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,