the words, “ the Evangelists and Apostles,” the usual phrase with the Fathers for the New Testament, strongly confirms this view. And I much doubt, whether he was here speaking of Ecclesi- astical Tradition, and am inclined to think, from his own phra- 1 Kai μοι μηδεὶς ὑποκρουέτω καὶ τὸ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν διομολογούμενον διὰ κατασκευῆς κυρωθῆναι: ἀρκεῖ γὰρ εἰς ἀπόδειξιν τοῦ ἡμετέρου λόγου τὸ ἔχειν πατρόθεν ἥκουσαν πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὴν παράδοσιν, ofovel τινα κλῆρον δι᾽ ἀκολουθίας ἐκ τῶν ἀποστόλων διὰ τῶν ἐφεξῆς ἁγίων παραπεμφθέντα: οἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν καινότητα ταύτην μετατιθέντες τὰ δόγματα, πολλῆς ἂν δέοιντο τῆς ἐκ τῶν λογισμῶν συμμαχίας" εἰ μέλοιεν μὴ τοὺς κονιορτώδεις τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ εὑριπίστους, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἐμβριθεῖς τε καὶ βεβη- κότας ταῖς διανοίαις προσάγεσθαι: ἕως δ᾽ ἂν ἀκατάσκευος αὐτοῖς καὶ ἀναπόδεικτος 6 λόγος προφέροιτ᾽ ἂν, τίς οὕτως ἠλίθιος καὶ κτηνώδης, ὡς τῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν τε καὶ ἀποστόλων, καὶ τῶν καθεξῆς ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις διαλαμψάντων, ἀσθενεστέραν τὴν διδασκαλίαν τῆς ἀναποδείκτου φλυαρίας ποιήσασθαι. Ip. ib. orat. 2. p. 126, 7. (orat. 3. pp. 554, 5. ed. 1638.) I have taken the liberty in the last sentence of slightly altering the Editor’s punctuation, which seems clearly incorrect as well as his version. 2 Οὗτος ἀπὸ τῶν ἀμφισβητουμένων ἄρχεται, Kal, ὡς ἀποδεδειγμένων, ἀρχὴν τῷ ἐφεξῆς δίδωσι λόγῳ. ΤΟ. ib. p. 126. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 147 seology elsewhere, that he was referring to the Tradition of the Apostles in their writings handed down to him by those who had preceded him. For, in another place, having remarked, “ Let us believe that only to be the true mystery of piety which “ has been delivered [παρεδόθη] to us by the Word himself and “ God,” and having spoken of “the faith put forth by the Lord of all,” he adds,—“ which [faith] word for word we keep pure and “ intact as we received it, and judge the least depravation of the “ words delivered [παραδοθέντων] the extreme of blasphemy and “impiety. We believe therefore as our Lord set forth the faith * to his disciples, saying, ‘ Go and teach all nations,’ &c...... “ This faith delivered by God to the Apostles we neither “ diminish nor change nor add to.”!_ Where it is evident that Scripture only is referred to. And Holy Scripture is often referred to by the Fathers as having come down to them by successional delivery from one to another from the times of the Apostles through the succession of bishops and pastors of the Church. An instance occurs in a passage of Augustine given p. 169, below. Eruram Syrus. (fi. a. 370.) “ The end and aim of piety,” says Ephrem Syrus, “is clearly “ set before us ; it consists, namely, in our believing agreeably “ to the sacred declarations of the Gospels, and the rest of the “ Holy Scriptures, giving ourselves up also to every good work, “ and to the cultivation of every virtue.”? And again, he sums up the Christian’s faith in a belief in “ those things that are written in the divine Scriptures.”* 1 Τῇ παρὰ τοῦ δεσπότου τῶν ὅλων ἐκτεθείσῃ πίστει: ἣν ἐπὶ λέξεως καθαρὰν καὶ ἀπαρεγχείρητον φυλάσσομεν ὡς παρελάβομεν" καὶ τὴν ἐν ὀλίγῳ παρατροπὴν τῶν παραδοθέντων ῥημάτων ἐσχάτην κρίνοντες βλασφημίαν τε καὶ ἀσέβειαν. Πιστεύ- ομεν οὖν καθὼς ἐξέθετο τοῖς μαθηταῖς τὴν πίστιν 5 Κύριος 6 εἰπών" ὅτι πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε kK. T.A...... ταύτης οὖν παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις παραδοθείσης τῆς πίστεως, οὔτε ὑφαίρεσιν, οὔτε παραλλαγὴν, οὔτε προσθήκην ποιούμεθα. ID. Contra Eunom. orat. i. init. tom. ii. p. 2. (orat. 2. init. tom. ii. ed. 1638.) 2 Σκοπὸς τῆς εὐσεβείας προκείμενος εἰς τὸ πιστεύειν κατὰ τὰς ἱερὰς τῶν εὐαγ- γελίων καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν ἐπαγγελίας, ἐπιδιδόντας ἑαυτοὺς εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν καὶ εἰς πᾶσαν Gperis ἐπιτήδευσιν. Eruram. Syr. Instit. ad Monach. Op. ed. Rom. 1732 et seq. tom. iii. p. 325. 3 Σὺ δὲ πιστεύε, ἀγαπητὲ, τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἐν ταῖς θείαις