-■"^ ON THE RIGHT USE Cfjf €nvl}} jfatljrrs; TWO SERIES OF LECTUEES, DELIVERED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE. BY THE I^EV. J. J. BLTJNT, B.D., LATR MAROARF.T PROFESSOR OF MVINTTV. LONDON: JOHN MUIUIAY. AIJ'.EMARLE STREET. 18r,7. c ■ lONpON ! PRrNTED BY WOODPALI. AND KIXPKR, ANQEI, COURT, SKINVER STREET. PREFACE. It was stated by Professor Blunt, in the Introductory Lecture on the Study of the early Fathers, which he dehvered ^ shortly after his election to the Margaret Professorsliip, that he intended to "take the Fathers successively in their order ; submitting to " his hearers " the pith and body of each ; some portions of them abridged ; but much of them, especially such passages as seem to have a peculiar value and force, literally .... translated." ^ His Lectui'cs, during the five years which ensued, were in accordance with this announce- ment ; and it was not until he had gone through a con- siderable number of the early Fathers in this way, that the Course " On the Eight Use " of them, consisting of two Series, was delivered, the first in the October Term of 1845, the second in the October Term of 1840; subsequent to which, additions were made to many of the Lectures, and the Second Series, especially, was considerably enlarged. It may be presumed, there- fore, that this conrse exhibits, in a connected form, the c(i))rh/.si()/)s to wliicli the autlmr iiitciidccl to lead jijs liearcrs by the detailed oxamination of tin- Fathers, ' In 1S40. It was fallowed bv a second Introductory Lecture deli- vered in 1843.— Sec "Two Introduc- tory Lectures on the Study of the Karly Fathers, with a brief Memoir of the Author." Cambridge, 18.5G. '' First Introductory Lecture, p. G. 38CG9G iv PREFACE. through which he had conducted them ; and for this reason the}^ have been selected with the greater confi- dence for pubhcation, in preference to others, which remain among his papers. With regard to the manner in which the subject is treated, it may be remembered that in the Introductory Lecture abeady referred to, the author, after enu- merating some of the allowances, which he says " must undoubtedly be made by us, when reading the writings of the Fathers," observes that these "may be made, consistently with a very high sense of the value of their testimony in general, and a very wholesome application of it on the whole ;" ^ and that " we must be careful not to let our estimate of the worth, or wortlilessness of the Tathers, be formed at second hand, from a mere perusal of such authors as Daille and Barbep-ac, whose only object is to single out whatever imperfections they present, and place them before their readers in con- tinuous succession, and without one lucid interval of merit." ^ This observation is enlarged upon in the First Series, which is arranged in the form of an answer to the objections of Daille and Barbep-ac; but the Lec- tm-es are not devoted exclusively to that purpose, the author, as he proceeds, discussing several questions which receive illustration from the Fathers, and so con- ducting his defence of them, that occasion is repeatedly taken of showing that their testimony is favourable to the Eeformed Church of England, especially upon those points in which she is opposed to the Church of Eome. In the same way the earlier Lectures of the Second Series are arranged in the form of answers to the in- sinuations of Gribbon ; and it is shown how the writings of the Fathers may be made tributary to the E^ddences of Cliristianit}^, and to other questions connected with 1 First Introductory Lecture, p. 38. ^ p. 39. PREFACE. V its early liistoiy ; the rank and character of the Chris- tians ; the nature, the extent, and the intensity of the persecutions they underwent. Here, also, the use of the Fathers is fiu'ther exempHfied in tlie inquiry concerning the continuance of miracidous powers, and concerning the natiu-e and constitution of the Cliurch, in settling the Canon, in ascertaining the text, and in unfolding the meaning of Scripture. And as it had been urged in the Introductory Lecture that where the Eomanist, the Puritan, or the Socinian, are at issue with om'selves respecting ^lie true interj^retation of the inspired text, there is no better way of " testing our respective opi- nions, than by recourse to the Primitive Church ; " ' the Socinian and Calvinistic schemes of interpretation are here subjected to this test, as the peculiar tenets of the Romanist are in the Pirst Series : while, in the con- cluding Lecture, the importance of a knowledge of the Fathers, to the expositor of Scripture, is fm-ther argued from the information they furnish on early heresies, and other points, obscui-ely alluded to in the New Testa- ment ; and a few instances are added of their own expo- sition of particular texts. The use of the Fathers might have been also exem- plified by showing how they discover to us the fomida- tions of our Prayer Book ; and indeed, on one occasion, a Lecture upon this subject was introduced after the seventh of the Second Series ; but as it had been ori- ginally wTitten for another course, " On the Prayer Book," which may hereafter be published, it appeared better not to separate it from that course. It may be stated, like\vise, that the latter part of the Second Series was variously divided into Lectures on the different occasions of its delivery, but it was thought convenient, in preparing that part of the work for the • First Introductorj Lecture, pp. 34, 35, 36. vi PREFACE. press, to mate the divisions into Lectiu'es agree, as nearly as possible, with the principal divisions of the subject, No other alteration has been made, excepting the correction of a few accidental inaccuracies, and nothing has been added but the running titles of the pages, and the short summaries which are placed at the heads of the Lectures, and which form, when taken together, the Table of Contents. There is reason to think that some of the Lectures would have been enriched with additional illustrations, if the author had lived to perfect the work, and prepare it for the press, as he had intended. It is hoped, how- ever, that its pubhcation in the shape in which he left it, may serve to promote the design which he had at heart in composing it; by inducing the theological student to turn his " attention next after the Scriptures to the Primitive Fathers ; not with blind allegiance, as authorities to which he must in all things bow, but with such respect as is due to the only witnesses we have, of the state and opinions of the Church imme- mediately after the Apostles' times, and such as the Chm-ch of England herself encom^ages." ^ * First Introductory Lecture, pp. 11, 12. CONTENTS. FIRST SEEIES. On tub Objections to the Study uf tue Fatueus advanced by Daille and by Baubeybac. LECTURE I. I'AGE The study of the early Fathers recommended. Their testimony ap- pealed to by the Church of England in the Prayer Book, in the Articles, in the Canons ; and by the Reformers, e.g. Jewel, Philpot, Griudal. Decline of iv\'ercnce for autitiuity at the period of the Rebellion. Milton. Effect of the Revolution. Influence of foreign Reformers. Treatises of Daille and Barbeyrao .... 3 LECTURE n. Division of Daille's treatise into two heads. His first argument in support of his first proposition. Unfairness of it. Discussion of a passage in Euscbius. Fragments of the early Fathers collected by Dr. Ilouth. Illustrations of their value. Second argument of Daille. Incidental allusions to important topics in the Fathers, overlooked by him. Their evidence not to be gathered without careful study. Illustration of this in establishing the doctrine and ritual of the Church. And in the Romish controversy, e.;/. on Trau.->ul)stantia- tion, the Papal Supremacy, Auricular Confession, Image Worship , 26 LECTURE III. Third argument of Daill6 — its insufficiency to establish his proposition. The jec- tion of Daille. The appeal to the Fathers not excluded by the sixth Article. Discretion of our Church in her use of them. Scripture and Antiquity the authorities appealed to by our Reformers . . 204 LECTURE X. Occasion of Barbeyrac's work. His imperfect acquaintance with the Fathers, and misconstruction of their writings. His charge against CONTENTS. TAOE Justin, that he encouraged volunteering martyrdomj examined. Sen- timents of Clemens, TertuUian, Origen, Cyprian, on this subject. Warmth of their language accounted for. Martyrdom instrumental in the establishment of Christianity. Language of the Fathers con- cerning marriage explained by the circumstances of their times. True view of the case given by TertuUian in his treatise Ad Uxorem. Extravagances of later times not chargeable on the early Fathers . 226 LECTURE XL Further illustration of the defect in Barbeyrac's reasoning. Examina- tion of his charge against TertuUian of interdicting trades connected with idolatry, the profession of arms, national customs, offices of state. Unfairness of regarding in the abstract what was meant only to apply to particular circumstances. Sentiments of TertuUian and Cyprian on self-defence accounted for. Justification of idolatry among the Pagans in Clemens, owing to a misinterpretation of Deut. iv. 19. His real opinion on that subject. Defence of writers subse- quent to the third century declined. Late ecclesiastical antiquity less deserving of confidence. Subjects of the second Series . . 250 SECOND SERIES. On the Advantages to be derived from the Stddv oi' THE Early Fathers. LECTURE I. Use of the Fathers in relation to the Evidences. Their testimony to the wide disjjersion of the Gospel opposed to the statements of Gib- bon. His unfairness in citing them. Argument from their incidental allusions. More direct testimony to the early establishment of Christianity on the shores of the Mediterranean and Euxine, and in the countries beyond the Euphrates. Its secret progress illus- trated from the Acts, from St. Paul's Epistles, from the Fathers. Its disturbance of the social relations instrumental to its propagation. Exposition of Phil. i. 12-18. Further illustrations. Effect of the public games 271 C0NTE2^TS. xi LECTURE II. The insinuation of Gibbon respecting the rank and character of the early Christians, originally advanced by the heathen opponents of Christianity, and answered by the Apologists. The fact, that many persons of wealth and education were Christians, proved, from the acquirements of the Fathers, from their specific assertion of it, from their addressing themselves to the rich and iutelligtut, from the fund at the disposal of the Church. Variety of demands upon the pecuniary resources of the Christians. Remarks on the Libel- latici 294 LECTURE in. The insinuation of Gibbon, that the Church was recruited, 1°. By abandoned characters, suggested by Celsus, inconsistent with the primitive discipline, the probation before Baptism, the responsibility attaching to the sponsors, the appeal of the Apologists to the pure morality of the Christians, their charges of laxity against the heretics and the philosophers, the treatment of the lapsed, the fre- quency of excommunication : 2°. By mercenary persons, repudiated by Origen, inconsistent with the precautions used against mercenary motives and the maladministration of the Church fund, and with a passage in the Constitutions: 3°. By foundlings, incapable of being substantiated by any positive evidence. Probability that it might happen occasionally. Negative proof that it did not happen sys- tematically. How the Church fund was really expended . . 318 LECTURE IV. The opinion of Sir James Mackintosh on Gibbon's sixteenth chapter. The statements of the latter to be corrected by a review of the early Fathers. Their testimony, 1°. To the extent of the persecutions of the Christians. The classification into ten great persecutions un- tenable. Inquiry whether the edicts of Nero and Domitian were repealed. Effect of those of Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus. Chris- tianity a capital offence from the time of Nero downwards. Martyr- dom of Ignatius. Remarks of TertuUian on Trajan's edict. Subse- quent activity of persecution. That at Lyons and Vicnne a sample of others. The assertion of Origen respecting the number of mar- tyrs relative, not positive. Motives in various quarters for setting persecution on foot 338 LECTURE V. Testimony of the Fathers, 2°. To the intemiti/ of the persecutions, unduly extenuated by Gibbon. Rellcctions on his account of the Xii CONTENTS. Letter of Pliny and of the martyrdom of Cyprian. Early narratives of martyrdom not to be confounded with the fictions of later times. The sources of information as reliable as those from which Gibbon drew his history. Explanation of a passage in Eusebius unfairly used by him. 3°. To the nature of the persecutions. Domestic as well as official ones foretold by Christ. Verification in the effect of Christianity on the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, master and servant. Its inconsistency with many trades and occu- pations. Consequent pecuniary losses to the converts. Their em- barrassment in legal and commercial proceedings .... 363 LECTURE VI. Review of passages in the early Fathers bearing witness to the exercise of miraculous jwivers in their times. Unanimity of this testimony. Estimate, which ought to be formed of it ; and difficulty of resisting it. The powers of exorcism and healing diseases more decidedly asserted than others. Correspondence of this with the terms in which the i^owers were conferred, and with the record of their exer- cise in the Acts. The same correspondence between the Scriptural and Ecclesiastical records observable in another particular. The exercise of miraculous powers by those on whom the Apostles laid their hands established by inspired authority. The theory of the cessation of all miracles with their lives unsatisfactory . . . 384 LECTURE VII. Use of the Fathers in the inquiry concerning the nature ami construc- tion of the Church. The outline of it, which may be inferred from the Acts and the Apostolical Epistles, filled up by them. A standing ministry deriving its authority from the Apostles, and consisting of three Orders, included in their definition of it. Direct proof of this from the Fathers themselves : indirect, from the practice of heretics. Incidental character of the evidence. Variety of quarters from which it is drawn. Conclusion in the words of Hooker . . 407 LECTURE VIII. Use of the Fathers in settling the Canon of the New Testament. Ap- peal to them in the sixth Article. Method of establishing the Canon stated by Jones. Illustration of this method with reference to the Gospels, the Acts, the Epistles, the Revelation. Discussion of ques- tions respecting the autographs of the Apostles ; whether any Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians is missing ; the Epistle to the Laodi- ceans ; the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Use of the CONTENTS. xui PAGE Fathers in proving that the substance of the Canonical books, the beginnings and endings of the Gospels, the incidents of our Lord's ministry, the circumstances recorded in the Acts, the tenour of the Epistles, were the same in their times as they are now . . - 428 LECTURE IX. Use of the Fathers in ascertaining the text of the New Testament. Their motives for accuracy in this particular. Importance of their testimony in establishing the genuineness of whole passages. The impression produced by it increased, when the occasion of it is knowm. Its use further exemplified, where the genuineness of the passage is doubtful, as 1 John v. 7, and the subscription of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. The same testimony of still greater value in the criticism of single words ; opposed to the reading of Griesbach and Wetstein in Acts xx. 28, and to that of the " Im- proved Version" in Rom. ix. 5. Some other examples . . . 452 LECTURE X. Use of the Fathers in unfolding the meaning of Scripture : I. Their testimony opposed to the Socinian scheme, 1°. In the spirit of their expositions, which is evangelical, not rationalistic. Extent to which the Old Testament is applied by them to Jesus Christ. Concurrence of our Church and of our standard Divines in this principle of in- terpretation. The proof of it from the Fathers independent of the merit of their particular expositions. Actual uncertainty as to the extent of symbolical teaching in Scripture. 2°. On the doctrine of the Trinity. Statement of the Racovian Catechism. The Creed of the early Church shown to have been Trinitarian from the exposi- tion of particular texts ; from the opinions of early heretics ; from primitive practices and formularies ; and from the correspondence of the Athanasian Creed with the writers of the first three centuries. Unguarded language of these writers, especially of Origen, accounted for ■!"■* LECTURE XI. The testimony of the Fathers opposed to the Socinian scheme, 3°. On the doctrine of the Atonement. Statement of the Racovian Cate- chism. The death of Christ, according to the Fathers, a sacrifice — expiatory, vicarious, universally necessary. Unreasonableness and hardihood of rejecting a doctrine thus guaranteed. A^. On the nature and effect of Baptism. Statement of the Racovuvn Catechism. Unanimity of the Fathers on Baptismal Regeneration. Variety of XIV CONTENTS. I'AQE forms in which they assert it. The effect of Baptism, according to them, the work of the Holy Ghost. Their account of it meant to apply to infants as well as to adults. Evidence for Infant Baptism. The office of sponsors recognized. The benefit not ascribed to the opus operatum, but represented as contingent on the observance of the Baptismal promises. Strictness of the early Church in this particular 518 LECTURE XII. The testimony of the Fathers opposed to the Socinian scheme, 5°. On the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Statement of the Racovian Catechism. Sentiments of the Fathers. The Eucharist contem- plated by them, first as a sacrifice, not material (except as including an oblation of the fruits of the earth), but commemorative of the Sacrifice of Christ ; and secondly, as the spiritual food of his Body and Blood. Their testimony unfavourable to the Romish as well as to the Socinian views. The benefit not ascribed to the opus operatum, but represented as dependent on the fitness of the recipient. Strict- ness in this particular ' . 5.'34 LECTURE XIII. Use of the Fathers in unfolding the meanincj of Scripture : II. Their testimony opposed to the Calvinistic scheme, 1°. On the freedom of the will. The assertion of it by the Fathers distinct and em- phatic. 2°. On the degree of human corruption. The consequences of the Fall recognized by the Fathers, but not in a manner satisfac- tory to the Calvinist. Their language upon this point dubious and conflicting. Cause of their embarrassment. Illustrations. Vindi- cation of the Fathers from the charge of Pelagianism. Their teach- ing on the necessity of Divine grace for the recovery and restoration of man . 581 LECTURE XIV. The testimony of the Fathers opposed to the Calvinistic scheme of interpretation, 3°. On the nature of spiritual influence. The lan- guage of the Fathers incompatible with the Calvinistic doctrine of irresistible grace. 4°. On election and reprobation. What the Fathers understood by the terms, foreknown, elect, predestined, saints. Their exposition of passages of Scripture relating to this subject. Prophecy, according to them, an evidence of the Divine Foreknowledge, yet not so as to control the contingency of events. Tenets akin to the Calvinistic ascribed by Origen to the Valentinians. His exposition of Rom. ix. CI 7 CONTENTS. XV PAQE LECTURE XV. Use of the Fathers in unfoUling the meaning of Scripture : III. Pie- vailing niistake of ai>plying a modern standard of interpretation to passages which sliould he explained by reference to an ancient one. The information, which the Fatliers give, on early heresies, the true key to much of the Now Testament. The method of Dr. Hammond suhstantially correct. Succession of heresies. Observation of Tcr- tullian. Illustration of it from the writings of St. John. St. Paul explained with reference to the Gnostic heresy by Irenncus. Appli- cation of the same method by Tertullian. Further allusions to the doctrines and phraseology of the Gnostics discoverable in the Apos- tolical Epistles. IV. Interpretation of individual texts by the Fathers. Their comments not always to be relied on ; yet often superior to those of modern days. Illustrations .... G32 LECTURES EIGHT USE OF THE EARLY FATHERS. FIEST SEEIES. ON THE OBJECTIONS TO THE STUDY OF THE FATHERS ADVANCED BY DAILL6 AND BARBEYRAC. " Qui divino theologia; studio operam datis, qui chartis potissimum sacris impallescitis ; qui venerandum sacerdotis officium aut occupatis aut ambitis ; qui tremendam animarum curam susceptm-i estis ; excutite prtEsentis sreculi pruriEum, fugite affectatam noTitatem, quod fuit ab initio quEcrite, fontes consulite, ad antiquitatem confugite, ad sacros Patres redite, ad Ecclesiam primitivam respicite ; h. e. ut cum propheta nostro loquar ; Interrocjate de semitis antiquisr — Bp. Pearson. Concio I. Minor Theological Works, vol. ii. p. 6. Ye who are devoting yourselves to the divine study of theology ; ye who are growing pale over the sacred Scriptures above all ; ye who either already occupy the venerable office of the priest, or aspire to do so ; ye who are about to undertake the awful care of souls ; put away from you the taste of the times ; have nothing to do with the novelties that are in vogue ; search how it was in the beginning ; go to the fountain-head ; look to antiquity ; return to the reverend Fathers ; have respect unto the Primitive Church ; that is, to use the words of the prophet I am handling, Ask for the old paths. Jer. vi. 16. ON THE RIGHT USE THE EARLY FATHERS. LECTURE I. The study of the early Fathers recommended. Their testimony appealed to by the Church of England in the Prayer Book, in the Articles, in the Canons ; and by the Reformers, e. g. Jewel, Philpot, Grindal. Decline of reverence for antiquity at the period of the Rebellion. Milton. Effect of the Revolution. Intluence of foreign Reformers. Treatises of Daille and Barbeyrac. T DO not think that I shall be omploying my time or -'- yours ill, if I call your attention in a course of lec- tures to the rifjht use of the earJij Fathers and the force ^^ the objections made against them. It is true that A\hen on Ibrmer occasions I have produced an anal3^sis of them successively, I have not lost sight of this object ; and having completed the abstract of each, I have briefly shown the purposes such Father might serve, and the questions he might be made to illustrate. I have rea- son to hope that a more correct estimate of the merits and defects of these primitive authors has bet'n formed, t>r is in the course of formation, amongst many of the younger students of this phice. Still I cannot but observe, in mixing ^N^th society in the country, that the amount of real knowledge on this subject generally dispersed is very small — very snudl even amongst the B 2 4 THE FATHiililS APPEALED TO BY OUR CHURCH [Series I. clergy themselves — and the smallest of all amongst such of them as deal in the loudest declamation against pa- tristic authority, a subject still much misunderstood, and regarded with a jealousy altogether unreasonable. Now whatever may be the case with the Protestant Churches on the Continent, nothing can be clearer than that the Eeformed Church of England does refer her members very constantly to these Fathers ; does make her appeals to them with great confidence ; that Isaac Casaubon, in writing to Salmasius, Ep. 837, a passage quoted by Dr. Wordsworth in his very valuable Tlieo- philus Anglicanus,^ has reason to say, " Si me conjectm^a non fallit, totius Eeformationis pars integerrima est in Anglia, ubi cum studio veritatis viget studium antiqui- tatis." So that to treat them with contempt, whicli so many, and those even ministers of her communion do, is to act as much in violation of the spirit of that Church as others are represented by them to do, w^hose bias lies in another direction. I made this appear, some time ago, in two introductory Lectures to the study of the Fathers, which I pubhshed, as well as since, in many incidental remarks which have fallen from me in the course of my lectures themselves. Without, therefore, repeating at full all the details I may have put you already in possession of, I shall still think it best to remind you, at the opening of this present series, of a few of the more undeniable tokens of this characteristic of our Church, her respect for antiquity, in order to jus- tify myself in making the right use of the early Fathers, and the consideration due to the objections levelled at them, the express argument of a course of lectures ; in order to show that in thus employing myself and you, I am acting strictly in accordance with the instructions she gives me, as a Professor in her schools ; and in order to vindicate our own University (if vindication ' Part II. ch. V. Lect.1.] IN THE rilAYER BOOK; ' she wants) in causing the Fathers to be an element in the theok^gical examination to which she now invites those amonofst her students who have an intention of entering into Holy Orders. You will find our Church, then, explaining the prin- ciples on which her Prayer Book is constructed, in the preface to it, in the follo^^ing language : — First of all she remarks that " there was never an}'thing by the wit of man so well de^-ised, or so sure established, which in continuance of time hath not been corrupted : as, among other things, it may plainly appear by the Com- mon Prayers in the Church, commonly called Divine Ser- \4ce. The first original and ground whereof, if a man would search out by the ancient Fathers, he shall find that the same was not ordained but of a good purpose, and for a great advancement of godliness." She then goes on to lament that for " these many years passed," (/. e. in Romish times) "tliis godly and decent order of the ancient Fathers hath been altered, broken, and neglected, b}' planting in imcertain stories and legends, with multitude of responds, verses, vain repetitions," &-C. She then proceeds to announce that these incon- veniences having been considered, " such an Order " (in the Common Prayer Book) was " set forth, whereby the same " were " redressed." And she concludes with re- commending her Prayer Book as " an Order for Prayer, and for the reading of the Holy Scripture, much agree- able to the mind and purpose of the old Fathers, and a great deal more profitable and commodious, than that which of late was used." Such is the spirit in which our Prayer Book was com- piled ; and if you examine it in detail, you will perceive at once how very large a part, both of its liturgy and ceremonial — how many of its prayers and hymns — how much of its creeds — how great a proportion of its sacra- mental offices and rules — it owes to early antiquity. lIN THE ARTICLES ; [Series I. The Articles, as not deriving their original construc- tion from the same primitive date, but begun and per- fected during the period of the Reformation itself, have naturally less of this primitive complexion, and conse- quently find greater favour than the Liturgy in the eyes of those who would have been better pleased, had our Eeformation proceeded upon principles of more extreme Protestantism, and who woidd, therefore, be ready to adopt the Articles, and the Articles only, as the test of heresy; thus dismtegrating the Prayer Book, and de- posing the authority of that portion of it which, if any comparison is to be instituted between the several parts, certainly occupies the more direct channel of primitive tradition. It will be perceived, however, that though not formed expressly out of ancient models, they are to a very great degree consistent with ancient patristical precedent, and have been shown to correspond in the main, both in sentiment and phraseology, with the writings of the Primitive Church, both by Bishop Beveridge in his notes on his Exposition of the Ar- ticles ; by Welchman ; more recently and more fully by Mr. Harvey ' ; and still more recently by Mr. Browne.^ Nor, indeed, does the language itself of the Articles fail, occasionally t least, to point to this fact; sufficiently often, at &nj rate, to show that their compilers were not under the impression which now prevails among so many, that those writings are but dangerous edge-tools. Thus, in the 6th Article, we read of the " Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament," being those " of whose authority there Avas never any doubt in the Church ; " of the Church reading " other books (as Hierome saith) for example of life and instruction of manners." In the 24th, of its bemg " repugnant to ' EcclesiEe Anglicanee Vindex Ca- tholicus. CantaLrigia;, m.dccc.xli. 2 An Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, by Edw. Harold Browne, M.A., 1S50. Lcct. I.] IN TUE CANONS OF 1571 ; IN THE ORDINAL ; 7 the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people." In the 3.Jth, of the Books of the Homilies containinc^ " a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times," the very plan of which Books of Homilies, be it remembered, from first to last, is to argue by appeals first to Scripture and then to the Fathers. It would be waste of time to give proofs of this. Such is the spii'it of the Articles. Ko wonder, therefore, that in the canons of 1571, it should be enjoined on preachers, " Concionatores," " Fii'st and foremost to take heed, that they do not teach any- thing in their sermons as though they would have it scrupidously held and believed by the people, save what is agreeable to the doctrme of the Old and New Tes- tament, and what the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops have gathered from that doctrine." Or that the Bishop in the Ordination Ser^dce for Priests, is in- structed to inquire of the candidate who presents him- self for imposition of hands, whether he will " be diligent in Prayers, and in reading of the Holy Scriptures, and in such studies as help to the knowledge of the same" — what studies do help to such knowledge in the esti- mation of the Church being made sufficiently manifest by the canon just recited, which may be taken, indeed, as a comment on the Bishop's question. For though these canons may not be technically binding, howbeit subscribed by the Bishops of both provinces, and ap- proved by the Queen, but as it happened not ratified by her In ("orm ' ; yet as coming out in the very year, 1571, when the Book of Articles was again solemnly approved by the Queen and Convocation, they may well be used to interpret the animus of the Church. And as if the Church would hersell", by her own authoritative ' Griudul'a Remains, edited for the Parker Society, i>. 327. 8 IN THE CANONS OF 1603 ; [Series 1. teacliing, give lier ministers an example of the manner in which this knowledge of the primitive Pathers would enable them to maintain her cause against her enemies and gainsayers, and the way in which she would have it applied by them, she proposes in her 30th Canon to defend the use of the Cross in Baptism, alleging, amongst other arguments, that " the honour and dignity of the name of the Cross begat a reverend estimation even in the Apostles' times (for aught that is known to the contrary) of the sign of the Cross, which the Christians shortly after used in all their actions ; " that they " signed there- with their children when they w^ere christened, to dedi- cate them by that badge to his service, whose benefits bestowed upon them in Baptism the name of the Cross did represent; " that "this use of the sign of the Cross in Baptism was held in the Primitive Church, as well by the Grreeks as the Latins, with one consent and great applause ;" that if at that time " any had opposed them- selves against it, they would certainly have been censured as enemies of the name of the Cross, and consequently of Christ's merits, the sign whereof they could no better endiire ; " that " this continual and general use of the sign of the Cross is evident by many testimonies of the ancient Fathers." And then, from the particular case under consideration passing on to the general principle, the canon continues, that " it must be confessed, that in process of time the sign of the Cross was greatly abused in the Church of Eome, especially after that corruption of popery had once possessed it ; " but that " the abuse of a thing doth not take away the lawful use of it. Nay, so far was it from the purpose of the Church of England to forsake and reject the Chui'ches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any such Hke Churches, in all things wdiich they held and practised, that, as the Apology of the Church of England confesseth, it doth with reverence retain those ceremonies, which do neither Lect. I.] AND BY THE REFORMERS ; 9 endamage the Church of God, nor otiend the minds of soher. men ; and only departed from them in those par- tieuhir points, wlierein they were I'allen both from them- selves in their ancient integrity, and from the Apostolical Chm-ches, which were their first founders." And then reverting to the case which gave rise to these general remarks, the use of the Cross in Baptism, the canon proceeds, that accordingly " for the very remembrance of the Cross, which is very precious to all them that rightly beUeve in Jesus Christ, and in the other respects mentioned, the Church of England hath retained still the sign of it in Baptism : following therein the Primi- tive and Apostolical Churches ; " that " the use of the sign of the Cross in Baptism, being thus pm-ged from all popish superstition and error, and reduced in the Church of England to the primary institution of it, upon those true rules of doctrine concerning things inditl'erent, wliich are consonant to the "Word of God, and the judgment of all the ancient fathers" it is "the part of every private man, both minister and other, reverently to retain the true use of it prescribed by public authority." I have given the substance of this canon at greater length, as considering it a fair specimen of the line of argument which our Church suggests as the safe and judicious one for her ministers to take in dealing with popish antagonists, and as gi"s^ng evidence of the im- pression she wishes her members to receive with respect to the principles of the Reformation, and the spirit with which she desires to animate them. Accordingly if you look at Jewel (to whose Apology you see this very canon refers, affording it, as it were, an indirect sanction), you will perceive throughout the work this same characteristic of the Reformation, a re- verence for antiquity — his argument the whole Apology through adverting to the Primitive Church, to Scripture 1 JEWEL. [Series I. and tlie testimony of the Catholic Fathers, to the witness of the ancient Fathers and ancient Councils, to the inodel of primitive times, to the Church of the old Catholic Bishops and Fathers, for so continual are his allusions to this topic, that he has to ring all the changes he can think of on the terms, in order to relieve his style. Nor is there anything singular in the instance of Jewel. The reverence for antiquity is a feature, more or less marked, of the temperament of almost every member of the Church of England of that day, of whom we know anything at all. How, indeed, could it be otlier\Adse? It was an mheritance to which they succeeded. Instead of tiu'ning, as we do in these days, to a contemporary commentator, or to one who has not preceded us by more than a few generations, to a Hammond, a Patrick, a Whitby, a Henry, or a Scott ; they as naturally took from their shelves an Augustine or a Jerome, a Basil or a Chrysostom, or some catena collected out of the works of these or other authors of a like date. Did they want a form of prayer? Instead of devising one for them- selves, they betook themselves to the old liturgies, and based their own upon those. All the controversies that took place at the Reformation, and long afterwards, are deeply involved in the investigation of antiquity — it was a line of debate which none shrank from. It is a spirit foreign to that of the Reformation, and one that has sprung up since the Reformation, or at least which has gathered all its strength since that event, which is regardless of antiquity — a spirit which various causes have served to foster, which I may touch upon by and by — but as a practical and easy way of convincing yourselves that I am not misrepresenting the Reformers, turn to the series of works edited by the Parker Society, edited, no doubt, from a feeling that it was time, as it indeed was, to draw the country back to the contempla- tion of the sentiments of the Reformers, and so provide Lcct. I.] RIDLEY. 1 1 a caveat a;t tlio supposed increasmf;^ allurements of Kome. Is it then found, tliat because those Ixeformers resisted the Pope, and the abuses of the Chiu'ch over which he presided, even to the death, that they flinched from the test of antiquity ? That they set themselves to dispara<2:e and vilily the Fathers, who are the wit- nesses of it ? If any expected to discover this in them, they must by this time have perceived their mistake. Xo such disposition is theirs, but the contrary. I waive such an example as that of Eidley, one of the authors whose writings and dissertations that Society has pub- lished, and a very mainspring of the Eeformation, in- deed the ablest and the most learned, perhaps, of its leaders. I waive him, because he may be justly con- sidered to have taken higher Church grounds than many others in that great movement, probably higher than those ^^'ith whom he more immediately acted; and I content myself with those who had the reputation of being amongst the lowest and most liberal Churchmen of their time ; and who on that account have ever been spoken of with tenderness, if not with affection, by dis- senters themselves. Even in these I observ^e a respect lor patristic authority, such as would now expose the party who entertained it to reproach. Tims let us take the case of Philpot, the friend of Bradford ' ; the ap- prover of the Church of Geneva, and the doctrine of the same ^ ; the admirer of Cal\dn and of his Institutes ' ; one, therefore, we may be sure, who was no type of the Higli-Church party of his time. What, then, are the sentiments that we find him advocating with respect to the reverence due to antiquity, and to the Fathers its expositors? I give some of them in the order in which they occur in the jiublication itself. "Why, do you not think that wt- have ik.w tlie true ' Phil pot's Examinations and | ' p. 153. ' p. 4G. Writings, p. xiv. 12 PHILPOT. [Series I. faith?" is one of Bonner's questions to Mm. " I desire yonr Lorclsliip to liold me excused for answering at this time — I am sure that God's Word thoroughly, with the Primitive Church, and all the ancient writings do agree with this faith I am of" — is Philpot's reply. ^ " Take the book" (a copy of Irenseus) " Master Philpot, and look iipon that place, and there may you see how the Church of Eome is to be followed of all men;" saith to him the Bishop of Gloucester. Philpot takes the book, and sifts the passage^ and then concludes, " but the Church of Eome hath swerved from that truth and simphcity of the Gospel, which it maintained in Irenseus's time, and was then uncor- rupted from that which it is now : wherefore your Lord- ships cannot justly apply the authority of Irenseus to the Church of Eome now, which is so manifestly cor- rupted from the Primitive Church."^ " I pray you," says the Bishop of Gloucester once more, " by whom will you be judged in matters of controversy which happen daily?" ''Philpot. By the Word of God. For Christ saith in St. John, the Word that He spake shall be judge in the latter day." " Gloucester. Wliat if you take the Word one way, and I another way? who shall be judge then?" " PhiJjiot. The Primitive Church." " Gloucester. I know you mean the Doctors that wrote thereof." ''Philpot. I mean verily so."* " I pray you," saith the Bishop of Coventry, " can you tell what this word ' Catholic' doth signify ? Shew, if you can." " Philpot. Yes, that I can, I thank God I esteem ' Philpot's Examinations and Writings, p. 17. 2 Irenseus, III. c. iii. § 2. Philpot's Examinations, p. 25. p. 29. Lect I.] PHILPOT. 1 -^ tlie Catholic Church to be as St. Au»^mstine defineth the same : ' We judge,' saith he, ' the Catholic faith, of that which liatli been, is, and shall be.' So that, if you can be able to prove that your liiith and Church hath been from the beginning taught, and is, and shall be, then may you count yourselves Catholic, otherwise not."^ "Jll the Catholic Chm-ch (imtil these few years)," saith the Bishop of St. Asaph, "have taken him" (the Bishop of Eome) "to be the supreme head of the Church, besides this good man Irenaeus." '' PhUpot. That is not likely, that Irena?us so took him, or the Primitive Church : for I am able to shew seven general Councils after Irena^us's time, wherein he was never so taken; which may be a sufficient proof, that the CathoHc Primitive Church never took him for supreme head.""^ " Bishop of Coventry. AMiy will you not admit the Church of Pome to be the Catholic Church?" " FhiIj)ot. Because it followeth not the Primitive Catholic Church, neither agreeth with the same, no more than an apple is like a nut." " Coventry. Wherein doth it dissent ? " " Philpot. It were too long to recite all; but two tilings I ^^'iU name, the Supremacy, and Transubstan- tiation. . . . Transubstantiation is but a late plantation of the Bishop of Eome ; and you are not able to shew any ancient writer, that the Primitive Church did beheve any such thing." " Coventry. How prove you that the Church of Pome now dissenteth in doctrine and use of the Sacraments from the Primitive Church?" '' PItilpot. Compare the one with the other, and it shall soon appear ; as you may see both in Eusebius and other ecclesiastical and ancient trr iters.' ' » Philpot's Examination.s, pp. 37, 38. » p. 39. ' p. 4a 14 PIIILPOT. [Series I. " London. How long hath your Chui'ch stood, I pray 3^ou? " Pinljwt. Even from the beginning ; from Clirist, and from his Apostles, and from their immediate succes- sors." " Chancellor. He wdll prove his Chm-ch to be before Christ!" " Phijjjot. If I did so, I go not amiss : for there was a Church before the coming of Christ, which maketh one Catholic Church." " Chancellor. It is so indeed." ^' Fhilpot. I ^NoU desire no better rule than the same which is oftentimes brought in of your side, to prove both my faith and Church Catholic ; that is, antiquiti/, universality and unity." "London. Do you not see what a bragging foolish fellow this is ? He would seem to be very well seen in the doctors, and he is but a fool. By what doctor art thou able to prove thy Chui'ch? Name him, and thou shalt have him," "■ FhUpot. My Lord, let me have all your ancient writers, with pen, and ink, and paper, and / icill prove both my faith and my Church out of every one of them!'^ I had transcribed a good many passages from the writings of Philpot, as published by the Parker Society, to the same effect ; and meant to have produced them all, but I fear it may weary you — possibly indeed you may think I have quoted more than enough abeady; but I have laid these before you, because in the first place I bear in mind, when composing these Lectures, that some of my hearers are yomig, and have not yet had time to make themselves masters of points in theo- logy which are very familiar to older heads ; and I would rather be too copious than too concise, for the sake of those to whose use these Lectures are chiefly ' Philpot's Examinations, p. 73. Lcct. I.] GRINDAL. 15 dedicated — and I'urtliermore I have so done, because I could not otlienN'ise adequately possess any of yon with the conviction, how entirely the Church of the Eeformation, so far from ahandoninyf or contemning- the early Fathers, claimed them lor her own, and ar<:jued from them not incidentally and by the by, but systematically and per- severingh', producing them in her controversies without stint or reserve ; and not only the hipric, as being men of an extraordinary calling ; yet, to verify that wliich St. Paul foretold of succeeding times, when men began to have itching ears ; then, not contented with the plentiful and wholesome fountains of tlie Gospel, they began, after their own lusts, to heap to tliemselves teachers ; and, as if the Divine Scripture wanted a supplement, and were to be eked out, they cannot think any doubt resolved, and any doctrine con- firmed, unless they run to that imdigested heap and fry (»f authcjrs, which they call anticpiit}'. Whatsoever time, or the heedless hand of blind chance, liatli drawn down from of old to this present, in her huge drag-net, whether tish or sea-weed, shells or shrubs, unj)icked, un- chosen, those are the Fathers. Seeing, therefore, some men, deeply conversant in books, have had so little care tjf late to give the world a better account of their reading than by divulging needless tractates, stulfed c 2 20 MILTON. [Series I. AN-ith the specious names of Ignatius and Polycarpus ; witli fragments of old martyrologies and legends, to distract and stagger the multitude of credulous readers, and mislead them from their strong guards and places of safety, under the tuition of Holy Writ ; it came into my thoughts to persuade myself, setting all distances and nice respects aside, that I could do rehgion and my country no better service for the time, than doing my utmost endeavour to recall the people of Grod from this vain foraging after straw, and to redace them to their firm stations under the standard of the Grospel ; b}'' making appear to them, first, the insufB.ciency, next, the inconveniency ; and, lastly, the impiety of these gay tes- timonies, that their great doctors would bring them to dote on."^ And, again, in his Dissertation " Of Reformation in England:" " Such were these that must be called the ancientest and most virgin times between Christ and Constantine. Nor was tliis general contagion in their actions and not in their writings. A\nio is ignorant of the foul errors, the ridiculous wresting of Scripture, the heresies, the vanities thick-sown through the volumes of J. Mart3^r, Clemens, Origen, TertuUian, and others of eldest time?"^ Moreover, how entirely ]\Iilton was impressed with the notion, that the Eeformers, properly so called, were governed by feelings, on this particular question, entirely opposed to his own and those of his party, is manifest from another passage in the same tract — a passage, which actually, and, in some degree, even unjustly, con- fomids the Eeformers with the Fathers — so far is Milton, at least, from haA^ing discovered, as many now do, that they are utter antagonists ; the one, all that we can admire ; the other, all that we should eschew. " And here -wdthal I invoke the Immortal Deity, ' Milton's Prose Works, vol. i. pp. 32, 33, Birch's ed. ^ Yo1_ i p_ g Lect I.] MILTON. 21 Eevealer and Judj^-c of all secrets, that, wherever T have in this book plainh" and roundl}' (thuuy;h worthily and truly) laid open the faidts and blemishes of Fathers, Marfj/rs, or Cliristian Emperors, or have otherwise inveii^hed ai:::ainst the eiTor and superstition with vehe- ment expressions, I have done it neither out of malice, nor list to speak evil, nor any vainglory, but of mere necessity to vindicate the spotless truth from an igno- minious bondage, whose native worth is now become of such low esteem, that she is like to find small credit with us for what she can sav, unless she can brinsf a ticket from Cranmer, Latimer, and Bidley ; or prove her- self a retainer of Constantine, and w^ear his badge. More tolerable it were for the Church of GrOD that all these names were utterly aboHshed, like the brazen ser- ])ent, than that man's fond opinion should thus idolize them, and the heavenly truth be thus captivated."' If there be those who sympathize with the great poet in his estimate of the Fathers, are they prepared to join him too in the price he thus sets on the Reformers of our Church ? After contemplating his case, should they not rather be induced to suspect, that the same j^arty who are adverse to the one (whether conscious of tlie fact or not), are, in truth, adverse to both ; and would be found to be so, w^re the tui'bulent times in which ^lilton ^vrote, and which removed restraints and reserve, to return, and all disguise to cease? The crisis, however, of the great Rebellion, which was one of extreme violence, naturally called forth in corresponding strength the principles that were antagonistic to it ; so that if tlicre was then a large and headstrong ]);irty wlio tlius despised antiquitv, and set at nought all reverence for patristical testimony, there was also a most learned and able body of divines, wlio vindicated both — some of the greatest our Churcli lias ever known. 'I'o sudi men ' Milton's Prose Works, vol. i. pp. 4, .J. 23 EFFECT OF THE REVOLUTION. [Series I. as these, and their efforts, allusion is made by Milton in the extracts I have read to you. They may be supposed to have had the advantage in the controversy ; for they had far the most knowledge of the particular kind re- quired for it on their side ^ ; so that, had the cause of antiquity been subjected to no further assault, it would have recovered from this shock. Bvit, after a while, came on the Eevolution ; an event which shed a much more disastrous influence on the taste for patristical learning, because a more enduring and insidious one, than the Eebellion. " Wliat we did at the Eevolution," says Dr. Johnson, " was necessary ; but it broke our constitution."^ Much more might he have said, it broke our Church, which, however, was possibly what he meant. Henceforward a Presbyterian form of Church government was to be recognised and supported by the law of the land in one division of the Island, as clearly as the Episcopalian in the other. The King and Parliament were henceforward taught to halt between the two ; and the great landed proprietors who had estates in both countries, or even private persons who were connected with both by ties of marriage or of trade, were neutralized upon questions of ecclesiastical polity, which would heretofore have been thought vital, and of which the Fathers were the undeniable witnesses. The Non-jurors were the representatives of the old Church feelings of the country ; and became, in conse- quence of their sentiments, now out of fashion, dis- located from a generation which had no sympathy with them; carrying away with them (though not entirely) that regard for primitive times, which with them was destined by degrees almost to expire. Convocation, ^ Milton, indeed, publishing his treatise of Reformation expressly "to help the Puritans, who were," he says, " inferior to the Prelates in learning." — Johnson's Lives of the English Poets, -vol. i. p. 98. 2 Boswell'sLifeof Johnson, vol. V. p. 50, 8vo. 1831. Lect. I.] WESLEY. 23 which miLi:lit have tended to keep it somewhat alive, hy encoiira<;-ini2^ a learned cler^i:}', and by hrin(>;in<^ habitually before the laity ecclesiasticiil topics, which, from the long absence of such a monitor, have now faded so entirely from their minds as simply to call forth, if by chance produced, their su})ercilious dismissal — Convocation soon ceased to have a voice. The Church sunk into the EstabUshment ; and the fruits of the change soon began to discover themselves. By the time of Wesley, the high and holy spirits, which had once animated it, had so far degenerated into the secular, that some re\'ival of it was seen to be plainly necessary. But it was attempted in an age when the ancient ways were forgotten ; and, consequently, in a spu'it new and revolutionary. The old CathoUc usages (as distinguished from the popish), instead of being sought out again, and quickened into wholesome action, were set at nought, and a system then devised, vigorous for the day, but which, ha^^ng no foundations laid in the depth of time and sacred prece- dent, has long since given tokens of decrepitude and decav ; and, so far as it is hkely to survive at all, seems destined to do so as a schism. It has had, however, its eftect on the Church itself; and has helped to harden many even of its clergy in that contempt, or at least dislike, for antiquity and its witnesses, which the other events I have touched on had so grievously engendered already. These were all causes acting to the disadvantage of the Fathers and the disparagement of anti([uity within ourselves. There is one more which I shall name, that operated from without to the same result ; and that is, the character of the Ixeformed Churches abroad, and the intluence it indirectly exerts on the ecclesiastical spirit of our own country. The sympathies of those Churches (as Clarendon tells us') went along with the ' History of the Rebellion, vol. ii. p. '.iO. Oxf. 1720. 24 INFLUENCE OF FOREIGN REFORMERS. [Series I. Puritans in the civil wars, and, no doubt, have attended the Dissenters ever since ; and the works, that have issued from them, have been confessedly composed to damage the credit of the Fathers, who were utterly adverse to much of their polity. Some of these works were wTitten with great ability and knowledge of the subject, but with all the prejudice of the jDartisan. And no books probably have contributed more to depreciate the Fathers, even in this country, than Daille's treatise on the " Eight Use " of them, and Barbep'ac's on their " Morality." Daille's treatise has been circulated with great industry. Though written originally in French, it was translated into the universal language of Latin (a translation revised and supplied with additional mat- ter by the author himself), to give it unrestrained cur- rency,' as well as into local languages. It probably had its effect, even on such men as Chillingworth, and con- tributed to give liis theology the bias it has.^ It cer- tainly has been read by thousands who have never troubled themselves to look into a page of the Fathers for themselves ; nor, after reading it, would they per- haps feel much inclination to do so : yet, without reading the Fathers, it is impossible to see the unfair- ness of Daille's arguments ; and I well remember that all the early years of my life, my impression of these authors was wholly that which Daille had given me ; as almost all the laboui-s of my later years have tended to efface it. I shall not, therefore, think my pains misem- ployed, if I devote the series of Lectures I shall deliver this term to remarks on this popular treatise of Daille, " De Vero Usu Patrum," and on the other of Barbeyrac, ' Joannis Dallaji de usu patrum I 1656. The Latin therefore should ad ea definienda religionis capita quae sunt hodie controversa libri duo, Latine e Gallico nunc primum a J. Mettayero redditi ; ab auctore recog- niti, aucti, et emendati. Genevse, j Works, p. Ixxiii. seem to be the better -work to refer to. ^ See Churton's Life of Bp. Pear- son, prefixed to his Minor Theological Lect. I.] SUBJECT PROPOSED. 25 SO far as they affect the credit of the Ante-Niccnr Fathers, especially as I shall thus have a convenient opportunity of clearinir awav //-' Hniiiic certain oli'uH-tions to the study of the Fathers, wliidi one constantly hears alleged, for thev comprise nearly all ; and, at the same time, whilst clearing; away these ohjections, I shall be preparing you for croinof along- with me — those amongst you, at least, who are so disposed — when, in the next term, I shall lay before you the j)osi five achantagcs of that study. 2G FIRST ARGUMENT OF DAILLE. [Series I. LECTUEE II. Division of Daille's treatise into two heads. His first argument in support of his first proposition. Unfairness of it. Discussion of a passage in Eusebius. Fragments of the early Fathers collected by Dr. Routh. Illustrations of their value. Second argument of Daille. Incidental allusions to important topics in the Fathers, overlooked by him. Their evidence not to be gathered without careful study. Illustration of this in establishing the doctrine and ritual of the Church. And in the Romish controversy, e.g. on Transubstantiation, the Papal Supremacy, Auricular Confession, Image Worship. T PEOPOSE, in tlie present Lecture, to redeem the promise I made in the last, and offer you some re- marks on the celebrated treatise of Daille, a dis- tinguished minister of the French Protestant Church (published in 1631), on " The Eight Use of the Fathers." DaiUe divides his treatise into two general heads. First, asserting that the testimony of the Fathers, owing to various causes, which he enumerates, is vague, uncertain, and obscure. And, secondly, that, were it more clear and decisive, it is not of such authority as to settle our controversies ; the latter of the two divisions very much anticipated by the other. In support of the former proposition, he sets out with affirming, in terms of some exaggeration, the paucity of the writings of the first tliree centuries ; and quotes a passage from the beginning of Eusebius' History to prove in general, before he proceeds to details, that very few persons in those early times addicted themselves to Lect. II.] niS MISREPRESENTATION OF EUSEBIUS. '21 composinsT books.' But it will be found, on reference to Eusebius, that he does not say there were few or no l)ooks then written ; but that there were none written on the plan he was proposing to adopt — in fact, no ecclesiastical history or regular Church annals, which would serve liim for a precedent. For, having described the various topics his own History was meant to em- brace, he proceeds to propitiate his readers towards any defects which they might discover in it ; sapng, " that his sul)ject now required him to ask the candid construc- tion of the considerate ; for that it was a thing, he con- fessed, beyond his powers to promise a narrative perfect and lacking nothing ; seeing that he was the first per- son that had engaged in that particular argument ; and so had to fread a road desert and unbeaten " (the clause adduced by Daille) ; " however, that his prayer was, he might have God for his Guide, and the power of the Lord to work with him, for that of men who had tra- velled the same way before him {rr\v avrrju rjfuv 7rpo(oBev- Korwv oZov) he could find no trace ; save only a few ma- terials, by which one or other had left him some partial information of the times in which they themselves lived."' .... And, again, a little afterwards, re- peating nearly the same words, he continues, " that he accomited it the more necessary for him to undertake the labour he was about, because he knew no eccle- siastical ^vriter who had as yet troubled himself about that particular department of literature,"^ meaning the department of ecclesiastical history. The thing is worth obsers'ing, because the bias of Daille is thus made to appear by the turn he gives to a passage of Eusebius on the very threshold of his work. Nor is that bias less apparent in what follows ; for ' Daille, p. 4. TovTOTrityf)a(Prii (rirovbffv irtTrotTj/ifvov • Mrjdfva TTU) (It 8(vpo tojv (kkKt)- to fiipos. — Euseb. Eccles. Uist. i. aiaa-TiKwv (oiv dityvwv ntpi c 1. 28 FRAGMENTS OF THE EARLY FATHERS. [Series I. postponing for a while any emphatic mention of the writings of the first three centuries, which have come down to us entire, or nearly so, he proceeds studiously to draw attention to the fragtiicnts of the early Fathers which have survived — as if, of the few works we have of the Primitive Church, scarcely anything but fragments remained. And, accordingly, he gives a list of authors whose bare names and titles (says he) have been j^re- served byEusebius, Jerome, and others/ Doubtless the remains of several of those authors (the catalogue of Avliich, by the by, his readers will perceive to be much larger than Daille's previous proposition might have led them to expect) are inconsiderable in bulk, compared with the entire Avorks of which they formed a part : but they are often of great value, ncA^ertheless ; and are very far from being mere names and titles. They have been collected, as you are aware, from various quarters in which they are scattered, by Dr. Eouth, and, together with the notes on them, as edited by him, are enough to occupy four octavo A'olumes : those which had been pre- viously got together by Grrabe, in liis " Spicilegium," in two volumes, having been mixed up with much that is apocr^-phal. The A^enerable President of Magdalene College, instead of describing them, as Daille does, as mere names and titles, regards them as documents throwing great Hght on points in the Primitive Chm'ch that were otherwise obscure ; and as worth}^ of all acceptation from their piety, learning, and authority. " Quoniam autem mihi in animo fuit, statum primsevse ecclesise et dogmata et mores ex ipsius, pro facultate mea, investigare monimentis, scrij^ta omnia sanctiorum setatum legenda esse censui. Et vero, quod nihil omnino in hoc genere pra^termittere statuerim, id plurimum contulisse ad obscuriora quaedam clarius intelligenda s?epe sum ex- ' Quorum nuda nobis nomina et I mum et alios supersuut. — p. 5. tituli apud Eusebium et Hierony- I l^cct. II.] THEIR VALUE. 20 ])ei'tus. Corte tot nej4'li^ere Scriptorcs, quanivis mutilates iiimiuni, liaiid oportuisset, quorum relitpiitc pietate, doc- trina. auctoritate, nobis commendatissimte sunt."' And, assuredly, an examination of the iVai^-ments themselves supports his estimate of them. Take, for instance, the fragments of the writings of Dionysius of Corinth (one of the cases Daille produces), as found in Eusebius. AVe learn from them, short as they are, that liome was even then a wealthy Church ; able to lay poor Churches under pecmiiary obligation to her ; and accustomed to do so from the most early times. That the Epistle of Clemens to the Church of Corinth was held in such respect as to be then read in the Church of Corinth. That the Chm'cli of Corinth and the Church of Eome had the same Apostles for their founders, Peter and Paul, who both suffered martyrdom at the same time at Rome. That there were those then abroad who had the audacity to corrupt not only Epistles written to Churches by the Bishops, but the Scriptures themselves. That there were then existing Churches at Laceda?mon, at Athens, at Nicomedia, at Gortyna, and other parts of Crete, at Amastris, at Gnossus. That the Bishops of those Churches were such and such persons ; and that, in some instances, they stood in the relation to one another of Prelate and ^Metropolitan — information cer- tainly of much value, and amounting to much more than a mere name and title. So again, take the case of 11 egesippus, another of the instances cited by Daille. In the fragments, which have reached us, of his work, we have a minute and interesting account ol" tlie cha- racter and death of James the Just ; of his aljstemious liabits ; of his ascetic devotions ; of his influence with the people ; of the plot framed against him by the Scribes and Pharisees ; of his testimony to the Saviour ; of the circumstances of his martyrdom — how he was ' Relii[. Sacr, Proef. vol. i. p. viii. 30 WRITINGS OF IIIPPOLYTUS. [Series I. cast down from the Temple, then stoned, then beaten with the fuller's club. We have fm'ther some very curious particulars of the last survivors of the family of Our Lord : two old men, grandsons of St. Jude, in the days of Domitian, possessed of no other property than a small estate, which they cultivated with their own hands ; and li\dng till the age of Trajan. We further learn from the same source the state of the Churches estabhshed in various quarters, which Hegesippus had personally visited ; the general soundness of their faith ; the uniformity of their teaching ; the succession of their Bishops — all this very far from being fairly described under the designation of " mere name and title." The fragments of some other authors, who are mentioned in Daille's catalogue, are even more copious in theu' infor- mation than these, but it would be tedious to produce them all. I must therefore beg you to satisfy yourselves of the fact by reading them in the " Eeliquia? Sacrse" for yourselves. Whilst, in the instance of Hippolytus, who, aeain, is another of the authors included in the hst of Daille, as havino- left us fragments that amoimt to no more than a mere name and title, we have not only pas- sages of considerable length from a variety of his works, such as commentaries on difterent books of Scriptiu-e, particularly the Psalms, homilies, local histories, but also whole treatises ; as one concerning Clnist and Antichrist ; another on the Pati'ipassian heresy of Noe- tus, ha^dng much in common Avith Tei-tullian adversus Praxeam ; and yielding (besides much else that is valu- able) many clear testimonies to the Divinity of the Son, as well as to the doctrine of the Trinity ; another, a homily probably, for it seems to have been addressed to an audience, on the Baptism of the Saviour, and, like the last, affording the strongest evidence that the Grodliead of the Son was a doctrine of the Primitive Chm-ch ; and giving clear proof that the Sacrament of Lect. II.] THE APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS. 31 Baptism ^va.s, in the estimation of the Primitive Church, the same holy and emjihatic ordinance which it is always represented to be in our own. Xeither does Daille here take any notice of the Apo- stolical Constitutions, as they are called, and canons of early date, which may still survive, and which perhaps may be regarded as consisting, though not exclusively consisting, of materials that belong to the period over which his observations extend. For thouu:h there is abundant internal e\'idence in those Constitutions, that they were not compiled into eight books, which is the form they now wear, till after the Church had been strongly established and dominant, even emperors sub- ject to her ; yet there are, on tne other hand, indications not to be mistaken, of much of their substance beingr of a date most remote, perhaps Apostolical. Thus observe the very large share of their attention, which is occupied Ijy the heathen ; by the prescriptions necessary for regu- lating the conduct of the Chri.stian in his carriao-e towards them in the various relations of life ; provision made for the case of mixed mamages ; for the case of master and servant being heathen and Christian ; for the case of heathen festivals, heathen tribunals, heathen evidence, heathen theatres, heathen processions, heathen markets — all of them furnishing subjects for canonical ]n'ohibition or caution. We find the persecutions and scoils of the heathen constantly brought under conside- ration : the relapse to heathenism of Christians, who fancied themselves aggrieved by the Church, guarded against : the obstacles thrown in the way of public worshij), and the consequent necessity of re])airing to private houses for social devotion, noticed : the number of Gentile proselytes : the mean condition of the Chris- tian community. All these are features of tlie very earlv date of those pt)rtions at least of the Constitutions which deal with such particulars, however there may be 32 SECOND ARGUMENT OF DAILlI [Series I. other portions connected Avith them which betray a later age. And assuredly a very great amount of information on the state of the Primitive Church is to be derived from a judicious and discriminating investigation of these remains. But after all the disparagement to which Daille had subjected the fragments of the Fathers, both as to their bulk and contents, there still are left for him to dispose of, a good many entire volumes of their works ; those even before the Council of Nice, as usually edited, not being fewer than twelve folios ; and accordingly he ad- vances a second argument, that from the nature of the subjects treated by the Fathers of the first three cen- turies, they have no reference ichatever to ^7'esent contro- versies} "Whereupon he enumerates the several Treatises of these early Authors. Justin and Tertullian, Theo- philus and Lactantius, Clemens and Arnobius, teach the A^anity of the reputed gods ; show that Jupiter, Mars, Juno, &c., were mere mortals, and that there is but one true Grod, the Creator of heaven and earth. Irenseus puts to the rout the foul and foolish theories of Basilides, the Valentinians, and the other Grnostics. Tertullian refutes these same heretics, and others besides them, Marcion, Hermogenes, Apelles, Praxeas, and such as maintain two gods, or two principles, and confound the person of the Father and the Son. Cyprian is almost entirely occupied in fostering the discipline and vir- tues of the Christian Church; and so on. And he triumphantly asks. What has all this to do with tran- substantiation — with the adoration of the Host — with the supremacy of the Pope — with the necessity of secret confession — with the worship of images ; or with other matters agitated nowadays ? "^ But how evident is it, that all this is directed to persons, who are to know nothing ' A quibus (sc. controversiis ho- | teres ia suis illis operibus tractant. diernis) plane sunt aliena, quae ve- | — p. 8. ^ pp. 8, 9. Lect. II.J VALUE OF INCIDEiH^TAL EVIDENCE. 33 of tlie Fathers, except through liis report ! How far from an lionest and ingenuous \'iew of them is this ! In the first place, how utterly imperfect and defective is even this tahU' of cofifr/its of the Fathers ; probably not eml)raeinor even a tenth part of the subjects wliich they (linntly profess to handle; several of them, too, subjects of keen controversy still. But setting this consideration aside, and even supposing for argument's sake, that Daille's catalogue of contents is complete ; he was suffi- ciently read in the Fathers to know how totally inadequate an idea of the multifarious sulijects, on which they either treat or touch, would be got from a mere table of con- tents. Indeed, if there is one thing more than another characteristic of these writers, it is this : the vast mao-a- o zine of most valuable information they communicate to us, quite incidentally, and by the by, a single chapter perhaps, or a single sentence of a chapter, or sometimes even a single expression in a sentence, occurring in a treatise of which the bare title promises nothing of the sort, furnishing us with the most interesting knowledge of some point or other of doctrine, discipHne, ritual, or usage of the Church of the day, and taking us quite by surprise — insomuch that no writers whatever will bear skipping, even for a line, so ill as these. A desultory reader of the Fathers, nay, a reader who is not the most patient and precise, and always on the watch, can never be sure that he has not suffered some paragraph or phrase to escape, which would in itself have repaid him for the perusal of the whole book. Nay, perhaps it is necessary that his mind should be rendered sensitive to such suljjects. by living in times of controversy like our own, in order that he may detect in them all that they contain. And accordingly I think I can discover in some careful and able investigators of the works of the Fathers, but whose researches ha])pen('d to be carried on D 34 INSTANCES OF ITS USE FROM JUSTIN. [Series I. when the Church was quiescent, that they have left many hints of great value unimproved, unperceived — the moment not propitious to the seizure and application of them. Indeed, a slovenly mode of study, as I am sure the audience I am addressing will admit, is safe with no works wdiatever ; but with those of the Fathers, I must repeat, it is the most unsafe of all, owing to the little method observed in almost all of them, and the utter absence of it in some ; so that Bishop Horsley might well take advantage, as he does, of Dr. Priestley's inad- vertent admission, that he was in the habit of " looking through" books, and might well feel strengthened in the line of argument he had adopted with that antago- nist, namely, to waive the merits of the question itself, and contend that Dr. Priestley was incompetent from ignorance of his authors, who were of a kind not to bear "looking through," to engage in the discussion of it. In these remarks I am sure that any of my hearers, who have accustomed themselves to this department of study, w^ould at once acquiesce ; but for the benefit of those who have not, I will produce a- few exanqiles. Justin Martyr, according to Daille, is employed in denouncing the folly of idol worship, exposing the mere humanity of Jupiter, Mars, &c., and asserting and en- forcing the unity of the true Grod. And though this may indeed be reckoned the bare outline of his Apo- logies, and serve as a title to them ; we meet with much in those Apologies which comes under no such head. For instance, we there stumble upon a very accurate account, the earliest we possess, of the manner in which public worship w^as conducted by the Christians on Sundays — the several parts of the service — the reading of the Scriptures — the Common Prayer, even some of . the clauses of the Prayers — the office for the Commu- nion — even one minute feature of that office, the use of I^ect. II.] CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS. 35 the Lord's Prayer, in the consecration.' The whole, a passage of no great length, l)\it jiregnant with conclu- sions the most valuable to all, wlio Ifi-l a reverence for primitive ecclesiastical usage. '^ Again, the Piedagogue of Clemens Alexandrinus con- tains a numl)er of ])recepts which the Piedagogue (who gives a name to the treatise) is supposed to impart to his pupil as he takes him to school. These precepts relate to the application of Christian principles (for the l)upil is supposed to he a convert from heathenism), to tlie various habits and customs of ordinary life. Ac- cordingly, regulations of the dress, and decoration of tlie person, constitute the subject of one chapter. Xow who would expect to find in such a place evidence for the practice of Infant Baptism ? Yet such is the case, "^riie Piedagogue is speaking of the lawfulness of wearing seals : he would have them worn for use, not for orna- ment ; expressly for the purpose of securing matters that require safe keeping. He then goes on to say wliat device he would have engraved on them ; and recom- mends a dove, or a fish, or a ship under sail, or a lyre, or an anchor ; or, he adds, if the party be a fisherman, lit- will remember the Apostle and the children who are (Iravii up out of the wafer {koI twv ef vtaros avaaTrco/xevcou TratBtcov^) — a reference, apparently, to the words of Jesus to his disciples, " Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." Yet a passage so expressed, as to take into account the means bv which this was to be effected, even by administering the Pite of Baptism, and Infant Baptism. Surely this is a subject of controversy not foriMLrn to our own times! So, ajjain, when he is after- wards speaking of the a])])lication of cosmetics to the com])lexion, a ])ractice whidi he condemns, his argu- ' Ti^v St fv;(^f Xoyov rovnap avTov (v\apia6(laav Tpo(^i]v. — Justin 3Iar- tyr, Apol. I. § 66. » § 67. ' Clem. Alex. P»dag. III. c. xi. p. 289, Potter'8 ed. 1) 2 36 IREN.EUS. [Series I. ment leads liim to express a clear opinion on tlie active influence of the Spirit on the heart of the Christian/ Yet this would not have been exactly the quarter in which we should have thought of looking for an enun- ciation of that doctrine. Take another instance. Irenseus is occupied, Daille tells us, in refuting the Valentinians, the Basilidians, and other Gnostics — and, no doubt, the heretical specula- tions, that he has thus to contend against, are to the last degree absurd and childish, and very little like any which we should have to encounter in our own day. Are we then to lay Irenseus aside, under the conviction that his argument is no concern of ours ? We should lose a vast deal of information on matters in which we ourselves take a deep interest, were we to do so ; how- ever little we may have in common with the general object of tlie book. Thus, the heretics, with whom he had to deal, vindicated many of their senseless tenets by the authority of tradition. Irenajus, therefore, meets them on their own ground ; challenges tradition, pro- vided it be genuine, as utterly against them, being coin- cident with Scripture, and the doctrines of the Church : he therefore jDrescribes the circumstances which were necessary to guarantee the truth of tradition, that it should be found to be uniform in the several Churches, which the Apostles had founded, and which Bishops had continued to preside over in regular succession, since the Apostles' days, down to his own ; at the same time producing a catalogue of these Bishops in the Church of Rome, and only abstaining from doing so in other Churches, out of fear of wearying his readers.^ All this is in refutation of certain silly fancies of the he- retics he was encountering. But does a jDassage of this sort touch no controversies of our own age, and is the ' Clem. Alex. Psedag. III. c. xi. I ^ Iren^us, III. c. iii. § 3. p. 291, Potter's ed. | Lett. II.] TERTULLIAN. 37 author, to whom it belon^rs, of no vahie, l^ecause he is only employed on Valentinus and his .Eons ? Nay, the mention of these very .Eons on one occasion, furnishes an example of the kind we are now in search of, and much to our present purpose. For these Gnostics, look- mg about them i'or arj^uments to support them in their notion of their -^ons, tind one, Irena?us tells us, in an expression of St. Paul, Ephes. iii. '21, els Trdaas ray yeveas tov alcovos rtov aitovcov, and another even in the language of the orthodox themselves, who, when they say at the Eucharist, ety rovs aiwvas twv alwvwv, have an eye (they contend) to these .Eons : ' a most absurd ar- gument of the parties who used it, no doubt, yet clearly showinir, however inadvertentlv, that there was a set form of Ser^dce for the Holy Communion in the time of Irena?us, so well kno^\Ti as to require a mere allusion to it in order to be understood ; and which, therefore, must have descended from more ancient times still : a fact concurrent witli what had previously dropped from Justin. Have casual passages of this kind, and the Fathers abound in them, nothing to do with the con- troversies of the present day, and may the authors in which they are deposited be safely neglected, because their title-pages happen to promise nothing of the sort? It cannot be supposed that Daille was ignorant of this featui-e of patristic literature ; for it is scarcely possible to read a score pages in any department of it, which do not betray it. I shall give you other examples of it still, because I am anxious to impress on you, that this remark in refu- tation of Daille does not apply to one or two of the Fathers only, but to them all, and I multiply them the rather, because in the process I sluill be still unfold- ing to you features of the Primitive Church. One of Tei-tullian's tracts is entitled, "On the Crown," De ' Irenaeus, I. c. iii. § 1. 38 ORIGKN. [Series I. Corona, a tract, to which the following incident gave occasion. At a Donation of the emperor's, one of the soldiers appeared without a wreath or chaplet on his head ; holding it instead in his hand, and therehy con- fessing himself to he a Christian. He is accordingly treated as one, and sentence is passed on him. Tertul- lian then undertakes to discuss the question, whether the man should have submitted to wear the A\Teath, or not ; and determines it in the negative. I have nothing to do with the merits of the argument, or the religious sentiments of Tertullian when he penned it. I simply ask whether the title is such as would seem to hold out any promise of the various topics touched or handled in the treatise. For I find in it many particulars relating to the administration of the Eite of Baptism — reference to promises and vows as even then formally made in it, similar apparently to those exacted by om- own Church at this day, a renmiciation of the devil and his pomps, for such is the phrase used.^ I further find it speaking of the Eucharist ; the time of its celebration ; the man- ner in which it was communicated to all, as we may infer, in both kinds ; the officiating minister, an eccle- siastic.^ I find it referring to the celebration of the anniversaries of saints as even then obtaining; to the custom of signing the forehead with the cross, as was then usual. ^ Certainly, had we been in search of in- formation on any of these points, we should not have expected a priori to discover it in an essay which had for its heading, De Corona. Yet there it is. Take another instance. Origen, in his Commentary on Grenesis, has a long discussion on Gren. i. 14. " And Grod said, Let there be lights in the firmament," &c. Now who would have supposed that this would have been just the place to turn to in Origen' s works, to discover ' Contestamur nos renuntiare dia- I Tertullian, De Corona, c. iii. bolo, et pompae, et angelis ejus. — 1 * Ibid. ^ Ibid. Lect. II.] AND IN THE ROJIISH CONTROVERSY. 39 Iiis opinion on the doctrine of necessity, of the freedom of man's will, liis consequent responsibility for his actions, the bearing such doctrine has upon the efficacy of prayer, the nature of God's foreknowledge ? Yet all these points, alfecting as we nuist at once see they do atfect a signal controversy of our own day, the Cal- vinistic, enter into his discussion of this text, the pre- vailing' beUef in astrology, a subject connected with these lights in the firmament, paving the way to it.^ How little, again, would the titles of most of the Letters of Cyprian enable us to guess at the multi- farious matters to be found in them — much of them, too, bearing very directly on the controversies of modern times. Xor is this all. Daille, we have seen, exclaims with much self-satisfaction, after gi^'ing his oa^ti description of the contents of the writings of the Fathers, " AMiat has all this to do with the doctrine of Transubstantia- tion, the worship of the Host, the supremacy of the Pope, the necessity of secret confession, the worship of images, and other matters agitated nowadays ! " But it is not necessary that the Fathers should be expressly discussing these questions in order to their giving us a great deal of light, nevertheless, on the sentiments of the Churcli with respect to them when they wrote. If the doctrine of Transubstantiation had never been dreamed of in tlie days of Justin or Irenseus, or Clemens, it is certain enough that it would be in vain to look for an argument upon it in their works ; but they may not be less effective witnesses in the dispute on tliat account. On tlie contrary, tliey may hi- tlie very Ijest of all we could have. For if such plirases un- designedl}- fall from them, when they are speaking of the Eucharist, as are quite inconsistent with tlie notion that they believed in the corporal presence, that is all ' Origen, Comment, in Gen. i. 14, vol. ii. p. 6. 40 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. [Series I. that is wanted to prove that the corporal presence was not a primitive doctrine. It is not necessary to require from them a regular disclaimer of such doctrine in order to avail ourselves of their testimony. For example, there is a fragment of Irenseus, of which the following is a translation. " The Greeks seizing the slaves of the Christian catechumens, used force to extort from them the disclosure of some secret abomi- nation of the Christians ; these slaves having nothing to tell which would gratify their tormentors, except that they heard their masters say, the Holy Communion was the body and blood of Christ, thinking it was really his body and blood {vofitaavres tS ovn aifia Kao a-dpKa elvau, i. e. making this mistake), reported the same to the inquirers. Accordingly these latter, sup- posing that this was actually the Christian mystery Cka^ovres ws avro)(^p7]fjba tovto reXelcrOaL 'Kpicmauocs, i. e. imder this wrong impression), made the same report to the rest of the Greeks, and forced the martyrs Sanctus and Blandina by torture to a confession. To whom Elandina made answer well and bravely, how could we endure to do such an act ; we who, in the practice of our Christian discipline, abstain even fi'om permitted food." ^ Now, I ask, is it possible that such a passage as this could have been penned, and yet the doctrine of Transubstantiation have been the doctrine of the Church at the time? for, if so, it would have been really the corporal body and blood of Christ, which Clmstians professed to partake of -. and the slaves would have been perfectly correct in the information they gave the Greeks ; and there would have been no room for Irenteus to explain the cii'cumstance under which the misappre- hension of the Greeks, prompted by that of the slaves, occurred, for there would have been no misapprehension at all by either party. Surely this is more decisive of ' Ireneeus, Fragment xiii. p. 343, Bened. Ed. l"^^ct. II.] TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 41 tlio question of Transubstantiation, than any express repudiation of it by Irenieiis would have been; for so far from repudiating it, he only wonders it could have ever entered into the head of the slaves to imagine ; manifestly ascribing it to the dulness of apprehension which naturally behmged to that class of ]X'rsons. Take another instance. Cyprian, in a letter ad- dressed to Ca^cilius, is contending against the i)ractice of certain heretics or innovators, who, in celebrating the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, made use of water only, instead of water and wine mixed (for it w^as the custom to mix those elements in the Eucharist at that time, as it was in our own Church, till the Prayer Book of 1549 was superseded by that of 1552, not in aU respects perhaps for the better). Now argues Cyprian, " Since Christ said, I am the true vi?/e, the blood of Christ is not water, but fi/fr. Nor can his blood, by which we are redeemed and quickened, see/u to be in the cup, when there is no wine in the cup, by which Christ's blood is represented, and of which there is a mystical mention made all Scripture through." Nee potest videri san- guis ejus, quo redempti et vivificati sumus, esse in calice quando vinum desit calici, (|uo Christi sanguis osten- ditur.' And again in the same Epistle, " For as Christ bare us all, since he bare our sins, we perceive that the people is undcrxlood of the water ; the blood of Christ is represented by the wine." Nam quia nos omnes por- tabat Christus, qui et peccata nostra portabat, videmus in aqua populum intclUr/i, in vino vero osfciidi san- guinem Christi "^ — the word osff/idi in the latter clause clearly in a])position to the word inlrllit/i in the former, i.e. the element in either case is \\s(2<\ Ji//i/rafircl^ ; and to make the matter still more clear, Cyprian havin^'- quoted a well-known text in the Epistle to the Gala- tians, adds, ■ Since, therefore, neither the Apostle him- ' Cvprian, Epist. Ixiii. § 2. ^ § 13. 4.'2 TRANSUBSTANTIATION. [Series I. self, nor an angel from heaven, could preach an}' other doctrine, than that which Christ and his Apostles preached once for all, I marvel more than a httle, whence it conld come to pass, that in some places, con- trary to the Evangehcal and Apostolical discipline, water should he offered in the Lord's cup, when water alone cannot possibly express the blood of Christ " — quse sola Christi sanguineni non possit exprimere ^ — evidently im- plying that wine did exjn'ess that blood ; not that it was the blood itself. Here you see the evidence against the doctrine of Transubstantiation is furnished us, not by any explicit discussion of the subject, but incidentally, whilst the author of it is engaged with settling a dis- pute of quite another character ; but still that evidence is just as decisive, as if you could have put Cyprian in the ^\T.tness-box, and questioned him upon the doctrine of Transubstantiation directly and at once, nay, much more decisive, for it is just as much to the purpose, and yet delivered by him without his having any idea of the use liis words might be made to serve, in entire sim- plicity and innocence. And to revert for a moment to the consideration we have just dismissed, might not Daille have here asked, with the same air of triumph, when he had cast his eye over the letter, and seen that it was on the subject of substituting water for wine in the Eucharist, what is all this to us ? This is no con- cern of ours ; we are no drinkers of water now — we want testimony on the question of the corporal presence ! Take another example to the same pm-port. Ter- tullian writes a treatise against Marcion, who, perjDlexed by the origin of evil, and the admixtm*e of it he found in the world, devised the expedient of two Grods ; the one, the God who made the world ; the other, the Grod whom Christ revealed, and whose He was. TertuUian contends that if Marcion would examine the world, he ^ Cyprian, Epist. Ixiii. § 11, Lect. II.] TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 43 ^^()uld discover it not to be so bad as he supposed. '• Imitate," says he, " if you can, the architecture of the bee, or the ant, the net of the sj)ider, or tlie thread of tlie silkworm." Nay, further, your own (Jod, lie con- tinues, as expressed in and by Christ, is satisfied with the creation ; " he did not re]n'obate the irafor belonging to the Creator, for he washes his disciples with it : nor the oil, for with that lie anoints them : nor the mixtiu'e of milk and honey, with which he feeds them " (all, you will observe, portions of the Eitual of Baptism as then practised), " nor the bread with which he represents his own very bod}' — quo ipsum corpus suum repra?sentat " — (in the Ritual of the Eucharist) " even in his Sacraments standin"; in need of the beir- garly elements of the Creator;"' or again, in another book of the same tract against Marcion, Tertullian is engaged in proving from the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel, Christ foretold and typified in the one, realised and produced in the other ; that it is the same Christ which is spoken of in both ; and that ]\rarcion is wrong in supposing the Clod of the Law, and the God of the Gospel, not identical. Accordingly he compares the Passover of Moses with the Passion of Christ. It was on the day of the Passover that Christ sufi'ered ; He might have chosen ancjther day : but it had been designated before as the Lords Passover ; therefore did the Lord desire with a great desire to eat it with his disciples. " Professing, therefore, this great desire to eat the Passover as his own — and it would have bern un- worthy of Him, who was God, to desire that which was (inoihers — He made the bread which He took and gave to his disciples his own body, by saying, * 1'his is my body,' /. I', the figure of my l>ody, (id v<\. ligura corporis mei,) for it would not have been a figure, unless it had been a veritable body ; for a vacuity or phantasm cannot ' Tertullian. Adv. Marcionem, I. c. liv. 44 THE WORSHIP OF THE HOST. [Series I. take a figure." ' And again in a third book of the same treatise, and when still engaged in the same argument, he appeals to the evidence of the senses against Marcion, and contends that Christ's reality " was attested by three of them, the sight, the touch, and the hearing." ^ But this would have been very inconclusive reasoning if Marcion could have turned upon him and said, " And yet you do not believe in the bread or the wine of the Eucharist which are attested by three of the senses." Here, again, the controversy is one in which we are not concerned. Wlio doubts, DaiUe might sa}^ w^ho doubts about the Creator as represented in the Old Testament, and the Creator as represented in the New Testament, being the same God ? Yet we see that tliis controversy does afford us clear incidental e^ddence against Tran- substantiation. The u-ors/iij) of the Host is another point singled out by Daille, as one to which the writings of the Fathers, such as he describes them, have no reference, they being engaged on questions of quite a different character. But, as I said in the last instance, so I sa}" again in this, that those writings do furnish indirect testimony on this matter also. Indeed, does not the case of Tran- substantiation involve this and settle it ? If, as we have shown, the Fathers held no such doctrine as Transub- stantiation, does it not follow as a thing of course that they fell into no such practice as the worship of the Host ? Besides, is there nothing to be concluded from their silence with respect to any such usage ? Is it not argument enough, for example, that it did not obtain in Justin's time, when we find him describing, with a good deal of minuteness, the mode of administering the Holy Eucharist, and yet saying nothing whatever about the worship of the Host ? Would he be likely to assure his readers, that in this Sacrament, the Communicants ' Tertullian, Adv. Marcionem, IV. c. xl. ' III. c. ix. Lect. II.] THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 45 •«» do not receive the bread as common bread, or the cup as a common c\\\) {ov yap tus kolvov aprov ovte koivov irofia ravTa Xa/x^avofiev^), it' they hud actually worshipped either the one <»r the other as (iod? Is it conceivable, that in such a case he would have adopted lantrunire so unimpassioned as this ? It is true Justin has no chapter " De Hostia adoranda," if nothing less than that would suffice for jVI. Daille, but is not the kind of testimony presented in the few words I have extracted from liim, and other similar testimony mig-ht be multiplied to almost any extent, far more valuable than any direct disclaimer of such idolatry? The Supremacy of the Pope is another subject of modern controversy which INI. Daille adduces as in- capable of receiving any illustration from the writings of the Fathers, being out of their field of debate. Cei-tainly none of them have composed a treatise upon it like Dr. Barrow ; but is not much to be deduced from them on the question, which is very greatly to the pur- pose nevertheless? Clemens Eomanus, though Bishop of Eome, writes his Epistle to the Corinthians not in the name of the Pope, but in the name of the Church of Eome.^ Irenaius speaks by implication of Jerusalem, and not of Rome, as the metropolis of the citizens of the Xew Testament (77 /zT^rpoTroXts rwt' T7^y Kacvris Bia67]Krj9 TToXiTcov 'j, and assigns to St. J^aul a very pre-eminent rank among the Apostles ; * and if he calls the Church of Rome on one occasion " the greatest, most ancient, and universally known " (Church), and says that certainly, " considering how chief and principal a Church it is, all Churches, /. e. all faithful people evcrywlurf. must he found in sentiment ccmibrmable to it, seeing that in it is preserved that Apostolical tradition which has ob- ' Justin Martyr. Apol. I. § (!G. ' Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Corinthios, * Irenocus, III. c, xii. § 5. * II. c. xxi. § 2. 46 THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. [Series I. tained always and in all places;'" no conclusion for the supremacy of tlie Pope over Christendom can be drawn from this. For what is here his argument? He is refutmg the heretics on the ground of their own choosing, tradition ; and takes the Church of Rome as the fairest and safest channel of tradition then extant, as the best exponent of what tradition taught, by reason of that Church being founded by illustrious Apostles, being governed uninterruptedly by their successors, and holdinof so station in the w^orld — the .^ ^v. conspicuous a " necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam ad banc eccle- siam " (as Mr. Evans observes),^ implying a consequence not an ohJigation — where tradition was so guaranteed, it must needs be, that an orthodox Christian would accept it. For so far is Irenseus from considering the doctrine of the Church of Rome as peremptory (except from the mere fact of the peculiar circumstances of that Church having given it advantages in the preservation of doc- trine over other Churches less favourably placed), that he actually goes on to confirm the tradition of the Church of Rome by the tradition of the Churches of Smyrna and Ephesus, which agreed with it — a work of ' Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quaj est ab apo- stolis traditio. — Irenteus, III. c. iii. § 2, Bened. Ed. The translation here given from the Latin, which is all we have, may seem to favour the Church of Rome in a manner, which the Greek very probably, had that been preserved to us, would not have even so much as seemed to do — possibly the " con- venire ad " of this Latin version answering to a-vfi^dWeiv — as Mr. Evans observes (Biography of the Early Church, Victor, p. 257), i.e. simply " to have converse with," or " confer with ;" crvix^aXXeiv being the word used on very similar occa- sions to that in the text, as he re- marks, by Eusebius (Eccles. Hist. iii. c. 23, and v. c. 24) ; and a still better reference would have been to Irenteus himself, who in the very next section of this very chapter employs this word : KKrjurjs, 6 kol eapaKcos rovs fiaKapiovs aTrocTToKovs Koi (TV[i^e^Xr]Ka)s avrols — Clemens, who had seen the blessed Apostles, and conferred with them. ■^ Biography of the Early Church, I.e. Lect. 11.] THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 47 entire su]-)ereroijation, if it ^vas needful to submit to the Cliui'cli of Kome, let it teach whatever it might. Neither is that all. If Irenanis had felt that Christendom was bound hand and f(»ot by the Pope's supremacy, how could he have himself ventured to remonstrate with A'ictor, Bishop of liome, on his excommunicating the Eastern Churches for their non-observance of his rule, and that of the Western Clinrch, with respect to the time of keepino: Easter ? This resistance of Irena^us was the more gratuitous, as in the controversy in ques- tion he took the same side as Victor. Again, the disputes in which Cyprian is engaged, con- stantly lead him to afford us light on this subject, inad- vertently and by the way ; for the immediate bone of contention, no doubt, may not be now what it then was. The question concerning the Baptism of Heretics, liow- ever, on which he differed in judgment i'rum Stephanus, Bishop of Bome, incidentally acquaints us with the relation in whicli he considered his own Church and other Churches to stand to Eome ; and it is ob\dous that he regarded it as anything but that of passive obedience to it. He is not niggardly in his ascription of honours to St. Peter. He repeatedly considers him as the rock on which Christ founded his Church ; probably in allu- sion to the eftect of his first sermon recorded in the second chapter of the Acts. He contemplates him as peculiar!}' singled out by our Ijord, in order that he might be a symbol of the unity which should prevail in the Church.' But he did not regard this as precluding the discussicjn of ecclesiastical ijuestions, such as Heretical Baptism, and the decisi(»n of them accordingly. " Eor Peter," says he, in a letter to Quintus,- '' whom the Lord chose first, and up work, more ' Irenpeus, I, c. xiii. §§ 5. 7. I ' Tertullian, De Pccnitentia, c. ix. » S7. I E 2 52 AURICULAR CONFESSION. [Series I. regardful of their shame than of their salvation ;"^ and asks, " whether it is better to conceal your sin and be damned, than to expose it and receive absolution."^ Again, Cyprian speaks of confession in numberless places, but it still seems to be public confession. Tlius, in several of his Letters, he complains of persons who had lapsed in persecution and renounced Christ, having been received to the Communion furtively by certain Presbyters of his Church. This he resents as a breach of all discipline. Even in the case of " minor offences, sinners," says he, in a letter to his Clergy on this scandal,^ " express their penitence at a suitable season, and come to Confession, according to the rules of disci- pline, and are admitted into communion by imposition of the hands of the Bishops and Clergy." And in another letter,'^ addressed to the "people," on the same affair, as though they were parties concerned in it, he begs that nothing final may be settled till he should himself be restored to them, when it might be proceeded with, "yourselves being present and judging;" still, except in cases of dangerous sickness, where the patient is confessed and absolved at once, because there will probably be no room afterwards either for confession or absolution, and where Cyprian gives directions accord- ingly,^ jy/z/^/Zc humihation seeming to be contemplated. But this discipline, however severe, would be a very different thing from secret confession ; and not liable to the dreadful abuses which, no doubt, the secret confes- sional (whether legitimate or not in itself, and when rightly restricted) was likely to lead to, and did lead to actually and in fact. But however this may be, and to whatever conclusion the Fathers may lead us in this controversy, my end is answered ; which is to show that ' TertuUian, De Poenitentia, c. x. =^ Ibid. ^ Cyprian, Ep. ix. ^ Ep. xi. ^ Epp. xii. and xxxi. Lcct. II.] IMAGE WORSHIP. 53 Daille is not justified in representinfj the -wTitinf^s of ihe Fathers as altogetlier inapplicable to such a question ; for however casually it may present itself in their ANTitings, and whatever may be the aspect of it they offer, the question of secret confession is clearly one upon which they may be made to speak in one shape or other ; and I could have doubled or trebled the length of this Lecture, had I chosen to bring forward all the materials they would furnish upon it. Daille's argu- ment, which I am combating, you ^\ill remark, is this, that the Fathers are of little worth to us in our own controversies, because they treat of matters that have no relation to them. The ico/'.s/eijj of images is the last of the instances he happens to bring forward in the place I am dealing ^^^th,^ to prove the irrelevance of patristical literature ; but he does it A\'ith no better success than before. Certainly it was reserved for a much later age than that we are now treating of to produce dissertations for and against the use of images in Churches : nor is there any tract of an early Father, which, from its title, would bespeak it to have any especial reference to the question here contemplated. But again I say, are we on that account to put them away, and console ourselves with the reflection that, were we to trouble ourselves ever so much about tliem, we should only have our labour for our pains? I think not. If image- worship did not exist in the Primitive Church, it is not to be expected that we should find anything expressly said about it in the writers of that Church — but still we can use their testimony. For instance, we karn Irom the Apologies that one of the accusations most conmionly brought against the Christians by the heatliens, was that they were atheists. Justin replies to it at length in his first " Apology," * and Athenagoras in his " Up€iX6(ro(f)ov (i\t}tvat •jTpbi TOV 4>iXopT)Topa, Kara Xt^iv ypa- noXXd' y€yovf yap noXvfxaOrji' KaSws <\i(i' '• V^aTTiKoKovOrjKf hi 6 nXcircoj/ rfi Koi Tlvdayopas ttoXXu riov nap' rjpiv Kaff Tjpai uopodfala' Ka\ (pavepos tan fifTtvtyKas fls rfju iavTov Soyparo- 7T€pi(pyaadpfvoi fKacrra toiv fv avTj) nouav." — Clem. Alex. Stromal. I. Xfyopivoiv. hi(ippT]V€VTai hi npo a^ijpr]- § xxii. pp. 41(1, 411. rpiov,v(f)' iripoVyTTpo Tov*AX(^dvhpov 1 * Cohort, ad Gnccos, § 37, He Ka\ Ufpaajf (7riKpaTT)yT]V Tcov'Efipaiuv Berosus. Twv TjpeTtpo^v iro\iTO)i>, Ka\ f) Tav yt- ' Tertullian, Ad Natione.s, II. § 12, yovoroiv dndirruv atroU tVit^ii'ftn, Ka\ and Fragment attached to the Apo- Kparrjats rijs x<^/^««.'fn' T^i oXrjt vnpo- I logy, Kd. Ilavercamp, p. 443. 6t(Tias (nf^r]yrj(Tif uxJTt (vhriXnv ilvai, .ludgcs Vll. 13, 14. 62 THE SIBYL. [Series I. means or other, you must accomit for a great deal of very curious knowledge Avitli respect to the Messiah to come, which pervaded the whole heathen world — knowledge, too, which the Gentiles themselves (though not understanding it of the Messiah, but puzzled how to understand it at all), did consider to relate to the events of futurity, and themselves assigned it to the Sibyl as its author. I scarcely need remind you of the PoUio of Virgil, where the incidents are expressly said to be drawn from the vaticinations of the Sibyl, some of them according most remarkably with those of Isaiah, and the whole almost as applicable to Christ as any chapter of that Prophet. The Prometheus, too, of w^schylus, though the facts are not in that case avowedly referred to the same source, does savour of the same original ; and however dark the fable might seem to those who handled it, nobody can dispute that it is founded on more than human knowledge. The well-known passage in Suetonius' s Life of Vespa- sian tends to the same point, that "there had been for a long time, all over the East, a prevailing opinion, that it was in the Fates," (in the decrees or books of the Fates, says Lardner), " some one from Judsea should then obtain the empire of the world." ' Wliere was the harm of the early Fathers taking advantage of a medium like this for arresting the attention of the heathen to the tidings they had to impart to them ? more especially as it should appear from a few words let fall by Origen, that it w^as really debated (whether amongst the Christians one with another, or amongst the heathens and Christians), what authority was due to the Sibyl, and whether she was to be accounted a prophetess or not, so that there would seem to be no- thing clandestine or underhand in the use the Cliristians made of the argument^; and, moreover, the passage * Suetonius, Life of Vespasian, § 4. ^ Origen, Contra Celsum, V. § 61. l.ect. III.] THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. G3 ■would lead us to infer that this question had heen. af]fitated even as early as the times ot" Celsus, who lived some hundred years before Origen.' As another instance of the unscrupulous use made of authorities bv the Fathers, Daille adduces the ap- peals, which Clemens Alexandrinus makes to Apocry- phal books that circulated under the names of Apostles and disciples of the Lord, and his quotations from the ])retended works of Barnabas and Hernias.^ He also takes the like exceptions to Fathers of a later age than I am concerned with, and which, therefore, I shall not investigate ; my object being to impress you with the importance of reading, not all the Fathers of ever}' age, so much as the Fathers of the first three centuries. But does the manner in which Clemens avails himself of Apocn'phal \\Titings aftect his own credit as an author or a candid Apologist ? Certainly he refers to the " Gospel according to the Hebrews ;" to the " Gospel according to the Eg}'ptians ;" to the " Traditions of Matthias ;" to the " Preaching of Peter ;" to a " cer- tain Gospel " ' ; and perhaps to the " Acts of Peter." * And often he so refers without any remark whatever as to the value of the document he is lapng under contribution. But you will bear this in mind, a fact which Uaille altogether overlooks, but a \ery important one ; that on one of these occasions he expressly speaks of no Gospels being of authority except the /ofn\ " On Salome intpiiring," this is the passage, " when the things which she asked aljout would be known ; the Lord re- plied, when ye shall tread under foot" (or have no need for) "the covering of your shame; and when two sliall become one, and the male with the female shall be neither male nor I'emale ;" and then Clemens adds, by * Origen, Contra Cclsum, L § 8. ' Daille, p. 53. ' 'O Kvpioi iv Tivi Elayy(\i Tois TvapabeSoixevois rjfuv rer- rapcTiv fvayyeXiois ovk exofiev to prjTou, aXX ev rw kot AiyvTrriovs. — Clem. Alex. Stromat. IIL § xiii. p. 553. 3 Stromat. IIL § ix. pp. 539, 540. Lcet.III.] AS UAVING AUTHORITY. 65 and no other, is undeniable' ; not to say that Clemens liimself quotes St. ^Matthew in one place as to Kara "MaTdatov EvayyeXiovJ^ and St. Luke in another, as to EvayyeXiov ro Kara Xovkuv.^ The Same reasonin"^ as before applies to the ipiotations made by Clemens from the Gospel according- to the Hebrews. He is contending, for instance, that to admire is the first step to know- ledi^'-e, and therefore, " in the Gospel according to the Hebrews," says he, " it is written, he that admireth shall rule, and he that ruletli shall rest," ^ without any remark added on the nature of the document ; but if there were then only four acknowledged Gospels (as he felt was the case), there was no need for re- mark. The same may be said of his citation of the re EvayyeXiov. " It belongs to few to take these things in, for the Lord says in a certain Gospel, that he does not teach in a niggardly spirit, ' My m^^steries are lor me and the children of my house:'"® no note or comment subjoined, because none was wanted. Even in the case of the Gospel according to the Egyptians, where the observation respecting the Four Gospels, on which I am relying so much, is made, it is made, you will perceive, quite incidentally, and almost as though it escaped him by the by. And if it be said, why then multiply quotations ? It may be answered in the first place, that Clemens was a man of enormous reading, and could not help showing it ; his reference to profane as well as to sacred, or quasi-sacred authorities, being most pro- fuse ; indeed, he had a reason for the former dis])la3', wliich I >liall iiiakr a])p('ar in a ruturc lecture. There is nothing singular or oll'cnsive in this. Look at liishop Jeremy Taylor's Life of Chri.^t, and you will ' Ircnoeus, III. c. xi. § 8. » Clem. Alex. Stromat. I. § xxi. p. 409. * Clem. Alex. Stromat. I. § xxi. p. 407. * II. § ix. p. 453. »V. §x. p. C84. r 66 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS JUSTIFIED [Series I. see liim supporting or adorning liis narrative by ap- peals to numberless authors, whose credit he leaves liis readers to settle as they will, contenting himself with saying who they are, or mth referring to them in the margin. Yet how many of these authors are of little or no account ! And in the next place, no doubt many of the documents, Avliich w^ere written at this very early period of the Chui'ch, in the midst of much error contained much truth. It is the testi- mony of an Apostle himself, that " there are also many other things" (besides those carefally recorded), " which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one," he supposes, " that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." ^ There is a saying assigned to Jesus in the Acts,^ which there is no previous memorandum of his having ever uttered. There are several other sayings pre- served by the early Fathers ^ ; together with one or two incidents respecting him, not taken notice of by the Evangehsts.* There might be, nay, it is higlily probable that there was, much of this kind to be dis- covered in the manj^ unauthorized publications v,diich found their way into the world in the age immediately after our Lord's Passion, and which, however over- laid by base materials, did give to those pubhcations a certain value nevertheless. Indeed, St. Luke's Pre- face to his Gospel imphes, I think, that the histories 1 John xxi. 25. ■^ Acts XX. 35. •' 'Ei/ oTs av Vfias KaraXa^a, iv TovTois Koi KpLva>. — Justin. Dialog. §47. Venient dies, in quibus yineae nascentur, singulae decern millia palmitum halientes, et in uno pal- mite dena millia brachiorum, &c. — Irenseus, V. c. xxxiii. § 3. A col- lection of these sayings and histories of Christ -will be found gathered from their several sources in the Appendix of the first volume of Jones on the Canon. ■* El' (TTTTjXaico Tiv\ avveyyvs ttjs Kw/iTjs KaTfXvae. — He put up in a cer- tain cave near the village. — Justin. Dialog. § 78. Tavra yap ra reKToviKa epya eipyd^ero iv dudpoiTTois a>v, aporpa Koi C^yd. — Justin, Dialog. § 88. Lectin.] IN QUOTING TUE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. C7 of our blessed Lord, wliicli his own was meant to supersede, were of this mixed cliaraeter, not absolute fiction, but truth adulterated. " Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word ; it seemed good to me also, ha^dng had perfect understanding of all things fi'om the verv first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wlierein thou hast been instiTicted," ' the spirit of the ]iassage not being utterly to condemn the writings lie is contemplating of gross and wilful falsehood, but to imply that the authors' understanding of the in- cidents they had related was not perfect ; that their opportunities of learning them had not been like liis own, he having had perfect knowledge of them from the first, and that the knowledge therefore which he \\ould communicate would be certainty, which could not be said of that of the others. Even when these early documents proceeded from heretical quarters, as probably many of them did, the substance of them Would still, in many cases, be truth ; they would scarcely have answered the purpose of their com- pilers had it been otherwise. The " Traditions of .Matthias," the " Preacliing of Peter," "the Acts of Peter," and something " of Paul's," probably com- bined with the " Preaching of Peter," "^ all, as I have said, quoted by Clemens, were, no douljt, })ublications of the nature I am describing; truth mingled, or, as it might be, grossly debased with error. Origen him- self takes this view of the last (jf these documents, observing in a passage <»f his coiumentarv on St. John, ' Luke i. 1-4. ' See Jones on the Canon, Part II. F 2 68 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS JUSTIFIED [Series I. wliere lie lias occasion to quote a saying of Heracleon, who liacl adopted certain words from the " Preaching of Peter," we musi inquire touching this work " whe- ther it is genuine, or spurious, or mixed," ' himself apparently leaning to the last supposition. With re- spect to the first of these, the " Traditions of Matthias," Clemens refers to it several times, hut not in a way to impress us with his confidence in it ; rather the contrary; for though in one or two places he simply quotes without preface, in others lie intimates in a manner that ought to satisfy M. Daille himself, that its character, even in his eyes, was suspicious. Thus of the heresies, says Clemens, " some are called hy the name of their author, as that of Yalentinus, and Mar- cion, and Basilides, although, indeed, they boast that the opinions of Matthias may he adduced in support of their own. But as there was hut one doctrine de- livered hy all the Apostles, so can there he hut one (true) tradition." ^ Surely there is here a caveat in- terposed hy Clemens sufficiently intelligible to prevent any of his readers from being misled hy the authority of the " Traditions of Matthias," though he has oc- casion to refer to that work. With respect to the " Preaching of Peter," another of the ecclesiastical writings frequently cited by Clemens, it is to be ob- served, that Clemens never cites it as Scripture, and that in the long extracts he makes from it there is nothing heterodox to be found ; nothing which might not be consistent with the theory, which is Dr. Grrabe's,^ that it was what some or other of St. Peter's hearers had committed to writing after he was dead. Take the following as a specimen of the work, and say ' Uorepov irore yvrjcnov edriv fj fiiKTov. — Origen. vol. iv. p. 226. Be- ned. Ed. * Mta yap t; Ttavrav yeyoue rmv 'ATTOcrrdXtoi' (ocnrep ti^aa-KoXla, ovTas 8e Kai 7] TrapdSoo'is. — Clem. Alex. Stromat. VII. § xvii. p. 900. 2 Grabe, Spicileg. i. pp. 61, 62. Lect. III.] IN QUOTING THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. G9 whether it falls short of the character T am imputing to it. The passage occurs in the sixth l)(»(>k of the Stromata. " And the companions of Christ, who j)reachetl the word as he did, lost their lives after him. Hence Peter in his Preac/iiiir/, s])eaking of the Apostles, says, ' But when we had read the books, which we possess, of the Prophets, and which now in parables, now in enigmas, now again authorita- tively and literally speak of Jesus Christ by name ; we found his presence, and death, and cross, and all his other sutlerings, which the Jews inflicted on him (described), and his resurrection, and ascension into heaven, before the new Jerusalem should be built,' even as it is ^^Titten : these things are all which he ought to have suftered, and what should be after him. AVe therefore, becoming acquainted with these things, believed in God, by reason of the things which were Amtten concerning him.' And presently afterwards," Clemens adds, " Peter again infers that the prophecies were (written) by Divine foreknowledge, thus saying, ' For we know that God really appointed these things, and without the Scripture we say nothing.'"^ Is it then to be charged upon Clemens as an act of fraud and fallacy, or even of folly and weakness, that he made use of a work wliich expresses itself after this manner, when his subject happened to re- mind him of a passage in it that suited him, without cautioning his readers against its pretensions ; what it really was being most likely notorious all the while ? Would it expose a man now to the charge of wilful deception, if in a treatise he should quote the Apo- crypha without expressly stating that the Apocrypha was not canonical ? ' np6 Tov 'lfpo Daille, pp. 59, CO. G 2 84 USE MADE OF IT BY PRIESTLEY. [Series I. allows to be fictitious), simply in order to sliow tlie animus of the man, and tlie determinate exaggeration w'ith wliicli lie states his case against the Fathers. For who does not see that most or all of these objections bear, if not with equal strength yet certainly with great strength, against the genuineness of all ancient books whatever, even of the Scriptures themselves, and reduce one to principles of universal scepticism ? Nothing is more easy than to throw out a charge that a book is interpolated, when the subject-matter of it does not happen to suit our taste ; and in the case of an ancient book, nothing is more difficult than to disprove the ob- jection by any distinct evidence. The expedient may serve the tui-n of Daille, in order to dispose of testimony on the Romish question, which he might fancy was in- convenient, and those who think with him might feel inclined to favour his temerity ; but the same expedient might serve the turn of a Priestley equally well, and was in fact employed by him to extinguish evidence which the same quarter supplies on the Socinian question and the divinity of the Son, so that it is a dangerous edge- tool to use. " We find nothing like divinity ascribed to Christ before Justin Martyr," says Dr. Priestley ^ — But the Epistle of Barnabas is against you ? — Yes, but the text and translation of that Epistle are interpolated. And the Epistle of Clemens Eomanus ? But the manu- script of Clemens is faulty. And the Epistles of Ig- natius? But the numerous passages in which the divinity of Christ is clearly confessed in those Epistles are foisted in, every one of them. " Ha\T.ng by this compendious process," says Mr. Wilson in his " Illus- tration of the method of explaining the New Testament by the early opinions of Jews and Christians concerning Christ," ^ " reduced the Apostolical Fathers to his own ^ History of the Corruptions of I ^ Wilson, pp. 282, 283. Cam- Christianity, vol. i. p. 32. I bridge. 1838. Lect. IV.] PAUCITY OF MANUSCRIPTS. 85 theolog-ical standard, he next actually reckons on their sile/ice, a silence of his own creation, in iavour of his own opinions; and confidently affirms that 'we find nothings Hke divinity ascribed to Jesus Christ before the time of Justin ^lartyr.' " " The most extraordinary method," adds Mr. Wilson, "of conducting an his- torical inquiry that ever was adopted." The remarks of Daille, however, ultimately settle on the question, not of accidental, but of fraudulent interpolation or mutila- tion of ecclesiastical authors.' The manuscripts of the early Fathers are in general few in number,' so that we cannot find any strong argu- ment against those who throw out charges of inter - ' Daillt3, pp. 63. 65, et seq. * I perceive almost all the editors complain of this. In summa qua laborant Patres Apostolici Codicum manu scripto- rum penuria, utpote quorum non nisi singulis dementis et Ignatii uti liceat,&c. — Jacobson, Patres Apostol. Monitum, p. vi. Nolite vero oblivisci codicum manu scriptorum usu destitutum me id tantum egisse, ut, etc. — Hefele, Patres Apostol. Prsef. p. 1. Valde est dolendum quod pauci tantum supersunt in bibliothecis codices operum Justinianorum manu scripti. — Otto, Justin. Martyr. Pro- legom. p. xxxi. And again — Inter- dum vero destitutus codicum manu scriptorum auxilio — hoc maximc ac- cidit in Apologiis et in Dialogo, quorum, quod sane dolendum, non extant nisi duo codices scripti iique recentiores ac sibimetipsis consimil- limi, &c. — Ilefelc, Patres Apostol. Pra:f. pp. xlviii. xlix. It should appear from Archbishop Potter's address to the Reader that he had met with few MSS. of Cle- mens Alexandriuus. Manu scrii^ta, qufficvmque reperire potui, exem- plaria diligenter perlegi. And these consisted of a MS. of the Cohortatio and of the two last books of the Pedagogue in New College Library, a MS. of the three books of the Paedagogue in the Bodleian, and another, almost the same, in the King's Library. Scriptum Stroma- tum exemplar nullum oculis meis perlustrare hactenus licuit. But Bernard 3Iontfaucon had sent him a list of various readings, non solimi ex Ottoboniano, qui eorum prolixiora qufcdam Fragmenta, sed ex Parisi- ensi etiam codice, qui integrum Stro- matum opus complectitur. The MSS. used in Priorius' edition of TertuUian, which has for its basis that of Rigaltius, arc the Codices Claudii Puteaui et Petri Pithtci, and the Fuldcnsian, the Codex Agobardi, the Codex Fulvii Ursini, the Codex Divionensis. But these appear to have been the MSS. of parts of Tcrtullian, not of his entire works. The MSS. of Irenneus seem to bo more numerous for the Latin version than fur the Greek text : Non minor in recognoBccndii ti parte Gra;ci 86 ANTIQUITY OF SOME OF THE VERSIONS. [Series I. polation or mutilation from the universal consent of a multitude of manuscripts ; but then we have, in several instances, the check of early translations of these Fathers. We have nearly the whole of Barnabas both in the Grreek and Latin — the Latin barbarous enough, no doubt, and occasionally defective, but earty ; at least before the year 900, when the corruptionists, according to Daille, had scarcely begun their work.^ We have the Shepherd of Hermas in a Latin version only ; but that version most ancient, probably the one through which the work itself was known to the Latin writers of the Primitive Church ^ ; and we have very many pas- sages of the original Greek text preserved in other authors as fragments, by which the fidelity of the old translation may in general be tested. We have again a very ancient version of the Epistles of Ignatius, the history of which, indeed, very remarkably illustrates the argument I am now using, and shows by example the singular value of these early translations in pre- serving the original text entii-e. For this version having been discovered before any copy of the Grreek text of the shorter Epistles of Ignatius had come to light, on being compared with the Grreek text of the Interpolated Epistles, which was aheady known, served to detect the interpolations, and enabled Usher, in a new edition, to weed them all out, and expose them by printing them in red ink. His corrections, thus ob- tained, were confirmed by the discovery of the Greek text of the shorter epistles soon afterwards at Florence. We may, however, observe in passing, that these inter- textus, quae extat, cura fuit adhibita, quamvis deficientibus MSS., minori successu. — Preef. ad Edit. Benedict. p. viii. The ]MSS. of Cyprian are nume- rous. Baluzius who furnished the text chiefly or altogether of the Be- nedictine edition, prseter codices MSS. qui Pamelio, Rigaltio et Anglis Usui fuerant, alios circiter triginta in subsidium sibi adhibuit. — Preef. ad Edit. Benedict, p. iv. ' Preface to Russel's Ed. p. viii. 2 Russel, p. 126. Cotelerius' Opinion. I>cct. IV.J DISCUSSION OF A PASSAGE IN JUSTIN. 87 poliitions bear no mark of liavini]^ been made for tlie purpose of iipholdini;- any lioniisli articles of i'aith or practice; nor is it easy to lind that any principle of any kind guided their contrivers in the fabrication of them. Of Justin ^lartyr we have no early Latin translation to refer to ; but Justin bears no marks of haviii'^ been tampered with by the llomanists. There is only one passage in his works which could be even suspected of having been submitted to their manipuhition ' — a passage wliich has certainty been produced by Romanists as favouring the worship of angels, but it has no appear- ance whatever of interpolation — the argument is con- secutive and unbroken — and if in reply to heathens who charged the Christians with atheism, Justin, in his zeal to show that they were no atheists, should say, not only that they worshipped God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but also ex ahundanti should touch upon their belief in angels, what wonder ? But if the Romanists had introduced the paragraph respect- ing the angels in order to cover their practice of wor- shipping them, would they not have so worded it, as to make the meaning they intended to impart to it, clear ? 'WTiereas, the fact is, that many scholars, as Grabe, Cave, and La Nourr}', though a Benedictine, consider the j^as- sage to admit of a translation perfectly consistent A^th the Protestant doctrine, punctuation having much to do with it"^; and Bishop Bull, who discusses it at great length,^ so far from contending that it is coiTupt, rests his interpretation mainly on its relation to the context, which the Romanists, he considers, had not taken sulli- ciently into their consideration ; a line of argument, as it will be at once perceived, utterly opposed to any notion of interpolation. ^Moreover, if the Romanists ' Justin Martyr, Ajtol. I. § 0. * See the note in Clicvallier's traiiblation of the .Apol'g)', p. 17^, ami Bishop Kaye's, in p. 5.3 of his Justin Martyr. =» Def. Fid. Nic. sect. 2, c. iv. § 8. 88 TEE WRITINGS OF JUSTIN [Series I. adulterated this passage, how came they to leave un- touched another in Justin, occurring in the same Apology, and A\dthin a few pages of the first,^ the parallel to it and comment upon it, a passage which clearly limits the objects of Christian worship to the three Persons of the Trinity ? Or how happened they to permit another passage to stand in the " Legatio pro Christianis " of Athenagoras, wliich is almost the coun- terpart of this of Justin — the same objection en- countered, the same answer supphed, the three Persons of the Trinity still the objects of the Christian worship, and the Christian behef asserted besides (just in the manner it is done by Justin according to the Protestant and Bishop Bull's rendering), in the existence of angels ? ^ How did this passage escape then' mischievous pains, es- pecially as Justin's genuine, as well as reputed works, are usually found, more or fewer of them, comprised in the same manuscript as the work of Athenagoras?^ On the other hand, if the Eomanist was busy with Justin's ANTitiugs, how came he to leave in them pas- sages to his own confusion ? Thus in opposition to any doctrine of Transubstantiation, he speaks of the ele- ments in the Eucharist as food liquid and solid ^ — as memorials of Clirist's body and blood ^ — as oblations (if oblations) of fruits of the earth. ^ In opposition to the Communion in one kind only, he exjn'essly asserts that both the bread and the AA^ne were administered to all present/ In opposition to a Service of the Church in an unknown tongue, he bears clear testimony to that of the Primitive Church being in a tongue understood of all — " We all rise up together, and offer up our prayers In opposition to the doctrine of Pur- ' Justin IMartyr, Apolog. I. § 13. ^ Athenagoras, Legatio pro Chris- tianis, § 10. ^ SeeOtto. Prolegom. p. xxxi.e^sei^- De Justini codicibus manii scriptis. * Justin Martyr, Dialog. § 117. s § 70. ^ § 41. 7 Apolog. I. § 65. «§67. Lcct. IV.] NOT TAMPERED WITH BY THE ROMANISTS. b9 gatory, he represents it as a saying of Jesus, " In what- soever state I sliall find you, in that sliall I judge you ; " i. e. find you at the day of deatli ; as the context i)lain]y proves/ And in anutlier place, wlien declaring tlie freedom of the will, Ly which all creatures, who enjoy it, are rendered responsible, he says, " We men (and the same is true of angels) sliall be self-condemned, if we transgress, miless we forestall our condemnation by repentance in time ; " ^ as though the work of penitence M-as to be finished here. And in opposition to vows of celibacy, clerical, conventual or monastic, occm-s a para- graph scarcely consistent mth the exaction or recogni- tion of such vows at that time : " There are many, both men and women, sixty and seventy years of age, who, having been Christians from their childhood (an inci- dental argument, by the by, for Infant Baptism), still continue undefiled." ^ The term " many," coidd hardly have been used, had the fact been that whole classes of persons had been living all their days in celibacy by the very condition of their calling. The passages in Irenteus, to which any such suspicions as these, which Daillc is starting, would be most likely to attach, are very few — one which the Eomanists cer- tainly claim as favouring the pretensions of the supre- macy of the Church of Eome, and one or two others, which they claim also as favouring the adoration of the Virgin.* The first is the well-known j^hrase, " ad banc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam." ^ But I ex]ilained in ample detail in my second Lecture, that no such doctrine as that (jf the siij)renia('y ot" tlu' Cliurcli of K'onie, as asserted in modern times, is conveyed in this phrase; ' Justin Martyr. Dialog. § 47. Dialog. § 141. •'' Apolog. I. § lo. * Sec Prcf. to Benedict. Ed. of Ircnreus. ' Irenteus, III. c. iii. § 2. 90 THE WRITINGS OF IREN^US [Scries I. tlie drift of the argument being against it, and other passages of Irenseus inconsistent with it. I shall not, therefore, repeat what I then said, but content myself with remarking, that Eomisli interpolators must have been very ill fitted for the task they had imposed on themselves, if they did their work in such a manner as to leave the paragraph they had to deal with, after all, not only capable of receiving an interpretation against them, but naturally disposed to receive it ; and more- over allowed other passages in the same author to remain unerased and unmodified, which are not to be reconciled with the doctrine they were attempting to fasten on Irenseus in one instance, not to say that anybody accus- tomed to the style of that most ancient, but most bald and barbarous translation, in which the waitings of Iren£Eus for the most part survive, as they do in the case before us, would not see any intrusive patch here, any- thing which is not of a piece with the rest. Monkish Latin was, no doubt, often bad Latin enough ; but you want here not only bad Latin, but bad Latin of a very peculiar character; antiquated, and at the same time hobblino- under the constraint of a close translation of an author not easy to be translated even with latitude, and made by one whose vocabulary appears to be very limited, and unequal to the business before him. The principal one of the passages to which I aUuded is as foUows, — it is a parallel between the Virgin Eve and the Virgin Mary. " For as she (Eve) was seduced by the discourse of the angel to fly from Grod, and disobey his word, so the latter (Mary) was instructed by the dis- course of the angel to bear (portaret) Grod, and be obe- dient to his worcl. And if the one was disobedient to God, the other was induced to obey Grod, that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the Virgin Eve. And as the human race was delivered up to death by a vu'gin, by a virgin it is saved, the scales being even, Lcct. IV.] NOT TAMPERED WITH BY THE ROMANISTS. 91 a 'S'irc^iii's disobedience and tlie obedience of a viro-in." ' Iienieus is here enijaired in relutinfr certain heretics, who maintained that the God who created the world and gave tlie hiw, was not the same as the Supreme God who gave tlie Gospel. He therefore shows that their identity is evident from the constant connection wliich is main- tained between the Old Testament and the New, and tlie close relation which the one bears to the other. Thus, as sin was brought into the world by the dis- obedience of a virgin (Eve), according to the Old Tes- tament — E\'e being supposed a virgin when she ate of tlie tree — so according to the New Testament was it abated to the world by the obedience of a virgin (Mary) who was made to bear God incarnate in her womb, and by so doing became the advocate of Eve, not that she A\as herself the intercessor of Eve in heaven, but simply that by having given birth to the Saviour, she became the repairer of all the damage that Eve had done to her- self and to mankind. Another passage, which is nearly to the same eflect, occm's in Bk. III. c. xxii. § 4 ; and if rightly interpreted, conveys the same meaning; viz. that the Virgin Maiy was the remote cause of the sal- vation of the human race, herself amongst the number, by having given birth to the Saviour. And the same meaning is to be assigned to a thii'd paragraph of a similar description, wliich, however, the Romanists do not claim for the Virgin, thinking the term virgo, in tliis instance, applies to the Church, as it possibly does.'^ AVhilst on the other hand, Irenieus, on another occasion, shows himself so far from an idolater of the Virgin, ' Et si ea inohedierat Deo ; scd j (I take the reading as given in the hocc suasa est obedire Deo, uti vir- Benedictine edition, the varias lec- ginis Evai virgo Maria ficrct advo- tiones not affecting the argument.) cata. Et qucmadniodum adstrictum — Irenacus, V. c. xix. § 1. est morti genus humanura per vir- ' Quae est ex virginc per fidem, re- ginem, salvatur per virginein, scqu^ I gcncratioaem. — Irenajus.IV.c.xxxiii. hmce dispojiti, vir^'inalis iuobcdi- § 4. eutia per virginakm obcdientiam. | 92 TESTIMONY OF IREN^US [Series I. that lie makes an incident in her historv not flattering: to herself, expressly tributary to his argument, and treats it in a manner rather calculated to depress than to exalt unduly her character and name. For when urging against the Gnostics, who separated Jesus from Christ, the identity of the two as manifested by the precision with which Jesus Christ executed at the proper time and opportunity the will of the Father, a precision which could not have had effect if there had been a division in his person, Irenseus illustrates as follows : — " For nothing is done by him out of order and season, even as nothing is done impertinently by the Father. For all things are foreknown by the Father, and are wrought out by the Son, as time and circumstance suit. Accordingly, when Mary was making too much haste towards the wonderful miracle of the wine, and was desirous to partake of the cup created on the instant (compendii poculo^) before the time, the Lord checked her unseasonable hurry, and said, ' Wliat is that to me and to thee ? mine hour is not jei come.' " ^ ^\^iat I mean to observe is, that had Irenaeus been im^^ressed with those feelings for the Virgin which have prevailed and still do prevail in the Church of Rome, he would not have gone out of his way to choose this scene in her life for the exemplification of his argument, when so many other particulars recorded of our Lord would have served his turn equally well, or having done so, he would not have volunteered a description of it in terms of some aggravation. Besides, had the Eomanists meddled to any extent with the writings of Irenseus, would they have left them, after all, full of evidence against themselves ; for so they are? I have ah'eady produced a passage from them entirely inconsistent with the doctrine of Tran- substantiation ^ ; others, with the use of the secret Con- * Irenseus, III. c. xi. § 5, ^ m, ^ ^yj ^ 7_ 3 Lecture II. p. 40. Lect. IV.] AGAINST ROMISH ERRORS. 93 fessional ' ; anotlier, with tliat of images in tlie sen^ice of tlie Church.- I may now add, that jealous as the Eomanist has been and is v\' the free circulation of tlie Scriptures, had he been modelling Irenivus to his taste, he would not have overlooked in him the following paragraph, " Of every tree of the garden ye shall eat, saith the Spirit of God, /. e. feed on every Scripture of the Lord's." ' Or, scandalized as the ecclesiastical power of Eome was, even in early times, by the title of Antichrist given to it by its enemies, he would scarcely have allowed the conjecture with respect to the name of this mvsterious agent to stand unmolested in the text of Irena?us ; I mean that which intimated that it might be Lateinos, a name that answered to the number G6G, and was that of the last of the Prophetical kingdoms, the kingdom then subsisting * ; Uable as such a con- jecture evidently was to be made use of against the Church. Would the same pai-ty, being an interpolator as weU as amputator of this author, have suffered Ire- na?us to touch repeatedly, as he does, on the interme- diate state between death and judgment, the receptacle and the condition of departed spirits, wdthout the remotest hint offered of a purgator}^ ? ^ It might have happened, no doubt, that the absence of all allusion to a purgatory would have furnished no ground for the argument I am maintaining ; there might have been no call or opportunity for making it, but when his sulject most naturally, and almost necessarily, led him to speak of the doctrine, had he entei*tained it, his silence be- comes expressive, and we cannot but believe that the interpolator, had there been one, would have taken care ' Irenrous, I. c. xiii. §§ 5. 7. ' I. c. XXV. § 6. » V. c. XX. § 2. * Nihil de eo affirtnamus. Sed et Lateinos nomen hal)et scxccntorum sexaginta sex nuracrum : et valdc verisiinile est, quoniam novissimum rcgnum hoc habet vocahulum. La- tini enim sunt qui nunc regnant. — V. c. XXX. § 3. * See Ireiiieus, V. c. xxxi. § 2 ; IV. c. xxii. § 1 ; c. xxvii. § 2 ; c. xxxiii. § 1 ; I. c. xxvii. § 3. 94 TESTIMONY OF IRENiEUS [Series I. to break it. Again, would he have permitted any pas- sage to stand, which might testify that the Holy Com- munion was administered in both kinds in the days of Irenseus, whilst his own Church administered it only in one kind ? And yet we find Marcus, the heretic, repre- sented as exciting in all present an eager desire to taste the cup ; his own administration being, no doubt, a cari- cature of that of the Church, and reflecting its several features.' Would he have left untouched a paragraph which speaks of a certain Deacon of the bretlu-en in Asia having his wife seduced ^ : and another, which numbers among the tenets of the heretical er^Kparels, or continents, the prohibition of marriage ^ ; his own Church all the while showing itself inimical to the marriage of ecclesiastics, and in general the unscrupulous abettor of vows of cehbacy ? Would he have found no cause in the practice of his own Church with respect to the invocation of angels and saints for suppressing or alter- ing the text of Irena?us in many places in relation to this subject ? Would the following passage have been left alone ? " Neither does the Church do anything by the invocation of angels, nor by incantations, nor by any other evil and curious art ; but directing her prayers to the Lord who made all things, chastely, purely, openly; and invoking the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, she performs her great acts for the benefit, not the seduction of mankind."* Or this other? "The Father had no need of angels to make the world, and to fashion man for whom the world was made. Neither, again, had he any need of their services for the forma- tion and arrangement of the things pertaining to man. For he had an ample and unutterable ministration (in himself). For his own Progeny, his Word and Simih- tude, the Son and the Holy Ghost, the Word and Wis- ^ Irenseus, L c. xiii. § 2. i ^ Irenaeus, I. c. xxviii. § 1. 2 § .5. 1 * II. c. xxxii. § 5. Lect. IV.] AGAINST ROMISU ERRORS. 95 dom, v'honi all anf/cls .serve and are suhject unto, are his ministers." ' For though, possibly, the Church of Rome might subscribe to the literal terms of tliis paragraph, yet the spirit of it is adverse to the very prominent position she assigns to angels in her S3stem : as are other paragi-aphs in Irenaeus, wliicli ascribe whatever knowledge the angels — even archangels — possess to the Father, to the disclosure of it made to them by the ►Son," from whom all such knowledge is entirelv derived.' \\Tiilst with respect to saints, would he not at any rate have introduced the term itself more frequently into his author? For so far from any indication of the worship of saints transpiring in Irenaeus, it is remarkable how very' sparing he is even in the designation. In quoting even the Apostles, for instance (an obsen^ation which may be extended to the early Fathers in general), his manner is almost always, " Paulus ait," or " Petrus ait," or occasionally " Paulus Apostolus," once o fiaKapios HavKos * ; but even this a singular expression for Ire- meus, and one that attracts our attention as very such ; and though he does make use of the epithet sometimes, and in connection \\\i\i the Apostles, it is for the most part in a general way, ol fiaKupioc airoaroXoL,^ and very rarely as a prefix to the name of an individual. Again on the question of tradition ; it is not a phrase or two in Irena}us, that rises up to censure the Eomanist, but a considerable portion of his work. Several of the early chapters of his third book are employed in dis- cussing it, his controversy ^^'ith the heretics bringing the limits, use, and abuse of it under examination ; and so little favourable is the whole tenour of his argument to Ivomish views, that it is impossible to believe a Romish interpolator could liave suflered it to stand as it does. Irena?us first speaks of the Apostles preaching ' IrensDus, IV. c. vii. § 4. I * Irenaeus, IV. c. vi. § 7. MI. c. XXX. §9. I *V. c. ii. §3. » III. c. iii. § 3. L 96 VIEWS OF IREN.EUS ON TRADITION. [Series I. the Gospel by word of mouth ; but as this manner of pubhshing it would come to an end with their lives, he says they further committed it to icriting. Matthew, 'ypa(}>Tjv e^-qveyKev evayyeXiov. Mark, ra . . . Krjpvaad/uieva . , . eyypd^cos 'y]fMlv TrapaSeBcoKC. Luke, to vtt eKelvov KTjpvao-ofievov evayyeXiov ev /Si/SXio) KaredeTO. John, e^eScoKe to evayyeXiov .^ And these permanent documents, he tells us, were to be thenceforward f/ie jjiliar and ground of our faith?' In case, therefore, of a debate arising as to what the faith or the truth was. Scripture is thus re- presented as the authority to appeal to. But the he- retics, against whom Irenseus was contending, disputed that authority ; alleged that Scripture sometimes contra- dicted itself, and that truth could not be come at, un- less tradition were resorted to.^ Irenseus describes the Church as not shrinking from this reference to tradition, but on the contrary as accepting the challenge, only demandmg that the tradition be genuine. For the abuses to which tradition is liable, he exposes in another place. " The tradition of the elders," says he, " which they pretended to keep in accordance with the Law, was really contrary to the law as given by Moses. And therefore Isaiah exclaims, ' Caupones tui miscent vinmn aqua,' * i. e. your elders mix the water of tradition A^dth the pm^e Word of Grod, adulterating the Law and resisting it, as the Lord made manifest, saying to them, ' A^Qiy do 3'e transgress the commandment of God for the sake of 3^our tradition ? ' And not only did they make the Law of God of none effect by their prevarication, mingling water ^ Ireneeus, III. c. i. § 1. '^ Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis nostra cognovimus, quam per eos, per cjuos evangelium pervenit ad nos ; quod quidem tunc prseconave- runt, postea vero per Dei voluntatem ^ Cum ex Scripturis arguuntur, iu accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum, quasi non recte ha- beant, neque sint ex auctoritate, et quia varie sint dictis, et quia non possit ex his inveniri Veritas ab his. in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt, fun- qui nesciant traditionem. — III. c. ii. damentum et columnam fidei nostree futurum. — Ibid. §1- ■* Isaiah i. 22. Loot. IV.] UNFAVOURABLE TO THE ROMANISTS. 97 with wine, but they establislicd tlieir own hiw instead, wliich is still called the Pharisaical. By which they take something from the Law ; something they add to it ; and something of it they interpret after a fiishion of their own." ' Thus alive to the value of tradition, but aware of the defects wliich attach to it, Irena?us re- presents the Church as respecting it, but first demanding a scnitinv into its cliaracter. Now the tradition to which the heretics appealed, was a secret tradition delivered by the Apostles per vivam vocem (as they pretended) to a favoured few, the rtXeioc ; of which tradition they Avere themselves in exclusive possession ; and this tradition, it is needless to add, coincided Avitli their heretical opi- nions. On the other hand, Irenaeus describes the Church as rejecting this tradition, not because it was tradition, but because it was tradition that had no marks of being genuine.^ He, with the Church, maintained that the Apostles were not likely to exercise any reserve towards their oa\ti successors at least in the Churches ; men of their own choice, selected to be governors of the Churches in their own stead ; that they would surely have imparted to them not only the truth, but the whole truth : that accordingly in investigating tradition, the tradition of the Churches of which the Apostles had been themselves the founders should be preferred ; its correct transmission should be guaranteed by the suc- cession of its keepers being thoroughly known, and capable of being traced, one after another, to the time bL'ing ; that such correctness would be rendered further satisfactory, if it could be shown that the descents through which it had passed were few, as could be done, for instance, in the Church of Ephesus, where John died at a very advanced age, so as to render the interval be- tween his death, and Irena?us' writing, inconsiderable; * Irenaeus, IV. c. xii. § 1. I * Comp. Papias ap. Routh. Reliq. 1 Sacr. vol. i. p. 8. H 98 VIEWS OF IREN^US ON TRADITION [Series I. or, as could be done in the Cliurcli of Smyrna, where Polycarp, who was John's disciple, lived to such a period, that Irena?ns himself could actually remember him and the words he used ; and though in the case of the Church of Eome, the series of Bishops between Peter and Paul, and the time of Irenseus was longer, yet it was thoroughly well known, not a link of it wanting, which the conspicuous position and character of that Chui'ch, situated in the metropolis of the civilized world, the great central exchange, as it were, to which the traditions of all other Churches would be likely to converge, and be there compared, were eminently calculated to give certainty and consistency to the tradition which obtained in it. To these three Churches, therefore, Irenseus chooses to refer when in search of sound tradition ; and thus does he fence his tradition about by various safe- guards, by examining into its locality, whether Apo- stolical ; into its transmission, whether through few descents, and those well ascertained ; into its uniformity, whether identical in divers and distant Churches. To such tradition as this he will appeal as fearlessly as to Scripture against the heretics ; and accordingly he does appeal to it on the questions at issue between the Gnos- tics and the Chm-ch, very cardinal questions of faith and doctrine, no doubt, as he would also have done on any other questions, had any others been at issue, however inferior in importance to these ; for he expressly says, that " even if the dispute were concerning any small matter, recourse must be had to the oldest Churches." ^ Now from all this it seems to me that the Eomanists occupy the ground taken up by the early heretics on the subject of tradition, as the Church of England, for I leave the defence of the foreign Protestant Churches to Daille, occupies that taken up by the Primitive ^ Et si dealiquamodicaquasstione | quissimas rec\irrere ecclesias. — Ire- disceptalio esset, opca-terct in anti- I nteus, III. c. iv. § 1. Lcct. lY.] TUE SAME AS THOSE OF OUR CUURCH. 99 Clnivcli ; and tliat it would be impossible for a TJoniisli interpolator to be satislied with the ij^eneral tenour oi' the reasoninjT and of" the testimony of Irenieus, or with the ]iosition in Avhich it placed his, or a Church. Ft»r let us very lu'ietly reea})itidate. The heretics did not renounce the authority of the Scri})tures, but contended that they did not yield out the truth to such as were ignorant of tradition ; and accordingly to tradition they appealed. The Romanists say and do the same. The early C'hurch did not object to the heretics' appeal to tradition, but only required that it should be genuine, testing its genuineness by starting it from Apostolical sources ; by tracing it through the steps of its descent, where the steps were few in number ; and by comparing it in several independent Churches. Neither does the Church of England reject the Eomani.st's appeal to tradition, but ado])ts the principle herself; only she must have it free from all sus])ieion of being spurious ; and accordingly she looks for it in the age nearest the Apostles ; she has respect unto it only or chiefly for a few generations after the Apostles, and as manifested in the primitive Fathers, not in those of later date and corrupted times, her watchword being ever^Tvdiere in the Homilies and else- where, "Scripture and the Primitive Church;" and she further is careful to gather it from the consent of those Fathers, as independent witnesses in several unconnected Churches. To the tradition per vivarn vocrm, of wliieh the heretics represented themselves as the exclusive ])os- sessors, the Church of Iremcus demurred, as not standing the tests by which the Church trit'd tradition. 'I'o the \\"M\\i\o\\ per virrim rorr//-', of uliicli the iJonianists regard themselves as the keepers, the Church of England ob- jects, and upon the same grounds. It may be added, as a general remark, and without reference to the con- troversy between the Churches of England and liome merelv, that the subject on whieh traditii.m was called H 2 100 THE WRITINGS OF CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS [Series I. in to judge between the parties, in the case before us, was doctrines ; and the shape, in which it showed itself as the witness of those doctrines, was in a creed. ^ The Church of England uses it still for the same purpose, and under the same form, viz. for the purpose of de- fining doctrines, and under the form of creeds. But it appears from one passage we have had before us from Irena^us, that tradition would have been called in by the early Church quite as readily, and with quite as much propriety, had circumstances required it, in lesser mat- ters ; such, we may presume, as in the cases of disci- pline, rite, or ceremony ; and the Church of England does accordingly avail itself of tradition in this province also, agreeably to such precedent. On the whole, it is surely not to be expected that a Romish manufacturer of Irenseus would have been satisfied to present his article in a condition so acceptable to the Reformer, at least the English Reformer, and so far otherwise to the Church, for which he was preparing it. With respect to Clemens Alexandrinus, I think no one could read him attentively and suppose that his text had been unfairly meddled with by the Romanists at least. It is probably often corrupt ; and this corruption no doubt adds greatly to the natural obscurity and mys- ticism of the writer ; but what is there in all his works even as they now stand, which would seem to betray the hand of the Romanist ? There are some four places, I think, not more, which might be supposed to hint at a purifying discipline to which the soul must be sub- jected, if not before death, after it ; but they are so far from explicit, that one is scarcely sure of their m.eaning. For instance, " the faithful man, even if he should escape from the flesh (kuv e^eXOy rrjv adpKo), must put away his passions in order to be able to proceed to his ^ Irenseus, III. c. iv. § 2. Lect. IV.] NOT TAMPERED WITH BY THE KOMAN'JSTS. iUl omi abidino; place."' Ap^ain, "the Gnostic witlidrawn from such matters by the hope that is in him, does not taste of the good things of this world ; despising all things here ; pitying those who have to be disci- plined after death, and brought to confession against their will tln\)Ugh punishment inflicted on them." ^ Again, after disparaging the ofierings made to the gods, of which the poets speak, ofierings of fleshless bones, and burnt gall (;^o\7)s Trvpovfievrjs), which our days would reject, and which were supposed to conciliate favour for the parties, even though they were pirates or thieves, he proceeds, " but we say that fire sanctifies not the flesh, but the sinful soul — fire that is, not which is mechanical and consumes, but which is discriminating {(f)povifxov,) and pervades the soul, which passes through it." ^ However, in another place, it may be remarked, Clemens speaks of knowledge (yvwats) nearly in the same terms, as he speaks of this irvp (^povLfxov ; which I mention as indi- cating the mystical nature of this purgation or disci- pline, whatever it was. " Knowledge, therefore, is quick to purify, and qualified to work the change for the better, wherefore it easily translates the man to the divine and holy principle, which is congenial to the soul : and by a certain peculiar light passes him through the stages of initiation, until it sets him upon the crouTiing point of his rest, pure in heart ; and teaches him to behold God with understanding and comprehen- sion face to face. For this is the perfection of a (Jnostic soul, that ha\'ing made its way through purilication and ministration, it should be with the Lord, and so be ])roximately subject to him."* It is possible, nay pro- l)al)le, from the general princi])le, which rules the writ- ings of Clemens, viz. a disposition to communicate, as far as may be, to the heathens the Gospel through the > Clem. Alex. Stromat. VI. § xiv. " Clem. Alex. Stromat. VII. § vii. p. 704. p. N'.l. > VII. § .xii. p. 879. * § X. p. 865. lUC - GEivM C;F B;OMISH USAGES IN CLEMENS [Series I. medium of lieatlien pliilosopliy ; that one of tlie popular notions of that philosophy suggested to Clemens the idea here in question. But there is no reason to sup- pose for a moment that any Bomish interpolator had been tampering with his text. A Romish interpolator meaning to uphold the doctrine of purgatory would have been much more explicit than this. Neither, in general, would he have allowed so many other passages to keep their places in Clemens, which are utterly against his ov^tl faith or practice ; which oppose, for in- stance, his most vital doctrine of all, that of Transub- stantiation, over and over again, as I shall show wdien I come to speak of the Eucharist ^ ; or which touch upon rites and ceremonies of heathen temples in a manner so greatly reminding us of some in his own Churches.^ The truth is, that in the writings of Clemens may be detected the germ of several customs or opinions, which eventually became corrupt as exercised in the Eomish Church ; but which, as presented to us in him, are generally little more than unauthorized, yet still serve to intimate to us the use from which the abuse pro- ceeded — secret confession from the e^ofioXoyrja-ts oy jjudiic confession of sins ; the Disciplina arcani from the deep and spiritual meaning, which the Grnostic was taught to find in Scripture, as distinguished from the superficial sense, which was all that was discernible in it to the vulgar eye— the undue exaltation of Saint Peter above the other Apostles from such a casual expression applied to him in an early age, as "the blessed Peter, the elect, the chosen, the first of the disciples, for whom only and for himself the Saviour paid the tribute." ^ But the general plan and character of Clemens' works would render them extremely unpropitious to interpolationr ' See Lecture XIL Second Series. * Clem. Alex. Paedag. IIL c. ii. p. 252 ; Stromat. V. § vii. pp. 670, 671. ^ Quis dives salvetur. § xxi. p. 947. Lect. IV.] AND IN TERTULLIAN. U)3 "\Miat aiTects the Eomanist at all, whether for crood or liarin, is incidental, inlerential, unobtrusive. Xobody would know, from the complexion of the whole volume, where to look in it for a syllable to the purpose of such a controversy. These latter remarks also hold with resj^ect to Tertul- lian. We should find in him several traces of the future characteristics of the Church of Rome — mostly the unauthorized beginnings of customs or sentiments, which grew up to a vicious excess, and the eventual mischief of which could not be then foreseen (maornse cunabula Romre) ; few or none of these harbing-ers of future corruptions introduced in a wa}' which a Komish interpolator would have propounded ; some of them in a way wliicli would have been positively ofiensive to him. AVe have the frequent use of the sign of the Cross^ both on the person and even on the furniture ; which was even then, it seems, liable to be mistaken (though hitherto a mistake it was, which could scarcely be said in the case of the Eomisli Church,) for the worship of that emblem^ — Prayers and oflerings for the dead ; and oblations in honour of the mart}'rs on the anniversaries of their martyrdom' ; usages, wdiich gre^v at length into inoi-tuary masses and the actual sacrifice of the Host — L n written tradition, then recent, urged to the contusion of heretics, who mutilated or denied Scripture* ; and urged, too, in support, not to the disparagement of Scripture' ; which eventually grew to tradition as a rival of Scripture and a substitute ibr it — The intercession of martyrs in prison with the Church in behalf of persons sufiering under its censure, to which the Church was disposed to listen with fiivour^ (an indulgence, which t'Vcn TcrtulHan, as a Montanist indeed, ahvady regarded Castitat. c. xi • De Monofram. c. x. ' Tertullian, De Corona, c. iii. ; Ad Uxor. II. c. V. ' Apolog. c. xvi. * De CoronA, c. iii. ; De Exhortat. * De Coronft. c. iii. * De Prrescript. Ilairet. c. x,\v. * Ae Anima, c. xvii. ' De Prffiscript. Iltcrct. c. xxiv. * r)e Pncscript. Ilaeret. c. xxxiii. * De Came Christi, c. vii. * Adv. Marcion. IV. c. xix. Set also De Came Christi, c. xxiii. * Adv. Marcion. IV. c. xxxiv. 100 THE WRITINGS OF IIIPPOLYTUS [Series I. gious mendicants among the lieatlien in a manner wliicli ^YOuld be most unsatisfactory to the friars of the Chiu'ch of Eome^ : which actually designate Eome as the Babylon of St. John, great, proud, and the destroyer of saints ^ : vrhich denj' the necessity of the celibacy of the clergy ^ — this last, I will add, a fact the more to my pmpose, because the Romanists actually took some pains to show, in the teeth of Jerome's assertion to the contrary, that Tertullian was not a Presbyter of the Church ; his treatise " to his Wife " proving him at any rate to be married, and thus his example, if Jerome's testimony be admit- ted, opposing the Church of Rome in the restriction she lays upon the clergy — ^but still the Romanists endeavour to establish their point by argument, which is all fair ; by producing certain paragraphs out of his works, which they contend (not, however, successfully,) prove him to have been a layman* ; but they make no attempt what- ever to SNjjjjress the tract " Ad Uxorem," nor yet many other passages in him, which clearly testify against themselves, and sanction clerical marriage. These sm-ely are not indications of an author who had been disho- nestly handled by Romanists. In the works of Hippolytus again, however they may want sifting and re-editing, there is nothing to lead us to suppose that the Church of Rome has been particu- larly busy with them. In the treatise " concerning the End of the World and concerning Antichrist," imputed to him, occurs an expression with regard to the Eucha- rist — that the priest sacrificed every day Clmst's pre- cious bod}^ and blood'; — but such an expression would be very far from establishing the doctrine of Transubstan- ^ Apolog. c. xiii. I Monogam. c. sii. ; but he may here * Contra Judceos, c. ix. ; De Cultu j be considered to identify himself Foeminar. II. c. xiii. ! with his clients rhetorically. * Ad.Uxor. I. c.iii.vii. ; De Monog. | ^ Hippolytus, De Consummat. c. xii. ; De Exhort. Castitat. c. vii. Mundi, § 41. * De Exhort. Castitat. c. vii. ; De | Lcct. IV.] NOT SATISFACTORY TO A ROMANIST. 107 tiation, or excludiny^ tlie use of f//f/ra//rr interpretation ; especially whilst in an exposition of Proverbs ix., which is another of Hippolytus' works not disputed, he speaks on this same subject in such lang-uat^e as the follow- ing : — " Slie (Wisdom) hath furnished lier table, /. e. Christ, the AVisdom of God, hath furnished his table ; to wit, (supplied) the knowledge of the sacred Trinity, which had lieen promised ; and his precious and unpol- luted body and blood, which, in the a/j/sfica/ and divine table, are daily sacriticed, in rememhrcuice of that first and ever-memorable table of the mystical supper"' — the furniture of the table being the k/iowlcdf/e of the Trinity, and the precious and impolluted body and blood of Christ — the knowledge of the Trinity certainly a spiritual not a material viand — the precious and unpolluted bod}- and blood, therefore, thus coupled with it, also spiritual and not material. There is another passage in Hippoly- tus which seems to imply tlie absence of such a doctrine as purgator}' from the mind of that Father,^ and which a Iiomanist would be rather likely, if he meddled with the work at all, to suppress. ' Hippolytus, Comment, in ProT. I ' Hippolytus, Adversus Graecos, i.x. 1. p. 2^2, Ed. Fabric. I pp. 220-222. 108 THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN [Series I. LECTUEE V. State of the -writings of Origen. Theory of their interpolation by the Romanists untenable. Their testimony against Transubstantiation ; Prayers in a tongue not understood by the people ; the withholding of the Scriptures ; Disciplina arcani ; the use of Images ; Vows of celi- bacy ; the Worship of saints or angels ; Purgatory. First instance of Romish interpolation pointed out by James. Neglect of the early Fathers by the Romanists. Remark of Dodwell. The story of Pascha- sinus insufficient to support the inference drawn from it by Daille. T?ROM various causes, wliich I sliall take another opportunity of dwelling a little upon, the writings of Origen have come down to us very greatly injured : a large part in a Latin translation avowedly unfaithful to the author ; other portions, in the Greek, indeed, but whether, as at first penned and published by Origen himself, and not rather as notes taken down at the moment by standers-by, who were listening to this prolific disputant, may be doubted. Even those trea- tises of his, which he certainly committed to paper, often concocted in haste, and seldom, perhaps, reviewed or revised — for he appears to have been very much on the move, and very careless about liis manuscripts — and after all his recorded sentiments not unfrequently mal- treated, and his text vitiated by contemporary or all but contemporary heretics. Certainly one or other of these considerations affect many of the works of Origen as we now possess them, and detract from their value by shaking our confidence in their integrity. But this is by no means the case mth them all. Some treatises have not been mistranslated, for we have them in the Grreek — have not been composed in heat or haste, for they bear internal marks of care and deliberation — have not been meddled with by early heretics, for they are Lect. v.] NOT INTERPOLATED BY THE ROMANISTS. lOi) not on subjects which invite their interference. But, lu)\vever this may be, assuredly the abuses to which tlie works of Origen liave been subjected, can hardly be supposed to have proceeded from the llomanists — testifving. as those works do, even as they stand, in so manv particulars against the doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome. Indeed, how distasteful they are t() the Ixomanist may be seen at once, by a perusal of the Preface to the second volume of the Benedictine Edition, and by the notice " caute lege," so often entered on the margin of the text. I will lay before you some of the evidence on which I rest the assertion, that Origen cannot have suffered at the hands of Eomish interpolaters, at least, whatever he may have done at the hands of others ; and I beg you once more to consider, whilst I am thus bringing the question to book, the credit due to that vague and indiscriminating charge against the Romanists, of tam- pering ^^'ith these early authorities, circulated by Daille and others of his school do^\^l to the present day, and which has the effect, as I have said, of damaging the character of the Fathers, and so neutralizing their tes- timony on subjects where it is unwelcome. Thus, on TransuhHtantlation, I find Origen, when expounding the clause in the Lord's Prayer, " Give us this day our daily bread," referring, by way of illustra- tion, to the sixth chapter of the Gospel of St. John, at some length, in confirmation of his view, that the bread is spiritual bread, not material ; as also to several texts in St. Paul on meats, which he considers to point to the same conclusion, viz. that wlien expressing himself thus the Apostle "was not primanlv speaking (^K cor])oral food, but of the words (jf God wiiich nourish the soul."' When we recollect how constantly the sixth chapter of St. John is understood by the early Fathers in relation ' Origen, De Oratione, § 27. vol. i. p. 24.''). Bcncil. Ed. 110 HIS TESTIMONY AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION ; [Series I. to tlie Eucharist, it cannot be supposed that Origen would express himself as he does here — and the whole section, of which this paragraph is a part, should he read, in order that the full force of the argument may he perceived — had he believed in the doctrine of the corporal presence. Again, on another occasion he ob- jects to a material interpretation of such phrases as "the heavens were opened," "the voice of the Lord was heard," and says, that however some may take them in that light, " those who search deeper will be aware that there is a certain divine perception, which the blessed discover and enjoy — a perception which has several senses — that of sight, w^hich can discern things that are incorporeal ; that of hearing, v.diich can receive words not formed by the air ; that of taste, which uses the living bread — the bread which descends from heaven and giveth Hght unto the world. "^ This passage, again, is not conceived in the spu'it of one who found the cor- poral presence in the Eucharist. Moreover, how could that man see the sacrifice of the mass in the Eucharist, who volunteers as a comment on John iv. 24, " Grod is a Spirit : and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth;" the remark, " by which words Jesus taught that we ought not to worship Grod in the flesh, and with fleshly sacrifices" ?^ Or how, when speak- ing of the best manner of keeping the feasts, could he employ such language as that it was " by doing our duty, praying, and ofiering to God in om^ prayers unbloody sacrifices"?^ the last a phrase which could scarcely be irrespective of the Eucharist. How, again, could he talk of the bread after consecration becoming " a certain holy body,"* if he had held it to be the actual flesh of our Lord ? Or how could he be satis- fied with saying, " the bread called the Eucharist is a ' Origen, Contra Celsum, I. § 48. | ^ Origen, Contra Celsum, VIII. § 21. 2 VI. § 70. I * § 33. Lect. v.] PRAYERS IX AN UNKNOWN TONGUE ; 111 si/mhol of our tliankso-ivmy; to God,"' if lie maintained tluit tlie material \vas not bread, and that the synil)ul was lost in the corporal reality ? A^'^ould passages like these have been suffered to remain in a text which liad been modified by a Ivomanist ? Or again, assertiuLi; as the Romanist does, the expedi- ency of having Prayer in the Church, and administering the Sacraments in a tongae not N/iilcrsfood bg ilio jJf'OpJe, how could he acquiesce in a paragraph such as this ? Origen is defending the language of Scriptm*e against Celsus, Avho describes many of its maxims as not only common to the Grreeks, but as having been better ex- pressed by them — " If a Greek desired to assist those Avho spoke Egyptian or Syrian by sound teaching, he Avould first take care to learn the dialects of those who were to be his hearers ; and, as the Greeks say, would rather barbarize his own tongue for the sake of im- proving the Eg}'ptians and Syrians, than be a Greek and speak in a manner that would be useless to Egyp- tians and Syrians : so. Divine Providence not merely having respect to Greeks of education, but to all others, condescended to the boorishness of the mass of hearers, in order that, making use of such language as they were accustomed to, it might provoke the multitude to listen ; who, after this introduction, would be able to advance from the simple element to the comprehension of the deeper meanings which Scripture contained."^ Again, in another passage still more apposite, Celsus having imputed to the Christians, whom he confounds with some other class of worshippers, a practice of invoking aiiu'cls l)y certain barbarous names, and so a('(|uiring lavonr with them, Origen replies, "lie assured that the Christians do not universally use in their j)rayers even the names which are found in the Holy Scriptures, and are of God's appointment ; but the (ireeks use Grecian names, and the Romans Roman names, and thus each ' Origen, Tontra Culsiim. VITI. § .".7. » VII. § CO. 112 THE WITHHOLDING OF THE SCRIPTURES; [Series I. prays to God in his own language, and praises him according to his power. And he who is Lord of all languages hears those who pray in all languages, as though he heard, if I may so express myself, only one and the same voice uttering its meanings in many tongues."^ This, surely, a sentiment which the Eo- manist, had he been shaping the text of Origen to suit the purposes of his own Chui'ch, Avould have thought it as well to suppress. Again, jealous as the Romanist has shown himself of the free circulation of the Scriptures, would he have been likely to suffer so many passages to keep theu' ground in the writings of Origen, which are entirely adverse to this restriction, if he was moulding those waitings to those ends ? Celsus had found in one Cleomedes a person who, like Jesus, was buried and had escaped from the tomb. " But the previous life of this man," repHes Origen, " or that of other men respecting whom similar tales are told, gives no tokens of Divinity ; wdiereas the assemblies of those who have derived benefit from him testify to that of Jesus, so do the prophecies spoken concerning Him, so do the cures that have been wTought in his name, and so does the wisdom and knowledge, which are according to Him ; and so do the thoughts of the sober-minded, found as they are to rise above a bare belief, and to investigate the real meaning of the Scriptures, agreeably to the command of Jesus, who said, ' Search the Scriptures ; ' and to the will of Paul, who teaches that ' we ought to know how to give an answer to every one ; ' and to the will of him who says, ' Be ever ready to give an answer to every one that asketh you a reason for the faith that is in you.' "* And he elsewhere enlarges on the happy effects which flow from this study — effects greatly surpassing those which proceed from application to the writings of even the very chief 1 Origen, Contra Celsum, VIII. § 37. =* III. § 3-3. I Lect. v.] THE WITHHOLDING OF THE SCRIPTURES. 113 pliilosoplicrs. Plato, it is true, may speak of a li<:^ht suddenly kindled in the soul by lon^ conmumion with the chief good ; " but observe the difterence between what is said by Plato, and well said, concerning the chief good, and what is said by the prophets concern- ing the light of the blessed; and consider that the truth on this subject, as spoken by Plato, neither helps ordinaiy persons nor even one who philosophizes on the chief good after the manner of Plato, to attain to sin- cere piety. AMiereas the simple speech of the Divine Scriptures imparts a kind of inspiration to those who read them unafteetedly ; whereby the light is fed with that oil of which the parable speaks in a figure, the oil which kept alive the lamps of the five vii-gins."' It is evident that nothing like reserve in communicating the Scriptures to the pet)ple, that is to Christians in general, is here incid- cated, but quite the contrary : the expression, " the simple speech of the Scriptures " here used, and that of reading them " unaffectedly," being enough in themselves to mark that Origen contemplated unlearnod readers of them, as well as others ; which is still more apparent from another passage (one which again the Romanist would have been under a temptation to expunge) where to a cavil of Celsus, that anger and the like terms ought not to be ascribed to God, as they are in Scriptm-e, Origen replies, that " the word of God economises the expres- sions of Scriptui'e, adapting them to the capacity of tlie hearers, and measuring what is fit in itself by what is profitable to them. Touching which method of communicating the things pertaining to God, we read in Deuteronomy, '^ ' The Lord thy God bare thee, as a man doth bear his son;' as though the Word spake after the manner of men in accommodation to men, forasmuch as the midtitude at large (ot iroKKol) being what they were, did not rcc^uire God to address ' Origen, Contra Celsum, VI. § 5. » Deut. i. 31. I 114 VIEWS OF ORIGEN [Series I. tliem according to tlie Majesty of his character;"^ and lie then proceeds to say that the Scriptures contained deep things for the spiritual, and more simple things for the weak, and that they would be often found by one who knew how to construe them aright, to speak to both these classes under one and the same phrase. It is ob^dous that in all this there is none of the spirit of the exclusionist. And thus I am naturally led to the consideration of a kindred subject, the I)iscij)lina arcani ; the reserve with which the m^'steries of rehgion should be dis- closed ; and which we shall gather from numerous pas- sages of Origen amounted to this, and nothing more, a proper adjustment of your teaching to your audience, a care not to throw your pearls before swine. Thus Celsus taunts the Christians with repelling from them wise and thoughtful men, and canvassing only the silly and servile. To this Origen replies, that on the con- trary, if there be any capable of receiving the deepest truths, the Gospel makes provision for them; even as Paul says, " howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect;"^ and then he continues, "If Celsus wdth his friends maintains that Paul had no particular wisdom to divulge, we make answer, first explain to us his Epistles, and entering into the meaning of every expression in them, (for instance, in those to the Ephe- sians, the Colossians, the Thessalonians, the Philippians, the Romans,) satisfy us of both points, xyl. that you understand the words of Paul, and that you can prove them to be foolish and weak. For I well know," con- tinues Origen, " that if he devotes himself to reading them with attention," (again observe the layman is in^dted to this,) " he will either be astonished at the understanding of the man, who conceives mighty thoughts, though he expresses them in homely phrase, ' Origen, Contra Celsum, IV. § 71. ^1 Cor. ii. 6. Led. v.] ON THE DISCIPLINA ARCANI. 115 or if lie does not wonder at liim, lie will prove himself ridiculous, either by atVectin Xoyoi'f (I'opciii'Tos T(Hi dyaXfiaai, (fjdaprr), oiidf Tipdrai (v <'i\|/-i'x''tr vKan Ka\ iJToi airo'ii uvairfiMirouTos rrjv (vxr}v, VTTo dv6pu)T:o)i> fxofXpoCfitvot, o)S Kar fj 8ia T»)f tovtuv o>//^fa)r, ('(fi ov (fyav- (iKOva ^ Tiva (Tvp^oXa tKtivov yiyvo- 1 rd^fTdi 8»if dva^a'ivfiv anit ^\(iropivov ^tVatf.— Contra Oclsuiii, III. § 40. Ka\ avp^uXov oinos. dvarf pon xmtp- ovpavioit, Kara^a'ivdv S tKfldtv, (f>fpoirras (Kacrra Kar d^lav tuu dno Qfov Ti avTois bioKOVt'iv rois fiitp- ytrovp-evoit TTpocrracrtTopLfvav. tovtovs bq dyyeXovs otto tov tpyov avrtov p.€pa6qKuTfi KoXcIi', fvpLCTKopfv ai/Tois, bid TO 6(lovi tivai, Ka\ Ofoiis iv raii Upais TTOTt dvopa^op.( vovt ypatftals' dXX' oix wv dpxieptais, €p'^v)(ov Aoyov Koi BfoC. btrjcrdpeda 8e Kai avToG Toii Aoyov, Koi (UTfV^opfda avra, Koi iv\apL(TTr](Topfv, Kai npoa- ev^npfda be, idv bwiiptOa KaTOKoveiu Trjs iTtpX 7rpo tovto crvvrjdes e.anv, k.t.X. '' L Origen, Prologus Rufini in Li- I tert. pp. 45. 107, Bened. Ed. bros de Principiis and Prcef. Lib. I Lect. VI.] OMISSIONS OF M^NUTIUS AND PAMELIUS. 135 liim ; and now they stand as a nionument of tlie im- practicability of this kind of fraud. Tliere is another comphiint still made by James against the edition of Man ut ins — that it omits the 7 Itli and Totli Epistles; the first, one of Cyprian "ad Pum- peium contra E])istolam Stephani ;" the latter an Epistle of Firmilianus to Cyprian ; and both of them taking very great Hberties with the Pope. But these are found in all the manuscripts, so that no attempt was made to suppress them in the middle ages ; and they were even restored by Pamelius in his edition, which came out four years later than that of Manutius/ and are now in the Benedictine edition. Daille also notices' a wilful omission of the sentence " Et vestram C|Uoque sententiam" ^ in Ep. xi. to the people of Carthage, in Pamelius' edition and in the two editions wliich had preceded it — these words showing that the people took part in the affairs and deliberations of the Church, together with the clergy; on which account, says Daille, they were suppressed. But it was a sup- pression, for the words are confessed to have been in the manuscripts, which had therefore been kept pure ^ ; and they were restored in subsequent editions, and now are found in the Benedictine. And the same is true of the alteration of " Petrum" for " Petram" made by Pame- lius in the lOtli Letter, also noticed by Daille : it was made against the manuscripts, and has since been cor- rected by the Romanists themselves. I do not observe any other charge against the Wo- manists with respect to their treatment of Cyprian ' James, Pt. II. p. 87. I Domini disciplinam et confcssonim ' Daille, p. 8.3. ' praiscntiam ct vestram quoque scn- * Audiant, qua?so, patienter con- ' tcntiam, bcatorum martyrum litems silium nostrum ; cxpectent regres- \ et desideria examinare possimus. — sioncm nostram ut, cum ad vos per Cji)rian, Ep. xi. § 3. Dei misericordiam vcnerimu?, con- j * See Benedict. Ed. p. 398. vocati coepiscopi plures, secundum | 13C) EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ROMANISTS [Series I. besides tliese; for as to the last tliree letters printed in the Benedictine edition of Cyprian, the editor himself does not pretend that they are genuine — habes fatentem reum — and yet what a temptation must they have been under in dealing with him, to mutilate him, if they knew what was in him ! For who can read Cyprian mthout perceiving the strong testimony he bears against the Eo- manists in man}^ most vital dogmas, he a Latin Father too, and therefore so much more accessible than a Grreek ; so that if they spared his writings, whose should they spoil? Cornelius, Bishop of Eome, in the 4Sth Letter, wi-ites to Cyprian and tells hun of the schismatical pro- ceedings of Novatianus, Novatus, and others : and, in the 49th, C}^3rian replies to Cornelius, approving what he had done, confirming liis ill opinion of Novatus by a re- port of his proceedings at Carthage "before he went to Eome, where Ms attempts to disturb the Church were the same as those he had made at Carthage ; " oi^y/' adds Cyprian, " as Eome, on account of its magnitude, ought to take the lead of Carthage, his achievements there have been worse and more mischievous." Is this the ground on which the modern Church of Eome would have its superiority established? The 55th Letter of C^qDrian is addressed to the same Cornelius in terms quite didactic — Cornelius, it should seem, having invited his counsel in a difficulty. Again, his 67th Letter is written to Stephanus, the successor of Cornelius, entu'ely in the language of an equal, the Gralhc Church having appealed for advice to them both as conspicuous Bishops of the Church Catholic, and Cyprian in this letter suggesting what should be done. The 6Sth Letter is an answer to a similar apphcation for counsel made by the Church of Spain to Cjq^rian, and not made, 3'ou will observe, to the Bishop of Eome. The 74th Letter, addressed to Pompeius, a Bishop of Tripolis, animadverts on a letter of the same Stephanus on the subject of the Baptism of Lcct. VI.] IN THE WRITINGS OF CYPRIAN, 137 lieretics, in terms of liiijfU indii^mation. ITe bids Poni- ])c'ius read this letter of ►Stepliaims, which he incloses to him, " and then," says he, " you will mark his error yet more and more ; endeavouring, as he does, to assert the cause of the heretics ai^ainst the Christians, and aij^ainst the Cliurch of God. For amom^st other thinut tills is not all, for he then goes on to enlarge upon the difhcidty of mastering those languages. " Who does not know," says he, " what pains it takes to acquire an intimate acquaintance with those two tongues? not only what assiduity, Init what powers of mind are necessary to get possession of them ? a tenacious memory, a clear head, unwearied study, ready apprehension, daily and diligent reading, and other qualifications of the same kind, which are but rarely met with?"' And all tliis to prove the obscurity of the Fathers ! As if it did not tell equally against all authors w^hatever, who have wTitten in Greek or Latin ! But here, as elsewhere, Daille likes to launch his sub- ject, as he thinks, to advantage ; and holds it politic not to proceed to his arguments till he has created a gentle prejucUce against the quarter he is about to assail. The real effect, however, of his tactics surely ought to be, to put us on our guard against the man who adopts them, and who discloses at the very outset the animus, not of a truth-seeker, but of a partisan. The first of the causes of this obscm-ity in the Fathers of wliicli he complains is, that they wrote before the con- troversies with which we are concerned had any existence, and consequently that they could not have written with any reference to them ; nay, that the controversies, in wliich they were themselves actively engaged, would ratlicr have the effect of leading their minds away from ours.^ Thus, that all that can be gathered from the Fathers who lived before the Arian question was agi- tated, on that subject, is incidental, and accordingly beset with darkness — a darkness simihir to that which involves their testimony, when ap])licd to the religious disjjutations of our times. ^ But it is this very circum- ' Daille, p. 130. » p. 133. ' p. 134. 160 VALUE OF INCIDENTAL EVIDENCE [Series I. stance, the incidental nature of their evidence, that gives it the value it possesses. Suppose, for illustra- tion's sake, a boundary cause was brought into court, and an ancient witness, who knew nothing whatever of the litigation, or the parties to it, deposed to facts within his own knowledge, which were found inci- dentally to bear on the case, would not such testunony, however incomplete it might be, weigh with the jury infinitely more than the most perfect tale that could be told by any man that was behind the scenes, who was mixed up with the parties and the proceedings, and had taken a side ? Daille's allusion to the Arian question seems unfortunate : for though expressions, which might now be considered incautious with respect to the nature of the Son, are certainly to be met with in the Ante- Nicene Fathers, one or two of which he produces from Justin and Tertullian, yet it seems to me impossible for persons of plain understanding to read these rathers, and not be satisfied that the wdiole stream of evidence which they present goes to establish the fact, that they had no doubt about the Godhead of the Son ; and that, though they might not use the very term crwatBtos, they did believe Him to be co-eternal with the Father ; and though they did not use the very term oixoovauos, they did believe Him to be consubstantial with the Father ; and that when such incorrect expressions as those I have referred to happen to drop from them, they may be accounted for most satisfactorily, by the inartificial state of theological controversy at that time ; the want of those technical terms in which the polemics of later days learned to express themselves, after Coun- cils had tutored them, and successive heresies had ren- dered the use of an exact nomenclature in dealing with them necessary. It is inconvenient to enter into many details in proof of this at present, but I state tlie fixed impression on LectVII.] EXEMPLIFIED IN THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. ICl my own mind ; and take which of tlie Ante-Xiccne Fathers you will, the result, I am persuaded, will be what I say. Daille, for instance, happens to refer to Justm and Tertullian. AMiat if Justin does press the Jew with the aro;ument that " the God who appeared to ^Vloses and the Patriarchs was the Son and not the Father, inasmuch as the Father did not change place, or ascend, or descend." ' Or, again, that •' No one ever saw the Father and ineftable Lord of all things and of Christ himself; but only saw Him, who according to his will is Cfud, his Son and Angel from ministering to his purposes," ' which are the passages Daille adduces, and to which I could easily add a few others of the same character. Tliey are the unguarded expressions, I re- peat, of a man who \\Tote before the Arian controversy arose : f(jr, with respect to the co-eternity of the Son, I find Justin speaking of his being " inseparable from God in power," ' as though the connexion -was of a kind that was necessary, and must, therefore, have subsisted from everlasting : of liis being his only Son iBccos* Kvpioos.^ peculiarlv, properly : of his being co-existent with Him, and begotten of Him before all creatures^: of his being Wisdom, mentioned in the 8th Chapter of Proverbs,^ of whom it is said, I was set up from ever- lasting ^ : of his being the Person whom the Father addressed as another self when He exclaimed " Let its make man:"^ of his being "the Lord" of the Old Testament, where the Hebrew term answering to it is -Jehovah," the self-existent; as where we read, " The Lord'" said, Shall I hide from Abraham that ihuvj; which T do"; or where we read, "The Lord * DailI6, p. 134. lie refers to Jus- l ' Ufio rtiyv iroir^fidToiv Kaiirvvuv koX tin Martvr. Dial. § CO. § 127. ytwunuvoi. — Apolog. II. § G. ' Justin Martjr, Dial. § 127. ^ Prov. viii. 23. ^ 'Axw^« Stromal. VI. § lii. 790, 791. i » Daill6, p. 137. ' IV. § iii. 5Ch; § vii. 587; \\x.\ * i>. 138. 597. ' 172 STYLE OF CLEMENS. [Series L according to Daillc.^ The learning of Clemens, it seems, destroys liis perspicuity. He introduces into his Cliristian philosophy so many matters alien from his subject, however ornamental and acceptable to mere scholars, that he constantly gets into the clouds. Perhaps on a perusal of the books of Clemens, with- out any reference to the plan on which they are com- posed, Ave might subscribe to the censure of Daille. Yet Clemens himself, on more occasions than one, distinctly apologizes for his style, not as though he thought it artificial, but homely. " We have already said that we have taken no care, and bestowed no pains, about our Greek : for this only suffices to lead away the many from the truth : whereas genuine phi- losophy will not profit the hearers of it by its lan- guage, but by its sentiment. And in my opinion he Avho is solicitous about truth, must not compose his pliraseology mth art or study, but will simply en- deavour to express, as he can, what he means, for the subject-matter itself escapes those who are oc- cupied about the diction, and are only intent upon that." "^ It should seem, therefore, that in introducing his multifarious reading into his works Clemens was regulated by some other principle than that of style, and that his principle probably was the one I have ah'eady alluded to, a hope of recommending the Gospel to learned and captious men, through the literature, which was famihar to them ; a hope in which Origen, his successor in the same school, participated, who writes to one of his pupils that he would have him apply to the Grecian pliilosophy as a prelude to re- velation, and expresses an opinion, that as the sciences were considered to be tributary to pliilosophy, so should ' Daille, p. 1.39. I compare Stromat. VII. § xviii. p. * Stromat. II. § i. p. 429. And I 902. Lect. VII.] PECULIARITIES OF IT EXPLAINED. 173 philosophy be considered tributary to Christianity,' and also appears to have ofiven expression to this theory in the same manner as C'K'niens, by composinL;; a work, Avhich, like his, had tor its title the Stromata ; the fragments of which (tor fragments are all that we have of it) would lead us to think, that as in name, so in substance, it resembled its precursor,'^ and pro- bably contributed to secure for its author the character "which Eusebius tells us was assigned to him, " even by the Grreeks themselves, of being a great philosopher." ^ Hence Clemens' use of the word philosophy for Christi- anity, and philosopher for Christian.'* Hence his asser- tion that whilst revelation came primarily from God for man's instruction, pliilosophy came secondarily, and even primarily to the Greeks, whom the Lord had not yet called, being to them what the law was to the Hebrews, the schoolmaster, which had led unto Chinst.^ Hence his phrase that Plato was the philo- sopher of the Hebrews " ; that he was nothing else than Closes speaking Attic. ^ Hence his theory that the Grecian philosophy had abstracted and detached for itself a shred from the theology of the everlasting AVord.' Hence his repeated endeavours to represent Abraham as a natural philosopher, a character which was eventually sublimed into a lover of God.^ Hence his inclination to approximate heathen, Jew and Christian ; it was one and the self-same God, who ' Origen, Epist. ad Gregorium, Vol. I. p. 3(», Bened. Ed. * In proof of this compare the fragment from the Gth book of the •* Clem. Alex. Stromat. IV. § viii. p. 590. » I. § V. p. 331. ' 'O t^ 'E^paiav (Pi\uao(f>os. — I. Stromata of Origen, Vol. I. p. 30, § i. p. 321. on the subject of falsehood, with a very corresponding passage in Cle- mens, Stromat. VII. § ix. p. bG3, and § xii. p. 8^1. ' Tt yap «OTt nXuTav ^ Moxttjs aTTiKi(a)u; — l. § xxii. p. 411. » I. § xiii. p. 310, ' 'Ai'tI iX6- ^ Eusebius, Ecclcs. Uist. vi. c. 6(os ytvoiuvos. — V. § i. p. G4t>; and IS. VI. § X. 174 STYLE OF CLEMENS. [Series I. was knoA\Ti by the Greeks eOvtKws, by the Jews ^lovhalKws, by tlie Christians Kaivws koI TtvevfiaTLKOis} Hence his declaration in favour of an eclectic philosophy, i. e. a philosophy made up of all portions of truth which are found in all sects. '^ Hence his doctrine that all true philosophy that ever was in the world, traces up to Christ the primaeval teacher, later philosophers re- ferring their knowledge to Zeno, Aristotle, Epicurus, Socrates ; they in their turn referring theirs to Pytha- goras, Pherecydes, Thales ; the masters of these again having been the Egyptians, Indians, Babylonians : the scale thus ascending to the original parents of mankind : they again not gathering their knowledge from the angels, for the two parties had no organs adapted to mutual communication, and Grod is above all.; but imbibing all their ideas from the fontal source, the everlasting Son.' Hence again his discovery of Christian allegories in heathen fables. " Sail past her song," says he, meaning the song of the Sirens, whose story he was now telling with Homer, quoting his verses, and adapting them to his purpose — " Sail past her song — it works death — only desire it and you have conquered death — and binding yourself to the mast (tc3 ^uXg), the mast in the case of Ulysses, the Cross in the case of Christians) you shall be dehvered from all corruption." ^ Hence his searching for testi- monies in the writings of the heathens even to the evangelical vii'tues of faith, hope, and charity ; ^ and his tracing the terms dvayevvrjais and \oyos to a heathen nomenclature.^ In short, whatever avenue seems to him likely, either directly or indirectly, to tempt an educated and refined heathen to Christ he avails him- ' Clem. Alex. Stromat. VL § v. p. 761. * L § xiv. p. 351. •■* VL § vii. p. 769. * Cohort, ad Gentes, § xii. p. 91. 6 Stromat. V, § ii. p. 652. « V. § ii. pp. 653, 654. Lcct. A'll.] STYLE OF TERTULLIAN. 175 self of, avowedly und without scruple, and in a degree which often verges upon impropriety, if it does not pass the line. This feature of the style of Clemens admits of being developed to almost any extent ; but let what 1 have said suffice to show that when Clemens indulges it, ho does so not capriciously and out of ostentation merely, but upon a principle, a principle which pervades his whole work ; and that attention to this principle l)eing constantly maintained, his own hope will be rea^ lised, viz. " that the seeds of truth which he has scat- tered here and there, escaping the notice of jackdaws, who might pick them up and devour them, were they more conspicuous and obtrusive, may fall in with a good and intelligent husbandman, and by him be tui-ned to account, and be productive of a han^est." ' In other ^vords, we may reasonably expect, that, provided with the clue I have said, we shall not find in the style of Clemens that obscurity which Daille imputes to it. The style of Tertullian he ialls foul of in the same way — Tertidlian and Clemens being the only two of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, whom he taxes by name and at any length with this defect. So many novel words does Tertidlian use, so many legal ones, there is in him so much subtlety, so much acuteness, that he requires most sagacious readers to imderstand him ; no learning, no attention beinjr too f'reat for such a task. I should not have thought it necessary to notice this part of Daille's treatise, as it brings no other charge against these Fa- tliers than that they are sometimes hard to construe, (lid I not leel that he still exaggerates ; and that his ex- aiifgerations have an object which we shall eventually detect. Moreover, I am not unwilling to prevent those who miirht jjive credit to all his remarks from being scared out of reading an author reju-esented by him as ' Stromat. I. § xii. p. 348. 176 DIFFICULTY OF IT [Scries I. SO difficult. Let tliem take courage. Difficult lie, no doubt, is ; though some of liis treatises far more so than others ; that difficulty often arising, as Daille says, from his use of strange words ; more often from his use of common words in a strange sense, or in a strange gram- matical construction. Nor is it his nomenclature only, it mio-ht be added, that is in fault. The indistinctness with which he frequently expresses himself is a further hindrance ; his phrase so indefinite, or so equivocal, that nothing but the general drift of his argument fixes it ; his use of abstract terms, his affectation, his refinement, his great love of the ironical and sarcastic, a weapon which he often wields in such a way that it cannot always be discovered at once whether he is in jest or in earnest ; in short, the utter want of simplicity that per- vades him — all this, no doubt, renders him an author far from easy. But it is sui-prising how many or all of these difficulties disappear after you have made yourself familiar with his manner ; nothing illustrates him so much as himself; and so true to himself is he, so peculiar, so idiosyncratic, that after you have read one or two of his tracts, and your feelings warm to him, as they infallibly wiU, for he is a most powerful and striking writer, you wonder at the obstacles you once found in him, and the progress you make in him now : his strange words or strange expressions being often repeated, repeated of course in different combinations with the context, en- able you to get at their meaning before long ; and his ambiguous sentences, when brought into comparison with one another, acquire a more distinct and definite value. If you note down extraordinary terms or com- binations as they occur, the chances are you will find something in the further course of your reading of the author which will explain them ; and thus you will be making a glossary for yourselves, or at least be enlarg- ing and rendering more complete that at the end of Lect. VII.] HOW TO BE OVERCOME. 177 Prioriiis' edition of liigaltius, wliich, tlioiigh very use- ful, is very far fi"om perieet. You will perceive, too, in (lealin<4^ with this writer more than with most others, that a passaije which has been insuperable to-dav will give out its meaninii^ to you to-morrow ; your thou«j;}bts happeniuLif in the latter case to fall in with your subject better; just as you catch a pattern on silk in one lij^ht, and lose it in every other. It is advisable, therefore, in readinij^ Tertullian to note down your interpretation of ever\' passage that at all perplexes you at the moment ; for of this you may be sure, that if when 3'our mind is heated with this author you do not hit off his meaning readily and without an effort, on laying him aside for a year and lighting on the same, you will not have a chance of understanding it, and will be sorry you did not secure your interpretation when you had it ; for, as craftsmen say, your hand incst be i/i to make an3tliing of a work Hke this. On the whole, what I would have you conclude fi*om these practical hints is this, that Tertullian is difficidt, but not so difficult as he is reputed to be, or as he seems to be at ffrst sight, or on a casual opening of a page of him ; that, in general, he is to be mastered by making him his o^^^l interpreter ; and that Daille must not alarm you. He had an object beyond the obvious one, in dwelling upon the obscurity of the style of the Fathers, which presently peeps out ; and on that account I have spoken more at length on the case of Tertidlian, which was, perhaps, the strongest he could produce. For he applies this argument of ob- scurity of style to weaken what seems to be so evidently the testimony of the Fathers to the great dignity of the Eucharist ; to the solemn claims of e))iscopacy ; and in general to what are called liiixh <'lninh Wews on other controverted points.' 'i'hey spoke, he would have you ' Dftille, p. 143. 178 LANGUAGE OF IREN^US. [Series I. believe, on these topics in that cliaracteristic style of theirs which he had been condemning ; a style capable of being greatly misapprehended ; hazy and rhetorical ; much allowance therefore to be made for it, and their seeming sense modified/ Possibly there may be some gromids for his remark aftbrded by inflated expressions in the Post-Nicene Fathers ; and it is quite clear from the whole tenor of Daille's book that his mind was under a strong Post-Nicene influence : his examples and almost all the defects he attributes to the Fathers speedily settling to that period. But these high Church doctrines (as it is now the fashion ignorantly to call them) which Daille would thus qualify, are often ad- vanced by the Ante-Nicene Fathers in terms so simple and incidental, that even where their style on the whole may be called figurative, they cannot be mistaken ; and besides, the same are taught by those among them who have no rhetoric in them at all. Iren^us, for instance, is a mere controversialist, and does not deal in flowers of speech : yet we find these notions, of which I am speaking, put forward by him without misgiving. You perceive him, for example, expressing himself on the Eucharist, in the language, not precise in its meaning certainly, but still in the language of sacrifice ^ ; and tes- tifying to portions of its ritual, such as Daille would not approve of — an invocation or eircKXTjaLs on the ele- ments ^ ; and a mixed chalice * ; and on ej)iscopacy in terms which Daille would object to no less ; representing Bishops as receiving the office of government fi'om the Apostles^; as the Apostles' successors and vicars^; as proceeding from them in an unbroken line ; as being in number one and onh" one at a time in one Chui'ch, even in so great a Clim'ch as Eome ^ ; as accompanied by • Daille, p. 143. ^ Irengeus, IV. c. xviii. § 1. => I. c. xiii. § 2. " Ibid. ^ Irenseus, III. c. iii. § 1. 6 Ibid. ' Ibid. Lect. VII.] CHANGES IN THE MEANING OF WORDS. 179 Preslnters when they e^ave Paul his meetincf at ^lile- tus/ thoiio-li the text in the Acts says elders only, mak- ing no distinction between the trvvo orders. You hear liim teaching the necessity of cleaving to this Church, this Episcopal Church, tor he knew no other ^ ; of the sin of secession from it ; the cases of Xadab and Abihu, of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, parallel to theirs, who do so secede ' ; and much more to the same effect. So that it is impossible, so long as words are allowed to have any meaning at all, to lower these Fathers to the sense to which Daille would reduce them. The last cause of obscurity under the head of style, of whicli Uaillc takes notice, and it is with great naivete that he does so, is that the changes which have taken ])laee in the institutions of the Church as well as of states since the days of the Fathers, have given the phraseology of the early centuries quite another mean- ing from that which it used to have. AAHiat, he ex- claims, is become of the ancient discipline, of the canons, (tf the mystical ceremonies of Baptism and the Eu- charist, of the rites of ordination? All these matters are defunct and passed away.* A new age has called for new customs. But the wTitings of the ancients are replete with these subjects ; how difficult, therefore, to determine their meaning now. Then the very terms of former times circulate in quite another sense. We talk stiU of Pope, Patriarch, Mass, Oblation, Station, Pro- cession, Indulgence, &:c., but no longer attach to them the same ideas as they of old. Just as under the Roman emperors, the titles of the magistrates remained the same as under the Pepublic, but their offices were altogether different. If we meet with the word Pope in an old writer, as a designation of the Bishop of Pome, our thoughts lorthwith pass to the poiiq) and ' Iren.-cus, III. c. xiv. § 2. I ' IrcnsDus, IV. c. xxvi. § 2. ^ III. c. xxiv. I * Daillu, p. 14!). N 2 180 TRUE CONCLUSION TO BE DRAWN [Series I. circumstance of the modern sovereign Pontiff, liis run- ing- footmen, his body guard, and so on ^ ; but this is not the train of thought that old writers dreamed of awak- ing by the use of the term. Hence further obscurity ! But to what does this argument amount ? That be- cause the Church has gradually swerved from the insti- tutions and rules, which prevailed in it soon after the times of our blessed Lord and the Apostles, we are not to endeavour to bring them back to those purer times by a reference to the old standard and a correction of the aberrations, which it indicates ; but rather throw the standard away as antiquated, as no longer intelli- gible or easily read. Surely if the term Pope, e. g. is used by the primitive Fathers, as it is, indiscriminately for the Bishop of Eome, or for other Bishops, and repre- sents a personage very different in his pretensions from him who has borne the same name in later times, we should not charge the original term with obscurity on that account, but draw the wholesome inference, that the Bishop of Rome is no longer what he once w^as in the least corrupt period of the Church ; and take cou- rag-e that our Eeformed Church has not swerved from primitive usage in establishing towards him the rela- tions she has ! That he had exalted himself too highly, and was in some sort to be abased ! As, on the other hand, if the discipline, the canons, the Sacraments, the rite of Orders, as observed in the modern Church, have all sunk very greatly below the mark wdiich they at- tained unto in the Primitive Church, we must not com- plain of the meaning attached to these uses and ordi- nances of old being very different from that attached to them now, and affect not to understand what the an- cient writers say of them ; but confess that the age has become less devotional ; that there is less reverence for Grod's ordinances now than there was in the days of ' Daille, p. 149. Lect. VII.] FROM THESE CHANGES. ISl Tertiillian and Cyprian. That, in sliort. tliese holy tilings have been humbled too gi'eatly and must be ex- alted. And instead of putting the Fathers aside, as Daille would recommend, not unnaturally, and telling peojile that they are so full of perplexities that it is not worth their while to examine them, we shall cherish them as affording a testimony ])lain enough to those who are not wilfully blind to it, which is eq\ially unpro- pitious to the Papist and the Puritan, and which, on the whole, is calculated to satisfy us, that the Reformed Church of England is very much nearer to the Primitive than either of them. 182 CHARGE OF DISINGENUOUSNESS. [Series I. LECTUEE yill. Clemens Alexandrinus the only Ante-Nicene Father charged with dis- ingenuousness by Daille. His instance from Cardinal Perron. Passages liable to misconstruction in Clemens and in Origen. Inference of Daille from the illogical reasoning of the Fathers disputed. Their- use of the argumentum ad hominem explained. Value of their testimony notwith- standing. Instances of inconsistency from Clemens and from Tertullian. Relative importance of different topics not confounded by the Fathers. Daille's instances to the contrary examined. The early Fathers fair exponents of the sentiments of the early Church ; especially where they were identified with their respective Churches ; and where they concur with each other. Allowance to be made for the peculiar character of their times. THE next objection, wliicL. Daille takes to tlie Fathers, is on the ground of tlieir disingenuousness. What they believe they often suppress, and what they don't believe they often say.^ This objection has been in part disposed of in a former Lecture, when we considered the reasonable causes there might be, and were, for their exercising some discretion in communicating the mys- teries of the Grospel to ill-informed or ill-disposed heathens, a discretion which in part exposed them to tills animadversion. But the present indictment goes beyond this, and impugns their honesty, attributing to them an intention of misleading, b}" interpreting Scrip- ture occasionally /car' oIkovo/jlIuv, or economice, as it is called : a germ, it may be considered, of the pious frauds of later times. Daille gives no sufficient instance of such dishonesty in any Ante-Nicene Eather ; for the single instance he cites from the Psedagogue of Clemens Alexandrinus, as suggested to him by Cardinal Perron, namely, the expression, " The flesh and blood of Christ ' Daille, pp. 150. 158. 160. Lect. VIII.] INSTANCE OF IT FROM PKRRON. 183 is faith and the promise,"' as tlioiio-h Clemens suppressed the lull force of the words in order to cast a mist before the eyes of the Catecliumens, who were not yet prepared for the truth, is surely a very unsatisfactory one. It occurs, I conceive, for Daille gives no reference, in the sixth chapter of the first book of the IV'dagog-ue.'^ Clemens is there employed in adapting St. Paul's phrase, " I have fed you with milk, and not with meat," to the argument of this chapter, which is to show that when the Scripture speaks of Christians -as children or babes, it does not mean, as the Gnostics -would have it, that Churchmen were mere no\dces in knowledo-e. But the subject of meat and drink prompting him, he proceeds to remark " elsewhere also the Lord in the Gospel of John hath expressed himself by symbols after another kind, saying, ' Eat my flesh and drink my blood,' where he makes the cup an evident symbol of faith and the promise." But sui-ely it is a refinement on Clemens to suppose that he talked in this manner, because his hearers were not prepared for the doctrine of Transub- stantiatiou, which is what Cardinal Perron would in- sinuate ; and which doctrine, though he secretly held it, he would not venture openly to announce. Plain persons would suppose that he meant what he said, and that, having found St. l\iul speaking of milk and meat as figures, and wishing further to illustrate the use of such figurative language in Scripture, he adduced the Lord's words in St. John, when He spoke of his llcsh and blood as another examjjle oK fKjiircs. For it would be singidar indeed, on the supposition of the truth of iVrron's hypothesis, that Clemens should over and over again express himself on the subject of the Euchari>akT]t ti *v opa S yvucTTiKut pr) \d0T], if 17 (rvprr€pi(f>opa bid3«Tii yt'i/Tjrai. — § xii. p. S81. * Origen, Vol. i. p. 3!), Bened. Ed. 186 ANOTHER INSTANCE FROM ORIGEN. [Series I. Clemens ; the same startling proposition ; the same qualification of it ; and the same caveat ; and of this too, out of candour and a desire to represent the Fathers as they are, I make Daille a present. It is one, which, probably, both he and Barbeyrac would have ad- vanced, had it suggested itself to them. Having quoted a paragraph from the third book of the Eepublic of Plato, in which Plato speaks of a lie as unworthy of Grod, but sometimes profitable to men — still only to be used by them as a medicine is used by physicians, which none but physicians must meddle vdth — Origen proceeds to remark, that though Grod may, for the benefit of the hearer, express the truth ambiguously and by parables, thus casting a veil over what might be injurious in it if announced nakedly to the uninformed, " still the man on whom the necessity of telling a lie presses, must be very careful so to use his He as if it were a medicine ; to make it keep within the bounds which Judith observed when, using it against Holofernes, she prevailed over him by a prudent craft in her words. He must imitate Esther, who, by suppressing all mention of the race she belonged to, changed the sentence of Artaxerxes : and, still more, the Patriarch Jacob, who, we read, obtained his father's blessing by an artful lie — whence it is clear, that, unless we so lie, as that some great good is our object in so doing, we shall be condemned as the enemies of Him who said, ' I am the truth,' " — the whole, it will be perceived, resolving itself into a case of casuistry, such as that entertained by Bishop Taylor in the " Ductor Dubitantium," Book III., c. ii., Eide Y. " Wliether it can in any case be lawful to tell a lie " — a question in which he finds much room for discrimination — quoting, in the course of it, the instances of the Israehtish midwives, and of Eahab. There is another objection akin to this last, which Daille urges against the Fathers.' That, in their Daille, pp. 158, 159, et seq. Leot. YIII.] USE OF THE ARGUMENTUM AD UOMINEM. i^7 polemics, in their disputations against lieathens, Jews, and lieretics, they stuck at nothing, in order to secure to themselves the \dctory : urging arguments which '\\'ere in their favour, though they felt them to be faulty, and suppressing others, which were against them, which they knew to be sound. Hence a further dithculty in getting at the real sentiments of the Fathers. There is some truth in this remark ; but the fact itself furnishes me with a diHerent conclusion from that which Daillc draws from it. For he once more chimes in with the Romanist, and confesses, that, perplexed by such dis- putants, he sees notliing for it but to throAv oneself on the Church, as the interpreter of the Fathers, who are so ambiguous, /. e. on the Chui'ch of Eome' ; thus implying that the Fathers must be abandoned as an authority, at least by Protestants. On the other hand, the conclusion I come to is this ; that seeing the Fathers are such writers as they are here represented to be, it is higldy necessar}^ not only to read them, but to read them carrftdlj/, in order to detect the complexion of their argument, and the grounds on which it proceeds, and to make the necessary allowance for circumstances : tliat the true redress of the inconvenience is, not to throw the Fathers away in despair, or apply to Rome for a key to them, but really to investigate them, and not pursue Dr. Priestley's plan of looking through books,^ with wliich Bishop Horsley taxes him so severely ; a ])lan which is sure to mislead, and the adoption of which is, in fact, the source of so much of the perplexity whicji people find in them. Certainly, there is no argu- ment more comiiiDU with thr Fathers, as 1 liave oiten taken occasion to observe in my Lectures on them, than the argumentum ad homincm — or, in other words, the ' p. 1G3. In the Latin transla- tion, which was ab auctore rccog- nicum, auctum et emendatum. In thti French the passage is not found. ' Horsley 'a Letters, p. 100. 188 THE FATHERS AVAILABLE AS WITNESSES, [Series L argument for victory, as Daillc says — but it is one that creates no difficulty to those who approach it in the course of the regular study of these authors : the context and general drift of the reasoning point it out to be what it is : but select out of the whole some detached passage, and it is not improbable, that a meaning may be assigned to it altogether at variance with the real sentiments of the authors. I believe that the Fathers have been often laid under contribution by Socinians in this manner, and extracts made from them, which, had those extracts been only fragments that had survived their other works, would have infal- libly conveyed the impression that ihey were Socinians, though nothing was more untrue. Por example, " The Son of Grod, called Jesus, may well enough be called the Son of Grod on account of his wisdom, even if he he hut a mere man, for all wi'iters call God the Father of gods and men,"' writes Justin. Suppose this had been the only paragraph in Justin that had come down to us ; and it had not, accordingly, been known that, when uttering it, Justin was pleading the Christian cause before heathen Emperors, and was fighting them with their own weapons ; would not the Socinian have had very specious reasons for claiming him as a witness on his side ? But take all the circumstances into account, and there is no fear of the peculiar nature of the argument misleading. Or take another case, much resembhng this, in the Apology of Tertullian. " Sup- pose him (Jesus Christ) to be a man, if you will : it is Grod's pleasure to be worshipped through him ai^d in him — so that we reply upon the Jews, that they also learned to worship. Grod through Moses, a man — whilst upon the Greeks we retort, Orpheus bound mankind by religious obligations in Pieria, Musseus at Athens, Melampus at Argos, Trophonius in Boeotia. And if I ' Justin Martyr, Apolog. I. § 22. Lect. VIII.] THOUGH ILLOGICAL IN THEIR REASONING. ISO look to you, ye rulers of the nations, wliat was Pom- pilius Numa, who loaded the Eonians with rites the most onerous, but a man."' Here ag-ain, we have Ter- tuUian arguin^; upon his adversaries' principles, not upon his own ; for his own undoubted belief in the consub- stantial and co-eternal Godhead of the Son we have seen proved in a former Lecture by numberless passacres in his writiure- ticorum," ' after liaA^ng laid down his regula fidei or creed, containing the cardinal articles of faith, proceeds, " This rule, established, as we ^^'ill prove, by Christ, has no doubtful or debatable points in it, as we hold, save such as heresies introduce, and such as make heretics. And let but this fonn stand fast in its proportion, and tlien you may explore and handle what you will ; you may let loose the whole licence of your curiosity, if there seems to you to l)e anything left in ambiguity, or anvthing imperfectly shadowed out." And in a re- markable passage in the E])istle of P"'irmilian\is to CVprian, we read, ' Uut tliat tlie l)n'thn'n at IJonic di» ' Daille, i>. 17i>. ■ Euscbius, Ecclcs. Hist. v. c. 24. ^ c. xiv. o 19G NOT CONFOUNDED BY THE FATHERS. [Series I. not keep primitive tradition themselves in all respects, and that they pretend to the authority of the Apostles without any ground for it, one may know from this; that with respect to the time of celebrating Easter, and many other mysteries of religion, they seem to observe different customs from others ; from the Church of Jeru- salem, for instance; and so in many other provinces, many other things differ according to different places and names ; and yet there is no departure on this account from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church." ^ From all these passages it is no doubt e-\d- dent that the Fathers did recognise a great difference in the relative importance of questions they handled from time to time, a point, indeed, which scarcely required proof, if the Fathers were reasonable men, however they might not be prepared to draw up a scale of the exact estimate they took of each. But who could think of making this a ground of charge against them, or plead it in proof of the little value which attaches to their WTitings, by reason of the difficulty of ascertaining the emphasis with which they spoke on any given subject? The Scriptures themselves are open to the same objec- tion. Nay, even Churches, with all their definite Ar- ticles, Creeds, and Litm-gies, and ^^ith the pains they take to circumscribe their sense of Scriptui^e, are still open to it. There must be still a very considerable margin in which indi^^dual opinion is left to range. Dr. Waterland, in our own Chm'ch, finds room enough for a " Discourse on Fundamentals ; " and there probably are many of its members who might not agree with him after all in his selection, some thinking his cata- logue too copious, and some too sparing. The discre- tion, therefore, which we have to exercise in other cases, we must exercise on the Fathers, and not expect them to be categorical on subjects which do not admit of it. ' Cyprian, Ep. Ixxv. • Lecf. VIII.] DAILLE'S INSTANCES EXAMINED. 197 But before I dismiss this head, I must notice the two examples which Daillc adduces from the J/ite-Niccne Fatliers, of the manner in which they confound the relative importance of tilings, when they sometimes do hapj)en to declare themselves. One of them is on the case of Infant Communion. Havin^j^ quoted Augustine as saying that " Innocent had laid it down with respect to children, that miless they should eat the flesh of the Son of man, they coidd have no life in them," Daille proceeds, " and long before his time Cyprian spake on the same subject to the same pm-port ; and that opinion, as Maldonatus testifies, prevailed in the Church about 600 years. I omit, are Maldonatus' words, the senti- ment of Augustine and of Innocent the First; a sen- timent which prevailed in the Church about 600 years, that the Eucharist is necessary even for infants "' ; the word ?iecessariam being printed in the Latin translation of Daille, which was made from the French, revised, augmented and corrected by the author himself,^ in capital letters. But Cyprian says nothing of the kind, whatever ^laldonatus, as quoted by DaiUe, may say for him. Cyprian, who is the first Christian ^^Titer that alludes to Infant Communion at all, does so twice ; but both times are mere allusions ; the fact itself, and no more, transpiring in either case incidentally, and when Cyprian was engaged in other matters with respect to these children.' He says nothing of its necessity. It was not the (piestion before him. Xor can his testimony be used for anything else but the bare existence of such a practice in his time. Now surely this proceeding of Daille's, this shuffling of names and (quotations, so as to seem to get the conclusii»n he desires, and to make those who do not refer to his authorities, bolioVL' that hi> does Daill6. p. 176. [ * Cjpiian, l>e L:ij)sis, ^ i.\. anil ' Sec Titlcpatxc to the Latin cJi- § .\xv. tiou. Gciicvie, I0-3G. ' 198 THE FATHERS TO BE TAKEN AS EXPONENTS [Series I. SO fairly, is at least as disingenuous an act as any he can lay to the account of the Fathers. The other in- stance he produces from an Ante-Nicene Father of confounding the relative importance of things, is on the subject of fasting, Wlio, says he, would not suppose that the whole cause of Christianity was at stake, when Ignatius utters the following tragical words, " Whoso- ever fasts on the Lord's Day, or the Saturday (one Saturday only excepted, that before Easter), the same is a murderer of Christ," ^ Now whatever tendency terms so extravagant may have to confound all distinc- tions of the lighter and weightier matters of the law, and so to render the Fathers of ambiguous value from their want of discrimination, Ignatius is at any rate innocent of the charge. For this Epistle to the Phihp- pians is none of his, it is neither mentioned by Euse- bius, who enters into a minute account of the Epistles of Ignatius, nor by Jerome, but is a spurious Epistle, written long after the time of Ignatius, and never in- cluded in tlie collection of his Epistles.^ ^A^iether Daille was aware of this when he pubhshed his Treatise " De Usu Patrum," is more than I can tell ; he must have been aware of it eventually, when attention was expressly turned, as it one day was, to the subject of the Epistles of Ignatius. But supposing this difficulty disposed of; there is still according to Daille another. How do we know that the sentiment of a Father was the sentiment of his Chui'ch, and not his own merely ^ ? It is obvious that this objection is much more easy to make than to refute. It might, perhaps, be enough to reply that it rests with Daille to show that the Father does not express the opinions of his Church, not with us to show that he ' Daille, p. 177; Ignat. Ep. acl , Canons, Bk. II. c. vii. § vii. in Cote- Philipp. § xiii. lerius, vol. ii. p. 110. ^ See Bibhup Bevcii. '' iii. c. ."Xi. 200 MANY OF THE FATHERS IDENTIFIED [Series I. preaching the truth of God in his writings.^ He rests a very great part of his account of early heresies on the authority of Irenseus, and quotes him as though he consi- dered him to be the chief writer on that subject. He refers over and over again with the same confidence to Clemens Alexandrinus for the facts which his works supply, and describes those works in detail in terms of praise and approbation.^ He enters into all the particulars of the life and ^Titings of Origen, as one of the most famous worthies of the Church. And what is more, he speaks even of the two Latin Fathers, Cj-prian and Tertullian — of the former, indeed, but as a conspicuous Bishop ^ ; but of the latter, as the author of the Apology, of which he translates a passage or two into Greek ^ ; a circumstance which renders his testimony to the value of this Latin writer the more weighty, inasmuch as it seems to have been an effort to him to translate from the Latin at all — for he offers a sort of excuse for his manner of doing it on another occasion in the case of the Epistle of Adrian ^ — as though a notice of the Apology was forced upon him by the celebrity of its author. I have run through these brief particulars in order to show, that in the judgment of Eusebius at least, a lead- ing historian of tlie Church, and one who had to lay under contribution for his annals all the best authorities which existed in his own day, the works of the Fathers w^e now possess are considered worthy of being taken as exponents of the Church of their respective periods. Nor is this all. The very position and character of many of these Fathers identify them with their re- sjDective Churches. Clemens Romanus was Bishop of his Clim-ch, and ^T*ites his Epistle in that Chm'ch's name. Ignatius was of the same rank. Theophilus of the same. Irena^us of the same. C}^rian of the same. ' Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. iv. c. 11. I ^ Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. vii. c. 3. ^ vi. c. 13, el alibi. \ •« iii. c. 33. * iv. c. 8. Lect. VIII.] WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE CHURCHES. 201 Others amonpf them were not indeed Bisliops, but dis- tingiiislied Preslt^ters of tlieir respective Cluirclies. And tliough, no doubt, there may be heterodox persons in high phices, yet the presumption has been usually the other way ; and in tlie Primitive Church most exceed- inglv the other wav. Then, if it be further objected, as it is by Daille, that even allowing each Father to be in some sort a represen- tative of the particular Church to which he belonged, yet the recognition of a doctrine or an ordinance by the Universal Church is the only guarantee for its soundness ; it may be observed, that these early Fathers whose claims we have been so long canvassing, are drawn from almost all parts of the Christian world — one from Eome ; another from Antioch ; a third from the Holy Land ; a foiu-th from Carthage ; a fifth from Gaul ; so that matters, in which they happen to concur, must have been of very general acceptance in the Church. Now in all, or almost all the substantial questions of Creed and of Ecclesias- tical Government, tliey will be found to concui', inchiding many jioints, which would touch Daillc, and come witliin his category of controversies ; tliough in some subordinate particulars there may be occasional differ- ence ; or, what is more common, one of them may assert a point on which anotlier may be entirely silent ; or by implication, may be taken to be even against it. Indeed, tliere were many differences or contradictions among wliole Churches tliemselves ; a whole section of Churches p.//. maintaining one side of the Paselial controversy, and a whole section ajjain, the other side: a lari/e divi- sion of tliem rejecting the Baptism of heretics, and a large division of them again accepting it : incidents these in the early history of the Clnirch, of which l)aille does not fail to take advantage.' turning tliem to the general disparagement of the testimnny oi" tlie Fathers, ' f).-iille. p. IST, f/ A"/. 202 THEIR CONCURRENCE ON VITAL POINTS. [Scries I. who first as individuals, and next as members of parti- cular Cliurclies, might be involved in differences with the more oecumenical voice of Christendom, and so should be thought less worth listening to. But this should be borne in mind ; that you should regard the Fathers as the raw material out of which General Councils of the Church might be made ; not as equivalent to General Councils. These Fathers, for whom I am pleading, lived before any General Councils, properly so called, had met; and consequently in an age, when a great many questions were unsettled in the Church : questions, which after the ?era of General Councils were finally disposed of; uniformity and unanimity established by that means. Wlio can doubt that the several members of such General Councils, when they first met together to confer, however agreeing in the main, brought along with them several different sentiments on several dif- ferent points ; and that it was not till after long con- ference and mutual illumination, that they could be re- duced to agree upon the sense and wording of the Canons or Constitutions they were met to frame ? The Fathers may be considered in the condition of such members when first they came together — only never having been brought together themselves, they have never of themselves adjusted their respective sentiments ; and you are left to do it for them. You must compare them together, and by drawing deductions from them, fashion for yourselves the most primitive of all Canons. The conference is not at Nice, or Constantinople, or Ephesus, but in your own study. The delegates are not reverend speakers from divers Chm'ches, but stately folios from your shelves : and accordingly, after having compared them patiently and without prejudice, and having heard all that each of them has to say, you will combine their testimony into one. And even as in other Councils, so in this, must allowance be made for Lect. viii] so:me extravagances accounted for. x!03 the peculiar cluinicter of the times, in which it assembles, a consideration which would fjo far to answer the ob- jection, or scoll', or sarcasm of Daille, that the Millena- rians themselves could boast, not of one Father, but of many Fathers on their side — though it would have been only fair in him to say that Justin confesses many did not liold this doctrine, though he and those, whom he con- sidered orthodox, did ' : and that Eusebius tells us, it ^vas propagated by Papias, who took in a literal sense what the Apostles had said in a mystical one.^ AMiat, however, if this doctrine has been exploded of late years — quiet times have a tendency to hush all transcendental and mysterious questions, as times of trouble have a tendency to excite them : this very one revived amidst the throes that attended the Reformation, and was de- nounced in the Articles of King Edward. Still amidst tlie hoiTors of tlie persecutions of Xero and Severus, what wonder that men, who could find no resting-place on tlie earth they dwelt m, should have cherished visions of a better Jerusalem and a resurrection of the saints? For we have seen that by the time of Eusebius, /. e. when the Church was beginning to enjoy peace, the ^lillenarian doctrine was on the w^ane. And I will add that the same consideration will account for some other conclusions in the Fathers, which have been m-ged against their credit without due allow^ance ; particularly the discouraging terms in which they sometimes speak of marriage — it was the " present distress " that in all ])n)bability sunk deep in their spirit and tinctured their thoughts — and no man can read the history', either of IJowland Taylor's martyrdom, or of Kogers', in our own country, without feeling how poignantly the suiTender of wife and children, in their cases, must have added to the bitterness of death. Ihit tm this su])jcct, I shall luive occasion to speak ;iLraiii. and more at hiigth. ' Ju!»tin Martyr, Dial. § 80. ^ EuacLiu-s Kccluj. lliat. iii. c. 3'J. 204 SECOND PROPOSITION OP DAILLE. [Series I. LECTUEE IX. Second proposition of Daille. His charges against the Fathers of inaccu- racy, ignorance of Hebrew, use of allegory, examined. Important prin- ciple involved in the latter. Why it was so largely resorted to. Excessive use of it by Clemens and Origen. Doctrinal errors of the Fathers insufficient to overthrow their testimony. Daille's instances of their discrepancies chiefly Post-Nicene. Discrepancies of the Ante-Nicene confined to minor points. Their concurrence in important ones the more striking. Concluding objection of Daille. The appeal to the Fathers not excluded by the sixth Article. Discretion of our Church in her use of them. Scripture and Antiquity the authorities appealed to by our Reformers. T\7E have now reviewed the arguments of Daille contained in his first book, in which he had endeavoured to establish his first proposition, that the testimony of the Fathers is obscui^e, uncertain, and therefore unfit to decide modern controversies. His second book is occupied with proving liis second proposition, \dz. that even supposing the testimony of the Fathers was clearer, it is not of authority to decide such controversies. This book, however, will not detain us so long as the other, ha\dng been ver}^ much antici- pated in the former one. Without staying, therefore, to debate such preliminary questions as that the Fathers are, like other men, liable to error ' ; that they have often a bias of their own towards this conclusion or that, which may mislead them in stating Avhat they pretend to be the judgment of the Church ^ ; that their authority must rest on the same ground as that of other teachers^; that we must not put them on the same footing as canonical Scripture ; * — dismissing, I ' Daille, p. 205. I » Daille, p. 210. - p. 206. I " p. 220. Loot. IX ] THE FATHERS CHARGED WITH INACCURACY. 205 say, such preliminary matters as these, and. considering that they carry along with them their own answers, and only present another instance of those tactics in Daille, which I have before had occasion to notice, viz. a dispo- sition to create a prejudice before he proceeds to an argument, or else satisfied that they have been already handled by us in former Lectures, we will go on to examine some of the errors which he imputes to them, and by which he reckons their authority to be subverted. It is impossible, he thinks, that parties who wrote with such incaution, carelessness, and negligence, could have regarded themselves as oracles whom we were to listen to.' And he then produces examples of some errors of //ash'. Here, however, as elsewhere, Daille illustrates, for the most part, though not altogether, from the works of the Post-Xicene Fathers. Amongst the Ante- Xicene, there is reason to believe, as he states, that Origen dictated some of his Homilies off-hand, and of course the value of compositions, wliich were so little studied, must be taken accordingly. Extempore effu- sions, no doubt, would be poor authority for the doctrines of a Church either in Origen's days or our own. But how small a part of the Ante-Nicene Theology, at least, consists in Homihes. Not that the accuracy of the writers of that period, even in other departments, can in all respects be vindicated. Ccrtainlv there are trross mistakes to be found in them. l)aille produces several from Justin. He makes l)avid, e.ff. live 1500 years before Christ.* And when treating of the LXX version, says that Ptolemy, King of Eg^pt, sent messengers to Herod, Kingof Judea, to beg of him copies of the ^^Titings of the Prophets ; whereas he did send to Elcazar the High Priest, some 200 years before Herod's time.' He mentions a statue erected under ' Daille, p. 2:54. ! ' Justin Martjr, Aj>ol. I. § 31. " Justin Martyr, .Vj-ol. I. § 12. Daillo, p. 23^. 206 THE INACCURACY OF JUSTIN [Series I. Claudius Csesar at Eome, to Simon Magus, with the inscription " Simoni Deo sancto," ' on which Daille observes, that it is now agreed amongst learned men, that it was in truth a statue dedicated Semoni Sanco Deo, one of the minor Deities of Eome, and that Justin misread the legend — a fact, however, not quite so certain. For Justin himself was, Hke Simon, a native of Samaria, and would, therefore, be likely to make himself master of the particulars of Simon's history beyond another man. Moreover he addresses himself, when speaking of this statue to the Emperor of Eome himself, who might be supposed, or at least must have had those about him who might be suj)- j)osed, to be able to test the accuracy of the statement. The fragment of marble, too, dug up in the island of the Tiber, in the year 1574, inscribed Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio, and the discovery of which, and nothing what- ever else, gave occasion to calling Justin's account in question, has been thought by some to be too small to have ever had a statue upon it. And finally, Justin's story has been repeated by most of the early Fathers that followed him, nearly in the same terms ^ ; so that it is at any rate far from clear that Justin, in this case, at least, was in error. Daille further takes notice of his quoting Zephaniah for Zechariah,^ and Jeremiah for Daniel.* He might have added that he cites Isaiah for Jeremiah,^ and Zechariah for Malachi^; that he talks of the Prophets who foretold the coming of Christ some 5000, some 3000, some 2000, some 1000, some 800 years beforehand^; that he reads the same passage of Scripture in several ways, in several places^; and even j^et he would not have exhausted his inaccui-acies. ' Daille, p. 240. ^ See Burton's BamptonLectui'es,- Notes, p. 374. ^ Justin Martyr, Apol. I. § 35. * § 51. I §§ 32. 83. Justin Martyr, Apol. I. § 53. Dial. § 49. Apol. I. § 31. ^ Compare Apol. I. § 45; Dial. Lcct. IX.] NOT SUCn AS TO IMPAIR HIS CREDIT. J2()7 Indeed, one ot" his editors,' losing" ]);itieiiee with his autlior, exclaims in one of liis notes, " Ineredibilis est dustini in reeitandis Seriptnris ineonstantia ;" and in Ids Dedication talks of " Ineredibilis quiedam in scri- l)endo festinatio " in Jnstin ; and yet, in spite of all this, tliis very editor does not scruple to speak oi" liim in the same Dedication as a'tate anticpiissimum, (ludo- rifatc (/racissihiinn. And such, I am confident, woidd I)e the impression left on the mind of any man, who read him carefully through in a fair and candid spirit, and considered how accidental the greater part of these lapses are, and how very small a proportion, after all, they bear to the extent of his works. For this is what gives effect to Daille's criticism in the whole of his second book, that ranging over the wi'itings of the Fathers, he selects nothing whatever from them but their mistakes and defects ; and Inning done this with an air of seeming triumph, he exclaims, these are the authors you are disposed to regard with reverence. ^Miat il" a Ivomanist (to avail mjself of an illustration of his own) were to collect together all the difficulties contained in the Bible, and then ask in his turn. Is this the book which you Protestants tell us he avIio runs may read ? The inaccuracies of Justm are almost all of a kind that do not materially affect his credit as a witness ot" the Church of liis o^v^l time, whether as to its ordinances or doctrines. They are in general mere sli])s of memory, perhaps occumng when he was writing under difficulties, and without his references at hand. It is not unreasonable to suj)j)ose, that a man who lived in such a day, and who died a martyr's death, did not compose with all the advantages, which a}>])ertain to a (juiet scholar in peaceful times with bis books about him. Tnd(>ed, the Ajiologies l>ear internal evidence of liavinL;- been written under persecution; and the Dia- ' Thirlby, p. 7.i. 208 THE FATHERS IGNORANT OP HEBREW. [Series I. loc^ue (if we are not to suppose the scene altogether imaginary) of the author having been on the eve of a voyage when he maintained it. There is another class of errors on which Daille animadverts, as shaking the authority of the Fathers — those which beset them tlirough their ignorance of Hebrew — ignorance which he finds betrayed more par- ticularly in their attempts at etymology.* Some in- stances he gives, many more he might have given. Thus Justin derives the word Satanas from Satan (aarav) an apostate, and nas (vasi) a serpent,^ Israel from Isra {"lapa), a man, and El CH\) power.^ Irenseus says that in the Hebrew tongue Jesus signifies " that Lord who contains heaven and earth." ^ He has equally strange interpretations of Sabaoth and Adonai ^ ; the former of which, he says, means " voluntarium," the latter " nominabile," or perhaps it should be read " innominabile," a substitute for the unutterable name, which Irengeus mistook for a word having the actual sense of " innominabile." Other stumbles of the same kind may be remarked in him. Clemens Alexandi-inus tells us that Jacob was called " Israel because he had seen the Lord Grod,^ and that Moses was so called, because in the language of the Egyptians water is fiwv/ and Hosanna means " hght and glory and praise, with supplication to the Lord," ^ and that Eebecca is equivalent to patience (viro/xovrj), where he speaks with Philo, from whom he very often borrows his deriva- tions,^ yet he elsewhere says that it is equivalent to the glory of God.^° Theophilus of Antioch, who had an unhappy taste for etymology, seems to consider the Daille, pp. 243, 244. Justin Martyr, Dial. § 103. § 125. IrenaBus, II. c. xxiv. § 2. c. XXXV. § 3. Clem. Alex. Psedaa;. I. c. p. 132. ^ Stromat. I. § xxiii. p. 412. 8 Pgedag. I. c. v. pp. 104, 105. 5 I. c. V. p. Ill, aud Stromat. § V. p. 334. " '« Stromat. IV. § xxv. p. 637. Lcct. IX.] ORIGEN'S KNOWLEDGE OF IT LIMITED. 209 Hebrew word Sabbath exactly translated by the Greek word i^Sofias^ ; though certainly in his interjjretation of the word Eden,^ and of the word Noah' he is not liable to the same animadversion. There seems some reason to think, I will add, that even Origen, the single one of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, whose works have come down to us, supposed to have had much knowledge of Hebrew, had but a limited amount of it* i'or though his Hexa^jla proves that such as he had he turned to the best account, and though the loss of that work is, perhaps, the heaviest of any that biblical criticism ever sustained, still his writings yield incidental evidence that his acquaintance "with Hebrew was not profound. Thus his correspondent Africanus having started an objection to the authority of the history of Susanna and the Elders, that it bore internal marks of not haATiig been written in Hebrew; for that when one of the elders said he had seen Susanna in the act of adultery under a holm- tree {irrro irptvov), Daniel's answer was, that the angel would saw him asunder [irpiaeLv) ; and when the other said under a mastic-tree {xnro ax^vov), Daniel's answer again was, that he, too, would be cleft in twain {(jyi(jOr\vaC) — the similarity of the Greek words irplvov and Trpiaeiv, aylvov and a^iadfjuat,, suggesting the turn of the sentence, which similarity did not exist in the Hebrew*; Origen replies, that "Finding himself at a loss, he had referred the question to Jews not a few, asking them what Trplvos was called in their language, and what irpi^eiv, how they would translate the plant aylvos, and how they would render axi^^iv ; and though they profess themselves unable to tell him what trees were indicated by these names, and so far Origen might seem not more imperfectly informed in Hebrew than ' Theophilus ad Autoljcum, II. § 1: §24. * Tlicophilus ad Autolvcum, IF. §10. * Origen, Ep. u. 250. 212 ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION. [Series I. death, wliicli is fall of it ; the " senior quidam," to whom Irenanis refers from time to time (not always, perhaps, the same person, but necessarily contemporary or all but contemporary with the Apostles, indeed called on one occasion "senior apostolorum discipulus")^ is clearly actuated by it ; finding, as he does, in the extension of the arms of Jesus on the Cross, an emblem of the pur- pose of Grod to gather unto Himself two people, the Jews and the Gentiles.^ So that the principle itself was no weakness in the Fathers, no hallucination of theirs, but, however used by them or even abused, was, • as I have said, uncpiestionably a prominent feature of the theology of the Primitive Church, to which they merely gave expression. The tendency to this pecuhar character of exposition in the early Church was aug- mented, as it should seem, by the reluctance observed in the Jews, at least with the exception of those of Alex- andria and of the Alexandrian school, to discover in Scripture any meaning beyond the literal ; whereby they cut themselves off from much of the evidence it contained for a Saviour to come, and hardened them- selves in unbelief ^ ; nay, often involved the Law in positive contradictions ; the language of it, when figu- ratively intended, not answering to a strictly literal sense * : and was further augmented by a similar effect the same adherence to the literal sense was seen to pro- duce on the Ebionites, for they too disparaged the Saviour ; and by the manner in which it was perceived to pave the way for heretics in general to claim the authority of Scripture for doctrines the most extrava- gant ; arguing, for example, as they did, against the resurrection of the body from the text " flesh and blood cannot inherit the kino-dom of Grod :" ^ and this not in a Treiifens, IV. c. xxxii. § 1. v. c. xvii. § 4. IV. c. xxvi. § 1. * Irenaeus, V. c. xxxiii. § 3. « Origen, I)e Princip. IV. § 22 ; IrenEcus, V. c. xiii. § 2. Led. IX.] WHY SO FREQUENT IN THE FATHERS. 213 few instances, but in so many, that more heresies, it was said, might be referred to the process of expounding Scriptui'e by tlie letter, than even to the lusts and pas- sions of mankind.' Strong, however, as the appetite of the Fathers certainlv was on all these accounts for figures, I do not think any instance can be produced from those before Origen of the literal meaning of a passage of Scripture being evaporated in the figurative. Tlie E])istle of Barnabas, replete as it is with allegor}', alwavs betravs that its author reo-arded the incidents of tlje Law, on which he founds his figures, as matters of fact. With Justin it is the same. He may have his theory, for instance, of the battle of the Israelites with Amalek, and of the esoteric meaning it conveyed, but he evidently believes that the battle was fought, and was attended by the cu'cumstances recorded in holy Writ.^ Or he may find a deeper sense than the apparent one in the milch kine conveying the cart which contained the ark to the house of Joshua^; but he had no sus- picion of the transaction itself being ideal.* Theophilus reviews all the details of the Creation as recorded by Moses, and detects a mystical sense under almost every one of them ; but he still regards the whole as a sub- stantial history, and rebukes the Greeks for the fabulous nature of their cosmogony.' Irenieus abounds in mystical applications of Scriptural incidents, but still he cannot justly be charged with resolving the fact into the figure. Take the history of Lot and his daughters, a history which he construes allegorically (or rather tlie Presbyter does so, whose words he adopts) ; and still it will be discovered, that he considers it as an actual event in ' ITscrescsquoquemagis decamali I ' Justin .Martjr, Dial. § 131. scrii>turic iutclligcntiu, quam de * 1 Sam. vi. 14. opcre carnis nostnc, ut plurimi rosti- * Justin Martjr, Dial. §§ 132, mant. — Origen, Fragment., vol. i. 133. p. 41, Bened. Ed. See also De Priu- » Theophilus ad Autol. II. §§ 11, cip. IV. § 8. 1 12. 214 EXCESSIVE USE OF ALLEGORY [Series I. that patriarcli's life. And tliis, be it observ^ed, belongs to a class of tlie most trying cases of all that I could have named; the offensive character of the act putting the commentator under a temptation to refine it into a parable. Still, I say, the transaction is quoted as a real occurrence. It is expressly branded as a sin ; and we are in^•ited to give Grod thanks for having provided a pardon for such sins of the patriarchs by the Advent of our Lord. Tertullian has his allegories, but not to the anniliilation of the facts they grow out of. The wise men, when they offered Jesus gold, and frankincense, and m}Trh, intimated that the curious arts of magic were all to be surrendered, now that the infant Sa^aour had appeared. And the command given them to return from Betlilehem by another way, was expressive of the better course in wliich they were to walk for the time to come.' But the journey of the wise men is considered to be a fact, for it is argued on as such in the self- same passage. It is not till we come to Clemens Alexandrinus, that we have any misgi\TJigs whatever on the subject before us ; or that our suspicions are awaked of the real beiag sunk in the allegorical. Alexandria, indeed, was the very focus of the figm-ative exposition of Scripture ; under the influence of Pliilo the Alexandrian Jew, to whom Clemens refers, and from whom he largely bor- rows ^ ; and of Aristobulus, a commentator on the books of Moses of a still earlier date, he also of Alexandi'ia.'' That Clemens finds mysteries in the incidents both of the Old Testament and of the New, in great abundance, and in very tri^dal matters, and refines on them to ex- cess, is certain ; but whether he ever actually loses sight of the letter in the spirit, may still be doubted : though it perhaps may be allowed that he does so write as to ' Tertullian, De Idololatria, c. ix. I p. 333. "" Clem. Alex. Stromat. I. c. v. I "• Origen, Contra Celsum, IV. § 51. Lect. IX.] BY CLEMENS AND ORIGEN. '2 1 O pave the way for Origen, wlio succeeded him in tlie same school, and who also was a great admirer of Philo, to do so in some instances ; and he is the first of the Fathers, of whom it can l)e said that lie refines the fact away in the allegory ; and even of him it can only l)e said under great restriction. Origen's general notions upon this question seem to he most fairly represented in his treatise against Celsus, the soberest of his works — a^z. that we are to consider the narrative of ScrijDture as havmg an obvious sense, but that we are not to rest in the obvious ; nor in interpreting the Law are we to begin and end \yii\i the letter ' — and that in like manner, in contemplating the incidents related of Jesus, we shall not arrive at the spectacle of the truth in full, unless we are guided by the same rule.^ ^Meanwhile it may be conceded to Daille, that when the Fathers ^\Tote in the unelaborate manner they did, they could have little idea that they were prescribing for our faith, or settling our controversies.' But they are not the worse qualified for exerting such influence on us, because they had no intention of doing so. We may not be disposed to acquiesce in the reasonableness of every allegory, which every Father discovers or thinks he discovers in Scripture. The Fathers themselves do not expect it. Origen expressly says, that though we may be sure a fact is t}'pical, we cannot be sure that the tj-pe we see in it is the right one : we may suppose, c.j/. fearlessly, that the Tabernacle in general is figurative, l)ut in applying the figure in detail we may be more or less mistaken.* But this general conclusion at least we ' 'Qf fif) icaTairavovTts tov vovv tu)V I * Daiile, p. 2.51. \fynfi€i'a>v €i>T^ npotfjavf'tiirropia, fifid' * Kat or» fiiv oiKovofxiai fiVi tii>€s iv Tji Kttra Tat X<|. , ypii(f)o}v, iruvrtt nai o'l uKtpmoToroi '■' Tit (Tvp^ffirjKtvai tivaytypap-piva > ru>v tw Xoyo irpocriomuiv -ntniOTtv- ro) Ir^aroi- ovk iv >\>ikt] rfi Xt^fi Ka\ rfj j kckti" T«Vef &( aiTai, ol ciyrw^oi/tr Koi imnpla rf)i> Tziiaau <;^« 6tii>plav t»)s nriffjoi h^oKoyaini pfj ctdcfut a\t]6fias. — II. § 09. f'nav i) KaraaKtvij rfji .rrrji/^v dva- 21G IMPORTANT TRINCIPLE INVOLVED IN IT. [Series I. ma}" draw from testimony so concurrent, that tlie spirit of the Primitive Church in its interpretation, was to deal largel}^ in allegories by wliich the text was made continually to point to the Saviour : or in other words, that an evangelical construction of Scripture was the construction sanctioned by the Primitive Church. And though the authority of the Fathers, as individual inter- preters, might be damaged by any extravagance in an allegory, whilst they were in pursuit of this leading ob- ject ; their authority as witnesses, that the interpretation of Scripture went very much upon that principle, would not suffer by it ; nay, would be rather promoted. And this, we must always remember, is the matter at issue, what authority is due to the Fathers as witnesses of the character of the Primitive Churcli. A child may pro- duce more conviction in the minds of a jury than the greatest T\dt, and certainly would do so, if his position haj^pened to give him advantages, which the other had not, for bearing testimony to the question in dispute. Besides there is another light in which these allegories should be regarded, as has been well observed by Dr. AVaterland,^ viz. that they were probably in most in- stances not so much intended to be interpretations of Scripture, as 2ises or improvements of it ; pious meditations upon Scripture ; spiritual exercises, calculated, perhaps, beyond any other lessons to attract attention and win the multitude of hearers. How popular are the con- templations of Bishop Hall, which are of this character ! Another argument, by which Daillc detracts from the authority of the Fathers is, that in many particulars of yivaxTKqrai, TTdSofievoi tvttovs dvai TO yeypafifieva, ^rjTovcrtv d bwrjaovrai fcpapfiocrai eKdarco raiv Kara ttjv (tktjvtjv \(yofievii>v' o(Tov fifv eVt rw Trfideadai OTt TVTTOS TIVOS icTTlV Tj (TKrjVT), OV hiafxapravovTfs' o(tov te tnl Ta> TwBe Tivi d|t'&)s r^s ypa(f)ris e'cpappo^eiu rbv \6yov OV eoTt TVTTOS f) (TKrjvfj, ecrS' ore anoTviiTTovTfs, k.t.X. — Origen, De Principiis, IV. § 9. ' On the Use and Value of Eccle- siastical Antiquity. — Works, vol. v. p. 312. Oxf. Ed. Lect. IX.] DOCTRINAL ERRORS OF THE FATHERS :217 their taith they were in acknowled<^ed error.' And then lie l)ni.*Hy recounts a hst of charges of this kind, ^^•hieh lie thinks n\ight be brought against them. Justin believed in the Millennium ; regarded, as it should seem, the essence of the Deity to be finite (a view which 1 )aille imputes to him on very insufficient grounds, and by a technical construction of a loose phraseology, never intended to be taken literally^) ; understood by the sons of God iroinsr in unto the daughters of men, an inter- course of fallen angels with women, of which demons were the issue ; imagined that the souls even of the just and of the prophets, in the intemiediate state, fell under some power of the evil spii'its, building his notion (a circumstance which Daillc suppresses, though it qualifies his proposition) partly on the capacity" the witch enjoyed of calling up the soul of Samuel ^ ; th(Hight that the heathens, such as Socrates, who lived up to their reason, {^lera \dyov, the double sense of \oyos being, no doubt, at the bottom ol" his argument*) were in some sort Christians. Irenjcus, besides partaking with Justin in some of these errors, contended that our Lord was between forty and fifty years of age when he died ; led into this mistake partly, perhaps (as Augustine sus- pects^), l)y his ignorance of the years of the Consulate, in which Christ was born and suffered, and partly by liis eagerness to repel the argument of the Gnostics, who found a type of their thirty yEons in the age at which they maintained Christ was crucified, seeing that lit' bi'gan to be about thirty years of age when he was ' Daill6, p. 252. i ven at that time, but at Sodom, if it ' I>aille, p. 2o'>. Justin is cm- i was the God the Fathtr, who was ployed in convincing Trypho, that he there; Justin's object being to force is wrong in supposing all that is said on Trypho a recognition of God the of "the Lord' in the Old Testament 1 Son.— Dial. §§ GO. 127. appertains to God the Father — e.g. j ' § 105. " The Lord rained down fire from * Apol. L § 46. the Lord"' would imply that God * Sec Dissert. Pncv. p. cxxxviii. the Father was not himself in hca- Bened. Ed. 218 NOT OF A KIND TO INVALIDATE [Series I. baptized, i. e. in their reckoning twenty-nine, and that his teaching lasted twelve months only (the number of another group of their ^ons), being the period which was announced for it before by the prophet, when he spake of the " acceptable year of the Lord." Irenasus, therefore, not content with showing, as he does, that Clirist's ministry must have extended beyond one year by the fact of his attending at least three Passovers, further impugns their claim to the symbol of thirty years by lengthening the life of Jesus to more than forty, re- lying upon the reasoning that he had to sanctify every age of man by the corresponding one of his own ; infants, by his infancy ; boys, by his boyhood ; men, by his matu- rity ; and old men, by his incipient decay ; upon the text, " Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham ? " ^ and upon the tradition of the elders from St. John. IreuDSUs also maintains that disembodied souls retain the form of the bodies they occupied, so that they may still be recognised, as the soul of Lazarus was by the rich man.^ Again, Clemens Alexandrinus teaches that the Grentiles were in some sort justified by philo- sophy ^ ; meaning, however, no more than that the virtue there was in it, and which was itself supphed by God, trained them for a better faith, as the law did the Jews ; that those who lived before the Advent of the Saviour, could not be justly condemned if they had no option with respect to accepting or rejecting his message ; and that therefore, after the crucifixion, he descended into Hades to publish to them the Grospel and its con- ditions*; and that punishments are purgatorial, and therefore not eternal. Daille proceeds through the other Fathers in the same way, but I shall not follow him, having now produced a number of specimens of the class of errors into which ' IreuEcus, II. c. xxii. I ^ Stromat. I. § xx. p. 377. ^ c. xxxiv. § 1. I •' VI. § 6, p. 7(i3, et seq. Lect. IX.] THEIR AUTUORITY AS WITNESSES. 219 tlie Fathers are in tlie habit of lallinc:, to give you a just idea of theui, and to satisl'y you that tliey are not of a kind to invahdate the authority of those writers as witnesses to the great characteristics of the Primitive Cliurch, both with regard to its doctrines and ritual. 1 f we liad pretended that the Fathers were infalHble, it would have l)een another thing, l)ut we made no such claims for them. These eiTors, you A\'ill have seen, are almost all of them private conjectiu'es on speculative pt tints of subordinate importance, which do not aflect any of the great doctrines of Christianity, for on such all these parties are agreed. It may be a chronological blunder to contend that our Lord was between forty and fifty when he was crucified, but that is all that can 1 >e said. It Avoidd have been a vital matter to have dis- puted his crucifixion in the flesh at all, the circumstance that made it availing, the union of the Godhead and Manhood m the person of the Sa\aour, and the redemp- tion it wrousfht for the sins of the whole world; but in these latter positions they are of one consent, and by their unanimity afi'ord us all reasonable assurance that the Pi-imitive Church was agreed on them too. So far from fundamental are the questions here agitated, that it mav l)e doubted whether our OAvn Church, with all her formularies and Articles, would touch the case of one who held any or all of them, so as to exclude him from her communion. AVlien the early Fathers wrote, which was before successive ages, each profiting by the labours of those before it, had sifted theology, before Councils of the Church had been assembled, and before nice and exact confessions of I'aith had been franu'd — all these nu^asures, be it remembered, proceeding ui)on the prin- ciple not of devising what was new, but of determining and fixing what was taught, thougli not technically expri'ssed, fn»m the beginning — when the early Fathers wrote, 1 sav, before all this investigation Into the details 2.20 DISCREPANCIES OF THE EARLY FATHERS [Series I. of divinity liad occurred, there must liave been many lesser points unsettled, and great room for the fancies of individuals dispersed over the world, with not much opportunity of personal conference, and with no rail to hold by, to wander into pecuhar thoughts. And this consideration only gives greater value to their testimony when it is unanimous, as on all main things it is, and tends even to raise theu' authority on the subjects for which we use it. The next circumstance which Daille represents as invahdating the authority of the Fathers, is their dis- agreement one with another ; the old story, in short, of Father against Father. But what are these discre- pancies which are supposed to be so fatal to the credit of the Fathers ? None are specified of the Ante-Mcene Fathers, at least one with another, save the tales of Victor's controversy with the Asiatics on the time of keeping Easter, and C}^rian's with Stephanus on the subject of Baptism of heretics,' unless it be that other respecting the age of Jesus at his crucifixion, in which Irenseus disagrees with Tertullian ^ ; and that still more minute one respecting the soul of Samuel, which Justin represents as really called up by the witch ^; whilst Tertidlian regards it as merely a spectral illusion.* The other instances adduced by Daille are those of Ante- Nicene Fathers differing from Post-Nicene, as Tertullian from Augustine on tlie nature of the soul's generation, which is nearly the onl}^ one of this class ; for another of fasting on Saturday, in which Ignatius is described as opposed to the Apostolical Constitutions, is a spurious case, the Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians, on which it is founded, being, as we have already observed, apocr}^hal ^ : or of Post-Nicene Fathers, and many of those of quite a late date, differing from one another. ' Daille, p. 296. « p. 297. I ' Tertullian, De Anim<\, c. Ivii. ' Justin Martyr, Dial. § 105. | * Y)^y\\k, p. 297. Lect. IX.] ■ FEW AND UNIMPORTANT. 221 ^Vith such cases as tliese T am not careful to engao^e ; the testimony of the Fathers becoming less interestintr, and our anxiety to defend it less sensitive in proportion as they are removed from primitive times, and Irom the Church of which we seek to ascertain the features. But how few and ]i<>\v unimportant are the discrepancies between the Ante-Xicene Fathers, is evident from the perpetual recurrence we find in the detractors from their worth of these two cases of the Paschal and Baptismal controversy. These are always put forward as their greatest grievances, as the foremost criminations under this head of which they can betliink tliemselves. Yet how far from being matters of primary importance are these ! And if the peace of the Church was disturbed to the degree in which it ur/s disturbed, by two such con- tests as these, both of them springing out of extreme jealousy of innovation, and a determination on either side to adhere to what either party considered to be a primitive usage, how certain may we be that the same persons would not have submitted to any unsound com- })romise on matters more serious ; and how safely may we conclude, that if on such matters they are una- nimous, their unanimity is the result of their confidence, that the faith they hold in those particulars was that once delivered to the saints ! Finally, Daille contends that even supposing the Fathers to be not so ohncvre as they are, and to deserve more authorihj than they have, neither Romani.sts nor Protestants do acknowledge them as umpires in their dis])utes, but accept and reject them at ])leasur(', and in a degree which suits their own convenience. Thus Prote.'^tants admit nothing but the canonical Scriptures as their rulr of faith, this dogma being the ver}' coriirr- stone of the Pcformation ' ; and in c<»nfirmatit>n of the fact, he cites Calvin, Jiucer, Melancthon, Luther, Beza, ' Daille, p. 3(V]. '2:22 THE APPEAL TO THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH [Series I. though admitting that the chief among them (and the name of Jewel he here introduces) did refer to the books of the Fathers in their disputations. But it will be found, says he, on an accurate examination of their manner of reasoning, that they used them not to esta- bhsh their otvti ojoinions, but to refute those of the Eomanists.^ I think he would have a difficulty in proving this in the case of Jewel at least. In the beginning of his Apology he proposes to make the works of the Fathers an element of his demonstration, that the Eeformers had right on their side. " Quod si docemus sacrosanctum Dei Evangehum, et veteres epis- copos, atque Ecclesiam primitivam nobiscum facere," ^ is the language which he uses ; not simply is against the Romanists, but nobiscum facere, is with us ; and the whole tenour of his argument is consistent with this exposition of it. Nor does the sixth Article of our Church, which is of much more consequence, speak to the exclusion of all respect for the decisions of the Primitive Church in the manner Daille understands this maxim of the Reformation; and as his reference to Jewel indicates that he involves the Church of England in this observation, it is proper for us to appeal to the authoritative documents of that Church. There is no- tliing in that Aa-ticle which is not perfectly consistent with what we are pleading for. " We allow no doctrine as necessary'' to use the words of one of the soundest of our di^-ines, Dr. Waterland, " which stands only on Fathers or on tradition, oral or written ; we admit none for such, but what is contained in Scripture, and jyror^c^ by Scripture, TicjldJy interpreted. And we know of no way more safe in necessaries, to preserve the riyht inter- * Sed si eorum mentem atque m- stitutum accurate inspexeris, reperies eos ad refutandum non ad coniir- mandum, ad evertendas opiniones j p. 12, Oxf. Ed. Romanas, non ad suas constitnendas j Patrum uti testimonio. — Daille, p. 310. ^ Bishop Jewel's Works, vol. iv. Lcct. IX.] NOT EXCLUDED BY THE SIXTH ARTICLE. 223 ])retation, than to take tlie ancients along with us. We tliink it a good method to secure our ritlt> of faith against impostures of all kinds, wliether oi" c/it/iii.sia.sni or false criticis-i//, or conceited reason, or oral tradition, or the assuming dictates of an infallihle chair. If we thus ]H'eserve the true sense of Scripture, and upon that sense build our faith, we then build upon Scripture only ; for the sense of Scripture is Scripture. Suppose a man were to prove his legal title to an estate, he appeals to the Jaus ; the true sense and meaning of the laws must be proved by the best rules of interpretation ; but after all it is the law that gives the title, and that only. In like manner, after using all proper means to come at the sense of Scriptui-e (which is Scriptui*e), it is that, and that only, which we ground our faith upon, and 2)rove our faith by. AYe allege not Fathers as grounds, or jjrincijjles, or foundations of our faith,' but as witnesses, and as interpreters, and faithful conveyers." ^ That is the aspect in which the Church of England contem- plates the early Fathers. And if the Church of Eome d( >es not hold them in equal honour, — and the numerous examples which Daillc adduces of this in the person ol' Petau (Petavius), and other Jesuits, tend to show that it does not, — this should only lead us to conclude that their testimony is not lightly to be thro^^^l away by those who would successfully contend with the Church of Kome. For what can have created this distaste for them in the minds of Romanists, but the consciousness that they bore witness against them? And we know, in fact, what I have often suggested before, that JJishop Bull, in his defence of the Nicene Creed, is as much engaged in u])holding the authority of the primitive Fathers against this same Jesuit IVtau, as he is in maintaining it against Zuicker a Socinian, or Sandius an • Watorland, On The Use and Wurks, vol. v. y. lUO, ().\f. Ed. Value of Ecclesiastical Anli»iuity. — I 224 DISCRETION OF OUR CHURCH [Series I. Arian.* Indeed, it is precisely the same feeling which prompts the Romanists to disparage the primitive Fathers, that prompts Daille and the foreign Pro- testants to do the same ; viz. that their authority is unpropitious to them both. It is true that our Church exercises a certain dis- cretion in the use of the Fathers : some rites or doc- trines she may not adopt, because she may think they have only the partial support of primitive testimony ; such as Infant Communion, which rests, as we have seen, on a single "witness, and that of the third century. Some, however innocent in themselves, she may re- ject, because she finds no trace of them in Scripture ; such as the use of oil, milk and honey at or after Baptism, or of water with the wine in the Eucharist ; whereas in most cases, where she follows the Fathers, she sees in them the development of some hint at least in Scripture. Some she qualifies from an experience that they have been the parents of dangerous super- stitions ; such as the invocation of the Holy Grhost on the elements in the Eucharist, or eiriKXTjcns, as it is called, a primitive feature, which, though once distinctly forming a part of her Communion office, and though the parallel prayer is still retained in the office of Bap- tism for consecrating the water where there could be no abuse, she has not indeed wiilidraimi out of fear of encouraging the error of Transubstantiation, but mo- dified by using the terms, " Hear us, merciful Father, we most humbly beseech Thee, and grant that we, re- ceiving these thy creatures of bread and wine according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood;" such, again, as prayers and offerings for the dead, another primitive ' Works of Bishop Bull, vol. i. I sect. 2, c. iv. § 9. p. 258, Oxf. Ed., and Def. Fid. Nic. I Lect. IX. IN HER APPEAL TO ANTIQUITY. 225 custom wliicli slie lias reduced in her Communion office to a thanksgiving lor those tliat are departed in the faith and tear of God, and a prayer that " witli them we may be partakers of God's heavenly kingdom" ; not ventui'ing to go further in that office more especially, rememhering the masses for the dead of old ; but in the Bui'ial Ser- vice praying " that we, ^^'ith all those that are departed in the true faith of God's hoh' Name, may have our per- fect consummation and bUss, both in body and soul." I adduce these instances as fm-nishing an idea of the manner in which the Church of England exercises a judgment of her own in handling the Fathers ; now and then, for reasons I have said, walking with them delicately ; in general, where their evidence is clear and unanimous, and especially where it responds to some intimation in Scripture otherwise scarcely intelligible from its brevity, greatly resting upon it. The questions of Infant Baptism, sponsors at Baptism, promises at Baptism, a confession of faith at Baptism ; the precise nature of the Eucharist, whether in any sense sacrificial or not, whether to be partaken of in both kinds and by all ; a Clerg}', whether an order distinct from the Laity, whether distinguished into three ranks ; a form of Com- mon Prayer in a language understood by the people ; the Apostolical succession, the virtues of absolution, the character of schism — all these are subjects which enter into the composition of the Church of England, and are to be resolved more or less by a/ifiqifift/. Ac- cordingly, to enumerate them, is enough to point out the expediency of abiding by the watch- word of the best champions of our form of faith, and of upholding what it has been tlie great object of these Lectures to assert — Scripture and the Primitive Church. For we may be quite sure that if the lleformers drew their con- clusions from tliese two premises, wc sliall not be able to defend those conclusions, if we repudiate one of them. Q 226 OCCASION OF BARBEYRAC'S WORK. [Series I. LECTUEE X. Occasion of Barbeyrac's work. His imjierfect acquaintance with the Fathers, and misconstruction of their writings. His charge against Justin, that he encouraged volunteering martyrdom, examined. Sen- timents of Clemens, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, on this subject. Warmth of their language accounted for. Martyrdom instrumental in the esta- blishment of Christianity. Language of the Fathers concerning marriage explained by the circumstances of their times. True view of the case given by Tertullian in his treatise Ad Uxorem. Extravagances of later times not chargeable on the early Fathers. ^HE work wliicli, next to that of Daille, has produced -*- an unfavourable impression of the Fathers on the minds of a great number of persons, is Barbeyrac's "On the Morahty of the Fathers."* And to complete my review of the objections which have been brought against these authors, I shall now bestow a short notice upon that treatise. This was originally an incidental attack upon them, made by a Professor of Law at Gro- ningen in the course of a Preface which he wrote to Puffendorf's " Eight of Nature and Nations." This Preface, so far as it related to the Fathers, was replied to by Ceillier, a French Benedictine ; and Barbeyrac, finding a rejoinder to CeilHer, which he set himself to compose, grow too bulky to be included in a new edition of his Puffendorf, published it as an independent essay, with the title I have given. It will be perceived, there- fore, that the treatise originated under jurisprudential ' Traite de la Morale des Peres de I'Eglise : oti en defendant un article de la Preface sur Puflendorf, contre I'Apologie de la Morale des Peres du P. Ceillier, religieux Bene- dictin de la Congregation de St. Vanne et de St. Hydulphe, on fait diverses reflexions sur plusieurs ma- tieres importantes. Par Jean Bar- beyrac, Professeur en Droit a Gro- ningue, et Membre de la Societe Royal e des Science a Berlin. Am- sterdam, 1728. I.cct. X.] niS INFORMATION SECOND-HAND. 227 rathor than ecclesiastical auspices. ^loreover, it seems very doubtful whether its author had carefully read the Fathers, on whose morality he comments ; or had liis mind imbued with the spirit, which the actual perusal of them would have left on it. Indeed the review of them which he takes, extendino^ over the first six cen- turies, renders it impossible that he should have mas- tered all the Fathers on his list ; or should have known more of many of them than he could get at second hand from mdexes, abridgments, and extracts, which others might have furnished him with. Moreover, on his an- tagonist accusing him of having stolen from Daille's treatise, and from the Bibliotheque Universelle, Bar- l)eyrac's answer is, " AMiy does he not add M. Dupin, Usher, Bayle, Bernard, Claude, La Placette, Buddeus, Xoodt, the Abbe Fleuiy, Grabe, La Croze, and others, whom I cjuote, some more, some less often? ^Vli}- does he not produce my own declaration in the Preface, that ' T had purposely chosen such examples as have been advanced before, and are found cited in very common books ?'"^ And, in fact, on one occasion, he pleads giiilty to having been misled by M. Dupin, on whose authority he had relied, to charge Athenagoras wi'ong- i'ully with teaching the worship of angels^ — a confession which may also perhaps lead us of ourselves to conclude tliat he had not examined for himself Justin any more tlian Athenagoras ; for the passage in Justin, wliii li is singularly parallel to this one cited from Athenagoras, on the same sidjject, the worship of angels, would, in fact, have oilered him very much more plausible reasons f >r laying that en'or to the accoimt at least of Justin (and for Barbe}Tac's argument it was quite immaterial which of the two was the culprit^) ; the Konumists having positively laid chiim to the paragraph as teaching this doctrine : and though Bishop ijull and other Pro- ' Barbejrac, p. 11. ' p. 2'). ' Justin Martyr, Apol. I. § 0. 2.2S BARBEYRAC'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE FATHERS [Series I. testant scholars have successfully resisted their claim to it, 3^et certainly the Eomanists have more to say for themselves in this instance than they often have when referring to antiquity. The place, however, in Justin is so well knoA\Ti, and is so notorious a bone of contention between the two parties, that it is not likely it should have escaped the notice of Barbeyrac (for it does escape it, both when he is speaking of Athenagoras here, and afterwards when animadverting on the defective morahty of Justm), had he ever read Justin's works for himself; and it is in relation to tliis conclusion that I advert to it. Again, from the way in which he asserts dogma- tically and of himself, that St. Paul was reprobating the allegorical spirit adopted by the Fathers^ from the Jews, when he cautioned Timothy against giving " heed to fables and endless genealogies,"^ he would seem to be unconscious of the text being usually applied to the sys- tem of iEons of the Gnostic heretics, which Irenajus is engaged in exposing, and that Irenseus himself so understands it, claiming it in that sense in his very first paragraph,^ as he does elsewhere in his work — I say, from the way in which Barbeyrac overlooks all this, it might seem that he was not conversant with the ^\Titings of Irenseus, however he might collect together a few paragraphs from him, which furnished the ground of his objection ; which, however, in that Father are extremely few. Again, from his manner of speaking of Clemens Alexandi'inus, I should be disposed to draw the same inference, viz. that he had not made himself thoroughly acquainted with his works from his own perusal of them. Thus Barbeyrac gives an anal^^sis of the Psedagogue of Clemens, and then concludes, " Now let them show me in this Pa?da2'og"ue a sino'le virtue of which Clemens has explained the nature and office in such a manner and to such an extent as to enlighten, to convince, to touch, in ' Barbeyrac, p. 98. * 1 Tim. i. 4. ^ Irengeus, Prasf. ad Lib. I. Led. X.] NOT DERIVED FROM PERSONAL STUDY. 2.09 a word, to put a man in a condition to practise it as he ought. Let tliem point out to me a single duty, Avliicli is there set on its riglit foundation and developed as it should be."' liut what could be more foreign to the purport of Clemens' work than to do this? In his Hortatory Addi*ess he had converted liis heathen. In his Piedagogue he initiates his new convert into the practical eti'ects which his conversion to Christianity must have on liim in all the details, even the most ordinary, of his daily life. And no doubt it was a matter of the first importance, that a strong line of dis- tinction like this should be di'a\A'n between the Christian and the Pagan. A person imbued with the writings of Clemens could scarcely have raised against him such an objection as this of Barbep'ac's.^ Again, Barbep'ac would have found nothing extraordinary in Clemens making liis Gnostic a Stoic by exempting him from all passions,' and yet at other times denouncing the Stoics as holders of impious opinions*; nor would have seen any coutracUction in tliis for his admirers to reconcile ; liad he been aware from the perusal of his writuags, that Clemens himself over and over again 23rofesses his own attachment to an eclectic philosophy ; a philosophy which enabled him to pick and choose out of all the schools whatever he found to be good in any ; holding that whatever was so, was dispersed amongst them by the dis])ensati(m of God, from whom all good emanates; and wlio was thus sowing the world with good principles, which wore by degrees to be ri})ened into a perfect knowledge of Ids will through direct revelation.^ ^lucli other internal evidence of the proposition, Ibr which 1 am contending, viz. that Barbeyrac had taken his in- i'ormation at second hand, and was not master of his ' Barbeyrac, p. W,\. ' Sec Bishop Kay e. Clemens, p. 110. ' Barbeyrac, p. 62. * Barbeyrac, j-p. 0.3, CA. * See Clem. Alex. Stromat. \. c. vii. p. 33^, et alibi. 230 KEY TO HIS OBJECTIONS. [Series I. authors, will transpire in the course of my remarks on his treatise. I dwell on it in the first instance, because it seems to me to he the key by which the argument of his hook is almost always to be turned. He disputes on abstract principles without any allowance for, or, ap- parently, any sufficient knowledge of the accidents, which were necessarily to be taken into account in the application of them to the writings of the Fathers. Yet what is consistent with morality under certain cir- cumstances, is not so under others. An act that would be wrong in the way of aggression is right in the way of self-defence. David and his men would not have been justified in eating the shewbread under ordinary circumstances, but mider the pressure of hunger they were so. St. Paul would not have done well to cast the wheat into the sea, had he been sailing in smooth water ; but when the tempest put men's hves in danger, he was right in doing so.^ Accordingly, in judging of the mo- rality of the Fathers, before we pronounce our verdict we must know their position. There is no evidence that Barbeyrac had properly acquainted himself with this ; rather, evidence that he had not; and it may be pre- sumed that much of the unfairness with which he treats them is imputable to that cause. I shall not think it necessary to follow him tlirough the instances he gives of what he considers to be de- fective morality in the Fathers, according to the order in which he states them, but produce them, as may be most convenient for the illustration of the proposition I have just laid down. And, indeed, many of them seem to be rather cases of misunderstanding of Scripture, or errors of judgment, than evidences of bad morality. For example, Irenseus may have given very weak reasons for there being four Grospels, and only fom- (though, weak as the reasons are, we are very thankful for this early \ Hooker, Eccl. Polity, V. c. ix. § 1. Lect. X.] THE DISPOSITION TO COURT MARTYRDOM 231 testimony of tlie fact itself). But how can it serve the purpose of Barbe}-rac, who aUudes to it, p. 2(1 ; his busi- ness professing- to be with the morahty of tlie Fathers ? ►So again, numerous allegories, particularly those of Origen, might be adduced by Barbeyrac in proof, if he pleased, of want of judgment in the Fathers ; but they can scarcely be used by him, as they are,^ in evidence of their bad morality without great straining of the argument. 1 will lirst advert, then, to the accusation he brings against Justin, and eventually, indeed, against other Fathers, of encouraging in the Cliristians a disposition to volunteer martyrdom. " Lest any one should say," writes Justin,^ " away, then, with you all, and put yourselves to death, and go to Cfod, and do not give us the trouble. I "SNill tell you wh}- we do not do this ; and why, when we are questioned, we boldly confess that we are Cliristians. We have been taught that God did not make the world to no purpose, but for the sake of the human race, and we have already said that he has pleasure in those who imitate his attributes, and is displeased with those who embrace what is wicked, whether in word or deed. If, then, we should all destroy ourselves, we should be the cause, as far as in us lies, of preventing any from being born, or from learning the Divine doctrines, or should even stop the existence of the race of man, herein acting contrary to the will of God. No, being questioned we do not deny, being conscious of nothing wrong, and account- ing it impious not to tell the truth in all things, for this we know to be acceptable to God." Here, says Barl)eyrac, Justin, so far from expressing any dis- a})proval of the act of self-immolation, rather may seem to commend it.^ But had he considered the circumstances which gave occasion to these reflections of Justin, he would have found that his censure is ' Barbeyrac, p. Ihatic, describing it as the most glorious Baptism of blood"; and elsewhere saying in terms evidently loose and rhetorical, but still to our purpose,® " Let us also Avho, by God's permission, have administered Baptism to believers, prepare each and all of them for another Jiaptism, teaching them that this latter Baptism is greater in grace, more sublime in efficacy, more precious in honour ; the Baptism with which the angels baptize ; the Baptism in which (iod and his Christ rejoice ; the IJaptism after which no one sins again; the Baptism which consummates the growth of our faith ; the Bap- tism which unites us at once, as we depart from the World, unto God. In the 15aptism of water is received the remission of sins ; in the JJaptism oi' blood the ' Origen, Exhort, ad Martyr. § 14. * Exhort, ad Mart jr. § 30, * Ambrosius is called Jfpof l>y ; • Iliid '•rigcn, § 36, and dtonpfntaToroi, § 1 ; and Protoctetus is expressly called irpfa^vTfpos hj Eusebius, Ecclcs. Hist. vi. c. 28. ' Exhort, al Martvr. § 27. • Compare § 5<», and Ilomil. xxiv. in Numeros, vol. ii. p. 302. ' Cyprian, Ep. Ixxiii. § 22. • Epistola ad Furtunatum do Ex- hortTtionc Martj-rii, Proef. § iv. 238 MARTYRDOM INSTRUMENTAL • [Series I cro'^TL of virtue. It is a thing to be desired and sought for in all oiu' prayers and petitions, that being the ser- vants of God we may become his friends." And other passages might be found in him equally strong — ^whence, I say, comes it, that the same parties, who, as we have seen, were quite alive to the immorality of rushing headlong upon martyrdom, should have still used ex- pressions such as these, which expose them to Barbey- rac's strictures? Doubtless, they did not forget the language of Scripture on this exciting subject — our Lord's words, " Can ye be baptized with the Baptism that I am baptized with" — words to which much of the language I have quoted may be referred ^ — the en- courag-ement addressed to the ans^el of the Church of Smyrna in the Eevelation, " Be thou faithfid unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life" — the testi- mony borne in the same book, that " the souls of those who had been slain for the Word of Grod" were seen "under the altar" ^^the high-spirited remonstrance of St. Paul, "Wliat mean ye to weep and break mine heart ? For I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus " — and the sharp rebuke of our Lord himself, when Peter would have heedlessly withdrawn his thoughts from his passion, " Get thee behind me, Satan." These passages of holy writ, and many more, which were, or which they considered to be of like import, they did not, I say,' forget ; but it was the circumstances in which they found themselves placed, that chiefly prompted these glowing eulogies of the martyr. Origen's treatise, abounding in incautious terms beyond any other, as I have remarked, was written on the spur of the moment. So was Cyprian's De Exhortatione Martyrii. So pro- bably would it be perceived from internal evidence were aU the works of the Fathers which have this subject ' Origcn, Exhort, ad Martyr. § 28. ^ ^ 30. Rev. vi. 9. Lect. X.] IN THE PROPAGATION OF THE GOSPEL. 239 chiefly for their theme. Tlicir heart was hot ^^'ithill them, and so they spake with their tongue ; much in the spirit of Latimer in a hke condition, " Be of good comfort, master l\idley, and phiy the man." Tliose circumstances, I repeat, l^arlxyrac does not aUow for ; is not, it should seem, adequately acquainted with : his reading had not put him in possession of a minute knowledge of the critical times, in which the Fathers lived — times, when the inl'ant Church in the midst of hostile powers was struggling for existence; when, to use the words of Irena?us, " there was a movement of the whole earth against it"'; and when mider God it mainly owed its survival and growth to the example of its professors, the severity ^Wth which they lived, and above all, the courage ^^'ith which many among tliem took their deaths. These were davs in which the value of the martyr was incalcidable. For only look at a few of the many hints to tliis effect, with which the writings of the Fathers abundantly supply us, and which never could have been permitted to produce their due impression upon the mind of Bar- be}Tac, or he would have written on this subject of martyrdom in a difierent spirit. Clemens somewhere remarks^ that to see an Indian burn would be worth many treatises on patience. And most truly does Tertullian say in terms whicli a little altered have be- come an apophthegm, " the blood of the martyr is the seed of the Church." ^ It was the spectacle of the constancy of the Chri.stians under persecution to the death that lirst moved Justin (a type of thou.sands no duubt) to examine and ado})t their faith.* It was a test, Irena-us tells us, which none but Cliri.stians could sustain : their faitli, such was its force, furnishing a nudtitude of ' Irenoeus, IV. c. xxxiii. § 13. » Clem. Alex. Stromat. II. § xx. p. 404. ' Semen est sanguis Christianorum. — Tcrtullian, Aj>ol. c. 1. * Justin .Martjr, Apol. II. § 12. 240 MARTYRDOM INSTRUMENTAL [Series I. martyrs at all times and in every place ; whilst tliat of all other men Hinclied from this rigorous touch-stone — a distinction, which could not fail to be observed and to produce its fruits. How strong is the evidence of this in Tertullian's appeal to Scapula, the president of Africa ! " How will you deal," says he, " with so many thousands of either sex, men and women, of all ages, of all ranks ? Wliat fires, what swords will you need! How will Carthage bear the decimation, when everybody will find included in it some relation or friend ! when there will be numbered in it men and matrons of your own order, chief persons in the state, the kindi'ed perhaps of yours and of you ! Spare then youi-self ; if you will not spare us. If you will not spare yourself, spare Carthage." " Never will this sect fail : but will flourish the more, the more it is cut down. For whoever is a spectator of such sufferings and of such patience under them, will be staggered ; will be led to inquire what there is in this cause ; and when he shall have learned the truth will forthwith become himself a convert." ^ " I have felt," says Cyprian, writing to the same effect, but in a yet more graphic manner, " I have felt, nor has the truth deceived me, when the ruthless hands of the executioner have been tearing the limbs asunder ; when the savage tormentor has been ploughing up the lacerated members, and still been unable to prevail over his victim — I have felt by the words of the bystanders that there was something majestic in not being subdued by pain, in not being broken by penal anguish. Then might be heard the words of those who said. And I think he has children ! for he has a wife, the companion of his home ! and yet he does not yield to the attachment of these pledges ; nor seduced by the influence of affection does he falter in his purpose. His mettle is to be tried ; his virtue is to be proved to the very bowels. That is no ' Tertullian, Ad Scapulam, c. v. I Lcct. X.] IN THE PROPAGATION OF THE GOSPEL. 241 light confession, bo it what it may, lor which a man en- dures the possibility of dying. And indeed, brethren dearly beloved, such is the power of martyrdom, that by force of it even he who has undertaken to be thy execu- tioner is constrained to Ijecone a detierer." ' Siicli was the eftect, the powerful effect of the martyr's death on the cause of the Gospel in those days. What a price would naturally, would justly be set upon it ! especially when to this consideration is added on the other hand that of the numbers, who, put to the trial, flinched and fell away ' ; in many cases too attempting to justify or excuse tlieir lapse by an argument the most Jesuitical ; that the name of the Deity being merely a matter of convention, it could be of no consequence • whether they said, I worship the Supreme Grod, or whether they called him Jupiter, or Apollo, or any other designation of heathen mythology ' — an equivocation, which Origen would not have taken so much pains to expose on so many occa- sions as he does, idle as it is in itself, unless it had been working much miscliief to the Church.* I repeat then, how inevitably woidd the death of the martyr be held in the highest honour, wdien numbers, whether thus trilling with their consciences, or at once confessing their fears, fell away ; numbers so great, that it became a subject of anxious controversy in the Church how to deal with them, shedding their disastrous influence on the faith they were abandoning ; and whose apostacy only rendered tlie constancy of those who were true to the last stiU more matter for eulogy and praise : that t//fy shoidd have withstood the lash, the club, the hook, the llame, which had shaken the spirits of others who had made up their minds to die, till the instruments of ' Cjprian, De Laudc Martyrii, suam proarbeyrac does not take into account as he should, when pronouncing his o])inion — and those circumstances the same which modiiicd St. Paul's own views (m the subject, " the present distress." And this latter con- sideration appears to have crossed the mind of Barbeyrac himself, who is disposed to qualify the language even of ' Tertullian, Ad U.xorcm. I.e. vii.; l ' .\'lv. .Marciun. V. c. xv. Canon. Apostol. xvii. j 244 THEIR SENTIMENTS ACCOUNTED FOR [Scries I. the Apostle, as thougli, according to the ordinary trans- lation of it, he was himself too hard upon marriage, objecting to the usual translation of jvwfjbrjv SiBcofii, " I give my judgment,"' and alleging that it means no more than "I give you my thoughts," — "je vous dis ma pensee."^ The very passage indeed which he cites from Athenagoras turns upon these circumstances. It was a notorious slander against the early Christians, a slander arising either from the secresy with which they found it necessary to hold their assemblies for religious worship,^ or from the reputed profligate practices of certain anti- nomian heretics who were confounded with them, for the fact does not seem to have been proved even against them — it was a notorious charge, I say, against the early Christians that they met for the purpose of the grossest debauchery. The Ime of argument, which the Fathers in general pursue when replying to this ac- cusation, is to assert the peculiarly pure precepts of the Gospel which governed the Christians ; precepts v/hich, so far from allowing any such turpitude, laid even the lawful gratification of the passions under severe restraint, and, not content with regulating the actions, reached even to the very motions of the heart.* The more to enforce this exposition of the chastity required by the Gospel, they, in some instances, call attention to the number of persons of both sexes who lived in a state of celibacy, because they thought that condition favourable to religious impressions ^ ; not unnaturally, perhaps, con- struing our Lord's own words on this subject to that efiect, " He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."^ Such, then, being the jealousy with which the Christians were watched by their heathen enemies, and such one of the most common, popular, and efiective of the accu- ' 1 Cor. vii. 25. "^ Barbeyrac, p. 111. ^ Miuucius Felix, Octav. c. x. ■* Athenagoras, Legat. pro Chris- tianis, § 28. 5 Ibid. ^ Matt. xix. 12. Lect. X.] BY TUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THEIR TIMES. '2ib sations brought ag-ainst them, were the Fathers to be blamed if they encouraged, as far as was consistent with the observance of continence in the parties (for they iitterly denounce all breach of it), celibacy rather than marriage, and one marriage rather than two ? It was the peculiar position of the Christian Church at the time, which instigated them to proclaim this preference ; it was a prudential consideration for the good of the Church under existing circumstances : and though, as I have said, they may have supported this preference by other subordinate arguments, feeble and futile in them- selves, the main cause of their asserting it at all was what I have alleged, " the present distress." And Barbeyrac must not condemn their morality in coming to the decision they did, without having more regard to the nature of the case than he displays. The question was not whether celibacy in the abstract was a better estate than marriage, or one marriage better than two ; but whether, at that especial crisis, the inculcation of such forbearance from a lawful indulgence was not wholesome. But a desire to meet this popular calumny was not the only cause which operated on the minds of the Fathers when they encouraged single life and single marriage. There was another which probably moved them yet more powerfully, still connected \\'ith the times in which they wrote — a due consideration for the effects of prrxt'ciit'ion on all the domestic relations. " AVoe imto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days," says our Lord himself, when anticipating the troubles that were coming on Jerusalem. Age was not a protection : girls and boys were among tlie victims.' Was it not natural that the Fathers of tlie Church should not encourage parental ties to be multipHed when liable to sucli violent disruption? Would they ' Cyprian, Ep. Ixxvii. § 0; Ixxxi. § 3 ; Dc Laj.sis, § ii. 246 THE CASE STATED BY TERTULLIAN [Series I. not very reasonably tliink that love for wife and child would constantly prove too strong a temptation for the courage and constancy of men who would other- wise have borne the cross and flame without a shudder ? Wliat a world it was, must any husband or parent have thought, to cast those that were nearest and dearest to him upon ! Wliat a scene of trial and trouble to which to commit them, to struggle through alone ! Look at Tertullian's address to his wife, written on the prospect of her becoming a widow ; written, certainly, after he became a follower of Montanus, but dictated by the feelings, not of a Montanist, but of a Christian man. See the particular sources of anxiety beyond those which would oppress the mind of a husband in ordinary times, when contemplating the future fortunes of his partner, with himself no longer for her guide and guardian — the particular sources of anxiety, I say, he found in the cha- racter of his own days and the perils with which they were beset ! It is a document well worth the perusal of those who, with Barbeyrac, discover cause for blame in the sentiments of the Fathers on the subject of mar- riage. He bequeaths to his wife, he says, the legacy of his recommendation that she should not marry again; not urging this for his own sake, or out of any jealousy of her, but simply with a view to her own welfare. Wliat were children, but the most bitter of pleasures, (liberorum amarissima voluptas ?) ' so much so, that Chris- tian parents are only anxious that their children should go before them to Heaven, and escape the temptations of a longer life (the dangers and trials to which they were then exposed prompting, no doubt, so unnatural a senti- ment as this) — and well they might, for, apart from all fears they might entertain of their becoming the victims of persecution, there was the apprehension that they could hardly help becoming the victims of the heathen ' Ad Uxorem, I. c. v. Lcct. X.] IN HIS TREATISE AD UXOREM. •2i7 society amongst wliich their forlorn lot was in a gi'cat measure cast ; and those ecclesiastical constitutions ' which have reference to orphans, and which enjoin the l)rethren (often we may suppt)se without etfect) that they who have no chiklren themselves should adopt such outcasts ; and the Jiishops that they should endeavour to see to them, giving assistance to such children that they may learn a trade, and so be enabled to buy them- selves tools, and be put in a condition to earn their bread, and no longer burden the Church. These regu- lations, I say, though most humane in themselves, bespeak the aspect of the times, and go but a little way towards relie^'ing a dying father's heart as to the future fortunes of his family. But to return to the tract of TertuUian. AMiat if she should marry a heathen, for- getting the Apostle's injmiction, '' onl}- in the Lord" — a thought, which then obviously embittered TertuUian's contemplations of the future, more than any other ; and one on which he bestows his advice at great length, appropriating to it a second book of this address. It was in those days no chimerical fear. The Christians were then in a minority ; they had to do w4th heathens intimately in the most ordinary affairs of life. " I wrote unto you," saith the Apostle, "not to company with fornicators : yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters ; for then must ye needs go out of the world. '"^ That was then the state of things ; the Christians bearing so small a proportion to the heathens, that they could not avoid mixing with tluiii, and taking the chance of the contamination such .society might etfect. TertuUian presses on his wife's attention St. Paul's for- biddal of such unhallowed bands : dwells on the excom- munication of the party by the Chiinh'': reminds her ' Constit. Apostol. IV. cc. i. ii. I ' TertuUian, .\. ' 248 THE FATHERS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR [Series I. of the impossibility there would be, under such circum- stances, that she could continue to serve God. Is a meeting for prayer appointed (statio facienda) ? her hus- band will propose a resort to the bath. A fast ? he will have a feast instead. A procession? household matters forbid it. Would he allow her to go from street to street, and from cabin to cabin, to visit the brethren? AVould he permit her to take part in the nightly assemblies, when her turn came ? Or when Easter called her? To partake of the Lord's Supper; an institution which they suspect? To creep to prison to kiss the chains of the martyrs? To salute the brethren? To wash the feet of the saints? To offer them hospitality ? To minister unto them when sick' ? Or if he did endure all or any of these proceedings in silence, what else would it be for, but to treasure up in his memory the means of taking revenge on his wife, if at any future time she might happen to provoke him^ ? AVould she be prepared for the unseemly scenes in which she would have to participate with him, the tavern revel, the obscene song^ ? He might tempt her by his wealth, trappings, equipage, chamberlains ; she was but receiving a husband at the devil's hands.* These were some few of the many sad forebodings which crossed, it seemed, a Christian husband's mind in those days on the prospect of his own death ; fore- bodings engendered altogether, or almost altogether, by the state of the times ; and was it not reasonable and right that the leaders of the Church should not encou- rage men to contract marriage without carefully before- hand counting the cost, and considering what deep interests, indeed, what everlasting interests were pro- bably concerned in the issue of a marriage ? Barbeyrac lived after the temperate recommendation of celibacy dictated by the severity of the times of the early Chui'ch ' TertuUian, Ad Uxorem, II. c. iv. ^ c. v. ^ c. vi. * c. viii. Lcot. X.] THE MISAPPLICATION OF THEIR ADVICE. 2113 liad been carried to excess; and tlie compulsory vow of the convent and the monastery had been the abuse that had grown out of it ; l)ut tlie Fathers could not possibly loresee the practical extravagance to which a principle, innocent in itself, will proceed, and are not answerable for it. Let us not, in our hostility to popish cor- ruptions, be unjust to the memory of those who did not contemplate them ; and yet to whom, in some in- stances, those corruptions, taking their beginning from some harmless or even praiseworthy origin, may be traced. 250 TERTULLIAN BLAMED BY BARBEYRAC [Series I. LECTUEE XI. Further illustration of the defect in Barbeyrac's reasoning. Examination of his charge against Tertullian of interdicting trades connected with idolatry, the profession of arms, national customs, offices of state. Un- fairness of regarding in the abstract what was meant only to apply to particular circumstances. Sentiments of Tertullian and Cyprian on self- defence accounted for. Justification of idolatry among the Pagans in Clemens, owing to a misinterpretation of Deut. iv. 19. His real opinion on that subject. Defence of writers subsequent to the third century declined. Late ecclesiastical antiquity less deserving of confidence. Sub- jects of the second Series. YOU will remember that my object in tlie remarks I am making on Barbeyrac's treatise on the morality of the Fathers is not to follow him through every par- ticular case which he adduces in detail, but to show that one defect pervades his reasoning throughout almost all of them, that of not taking into accomit the 2J(^culiar character of the times in which the Fathers lived — a defect arising, as I suggested, from Barbep-ac not ha^dng carefully read then- A\Titings for himself, and so not liaAdng possessed his mind thoroughly with a full and correct impression of those times, but ha\dng con- tented himself with using passages with which others supplied him — passages detached from the authors to which they belonged, and which simply served as texts for his Philippics. I gave proof of this fact from his animadversions on the manner in which they speak of martyrdom, and of marriage, and especially of second marriage. I pm'sue my observations, and I find further proof, in his strictures on Tertullian more particularly for the blame that Fatlier casts on those who minister to what is wrong, however indirectly and however inci- Lect. XL] FOR DENOUNCING CERTAIN TRADES. 251 dentally. Thus, says J^arbeyrac, Tci-tuUian, in his treatise on Idolatry, absolutely condemns every trade, jtrofession, and calling \vhieh can in any way be oi' use to the heathens in ciUTying on their idolatrous worship, however difficult it may be for the parties to earn a maintenance by any other means ; and liarbeyrac adds that he might as well interdict the sale of wine or of arms, because the one may serve for debauchery and the other for violence. Possibly TertulUan may show himself over sensitive and impractical:)le in the restric- tiims he thus lays on the occupations of the Christian ; nor may have sufficientl}' distinguished the circum- stances which render the dealer accountable for the buyer's use of the articles which he sold him ; but, at all events, the side he took was the safe one ; nor, if we consider how idolatry had then wormed itself into tlie whole structiu*e of society, shall we, perhaps, tliink that his interdicts were extravagant. He found, for instance, the carver by trade, though professing himself to be a Christian, tempted to make images for heathen temples,' arguing as his excuse the diHicidty of getting a Hx-ing, and the Apostle's precept, " Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called " ^ ; nay, in some cases these excuses of his connived at, and men Nvlio had so exercised their craft permitted to discharge inferior offices in the Church.' He found the school- master — he, too, being a Christian — teaching the adven- tures of the heathen gods, not after those gods had become despised and obsolete, but whilst they were yet tlie actual gods of the multitude ; and continuing, from (•ust<»m. ])('rhaps, the old-t'stal)lislu'd usages (j1* the sclu>ol, dedicating tlie lirst payments of the scholars to Minerva ; receiving presents from the friends of his boys on heathen festivals*; keeping the holidays of Fl(»ra at the ai)point- ment of the Flamen or J-Milc. He found the cattle- ' Tcrtullian, Dc IJol'jlatria, c. iv. '^ c. v. ^ c. vii. * c. x. 253 WHY HE DISSUADED THE CHRISTIANS [Series I. jobber, still a professing Christian, not scrupling to piu'cbase victims for the use of the heathen temples ^ ; and the dealer in incense — he, too, a Christian — having for his principal customers (a thmg of which he must have himself been perfectly aware) the heathen priests.^ It must be confessed that it was very difficult to correct callings of this kind, which had so close, though not a necessary connection with idolatry, b}^ any other means than denouncing them altogether. Tertullian does de- nounce them, certainly, contending that the exercise of an idolatrous trade cannot be justified by the plea of getting a maintenance by it. The cost should have been counted before it was engaged in ^ ; the cross, which the renunciation of that trade imposes, must be borne. James and John forsook their callin«' : a sound faith has no fear of lacking food.^ At the same time he suggests that mechanics might often turn their hands to other branches of their business. The ma- son, for instance, can repair houses, plaster walls, line cisterns, coat columns, and work in stucco upon walls other ornaments besides images. He who can draw a figure, can paint a slab : he, who can carve a Mercury, can put together a chest of drawers. There are few temples to be built, but many houses ; few Mercuries to be gilded, but man}" sandals and slippers : " luxury and vainglory," he adds in one of the many sentences in him which strongly remind us of Tacitus (an author, however, who does not appear to have enjoyed his sympathy, for he denounces him as a most mendacious writer,*) " luxury and vainglory are worth far more to the artist than all kinds of superstition." " Barbeyrac fui'ther exemplifies this confounding of ' Tertullian, De Idololatria, c. xi. •■* Ibid. ^ c. xii. ^ Ibid. •• Hie mendaciorum loquacissimus. -Apol. c. xvi. ® Frequentior est omni supersti- tione luxuria et ambitio. — De Idolo- latria, c. viii. Lcct. XI.] FROM ADOPTIXG THE PROFESSION OF ARMS. ^^oS inonility by Tertullian, in the condemnation lie passes on the profession of arms ' : and he quotes some strong passat^es to this efl'ect from tlie same tract on IdoUitry. " How can a Cliristian," argues Tc-rtullian, "go to war; nay, liow can lie serve even in peace without a sword ; which the Lord has taken away from him ? For though soldiers came to John and were instructed by him iu their duty ; and though a centiu'ion was a believer ; yet 'lesus declared against the profession of arms, when he bade Peter put his sword into its sheath."^ Nor can it be said that his ^lontanism narrows his view upon this subject ; for even before his Montanism he seems to have demurred to the lawfulness of this calling ; as appears from a few words in his " De Patientia." ^ Xo doubt some of the reasons, the subordinate reasons, or rhetorical reasons one \vould rather call them, with which he underprops his main one, are puerile enough. I have before acknowledged in a similar case this propensity in the Fathers to accumulate poor arguments, as if they strenirthened cfood ones. Thus here, in the "De Corona,"* Tertullian asks in his declamatory manner, " Shall the soldier rest upon his spear, when it was a spear which pierced his Savioui-'s side ? Shall he have the trumpet to sound over his corpse, when he expects the arch- angel's ? " and so on. But still it is easy to see that the cardinal objection, which weighed with him was the ehjse contact, which the callinyf of the soldier brouizht liim into witli idolatry; and the species of sanction, which, under certain circumstances, he seemed compelled to allbrd it. For example, it was his duty to carry the standard, which was a rival of Christ, for witli the soldiers the standard was an o])ject of worshi]».* He had to swear by false gods when he took the militarv ' Barl)eyrac, p. 74. ^ Tertullian, Dc IJoLlatriiV c. XIX. ^ Dc Patientia, c. vii. * De Corona, c. .\i. » Ibid. 254 WHY HE DISSUADED THE CHRISTIANS [Series I. oatli.^ It was a part of liis business to mount guard before the temples over idols wbicli lie had renounced at his Baptism. Barbeyrac, however, contends that it was a needless scruple in Tertullian to make the mounting guard over a temple a matter of objection. The temples of the false gods, says he, were only public buildings which belonged to the sovereign ; and as sovereign he had a right to entrust the custody of them to any of his subjects, whether soldiers or not. It was a service purely civil. ^ There may be many who will prefer the scrupulosity of Tertullian to the liberality of Barbeyrac, particularly when the character of these temples, over which the Christian soldier was to stand sentry, is taken into account. These temples, as Barbeyrac might have learned from the Fathers, were made to produce a con- siderable revenue to the emperor, and were farmed by speculating contractors,^ who usually took them on five years' leases,* and by auction.^ They were regular brothels ; the priests themselves the panders ® ; nothing being so natural, as that the heathen lessees who stood at rack rent, like our toll-bar keepers, bent on making the most of their bargain, should furnish them with such attractions as would di-aw to them the populace, and rival one another in all the profitable arts of seduc- tion. And these were the places, over which the Christian soldier had to mount guard ; and this the society to which he was to be exposed, whilst performing his duty. Do not the circumstances of the case and the times, I again say, go very far to excuse or even to justify Ter- tuUian in diverting by any means Christians from a profession which put them necessarily in the way of ' So I interpret, credimusne hu- manum sacramentum divino super- induci licere, et in alium Dominum respondere post Christum ? — De Co- rona, c. xi. ' Barbeyrac, p. 76. ' Tertullian, Apol. c. xiii.; Theo- philus, I. § 10. ■» TertuU. Ad Nationes, I. § 10. ^ Apol. c. xiii. '' Minucius Felix, Octav. c. xxv. Lect. XI.] FROM FOLLOWING HEATHEN CUSTOMS. 255 sucli cuntainlnatiDii? Ami is liis monilitv to Ix' so very iiiuoh condemned because he does so? ]t is a very dit- icTont (luostion from the Liwiuhiess of the miHtary ser- vice in the abstract, and as that service is at present con- stituted and practised. So, again, witli respect to the Christian adorniuLT his door with Limps and hiurels ; a custom, wliich Tertul- lian denounces in Christians, and ibr which sentiment l>arbe}Tac reproves him, saying that the festival which occasioned the display of such emblems, was ordered by the prince, and that they had no necessary connection with idolatry ' ; with respect to this custom, I say, alloAxance must be made as before lor the state of the times. In the lamp and the laurel there was nothing, but if on such occasions the door was universally re- garded by the people as a slirine, and the decorations as ofterings to the Divinit}', which presided over it, whether Cardea, or Forculus, or Limentinus, or Janus himself^; for all these were Deities which appertained to that (juarter of the house, then the lawfulness of the custom wears quite another aspect. If it was understood that what was done in honour of the door was done in honour of the idol, to whom the door was consecrated, as Tertullian affirms was the case, his argument seems sound, that having renounced the idol temple, you must not make an idol temple of your door; and at all events tlie matter is far from being the simple civil affair which Harbeyrac would represent it. Nor in fact, does Tertul- lian in this instance write in any extreme or extravagant spirit ; for almost in tlie same breadth, he makes a con- cession to social convenience, such as shows that in tl:c other instance he was advising in no morose tcmjier of mind ; and allows the Christian to attend tlie private and ordinary days of festivity in heatlien iamilies, such as the assumption of the toga, a marriage, or the naming ' Barbc^rac, p. 77. * Tertullian, Dc Idololatrifi, c. xv. 256 WUY HE DISSUADED THE CHRISTIANS [Series I. of a child : and though sacrifices usually attended these solemnities, yet merely to the spectator of them, he thinks they could hardly be considered to involve the party in the guilt of them. But even here Tertullian naturally subjoins a msh ; " Would to God we were not called upon to mtness what it is not lawful for our- selves to do ! But since through the devices of the evil one, idolatry compasses the world on every side, we may be permitted to be present on some occasions, which are calculated to show our kindly and dutiful feelings, not for idols, but for our fellow-creatures."^ Barbe}Tac finds similar fault ^ with Tertullian for what he says on the subject of a Christian holding office or magisterial function in the state. And here, I think, his animadversions may be qualified by the same means as before, i. e. by a due regard to the circum- stances of the times. It is obvious that Tertullian, in all the remarks which he makes upon this and upon other kindred subjects, exhibits a mind thorouglily possessed with the enormous difficulties which the idolatry that surromided them, threw in the way of the Christians, and embarrassed them in all their move- ments, however otherwise blameless or indifferent. It is not the lawfulness or unlawfulness of acting as a judge or magistrate in the abstract, which Tertullian debates (as Barbeyrac would seem to represent the question ^ ) ; but whether a Christian should undertake such a pro\dnce, as things then were, and Avith the obstacles before liim which such a position would evi- dently expose him to. This is the proposition in his thoughts, however he may fail to express it in so many words. It is true that Tertullian may appear to lay undue stress on the particulars of pomp and parade with which such an office was accompanied, the pra^texta, the ' Tertullian, De Idololatria, c. I ^ Barbeyrac, p. 83. xvi. I 3 pp_ g5^ gg^ Lcct. XI.] FROM HOLDING OFFICE IN THE STATE. '2')7 trabea, the laticluve, the iiisees, the wands, tlie purple, as if the sfravamen lay in these ; and it is true, also, that Tertullian, the bettt'r to reconcile his readers to the rcoommendation that they should have notliiny far the most eft'ectual defence ' Dc IJololatria, c. xxiv. I ^ Barbcyrac, pp. 91. 128. * Summus saccuJi reatus, c. i, I * Cyprian, Ej). Ivii. § 2. 262 ON SELF-DEFENCE EXPLAINED. [Series I. that coiild be set up. Yincit qui patitur, was the best motto for them. And accordingly we find both Cyprian and Tertullian furnishing express essays on this virtue : but they are not philosophical essays : they w^ere not di-eaming of writing like Pufiendorf and Barbeyrac on " natural rights :" the times in which they lived and the scenes in w^hich they were concerned invited to no such tranquil speculations. Both these compositions are of the nature of Sermons or Homilies ; " Fratres dilectis- simi" is indeed the pulpit phraseology with wdiicli Cyprian interlards his address : they have for their object to brace up the hearers or readers of them to meet the distresses and dangers of the times ; and to teach them not to faint in the day of trial. "And as w^e are all involved in the sentence " (on Adam) such is their language, "we can escape from it only by death. Therefore it is that we naturally weep when we are first brought into the world, testifying instinctively that it is a world of trouble : and patience supplies the only remedy to all ; but most of all to ns, wdiom perse- cutions, the gaol, the sword, the wild-beast, the fire, the cross, and whatever other engine of torment there may be, assail. Even as our Lord said, 'In the world ye shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world,'"' And if Abel is adduced as a praiseworthy example of patient sufferance, w^ho, wdien attacked by Cain, made no resistance^ — for it is pre- sumed of him from the silence of Scriptm-e — surely this is scarcely to be di-awn into a grave argument (as it is by Barbeyrac), that by such reasoning Cyprian was sub- verting the natural right of self-defence.^ In the elo- quent eulogy on patience with which Tertullian closes his treatise on it, it is significantly said, in a long catalogue of its merits, " It strengthens faith " — " it ' Cyprian,DeBono Patientiae, §xii. I ^ Barbeyrac, p. 128. '^ De Zelo et Livore, § v. 1 Lect. XI.] MISTAKEN OPINION OF CLEMENS 2(53 riiles the flesh " — " it bridles the tonjrue '" — " it subdues temptations " — '" it consummates martyrdom " — " it charms the behever " — " it attracts the unbehever " ' — tlie virtue evidently presentinc: itself to the mind of Ter- tullian in those asjK'cts which a state of risk and danger in the times in whicli lie lived sugg-ested to him. There is one particular more in the essay of ^I. Bar- beyrac to whicli I think it needful to draw your atten- tion ; and though differing in character from some of them already noticed, it still serves to confirm me in my affirmation that Barbeyrac, in passing judgment on the morality of the Fathers, did not take sufficiently into account the condition of the times and of public opinion when they wrote. It is this ; the justification of idolatry amongst the Faqans, which Barbeyi'^c imputes to Clemens Alexandrinus,^ when that Father says, that " God had given them the sun, the moon, and the stars, to worship, (ety OprjaKuav)" I have, indeed, touched on this question before, and sho\\"n that Clemens, whose jjrinciple it was to make the heathen philosophy a stepping-stone to Christian truth, and so to tempt the learned Gentiles to a purer fiiith, did consider the hea- venly bodies as objects set up for the religious contem- plation of the Gentiles, in order that they might be saved, as he expressly says, from becoming vicious atheists, and that, carrying their thoughts up from these glorious creatures to God their Creator, they might Ix' delivered I'rom i'alling down and worshipping images, wood, and stone — even the worship of the stars ]>eing thought better than the worship of stocks, as being more likelv to advance the worshipper to the con- teni])lation of God liimself But what led Clemens into tliis ])articular crmr was no oblieen confined altogotlior to the Fathers of the first three centuries. 1 do not })rotond to clear those of a hitor date, and ])artiouhirly thoso of a ///ffr/t lator, from all the charges which Daillo and Harboyrac have l)rought a<,'ainst thom ; for their field is much wider than mine. Mv (.bjt'ct has ])vvu in thoso Jjoctures, and in all that I iiavo dolivorod on similar subjoots, since I occupii'd my present post here, to interest my hearers on behalf of the ' Cohort, ad Gcntcs, § ii. p. 22. 266 DEFENCE OF LATER FATHERS DECLINED. [Series I. Ante-!Nicene Fathers ; feeling as I do, that they are by far the most vakiable of all, as being nearest the times of the Apostles ; and feeling too, that their testimony, instead of unsettling your minds with respect to the doctrine and ritual of your own Church, Avill on the whole lead you to think, that you could betake ^^ourself to no other, which so nearly resembles that of the pri- mitive ages. I have said it before from this place, and I repeat it now, that it is not the reference to eccle- siastical antiquity which has of late prevailed to such an extent, that has disturbed us, and given cause for jea- lousy and apprehension to so many, but it has been the reference to ecclesiastical antiquity of too low a date ; a date, when the Church had lost much of the simplicity both of its faith and constitution. Such popular objections as are urged against the study even of these primitive rathers, I trust I have in this course of Lectures in a great measure removed. It will be my business in my Lectures next Term to follow up my present argument by an exposition of the jjositive advantages of many kinds which result from the study of the writers of the Ante-Nicene Church; and thus redeem the title which Daille adopted " On the Use of the Fathers," whilst the only or chief object of his book proved to be, to per- suade us that the Fathers are of no use at all. Accordingly I shall show in these Lectures the light the study of the early Fathers casts upon the Evidences — the weapons with which they (in a peculiar manner) arm us against the infidel, and against Mr. Gibbon's infidelity more especially ; by proving the rapid spread of Christianity over the world ; by exhibiting the classes of society out of which its converts were made ; and the mistake it is to suppose that they were exclusively of the lowest ; by developing the care and caution with which their characters were sifted before their allegiance was received : bv furnishino- us with a true estimate of Leot. XI. J SUBJECTS OF TUE SECOND SERIES. 267 the extent and intensity of persecution they encountered and sustained, and the trying nature of some modes of it less obvious, and therefore less adverted to, but not less searching. I shall treat of the miracidous poicers ascribed to the Primitive Churcli ; and of its ccch-sia.sfical constriicdon. I shall exphiin the good otlices the Fathers render us in our investigation of the Canon of Scriptiu'e — the substance of Scripture — the ttwf of Scripture — and above all, the mean'uu/ of Scripture on great ciirdinal ])()ints, bv reflecting to us the sense of the Primitive Church on them all, on the last of wliich subjects I shall have to dwell at some length. I cannot but persuade myself that young men about to undertake the occupation of Ministers in Christ's Church, of teachers of the people in theological and ecclesiastical truth, particularly in times like our own, when so much error is abroad on such topics, and so many foundations subverted or shaken, which they may find themselves soon in a position to restore or repair — T say, T cannot but persuade myself, that ingenuous men, with such prospects before them, may feel it a duty — an interesting duty — to make themselves ac- quainted with such questions as I have enumerated; and thcnigh no longer compelled to hear what I have to sav on them by constraint, may be disposed to do so of good- will ; and that I shall liave the satisfaction of feel- ing, that in composing these Lectures, the results of manv years' patient reading and thought, 1 have not l)een labouring in vain ; but have a clianci- ol' dill'using the conclusions of my own experience through the country by the best of all channels, that of an enlight- ened and intelligfnt Clergy. LECTURES EIGHT USE OF THE EAliLY FATHERS, SECOND SERIES. ON THE ADVANTAGES TO BE DERIVED FROM THE STUDY OF THE EARLY FATHERS. ON THE RIGHT USE OF THE EARLY FATHERS. LECTURE I. Use of the Fathers in relation to the Evidences. Their testimony to the wide dispersion of the Gospel opposed to the statements of Gibbon. His unfairness in citing them. Argument from their incidental allusions. More direct testimony to the early establishment of Christianity on the shores of the 3Iediterranean and Euxine, and in the countries beyond the Euphrates. Its secret progress illustrated from the Acts, from St. Paul's Epistles, from the Fathers. Its disturbance of the social relations instrumental to its propagation. Exposition of Phil. i. 12-18. Further illustrations. Effect of the puMic games. n^HE course of Lectures whicli I delivered last Tenn -'- on the use of the Fathers, was entireh' occupied in removing; or abatincr those chai'O'es aii'ainst them, wliich are advanced by Daille and Barbeyrac : for I thought it would be well to clear away objections to the study of them, before I proceeded to enforce their value ; and T tliought too, that it would not be easy to find any which lia!" <.iod and of his ' Clem. Rom. Epist. I. § v. T 274 THEIR TESTIMONY TO ITS WIDE DISPERSION [Series II. Christ, "\^^lerefo^e it was, that David said, " Their sound is gone out into all lands, and their words into the ends of the world." ^ Here we have another instance of the fact we are investigating, being communicated in the same unobtrusive way as before. Again, in the same author's exposition of Moses' blessing on Joseph, " his horns are like the horns of an unicorn, with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth," ^ the horn of the unicorn is the Cross, and its pushing the nations to the ends of the earth is but significant, says he, " of what has already come to pass among all nations. Por they of all nations, pushed by the horn, that is, pricked to the heart by this mystery, have turned from their vain idols to the worship of God." ' Once more, Irenseus in commenting on the parable of the grain of mustard seed, remarks that in that parable, "the Judge of the whole world was announced — that he, in the heart of the earth and buried in the tomb, in three days became the greatest of trees, and stretched forth His branches to the ends of the world — that the twelve Apostles, shooting from the stem, like goodly and flourishing boughs, became a shelter for the nations, as those boughs are to the birds of heaven ; under which boughs, all finding shelter, like birds gathered into the nest, have partaken of that food nutritious and heavenly which proceeded from them." * It is most improbable that Irenseus would have used expressions of this sort, if the Grospel had not actually made great progress when he penned them. Again, he is speaking of the uniformity of tradition in the orthodox Church, to whatever branch of it you tm*n, as presenting an in- superable objection to the novelties of the heretics. ' Justin Martyr, Dial. § 42. '^ Deut. xxxiii. 17. ^ Justiu Martyr, Dial, j 91. * Irenasus, Fragm. xxxi. or p. 347, Bened. Ed. Lect. I.] OPPOSED TO THE STATEMENTS OF GIBBON. 275 That is his argument ; but in treating it, he incidentally touelies on the aetual superlicial extent of that Church in the lollowing terms ; "so that the laith and tradition of the Churches is one and tlie same, whether they be established in Germany, in Spain, in Gaul, in the East, in Egypt, in Libya, or in the middle of the world." ' And here may be the proper j)hice ibr remarking by the way the animus with which Gibbon handles such early evidence as this for the wide dispersion of the Gospel. AVe see Spain is one of the countries here enumerated as having received the Gospel, and in such a measure as to have her Churches appealed to on the subject of Tradition ; a circumstance indicating both that the spread of the Gospel in that country was considerable, and also that its date was then of some standing. And Aet Gibbon casts a doubt upon the Gospel having pene- trated Spain even in TertuUian's time, whose testimony to that etlect he produces in order to disparage it, as if it was the earliest which existed on the question, alto- gether sinking this of Ireua?us which preceded Tertul- lian's and concurred with it. " From Gaul," says Gibbon, " which claimed a just pre-eminence of learning and authority over all the countries on this side of the Alps, the light of the Gospel was more faintly reflected on the remote provinces of Spain and Britain ; and if we may credit the vehement assertions of Tertullian,^ they had already received the first rays of the faith, when he addressed his Apology to the magistrates of the Eni])er()r Severus."^ Now, why advert to a rhetorical ]>assage of Tertullian, a later witness, and suppress this sober one of Irenaius, an earlier? I say suppress, be- cause though not taking the slightest notice of it in this tr.rt, where if Tertullian was worth ]n'oducing, ' Ircnacus, I. c. x. § 2. ' Tertullian, Adv. JuJaios, c. vii. ' Gibbon's llistory of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. ii. p. 3G8. T 2 276 niS UNFAIRNESS IN CITING THEM. [Series 11. surely Irenseus was, lie has a reference to it afterwards in a note ^ ; in a note, however, annexed to a sentence which has no particular relation to Spain, and the re- ference in that note confined to a bare citation of the book and chapter of Irenseus, without a word about the sub- stance of the passage referred to, nothing in short done to invite us to examine it ; as though on the one hand. Gibbon was reluctant to put his readers in full possession of an authority which was against him; and on the other, was willing to prepare for himself a retreat against the charge of ignorance of that authority, by barely jotting down the chapter and verse. The very next page furnishes an instance of the same disingenuousness in the case of Armenia. " It will still remain an un- doubted fact, that the barbarians of Scythia and Ger- many, who afterwards subverted the Eoman monarchy, were involved in the darkness of Paganism; and that even the conversion of Iberia, of Armenia, and of Ethiopia, was not attempted with any degree of success till the sceptre was in the hands of an orthodox em- peror." ^ But Armenia is one of the nations expressly enumerated by TertuUian^ as believing in Christ, and Mr. Gibbon himself convinced that in this case at least his assertion was not true, expressed his intention of correcting his error in future editions.* " Yet," remarks Professor Porson in the Preface to his Letters to Arch- deacon Travis, a Preface in which he pronounces an eulogium with certain exceptions on Mr. Gibbon's His- tory, " to say the truth, I have one censure in reserve. A candid acknowledgment of error does not seem to be Mr. Gibbon's shining virtue. He promised (if I un- derstand him rightly) that in a futui'e edition he would ' Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. ii. p. 369, note 177. =» p. 369. * Tertullian, Adversus Judasos, c. vii. * Gibbon's Miscellaneous Works, vol. iv. p. 577. 8vo. 1814. Lect. I.] TESTIMONY OF TERTULLIAN. 277 oxpun^fo the words, of Jnnrnia, or make an equivalent alteration. A new edition has appeared; but I have looked in vain to find a correction of that passage." ' But to return to our proof that the early Fathers bear testimony to the wide dispersion of the Gospel in tlu'ir time ; that of Tertullian, whicli has already been a(l\aiu'cd in one instance, does not terminate with that one ; on the contrary, it presents itself in many of his works, ^^Titten no doubt at considerable intervals of time. One while he tells us, as in his Apology^ that people were exclaiming, the state was besieged by the Clu'istians ; that it was deplored as a misfortune, that every sex, age, condition, rank, was passing over to their name.^ At another time he talks of the Christians, however unob- trusive their lives, in numbers constituting the major ])art of every state. ^ Elsewhere he produces a catalogue of distinguished princes, and shows that they after all only governed limited districts, Solomon e.ff. from Dan to Beersheba, " whereas the kingdom and name of Christ extends ever3'wliere, is believed everywhere, is worshipped by all the nations already enumerated"*; those nations being the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Armenia, in Phrygia, in Cajipadocia, the inhabitants of Pontus, Asia and Pam- })hyha; of Egypt and of the countr}' of Africa about Cyrene ; Romans, Jews, the various tribes of the Getuli, iiiniiy districts of the Moors; the whole boundary of Sj)ain ; divers nati(»ns of the Gauls ; and parts of Britain wliich had been inaccessil)le to the Pomans.* And on another occasion, when arguing that the prophecies wliicli relatcnl to the events that were to follow the a]ij)rarance of Christ, were fulfilled after Jesus of Xaza- rctli, ]r' ])ro('rcds, " for behold all the nations emerging ' Porson's Letters to Truvis, p. xxxi. ' Tertullian, Apul. c. i. ^ .\'l Scapulam, c. ii. * Ailvcrsus Ju%, the latter 67 or 63, Ilist. * iv. 6. 288 IN THE CONVERSION OF JUSTIN, [Series II. for the indulg-ence of uninterrupted meditation, being tlien engaged in the study of Plato's philosophy. Here an old man of mild and venerable aspect, who was on the look-out for some friends whom he had lost, met with him and fell into conversation with him. He proved to be a Christian ; and accordingly in the course of the dialogue which ensued between them, he drew Justin's attention to the Scriptures, and to the dispensa- tion of the Grospel, of which they spake ; and, his dis- course ended, he went away, and Justin saw him no more. Yet the effects of this encomiter did not termi- nate here.^ This casual adventure had predisposed Justin to examine the Scriptui'es ; and having done so, he be- came converted and a Christian. Probably this is the history of thousands. There is another account of a conversion in Minucius Felix — indeed it forms the plot of his Dialogue — which again may be considered cha- racteristic of the incidental manner in which it was effected in numberless instances. Minucius tells us that there was nothing, which he remembered of his friend Octavius (whose name gives the title to his little work) so vividly, as a conversation which Octavius had held with one Ca^cilius a heathen, at which he Avas himself present ; a conversation at which Octavius won Csecilius to the Gospel.^ This Ca^ciHus, it happened, had come to Rome on a visit to IMinucius ; and after they had spent a few days there together in talking over old times, they all three repaired to Ostia for sea-bathing, Minucius having occasion to recruit his health, and the vacation during the vintage having caused the courts to be shut, for Minucius was a lawyer. Here it chanced, as they were pacing the shore, that on passing an image of Serapis, Cascilius put his hand to his lip and saluted it, as was the practice with the superstitious vulgar.^ Whereupon, says Octa^^us to Minucius, "it is not the ' Justin Martyr, Dial. §§ 3-8. ^ Miuucius Felix, Octav. c. i. ^ c. ii. Lcct. I] IX THE OCTAVIUS OF MINUCIUS FELIX. 2S9 part of a c^ood man, my brother, to allow liis friend and companion to continue in such darkness, as tliat he should Ix^ left to stumble aij^ainst a stone in broad day — a stone fashioned, and anointed, and crowned with garlands, it is true — seeing that the disgrace falls upon you as much as upon him." Meanwhile, the party pursued their walk along the shore in desultory conver- sation ; and a.s they returned paused where the boats were drawn up on the beach to watch some boys playing at ducks and drakes on the siirfiice of the water.' Whilst they were amusing themselves with looking at the sport, ^linucius remarked that Ca?cilius took no interest in it, but, on the contrary, was silent and thoughtiul. Wliat ails you? said he. I am annoyed, replied Ciecilius, at the obserA'ation of Octavius, which conveyed to me a reproach of ignorance. Now I am prepared to debate this subject with him, and I will show him that it is an easier matter to babble among friends than to argue ■with philosophers. Suppose, therefore, we seat ourselves on the mole, and discuss the question. Accordingly, they took their places, and the argument proceeded.^ I liave produced the passage somewhat at full, because all the details of it answer the purjDose for which I cite it ; ^^z. to point out the very casual manner in which the Gospel was often propagated, and the multitude of channels it was stealing through, besides the direct one of missionary exertions. The accidental visit of the heathen to his friend at Rome — their going together to the coast at vacation time, all of them, perhaps, being lawyers, one of them certainly lacing so — tlie passing salutation of the image — the aj)paratus so difl'erent from a pulpit and a congregation — the whole, I mean, serving to show, what numerous s])rings of all sorts were in motion to disj)crse Christianit}', and to account for the very rapid progress it made; S() inany hands, it appears, ' Minucias Felix, OcUxv. c. iii. '' c. iv. U 290 DISTURBING EFFECT OF CHRISTIANITY [Series II. forwarding it who were not expressly charged with the work, nor even suspected of being engaged in it. Moreover, the very nature of Christianity was such as to excite attention and awake discussion wherever it phinted itself. It was a disturbing force. It could not exist, and not make itself felt. Even so early as the Canonical Epistles, one detects this feature of it. From a passage in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, we find there was already felt to be a difficulty about carrying on legal suits, when the tribunal was heathen and the litigants Christian. " Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust ? " ^ In the same Epistle (for the social character of many of the questions handled in that Epistle causes it to supply us with much evidence of the qualities there were in the Grospel to make it talked about), in that same Epistle, I say, we have another contingency provided for, which must have been of constant occurrence, that of unequal marriage, one party a believer, the other an infidel.^ What a fruitful field of discussion would either of these occurrences furnish, the one bringing the question of Christianity under consideration in all its bearings on property and person, the other in all its bearings on the social relations of life. And it is this view of the stirring nature of the Grospel, the vibration, as it were, which it occasioned throughout the system into which it was admitted, that is, perhaps, the true key to a passage in the Epistle to the Philippians, often quoted for another purpose. " But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the Grospel (?". e. his im- prisonment) ; so that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places ; and many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. • 1 Cor. vi. 1. 2 1 Cor. vii. 12, 13. LecUl.] ON TnE RELATIONS OF fiOCIETY '2\)l Some, indeed, preacli {Kijpvaa-ovaiv) C'lirist even of envy and strife ; and some also of good will : the one preach Clirist of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds : but the other of love, knowing tliat I am set for the defence of the Gospel. AVliat then ? notwithstantling, every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is preached {icaTayye\X€Tat) ; and therein do I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice " ' — the terms KTjpva-crw and KUTayyeWay not Used in an}' technical sense, I apprehend, or having here the meaning of preach as usually under- stood ; but simply conveying the idea, that St. Paul's imprisonment liad excited a strong sensation (as we say in these days), and led to the discussion of the merits of the cause for which he suHered ; one party assailing and vilifj-ing it and him, and another party warmly defend- ing both ; and thus both parties, whether actuated by spite or by charity still serving by their disputes to spread the knowledge of Christ and to proclaim Him ; a good result at all events, in wliich St. Paul rejoices. The passage, thus explained, holds out no sanction for here- tical preaching, as it is often made to do. These com- motions, which attended on the progress of the Gospel, and wliich we thus see had begim in the Apostles' days, increased in an enormous ratio, as it proceeded and gathered strength ; and by consequence interfered more and more with all the habits, and arrangements, and laws, and occupations, and amusements of mankind : so that tlie subject soon forced itself upon all who came within the range of its influence, whether they would or not : it could not be blinked ; and thus oven-an the world with a rapidity, which nothing could stop. The absence of the Christians iVoni all public spectacles,* iVom executions,^ their scruples about wearing garlands ' Philippians i. 12-1><. » Clem. Alex. Pfcd. HI. c. xi. p. 298. ' Athenagoras, Leg. pro Chris- tianis, § 35. u 2 292 INSTRUMENTAL TO ITS PROPAGATION. [Series II. at a feast/ and ointments * ; their care about tlieir own poor ' ; their hesitation to take a heathen oath * ; their reluctance to burn their dead ^ ; their refusal to partake of meats which liad been offered at heathen altars^; their objections to having their children taught at school heathen mythology'' ; their use on all occasions of the sign of the Cross,^ on their beds, on their persons ; all these peculiarities and numbers more of the same kind, great and small, which might be mentioned, must have been so many challenges to the curiosity of the world they mixed with ; must have drawn attention to them and their doctrines : the feeling which accompanied their march, go where they would, must have been more or less that of the people of Thessalonica, "these that have turned the world upside dowai are come hither also." ^ We saw from Minucius, that the casual salutation of an image of Serapis was the primary cause of a discussion on the merits of Christianity and of the conversion which ensued ; how much more likely would the casual crossing of the person (to take the least of the peculia- rities of the Christians I enumerated) be a trifle calcu- lated to lead to similar results ! The ordinary progress of the Grospel promoted through all these unobtrusive channels, must have been greatly accelerated by the frequent resort of the people in those days, in multitudes, to the public games. The mere union of ^^ersons from all quarters with Httle to do, whilst the games lasted, but to talk over the events of the day, was propitious to the diffusion of the knowledge of this rising sect. The case was similar in this respect to the feast of the Passover, and the effects were similar. ' Clem. Alex. Psed. II. c. viii. p. 213. 2 p. 205. => Stromat. I. § 1, p. 319. Routh. Rel. Sacr. vol. i. p. 290. ^ Minucius Felix, Octav. xxxviii. * TertulliaiijDeldololatria, c. xvii. j ^ c. xxii. * De Corona, c. xi. ; Epistle of the i ^ Tertullian, Ad Uxorem, II. c. v. Churches of Lyons and Vienne, | ^ Acts xvii. 6. Led. I.] EFFECT OF THE PUBLIC GAMES. 293 We learn [\\nn St. John the active incpiries, which were made about Jesus by the crowds assend)k'd at that feast. " Many went out of tlie country up to Jerusalem before the Passover," and they " spake among tliem- selves as they stood in tlie temple, what think ye, that he will not come to the feast ?" ' But in the case of these shows, there were other reasons why this topic, the dis- persion of Christianity, should be eagerly and zealously discussed at them ; such seasons being often chosen for the execution of the Christians, none other being better suited for making a public example. Thus we read that the soldiers who had the custody of Ignatius were not content A^th simply discharging their office and convey- iuiT him to Pome, but were anxious to do so " before the games were over ;" ^ and it was at a great festival of this kind at Smyrna, that Polycarp was burned.' And the voice which issued from aloft, when the old man entered the arena, " Be of good heart, and play the man, Polycarp," sustained as it was by the courageous car- riage of the martyr, probably preached a sermon which made more converts, and circulated far more widely than appeared — lighted up a candle which would not readily be put out. ' John xi. .0."), 5(5. I genuine by Pearson, Vind. Ign. Part I. ' Acts of Ignatius, § v. conaidcred | c. v. ^ Acts of Polycarp, § ix. 294 TUE INSINUATION OF GIBBON [Series 11. LECTUEE II. The insinuation of Gibbon respecting the rank and character of the early Christians, originally advanced by the heathen opponents of Christianity, and answered by the Apologists. The fact, that many persons of wealth and education were Christians, proved, from the acquirements of the Fathers, from their specific assertion of it, from their addressing them- selves to the rich and intelligent, from the fund at the disposal of the Church. Variety of demands upon the pecuniary resources of the Christians. Kemarks on the Libellatici. WE saw in tlie last Lecture that the autliority of the Fathers tends to estabhsh the fact, that the Gospel was dispersed very widely indeed before Constantine, and that the numbers of the Christians were already very great : an inference to which they cannot minister without fau'ly winning for themselves our esteem as being: at least valuable contributors to the Evidences. But they have further claims on us of the same kind from the light they throw on the rank, condition, and character of the early Cliristians, a point to the illus- tration of which I am anxious to make these Lectures tributary. Eor the sceptic, you are well aware, has used this weapon against the faith, and insinuated that they consisted almost entirely of the dregs of the popu- lace, of peasants and mechanics, of boys and women, of beggars and slaves ; and that accordingly the Christian missionaries were as loquacious and dogmatical in private, as they were slow to encounter philosophers and persons of education in debate.^ Now in the first place this accusation is almost or altogether founded on information supphed by the Fathers themselves ; and it is scarcely credible that they ' Gibbon, vol. ii. p. 372. Lect. II.] RESPECTING THE RANK OF THE CHRISTIANS 295 would have volunteered it, had they thought it for- midaljle to the eause they advoeated. It has come down to us, in iaet, as an objection found hy them in intidel publications, to which they are replying, and which their replies have so far preserved, or as an objection, which in the treatises they sometimes drew up in the iorm of dialogues, they put into the mouths of their ignorant adversaries. Origen c. (/. gives it to Celsus in more places than one'; and Minucius Felix assigns it iUmost in the terms I have stated it in, and which are nearly those of Gibbon, to Caecilius the heathen antago- nist of his friend Octavius.^ I need scarcely tell you, how very ill-informed on the aH'airs of the Christians these heathens are represented to have been ; and how apt they were to undertake to refute them without giving themselves any previous pains to master the cha- racter and tenets of those they were bent on over- throwing. Justin complains of this in the case of Crescens. Tlie description he gives of him is this : "It is not fit to call the man a philosopher," says he, " testi- fying against us, as he does, publicly, facts of which he knows nothing ; charging the Christians mth being atheists and impious persons ; and acting thus in order to curry favour with the multitude who have been led astray. For if he calumniates us without having read the precepts of Christ, he is utterly base, and worse than the boors ; for they generally have scru]iles about talking and telling lies on subjects with which they are unacfpiainted. Or if he has read them, then he does not understand the majesty there is in them. Or if he understands this, and acts as he does in order that no suspicion may attach to himself, he is still more in- famous and mean ; for he is truckling to an ignorant and senseless prejudice, and to fear." ' And Theophilus ' Origen, Contra Celsum, III. § 44. I * Justin Martvr. Apol. II. § 3. ' Minucius Felix, c. viii. I 290 FIRST ADVANCED BY CELSUS [Series II. makes a similar complaint of Aiitolyciis, the friend to whom lie addresses his defence of the Christians ; very greatly surprised that one who spared no pains in mas- tering all the profane and worthless books that came out, would give himself no trouble about the Cliristian writings ^ ; and though, in other matters, he w^as so curious as to investigate them all with the utmost care, he should feel no concern about Christianity.^ And Origen expresses himself in very similar terms of Celsus, alleging that " whoever would examine the uniform pur- port of our Scriptures, would perceive that Celsus, whose hatred to the Christians was like that of the most igno- rant vulgar, brought these charges of his against them without inquiry or regard for truth." ^ It need not there- fore be a case for wonder, if, under such circumstances, we find many idle imputations cast upon the Cluistians, and much exaggeration and distortion of featui"es, that might really in some degree belong to them, attempted. Tor philosophers, it seems, to wliich class all these men belonged,* were in no other way difficult to deal with, than as they were totally ignorant of the subject they were disjjuting about. Certainly, the canonical Scrip- tures of the New Testament imply that in the first in- stance Clmstians were in general, though by no means ' Theophilus ad Autolycum, III. § 1- •* 'Ai/e|fra(rrto? koi \|/'fuSo/xej/oy. — Origen, Contra Celsum, III. § 53. See also V. § 20, KeXo-ou fJ-i]Te voTjaavTOS to Trap rjfuv yfypa^fifpop, /ii/re Kpivai bwafievov, k.t.\. * Origen speaks of Celsus as such, Apd (TV irpoadyav av6pa)TT0vs (piKo- (ro(f)[a. — Contra Celsum, III. § 74, et alibi. He was an Epicurean (I. § 8 ; III. § 75), though apparently unwilling to avow it, dyoivia-aadco m'lv p.)]KeTi KpvTTTcov Tr)v eavToi' a'iptcriv, akX ojxokoySiv 'EniKoiipdos elvai, K.T.X. — III. § 80 ; and again IV. § 4. And how imperfectly informed on the aflairs of the Christians were even the most curious of these in- fidel philosophers,appears from many of the objections of Celsus, probably the least ignorant of them all ; and which as they are generally given by Origen as quotations in Celsus' own words cannot be misrepresented; (I be 8ia TO. fifj dpecTKOVTa KeXo"(Sp Xpiariavav Kai lov8aiu>v 86yp.aTa, a prjISe Ti)u dpxrjv tTricTTaaBai (jialverai, /c.r.X.— IV. i^ 26. Lcct. II.] AND ANSWERED BY ORIGEN. ^297 exclusively, of the poorer ranks ; and Oris^en, in re- ])lyin>^ to this charge, lor it is one which Celsus advances, remarks on one of these occasions when he does so, that it must needs be so, inasmudi as the iii^norant and uneducated being more in number than the literate there must be among the multitudes con- verted to Christianity more ignorant and uneducated ] )ersons than intelligent ones ; but he adds, that even I'elsus confessed that there were temperate and gentle, and understanding persons among them, and persons capable of penetrating allegories,^ that though the Churches had /r«-" wise men {ao(f>ov$) who abandoned that wisdom which was after the Hesh to come to them, yet tliat such persons they had, who left the carnal for the divine ^ : and in another passage in the same treatise he inverts the objection, and in language bespeaking in a very remarkable manner the impression the Gospel had tlien made upon the best informed, says, "Moreover, liow could a mere man and no more," (the Jew in Celsus liaving been representing Jesus as sucli,) " how could a mere man and no more, effect the conversion of such multitudes, not of thou y1iif id persons merely, for there would have been no wonder in that (/cat ov OavfiaaTov et Twu (ppovifiwv), but even of the most unreasonable and llie most enslaved to their passions, and through such want of sense, the most difficult to turn to a course of greater sobriety?"' "T have no wish," says he again on another occasion, "that the ranks of the Christians sbould be made up of dolts, on the contrary, I seek for tlic liv ill name they get amongst the rest of mankind is m«>re than an equivalent to the credit they acipiire with those of the same way of thinking as them- selves ; nor indeed do they get this credit universally." * ' Kaiyap rjv€TTi