liiiiliiilillillii

THE

DIVINE RULE

FAITH AND PRACTICE.

THE
DIVINE RUL^
OF
FAITH AND PRACTICE;
OB,
A DEFENCE OF THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
THAT
HOLY SCRIPTURE
HAS BEEN SINCE THE TIMES OF THE APOSTLES
THE SOLE DIVINE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE TO THE CHURCH,
AGAINST THE DANGEROUS ERRORS OF
THE AUTHORS OF THE TRACTS FOR THE TIMES, AND
THE ROMANISTS,
AS, PARTICULARLY, THAT THE RULE OF FAITH IS "MADE UP OF SCRIPTURE AND
TRADITION TOGETHER ;" &C.
IN WHICH ALSO THE DOCTRINES OF
The Apostolical Succession, tha Euchaiistic Sacrifice, &c.
ARE FULLY DISCUSSED.
By WILLIAM GOODE, M. A.
OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE; RECTOR OF ST. ANTHOLIN, LONDON.

HtBretici quum ex Scripturis argunntur, in accusationem ronvertiintur ipsarutn Scrip.
turarum, . . . quia varie aint diclse, et quia non possit ex his inveniri Veritas ab his qui
nesciant Traditionem. IMon eniia per iitteras traditam iilam, sed per vivam vocem.
IBEN.EUS.
<tavspst iKTrTUirii TriTTtai Kiti vTrtpH^itvicti: KH/rttyofitot., « A9iT«v Ti t^jv yiypa.fji^ivm, ti vra-
a-dym Tfflv ^it yiypAfx^ivm. — Basil.
AuTettiKiii ittrtt au ttyioA xsti ^it/TtnucrTot ypeupaj tt^io^ tjjv thc amBuols ttTTAyyiKiAV. — Atha-
NASIUS. I see not how yon differ from that opinion which is the ground of all Papistry,
that is, that all things necessary unto salvation are not EXPiiEsyED in the Scriptures . . .
'J'here is nothine; necessary lo eternal \\ie which is not both commanded and expressed
in the Scriplure. I count it expressed when it is either in manifest words contained in
Scripture, or thereof gathered by necessary colleclion. — Archbishop Whitgift.
We of the Chnrcli of England affirm that the Scriptures ccmmm a COMPLtTE Rule of
Faith and Practice, and we reject every doctrine and precept as essential to salvation,
or to be obeyed as divine, which is not supported by their authoriiy. — Bishop To.mline.

VOL. I.

PHILADELPHIA :
HERMAN HOOKER,
CORNER OF FIFTH AND CHESTNUT STREETS;
18 4 2.

TO
THE MOST REV.
WILLIAM, LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,
and
THE RIGHT REV.
CHARLES JAMES, LORD BISHOP OF LONDON,
THIS WORK
IS MOST RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED
BY
THEIR OBLIGED AND OBEDIENT SERVANT,
THE AUTHOR.

PREFACE

The movement that has lately taken place in our Church
under the auspices of the Authors of the Tracts for the Times,
whatever may be the view taken of it, must be admitted to be
one of a very important kind. Whether for good or evil, the
degree of development it has already attained, amply shows
that its success must be attended with a great and thorough
change in the principles and practices of our Church in various
most important points.
That such would be the case, was for a long time studiously
concealed from public view. So much caution, indeed, was ex
ercised in the, earlier part of their career by the Tractators, that
to none but those who were somewhat acquainted with the con
troversial writings of divines on the points touched upon, so as
to see the full force and tendency of the terrhs used, was it ap
parent whither they were going ; though to such, I may add, it
was abundantly evident. And the first intimation of it to the
public mind was in the very seasonable publication of Mr.
Froude's Remains, a work which clearly and most opportunely
revealed the real spirit and views of the (to use Mr. Froude's
own term) " conspirators" against the present order of things in
our Church. As time has advanced, and the number of their
adherents increased, the reserve formerly practised has been
gradually thrown aside. Perhaps, indeed, their own views have
become more fixed and definite than when they commenced
their labours. And we are far from laying to their charge any
other concealment than such as they judged to be wise and pru
dent for the inculcation of new and unpalatable truths ; though
we may be pardoned for observing, that a more open course ap
pears to us to be (to use a mild term) much freer from objec
tions.

PREFACE.

It is now, then, openly avowed, that the Articles, though " it
is notorious that they were drawn up by Protestants and intend
ed for the establishment of Protestantism," are not to be interpreted
according to " the known opinions of their framers," but in
what the Tractators are pleased to call a ^'Catholic" sense,*
which interpretation we are informed " was intended to be ad
missible, though not that which their authors took themselves,"
in order to " comprehend those who did not go so far in Pro
testantism as themselves ;"^ though the Articles are said, in the
very title prefixed to them, to have been drawn up "for the
avoiding of diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of
consent touching true religion ;" and were put forth in compli
ance with the request of the lower House of Convocation,
" that certain articles containing the principal grounds of the
Christian religion be set forth, as well to determine the truth of
things this day in controversy, as also to show what errors are chief
ly to be eschewed."^ And the " Declaration" prefixed to the Arti
cles, requiring them to be interpreted in the "literal and gram
matical sense," " sanctions" such a mode of interpretation."
That is, the " literal and grammatical sense" comprehends that
" uncatholic" and Protestant doctrine against which the Tracta
tors protest, and also that opposite " catholic" doctrine which
they embrace. And this " catholic" doctrine is such as is con-
sistent with the decrees of the Council of Trent. ^ And the Decla
ration, forbidding any person to "affix any neto sense to any
article," " was promulgated," we are told, "at a time when the
leading men of our Church were especially noted for catholic
views."" But surely, if the " literal and grammatical sense" of
the Articles comprehends so much as the Tractators suppose,
and men had all along subscribed the Articles with propriety,
though varying in their sentiments from the Protestantism of
Bishop Jewell,^ to the " Catholicism" which squared with the
Decrees of the Council of Trent, it was rather a useless admo
nition, for the wit of man could hardly devise a sense of the
Articles not to be found within such an extensive range as this.
And the very men, be it observed, who say that these Arti
cles, carefully drawn up " for the establishment of Protestant
ism," will bear meanings ranging from Protestantism to that
Anti-protestantism that agrees with the decisions of the Coun
cil of Trent, tell us, that in the writings of the Fathers,»a re
presentation of the orthodox faith is to be found, so clearly and
' No. 90. p. 80. 2 Ib. p. 81. 2d edit. p. 82. 3 Wilk. Cone. iv. 240.
4 No. 90. p. 80. 5 See the whole of No. 90.
6 Ib. p. 80.
' The opposition of which to the Catholicism of the Tractators may be judged
of by an article in the British Critic for July, 1841.

definitely delivered in the consentient testimony of all of them,
that so far from there being any uncertainty as to their meaning,
the orthodox faith as thus delivered is " an obvious historical
fact;" from which flows the very convenient consequence, that
he who follows it has all the benefit of infallibility without in
curring the odium of claiming it.'
Moreover, to " talk of the ' bless.ings of emancipation from
the Papal yoke,'" is to use a phrase of a "bold and undutifol
tenour."^ " To call the earlier reformers martyrs, is to beg the
question, which of course Protestants do not consider a question ;
but which no one pretending to the name of Catholic can for a mo
ment think of conceding to them, viz. whether that for which
these persons sufl'ered were the ' truth.' "^ "Protestantism, in
its essence, and in all its bearings, is characteristically the reli^
gion of corrupt human nature."* "The Protestant tone of doc
trine and thought is essentiallv antichristian."^ The reader will
observe, that the term used in these denunciations is no longer,
as at first, " ultra-Protestantism," but (with a candour which we
should have been glad to have seen from the commencement)
" Protestantism." The present feelings and objects of the Tractators have been
clearly set forth by themselves in the following words. "By
clinging to the authority of these reformers, as individuals,"
they say, "are we not dealing unfairly both with Protestants
and other branches of the Catholic Church ? Are we not hold
ing out false colours to the former, and drawing them near us, only
in the end to be alienated from us more completely than ever ?
On the other hand, are we not cutting ourselves off from the lat
ter, (who are our natural allies,) by making common cause with
A SET OF writers WITH WHOM, IN SUCH MEASURE AS WE HAVE IM
BIBED THE TRUE CATHOLIC SPIRIT, WE CAN HAVE NO SORT OF SYM
PATHY ? Meanwhile, to the unprejudiced inquirers after truth
(a large and growing number) are we not, until we have shaken
off such auxiliaries as these, exhibiting a very distorted and unreal
representation of the Catholicism to which we desire to attract
them ; holding before them a phantom which will £lude their
grasp, a light which will cheat their pursuit ; unsettling their
early prepossessions, without affording a complete and satisfac
tory equivalent; disquieting them in their present home, with
out furnishing them even with a shelter ? This should be well
considered. It ought not to be for nothing ; no, nor for anything
short of some »ery vital truth; some truth not to be rejected
1 See Newman's Leet. pp. 224, 5. 2 Brit. Crit. July, 1841. p. 2. '
3 Ib. p. 14, " Ib. p. 37.
* Ib. p. 29.

without fatal error, nor embraced \yithout radical change; that
persons of name and influence should venture upon the part of
'ecclesiastical agitators ;^ intrude upon the peace of the contented,
and raise doubts in the minds of the uncomplaining; vex the
Church with conntroversy, alarm serious men, and interrupt the
established order of things ; set the 'father against the son, and
the mother against ihe daughter;' and lead the taught to say, ' I
have more understanding than my teacher.' All this has been
DONE ; and all this is worth hazarding in a matter of life and death ;
much of it is predicted as the characteristic result, and therefore
the sure criterion, of the Truth. An object thus momentous we
believe to be the unprotestantizing (to use an offensive but for
cible word) of the national Church; and accordingly we are ready
to endure, however we may lament, the undeniable, and in
themselves disastrous, effects of the pending controversy 
We cannot stand where we are, we must go backwards or forwards ;
and it will surely be the latter. It is absolutely necessary towards
the consistency of the system which certain parties are labour
ing to restore, that truths should be clearly stated, which as yet
have been but intimated, and others developed, which are now
but in germ. And as we go on, we must recede more and
more from the principles, if any such there be, of the Eng
lish reformation."" Such is the language now held by the
Tractators, in their organ the British Critic.
Now if by " we" in this passage they mean themselves, it is
only what all who really understood their principles foresaw
from the commencement of their career. But if by " we" they
mean the English Church, then we trust that they will find that
there is much difference between the temporary impressibn pro
duced by taking men by surprise under "false colours," and that
which is made by the power of truth, accompanied by the bless
ing of God. That the English Church is to go "forwards" with
the Tractators into all the false doctrines, and mummeries of
Popery now openly advocated by them, even to the primary
false principle, that the Church ought to assume the appearance
of one great spiritual monarchy, with the Pope at the head of
it,= is, we trust a prediction that has little probability of being
realized. It is, if possible, still more painful to contemplate the fact,
1 British Critic for July 1841, pp. 44, 45.
2 " Of course, union of the whole Church under one visible government is ab
stractedly the most perfect state. We were so united, and now are not. And the
history of this great struggle for religious independence . . is, in any case, the
record of the origin and progress of that deplorable schism. . . . We talk of the
' blessings of emancipation from the Papal yoke,' and use other phrases of a like
bold and undutiful tenour." — Brit. Crit. for July 1841, p. 2.

PREFACE. XI
that these remarks were published by those who profess the
highest possible regard for the authority of their spiritual rulers,
and not long ^fter one of the heads of the party had, with many
.professions of submission to the wishes of his Diocesan, con
sented to close the series of the " Tracts for the Times ;" while
he is, here identified with " ecclesiastical agitators," ready to use
every effort, and brave every difficulty, and throw the Church
into confusion, to the setting of "father against son, and mo
ther against daughter," for the purpose of effecting the design
of " unprotestantizing" the Church! Such is the practical influ
ence of their inordinate views of Church authority.
The reader will observe that in their use of the word "Catho
lic," the Tractators are directly opposed to our Reformers. Our
Reformers were so far from thinking that Protestantism and
Catholicism were opposed to each other, that one ground for
their supporting the former was, their conviction that it best de
served the title of. the latter. Bishop Jewell believed that it
was the Reformation that restored the " antient religion" (to use
the reviewer's phrase) to our Church. And both he and, I be
lieve I may say, all the more learned Reformers claimed the
name "Catholic," as belonging more peculiarly to themselves,
than to those who, both in the Western and Eastern Churches,
had corrupted the pure faith and worship of the primitive
Church. The Tractators, therefore, like the Romanists, are at
issue with the Reformers as to what is "Catholicism," and the
"antient religion." This the reader ought carefully to bear in
mind, lest he be deceived, as too many suffer themselves to be, >
by words and phrases. ' And the same caution must be given as
to the Tractators' .repudiation of the charge of holding Romish
tenets. Their repudiation of it is grounded merely upon their
rejection of certain more gross impositions and practices of the
Church of Rome ; while, upon various most important points
and leading features in that vast system of religious priestcraft,
they are altogether in agreement with her. There isa previous
question, then, to be determined, before their repudiation of the
charge can be of any practical use, viz. What is Romanism ?
If, as our Archbishop Whitgift tells us, their doctrine on the
rule of faith is "the ground of all Papistry," their verbal dis
claimer of Papistry is mere idle talk. But unfortunately, to the
ordinary reader, this equivocal use of terms throws the whole
subject into inextricable confusion. It is very hard, he will say,
that those should be accused of holding Romish doctrines, who
have expressly repudiated and evep abused Romanism. And is
it not most desirable that we should hold "Catholic" doctrines
and the " antient religion ?" On these points, however, this is

Xll PREFACE.
not the place to enlarge, as they will more properly come under
our consideration in a subsequent page.
With these facts and statements before his eyes, the reader
will not be surprised to learn that the Romanists are loudly
hailing the efforts of the Tractators, as directly tending to the
re-establishment of their doctrines, as the doctrines of the An
glican Church. " We may depend," says Dr. Wiseman,* " upon
a willing, an able, and a most Zealous co-operation -[i. e. on the
part of the Tractators] with any effort which we may make to
wards bringing her [i. e. the Anglican Church] into her rightful
position in catholic unity with the Holy See, and the Churches
of its obedience — in other words, with the Church Catholic."
(p. IL) And among other proofs of the truth of this, he re
marks, — " It seems to me impossible to read the works of the
Oxford divines, and especially to follow them chronologically,
without discovering a daily approach towards our holy Church,
both in doctrine and in affectionate feeling. Our saints, our
popes, have become dear to them by little and little ; our rites
and ceremonies, our offices, nay, our very rubrics, are precious
in their eyes, far, alas ! beyond what many of us. consider thern;
our monastic institutions, our charitable and edlicational provi
sions, have become more and more objects with them of- earnest
sttidy; andevery thing, in fine, that concerns our religion, deeply
interests their attention  Their admiration of our institu
tions and practices, and their regret at having lost them, mani
festly spring from the value whidh they set upon everything
Catholic ; and to suppose them (without an insincerity which
they have given us no right to charge them with,) to love the
parts of a system and wish for them, while they would reject the
root and only secure support of them — the sj'stem itself — is to
my mind revoltingly contradictory." (pp. 13, 14.) "Further
proof of the view which I present, is this ; that general dissatis
faction at the system of the Anglican Church is clearly expressed
in the works of these authors; it is, not a blame cast on one ar
ticle or another, it is not blemish found in one practice, or a
Catholic want in a second, or a Protestant redundancy in a third:
but there is an impatient sickness of the whole ; it is the weariness
of a man who carries a burthen, — it is not of any individual stick
of his faggot that he complains, — it is the bundle which tires and
worries him . . . the Protestant spirit of the Articles in the
aggregate, and their insupportable uncatholicism in specific points,
the loss of ordinances, sacraments, and liturgical rites; the ex-
1 A letter on Catholic Unity, to the Earl of Shrewsbury, by Nicholas, Bishop
of Melipotamus.

PREFACE. X!ll
tinction of the monastic and ascetic feeling and observances ;
the decay of' awe, mystery, tenderness, reverence, devotedness,
and other feelings which may be specially called Catholic' (Let
ter to Dr Jelf, p. 26.); the miserable feeling of solitariness and
separation above described, — these are but a portion of the
grievances whereof we meet complaints at every turn, the re
moval of which would involve so thorough a change in ihe es
sential condition of the Anglican Church, as these writers must
feel would bring her within the sphere of attraction of all ab
sorbing unity, and could not long withhold her from the em
brace of its centre." (pp. 16, 17.)
Still further proof is justly found in the statements of Mr.
Warde, who deeply regrets our Church's "present corruption
and degradation," hears vvith pain the words "pure and apos
tolical" applied to her ; thinks that " the mark of being Christ's
kingdom" " is obscured and but faintly traced on the English
Church ;'' and speaks of " those sisters in other lands from whom
she has been so long and so fatally dissevered," and of her resto
ration to "active communion with the rest of Christendom ;"
in terms, the meaning of which cannot be misunderstood, (pp.
18, 19.) As might be excepted, the endeavour to pervert our
Articles to a Tridentine sense, is eagerly caught at, as smoothing
the way to a full and complete return to Popery. " A still more
promising circumstance," he says, " I think your lordship with
me will consider, the plan which the eventful Tract No. 90 has
pursued ; and in which Mr. Warde, Mr. Oakley, and even Dr.
Pusey, have agreed. I allude to the method of bringing their
doctrines into accordance with ours, by explanation. A foreign
priest has pointed out to us a valuable document for our conside
ration, — 'Bossuet's Reply to the Pope,' — when consulted on
the best method of reconciling the followers of the Augsburg
Confession with the Holy See. The learned Bishop observes,
that Providence had allowed so much Catholic truth to be pre
served in that Confession, that full advantage should be taken of
the circumstance : that ?io retractions should be demanded, but
an explanation of the Confession in accordance with Catholic doc
trines. Now, for such a method as this, the way is in part pre
pared by the demonstration that such interpretation may be
given of the most difficult Articles, as will strip them of all con
tradiction to the decrees of the Tridentine Synod." (p. 38.) This
instructive passage the reader will do well to ponder. Notwith
standing "the Protestatit spirit of the Articles in the aggregate,
and their insupportable uncatholicism in specific points," the magic
wand of an "explanation" will "strip them of all contradiction
to the decrees of the Tridentine Synod itself, and the statements
for which Rome has so often made thousands pay the penalty
b

XIV PREFACE.
with their blood, are now found to be nothing more than what
are easily reconcilable vvith the statements of Trent itself.
It may not be known to many that a very similar attempt to
reconcile our Articles with the doctrines of the Romish Church
was made two centuries ago by an English convert to Popery,
named Christopher Davenport, but who is better known by his
Romish name of Francis a Sancta Clara. The work is entitled
" Deus, Natura, Gratia,"' and was written for the purpose of
explaining many of the most important of the Thirty-nine Arti
cles, so as to make them conformable to the Tridentine state
ments : and he adds, at the end, a " paraphrastic exposition" of
the rest of them, proceeding upon the same principles, wherein
he maintains that they need only a befitting gloss to reconcile
them all to good sound Popery. And for learning and ingenuity
our modern Reconciler is not to be compared to him. But, in
all the most important points, the similarity between the two is
remarkable. Thus, when it is said in Art. xi. that " we are justified by
faith only," here, saith Mr. Newman, "faith, as being the be
ginning of perfect or justifying righteousness, is taken for what
it tends towards, or ultimately will be. It is said, by anticipa
tion, to be that which it promises; just as one might pay a la
bourer his hire, before he began his work," &c. &c. (No. 90, 2d ed.
p. 13.) So Francis a Sancta Clara says that, "because faith is
the foundation of our justification and spiritual life," therefore jus-
tificatlon, and the salvation of man is attributed to faith." Jus
tification is often attributed to faith ; " because faith is the gate
and foundation of it, and the whole spiritual structure."" " If
you say that justification is acquired through faith, by means of
an application or apprehension of the merits or righteousness of
Christ, I think that it may bear a sound and Catholic sense ; he-
cause, in good truth, we, through faith, . . by believing the pro
mises of God in Christ, or the merits of Christ's sufferings, by
praying, by loving, &c. at length obtain, through Christ, our
righteousness. This is their doctrine and ours ; nor do they give
more to faith than the Council of Trent, in the matter of justifi
cation, if they are cautiously explained ; namely, in the way just
mentioned. But thepoint in dispute is, what faith we are to un
derstand  They themselves attribute it, not to that spe
cial kind of faith, but to the faith of Christ, as we do. For, in
the Articles of the English Confession, no faith is specified, but
1 Deas, Natura, Gratia. Sive Tractatus de Prsedestinatione, de Meritis et pec-
catorum remissione, seu de Justificatione et denique de Sanctorum Invocalione.
Ubi ad trutinam fidei Catholicse examinatur Confessio Anglicana, &c. Accessit
paraphrastica Exposilio reliquorum Articulorum Confessionis Anglicte. 2a. ed.
Lugd. 1634. Svo. a p. 192.

the faith of which the Apostles everywhere speak. Therefore
there is no difference between us on this point. But what is
added in the Homily parenthetically, ' This would be to attribute jus
tification to a habit or act in us,' seems to deny inherent righteousness ;
but, in truth, nothing was less meant, for it is immediately added,
' But it is God who justifies.' .... Behold, therefore, we clearly
and fully agree."'
Again, on Art. xii. on works before justification, which states
that " works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspira
tion of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God," and do not " make
men meet to receive grace, or deserve grace of congruity," &c. ;
Mr. Newman tells us that though it would be " Pelagianism" to
say that those who are in utter destitution of grace, can do any
thing to gain justification, yet there is "an intermediate state"
between being " in a state of Christian justification," and utterly
destitute of divine aid ; and that so, notwithstanding this Arti
cle, "it is quite true that works done with divine aid, and in
faith, 6e/bre justification, do dispose men to receive the grace of
justification, — such were Cornelius's alms, fastings and prayers,
which led to his baptism. "° So Francis a Sancta Clara says, that
it would, indeed, be the Pelagian heresy to say that, from the
acts of freewill, done without any aid from God, we could merit
justification of congruity ;' but, nevertheless, "vvith the aid of
the first bestowed grace preceding, we can, by seeking and
striving, obtain further aids, and in someway deserve of congruity
the first habitual justifying grace,"* znA thus the alms of Corne
lius merited the faith of Christ ;^ and that, in this Article, " it
is manifest that such works only are excluded, as it regards
merit of congruity, with respect to our justification, as are done
before the faith of Christ; nay, before the first actual grace, or the
inspiration of tlie Holy Spirit (as they say) ; since, therefore, the
exception proves the rule as it respects the opposite, as lawyers
say, it follows that other works, namely, those done from faith, can
in some measure lead to and deserve of congruity the grace of jus
tification."^ Further on Art. xxii. that "the Romish doctrine concerning
purgatory, pardons, worshipping and adoration, as well of images
as of relics, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing, &c."
Mr. Newman says, "the first remark that occurs on perusing
this Article is, that the doctrine objected to is ' the Romish doc
trine.' . . Accordingly the jonOTi/ire doctrine is not condemned
in it. . . . Now there was a primitive doctrine on all the.se
1 pp. 202, 3. 2 pp. 15_ 16. 3p 1.32.
4 p. 159. 5 p. 160. op. ITO.

XVI PREFACE.

points, &c."' " And further, by the 'Romish doctrine,' is not
meant the Tridentine statement . . . there are portions in the
Tridentine statements on these subjects which the Article, far
from condemning, by anticipation approves as far as they
go."" And what he considers condemned, is " the received doc
trine" among Romanists, or " the doctrine of the Roman
schools;" but how determined, he does not tell us. So Francis
a Sancta Clara says of this Article, " The words, as they stand,
are doubtless very harsh. But it is to be observed that the force
of this Article is not directed against invocation of saints simply,
or in itself, as is evident, but the Romish doctrine of Invoca
tion." And to see what was meant by " the Romish doctrine,"
he says, we must observe how it is described by Protestants ;
and having (like Mr. Newman) extracted some honest repre
sentations of it from Protestant writers, he adds, that it is not
to be wondered at that such a doctrine was condemned ; they
themselves condemned it ; and he points to the Tridentine state
ments as showing this. " The conclusion," he says, " is, that
the Anglican Confession has determined nothing against the truth
of the faith ; it has only exploded the impious and heathen doc
trine falsely imputed to the Church."^ " In the same way evi
dently, anti by the same mode of speaking," he adds, "they
reject, in the same Article, not Purgatory, Indulgences, the ado
ration of images and relics, in themselves, but as before, ihe Ro
mish doctrine on all these points ; that is, the doctrine falsely im
puted to us ;"* proceeding lo show that the Article did not
condemn good sound Tridentine doctrine. " Here, therefore,"
he concludes, "there will be peace altogether with the Anglican
Confession, if only all things are weighed as they deserve, with
out party spirit, and with only a regard to truth. "^
These, with similar explanations of other Articles, occur in
the body of the work. In the " Paraphrastic Exposition of the
other Articles," at the end, the same course is adopted. We
will compare those on Art. xxviii. on Transubstantiation, and
Art. xxxi. on Masses^
"What is here opposed as ' Transubstantiation,'" says Mr.
Newman on Art. xxviii., "is the shocking doctrine that 'the body
of Christ,' as the Article goes on to express it, is not ' given,
taken, and eaten after an heavenly and spiritual manner, but is
carnally pressed with the teeth ;' that it is a body or substance
of a certain extension, &c. . . . whereas we hold that the only
substance such is the bread which we see." (p. 47.) " In deny
ing a ' mutatio panis et vini,' " it is not " denying every kind of
change." (p. 51.) But it is " literally true" that " the consecrated
ip. 23. 2p, 24. 3 pp. 349, 50. -ip. 351. 6 p. 353.

bread fs Christ's body" (p. 58.) ; his body is spiritual, and hence
it may be "that Christ's Body and Blood are locally at God's
right hand, yet really present here, — present here, but not here
in place — because they are spirit." (pp. 55, 6. See the whole of
pp. 47 — 58.) So Francis a Sancta Clara says that the authors of
our Articles " only condemned, in this Article, the antient error
of the Capharnaites, namely, a carnal presence of Christ ; that
is, as if Christ was present here in a natural or carnal mode, and
was pressed by our teeth ;" and that the bread should undergo
such a change, is repugnant to Scripture, " as the Article rightly
afiirms ;" and that when the Article denies a change of the bread
and wine, it only denies such a change as this ; and not that
which "the Church" means, &c. &c. (pp. 388 — 90.)
Again, on Art. xxxi. on Masses, Mr. Newman says, "No
thing can show more clearly than this passage, that the Articles
are not written against the creed of the Roman Church, but
against actual existing errors in it;" " the ' blasphemous fable' is
the teaching that masses are sacrifices for sin, distinct from the
sacrifice of Christ's death." " The Article before us neither
speaks against the JMass in itself, nor against its being an offer
ing, though commeinorative, for the quick and the dead, for the
remission of sin." (pp. 59, 60, 63.) So Francis a Sancta Clara
says, that " there is nothing here against the sacrifices of the
Mass in themselves, but against the vulgar or common notion
respecting them, namely, that the priests in their sacrifices offer
Christ for the quick and the dead, for remission of sin and trans
gression ; so as to be able, by virtue of this sacrifice offered by
them, independent of the sacrifice of the cross, meritoriously to
procure for the people remission, &c." (p. 400.)
Such was the attempt made, two centuries ago, to reconcile
our Protestant Articles with the dogmas of Popery. But at that
time the nation had been but too recently emancipated from the
Papal yoke, and her traditional remembrances of Popery were
too fresh, to admit of her being so easily beguiled by fine words
and plausible phrases. And it so happens that we have Arch
bishop Laud's own testimony to his having " absolutely denied"
permission to the author to have the work printed in England. For,
it being one of the charges against him at his trial, that he had
" harboured and relieved divers Popish priests and Jesuits,
namely, one called Sancta Clara alias Davenport, a dangerous
person, and Franciscan Friar, who hath written a Popish and
seditious book, entitled Deus, Natura, Gratia, &c., wherein the
Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, established by
Act of Parliament, are much traduced and scandalized ; the said
Archbishop had divers conferences with him while he was in
6*

XVni PREFACE.
writing the said book,'" &c., the Archbishop tells us' that his re
ply was, that the author of this work, having come to him to ask
his license for printing it, and having communicated to him its
substance, " I found the scope of his book to be such as that the
Church of England would have Utile cause to thank him for it, and
so absolutely denied it."
The object which the Tractators and the Romanists have in
view in thus putting our Articles upon the rack to make them
consistent with their views, is, from the foregoing extracts, suf
ficiently clear, namely, the more easy reduction of our Church,
as a whole, to its former union with the Roinish See, when the
explanation, having served its purpose, would be, with the Ar
ticles themselves, indignantly thrown overboard, to make way
for a truly " Catholic" exposition of the faith dictated at Rome.
And then I suspect the poor remnant of the despised Protestants
might sigh in vain for a " Catholic" confession sufficiently indul
gent to include an " uncatholic" meaning, thankful as they would
be to be indulged only vvith life. And if perchance the new
light of another age should enable some gifted Protestant to show
how easily Pope Pius's creed might be understood in a good
Protestant sense, let us hope that Rome also would see ina new
light her duty to her neighbour.
May God in his infinite mercy avert from us the evils which
threaten us.
It would be difficult to overrate the responsibility resting at
the present time upon the heads of our Church. There are
those within the Church who, so far from being affectionately
attached to her doctrines and practices, think that the very
"mark of being Christ's kingdom" is "but faintly traced on
her," mourn over her Articles and services as framed by persons
of a thoroughly uncatholic spirit, and framed "for the establish
ment" of a system which they believe to be even Antichristian,
"the religion of corrupt human nature ;" and avow themselves
" ecclesiastical agitators," purposing to avail themselves of
every means of overturning that system, and " unprotestant
izing" the Church. There are others who, having adopted, with
all the ardour of youth and inexperience, the same views, are
seeking to enter our Church, that they may add their efforts to
the accomplishment of the same end. All the oaths, declara
tions, and subscriptions required by the Protestant restorers of
our Church as safeguards against the re-introduction of those
• Canterbury's Dnom, or Prynne's Account of Trial of Archbishop Laud, p.
34, as quoted in Wood's Ath. Oxon.
2 See Archbishop Laud's History of his Troubles, p. 335.

PHSFACE.

doctrines and practices to which these persons are attached,
form, in their view, no impediment to their either remaining or
seeking to become ministers of a Protestant Church, for the
purpose of " unprotestantizing" it ; the righteous end sanctify
ing, I suppose, (according to the well-known " Catholic" doc
trine) the unrighteous means. This is no question, then, of
high or low Churchmanship, of Calvinism or Arminianism, of
this or that shade of doctrine, in which a latitude may justly be
allowed. No, as the Tractators themselves tell us, "very vital
truths" are concerned in the change they desire to effect in our
Church, even "mailers of life or death.'"- It becomes not me to
say more, than earnestly to pray that wisdom may be given to
the rulers of our Church in this crisis in her history.
But it may be said, Surely there is some mistake in all this,
for the Tractators have put forth their system as peculiarly en
titled to the name of Anglicanism, and represented their doc
trines as those of the great majority of our most illustrious
divines, ever since the Reformation, and presented us with va
rious" Catenas," containing extracts from the writings of those
divines in proof of this. This is one of the most extraordinary
and painful features in the whole case. That such representa
tions pervade the Tracts and Works of the Tractators, is but too
true; and too true is it also, that upon the strength of such
statements they have gained a footing in our Protestant Church,
which they could never otherwise have obtained. One great
object, therefore, which I have kept in view in the following
work has been to show, that so far from having the support they
claim in the writings of our great divines, they are refuted and
opposed in the most decisive way by all the best even of their
own chosen witnesses ; and that their appeal to those writings as
in their favour is one of the most unaccountable, and painful,
and culpable (however unintentional) misrepresentations with
which history supplies us. The fact is, that almost the only
witnesses to whom they could properly refer as at all support
ing their system, are a few individuals, such as Brett, Hicks,
Johnson, and others, forming a sinall and extreme section of a
small and extreme party in our Church, namely, the Nonjurors;
and even among these it would be difficult to find one who
agreed with their system as now developed. Their extracts
from the works of our divines generally will be found to be, for
the most part, general and loose and indefinite passages, whose
meaning depends altogether upon the context, and which are
applied by the Tractators in a sense which the views of the
' See extract from British Critic, p. ix. above.

XX PREFACE.
writers, gathered from their works as a whole, altogether repu
diate. Is this fair and ingenuous ? Was there not a more candid
course opep to them ? Might they not have said. There is
much in the Church of England that we love, much in the wri
tings of her great divines that we approve ; but in the Articles
and services of the one, and in the writings of the other, there
are also various things of which we disapprove, conceiving them
to be opposed to antiquity. We will not quit her communion
till we see what effect a statement of our views may have upon
the minds of her members, though ultimately, if such changes
are not made, we shall be compelled to do so. For such a course
an apology might perhaps be found. It might not, indeed, have
gained for them so many adherents, but it would have been far
more likely to have produced a permanent effect than their pre
sent conduct. In the place of this they have chosen to wire
draw a Protestant confession of faith, so as to make it appear to
support Anti-protestant views, to publish extracts from staunch
Protestant writers, to convert them, in the eye of the public,
into opponents of Protestant principles; in a word, to represent
our Church as being what it is not, in order to effect more easily
the change they desire to bring about in it from what it is.
Almost equally incorrect and fallacious are their references to
the early Fathers, of whose writings one might suppose, from
the language they have used, that their knowledge was most ac
curate and extensive. I must be permitted to say, that the blun
der Mr. Newman has made in the interpretation of a common
phrase in a passage of Athanasius, the meaning of that phrase
being a turning point in the bearing of many passages with rela
tion to the present controversy,* shows a want of acquaintance
vvith the phraseology of the Fathers, which ought to make us
receive his citations with considerable caution. Nor can I at all
account for various other erroneous representations and allega
tions of passages from the Fathers, to some of which I give a
reference below, that the reader may at once see that there is
ground for the remark,'') but upon the supposition that much
has been taken on trust from other and even Romish writers.
And if the heads of the party are not free from such errors, it is
not surprising that there are others among them still more deeply
iSee vol. i. pp. 67 — 69.
2 See vol. i. pp. 61 — 69 ; also the remarks of Mr. Keble respecting the Council
of Nice, compared vtith the statements of those from whom be has himself quoted,
noticed vol. ii. pp. 246 et seq. ; also the citations from Chrysostom, prefixed to
Tract 34, in a sense which no one reading the context could for a moment dream
of, noticed vol. ii. p. 334.

PREFACE. xxi
involved in them. Since public attention has been more direct
ed to antiquity, we have been inundated with papers, and let
ters, and remarks, especially in the periodical publications, lay
ing down this or that doctrine with all the calm dignity of an
oracular response, as what everybody always everywhere in
the primitive Church from the beginning proclaimed and main
tained with one consent, and showing nothing more than that
their authors need to go to school on the subject on which they
would fain be teachers of others. One might suppose, from the
tone of some of these writers, that all that has been done or
said in all past ages of the Church was to be ascertained without
the smallest difficulty or uncertainty, and could even be gathered
second-hand from the notices of a few modern divines. For my
own part, I freely confess to being in no small degree sceptical as
to the possibility of any man knowing what " everybody always
everywhere" in the primitive Church thought on any point;
even from a careful perusal of the records of antiquity them
selves that remain to us. Indeed, though I can quite conceive
a monk in his cell getting together the works of some few dozen
authors of great name, and fancying himself able hence to vouch
for the sentiments of "everybody always everywhere," I feel
a difficulty in understanding how men of judgment and expe
rience can allow themselves to be so deluded. But still less are
such representations to be taken from those who have not even
made themselves acquainted with those sources of information
that are open to us. It would be amusing, were it a less im
portant subject, to see the way in which, under the much-abused
name of " Catholic," mistakes and corruptions are recommended
to public attention, almost as if our salvation depended upon
them. Statements, indeed, more uncatholic than some that the
Tractators themselves have made, — as for instance that of Dr.
Pusey, that "to the decisions of the Church Universal we owe
faith,"* — were never uttered. We appeal for proof to the wri
tings of the early Church.
For myself I make no pretensions to any superior knowledge
of antiquity, nor desire to set up my own judgment of its ver
dict as a standard for others to go by, but only to place before
the reader the testimonies upon which his conclusions should be
formed. And though it is almost impossible to suppose that
where so many references occur there should not be some er
rors, I trust that the impartial reader will find that no labour has
been spared to avoid them, and that the representation given of
the sentiments of the Fathers is a fair, and, upon the whole, a
correct one. ' Letter to Bishop of Oxford, p. 53.

XXII PREFACE.
The success of the Tractators ha^ been to many a subject of
surprise, and among others, as it seems, to themselves.* For
my own part, when I reflect upon the temporary success that
has often attended heresies and delusions of the most extrava
gant nature, I cannot participate in such feelings. For the par
tial and temporary success that they have met with in the incul
cation of their doctrines there are, I think, beyond the fact of
novelty, several reasons, and I trust and believe many also that
may be assigned, for the hope that, under the Divine blessing,
that success may be but partial and temporary. Such trials from
internal and external foes are the Church's predicted portion in
this world, and the purer any Church is, the more may she ex
pect that her great enemy will thus afflict her. If, however,
she be upon the whole found faithful to her God, such trials will
assuredly be overruled for her good ; and there is perhaps nothing
more inimical to her real welfare than a state of long and unin
terrupted calm and prosperity.
One principal cause, then, of the temporary success of the move
ment made by the Tractators, has evidently been, that it fell in
with the current of men's feelings in the Church at the time. At
the period when they commenced their labours, the Church was
beset with dangers. The various sects that have separated them
selves from her communion had (with one honourable excep
tion) risen up against her with all the bitterness and jealousy of
a sordid spirit of worldly rivalry, and had avowed that nothing
would satisfy them but her complete overthrow as the National
Church, and the extinction of all her peculiar privileges. A
Ministry which, if not directly hostile, was made so by its de
pendence upon the enemies of the Church, a hostile House of
Commons, a country kept in agitation for party purposes, and
from various causes excited against all its constituted authorities
and antient institutions, combined to menace her welfare. Such
events had made all her friends anxious for her safety. That which
might perhaps have been a permissable relaxation of principle
in the conduct of her members towards the dissenters became so
no longer, when it was clearly seen that the leading object of
those dissenters as a body was to deprive the Church of all her
peculiar privileges and opportunities for the promotion of Chris
tianity throughout the land. Co-operation with bodies influenced
by such views was no longer an act of Christian charity, but a
direct breach of Christian duty. The ship was in a storm. Her
existence was at stake. Everything conspired to show the im
portance, the necessity, of union, order, regularity, subordina
tion, obedience to constituted authorities. In a word, the dan-
1 Brit. Crit. for July, 1841, p. 28.

PREFACE. XXlll
gers that beset the Church, and the conduct and nature of the
foes that assailed her, combined to lead all those who knew any
thing of Church principles, and had any regard for the Church,
to serious reflection. There was in consequence a healthy re
action in favour of those principles. At this time, and under
these circumstances, the Tractators commenced their labours.
A more favourable moment could hardly have been found.
Events had so completely prepared the way for them, that in
the minds of many there was a strong predisposition in their fa
vour. Their professions were those of warm friends of our Pro
testant Church. Ali that they blamed was "ultra-Protestant
ism." They claimed the support of all our great divines with
out exception. Antiquity was, beyond contradiction, wholly
with them. Their language was cautious and plausible, and full
of that self-confidence that is so influential with the popular
mind. Is it surprising, then, that they should have pleased
many ears, and gained many hearts, and that while they fell in
with the current of feeling created by events, they should have
succeeded in giving it an additional impetus in its own direction,
tending to carry it to an unsalutary extreme? So far, alas!
they have indeed succeeded, and thus in many cases have con
verted a healthy reaction into one which threatens to carry away
its victims, and has indeed carried away several, into the bosom
of Rome itself.
The circumstances of the times had evidently much influence
upon the Tractators themselves in leading them to embrace the
views they have taken up.* They saw that the influence of the
Church over the public mind was not such as it had been in for
mer times, and might reasonably be expected to be. And, ap
parently, the great problem which they thought they had to
solve was, how that influence might be restored. They have
not tinnaturally (whether wisely or not is another question)
found the hope of regaining it in the assertion of those Church-
principles which form the foundation of Popery. The abuses
caused by the liberty of conscience and free use of private judg
ment, conceded by Protestantifm, are to be cured by a re-estab
lishment of the iron grasp with which popery holds its votaries
in subjection. And I must add. that their works bear such con
stant and manifest traces of their having been imposed upon and
misled by Romish writers, that one cannot but fear that (hey
have suffered themselves to be prejudiced in favour of that sys
tem of doctrine to which the circumstances of the times had given
them a favourable bias, before they had well studied the subject
in a way which alone could have entitled them to assume the
1 See Newman's Leet. p. 14. Keble's Serm. pp 5 — 7.

XXIV

office of reformers and correctors of the Church. I am much
mistaken if their "Catenas" do not show either an unfairness,
which I should be indeed pained at being obliged to charge them
with, or a great want of acquaintance even with the works of
our own great divines. And hence, instead of keeping within
the bounds of that sound moderation that has always character
ized the Church of England, they have, while rejecting some of
the most offensive practices in the Romish church, adopted
almost all the doctrines and principles which have hitherto dis
tinguished us as a body from that corrupt Church, and seem
gradually progressing to the reception of the whole system ;
witness the remarks that have been more than once published
by them in favour even of the fopperies of monkery itself. We
have Dr. Hook's authority for saying that the extreme of high
Church principles is Popery. We beg the reader to ask himself
whether those principles can well be carried further than they
are stretched in the works of the Tractators.
And it must be added, (and this is another reason for their suc
cess,) that in the inculcation of their views they came upon
those vvho were generally, and, as a body, unprepared by pre
vious study for an impartial and judicious view of the subject.
The low state of ecclesiastical learning among us for many past
years is a truth so generally acknowledged and lamented, that it
would be a waste of words to offer either an apology or a proof
for the assertion. The consequences of such a want of infor
mation could not fail to be seen under such circumstances. The
slightest appearance of learning carried with it a weight which,
in other times, would hardly have been conceded to that which
had tenfold claims to it. And under the abused name of " catho
lic," by the aid of Romish sophisms, and partial and inaccurate
citations from the Fathers, the corrupt doctrines and practices
of which our truly learned Reformers vvere, by God's blessing,
enabled to purge the Church, are urged upon us as veritable
parts of that Divine revelation delivered to the world by the
Apostles. And herein, be it observed, the Tractators are at is
sue with those whose learning it would be idle to dispute, not
merely as to the foundation upon which their system rests, the
authority of patristical tradition, but as to the fact whether that
tradition, whatever its authority may be, is in their favour. Our
reformers contended that the name catholic, and the support of
the great body of the Fathers, belonged to that system of doc
trine and practice which, from its opposition to the corruptions
of Romanism, was called Protestantism. And as to any of the
attempts hitherto made by the Tractators or their adherents to
pluck the laurels from the brows of the Reformers, and to show
the inaccuracy of their allegations from the Fathers, such as

that of the British Critic in the case of Jewel it reminds one
but of the puny efforts of a dwarf to espy holes in the armour
of a giant.
We may add also, as a still further reason for their success,
that their doctrines are such as will always, as long as human
nature remains what it is, attract many to them ; of the clergy,
from the power they give them over the minds of men ; of the
laity, from their greater suitability to the notions and feelings
of the natural mind. To the clergy particularly such views
will always be attractive. The system of the Tractators is a
far more easy and simple one to work ; likely also to produce
more extended and visible results. Only bring men to ac
knowledge the authority thus claimed for the Church and the
Clergy, and their instrumentality in the work of human salva
tion, and you wield a power over the minds both of the reli-
giousand the superstitious almost irresistible. But address a man
merely as a witness for the truth, acknowledging your fallibili-
ty, and appealing to his judgment, " I speak as to wise men,
judge ye what I say," and your personal influence over him is
not to be compared with that which exists in the former case.
The truth is left to work its way by its own intrinsic power,
and faith is, as it ought to be, the result of a conviction of the
heart. But the cases where such conviction is wrought will be
much fewer than those in which a nominal adherence to the
truth will be professed under the former system of teaching.
And even were it not so, the personal influence of the clergy
over their respective flocks in the two cases will not bear a com
parison ; in the one case, the voice of the pastor is almost like
the voice of God himself, for an inspired messenger could hardly
demand greater deference ; in the other, the pastor himself
merges his own claims in that of the message, and sends his
hearers to search for themselves in the book of God, whether
the things that he preaches unto them are so. It cannot be a
question, then, which system is naturally the most attractive to
the clergy. Nay, a zealous, earnest minister of Christ, who
desires nothing more than to promote the best interests of man
kind, may be so attracted by the influence given by the former,
purposing to use that influence only for the good of his fellow-
creatures, as to have at once a secret prejudice in its favour,
which blinds his eyes to the baselessness of the claims upon
which it rests.
All these causes have operated in favour of the Tractators.
But there are at the same time not a few reasons also for hoping
that, in the mercy of God, their success may be but partial and
temporary. There are encouraging symptoms of a prevalent desire among
c

XXVI PREFACE.
US to search into the matter, especially since the recent publi
cations of the Tractators have shown more fully their real
views and aims. Now it is impossible for this desire to be car
ried into effect without their being detected in such inconsis
tencies, misrepresentations, and mistakes as will infallibly alter
their position very materially in the eyes of many who may
have been originally inclined to favour them. To some of
these I have already alluded, and it would be easy to add to the
list. While I am writing, my eye lights upon one in a late
number of the British Critic (a number, by the way, which, for
its flippant impertinences and gross personalities upon men who
had the highest claims to at least respectful treatment, is un-
parallelled in such a work), made with all the coolness and confi
dence of one who is uttering an incontrovertible truth. For
the sake of disparaging the Reformation, it is said, "Nothing
is more remarkable in the theology of the Reforming age (to
speak generally) than the deficiency of all writings of a devo
tional, or even a practical cast." (Brit. Crit. for July 1841, p. 3.)
Now the writer of this is either profoundly ignorant of the ec
clesiastical literature of that period, or he has misrepresented it
tor the sake of his party, and in either case is deserving of no
little censure for thus misleading his readers, of whom few
probably (speaking comparatively) would have the means of
judging of the truth of his remark. Considering the character
of the period, and the comparatively limited number of origi
nal works then published to what there are now, it is surprising
how many practical works issued from the pens of our reform
ers and early divines, engaged as they were in the struggle vvith
Popery. These things give reason to hope that such writers
will ultimately find their level. Men do not like to be deceived,
especially by those who put forth high claims to wisdom and
learning. Their " quiet, self-complacent, supercilious lan
guage," as an able writer in the British Magazine has justly
called it,' will be doubly offensive when found to be wanting in
that which alone could afford the shadow of an apology for it.
Their misrepresentations, in particular, of tlie sentiments of our
great divines, by a few loose and indefinite extracts from their
writings, though for a time they have (as might be expected)
deceived many, can ultimately only recoil upon themselves.
The disingenuousness also with which Articles of religion,
drawn up by Protestant divines, "for the establishment," as is
confessed, "of Protestantism," are tortured to an Anliprotest-
ant sense, in order to enable Antiprotestants to retain their
places in our Church, is so utterly irreconcilable with those com-
'Brit. Mag. for May, 1839, p. 518.

xxvii

mon principles that hold society together, that it cannot fail
ultimately, as indeed it has done already, to estrange the minds
of simple and upright Christian men from such teaching. In
deed it is impossible not to see that it is a mere temporary expe
dient, which cannot long satisfy even those who have availed
themselves of it, a hastily constructed refuge within the walls
of our Church for those who are seeking to gain possession of
the citadel, and who suppose that they have better opportunities
to do so within the walls than without, but whose avowed ob
jects make it clear that the present state of things cannot last,
that one party or the other must give way. And when this
becomes clearly appreciated by the Church at large, may we
not justly hope that many who have been attracted to their
standard while they were holding out, according to their own
confession, " false colours," will, when they come to see the
real state of the case, look upon them only as betrayers, and
that their very best defences, their " Catenas," and high preten
sions to learning and wisdom, antiquity and Catholicism, will
only be sources of moral weakness to their cause, and tend
more than anything else to its overthrow.
That such a controversy should have arisen in our Church is
deeply to be regretted. The agitation of such questions neces
sarily produces disunion and party spirit, the great causes of
weakness, disorder, and ruin to any community that is afflicted
by them. The powers of the Church are thus paralyzed, her
energies spent in useless, and worse than useless contentions ;
her friends are discouraged and perplexed, her enemies tri
umph ; her God is displeased, and her strength departs from her.
How great the responsibilit}' of those who have raised such a
strife within her, and made it a duty incumbent upon those who
have any regard for her preservation, to arm themselves against
their brethren for the defence of her very foundations ! But
when matters of such moment are at stake, when the question
is, whether the true Catholicism of our reformers is to give place
to a system of doctrine and practice altogether unsound, and
the corruptions from which our faith and worship have through
the mercy of God been purged, are to be reintroduced into our
Church, it would be culpable indeed to remain a neutral, a si
lent, or an indifferent spectator. It becomes the duty of all to
do what may be in their power to prevent such a result. The
zeal, and earnestness, and perseverance vvith which Popish
views and principles are urged upon the public mind, under the
abused name of Catholicism, must be met with correspondent
efforts to unmask their unsoundness and dangerous tendency.
In a word, if the cause for vvhich our martyrs laid down their
lives was one worthy of their blood, it is the duty of those who

XXVIU

have succeeded to the possession of privileges so dearly purchased,
to contend with similar devotedness for their preservation and
transmission unimpared to their children. And we may humbly
hope that He who out of evil ofl educeth good, may grant that
even this controversy may not be without its good effects. The
real principles of our Church will be better known and appre
ciated, even among its own members and ministers. The foun
dation upon which it stands will, we are convinced, bear exami
nation, and therefore, if God's blessing rest upon it, we fear not
for the result.
I am aware that it may be said, and with truth, that in the
present day the majority need no arguments to induce them to
slight human authority, and are scarcely willing to pay defer
ence to any other guide than their own self-will. This I fully
admit, and believe that judicious works, calculated to show the
danger of such a disposition of mind, might, under the Divine
blessing, be of essential service to the community, both as it re
spects their spiritual and temporal interests. But I see no rea
son hence to suppose that unfounded claims to their obedience
would counteract the evil. Such doctrines as those of our op
ponents appear to me calculated to do anything rather than be
come a cure. I deny not, indeed, that to many minds they are
likely to appear plausible, and calculated to act as a remedy for
the evils which internal dissensions have produced in the Pro
testant body. The liberty obtained by the Reformation has
no doubt been in some cases abused. And the panacea for
the evils so caused may appear to many to be the re-establish
ment of the iron tyranny under which the minds of men were
held previous to that event. I believe this to he a growing im
pression in the minds of many both in this country and else
where, and Rome is largely availing herself of it. But what
ever may be in store for this or other countries as a temporary
dispensation, as a punishment for their sins, we trust that the
substitution of a system in which "the Church" and "the
priest" are thrust almost into the place of God and Christ, for
the everlasting gospel, will be permitted to have but a very pre
carious and temporary hold upon the minds of men. Of this
at least we are assured, that it is the duty of all vvho are inte
rested in the real welfare of mankind to lay open the anti-chris-
tian nature and tendencies of such a system. Glad therefore as
we should have been in being engaged in urging the just claims
of antiquity and our Church to the deferential respect of man
kind, and pointing out the evils and the guilt connected with
that wild and lawless spirit of independence of constituted au
thorities now so prevalent, and painful as it is to have to point
out the blemishes rather than the excellencies of the Church,

PREFACE. XXlX

and to appear in any degree as the apologist of irregularities
against which on other occasions we should feel it a duty to pro
test, the unfounded claims to spiritual dominion set up by the
Tractators on behalf of the clergy, make it more than equally a
duty to guard men against such fatal errors. The clergy were
appointed, not to be either individually or collectively, as Mr.
Newman would have them, "the sovereign lord of conscience,"
but witnesses for the truth, not lords over God's heritage, but
examples to the flock, not to be mediators between God and
men, but to point men to the one Mediator Christ Jesus.
The Romanists and the Tractators both tell us that divisions
among Protestants are all owing to the free use of the Bible as
the sole authoritative rule of faith. Not to stop to retort the
charge of internal divisions, or to say that unity obtained by
impositions upon the credulity of mankind is as little to be
boasted of as the peace that exists among the ashes of the dead,
let me ask those who for so many centuries kept the Bible as a
sealed book from the hands of the people, seriously to put it to
their own consciences, how far the blame rests upon their own
heads. Would it be any matter for surprise if youths long de
barred from their just rights should, upon finding themselves
free agents, run into extremes, and not find the middle path until
age and experience had enabled them to take a calm and dis
passionate view of things? Why, then, should we feel sur
prised that the Church, upon her emancipation from the Papal
yoke, should for a long time suffer from the excesses into which
the restoration of her liberty has ensnared some of her mem
bers ? Such divisions, indeed, are now likely to exist more or
less to the end. And would that the evils caused by such divi
sions might lead those who are aiding in their perpetuation, to
serious reflection upon the necessary consequences of their va
garies, and to a remembrance of the words of our Divine Mas
ter, that a house divided against itself faileth ! But let the
blame be shared by those whose conduct has tended, more than
anything else, to produce such a result. The unchristian usur
pations of Popery have done more than any other cause that
can be named to destroy the unity of the Church, and subvert
the moral influence of the clergy over the minds of men. Nor
let it ever be forgotten by the Romanists, when complaining of
the divided state of the Protestant body, that they have them
selves, by the imposition of unchristian terms of communion,
rendered themselves the most schismatical portion of all Chris
tendom. When men are cast out of the Church by a Diotre-
phes, the brand of schism rests not upon the excommunicated,
but upon the excommunicator.
For presenting to the public the following work, an apology

XXX PREFACE.
can hardly, I suppose, be needed. It was impossible to see the
deadly leaven of Popery insinuating itself into the very vitals
of our Church, and that too under the venerable names of those
whose lives were spent in purging it out of her, or preserving
her from re-infection, without feeling that any warning (from
whatever quarter it might proceed) could not be mistimed ; that
any effort, however it might fall short of doing full justice to
the subject, could not be misplaced. I trust I shall not be mis
understood by the amiable authors of the works upon which I
have here ventured to animadvert, when I say that it appeared
to me to be — certainly it is equivalent in its effects to — treason
in the camp. They have surrendered to Rome the principles
upon which that vast system of religious fraud and imposition is
built, and while they give themselves out to be the opponents,
nay the best opponents, of Romanism, though limiting their
opposition to a few of her most crying sins and practical abuses,
they are in fact p.iving the way for her by upholding those first
principles of Popery, upon which her dominion over the minds
of men principally rests.
In the prosecution of the work, I have spared neither time
nor labour in endeavouring to place before the reader the facts
and arguments upon which his conclusions ought to rest, and fur
ther, to put him in possession of the views of the best and most
able and pious writers upon the subject, both of the primitive
Church and of our own. That more might have been done in this
respect I freely own. But it was not composed in the calm
quietude of the College, with every literary aid at hand, but (I
may say it emphatically) amidst the cares and trials of active
life. For the proper execution moreover of such a work many
things are required ; facilities of which the great body of the
parochial clergy are destitute. Those who know what oppor
tunities such have of supplying themselves with the original
sources of information, will understand the difficulties to be en
countered in the performance of such a task. I trust, however,
that the work will be found, upon the whole, to contain a fair
and correct representation of the facts upon which the question
rests, and of the sentiments of those referred to ; and that if
there are some slighter inaccuracies, they are such as will not
be found to affect the main argument of the work, — a circum
stance which those who are in search of truth will appreciate,
when drawing their conclusions upon the points at issue.
And here I would, once for all, acknowledge my obligations
to those who have laboured in the same field before me, for
many references to the Fathers, of which I have freely availed
myself, when I have found them, on viewing them in their con
text, to afford good proof of that for which they are cited. The

PREFACE. XXXI
authorities our earlier divines have adduced in their works
against the Romanists have no doubt enabled me to push my re
searches much beyond what my own unassisted labours would
have enabled me to do. I may be permitted to say, however,
that I have endeavoured to explore the ground again with more
attention to the original sources of information than has usually
been paid to them here of late years, and trust that by so doing
I have been enabled to add somewhat to what has been done by
previous labourers in the same field.
Of the replies already published to the writings of the Trac
tators, I have abstained almost wholly from the perusal ; the
principal of them, indeed, I have not seen ; any similarity,
therefore, of views or statements is wholly accidental.
I appear before the public as the advocate of no particular
party or system, but that of the Church of England itself. As
far as human infirmity (to the effects of which no man ought to
shut his eyes) may permit the remark to be made, truth has been
my only object, and I have followed where it appeared to lead
me. And but for the establishment of great and important
truths, I trust I shall never be found upon the field of controversy.
It is one which nothing but a sense of duty should ever induce
me to enter.
In conclusion, I would express my sincere hope that there is
nothing in the tone, or spirit, or language of the following
work, of which my opponents can jostly complain. If there is,
I most sincerely regret it. On such important points as are there
discussed, one cannot but feel warmly, and he who feels warmly
is apt to express himself warmly. I must beg pardon, however,
for saying, that there are some circumstances in the present con
troversy which appear to me to justifv, and indeed to require,
strong language. There are many points in the system itself of
our opponents, which it is impossible too strongly to denounce
and reprobate. The means also by which that system has been
enforced and recommended, are such as to require grave repre
hension. Our opponents appear to me like men who, think
ing that a great change is needed in the views and practices
of their Church, endeavour, by explaining away its formularies,
and bringing forward a few isolated passages from the works of
some of its great divines, to persuade people that it is no change
at all ; for while they admit and bewail the fact, that their sys
tem has been nowhere and at no time put in practice in our
Church, they persist in calling it the Anglican sy.stem. They
must not then be surprised if this (however well intentioned) is
not considered plain and fair dealing. Nor can I help adding,
that the anonymous publications of the party more particularly
are, many of them, characterized by a self-complacent spirit.

XXXII PREFACE.
and scornful tone towards their opponents, such as intimate,
more plainly than words could do, that the only possible reason
for men not holding the views of the Tractators must be sheer
ignorance ; a spirit and tone which, I will venture to say, the
degree of learning and research shown in those productions ren
ders worse than ridiculous. These are circumstances that would
well justify strong language. We are far from disputing the
piety or the learning of the Tractators, but (let us not conceal
from ourselves the fact) neither can we dispute the piety or
learning of many others who have at various times misled por
tions of the Church. Such recommendations, then, are wholly
insufficient as proofs of the truth of their doctrines. These evi
dences are to be found with many different parties. The ques
tion, therefore, must be determined by an impartial investiga
tion, in which all prejudices derived from such sources must be
laid aside. To enable the reader to conduct such an inquiry, is
the object of the following work ; and thankful indeed shall I
be, if it shall tend to bring back into the old paths of our Church
any who have been misled, or preserve any who are in danger
of being misled, by the specious arguments and plausible state
ments of the Tractators. I commend it humbly to His blessing
who alone can make it instrumental to the good of His Church.
WILLIAM GOODE.

London,
November 20, 1841.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TO VOL. L

PAST.
PllEFACE ........ vii
CHAPTER L
ISTROUUCTORT REMARKS ...... 13 — 29
Principal Contents.
All divine revelation demands our implicit faith and obedience . 13
In a revelation of truths above our comprehension, demanding our faith,
we are bound to require sufHcient evidence of its divine origin, . 13—14
Thia we must do individually, because we are to be judged as indi
viduals ........ 14
Hence importance of ascertaining what divine revelations we possess, as
being our rule of faith . • .... 14 — 15
Rule of faith defined ....... 15
The same our only divine rule of practice . . . • 16
Distinction between rule of faith and rule of practice ... 16
Belief of divine origin of any testimony professing to be divine revela
tion must be on grounds satisfactory to reason . . . 16
Our present inquiry is, what is the divine rule of faith and practice . 16
The chief question in this inquiry on the present occasion is, whether we
have any certain witness of what the Apostles delivered orally . 17 — 18
What is called "tradition" put forward as such by the Tractators . 18
Observations respecting the meaning and use of the word " tradition'' 18 — 23
Wide distinction to be drawn between the value of the testimony of the
Fathers as to doctrines and the oral teaching of the Apostles, and that
of their testimony to facts that came under their own immediate cogni
zance ....... . 23 — 25
When speaking of Scripture as the sole Rule of faith, &c. we are speak
ing in the strict sense of the terms, not as extending other things as use
ful guides tu religious knowledge; though much misrepresented on this
point ........ 25 — 28
Our argument will be almost wholly an a posteriori argument . 29
Great object of work is, to demonstrate that Holy Scripture is our sole and
exclusive Divine Rule of faith and practice .... 29 — 30

TABLE OP CONTENTS.

CHAPTER II.

TuE DOCTRINE (IP IIB.PUSF.T, MR. KEHLE, MR. NEWMAJT AND THE"THACTS
FOR THE TIMES,'* ON THE SUBJECT OF I'ATHISTICAL TnADlTION Affn
POINTS CONNECTED THEREWITH, WITH SOME GENERAL OBSEItVA n O NS
ON THEIR .STATEMENTS. ...... 30  71
Principal Contents.
Extracts from Mr. Newman ...... 31—34
Extracts from Mr. Keble ...... 34—38
Extract from Tract 85 ...... 39—42
Summary of the doctrine of the Tractators on the subject . . 40 — 41
Dr. Pusey's doctrine on the subject ..... 41
Vanity of the distinctions attempted to be drawn between the doctrine of
the Tractators and that of the Romanists on the subject . . 41 — 42
Extract from Mr. Newman, illustrating the doctrine of the Tractators on
the kindred subjects of Church authority and private judgment . 4.3 — 51
Extracts from the Homilies on the subject .... 51 — 52
Remarkable inconsistency of the statements of the Tractators . . 53 — 54
Instances of misstatements and mistakes
Respecting the Article on Ihe Church in the Creed . . . 54 — 56
Respecting the views of Piotestants .... 56 — 61
Respecting the Creed called "the Apostles' Creed" . . . 61 — 62
Respecting a passage of Athanasius, with remarks illustrative of his use
of the word tradition ...... 62 — 65
Respecting another passage of Athanasius .... 65 — 67
Respecting a third passage of Athanasius, which, by a remarkable want
of acquaintance with the meaning of the phrase '* the Evangelical
tradition," Mr. Newman has quoted as supporting his views, but
which is altogether opposed to them, with proofs from the Fathers of
the meaning of the phrase ...... 67 — 69
Further mistranslation of the same passage .... 69 — 70
Practical meaning of the Tractators when they speak of " Catholic consent " 70
Eitraordinary statements of the Tractators respecting the nature of the
Christian's faith and the evidence on which it rests . . . 70 — 71

CHAPTER m.
COMPABISON OF THE DOCTRINE MAINTAINED IN TBE WORKS ABOVE MEN
TIONED ON THE SUBJECT OF PATRISTICAL TEADITION WITH THAT OF
THE ROMISH CUtlBCH . . .... 72  92
Principal contents.
Comparison of the doctrine of the Tractators and that of the Romanists
on ibefrst of the five propositions, in which tbe doctrine of the former
may be summed up ; namely. That consentient patristical tradition, or
" catholic consent," is an unwritten word of God, a divine informant in
religion, and consequently entitled, as to its substance, to equal respect
with the Holy Scriptures ...... 73—77
Comparison of the same on the second proposition, namely. That such
tradition is consequently a part of the divinely-revealed rule of faith and
practice ........ 77 — 78

TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXXV

Comparison of the same on the third proposition, namely, That it is a ne
cessary part of the divine rule of faiih and practice, on account of the
defectiveness of Scripture for that (1) though it does not reveal to us
any fundamental articles of faith or practice not noticed in Scripture,
Holy Scripture containing, that ia, giving hints or notices of, all the
fundamental articles of faith and practice, it is yet a necessary part of
the divine rule of faith and practice as the interpreter of Scripture, and
as giving the full development of many articles, some of which are fun
damental, which are but imperfectly developed in Scripture ; and (2) it
is an important part of that rule, as conveying to us various important
divinely revealed doctrines and rules not contained in Scripture. . 78  84
Comparison of the same on the fourth proposition, namely, 'fhat patristi
cal tradition is a necessary part of the divine rule of faith and practice
because of the obscurity of Scripture even in some of the fundamental
articles, which makes Scripture insufficient to teach us even the funda
mentals of faith and practice. . . . ' , 84  85
Comparison of the same on ihe fifth proposition, namely. That it is only
by the testimony of patristical tradition that we are assured of the in
spiration of Scripture, what books are canonical, and the genuineness
of what we receive as such ...... 85  86
Remarkable similarity, and in some parts coincidence, in the statements of
Mr. Newman on " Tradition," and those of a celebrated Roman Catho
lic dissertation on Irensus on the same subject . . . 86  90
Further proofs of the identity of the doctrine of the Tractators and the
Romanists from our own Dean Field, from a Roman Catholic speaker
at the Downside Discussion, from Dr. Hawardine, &c. . . 90 — 92

CHAPTER IV.
That there are ko writings extant entitled to the name op
apostolical traditions but the canonical scriptdbes . 95  130
Principal contents.
Introductory remarks ....... 95 — 96
That no precise form of words was left by the Apostles as the Christian
creed ........ 96—103
That there was no such definite summary of the chief articles of belief
given hy the Apostles to the Christian Church as " the Creed;" and
that what is called " the Apostles' Creed" is merely the antient creed
of the Church of Rome, and no more entitled to the name than any
other of the antient Creeds ..... 103 — 111
That which is called " the Apostles' Creed" gradually attained its pre
sent form, and that two at least of the Arlicles it now contains were
not inserted in il before the fourth century . . . Ill — 118
That the Creeds of the primitive Church were derived originally from
the Holy Scriptures .... . 118 — 123
Consequently, That none of the antient Creeds can be considered as an
Apostolical production ...... 123 — 124
The question discussed, Whether the Creed is a selection of the funda
mental articles of the Christian faith • . . 124 — 129
What we are to understand by the name " Rule of Faith," applied by
the early Fathers to the Creeds which they delivered ? . . 130

A^l

XXXVl TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER V.

That patristical tradition is not a "practicallt infalli
ble WITNESS or THE ORAL TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES, NOR RE
CEIVABLE AS A DIVINE INFORMANT. Principal contents.
Section I.
Preliminary remarks . . . . • . .131 — 138
Section II.
No degree of consent, the knowledge of which is attainable, is worthy
of being considered a certain witness of the oral teaching of the Apos
tles, or receivable ee a divine informant .... 139 — 153
Section III.
The inadequacy of the records that remain to us of the primitive Church,
to be taken as anything like a sufficient and indubitable representation
of the faith of the whole Church ..... 153—177
From their paucity ...... 154 — 156
From their being such only as the ruling party in the Church has
from time to time allowed to be preserved . . . 156 — 161
From the works of the Fathers having been mutilated and corrupted,
and works forged in their name .... 162 — 177
Section IV.
The witness of patristical tradition, even in the writings that have been
preserved, is of a discordant kind, and that even in fundamental
points ........ 178—288
The statements of Ireneeus, Tertullian, and Origen considered . 179 — 191
The witness of Patristical tradition, as it respects the divinity of the
Holy Spirit ....... 192—196
Do. as to the doctrine of the divinity and generation of Christ . 196 — 227
Do. as to the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the
Father and the Son . . . . . . 227—228
Do. as to the doctrines connected with the Nestorian, Eutjchian, and
Pelagian errors ....... 228—230
Do. as to the doctrine of the intermediate state . . . 230 — 236
Do. as to the sense of Scripture, instanced particularly in Prov. viii.
22. John X. 30. John xiv. 28. Phil. ii. 6, , . 236—247
The Fathers at variance, even in points called by some of them Apos
tolical traditions, instanced in (1) the doctrine of the Millennium ;
(2) the disputes respecting the time of observing Easter ; (3) the
question relating to the re-baptization of those baptized by heretics;
(4) various minor points ..... 247 — 271
The Fathers at variance on various points, maintained by some of them
to be doctrines of " the Church" .... 271 — 276
The Fathers at variance, even in their Conciliai decisions . 276 — 279
Collateral proofs that there is no such consent as our opponents sup
pose in the writings of the Fathers . . . 279 — 282

TABLif or CONTENTS. XXXvil PAGE
Liability to mistake in fancying consent of Fathers, shown by some
of the very cat^es referred to by our opponents as undoubted in
stances of consent ...... 282 285
Concluding remarks ...... 285 — 288
Section V.
Consent, even in the writings that remain to us, not to be expected 288 — 294
Section VI.
The uncertainties and difficulties with which even that small and partial
consent, which may sometimes be attainable, and is called by our op
ponents " Catholic consent," is embarrassed . . . 294 — 305
Section VII.
The rival appeals made to patristical tradition in antient times, on se
veral of the most important points, grounded upon testimonies, many
of which we do not now possess, much reduce the value of any par
tial consent we may find on such points, in the works that remain to
us . . . . . . . . . 306 — 319
Section VIII.
What the Tractators call " Catholic consent," is not treated by them
selves, in many cases, as affording any sufficient proof of the doctrine
so supported ....... 319 — 331
Section IX.
The doctrine of the Tractators founded upon suppositioRS which are
contradicted by facts ...... 332 — 343
Section X.
Reply to objections, and concluding remarks .... 344 — 358
CHAPTER VI.
On the grounds on which the doctrine rests that schiptdhe is
THE "WORD of GOD ...... 359  403
Principal contents.
An influential belief in this doctrine, the work of the Spirit of God 359 — 361
Patristical tradition no sufficient proof of the doctrine of the inspiration
of Scripture ....... 362 — 365
A proof of the divine mission of our Lord and his Apostles, will prove
that the Scriptures of the Apostles are to be viewed as tbe word of
God ........ 365—369
Nature of the proof for the genuineness and incorrupt state of the Apos
tolical Scriptures ....... 369 — 375
Nature of the proof for their authenticity and credibility . . 375 — 376
Nature of the proof for their inspiration .... 376 — 381
The case of the three books written by Mark and Luke distinctly con
sidered ........ 381—384
General remarks ....... 385 — 393
Summary view of the argument for the inspiration of the New Testa
ment ........ 393—395
Extraordinary statements of Mr. Newman, and Tract 85, on this subject,
discussed and controverted ..... 395 — 403
d

X.\.\V111 TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER VII.
That holt scripture is our sole divinelt-iievealed rule of faith
and practice, and sole infallible judge of controven siefi in
religion, AND IS CONSEaUENTLY IN THE CREDENDA OF RELIGION
THE SOLE AUTHORITY WHICH BINDS THE CONSCIENCE TO RELIEF IN
WHAT IT DELIVERS . .... 404  494
Principal contents.
Preliminary remarks, in which it is shown that this follows from what
has been already proved ...... 404 — 409
On the true naiure and extent of the truth, that Scripture is the sole
divine Rule of faith and practice .... 409 — 414
The additional arguments b)' which the view here taken may be estabhsh
ed, with a reply to the objections by which it is assailed . . 414 — 454
(1) The arguments and objections derived from Scripture itself . 414 — 426
(2) The arguments and oljjections which may be derived from the
nature and character of the Scriptures of the New Testament, as it
respects the object for which they were written . . . 426 — 436
(3) The arguments and objections which may be derived from other
general considerations ...... 436 — 454
On the true meaning and extent of the assertion, that Holy Scripture
is the sole infallible Judge of controversies respecting the truths of re
velation ........ 454 — 455
A consideration of the arguments and objections which may be advanced
respecting this truth ...... 455 — 494
(1) From Scripture itself ..... 455—457
(2) From general considerations .... 457 — 494

CHAPTER I.

INTKODUCTOEY EEJtAEKS,

The word of God, however conveyed to us, binds the conscience
to the reception of whatever it may deliver. Every statement
that has competent evidence of its divine origin, written or un
written, demands our faith and obedience. There is no room in
such a case for doubt or inquiry. All that we have to consider
is. What is delivered 1 and what is delivered is to be received
upon the affirmation of its Divine Author.
It is evident, then, that in the case of a revelation that in
cludes much that is mysterious and beyond the power of man
fully to comprehend, this implicit behef in the doctrines it re
veals, involves a complete surrender of the mind to the truth so
delivered, such a surrender as is due only to divine revelation,
and not to be given to anything that comes under that name
without sufficient evidence of its divine origin. The higher the
authority conceded to divine revelation, so much the more does
all that comes to us under such a designation demand our inves
tigation as to the evidence for its divine origin. The more com
pletely we are left to lean upon the intrinsic value of the divine
testimony as the alone ground of our belief, from the mysterious-
ness of the truths revealed, the more are we bound to sift the
evidence for its being a divine testimony.
For in such matters we are very easily misled. In the doc
trines of religion we have no internal monitor able to discern
truth from error. And hence he who is willing to receive as
divine that which comes to him under such a name, but with in
sufficient evidence of its divine origin, is at the mercy of every
impostor or enthusiast he may meet with.
Moreover, if God has given us a revelation, and requires of us
as individuals a reception of the truths and precepts he has re.
vealed for our everlasting salvation, then does it especially con-
VOL. I. B

14 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
cern us as individuals to look to the evidences of that which
comes to us with the profession of being his word, that we may
separate the wheat from the chaff, and not be misled in matters
affecting our eternal interests. This, I say, it becomes us to do
as individuals, because we are to be judged by God individual
ly ; and if we have possessed the opportunities of knowledge, it
will be no plea in bar of judgment that the church or body to
which we belonged taught us error, for even death may be
awarded us under such circumstances, though our blood be re
quired of those who have misled us. (See Ezekiel iii. 18,20. &c,)
This our responsibility to God as individuals, it is most im
portant for us to keep in view, because it shows us ths indispen
sable necessity of ascertaining, to the satisfaction of our own
minds, that it is divine testimony upon which we are relying in
support of what we hold as the doctrines of Christianity. Then
only are we safe ; for if our reliance is placed upon anything else,
we immediately lay ourselves open to error. He who embraces
even a true doctrine on insufficient grounds, exposes himself to
the admission of false doctrine on similar grounds. And it is
more easy and pleasant to build on a false foundation than the
true one, for the former has no certain limits, which the latter
has. The whole superstructure of Romanism ' has been erected
on a few false principles admitted as the foundation. And belief
founded upon a false foundation or insufficient grounds is general
ly but weak and wavering ; and if it be shaken, true and false
doctrine fall together.
Hence it is of essential moment to us to ascertain what we
possess that can be called divine revelation on the subject of re
ligion, for to it, whatever it may be, our rule of faith must be
limited. We here take the phrase, " Rule of faith," it will be observed,
as referring only to "the faith once delivered to the saints," the
truths of Christianity, the Christian religion, which is its usual
meaning in theology. Other matters may be objects of faith, as
— to cite the most important example — that the Scriptures are
the word of God: but these do not enter into " the faith." And
I make the remark here, in order to put the reader upon his
guard against the cavil that the Scripture is not the complete
rule of faith, because it does not testify of itself as a whole that it
is the word of God ; whereas this is a matter totally distinct from
that which we are considering, viz. whether " the faith," the
1 I use Ihe words Romanism and Romanist, Popery and Papist, without any
wish to speak offensively to those so designated, and see no reason why they who
pri'-tically identify the. Church of Rome with the Catholic Church, and make the
Pope Christ's Vicar, should be offended at such terms. I use them merely for
the sake of brevity.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 15
Christian religion, is not fully contained in the Scripture, and
that the Scripture is our only divine informant respecting it.
The rule of faith, then, may be briefly described as that which
God has delivered respecting religion ; and if we inquire as to the
extent and limits of that rule to us, we have simply to determine
the extent and limits of that which we have sufficient grounds
for believing to be divine revelation on the subject. For the doc
trines of religion, excepting those which are made manifest by the
works of God, can be known only by divine revelation: none but
God has a right to be heard in this matter. Faith in them, there
fore, must have what it believes to be testimony that has a divine
source and authority as a foundation to rest upon. They are not
matters that are to be proved by argument, but to be received
from God. Faith in a mathematical truth may be produced by
argument, and rests ultimately upon certain self-evident truths.
Faith in the inspiration, &c. of Scripture may rest upon grounds
which derive their force from approving themselves to human
reason. Faith in the doctrine of Christianity rests upon the word
of God. The Christian religion is a revelation from God. Faith
(as connected with our present subject) is a belief in that revela
tion, and a belief in it on the authority of Him who has revealed
it. And therefore the sole object of faith is that which is re
vealed to us, be it more or less ; and any abstract inquiry as to
what must hethe necessary extent of such revelation is both out
of place and irreverent, for all we have to do is thankfully to ac
cept what God has given us.
Oaa rule of faith, therefore, is the whole of that testimony we
possess respecting religion which we can prove to have a divine
source and authority. By that testimony our faith is to be di
rected and measured; and therefore it is properly called our
rule of faith.
I need hardly add, that the same testimony, being our only
divine testimony, must be our only divine rule of practice in our
religious duties ; though it must be observed that in the two cases
there is this difference, that while all the doctrines of religion
must have express divine testimony to rest upon, so that the rule
of faith is strictly limited to that which has such testimony, inas
much as no human witness on such a point is a sufficient founda
tion for faith, there may, nevertheless, be religious duties pre
scribed by human authority under that power which God has
given to the church in his word for the decent ordering of his
service. Such at least is the doctrine of our church, and in Ihis
she differs from most of the sects who have departed from her
communion ; which does not, however, prevent her from admit
ting, that those only are intrinsically necessary that are pre
scribed by the divine rule itself. And in the exercise of this

16 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
power our church wisely retains many of those rites and usages
which ecclesiastical tradition has handed down to us as having
been very generally observed in the church in primitive times,
thinking, as Hooker says, when speaking of those " traditions"
which our church receives, " that traditions ecclesiastical are not
rudely and in gross to be shaken off, because the inventors of
them were men." ^
In matters of faith, therefore, the divine rule is our sole
authoritative rule; in matters of practice there may be added to
those which are prescribed by the divine rule, by the authority
which Christ has left with his church for the direction of its rites
and services, such as are necessary lo the maintenance of peace
and order.
Moreover, belief as to the divine origin of any testimony
claiming to be received as a divine revelation, must be grounded
upon evidence satisfactory to our reason. For faith, if it be
worth the name, must have sufficient ground to rest upon. And
therefore, as faith in the truths delivered by what is acknowl
edged to be divine revelation has the best of all possible grounds
to rest upon, even in those that are above human reason, viz.
the Divine Word, so belief that Scripture is a divine revelation
has ample evidence to rest upon, such as commends itself to hu
man reason, and leaves him inexcusable who does not receive it
in that character.
This, then, is our present subject. We are inquiring where
the divine, or divinely revealed, rule of faith and practice, is
to be found, and what are the extent and limits of that rule;
that is, in fact, what ar^ thc extent and limits of that which we
have sufficient ground for considering to be divine revelation 1
In the future consideration of the subject we shall direct our
attention more particularly to that part of it which concerns the
rule of faith, that not only being the most important, but in fact
to a considerable extent including the other in its determination,
for in both cases the sole question to be determined is, what cer
tain depository or infallible teacher of divine revelation we pos
sess; adding, in the course of the inquiry, whatever may seem
requisite on the latter point.
It is admitted on all hands, by all who bear the Christian
name, that the first and great revelation of the doctrines of Chris
tianity was made by our Lord and his apostles, and that what
they delivered on the subject of religion is to be received as a
divine revelation.
I will venture to add that it has been the general belief of the
best and purest part of the church in all ages, that our Lord and
'Eccl. Pol. book V. 0. 65.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 17
Ills apostles could alone be looked upon as the certain and pub
licly accredited organs through which any divine revelation has
been received by us on the subject. There are no doubt dissen
tients to this doctrine. There have been in the church, at va
rious (j.mes, enthusiasts, who have pretended to have received ad
ditional revelations of divine truth. There are those who con
sider that the decrees of certain councils of the church, at which
a great number of bishops have been present, are to be received
as beyond doubt the determinations of the Holy Spirit, binding
the conscience of every man to belief as an immediate divine
testimony. But these are notions with which on the present oc
casion we need not concern ourselves. Our task lies with those
who embrace the notion that, with the exception of course of
the Old Testament, all doctrines claiming our belief must be
traceable to our Lord and his apostles.
This is held to be the case by most of the Romanists them
selves. Thus the .lesuit Fisher, in his answer to White, says
— " The church, even to the world's end, must be founded on the
apostles, and believe nothing as matter of faith besides that which
was delivered of them." (Rejoinder to White, p. 51.) And
the same is slated in the strongest terms by Holden.'
We have, then, to determine the limits of the divine revelation
we can ascertain to have come down to us from them.
Here, again, it is generally admitted that the most sacred
record of this revelation is to be found in the Holy Scriptures.
But it cannot be denied that when the apostles were deliver
ing to rnen that divine revelation with which they were charged,
(hey delivered it by word of mouth as well as in the writings
that have come down to us, and that they first delivered it orally,
and aftewards penned the writing they have left us. The ques
tion, then, for onr determination is this. Whether we have any
record or witness of their o^-a/ teaching, such as can be received
by us as a divine revelation supplementary to, and interpretative
of, the writings they have left us.
This is, in few words, the question we are now about to dis
cuss. A small party has lately arisen in the Church of England who
have, with the Romanists, asserted the affirmative of this ques
tion, and maintain that we have, in the works of those who came
after the apostles, a certain record in many points of the sub
stance of their oral teaching, and that such is the doctrine of the
primitive Fathers, and of the Church of England. We main
tain the negative, and maintain our view to be that of most, to
say (he least, of the primitive Fathers, and of the Church of
' Div. fid. Analys. lib. i. c. 8, lect. iii. § 2, p. 95. Paris. 1767.
B*

i.o INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
England to which we belong, and which we venerate and revere
as the apostolical church of this country. This, I say, is the
main question we have to discuss here, though, as will readily
be conceived, there are other important questions connected with
it, and arising out of it, which necessarily enter into the discus
sion. This supposed supplementary record of inspired teaching is
called by the somewhat loose and indefinite name of tradition, or
sometimes apostolical tradition, a name which is very calculated
to mislead the uninitiated reader, who is ready to suppose that
he who refuses to receive "apostolical tradition" must be want
ing in the respect due to the apostles. Nay, the charge is made
by those from whom one might least have expected it. We shall
therefore make a few remarks upon the word tradition before
we proceed further, in order to show the diverse and arbitrary
senses in which it is used by theologians, and remove, if possible,
the difficulties thus created in the way of the general reader.
This word literally means only a delivery, or thing delivered,
from one person to another, and that in any way ; so that it is
equally applicable to what is delivered in writing as to that which
is delivered orally as Bellarmine himself states,' and so it is used
in the Scripture; 2 and also by the Fathers. 3
But at other times it is used by the Fathers,* as well as modern
writers, to signify that which was delivered orally, in contra
distinction to what was delivered by writing.
It has also been used to signify a report that has passed through
' Nomen traditionis generale est, et significat omnem doctrinam sive scriptam
sive non scriptam quse ab uno communicatur alteri. Bellarm. De. verb. Dei lib.
iv. c. 2.
2 " Hold the traditions (xac Tuftfoni;) vehich ye have been taught, whether
by word, or our epistle." 2 Thess. ii. 15.
' Thus Gregory Nyssen uses tbe words, "the evangelical and apostolical tradi
tions," (ivuyyixiiiat? Te x*i ato^toxm-j.!; Trcip^i^oa-ztri,') to express the books of the
New Testament. De Virg. c. xi. ed. 1615, torn. ii. p. 579. So Tertullian, after
referring to various passages of the New Testament which Marcion wished to ex
punge, says, " Believe what is delivered (tradited)." Crede quod traditum est. De
came Christi, c. ii. ed. 1664. p. 308 ; and so elsewhere he says, "An et traditio
nisi scripta non debeat recipi." (De Cor. c. iii. ib. p. 101.) So Hippolytus the
Martyr, after having quoted various passages from the New Testament, and point
ed them out as amply sufficient to teach the truth he was inculcating, says, "Let
us therefore, my dear brethren, believe according to the tradition of the apos
tles, (k«t* Tiiv 7rdL^(i.S^<riv Tm ATroo-ToAwv)." Contr. Noet. %. 17. ed. Fabr. vol.
ii. p. 18. Many others might be added ; but we shall have occasion to refer to
this point again.
4 Ta-v Sf T« ExKMiS"/* 7nc^uKit.yfj.ivoB\ Say/tAoLTaiV k^/ -MpvyfjiaTm, n-a /biiy ejc T«c iy)p:i(pcv
^tix^K-AKtctt ^X^t^^^* ''"* ^^ ^ '^^^ ^^^ An-oa-ToXajv TTrL^zt^^iriaiZ ^lAiS'tiBtVTa iifJllV iV IXUTTVipta,
7ra.fiii^:i.f/.iSA. Basil. M. De Spir.S. c. 27. ed. Bened. vol. iii. p. 54.
Tx fJiiv IV ypiif^H, Tx Hi IV 7r!i-fiS'cs-ei-rupijti-/.At 01 ayim ATroTTHMi. Epiphan. Adv.
har. in hsr, 61. ed. Petav. vol. i. p. 511.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 19
several hands from one to another of that which was delivered
orally by its first author ;' and this is the sense — a sort of arbi
trary technical sense — in which it is used by our opponents, and
is indeed in common use, to signify a report coming to us
through the Fathers of what was delivered orally by the apos
tles. It is also often used to signify that which was first delivered
by the early church, and does not trace its origin to the apos
tles, that is, in ritual matters, sometimes alone and sometimes
with the word " ecclesiastical" attached to it ; and hence the
term " apostolical tradition" has been used to distinguish that
which claimed an apostolical origin from that which professed
to originate with others ; but the distinction is not usually ob
served, for this " apostolical tradition" has been called, and
more correctly, both by ancient and modern authors, ecclesiasti
cal or patristical tradition, as we shall show presently ; and in
deed, the phrase " apostolical tradition" is seldom used by the
ancients in the technical sense of the word " tradition" just
mentioned, but generally to signify the apostolical epistles.
It has also been used by modern writers to signify the mode
of conveyance by which a doctrine or rite so made known to us
has been brought down.^
This variety of signification necessarily creates much con
fusion, and occasions many difficulties to the general reader, and
has enabled the Romanists and our opponents to avail themselves
of many passages of the Fathers, as if they were favourable to
their views, which in fact are not so, but the contrary.
When modern writers, however, speak of " tradition" in re
ference to doctrine, it is usually meant to refer to that which
purports or is claimed to he the substance of the oral teaching
of the apostles conveyed, to us through those who came after
them. The word, when used in reference to doctrine, is limited
to the teaching of the apostles, because it is generally agreed,
that it is from them only that the doctrines of Christianity can
be received. But when applied to rites and ceremonies, it is
often taken (as we have just intimated) to include the patristical
report of the ordinances of the primitive church, as it appears to
be in our 34th Article, where it is said, that it " is not necessary
that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one and utterly
' It seems to be used in this sense by Irensus, when he says, " Evenit itaque,
neque scripturis jam neque traditioni consentire eos." Adv. hcer. lib. iii. c. 2. p.
200. ed. Grab.
2 The Greeks generally used tho word f laS'oX'ij to denote the mode of convey
ance in such a case, and Trxpxioin; only for the thing delivered, as in the follow
ing passage of Epiphanius, t«c kTrotrTohiKnz irap:tS(itrta>c »c sjt ^t'^So^nc kai kuh; rra:u-
Mnpa^w. Adv. Hser. in hser. 33. ed. Petav. vol. i. p. 222.

20

INTRODUTORY REMARKS.

like," &c. where the whole Article evidently shows that the word
is used to signify chiefly, if not solely, ecclesiastical rites derived
from ancient ecclesiastical sanction.
The next question, then, to be considered is how this oral
apostolical tradition is supposed to be ascertainable. Our op
ponents refer us to the consentient teaching of the Fathers, or
what they call the catholic consent of the early church, so that
m i-Aci, strictly speaking, what they call "tradition," "apos
tolical tradition," is patristical tradition, or at best the patris
tical report of oral apostolical tradition.
Such testimony they think could not exist in favour of a doc
trine or interpretation, unless that doctrine or interpretation had
been delivered by the apostles, whether or not it be directly at
tributed to the oral teaching of the apostles by those who deliver
it. And thus " tradition," "apostolical tradition," and " catho
lic consent," are with them /)r«c/zca//y convertible terms. Such
at least is the ground upon which they generally argue, though,
as we shall show hereafter, they are sometimes forced into con
cessions not quite consistent with this view.
In this agree with them (as we shall see hereafter) the princi
pal divines of the Church of Rome, though there have, no doubt,
been some in that church who have held it to he in possession of
a body of apostolical teaching, some of which may never have
been written, communicated orally by its pastors from one to
another through successive ages, so as not to be tied down to
what the Fathers have delivered, and which its priests deliver to
the people in every age as far as they may see fit; but the for
mer is the ground taken by the more learned divines of that
church, who always refer us to the Fathers for proof of what
they pretend to derive from the oral teaching of the apostles.
It would therefore, as it appears to me, obviate much confu
sion in treating this subject, if the word tradition was used in its
proper meaning, and an epithet affixed to it, denoting the ac
knowledged nwihor. And thus, when we spoke of Apostolical
tradition, Patristical tradition. Popish tradition, &c., we should
understand by each,' that which we all acknov?ledge to have been
delivered by the Apostles, the Fathers, the Romanists, &c. And
so the Fathers often, perhaps generally, used the term ; for not
only did they use the phrase, " the tradition of the apostles," or
"apostolical tradition," to denote Scripture, but also "the tradi
tion of the Fathers," or " patristical tradition," to denote that
which is now called apostolical tradition. *
Strictly speaking, indeed, that only is any man's tradition to
2 Thus Basil speaks of " the accurate observance of the patristical traditions "
(),' «jtgi^/ic 'nptitris Tuv n-xTfiKw TrxfiSotrim.) Ep. 243. | 2. ed. Bened. vol. iii. p.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 21
us, which he himself has delivered to us, either by writing or
orally; and therefore, in the case of those who lived at a remote
period, their tradition to us can only be their written tradition,
and we can receive the oral tradition of those only with whom we
can personally communicate ; for it is not pretended that oral
communications can be handed down verbally, and consequently
it is at most only the substance of what was delivered that is re
delivered, and therefore not precisely the tradition of the first
author, and this, in abstruse doctrinal points, may make all the
difference. The oral tradition'of the apostles, ihereioTe, strictly .speaking,
was enjoyed by those only to whom it was actually delivered by
the apostles. We can only have the report of that tradition
made by others. And to call that report by a name that strictly
belongs only to Scripture, — apostolical tradition, — necessarily
creates confusion ; for in the one case it applies to the acknowl
edged words of the apostles, and in the other only to the report
made by others of their substance, and moreover assumes what
is questioned, viz. that that report is indubitably correct. This
confusion is no doubt extremely useful to the Romanists and our
opponents, because it throws a cloud over their statements, which
often enables them to escape with impunity under its cover, when
the light of clearer phraseology would have exposed them to
much inconvenience. But, as our object is to clear this whole
matter to the reader, we shall not make use of terms that assume
ihe very point in question.
A more accurate statement of the views of our opponents,
then, would be this, — that patristical tradition (which to us,
is, what the Fathers have delivered in their writings,) is under
certain circumstances an indubitably correct representation of
the oral tradition of the apostles to their first followers.
Being borne out, therefore, by the Scripture and many passa
ges of the Fathers, I shall, to avoid ambiguity, use the word
tradition in its strict and proper sense, and not the technical
sense that has often been affixed to it ; for nothing tends so much
to perspicuity as the use of words in their natural and proper
significations; and I shall therefore call the testimony to which
our opponents appeal, by its proper name oi patristical or eccle
siastical tradition ; not understanding by those phrases a tradi
tion of all the Fathers or the whole church, (of which we can
have no evidence or proof, and therefore have no right to talk
373. And after delivering the doctrine relating to our Lord's human nature, he
says, " These are the mysteries of the Church, these the tradition of the Fathers,"
(airixi TM VATifm xl nrxpuS-^a-iK.) Ep. 261. § 3. ib. p. 403. And elsewhere, (if at
least the passage is genuine,) De Sp, S, c. 30. § 79. Ed. Ben. torn. iii. p. 67.

22 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
about,) but a tradition of certain Fathers or a certain portion,
greater or less, of the church.
There are two remarks also, which I would offer to the reader,
upon the common use of this term, by way of caution.
The first is, that he must be very careful when estimating the
value of the testimonies adduced by our opponents in favour of
their views from antient authors, to ascertain what those authors
meant by the "tradition" of which they are speaking; for the
word is continually used by them, as we have already intimated,
in reference to the Scriptures of the apostles, — a fact which the
Romanists and our opponents seem to be very little acquainted
with, or at least put out of sight.
Thus we frequently meet in the Fathers, as in the instance re
ferred to above, with the phrase " the Evangelical tradition,"
meaning that which has been delivered by the Evangelists in the
Gospels, — a want of acquaintance with which fact has caused
one of our opponents to make the mistake of applying a passage
from Athanasius in a sense precisely contrary io its true mean
ing, (as we shall point out hereafter,) — and "the Apostolical
tradition," meaning that which has been delivered in one of the
Apostolical epistles.
The second is, ever to remember that when the terms " tradi
tion," " apostolical tradition," are used by our opponents, that
which is so spoken of is traceable by us only to the report of the
oral teaching of the apostles, given by others, and which, at the
best, rests upon the evidence to be found in certain writings of
the Fathers that happen to remain to us, and moreover is de
livered, for the most part to say the least, without any claim to
its being derived from the oral teaching of the apostles. This is
a fact so obvious, that it would be hardly necessary to notice it,
but for the circumstance that our opponents continually reason
as if it was denied that the oral teaching of the apostles was of
equal authority with their writings, and tell us that it is " apos
tolical tradition" only to which they defer ; when, in fact, as to
the authority of the oral teaching of the apostles, and the defer
ence due to apostolical tradition, that is, what the apostles really
delivered, all are agreed ; and the sole question is, whether we
have anything besides the Scriptures for which the title of apos
tolical tradition can be justly claimed in any proper sense of the
words. We are all agreed that apostolical tradition, that is,
what the apostles delivered respecting the doctrines of Christian
ity, is a fit and proper foundation for our faith. Indeed there
can hardly be any division of sentiment upon such a subject in
the Christian world. All are ready to receive with reverence
whatever the apostles delivered. But the question is, where
that apostolical tradition is to be found. We say that the only

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 23
record of it upon which we can fully depend is the Scripture.
Our opponents contend that in the writings that remain to us of
the early church there is to be found another record of it upon
which we can also fully depend. The very question at issue,
then, is, whether any patristical testimony to be found in these
writings can be considered as an authoritative record of the oral
teaching of the apostles. To represent it, therefore, as being,
in the strict sense of the terms, apostolical tradition, and repre
sent us as unwilling to receive the oral teaching of the apostles,
is to take an unfair advantage of (he reader, to assume the very
point in question. It is a report of it delivered by men uninspired,
and liable to error and mistake in transmitting the doctrines of
the oral teaching which they heard. The Holy Scriptures may
justly be called apostolical tradition. But as to (he oral tradi
tion or teaching of the apostles, it is evident that, however infal
lible it may be in itself, we can only have a fallible report of it
through fallible men, and that, in fact, the report we do possess
of it is very imperfect, and on many accounts open to just suspi
cion. And hence it is clear, that when any who lived long after
the apostles are said to be taught anything or to judge of any
thing by apostolical tradition, the phrase " apostolical tradition,"
either must mean the Scriptures which the apostles have left, or
is applied in a limited sense ; for if it is applied to anything but
Holy Scripture, it refers to the patristical report of apostolical
teaching; and the reader who keeps this in view will at once see
the ground on which he stands, that it is the ground of human
and not divine authority.
And if this is observed, the phrase " apostolical tradition," may
be used without danger, as describing the author io whom what
is delivered is attributed, to distinguish it from ecclesiastical or
patristical tradition, where no higher author of the doctrine
delivered is claimed than the church or the Fathers, and thus
in fact the phrase is often used ; but any argument derived from
this use of the name, as if the apostolicity of the doctrine was
(hereby necessarily conceded by those who use this phrase, is
manifestly absurd. To avoid mistake, however, we shall ad
here to the phrase patristical tradition.
Though our opponents, therefore, intimate their claim to the
high-.sounding title of " the Apostolicals," we cannot but think
that it seems more justly to belong to those who are satisfied with
the undoubted remains of the apostles, than to those who wish to
add to them from the writings of the Fathers, who (as we all
profess to follow the apostles) might rather be called " the Fa-
tristicals." However, the name need not alarm us, when we re
collect that it was the name assumed by one of the e?ir\j heresies ;
and one, by the way, which among other (supposed apostolical)

24 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
notions was particularly severe against marriage, and those who
lapsed after baptism.
Another remark which I would here offer is, that we draw a
wide distinction between the value of the testimony of the Fathers
as to doctrines and the oral teaching of the apostles, and their
testimony as to those matters of fact that came under their im
mediate cognizance. It is important to keep this in view, be
cause the value of human testimony is very different in one of
those cases to what it is in the other. The value of a man's
testimony to a fact that takes place under his own eye, or to a
matter that is the object of the senses, is very different to that
of his report of an oral statement, especially with respect to mat
ters of doctrine. And this is a truth so obvious and generally
acknowledged, that the report of a communication from another,
relating even to a matter of fact, would not be received in a
court of justice, so conscious are men of the uncertainties attend
ing such evidence. How much more uncertainty, then, attends
the reports of communications of this nature when relating to
such matters as the abstruse and controverted points of Christian
doctrine ? However infallible those may be who make the com
munication, the imperfection and fallibility of the reporters neces
sarily throw a degree of uncertainty over the report, especially
where it has passed through many hands, and where a slight mis
apprehension on the part of the hearer, or the change of a word,
might alter the complexion of the whole. Hence the sole reason
why we receive the apostolical accounts of our Lord's doctrine
as entitled to our faith, is because we hold the apostles to have
delivered those accounts under divine guidance. Should we
have received them as entitled to our implicit faith had they been
delivered by uninspired men ?
Hence the attempt has been made by our opponents to con
found doctrines and facts together, and to make it appear that
evidence which is valid with respect to the latter must be equal
ly valid with respect to the former, by urging that it is a mere
question of fact whether the apostles or the primitive church did
or did not teach certain doctrines, and therefore that human
testimony to such a fact is as valid as the same testimony to any
other fact. But the inference is evidently most unwarranted ;
for it is a similar question of fact whether the Scriptures do or do
not teach certain doctrines, but men misunderstanding the Scrip
tures give different accounts of this fact, which is an evident proof
that their testimony in such a case is not wholly to be relied
upon. Again, it is a fact that there is a Christian Episcopal
Church in England, and it is a fact that that church proposes
certain doctrines to her members in the thirty-nine Articles, and
the testimony of our opponents to the existence of that church

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 25
might be a very sufficient proof of such fact to those in other
countries, while their testimony as to what doctrines were main
tained by her might be considered a very insufficient proof. In
deed this argument is altdgether founded upon a misuse of terms,
because what is meant by a matter of fact here is a matter that
originally falls under the cognizance of the senses, as distinguish
ed from that which is merely an object, of mental contemplation.
We draw, therefore, a wide distinctibn between the value of
patristical testimony as to ritual matters and such points, and its
value in certifying us as to the oral teaching of the apostles, or the
whole primitive church ; not to dwell here upon the fact that we
have but Uttle c?irec/ testimony as to what that teaching was. Thus
the testimony of a few reputable authors rnay be sufficient to
prove the fact of the practice of infant baptism in the primitive
church, (and we shall show hereafter the use of such testimony
with respect to doctrines immediately connected with the rites
and usages of the church,) but not to prove what the doctrine
of the apostles or the whole primitive church was, as to the na
ture and effects of that sacrament.
Moreover, even as to matters of fact, we must observe that a
distinction is to be drawn between those for which we have the
testimony of an eye-witness, and those for which we have only
testimony derived from the report of others. We shall find here
after that even in such points as the duration of our Lord's pub
lic ministry, and the period of life at which he suffered, state
ments directly opposed to the truth might pass under the name
of apostolical tradition, with the sanction of such respectable
names as Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria ; and therefore
even as to these matters, where the report comes through seve
ral hands, we must not wholly rely upon the testimony of one or
two authors, of whatever repute.
Itis true, our opponents endeavour to make up for the obvious
uncertainty attendant upon such testimony, by limiting it to that
which is universal or established by what they call catholic con-'
sent ; but, as we shall hereafter see, their alleged universality
and catholic consent are mere words and not realities, for errors
and heresies existed in the church from the very first, and (to
name no other objection) the testimony we have for the first iew
centuries is derived from documents wholly insufficient to prove
catholic consent. On this point, however, we shall have occasion
to speak more at large in another place.
Another point which I would request the reader to observe is,
that when speaking of the Holy Scripture as the only certain
depository or teacher of divine revelation, and the sole Rule of
faith, we apply the words in the strict sense of the terms, as im
plying that which binds the conscience to the reception of what-
VOL. I. c

26 IMTKODUCTORY REMARKS.
ever it may deliver, not as signifying that it is the only guide to
the truth. There are many useful guides to the truth besides
the Scriptures, of which the writings of the early Fathers form
one, and an important one.
It is very necessary to keep this distinction in view, because
the advocates for " tradition" often catch an unwary reader by
speaking as if their opponents had no regard, no respect for the
writings of the primitive church ; whereas, they may be, and
have been, held in high estimation as guides in our search after
the truths of religion, by many who reject them as forming part
of the rule of faith, or giving an authoritative testimony respect
ing the doctrines of Christianity.
There has been much very extraordinary misrepresentation
upon this point in the writings of our opponents, against which I
would here at the outset caution the reader. Language has been
used implying that all those who do not take their views hold
the Fathers in utter contempt, and look upon the great lights of
the primitive church only with scorn, and they are held up to
public derision under the name oi " iiltra-protestants." Such
language is wholly unjustifiable, and reflects discredit only upon
those who use it. The hasty and ignorant remarks of individu
als who know nothing of the Fathers are not to be charged upon
a whole body of men for the purpose of bringing theirsentiments
into disrepute. It may be convenient in controversy to impute
to your adversary extreme views, and is often an argument very
effectual with the popular mind, which generally inclines to ex
tremes. But it is merely throwing dust in the eyes of the read
er to blind him to the real question. Our opponents must be
quite aware that there are multitudesi of those who differ from
them, who have no sympathy with men who talkcontemptuously
of antiquity and the early Fathers.
We believe that our Lord has had a church upon earth ever
since his first advent, and that we have among the records of an
tiquity many valuable works penned by his true followers ; and
that the writings and records of the primitive church may be, on
various grounds and in many ways, useful in guiding us to a
knowledge of the truth, and more especially in guarding us
against error. Nay, we are ready to admit that a notion put
forward as an important article of faith which finds no support
in any of those writings, is thereby convicted of error, and thus
that in the refutation of heresy and error those writings are of
great value.
We hold also that the consent of many of the most able and
pious ecclesiastical writers of antiquity (and what is called ca
tholic consent is nothing more than this) in favour of any parti
cular view of divine truth, is an argument of great force in de-

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 27
fence of that view, not from the improbable possibility of such
consent having been derived from the oral teaching of the apos
tles, but rather from the probable evidence afforded by such
consent, (as one of themselves, Theodoret, will tell us,) that they
were all under the guidance of one and the same omniscient
Spirit, whose teaching renders all those to whom it is vouchsafed
valuable guides to the church at large in all ages. " Immense
mountains and seas," says Theodoret, after showing the identity
of the testimony of several of the earliest Fathers upon certain
important points, " separate them one from another, but the dis
tance has not injured their harmony. For the.y were all taught
by the same spiritual grace." '
Further, we do not deny that any man who differs from the
true catholic church of Christ in fundamental points, must be in
fatal error, and that the faith of that church in such points must
in all ages be the same ; we do not deny that there may have
been fuller communications made by the apostles to some of their
first followers on some points than we find in the Scriptures they
have left us; we do not deny the joos^iSzViV^/ that interpretations
of Scripture brought to us through the Fathers may have origi
nally emanated from the apostles ; we do not deny, but on the
contrary firmly maintain, that the true orthodox faith, in at least
all fundamental points, is to be found in the writings of the primi
tive Fathers, and therefore that it is very necessary that in all
such points our faith be such as can find support in their writ
ings : but the question is, whether there is sufficient evidence of
the divine origin of any thing but Scripture to entitle it to authori
ty over the conscience as a divine revelation ; whether in the
testimony of the Fathers there is to be found any thing which,
either in form or in substance, we are bound to receive as the
Word of God delivered to the church by the apostles, and conse
quently forming part of our divinely revealed Rule of faith
and duty. This is the real question, and this question we answer
in the negative. We assert that there is no sufficient evidence
of the divine origin of any thing but Scripture; and " tradition"
is on many accounts not sufficiently trustworthy to be received
as a divine informant. Our opponents, with the Papists, main
tain the affirmative, and assert that patristical testimony may,
under certain circumstances, be taken as a "practically infalli
ble" representative of the oral teaching of the apostles, and that
we do in fact possess, in the patristical writings that have come
down to us, a testimony respecting certain doctrines and interpre
tations of Scripture and other points, so indubitably of apostolic
origin as to bind the conscience to the reception of it as part of
the Divine Rule. > See testimony of Theodoret in ch. 10 below.

28 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
There is one more observation which I would here at the out
set offer to the reader, and that is, that our great concern in
treating this subject will be to point out the facts of the case,
and make them the ground for our conclusions. Speculative
arguments have been adduced on the question on both sides,
which, however plausible they may appear to the general reader,
are far from being trustworthy. Thus the advocates for the ex
clusive authority of the Scripture have often urged that the
Scriptures being given by God for the instruction of mankind ir^
religion, they must be perfect for the accomplishment of the pur
pose for which they were given, and therefore must contain all
that has been revealed for that, purpose. But it does not follow
that, because the Scriptures were given for that purpose, they
are necessarily all that has been given. It is here assumedMixat
the end they were designed to answer was the instruction of man
kind in the whole of divine revelation. This our opponents deny,
find assert that we have inspired testimony on the subject of re
ligion over and above what is contained in the Scriptures, and
that consequently, though the Scriptures may be, and no doubt
are perfect for the end for which they were given, they form
only a portion of God's gift for the direction of man in religion-
So, on the other hand, there are those who support the views of
our opponents, who urge the necessity of having some inspired
or practically infallible testimony to appeal to for the interpreta
tion of the Scriptures and the decision of controversies in import
ant points, in order to preserve peace in the church, and that God
would not have left his church without such a help ; which is the
old Popish argument for the supremacy of the Pope, and serves
as well for that hypothesis as the one before us, and is evidently
founded upon a mere human speculation as to what would be
suitable to the Divine character and convenient to us. It might
be very convenient for us to have such a judge of controversies,
and the most convenient of all would be an individual judge in
the centre of the church to act as Christ's vicar ; but the ques
tion is. What are the facts of the case? It is not for us to de
termine what the character of God seems to us to render it like
ly that he would give, nor what we might think convenient and
desirable, but what God has given us.
And in such a matter we are bound not to surrender our rea
son to the dictum of any man or body of men, but with humility,
with a mind open to conviction and bent only upon arriving
at the truth, to investigate the evidence upon which a claim set
up in behalf of any testimony as a divine informant rests.
The great object of the following work, then, is to demonstrate,
in opposition to the view just stated, that there is nothing of
which we have sufficient evidence that it is divine or inspired

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 29
testimony but the Holy Scripture ; and consequently that the
Holy Scripture is our sole and exclusive Divine Rule of faith
and practice.
Before, however, we proceed further, we shall in the next
chapter show what are the precise views of our opponents as
stated by themselves.

30

CHAPTER IL

THE DOCTRINE OF DR. PUSEY, MK. KEBLE, MR. NEWMAN, AND THE
" TRACTS FOR THE TIMES," ON THE SUBJECT OF PATRISTICAL TRADI
TION, AND POINTS CONNECTED THEREWITH, WITH SOME GENIBBAL
OBSERVATIONS ON THEIR STATEMENTS.

The writers to whom I alluded more particularly when speak
ing of the views that have been lately advanced among us on the
subject of" tradition," are those whose names are prefixed to this
chapter. I am not, I believe, saying more than they have them
selves avowed, when 1 state that, besides the works published in
their own names, they are tbe principal writers and compilers of
the Tracts entitled "Tracts for the Times, by Members of the
University of Oxford." Mr. JVewman has also published among
other works, " Lectures on Romanism and Popular Protestant
ism," in which the doctrinal system he advocates on the subject of
"tradition," church authority and the right of private judgment, is
somewhat elaborately laid down. Mr. Keble has also published
a Sermon on " Primitive Tradition," to the third edition of which
is added an Appendix, containing further proofs and illustrations'
of his argument, and a Catena Patrum from Divines of the
English Church, alleged to be favourable to his views. The views
of Dr. Pusey on this subject are very pithily laid down in his
"Earnest Remonstrance to the Author of the Pope's Letter;" re
printed as No. 77 of the " Tracts for the Times."
Before I proceed further, therefore, I am desirous of placing
distinctly before the reader the views advanced in these works
on the subject of patristical tradition; views for the refutation of
which this work is more especially intended.
I speak with deliberation when I say, that a system so com
pletely opposed to the views of the whole stream of our most
able English divines from the Reformation to the present day, as
that laid down in the above works, never saw the light. Inci
dental observations tending to Romish views have no doubt been
thrown out at times by various divines of our church, particularly

DOCTRINE OF THE TBACTATOKS. 31
among the extreme section of the Nonjurors, as, for instance,
Brett, Dodwell, &c., men notoriously standing in a very inconsi
derable minority in the church, but now referred to by these
writers as expressing her views in suchpoints ; a circumstance
worthy of notice in determining how far the system now put for
ward is entitled to the high names so confidently claimed for it,
of Catholicism and Anglicanism.
I begin with Mr. Newman, whose views on this subject are
propounded in his " Lectures on Romanism and popular Protest
antism," from which work I have made the following extracts,
arranging them so as to present to the reader (with, at least in
the intention, scrupulous fidelity) a compendious view of the
whole doctrine of Mr. Newman on the subject.
With respect to the Holy Scripture, then, it is granted by Mr.
Newman, in words, that it contains all the essential and funda
mental articles of the faith, "all things necessary to salvation ;"
" the saving faith," (p. 238, &c.); but it is not " the only ground
of the faith," (p. 369,) nor " the source of all religious truth what
ever," (p. 370,) but there is another "ground of the faith," and
also need of something else to teach us those truths of religion
which are not contained there.
The other " ground of the faith" and " source of religious
truth," is considered to be "tradition" and these two [i. e. " the
Bible and Catholic Tradition,"] together make up a joint rule,
[i. e. of faith,]" (p. 327.)
With respect to " tradition," —
It is held that there is a Divine word left unwritten by the
apostles contained in the writings of the Fathers, so surely pre
served, that" whatever explanations the Protestant makes in be
half of the preservation of the written word, will be found appli
cable in the theory to the unwritten," (p. 46,) that "we have as-
little warrant for rejecting antient consent as for rejecting Scrip
ture itself," (p. 325) that "catholic tradition," is a divine infor
mant in religious matters," (p. 329,) " the unwritten word," p.
355. This unwritten word is "antient consent," (p. 325,) often spo
ken of under the name of "antiquity;" " we agree with the Ro
manist in appealing to Antiquity as our great teacher,'' (p. 47,)
the meaning of which is thus stated : " Let us understand what
is meant by saying that antiquity is of authority in religious ques
tions. Both Romanists and ourselves maintain as follows: — that
whatever doctrine the primitiveages unanimously attest, whether
by consent of Fathers, or by councils, or by the events of history,
or by controversies, or in whatever way, whatever may fairly and
reasonably be considered to be the universal belief of those ages,
is to be received as coming from the apostles, (p. 62; see ajso

33 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS.
pp. 297-9.) This is Mr. Newman's view of the nature of "the
unwritten word" and how it is to be ascertained.
It is considered that this " tradition," or " unwritten word," is
necessary for the following purposes. First, as the authority
upon which we are to receive the canon of Scripture, the doc
trine of its divine origin, and the genuineness of what we re
ceive as such. " How do we know that Scripture comes from
God? It cannot be denied that we of this age receive it upon
general tradition ; we receive through tradition both the Bible
itself, and the doctrine that it is divinely inspired." (p. 42.)
" The sacred volume itself, as well as the doctrine of its inspira
tion, comes to us by traditional conveyance." (pp. 44, 5.) " We
receive the New Testament in its existing shape on tradition."
(p. 34L) " We consider the inspired canon was cut short in
the apostles whose works are contained in the New Testament,
and that their successors had no gift of expounding the law of
Christ such as they had, because the same ages so accounted it."
(p. 371.) Secondly, for the interpretation of Scripture. "The
need of tradition arises only from the obscurity of Scripture, and
is terminated with the interpretation of it." (p. 384.) " Scrip
ture does not interpret itself, or answer objections to misinterpre
tations. We must betake ourselves to the early church, and see
how they understood it." " Scripture was never intended to
teach doctrine to the many." " I would not deny as an abstract
proposition that a Christian may gain the whole truth from the
Scripture, but would maintain that the chances are very serious
ly against a given individual. I would not deny, but rather
maintain, that a religious,' wise and intellectually gifted man will
succeed : but who answers to this description but ihe collective
church?" (pp. 189-90.) "These two [i. e. the Bible and Catho
lic Tradition] together make up a joint rule, [i. e. of faith];
Scripture is interpreted by Tradition, Tradition verified by Scrip
ture." (p. 327.) Acute men among them [i. e. Protestants] see
that the very elementary notion which they have adopted of the
Bible without note or comment being the sole auihoriiaiive judge
in controversies of faith, isa self -destructive principle" (p. 35.)
Scripture is " but the document of appeal, and catholic tradition
the authoritative teacher of Christians, (p. 343.) And " the catho
lic doctrines oi the Trinity, Incarnation and others similar to
these, are the true interpretations of the notices contained in
Scripture of those doctrines respectively." (p. 153.) "They [i.
e. popular Protestants] must either give up their maxim about
the Bible, and the Bible only, or they must give up the Nicene
formulary. The Bible does not carry with ii its own inierpretaiion.
When pressed to say why they maintain fundamentals of faith,
they will have no good reason to give, supposing they do not re-

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. 33
ceive the creed also as a. first principle. Why, it is asked them,.
should those who equally with themselves believe in the Bible be
denied the name of Christians, because they do not happen to
discern the doctrine of the Trinity therein? If they answer that
Scripture itself singles out certain doctrines as necessary to sal
vation, and that the Trinity is one of them, this indeed, is most
true, but avails not to persons, committed to so untrue a theory.
It is urged against them, that, though the texts referred to
may imply the catholic doctrine, yet they need not ; that they are
CONSISTENT WITH ANY ONE OUT OF SEVERAL THEORIES ; Or at any
rate that other persons think so ; that these others have as much
right to their opinion as the party called orthodox to theirs y
that human interpreters have no warrant to force upon them one
view in particular; that private judgment must be left unmo
lested ; that man must not close what God has left open; that
Unitarians (as they are called) believe in a Trinity, only not in.
the catholic sense of it; and that, where men are willing to take
and profess what is written, it is not for us to be " wise above
what is written," especially when by such a course we break tbe
bonds of peace and charity. This reasoning, granting the
FIRST step, is resistless." (p. 292, 3.) That is, the Bible is al
together of ambiguous meaning ; it may or may not mean to
speak " the catholic doctrine," it is " consistent with anyone out
of several theories," or at any rate there are people who think
so, and therefore it is unjust to say that the Socinians are not or
thodox, unless we have an interpretation of it to tell us what it
means, which we can look upon as equally " a first principle,"
fhat is an infallible or divine informant ; which " first principle"
is " the creed," a phrase used by Mr. Newman to signify, accord
ing to convenience, either the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed,
or those in Irenasus, Tertullian, &c., as if they were all identical.
Mr. Newman is not aware, I suppose, that the Apostles' Creed
has been misinterpreted as much as Scripture by the Socinians,
and therefore that, by his own showing, his Socinian "resistless-
reasoning" is as applicable against himself, when he condemns
the Socinians, as against his "popular Protestants."
It is considered also to be important, and in fact relatively
necessary for making known to us religious truths not in Scrip
ture ; for it is " partly the interpretation, partly the supplement
of Scripture." (p. 298.) In p. 335, we have a specimen of these
supplementary truths. " It is only by tradition that we have
any safe and clear rule for changing the weekly feast from the
seventh to the first day ;" — so that it is a necessary part of the
divine rule oi practice. " Again, our divines, such as Bramhall,
Bull, Pearson, and Patrick, believe that the blessed Mary was

34 doctrinh or the tractators.
* ever virgin,' as the church has called her ; but tradition was
[certainly] their only informant on the subject."
Such is the doctrine of Mr. Newman with respect to Scripture
and Patristical Tradition, a doctrine precisely identical with that
of the Romanists, as we shall presently prove. Indeed, Mr. New
man appears, with one exception, to allow as much. For after
explaining the Romish doctrine of " tradition," he says, " As a
beautiful theory, it must, as a whole, ever remain. I do not,
indeed, deny that to a certain point it is tenable : but this is a
very different thing from admitting that it is so as regards those
very tenets for which the Romanists would adduce it. They
have to show, not only that there was such a traditionary system,
and that it has lasted to this day, but that their peculiarities are
part of it." (pp. 41, 42.) " We agree with the Romanist in
appealing to antiquity as our great teacher, but deny that his
doctrines are to be found in antiquity. So far then is clear; we
do not deny the force of tradition in the abstract ; we do not
deny the soundness of the argumept from antiquity ; but we chal
lenge the Romanist to prove the matter of fact. We deny that
his doctrines are in antiquity," &c. (pp. 47, 48.) "Our contro
versy with Romanists turns more upon facts than upon first
principles." (pp. 50, 51.)
The doctrine maintained, therefore, on the subject of " tradi
tion" by Mr. Newman and the Romanists is the same. And the
only difference on this subject supposed by Mr. Newman himself
to exist between his doctrine and that of the Romanists, is thus
stated by him : — " We differ from the Romanist in this, not in
denying that tradition is valuable, but in maintaining that by
itself and without Scripture warrant, it does not convey to us any
article necessary to salvation'' (p. 370.) This observation
however is, as I shall show presently, founcied on a mistake, for
the Romanists maintain this as much as Mr. Newman. They
hold that Scripture contains all points necessary to salvation ;
and when they speak of the necessity of believing things not there
declared, but dehvered by " tradition," it is not because such
things are in themselves necessary to salvation, but because
" tradition" being a divine informant, a rejection of them is a
direct act of disobedience to God.
In all respects, therefore, the doctrine of Mr. Newman and the
Romanists on this subject is the same, the only difference being
as to whether some particular articles can be proved by " tradi
tion." With this system of Mr. Newman agrees perfectly that of Mr.
Keble, as I shall now proceed to show.
First, with respect to the Holy Scriptures, Mr. Keble grants,
in theory, that " every fundamental point of doctrine is contained

doctrine of the tractators. 35
in the unquestioned books of that canon [i.e. the New Testament]
taken along with the Hebrew Scriptures," and hence " that noth
ing is to be insisted on as a point of faith necessary to salvation,
but what is contained in or may be proved by canonical Scrip-
ture*" (pp. 30, 31.) But Scripture is not our sole rule of faith,
for they are in error who " reject the notion of a rule of faith
made up of Scripture and tradition together." (p. 82.) Nor does
it contain the whole " orthodox faith," — for, the whole " ortho
dox faith," though it is held to " include the written word," is not
included in that word, but is " the whole creed of the apostolical
church as guaranteed to us by Holy Scripture, and by consent
of pure antiquity." (pp. 80, 81.)
With respect to " tradition," it is held that consentient patris
tical tradition is the record of that " oral teaching" of the apos
tles which the " Holy Spirit inspired," (p. 24.) Such traditions
are " unquestionable relics of the apostles," (p. 41,) "precious
apostolical relics," (p. 42,) which men " might and ought to have
re/ig-toMs/?/ depended upon." (p. 45.) "Not a few fragments yet
remain, very precious and sacred fragments, of the unwritten
teaching of the first age of the church," (meaning of the apos
tles.) (p. 32.) Church tradition is " practically infalfible," (p. 142,)
" infallible," (p. 146,) and " if we will be impartial, we cannot
hide it from ourselves, that God's unwritten word, if it can be
any how authenticated, [and the position contended for is, that
it can be authenticated, and is in the writings of the Fathers,]
must necessarily demand the same reverence from us [as his
written word,] and for exactly the same reason, because it is his
word." (p. 26.) Consentient patristical tradition, therefore, is
" God's unwritten word," " demanding the same reverence
from us" as his written word, i. e. in the language of the Coun
cil of Trent, is to be received " pari pietatis alFectu." Nay, " as
long as tlie canon of the JV'eru Testament 7uas incomplete, the unwrit
ten system served as a test even for the apostles' own writings."
" Apostolical tradition was divinely appointed in the church as the
touchstone of canonical Scriplure itself." (pp. 26, 27.) " The very
writings of the apostles mere lo be first tried by it before they could be
incorporated inlo the canon." (p. 28.) " Between the traditional and
written relics of the apostles" there is this difference, "that in
the former the things only — in the latter the very words also —
are holy." (p. 107.)
With respect to the nature of this " unwritten word," and the
way in which it is ascertained, Mr. Keble summarily describes it
by the term, the "consent of pure antiquity," (pp. 44 and 81 ;)
" the catholic consent," (p. 89.) " Those rules in which all primi
tive councils are uniform, those rites and formularies which are
found in all primitive liturgies, and those interpretations and

38 doctrine of the tractators.
principles of interpretation in which all orthodox Fathers agree,
he considers to form an indubitable part of " the system of the
apostles," entitled to equal reverence with their acknowledged
writings, (p. 40.) " If any one ask how we ascertain them, we
answer. By application of the well-known rule Quod semper,
quod ubique, quod ab omnibus ; antiquity, universality, catho
licity. ' (pp. 32, 33.)
Among the points which rest on the authority of " tradition,"
he reckons the canon of Scripture ; " The points of catholic
consent known by tradition constitute the knots and ties of the
whole system ; being such as these, the canon of Scripture,"
&c. (p. 41.) "Among the traditionary truths  is ihe
vanon of Scripture itself ," (p. 45): as well as its inspiration,
for it is by tradition that " the validity" of Scripture is " ascer
tained." (p. 74.) Also the interpretation of Scripture, and
the full development of its doctrines. The " interpretation of
Scripture" is one of " three distinct fields of Christian knowl
edge" which he points out, " in neither of which can we advance
satisfactorily or safely without constant appeal to tradition
such as has been described." (p. 34.) " Catholic tradition
bears upon Scripture interpretation not only indirectly by sup
plying, as just now stated, certain great landmarks of apostoli
cal doctrine conformably to which the written state
ments are all to be interpreted; but also in numerous
cases directly." (pp. 35, 36.) " Whether we look to discipline,
to interpretation or to doctrine, every way we see reason to be
thankful for many fragments of apostolical practice and teach
ing MOST needful to guide us in the right use of Holy Scrip
ture." (p. 39.) The English church, " acknowledging Scripture
as her written charter, and tradition as the common law
whereby both the validity and practical meaning of that
charter is ascertained, venerates both as inseparable members
of one great providential system." (p. 74.) This necessity of
tradition for the interpretation of Scripture is of course supposed
to arise from the obscurity of Scripture. "If so it had pleased
Almighty God," says Mr. Keble, " the Scriptures might have
been all clear of themselves  Men may go on imagining
the advantages of snch a dispensation, until they have persuaded
themselves that things are really so ordered." (p. 149.) So that
even in the fundamental points of faith the Scriptures are not
'clear." Notwithstanding all the explanations given by the
apostles on those points in their writings, they have not at last
made them clear; they have not written so as to be understood ;
the cogent proof of this being, that in all ages some have inter
preted their writings contrary to the orthodox faith, so that the
perverse misinterpretation of the natural mind is to be taken as

doctrine of the tractators. 37
evidence that the Scriptures are not clear. Hence the observa
tion that the Bible is " a volume which m,ay be understood with
out traditional aid," is made by Mr. Keble the subject of par
ticular remark as an objectionable statement, (p. 88.) " Tra
dition," he says, " helps to explain theiScriptures somewhat in the
same way, and with the same kind of evidence, as the grammar
of a language, once rightly taught, explains the sentences of that
language." (pp. 141, 2.) Hence he holds the " rule of faith"
to be "made up of Scripture and tradition together."
(p. 82.)
The two other " fields of Christian knowledge, in neither of
which we can advance satisfactorily or safely without constant
appeal to tradition," are " the system and arrangement of fun
damental articles," and " the discipline, formularies, and
rites of the Church of Christ." (pp. 34, 37.)
Further ; " tradition" reveals to us truths " not contained in
Scripture. " For Mr. Keble says, " As long as it is only doubtful
whether any statement or precept is part of the apostolic system
or no, so long a mind imbued with true devotion will treat that
statementorprecept with reverence  so long the mere
fact of its not being co\tained in Scripture cannot be felt as
a justification for casting it aside  But, in truth, it may
be proved to the satisfaction of any reasonable mind, that
not a few fragments yet remain, very precious and sacred frag
ments, of the unwritten teaching of the first age of the church.
The paramount authority, for example, of the successors of the
apostles in church government; the threefold order established
from the beginning; the virtue of the blessed Eucharist as a
commemorative sacrifice ; infant baptism ; and above ali, the
Catholic doctrine of the most holy Trinity as contained in
the Nicene Creed. All these, however surely confirmed from
Scripture, are yet ascertainable parts of the primitive unwritten
system of which we yet enjoy the benefit." (pp. 31, 32.) Such
are some of the points not contained in Scripture, which are
revealed to us by tradition. This is not the place to notice them
more particularly ; but it is impossible not to direct the reader's
attention to the statement, that the '' Catholic doctrine of the
most holy Trinity, as contained in the Nicene Creed," is " not
contained in Scripture," though it may be " confirmed from
Scripture," directly contrary to the statement of our first Homi
ly, to mention no other authority.
Of the importance attached by Mr. Keble to the traditionary
doctrinal matter not contained in Scripture, we may judge from
the following passages : — " The sacred building is so divinely,
though invisibly, cemented, that for aught we know, it is impossi
ble to remove any portion, either of scriptural or traditionary
VOL. I. d

38 doctrine op the tractators.
truth, without weakening the whole arch  Let us,
above all things, beware of the presumption of selecting for our
selves, among the truths and laws of the Most High, which we
will retain, and which we may venture to dispense with." (p. 46.)
" Confining our view to that which touches the foundation, we
shall find that the matters are neither few nor unimportant ,
which are settled by traditionary evidence."  "The
points of catholic consent known by tradition, constitute ihe
knots and ties of the whole system, being such as these, — the
canon of Scripture, the full doctrines of the Trinity and In
carnation, the oblation and consecration of the Eucharist, the
apostolical succession ; truths and orders soon enumerated, but
such as to extend in vital efficacy through every part of the
great scheme of the church." (pp. 41, 42.)
When, therefore, Mr. Keble says that Scripture contains all
the fundamental points of faith, we must either suppose that he
thinks the supplementary part of the doctrine of the Trinity
learnt from tradition not to be fundamental, or (which rather
appears to be his view and that of Mr. Newman) that Scripture
so contains these truths that we need tradition to assure us cf
the fact, and that, then, after having learnt the truth from tra
dition, we may find in Scripture passages which will ^'confirm"
it, or, as it is elsewhere expressed, " hints" and " notices" of the
orthodox faith. i
Such is the doctrine of Mr. Keble on this subject, being, as
must be evident to the reader, precisely the same as that of Mr.
Newman, the divine origin and necessity of "tradition" being
indeed rather more than less strongly enforced, and therefore,
like Mr. Newman's, identical with that of the Romanists. It is
rather remarkable also that he has made the snme mistake as
Mr. Newman with respect to the nature of the Romish doctrine
on this subject, accusing the Romanists of avouching "tradition
of the substance of doctrine independent of Scripture, and pur-
jiorting to be of things necessary to salvation." (p. 71.)
But this, as 1 shall prove presently, they do not do.
The doctrine of Mr. Keble and Mr. Newman, then, on this
subject, is in few words this, — That the revelation made to the
world by our Lord and his apostles comes down to us in two
different channel;, one of which is the written word, the other
the successional delivery by the Fathers of that which the apos
tles delivered orally to the church. And as the apostles entered
into fuller explanations of the doctrines of the faith in their oral
statements than they have in their writings, and gave some in
formation and directions to the church on matters both of doc
trine and practice not contained in those writings, the record of
their inspired testimony which we have in the writings of anti-

doctrine of the TRACT.4.T0RS. 39
quity, is more full and clear than that which we have in the
Scriptures. And as is in all the fundamental doctrines of the faith
and some others of less moment, as well as in various points of
practice, this traditional record of what the apostles delivered
orally can be so verified as to be a "practically infallible"
witness of what they did so deliver, in all these cases the brief
and obscure " hints" and " notices" of Scripture are to be inter
preted by the more full and clear record of revelation we have
in " catholic tradition," and the deficiencies of Scripture made
up by the " supplemental" records of " catholic tradition.''
And as to the degree of plainness with which the faith is de
livered in Scripture, the author of Tract 85 tells us that " the
gospel doctrine or message" " is but indirectly and covertly
recorded in Scripture under the surface." (p. 27.) " Scripture
is not one book — it is as if you were to seize the papers or cor
respondence of leading men in ,any school of philosophy or science,
which were never designed for publication, and bring them out
in one volume. You would find probably in the collection so re
sulting many papers begun and not finished, some parts systematic
and didactic, but the greater part made up oi hints or of notices
which assumed first principles instead of asserting them, or of
discussions upon particular points which happened to require their
attention. I say the doctrines, the first principles, the rules, the
objects of the school would be taken for granted, alluded to, im
plied not stated. You would have some trouble to get at them ;
you would have many repetitions, many hiatuses, many things
which looked like contradictions ; you would have to work
your way through heterogeneous materials, and after your
best efforts there would be much hopelessly obscure ; or, on
the other hand, you might look in vain in such a casual collec
tion for some particular opinions which the writers were known
nevertheless to have held, nay to have insisted on. Such I con
ceive, with limitations presently to be noticed, is the structure of
the Bible." {The limitations shall be given after the next pas
sage.] "Try to make out tbe history of Rome from the extant
letters of some of its great politicians, and from the fragments of
ancient annals, histories, laws, inscriptions, and medals, and you
will have something like the matter of fact viewed antecedently
as regards the structure of the Bible, and the task of deducing
the true system of religion from it." (pp. 30, 31.) On all this I
offer no comment, biit commend it to the serious attention of the
reader. Now for the " limitations." Unfortunately for our opponents,
there is an Article of our church upon this subject, (Art. vi.) and
therefore somehow or other the language of that Article must be
rfitaiaed. We are therefore told that " at least as regards mat-

40 doctrine of the tractators.
ters of faith Scripture does contain a\\ that is necessary for salva
tion ; it has been overruled to do so by Him who inspired it."
(p. 32.) .But determined that those words shall mean nothing and
be no obstacle in his way, the writer immediately proceeds to the
task of explaining them away, and shows us, in the following
words, the object and value of his preceding remarks. " This
antecedent improbability [i. e. of Scripture containing the faith]
tells even in the case of the doctrines of faith as far as this, that
it reconciles us to the necessity of gaining them indirectly from
Scripture, for it is a near thing (if I may so speak) that they
are in Scripture at all ; ihe wonder is that they are all there ;
humanly judging, they would not be there but for God's interposi
tion ; and therefore since they are there by a sort of accident,
it is not strange they shall be but latent there, and only indi
rectly producible thence." (pp. 32 — 4.)
And on this subject he thus contradicts himself within the com
pass of a few pages. Having stated in p. 25, as the doctrine of
the English church, that as to the whole' system of religion re
vealed in the Gospel, "though it is in tradition, yet it can also be
gathered from the communications of Scripture," he tells us in
p. 48, that " though Scripture be considered to be altogether
.silent as to the intermediate state . . . there is nothing in this
circumstance to disprove the church's doctrine, (if there be
other grounds for it ) that there is anintermediate state, and
that it is important."
Nay, still more, to prepare us for the reception of matters
delivered by " tradition" which may seem even at variance v,'\t\\
Scripture, he collects together (pp.36 — 48) a number of instances
of what he holds to be seeming contradictions in Scripture
itself, in order to draw from them the conclusion, that in the
same way things delivered by " tradition" may not be really at
variance with Scripture, though they may appear to be so. And
that the reader may know that I am not exaggerating when I
state this, I will give his conclusion in his own words. " The
argument," he says, " stated in a few words stands thus ; — as
distinct portions of Scripture itself are apparently inconsis
tent with one another, yet are not really so ; therefore it does
not follow that Scripture and catholic doctrine are at variance
with each other, even if they seem to be." (p. 49.) How this
may strike the reader I know not, but to me it appears to outdo
Rome itself, and leave Bellarmine to goto school.
The doctrine on this subject, then, advocated by Mr. Newman
and Mr. Keble, may be summed up in the five following points.
1. That consentient patristical tradition, or "catholic consent,'*
is an unwritten word of God, a divine informant in religion, and
consequently entitled, as to its substance, to equal respect ,with
the Holy Scriptures.

doctrine of the tractators. 41
2. That such tradition is consequently a part of the divinely-
revealed rule of faith and practice.
3. That it is a necessary part of the divine rule of faith and
practice, on account of the defectiveness of Scripture, for that, —
(1) Though it does not reveal to us any fundamental articles
of faith or practice not noticed in Scripture, Holy Scripture con
taining, that is, giving hints or notices of all the fundamental
articles of faith and practice, it is yet a necessary part of the
divine rule of faith and practice as the interpreter of Scripture,
and as giving the full development of many points, some of which
are fundamental, which are but imperfectly developed in Scrip-
lura ; and
(2) It is an important part of the rule, as conveying to us vari
ous important doctrines and rules not contained in Scripture.
4. That it is a necessary part of the divine rule of faith and
practice, because of the obscurity of Scripture even in some of
the fundamental articles, which makes Scripture insufficient to
teach us even the fundamentals of faith and practice.
5. That it is only by the testimony of patristical tradition that
we are assured of the impiration of Scripture, what books are
canonical, and the genuineness of what we receive as such.
The doctrine held by Dr. Pusey on this subject is so very pithily
expressed in a sentence occurring in his " Earnest Remonstrance,"
that it is hardly necessary to search any further.
" Our controversy with Rome," he says, " is not an a priori
question on the value of tradition in itself, or at an earlier
period of the church, or of such traditions as, though not con-
iainedin Scripture, are primitive, universal, and apostolical,
but it is one purely historical, that the Romanist traditions not
being such, but on the contrary repugnant to Scripture, are not
to be received." (p. 13.)
This at least is plain speaking for a divine of the Church of
England. Let it, therefore, be distinctly understood that when the
authors of these works complain of being misrepresented when
said to favour Romanism in their vievi's of patristical tradition,
they do so only because they think that the Romish doctrine on
the subject is the catholic doctrine, though some of the traditions
the Romanists admit are unauthorized, and therefore that they
ought not to be thus stigmatized, because, though holding the
Romish doctrine on the subject, they do not hold all the tradi
tions peculiar to Rome.
It is quite true, indeed, (nor do I wish to conceal the fact,)
that there are divers nice distinctions drawn by these writers in
other parts of their works, by which, for very obvious reasons,
they endeavour to rescue their doctrine from the charge of being
D*

42 doctrine of the tractators.
identical with that of the Romanists. Dr. Pusey himself, though
in the above sentence he clearly admits the identity of the two,
endeavours, in his apologeticctl "Letter to the Bishop of Oxford,"
to draw a distinction between them in words, by telling us that
" Rome differs from us as to the authority which she ascribes to
tradition ; she regards it as co-ordinate, our divines as sub-ord\-
nate ; as to the way in which it is to be employed ; she as inde
pendent of Holy Scripture, ours as subservient to and blended
with it," &c. ; and after adding some other supposed marks of
distinction, in which the distinct questions of "tradition" and
church authority are strangely confused, concludes, "So then be
yond the name of tradition the church of Rome and our divines
differ in every thing besides." (pp. 41, 42.) Now all this is, beyond
question, uttered in the most perfect good faith, but it will be
found practically to be nothing more or Jess than a complete jug
gle of words. For what, I would ask, can be the use or propriety
of drawing distinctions by the application of the words co-ordinate
and subordinate, between two informants equally divine, which
we are told that Scripture and tradition are? The sole question
with which we are concerned is, whether patristical tradition is a
divine informant, and therefore binds the conscience to the re
ception of what it delivers. He who holds that it is, is bound to
receive it as the Romanists do, pari pietatis uffectu with the
written word. And such, beyond contradiction, is the doctrine
upheld in the works from which we have quoted above, as well
as in other publications attributed to the same authors, as, for in
stance, the British Critic, where " antiquity" is expressly spoken
of as " rei'e/a/zo?i" equally with Scripture.' Dr. Pusey himself
tells us, a few pages after, that " we ou)e . . . to the decisions of
the church universal. Faith." (p. 53.) Now taking this sen
tence in its least obnoxious signification, as referring to the deci
sions of the church universal, not as self-authoritative, but as the
infallible witness of apostolical tradition, (which is, I suppose, its
intended meaning,) I would ask whether church-tradition is not
placed here upon precisely the same footing with Scripture, and
whether the distinction between the two alluded to above is not
a mere verbal and not a real distinction ? Indeed, it is obvious
that to maintain that Scripture contains only an imperfect deli
neation, hints and notices, of the most important doctrines, and that
the full revelation of them is only to be found in " tradition," and
yet aver that we make tradition only subordinate to Scripture,
is an inconsistency and (I must be pardoned for adding, an) ab
surdity of no ordinary kind.
Mr. Newman has also offered some remarks of a similar na-
1 See Brit. Crit,, for. Jan., 1838, Article on Froude's Remains, and elsewhere.

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS.

I'^

ture. But we shall notice them more particularly in another
place. Such, then, is the doctrine oh patristical tradition propounded
in these works as the doctrine of the English church.
The reader should also understand that this doctrine forms part
of a system laid down (though perhaps with some variations and
inconsistencies) in the Tracts and works to which we have re
ferred, to which is very confidently ascribed (I leave the reader
to determine how justly) the name of Catholicism and Anglican
ism, as opposed to Romanism on one side and Protestantism oaf he
other ; and as the subjects of church authority and the right of
private judgment are intimately connected with that we are now
considering, I will add here some extracts from Mr. Newman's
Lectures sufficient to put the reader in possession of his doctrine
(which, from their union in the publication of the Tracts, we
must of course conclude to be that of Dr. Pusey and Mr. Keble
also) on those subjects, that he may see more clearly the nature
of the system.
First, as to the authority of the church.
" The church," says Mr. Newman, "enforces, on her own re
sponsibility, what is an historical fact, and ascertainable as
other facts, and obvious to the intelligence of inquirers as
other facts; viz., the doctrine of the apostles; and private
judgment has as little exercise here as in any matters of sense
or experienc:."  " The church enforces a fact — apos
tolical tradition — as the doctrinal key, to Scripture, and private
judgment expatiates BEYOfir) the limits of that tradition." (pp.
224, 5.) How Mr. Newman can reconcile the statement that
" the doctrine of the apostles" is a " historical fact ascertainable
as other facts, and obvious to the intelligence of inquirers as other
facts," with the fact that the nominal church has always been
more or less divided in opinion respecting it, I must leave to him
to explain. It must be confessed, however, that if it were not
supposed to be so obvious a historical fact, Mr. Newman takes
good care to give the church sufficient power to enforce it. For
he says, — " Not only is the church catholic bound to teach the
truth, but she is ever divinely guided to teach it; her witness of
the christian faith is a matter of promise as well as of duty ; her
discernment of it is secured by a heavenly as well as a human
rule. She is indefectible in it, and therefore not only has au
thority to enforce, but is of authority in declaring it 
that doctrine, which is true, considered as an historical fact, is
true also because she teaches it." (pp. 225, 6.)
Here, as is clear, the doctrine that the church is an infallible
guide in matters of faith, is very distinctly laid down, and Mr.
Newman, commenting upon 1 Tim. iii. 15 ; Eph. iv. 11 — 14; Isa.

44 DOCTRINE or the TRACTATORS.
lix. 21 ; and observing that these texts " are considered by the
Romanist to prove the infallibility of the church in all matters of
faith and general morals," adds,— "They certainly will bear so to
be interpreted, it cannot be denied : and if this be so, why, it may
be asked, do we not interpret them as the Romanists do?" (pp.
231,2;) to which, he replies, that the church, from her "mis
conduct," " may have forfeited in a measure her original privi
leges." (p. 235.) " We shall find, I think, in the New Testament,
that the promise to her was suspended, more or less, upon a con
dition which for many centuries she has actually broken. This
condition is unity." (p. 236.) Accordingly he limits her infalli
bility to the fundamental points of faith, holding that "the
antient church will be our model in all matters of doctrine, till
it broke up into portions, and for catholic agreement substituted
peculiar and local opinions; but that, since that time, the church
has possessed no fuller measure of the truth than we see it has at
this day; viz. merely the fundamental faith;" (p. 241 ;) and to
that extent he ascribes to her permanent infallibility. "Both
we and Romanists," he says, " hold that the church catholic is
unerring in its declarations of faith or saving doctrine." (p. 252.
See also p. 232.)
Strange to say, he proceeds to point out two passages in our
received formularies as bearing out this doctrine. "First, in the
20th Article we are told that the church has 'authority in con
troversies of faith.' Now these words certainly do not merely
mean that she has authority to enforce such doctrines as can his
torically be proved to be apostolical. They do not speak of
her power of enforcing truth, or of her power of enforcing at all,
but say that she has 'authority in controversies ;' whereas, if this
authority depended on the mere knowledge of an historical fact,
and much more if only on her persuasion in a matter of opinion,
any individual of competent information has the same in his place
and degree. The church, then, according to this Article, has a
power which individuals have not; a power, not merely as the
ruling principle of a society, to admit and reject members, not
simply a power of imposing tests, but simply ' authority in
controversies of faith.' But how can she have this authority
unless she be certainly true in her declarations? She can
have no authority in declaring a lie." (pp. 226, 7.) The sum total
of which reasoning — if reasoning it can be called — amounts to
this, that there can be no authority where there is a liability to
error, a doctrine which needs no further refutation than a clear
statement of it. " Our reception of the Athanasian Creed," it is
added, "is another proof of our holding the infallibility of the
church, as some of our divines express it, in matters of saving
faith. In that creed it is unhesitatingly said, that certain doc-

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. 45
trines are necessary to be believed in order to salvation; they
are minutely and precisely described ; no room is left for private
judgment ; no7ie for any examination into Scripture, with the
view of discovering them." (p. 227.) Now does Mr. Newman
really see no difference between the church as represented by
a body of her pastors bearing her testimony to what she be
lieves to be the truth, and to her belief in the fatal nature of cer
tain errors; and moreover using her authority as it respects
terms of communion in support of the plain truths of Scripture;
and her claiming to be an infallible guide ? Strange indeed is it,
if he does not; though, certainly, when coupled with another of
his remarks, one may cease to feel surprised at it. " They [i. e.
the multitude of Protestants," he says,] consider every man his own
judge ; they hold that every man may and must read Scripture
for himself, and judge about its meaning, and make up his mind
for himself; nay is, as regards himself, and practically, an infal
lible judge of its meaning; — infallible, certainly, for were the
whole new creation against him .... yet according to the popu
lar doctrine, though he was aware of this, he ought ultimately
to rest in his own interpretations of Scripture, and to follow his
private judgment." (pp. 319, 20.) So that forsooth, when a man
claims to decide for himself what is the meaning of God's message
to him, he is said tO' claim infallibility.
It must be observed, however, in order to obtain a clear view
of Mr. Newman's doctrine on this subject, that he considers the
church herself to be not a judge but a witness of the sense of
Scripture ; he does not consider the church herself to have
authority to judge of the sense of Scripture, but only to be a
witness of what catholic tradition delivers as the sense of Scrip
ture. Catholic tradition is to the church herself the authorita
tive interpreter of Scripture. " The church is not a judge of the
sense of Scripture in the common sense of the word, but a witness.
Ii, indeed, the word judge be taken to mean what it means in the
courts of law, one vested with authority to declare the received
appointments and usages of the realm, and with power to enforce
them, then the church is a judge — but not of Scripture, but of
Tradition. . . . We consider the church as a witness, a keeper
and witness of Catholic tradition, and in this sense invested with
authority, just as in political matters an ambassador possessed of
instructions from his Government would speak with authority.
[Catholic tradition, therefore, bears to the church the same rela
tion as a Government to its ambassador'\  She bears
witness to a fact, that such and such a doctrine, or such a sense
of Scripture, has ever been received and came from the apostles ;
the proof of this lies first in her own unanimity throughout
her various branches, next in the writings of ihe antient

46 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS.
Fathers : and she acts upon this her witness as the Executive
does in civil matters, and is responsible for it ; but she does not
undertake of herself to determine the sense of Scripture, she has
no immediate power over it, she but alleges and submits to what
is antient and catholic  We consider antiquity and catholi
city to be the real guides, and the church their organ." (pp. 320
— 322.) So that, in fact, the office of the church is authoritative
ly to promulge the interpretation of Scripture given by catholic
tradition, and she is divinely guided to tell us truly and infallibly
in the fundamentals of faith, what that interpretation is. The
Bible, therefore, is to the church herself a very secondary book,
for she can receive its truths only as they are doled out to her by
the tradition of preceding ages. "Catholic tradition" being tbe
unwritten word of God, and therefore entitled to equal respect
with the Scriptures, and moreover the authoritative interpreter
of the meaning of the Scriptures, and containing a full revelation
of the doctrines of the faith, which in Scriptures are only indirect
ly and obscurely noticed, it is of course much more valuable than
the Scriptures. And the first " proof" that the testimony of" the
church" as to the witness of apostolical tradition is correct is,
" her own unanimity throughout her various branches. " "Now
<'the church" is made up of these branches, and cannot speak at
all but through their unanimity, and therefore this amounts to
saying that the first " proof" that her testimony is correct is that
she bears that testimony. And, in fact, though "tradition"
should fail her, she would be "almost infallible," Mr. Newman
thinks, for he says, — " the church truly may be said almost in
fallibly to interpret Scripture, though, from the possession of past
tradition, and amid the divisions of the time present, perhaps at
no period in the course of the dispensation has she had tbe need
and the opportunity of interpreting it for herself." ' .... Such
interpretations " the church has never attempted." (p. 190.) It
is some comfort, however, for her lo know, that if any thing should
oblige her to attempt it, she will be " almost infallible."
The church, therefore, being thus vested with authority to
declare and enforce that catholic tradition which is the authorita
tive interpreter of Scripture, is to be viewed herself as, with re
spect to us, the authoritative interpreter of Scripture. " We do
not," says Mr. Newman, " set up the church against Scripture, — •
but we make her the keeper and interpeter of Scripture."
(p. 228.) And "if we inquire the ground of this authority in
the church," it is " that she speaks merely as the organ of the
catholic voice," the organ of catholic tradition ; (p. 227 :) and in
fundamentals is to be viewed, as we have seen, as infallible in
her decrees.

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. 47
After these statements, the reader will of course not be sur
prised at finding that the Protestant doctrine of the right of
private judgment is absolutely offensive to him. In immaterial
points, indeed, he would allow the right, provided that it was
silently exercised ; but that it should be exercised upon points
upon which our salvation depends, that is quite out of the
question. "By the right of private judgement," he says, "in matters of
religious belief and practice, is meant the prerogative, considered
to belong to each individual Christian, of ascertaining and decid
ing for himself from Scripture what is gospel truth, and what is
not." (p. 152.)
This principle is, in Mr. Newman's view, most pernicious.
He calls it " that mischievous, but very popular principle among
us, that in serious matters we may interpret Scriplure by pri
vate judgment." (p. 218.) " If the church," he says, " does not
claim any gift of interpretation for herself in the high points in
question, [i. e. the fundamentals of the faith,] much less does she
allow individuals to pretend to it. Explicit as our articles are in
asserting that the doctrines of faith are contained and must be
pointed out in Scripture, yet they give no hint that private per
sons may presume to search Scripture independently of external
help, and to determine for themselves what is saving, [in other
words, presume to obey the direct injunctions of the first Homily.]
The church has a prior claim to do so, but even the church as
serts it not, but hands over the office to catholic antiquity. In
ivhat our Articles say of Holy Scripture as the document of
proof, exclusive reference is had to teaching. It is not said
that individuals are to infer the faith, but that the church is to
prove it from Scripture; not that individuals are to learn it, bnt
are to be taught it." (pp. 323, 4.) So that individuals are not
even to make Scripture the document of proof; it is not for (hem
even (o test what " tradition," or " the church," may say, by
Scripture: no, " let this maxim," it is said, "belaid down con
cerning all that the church catholic holds, to the full extent of
her prophetical tradition, that her members must either believe
or silently acquiesce in the ichole of it." (p. 303) ; aye, so much
so, that " ivhen the sense qf Scripture, as interpreted by rea
son, is contrary to the sense given to it by catholic antiquity,
we ought to side with the latter." (p. 160.)
Now, I must say, that it appears to me a very wise precau
tion on the part of the Romanists, holding similar views to these,
to interdict the general use of the Scriptures, and only to give
permission to a few whom they can trust to read them ; for if our
faith is thus to be grounded on the authority of the church, and
not upon what appears to us to be the meaning of the Holy

48 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS.
Scriptures, it is a pity to give men generally an opportunity of
consulting them, lest they should happen to think, as some assur
edly will think, that their meaning, even in some important
points, is not precisely what their church tells them that it is ;
especially if they are so " obscure," and contain only " hints"
and " notices" of even the fundamental points of the faith. And
how near Mr. Newman has got to this view of the matter may
be judged from the following sentence : — " By the right of pri
vate judgment is meant, not that all must,hvX that all may search
Scripture, and determine or prove their creed from it : that is,
provided they are duly QUALIFIED, for I suppose this is
always implied, though persons may differ what the qualifica
tions are." (p. 174.)
In " serious matters," then, the right of private judgment is
altogether denied, and our faith is to rest not upon Scripture,
(except as far as we may happen to think that what the church
delivers as catholic tradition gives the true meaning of Scripture,)
but upon that which the church delivers to us as catholic tradi
tion, or rather upon the church, as one infallibly guided to direct
us aright in Aindamentals.
The right of private judgment is confined to " matters of in
ferior moment." " In matters of inferior moment," says Mr. New
man, " both the church and the individual have room to exercise
their own powers; the individual to judge for himself, and the
church to give her judgment as one that hath obtained mercy of
the Lord to be faithful ; and that for this simple reason, either
that Scripture or tradition is obscure, indeterminate, or silent."
(p. 325.) " The church enforces a fact — apostolical tradition —
as the doctrinal key to Scripture, and private judgment expa
tiates beyond the limits of that tradition." (p. 225.) We hold
"thatthe church has authority, and that individuals may judge
for themselves outside the range of that authority." (p. 320.)
But in such matters (and so far 1 quite agree with him) "it is
pious to sacrifice our own opinion to that of the church," and
" we must avoid causing any disturbance." (p. 161.)
Catholic tradition, however, being considered a divine infor
mant, this right of private judgment cannot of course be considered
to extend to those matters even of inferior moment to which that
tradition is supposed to bear witness.
Now, after attributing so much to the authority of " the catho
hc church," making her infalHble in all fundamental points of
faith, and requiring absolute submission to her authority in such
points, and the suspension of all private judgment upon them, it
might reasonably be expected that Mr. Newman should tell us
how we may learn what this church says. He allows this, and
remarks, " You speak, it may be urged against me, of the church

doctrine of the tractators. 49
catholic, of the church's teaching, and of obedience to the church.
What is meant by the church catholic at this day? Where is
she? What are her local instruments and organs? How does
she speak? When and where does she teach, forbid, command,
censure ? How can she be said to utter one and the same doc
trine every where, when we are at war with all the rest of Chris
tendom, and not at peace at home ?" (p. 310.) What then is
his reply ? It is as follows : — " Whatever truth there is in these
remarks, still I cannot allow that what I have been above
drawing out is therefore a mere tale qf other times, when
addressed to those who are really bent on serving God as well as
they can, and who consult what is most likely to please him.
The very difficulty of applying it will be a test, whether we ear
nestly desire to do his will or not." (p. 311.)
In other words, he candidly confesses that after all he cannot
tell who constitute "the catholic church." Having led us into
the wood with a promise that we should there find an infallible
guide in all fundamental points, he fairly confesses that he knows
not where or what he is, intimating withal, as we shall see pre
sently, what is a tolerably clear proof that to mortal eyes he may
be indiscernible. Can he be surprised that the reply of many is.
We have got an infallible guide already, given ns by God himself,
and with that we are contented until you can distinctly point out
to us another of whom you can produce equal evidence that he
comes from God.
The church indeed, as consisting of " the blessed company of
all faithful people," must no doubt be always orthodox in the
fundamentals of the faith. But how is the voice of that church
to be heard ? Where are its declarations and decrees to be
found? And Mr. Newman admits that "the promise that the
word of truth should not depart out of the mouth of the church
. . . might be satisfied .... though this were all, which many
think to be its highest meaning, that there should always be in
the church some true believers" (p. 234) ; i. e. he admits that the
true church may consist of a select body of believers scattered
throughout the nominal church, so that the voice of (he legisla
tive part of the church may be any thing but the voice of the
true church, i. e. the sound part of the professing church. For
instance, the voice of the Romish church on the doctrine of justi
fication,, as heard at Trent, may be any thing but tbe voice of
that portion of the true catholic church which we may hope is to
be found within the Romish church ; and so may it be in the case
of any' other part of the nominal catholic church. And what is ,
true in this respect, in the case of each part taken separately,
will be true of the whole viewed as a whole.
Nevertheless, though he is unable to inform us who constitute
VOL. I. E

50 doctrine of the tractators.
" the catholic church," viewed as an infallible guide, and whether
it may not after all be a scattered body of individuals not tracea
ble as a body by the eyes of men, yet he cannot persuade him
self, as he ingenuously confesses, to give up his view as one not
reducible to practice, and therefore proceeds to assert a claim in
favour of our own church being considered by " Anglicans" as
the representative of that church, and entitled to the same obedi
ence. " To follow the churchm this day is to follow the Prayer-
book." (p. 313. — See the whole of pp. 310 — 17.) Now, in all
the expressions of respect, veneration, and attachment which he
applies to our church, I most cordially agree. Were it his object
to recommend that church to the affections of the nation as a
holy, scriptural, catholic, and apostolical church, and to warn
the sects that have departed from her communion of the guilt of
separation for matters confessedly not affecting the fundamentals
of the faith — were this, I say, his only object, most cordially
would I welcome his efforts. But when he places her upon an
eminence to which she has no rightful claim, and to which, not
withstanding the argument, may I not say puerile argument,
raised from her 20th Article, and adoption of the Athanasian
Creed, I will venture to say she offers no claim ; when, in her
name, he demands obedience to her as infallible in all fundamen
tal points of faith, and limits the right of private judgment to
points beyond the limits of what she receives as fundamental, then
surely it becomes those of her members who do not embrace such
doctrine, nor believe it to be hers, to raise their protest against
such, as it appears to them, dangerous delusions.
The difference between these views and those of the Romish
church is merely this, — that the Romish church, considering her
self to be " the catholic church," (so that she avoids the inconsis
tency of Mr. Newman, who makes what he acknowledges to be
but a part equivalent to the whole,) asserts that she is infallible
not merely in the fundamentals of the faith, but in all her deci
sions', and therefore limits the right of private judgment to those
points upon which she has not decided ; while Mr. Newman con
siders the church infallible only in the fundamentals, and there
fore seems to allow private judgment somewhat greater scope.
(See pp. 232, and 252, 3.) But even here, I suspect, the differ
ence is rather nominal than real. For he says, " The church
enforces a fact — apostolical tradition — as the doctrinal key to
Scripture, and private judgment expatiates beyond the limits of
that tradition." (p. 225.) Now he certainly does not limit that
" tradition" to the fundamental points ; and if not, this is tanta
mount to what Rome says, for she claims no power for the church
of adding to the faith once delivered by the apostles, but only of
" enforcing" the truths handed down by " apostolical tradition ;"

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. 51
3ind such tradition as is witnessed to in the writings of the Fathers.
Tbe difference, then, would be merely this. Rome says that the
¦church is infallible, through divine promise, in delivering all
points as much as in delivering the fundamentals of the faith. Mr.
Newman says that she is not infallible, except in the fundamen
tals, but, having an obvious historical fact, apostolical tradition,
to guide her, she cannot make a mistake. A very nice dis-
ftinction ¦!
The advancement of such claims in behalf of our church ap
pears to me calculated to do her essential disservice, and even to
alienate the affectiwis of many from her, if led to suppose that such
are her principles. In my humble view they are totally opposed
to her whole spirit and language.
Does she refer us to " tradition" as our teacher? So far from
it, that she says in her " Exhortation" to her members " to the
¦reading of Holy Scripture," — " Let us diligently search for the
well of life in the books of the New and Old Testament, and
not run to the stinking puddles of men's traditions, devised by
men's imagination, for our justification and salvation. For in.
Holy Scripture is fully contained what we ought to do and
what to eschew, what to believe, what to love, and what to look
for at God's hands at length." (Hom. 1.) Now, whatever may be
the traditions here referred to, I put it to the common sense of
any reader whether the direction here given to " search for ine
well of life in the books of the New and Old Testament. . . for
in Holy Scripture k fully contained what we ought to believe,"
&c., is consistent with the direction that we are to learn the faith
from " tradition," and make " tradition" a joint rule of faith with
Scripture. Does she hold that Scripture is so obscure that it needs " tra
dition" to interpret it? Nay^ she says, " The humble man may
search any truth boldly in the Scripture, without any danger of
error. And if he be ignorant, he ought the more to read and to
search Holy Scripture to bring him out of ignorance." Although
many things in Scripture be spoken in obscure mysteries, yet
there is nothing spoken under dark mysteries in one place, but the
self-same thing in other places is spoken riiore familiarly and
plainly to the capacity both of learned and unlearned. And those
things in the Scripture that he plain to understand and neces
sary for salvation, every man's duty is to learn them, to print
them in memory, and effectually to exercise them." (Hom. 1.)
Does -she claim obedience to herself as infallible in all the fun
damental points of faith, and forbid the exercise of private judg-
snent upon those points, demanding that they should be believed
tipon her interpretation of Scripture as the witness of catholic
itfaditbn ? What mean, then, her exhortations to her individual

52 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS.
members to "search for the well of life in the books of the Old
and New Testament?" &c. She makes, therefore, no such pre
sumptuous claim. Nay, more, she knows that she needs it not.
In the humble confidence that her doctrines are agreeable to the
written word of God, she exhorts her members to search for them
selves in the Scriptures, resting satisfied that God's children will
find her faith there.
But, on this point, that is, as to the views advocated by our
church on these matters, I shall have occasion to speak at large
in a future chapter.'
Mr. Newman, I allow, makes this claim for the Church of
England, on the ground of her having faithfully followed "catho
lic tradition." But, in the first place, this is a matter of opinion.
Romanists deny it. Some of our own sectaries deny it. This
cannot, therefore, be taken for granted, and those of us who are
unable to compare her views with those of the primitive church
are utterly unable to judge in the matter. Supposing it, how
ever, to be granted that antiquity preponderates in her favour,
which as a matter of private opinion we should have no hesi
tation in doing, then the question recurs, what is the value of the
patristical tradition we possess in any point ? Can we rate it
higher as a positive testimony than as affording a probable or
confirmatory argument for that which has been found in Scripture ?
^\i':h ?.re the views which we are required to receive as exhi
biting the doctrine of the Church of England upon these points,
though, with singular inconsistency, it is allowed that this middle
path, as it is called, " has never existed except on paper, it has
never been reduced to practice." (p. 20.) " To take, for instance,
the subject of private judgment; our theory here is neither Fro-
teitant nor F\.omf\n, and has never been realized." (p. 21.) "It
still remains to be tried whether what is called Anglicanism, the
religion of Andrews, Laud, Hammond, Butler, and Wilson, is ca
pable of being professed, acted on, and maintained on a large
sphere of action, and through a sufficient period." (p. 21.) " If
the English Church has the mission, hitherto unfulfilled, of re
presenting a theology Catholic but not Roman, here is an espe
cial reason why her members should be on the watch for oppor^
tunities of bringing out and carrying into effect its distinctive
character." (p. 24.) " The English, doctrine is not embodied in
any substantive form, or publicly recognised in its details." (p. 27.)
" The middle path adopted by the English Church .... has
never been realized in any religious community, and thereby
brought home to the mind through the senses." (pp. 153, 4.) Mr.
Newman, conscious apparently of this inconsistency, attempts to
give an explanation of it thus, — "That though Anglicanism, is
' See chap. xi.

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. 53
not practically reduced to system in its fulness, it does exist in all
its parts in the writings of our divines, and in good measure is
in actual operation, though with varying degrees of consistency
and completeness, in different places," (p. 28,) — which expla
nation I leave with the reader. He adds, that in points not de
termined by the Prayer-book, or Thirty-nine Articles, or " epis
copal authority," (the Homilies, be it observed, are carefully
excluded,) we "are not left to ourselves to determine as we
please, but have the guidance of our standard writers, and are
bound to consult them, nay, when they agree, to follow them,
but when they differ, to adjust or to choose between their opi
nions," (p. 29;) and to know which are our " standard writers," we
are to observe that " there have ever been three principal par
ties in the Church of England, the Apostolical, the Latitudinarian,
and the Puritan," (p. 23 ;) the apostolical being represented by
a few whom our opponents claim as agreeing with them, such as
Archbishop Laud and others, and the other two being "but mo
difications of Socinianism and Calvinism," (p. 23 ;) so that we have
only to throw overboard all those who differ from the school of
Laud, and the residue will represent the " apostolical" portion of
the divines of the Church of England, the " standard writers."
This process of elimination is doubtless very necessary to stamp
the doctrine of Mr. Newman with the character of Angli
canism. Nay, I believe and hope to prove in a subsequent chap
ter, that we must eliminate most of these apostolicals also, to get
at this result. And this process affords the shortest path imagi
nable to a conclusion, for no argument can be less complicated
than this, Those divines that take my view of the subject are the
apostolical portion of the divines of our church, the rest being
either Latudinarian or Puritan, and so " but modifications of So
cinianism and Calvinism," and therefore clearly my system of doc
trine is Anglicanism and the doctrine of the Church of England.
That the apostolical portion has never been able to get its views
acted upon in the church, is, 1 suppose, only a sad proof that du
ring the whole three centuries of its existence as a reformed
church, error has been triumphant, and therefore, in Mr. New
man's words, " is an especial reason why her members should be
on the watch for opportunities of bringing out and carrying into
effect" those views.
Thus Anglicanism and the doctrine of the Church of England
is not what has been generally and publicly professed and acted
upon by that church, but a theory existing (as it is supposed) in the
writings of some of her principal divines ; and the church is ar
raigned at Mr. Newman's bar for not having carried out this
theory, — a theory which, as a church, she never recognized, —
into practice. e*

54 DOCTRINE OP THE TRACTATORS.
The inconsistency and presumption of all this are truly extra
ordinary. Against such statements it is useless to argue, and therefore,
with these few remarks to commend them to the notice of the
reader, I leave them at his disposal.
Before we proceed, however, it is very necessary that we
should point the reader's attention fo a few passages in the works
to which we have referred above, calculated to show him the ab
solute necessity of caution and reserve in the perusal of them.
Those that are more closely connected with our subject I shall
notice hereafter in their appropriate place; but I will give a
few here, in order at once to show the reader (hat the statements
of the Tractators are not to be received with that implicit con
fidence which their triumphant tone and assumed intimate ac
quaintance and agreement with the Fathers and ecclesiastical
antiquity, and the divines of our church, seem to demand of us,
and that in fact they may make very strange mis-statements and
very extraordinary mistakes.
The first I would notice is one of considerable importance, and
lying at the foundation of the system, i. e. the interpretation of
that article of the Creed, " I believe in the Holy Catholic
Church." "Christians," says Mr. Newman, " have a demand
on their teachers for the meaning of the article of the Apostles'
Creed, which binds them to faith in ' the Holy Catholic Church,' "
(p. 7.) ; and consequently, to illustrate, as he thinks, that article,
the "main object" of his Lectures "is to furnish an approxi
mation in one or two points towards a correct theory of the duties
and office of the church catholic ;'' to direct attention to points
"connected v/'ith the pastoral office of the church." (pp. 8, 9:)
And his doctrine on this subject is, that Christians are bound to
exercise a " childlike reliance on" the church as " the guide
which is ordained by God to be ihe interpreter of his message."
(p. 307, and see whole of Lect. XI.) The meaning, therefore,
of this article of the Creed is evidently assumed to be, (as it has
been before interpreted by Romanists,) " I believe what the
Holy Catholic Church says," in accordance with the observation
already quoted from Dr. Pusey, that "we owe ... to the de
cisions of the church universal, faith;" and so iar. from any de
fence of this exposition being given, it is assumed as if it, were
universally acknowledged, and in one at least of the writers of
this party I recollect having seen the accusation that those who
opposed them could not believe one of the articles of the Creed !
Now, if Mr. Newman and his party will just turn to that Exposi
tion of the Creed which has been so sanctioned in our church as
to be, I might almost say, of a secondary degree of authority in

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. 55
it, they will find their whole edifice, so far, as it is built upon this
article of the Creed, to be utterly without foundation. " When
I say [says Bishop Pearson] 'I believe in the Holy Catholic
Church,' I mean that there is a ^hurch which is holy, and
which us catholic." " 'Credo sanctam ecclesiam,' / believe
there is a holy church ; or ' Credo in sanctam ecclesiam,' is the
same ; nor does the particle in, added or subtracted, make any
difference." And so our learned Dr. Chaloner, in his Treatise on this Arti
cle against the Romanists, expressly refutes the interpretation
given lo it by the Tractators, particularly " from the word ca//^o-
lic in the Creed, which by the Tridentine catechism's own con
fession, signifying the flock as well as the pastors, and excluding
no time, no persons, nor any condition of men, is not possible to
be seen, nor capable to be heard, nor able to be consulted with ;
and therefore, according to the sense which the church believes
in this place, it is absurd to conceive that these words, credo ec
clesiam, I believe that there is a church, should be equivalent
to these. Credo ecclesise, I yield faith and belief to the church."*
This is not the place to enlarge upon the point, but I cannot
help adding that in the confession of faith sent by Alexander,
bishop of Alexandria, in his letter to Alexander, bishop of Con
stantinople, respecting Arius, and which Mr. Keble himself tells
us is " evidently" " a paraphrase on the baptismal or apostolical
creed then in use at Alexandria,"^ this part of it runs thus: —
" And in addition to this orthodox faith {iva-ifiucc Jujii) respecting
the Father and the Son, as the Holy Scriptures teach us, we
confess (ofmXeyov fit)) one Holy Spirit, who renewed (to xximcrat)
both the holy men of the Old Testament,'' and the divine teach
ers of the New Testament, and one only catholic, namely the
apostolical, church [i. e. we confess'], that shall never be de
stroyed." "
And so indeed the most antient exposition of the Creed which
we have, namely that by Ruffinus, interprets it, — "Therefore
they who are taught above to believe in one God under the mys
tery of the Trinity, ought also to believe this, that there is one
holy church."^ ,
i think, then, I shall carry the reader with me when I say
that any writer who deals thus with an article of the Creed
1 Chaloner's Credo Sanctum Eccles. Cathol. ed. 1638. pp. 18, 19.
2 Serm. A pp. p. 123.
3 The reader will note this passage as applying to a statement of Dr. Pusey
and others on another subject.
1 Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. i. 3.
' Hi ergo qui supi'a in unum Deum credere docti sunt sub mysterio Trinitatis,
credere etiam hoc debent unam esse sanctam ecclesiam. Kuff. Expos, in Symb.
in art. " Sanctam Ecclesiam."

56 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. l
ought to be read with very considerable caution. The error
sought to be affixed to that Article is the very foundation of
our opponents' system, viz. that our faith is due not to Scripture,
but to what the decision of the universal church (a thing utterly
unattainable) pronounces to be the meaning of Scripture, and
lays down as the truth.
Another point, which it is impossible to pass over without no
tice, is the highly-coloured and exaggerated representation made
bv Mr. Newman of the views of what he calls popular Protes
tantism, i. e. Protestantism as it stands distinguished from his own
system. Of the extraordinary statements made on this head
Ivvill give the reader a specimen.
And, first, of the " Protestant sects," of whom he says, " After
whatever misgivings or reluctance, they seem to allow, or to be
in the way to allow, that truth is but matter of opinion ; that
that is truth to each which each thinks to be truth, provided he
sincerely and really thinks it; that the divinity of the' Bible
itself is the only thing that need be believed, and that its mean
ing varies with the individuals who receive it ; that it has no one
meaning to be ascertained as a matter of fact, but that it may
mean any thing, because it is said to mean so many\things."
[The very thing which Mr. Newman's own reasoning in many
places assumes.] (p. 35.) And accuses theni of an "adoption of
the latitudinarian notion that one creed is as good as another."
(p. 36.) Now, though I am not about to take up the defence of
the Protestant sects, I cannot but express the pain and regret
with which I read such sweeping misrepresentations of their
views. But they are not the only sufferers in this way, for in many
other similar statements a large proportion of the clergy and
members of the Church of England are evidently intended to be
included ; and the representation given of their views, under the
title of " Popular Protestantism," on this subject, are such fis
these, — " The external means of judging are such as Scripture,
the existing church, tradition, catholicity, learning, antiquity,
and the national faith. Popular Protestantism would deprive
us OF ALL THESE EXTERNAL MEANS, CXCCpt the tcXt of Holy Scrip-
ture." (p. 156.) "A widely-extended shape of Protestantism in
this country, and that which professes to be the most religious
of all, maintains that though Scripture may seem to mean any
thing in matters of faith to unassisted reason, yet that under the
guidance of divine illumination it speaks but one doctrine, and is
thus the instrument of the Holy Ghost in converting the soul.
Starting from this fundamental article, its advocates speak as
follows : — that Scripture is the only divine instrument given us,
that every thing else is human," &c. — (which, thank God, is very

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. 57
truCj but which is followed up by the following glaring misre
presentation ;)^ — "It follows, that to inquire about the early
church, the consent of Fathers, unbroken testimonies, or coun
cils, to inquire when the church first became corrupt, or to make
the primitive writers a comment upon the inspired text, are but
MELANCHOLY AND PERNICIOUS FOLLIES." (pp. 191, 2.) "The popu
lar theory oi rejecting all other helps, and reading the Bible
only." (p. 200.) And this in a country where commentaries and
biblical works, and all " helps" to the right interpretation of the
Bible, are sought after with avidity ! " In the English church
we shall hardly find ten or twenty neighbouring clergymen
who agree together, and that, not in the non-essentials of re
ligion, but as to. what are its elementary and necessary doc
trines ; or as to the fact whether there are any necessary
doctrines at all, any distinct and definite faith required for
salvation." (pp. 394, 5.) Again; " 1 trust that the foregoing
lectures have disposed us to take a more cheerful view of what
the Protestantism of the day considers a hardship. // considers
it a hardship to. have any: thing clearly and distinctly told it
in elucidation of Scripture doctrine, an infringement on its
right of doubting, and mistaking, and labouring in vain.
And the violent effort to keep itself in this state of ignorance
^this unnatural 'stopping of its-ears,' and ' throwing dust into
the air' after the pattern of those Jews who would not heai; the
voice of apostles and martyrs, — all this it dignifies by the title of
defending the sacred right of private judgment, calls it a holy
cause, a righteousbattle, and other large and senseless epithets.
But I trust that we have learned to glory in that which the
world [i. e. " the Protestantism of the day,"] calls a bondage.
We do boast and exult in bearing Christ's yoke, whether of faith
or of obedience, [which of course " the Protestantism of the
day" does not],; and we consider his creed not as a tyrannical
infliction, God forbid ! or a jealous test, [as of course " the Pro-
testantisnti of the day" does consider it] ; but as a glorious privi
lege, which we are ready to battle and to staffer for, yea much
rnore ready, so be it ! through his grace, than they for their low,
carnal, and despicable license to reject it." (pp. 284, 5.)
And thus the whole body of his opponents are held up to the
reader (according to the old artifice of the Romanists against the
Protestants) as nien that utterly despise the testimony of antiqui
ty and the Fathers; and because they refuse to receive patristi
cal tradition as a divine informant, are abused as persons who
think it a hardship to have Scripture clearly explained to them,
and look upon Christ's creed as a tyrannical infliction, and are
compared to those who stopped their ears when the apostles
were speaking.

58 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS.
On such statements as these it is quite unnecessary to offer a
remark, and therefore I will only say, that it is difficult to under-
s{and how Mr. Newman can suppose that they can have any
other effect with persons at all well informed on, the subject than
to recoil with tenfold force upon their author. One can hardly,
however, help remarking that Romish doctrines and Romish tac
tics generally go together.
I will give but one more extract in illustration of this point.
" How very extravagant is the opposite notion now so common,
that belief in the Bible is the sole or main condition for a man
being considered a Christian I how very unchristia7i the title by
which many men delight to designate themselves, turning good
words into bad, as Bible-christians ! We are all of us Bible-
christians in one sense; but the term as actually used is unchris
tian, for the following reason, — directly it is assumed that the
main condition of communion is the acceptance of the Bible as
the word of God, doctrines of whatever sort become of but
secondary importance." (p. 291.)
Now, I would ask Mr. Newman, as this doctrine — that the
mere acceptance of the Bible as the word of God, independently
of a consideration of th^ doctrines it may be held to support, is
the main condition for a man being considered a Christian, — is
" so common" among his opponents, to name a few worthy of
notice who hold this doctrine. If he cannot do so, he must be
content to be charged with a very grievous misrepresentation of
their views. The fact is, (as he can hardly but be aware,) that
the meaning of the great body of those who call themselves Bible-
christians is nothing of the kind, for they hold, as much as Mr.
Newman, that there are fundamental doctrines in Christianity,
a belief of which is necessary. But the term is used to distinguish
between those who hold that the Bible only is a divine informant,
and those who hold that there is another divine informant besides
the Bible. And thus the Romanists have made use of it as a
term of reproach for the Protestants, as holding that the Bible
alone is the rule of faith; a reproach which, Mr. Newman and
his party seem most desirous to show is inapplicable to them, but
which our excellent Archbishop Tenison will tell them ought to
be very differently met by us, and received not as a reproach
but an honour. " The faith of the reformed," says the Arch
bishop, "has by some of their adversaries of the Roman-persua
sion been called Biblism : and they themselves have had the
name of Biblists given to them. And those they look i^pon as
names of honour, though they were intended as marks of infamy by
the inventors of them : for it is both a safe U7id a worthy practice, to
take for their rule the Word of God rather than the word of man.
That was the rule which Christ left to his church, and the judicious

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. 59
and sincere Christians of all ages have governed themselves by it ; for
they have believed, as Athanasius did, ' That the Holy and Divine
Scriptures are of themselves sufficient for showing the truth.' " *
I hope, therefore, that we may still take leave to " delight in
the name" of Biblists and Bible-christians, as distinguishing us
from those who hold such doctrines as that advocated by the
Tractators; and that Mr. Newman will hesitate before he again
misrepresents as he has done those who do dettght in that name.
It is worthy of remark also, that while the mouths of individu
als arguing from the Bible are to be stopped, one who argues
from the testimony of " Tradition," or what appears to him to
be so, may raise his voice against the whole church. " We," it
is addedj " raake it every individual's prerogative to maintain and
defend the Creed . , . The humblest and meanest among Chris
tians may defend the faith against the whole church, if the need
arise ;" and the way in which this individual is to ascertain that
his interpretation of the Creed is right, is " to ascertain the fact
what is the meaning of the Creed in particular points, since mat
ter of opinion it is not, any more than the history of the rise and
spread of Christianity itself," as if the Creed was not open as
much to variety of interpretation as the Scripture. This surely
comes particularly unfortunately after such an exposition of an
article of the Creed as we have had to notice above by one who
is such an admirer and student of antiquity as Mr. Newman.
And how this doctrine is to be reconciled with his statements in
other parts respecting our duty to follow the church as the keeper
and witness of catholic tradition, is inconceivable.
It is very painful to have to deal with such mis-statements.
To expose their unfairness sufficiently without appearing to in
sinuate wilful misrepresentation, (which in this case I am far
from wishing to do,) is most difficult.
Does he really suppose that because some hot-headed and ill-
informed men may have chosen to talk nonsense, he is justified in
thus vituperating (for it is nothing less) that large body of his
brethren in the church, as well as those out of the church, who
oppose his views? Mr. Newman knows well the effect upon the
popular mind of such a representation of the views of an anta
gonist as shall lead them to conclude that he is in the extremes of
absurdity and fanaticism. But such statements savour much
more of party zeal and special pleading than of Christian can
dour and the upright defence of a good cause. He must be per
fectly conscious that his views are strenuously opposed by men to
whom the sentiments which he has here attributed to his oppo
nents would.be as objectionable as they can be to himself.
' Popery not founded on Scripture. London, 1688, 4to. Introduction, p. 5.
The Introduction was written by Tenison, the rest of the volume by others.

60 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS.
The same unfair mode of arguing is adopted by Mr. Keble,
though not certainly to the same extent. All his remarks fend
to make the reader suppose that those who oppose his viewoi
the value of "tradition," antiquity, and the Fathers, deny that
they have any value at all. Thus, after having observed, " We
love not to allow that in any sense we rest our faith and prac
tice upon tradition," he immediately adds, " and . . . objec
tions the most contradictory are brought to justify this oar de
termined disregard of antiquity ;" as if there was no medium
between " resting our faith and practice upon tradition," and a
" determined disregard of antiquity." (p. 39, and see similar re
marks, pp. 74, 87, &c.) Now this is a loose and ad captandum
style of argument which may deceive many readers, but to one
who looks for an accurate and judicious treatment of the subject,
it betrays a bias and prejudiced state of mind Very far from satis
factory. Take, also, the following instance: — "Our ultra-Protestant,"
says the author of Tract 81, "would consistently reject the doc
trine of the sacrifice, (as he would the rite of infant baptism,) be
cause there is no explicit authority for it in Holy Scripture, no
statement of it iotidem verbis; the Anglican divine must receive'
it as' the doctrine of the church catholic coinciding with hints of
Holy Scripture."'^
The writer of this was, or ought to have been, perfectly aware
that the persons to whom he applies the name of " Ultra-Protest
ants,'' do not hold the necessity of a statement of doctrine iotidem
verbis in Scripture, but that a doctrine should follow by neces
sary consequence from what is stated in Scripture. The reader
will also observe what in our opponent's view is the Anglican
doctrine on this subject, namely, that we are bound to receive as
" the doctrine of tlie church catholic," whatever is stated by
certain Fathers, and has " hints" of Holy Scripture in its favour.
But in truth there is a great deal of haste (to use no harsher
term) displayed by our opponents in more than one respect in
their endeavours to propagate their views, which has led to very
much and very grievous misrepresentation of the sentiments, not
only of those whom they oppose, bnt of those whom they would
fain make the reader think are their friends, that is, the great
majority of our best divines, — a misrepresentation which has
been the mainstay of their cause. Men who have in the most
clear, explicit and direct terms opposed the view they advocate,
are coolly and deliberately quoted by them as the supporters of
their scheme, even in the very works in which it is repudiated.
To give but one instance. They themselves refer to the famous
'TractSl, pp. 28, 9.

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. 61
rule of Vincentius as the groundwork of their scheme on the
subject of " tradition," niaking that rule the certain test of truth,
and endeavouring to persuade us that thus it had been considered
by all our great English divines ; referring, among others, to the
learned Bishop Stillingfleet, especially his work on " The Grounds
of Protestant Rehgion," who in that very work says, — " Wise
men who have thoroughly considered of Vincentius his way,
though in general they cannot but approve of it so far as to think
it highlyimprobable, that there should be antiquity, universality,
and consent, against the true and genuine sense of Scripture, yet
when they consider this way of Vincentius, with all those cautions,
restrictions and limitations set down by him, (1. 1. c. 39,) they
are apt to think that he hath put men to a wild-goose chase to
FIND OUT ANY THING ACCORDING TO HIS RULES ; and that St. Au-
gustine spake a great deal more to ihe purpose when he spake
concerning all the writers of the church, ' that although they
had never so much learning and sanctity he did not think it
true because they thought so, but because they persuaded him
to believe it true, either from the authority of Scripture or
some probable reason." (p. 279, ed. 1665.) And in another
part, he shows " how little certainty" there is " in his way of
finding out traditions." (p. 247i) Now this rule is put forth by
our opponents as the test of " apostolical tradition," and that
which is supposed to stand this test is a divine informant, having
authority over our consciences as supplementary to, and interpre
tative of Scripture, and of this view Bishop Stillingfleet is conti
nually quoted as the supporter, even from the very work from
which we have given the above extracts.
Other instances of this the reader shall have in abundance
hereafter. Further, let us inquire how far their accuracy may be relied
upon in their statements respecting antiquity and the views and
doctrines of the Fathers, where the reader might suppose from
the tone they have assumed, that their knowledge was of the
most perfect kind, and that their statements were the result of long
study and intimate acquaintance with the records of antiquity.
What does the reader think of the following passage? —
" The baptismal confessions recorded in the Acts are of this na
ture, ' I believe that .Tesus is the Son of God,' — ' I believe in Je
sus Christ,' and the like. But this elementary confession, thus
brief and incomplete as far as the express words went, seems
even before ihe Apostles' death to have been expanded and
moulded into form, and in thai form or type ii has remain
ed up to this day in the baptismal service. I say ihis was
done in the apostles' days, because history bears witness to the
fact, calling it ' the Creed,' ' the Apostles' Creed,' the treasure
vol. I. F

62 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS.
and legacy of faith which the apostles had left to their converts,
and which was to be pieserved in the church to the end. Indeed,
St. Paul, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, sospeaks of it, when
quoting part of it, viz. as that which had been committed to him,
and which he had committed in turn to his converts, (1 Cor. xv.
3.)" (pp. 260, 261.) This brief mode of settling every thing is quite
amusing. The Creed which we now have was certainly put
into its present form by the apostles, /or some writers who lived
Jong after (for that is all the testimony we have) call it the Apos
tles' Creed, and if this be not a sufficient proof, remember St.
Paul himself has quoted it in 1 Cor. xv. 3, though he does not
say so.
Such a statement as this at the present day is really extraor
dinary ; more especially from one who professes an intimate ac
quaintance with antiquity. But it is merely an echo of the state
ments of some Romish writers; and statements, be it remembered,
which are repudiated by the more learned members even of that
church. On this point, however, we shall have to speak at large
in another place, to which therefore I refer the reader. (See
c. 4." Let us now see how far we may depend upon the correctness
of their quotations from the Fathers. It is a favourite observa
tion with Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble, that " Tradition teaches.
Scripture proves." On the correctness or incorrectness of this
observation I say nothing here. My only concern now is with
the following quotation from Athanasius introduced in proof of it.
"Athanasius," says Mr. Newman, "in the following passage, dis
tinguishes between Tradition as teaching, and Scripture as prov
ing, verifying doctrine. ' Our faith is correct, and is derived from
Apostolical teaching and the Tradition of the Fathers, being es
tablished out of the New and Old Testaments.' (Ad Adelph. §.
6.)" (p. 385.) Mr. Keble, still more boldly shaping the passage
to his own mind, says, — " St. Athanasius more than once men
tions a certain ' form or stamp of the faith of a Christian,' by re
currence to which doctrines may be best tried, and heresy re
pressed ; and this form or stamp, he says, we receive by tra
dition, but are able to demonstrate it by the Scriptures.
Ep. ad Adelph. tom. i. 914, E. ;" adding joaW of the sentence in
the original, (p. 124.) And in the next page he gives us this
translation of the portion he refers to, — " ' To us belongs the
right faith, setting out from ihe apostolical teaching and tra
dition of the Fathers, and confirmed both by the New and Old
Testament.' Could he have said more clearly, 'Tradition teaches,
Scripture proves ?' " (p. 125.)
Now this passage with its context stands thus ;— Hft«» ^i i
9r'<rTii 10-719 i tfln, x«( s» <?(J«(rx<«>/«5 Aa-oo-ToAwy (or, Aa-ec-ToAixus) of/xa-

DOCTRINE or THE TRACTATORS. 63
fttn ««( Tsep«S()P£«5 ran »-«Tipa» jiijistiovfiiiri I* « ting tcai n»X»iitt 3(«-
ilKl!' T-av ftit ?rpaip-,jT«» Xtytnar ATtoTTiiXoi Ton Atyoi rm x»i tii» «Aj)^ei«»
ffiiw* XXI last; li ncCfhtm^ ev yx^tft i^ii  iJ 3s An-so-^sAivr 'Xa.ia-
earris oiieiTKei, T»» ;«s» Tlitfov \tyttrOi' XfurTf ovi vTep yifiui VaStyTtg
e-ctfxt [1 Pet. iv. 1.] TOU Js n«tiAow y^«^«»T0{, npi)e'£?s;^«i«s»«( T))» |««j;«pue»
sA7r<5« .... [Tit. ii. 13.]. Ep. ad Adelph.
I give the portion of this passage, quoted by Mr. Newman and
Mr. Keble, stopped as in the editions preceding the Benedictine
and supported by the authority of the learned Peter Nannius, a
Roman Catholic Professor at Louvain,* I translate it thus, —
" But our faith is the orthodox faith, both taking its rise from the
teaching of the Apostles, and confirmed by the tradition of the
Fathers, derived both from the New and Old Testament ; the
prophets saying. Send out thy Word and thy Truth, and, Behold
a virgin shall be with child, &c. ; and the tradition of the apos
tles teaches us, Peter saying, 'Christ therefore having suffered
for us in the flesh,' and Paul writing, ' Looking for that blessed
hope, &c.' "
This passage, however, the Benedictine editors have stopped
so as to make it, if possible, speak the views of Romanism, by
inserting a comma after Trxti^m, and thus connecting jSt/Saievfuvti
with what follows, and translating the passage according to this
punctuation. Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble have followed in
their wake ; the latter having even gone so far as to translate the
passage, " the apostolical teaching and tradition of the
feathers," as if it referred to the apostolical teaching of the
Fathers, a translation which the very position of the words whol
ly forbids. Indeed I do not believe that they can point out any
passage in the Fathers in which the words, " the teaching of the
.apostles," or " the apostolical teaching," are put for the report
we deriveof that teaching from the Fathers. Now whether the
new Benedictine punctuation be correct or not, it is unnecessary
here to inquire, though it seems to me quite inconsistent with the
construction of the sentence. It is sufficient to observe, that the
immediate context shows what Athanasius means by " the teach
ing of the apostles," y\z. that which "the tradition of the
apostles teaches us," in their ivritings, the very passages from
Peter and Paul to which he refers as " the tradition oi the
apostles" being pointed out ; and therefore that the sense put upon
his words by Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble is far from what he
Intended. But it is an old quotation of the Romanists against us,
•from whom our opponents appear to have borrowed it without
«ven consulting the context. " ¦
.' Nostra contra fides recta est, et ex doctrina Apostolica et traditione Patrum
confirmata, et Novo et Veteri Testamento, cum et Prophetss clamant, &c. See
edition of Athanasius, published. Colon. 1686. vol. i. p. 159.
2 The passage, according to the old punctuation, is precisely accordant with

64 DOCTRINE or THE TRACTATORS.
The observation of Mr. Keble as to a certain form or stamp
of faith being here referred to, and said to be received by tradi
tion, is perfectly unaccountable, for neither in the passage or the
context is there any thing of the kind, and not the less remarka
ble from his placing a few loords of the Greek original at the
foot of his page, as if he had really found his assertion in the
original. Indeed Mr. Keble himself, referring to the same pas
sage in the next page, tells us that the terms in question do not
occur there. But unfortunately, again forgetting this, he in the
following page recurs to his first assertion as correct, and makes
it of considerable use to his argument, observing, " This same
' form of the faith,' /or which as we have seen Athanasius looked
to tradition, he affirms elsewhere to have been," &c. (p. 126.)
Poor Athanasius ! This is indeed hard treatment of one who
in every page with laborious reiteration refers to Scripture as
that from which every individual is to satisfy himself of the truth.
It is quite astonishing, indeed, how any one at all acquainted with
the works of Athanasius can suppose that he is adducible in
favour of the views advanced by Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble.
The reader will observe that in this passage of Athanasius the
Scriptures of the apostles are called " the tradition of the apos
tles." The word tradition is constantly used by the Fathers in
this sense, i. e. as significative of the Scriptures, and this, as may
be supposed, has given rise to many perversions of their meaning,
which makes it very necessary for us to be on our guard against
being misled by scraps selected from their writings, in which the
word tradition occurs, and whicl^ are adduced in proof of the
value of ecclesiastical tradition, when in fact they are applicable
only to the Scriptural tradition.
Thus Athanasius says, — " He that abides by the traditions
(t«i5 Ttxpix.'^tiieiin,) is Safe. And we exhort you, as we exhort our
selves, to preserve the faith that has been delivered to us, (tdw
irK^xiohio-civ ¦TTiTTn, the traditional faith.") What a strong passage,
it might be said, in favour of tradition ! And thus it has been
the view we defend, for that " the tradition of the Fathers" is a confirmatory ar
gument for the truth of a doctrine derived from Scripture is what we maintain,
and this is all for which this passage could be adduced. I would just observe
also, that the word TrxTifm is sometimes used for the writers of the Old Testament,
a sense which would well suit the construction of this sentence. It is so used by
Hyppolytus the Martyr, who, speaking of the prophets, says, outo/ yxp mmfiXTt
Tp^tiTiKO! w vxTif'-; KaTnfriir/xivci. (De Antichristo, |. 2. Op. ed. Fabr. 1716 — 18.
vol. i. p. 5.) The word is also used in a very similar sense, i. e. of the writers
of the Holy Scriptures generally, by Cyril of Alexandria, who speaks of those
writings as, at rm ayim ¦xxripasi cruyypxtfxi. (De S. Trin. Dial. 1. Op. Tom. 5. P.
1. p. 388.) And by Cyril of Jerusalem, Aoimv S'i u; tic 6«a5 ypx^xc !Tc<v6\8»|K»-j
X.XI mvafiiv iixTX, xxa Kfunifm ayytim, xyim vxtwwi. Cat. 16. §. 5. ed. Milles. jj.
228.

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. 65
quoted by the Romanists. But when we take it with its context,
we find that nothing is less meant than patristical tradition. It
is the tradition of Scripture, which alone is referred to, and the
expression " the traditions," as thus applied, shows that the term
was more especially descriptive of Scripture.
The whole passage stands thus, — " For things great and diffi
cult of apprehension are received by faith in God. Whence they
who have weak intellects fall away, unless they should be per
suaded to abide in the faith, and avoid idle questions. Where
fore the blessed Paul said, ' Without controversy great is the
mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh,' &c. Since
therefore we have heard that some among you are troubled, and
desire letters from us concerning the common faith, which was
introduced by the apostles, we write, that to search curiously
into it is the duty of few, but to hold the faith, of all who would
obey God  For he who searches into things which are
above his ability is in imminent danger, but he who abides by the
traditions is safe. And we exhort you, as we exhort ourselves,
to keep the faith that has been delivered to us, and to turn
away from profane novelties of speech, and to enjoin this upon
all, that they should fear to institute curious inquiries respecting
so great a mystery, and confess that God has been manifest in
the flesh according to the apostolical tradition (tii» kito^rtoXixn,
vccpstioa-iy)." De incam. Verbi Dei, init.
The whole passage is well worthy of notice, not only as show
ing the patristical use of the word tradition, but also as showing
the different view which Athanasius took of the use of Scripture
to that which Mr. Newman advocates. The sum and substance
of this passage is, that it is the duty of the man of weak intellect
to go to Scripture, the scriptural tradition, and keep the faith as
there delivered to us.
There is also another passage where both Mr. Newman and
Mr. Keble have allowed themselves to follow an alteration slip
ped without notice into the punctuation of the text of Athana
sius by the Benedictine Editors, where the sense is materially
changed in favour of Romish doctrine, and, moreover, the con
struction of the sentence unwarrantably tampered with. The
passage is in the letter toEpictetus, and relates to those who were
propagating the Apollinarian heresy, and is thus translated by
Mr. Newman, *' They ought to receive this answer and nothing
beyond, ' It is enough that these are not the doctrines of the
church nor of the Fathers.' " (p. 387.) Mr. Keble's translation
is in effect precisely the same. (p. 128.) And then the passage
is adduced as a proof of the sufficiency of church-tradition to
satisfy the mind of the truth of a doctrine.
Now the passage as it stands in all the editions preceding the

66 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS.
Benedictine reads thus; — T« Y»f ivru (pxiifui hiicyvfii>x ipat-Aa,
yw|«»«^s<» tTTi srAeiov xai ?rsp(8fiy«^65-««( tv ^si, iva fM roig qiiXioiuxovirii ai
afi(pifiiiX» vouto-lti' « TOfTO fi'vov ccTreKfivao-Sxi !rp«; t« toixvtcc, xcci 'liTTUv
ccfxii, oTi evx ta-Tt ravTx Til; THahMKr.i S.xxXv'rletg, ouh ra,vr» h 7C»Ti(ei
Kpfovmrai.^ i. e. " For doctrines which are so manifestly unsound
it is not right to expose more to view and make much of, lest
they should be considered by men who love to dispute as doubt
ful points; or [i. e. or if you argue at all against them] it is suffi
cient to give this answer only to such things, and to say, that these
are not the doctrines of the catholic church, nor was this the
mind of the Fathers."
Athanasius here very wisely no doubt advises the bishop to
whom he was writing, not to hold disputes with those under him
concerning doctrines manifestly heretical, lest they should be
thought debateable points, but to say at once, These are not the
doctrines of the catholic church, and, therefore, I cannot allow
them to be publicly disputed about by those who are in the com
munion of the church. But the Benedictine Editors by silently
altering the punctuation thus, xxi uauv Apxei hi x. t. x. (leaving
no verb, be it observed, to the infinitives »Ti>y.fim<rScti and »/ws<v)
have thought to make Athanasius advise the bishop to tell the
heretics with whom he had to deal, that this was a sufficient
proof against their doctrine, that it was not the true doctrine.
This emendation of the punctuation of Athanasius^ Mr. New
man and Mr. Keble have implicitly followed, and from it deduce
a sentiment completely opposite to the whole tenor of his writings.
I do not charge them with any unfairness in this, because they
were probably not aware of the alteration, but it shows the ne
cessity of narrowly examining their quotations. And I must be
allowed to add, that there is another part of the same quotation
where it is not quite so easy to acquit them of partiality in their
translation. Why does Mr. Newman translate the words tijb
tvo-ijiyi Ts-irtiv, "the reverent faith of the church ?" (p. 386.) And
Mr. Keble, " the Creed of the true religion ?" (p. 127.) Why
this partial translation to suit their own peculiar views? The
words are merely " the orthodox faith." Mr. Keble's rendering,
moreover, is peculiarly unfortunate, implying that the heretics
were to be silenced by " the Creed," when ifl the words immedi
ately preceding it is stated, that the heretics in question boasted
of their adherence to the Nicene Creed. Nor is there any reason
why the words " the orthodox faith" here should not mean the
same as " the faith that has been delivered to us" in the last pas
sage, where the words had a direct reference to Scripture.
1 Epist. ad Epict. prope inil. ed. Col. 1686. tom. i, p. 584. See Ben. ed. tom.
i. p. 903.

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. 67
Further, what is the meaning of the phrase " the Fathers"
in this passage ? It refers exclusively to the Fathers assembled
at the Council of Nice, (as any reader of the context will see
at once, and as the phrase is often used both by Athanasius and
others,) to whose sentiments Athanasius refers as sufficient for the
occasion, because the church in which these disputes were, and
indeed the disputants themselves, professed to receive their
Creed ; just as in the Church of England it would be a sufficient
answer for a private bishop to mal^e to any disputants upon
points settled by the public confession of the church, to say, I
cannot allow these matters to be disputed about by you who
profess to be members of the church, as if they were debateable
points, when the church has already determined them and made
the reception of them essential to communion with her.
And hence we may observe, that even admitting the Benedic
tine punctuation, the passage is not necessarily favourable to the
views of our opponents ; because the sufficiency of the testimo
ny spoken of would refer not to its sufficiency for the establish
ment of the truth in the abstract, but to its sufficiency for the
termination of the disputes spoken of.
This passage, then, leaves the question between us and the
Tractators utterly untouched.
We have already observed,^ that the word tradition is fre
quently used by the Fathers to denote Scripture, sometimes alone,
but more frequently connected with some word descriptive of
its author. Thus the Scriptural tradition of the New Testament
is sometimes called the Apostolical tradition, which refers to
the Acts and Epistles of the New Testament, and sometimes the
Evangelical tradition, significative of the Gospels of the Evan
gelists, these two parts of the New Testament being generally
distinguished from each other by the early Fathers. On this sub
ject we shall have to speak more fully in another place, but I
just notice it again here partly in order to put the reader on his
guard on -so important a point, and partly as introductory to the
next passage to which I have to call his attention in the work of
Mr. Newman, — a passage which, coming as is does from one
who professes so intimate an acquaintance with the writings of
the Fathers, is indeed most strange. But it quite explains how
it is that he thinks the Fathers such defenders of " tradition."
The passage is as follows: — "He [i. e. Athanasius] concludes
with these words, in which the same distinction is made as has
already been pointed out between the tradition op the church
as an antecedent argument, a fair plea, ordinarily supersed-
mo INQUIRY, and, on the other hand, when for one reason or
• See pp. 18, 23 and 64.

68 doctrine of the tractators.
another the inquiry has proceeded. Scripture as the only basis of
sound argument and conclusion. ' I have written the above, be
loved, though really it was unnecessary, for the Evangelical tra
dition is sufficient by itself; but since you asked concerning our
faith, and because of those who are desirous of trifling with their
theories, and do not consider that he who speaks out of his pri
vate judgment speaks a lie, for neither the comeliness nor the glory
of the Lord's human body can be adequately expressed by the
vvit of man, but we speak so far as we are able, viz. confess
what has been done, as it is in Scripture, and to worship the true
and living God, for the glory and acknowledgment of his love
towards man,' &c. (Contr. Apollin. i. 9, 11, 22, fin.)" (p. 388.)
Mr. Newman, therefore, wouldhaveussuppose that the phrase
« 'S.va.yyi'Kixrj Trctpahiri!, the Evangelical tradition, means the
tradition of the church, and upon this extraordinary mistake
founds the observation that from this passage it is clear that
Athanashis thought that the tradition of the church is an ante
cedent argument ordinarily superseding inquiry. Ii, then,
it should turn out that " the Evangelical tradition" means Scrip
ture, why then, upon Mr. Newman's own showing, it is the opin
ion of Athanasius that Scripture is the antecedent argument
ordinarily superseding further inquiry.
Whatever "the Evangelical tradition" may be, it is clearly
the opinion of Athanasius, that it is "sdfficie.nt by itself"
(auTocpxn;) to teach the faith.
Now the fact is, that this phrase is a common phrase with the
Fathers for the Gospels, the tradition of the Evangelists, as
distinguished from the Acts and Epistles, which they call the
tradition of the Apostles or the Apostolical tradition.
Thus Gregory Nyssen ; — " But the argument from the inspired
volume upon the point in question each one may gather abundant^
ly from both Testaments. For many may easily be found in the
prophets and the law, and many both in the Evangelical and
Apostolical traditions," (ev ^vxyyiXixetlf te xai A^oa-TeXtKa.!; ¦nupx-
'inTi'!:). De Virg. c. xi. ed. Par. 1615. tom. p. 579.
So Cyril of Alexandria ; — " He would have them be gentle and
patient,according to the Evangelical traditions" (tk; E»«yyfAix«5
TrapaWn?.) In Isa. c. Ixvi. ver. 5.
Other examples occur in Socrates, Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 7 and
in Balsamon ad. Can. 6. Concil. Nic. Sec.
And so Cyprian says, "Whence is that tradition? Does it
descend from Dominical and Evangehcal authority, or does it
come from the commands and epistles of the Apostles? For God
testifies that those things are to be done which are written
... If, therefore, either it is commanded in the Gospel, oris con
tained in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles  let that

DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS. 69
divine and holy tradition be observed  If in any thing
the truth has not been steadily maintained, let us return to the
Dominical original and the Evangelical and Apostolical tra
dition." (Ad originem Dominica m et Evangelicam et Apostoli-
cam traditionem revertamur.) Epist. 74. ad Pomp.
And what is still more conclusive, if possible, we find Jerome,
when translating a passage of Polycrates, translating the words
TO evctyyixiof, the Gospcl, (referring to Scripture, by " evangelica
traditio," the Evangelical tradition.^
Indeed, I would ask Mr. Newman where he can find the
phrase used in the early Fathers to mean any thing else.
So that " the Evangelical tradition " means the Gospels, and
the passage of Athanasius recoils with no little force upon Mr.
Newman's own hypothesis. The .very context, indeed, shows
that the Scripture is referred to, and in the next treatise we
find more than once a phrase precisely similar, viz. i EvayyeXixog
ofos, the Evangelical rule, used to express the Gospels. (De
salut. adv. Christi adv. Apoll. or Lib. sec. adv. Apoll.) And in
the Treatise "De pass, et cruce Dom." attributed to him, we
find the phrases o Atoo-toAixos xoym;, " the apostolical saying," ap
plied to a quotation from the Epistle to the Romans; to Evayyi-
xiKo) riu K«f(«u p))To», " the evangelical saying of our Lord," i. e.
" the saying of our Lord in the Gospels," applied to a quotation
from St. Matthew. And so the author of the Quaestiones et
Responsiones ad Orthodoxos, (in the works of Justin Martyr) uses
the phrase EuotyysXixof! ^myvfteta-i, " the evangelical narratives," for
the Gospels. (Ed. Col. p. 484.) And Rufinus, — " Propterea
ergo Propheticis et Evangelicis atque Apostolicis vocibus nobis
pi'iEnunciatur hic error." (Expos, in Symb.;) that is, — " More
over this error is foretold to us in the Prophetical and Evangeli
cal and Apostolical words." And as to the sentiment here ex
pressed, we need go no further than the very first page of Atha-
nasius's works, to see its conformity with the views he has main
tained elsewhere. " As you desire," he says to the person whom
he was addressing, " to hear me discourse respecting the faith,
we will, as far as we are able, expound the Christian faith, which
indeed you might have found from the divine oracles, (Iviafntti
«5ro rut (tiat Xoytut lupEin,) but politely desire to hear from others.
For the holy and inspired Scriptures are sufficient of them
selves {itvTct,fxiii) to deliver the truth, (^poj rijy tiij ctxviii»( ax»yyi-
>i(«».)"= Before we quit this passage, the reader should also notice an
other point, viz. the translation, "he who speaks out ofhispri-
1 See Routh, Eeliq. Sacr. vol. j. p. 371.
2 Orat. contr. gent. ed. Ben. tom. i. p. 1.

70 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS.
vate judgment speaks a He." The introduction of the term
" private judgment" here is totally unauthorized by the origi'
nal, which is i ix. t«» i3(«» x»xa>, he who speaks out of his own
private fancies, and refers to the word translated by Mr. New
man " theories" (e<pii'p8«ir/ inventions,) which had just gone be
fore. The two phrases, as Mr. Newman must see, are totally-
different. The temptation no doubt was great to get a sly hit
at the right of private judgment out of Athanasius, but this
strikes one as a somewhat unscrupulous method of obtaining it.
I hope these are not specimens of the sort of translations of the
Fathers we have been lately promised.^
There is one thing more with which the reader ought to be
acquainted before we proceed, viz. the practical meaning vihich
our opponents give to '' catholic consent ;" and what is considered
by them as a sufficient proof that any thing has been held
" always, everywhere, and by all." Mr. Keble thinks that from
tradition " we knoiu with tolerable certainty that Melchisedek's
feast is a type of the blessed eucharist." What is the proof?
"For this," he says, "see S. Cyprian, ep. 63, p. 149, ed. Fell ;
S. Augustin, De Civ. Dei. xviii. 20 ; S. Jerome, Ep. ad Marcel-
lam, t. i. p. 123, ed. Frob. Basil. These, with the distinct ac
knowledgment in the antient Roman liturgy, may perhaps be
considered sufficient to represent the sense of the Western
churches. Among the Greeks, S. Chrysostom on Gen. xiv. clearly
implies the same construction. But the reserve maintained by
them on all liturgical subjects may account for their compara
tive silence on this point, even supposing them to have received
the same interpretation." (p. 36.) Such is a specimen of the
consent that gives "A;noz«Zea[§-e with tolerable certainty." And
doctrines and statements so supported are to be published to the
church as indubitable apostolical traditions.
But, in truth, when we come to see what the notion of our
opponents is as to the nature of faith, the view to which their
system has driven them as to the character of the evidence upon
which faith is built, we shall feel less surprised at such state
ments. It is almost impossible not to see that in patristical tra
dition there is at least a degree oi itncer taint y a& to its apostoli
cal origin ; and consequently that there can be at most only
some degree of probability for faith to rest upon in such testi
mony. Our opponents have clearly seen this, and hence, instead
of being deterred hereby from adopting it as a fit and adequate
foundation for faith, they have coolly and deliberately set about
to show that faith can never have more than probability to rest
' That their translations are not always to be trusted in points where they are
interested has been fully shown by an able writer in the British Magazine fo?
May 1839, pp. 511—19.

DOCTRINE or THE TRACTATORS. 71
upon, and that in fact if there was certainty there could not be
faith, as if faith was belief on insufficient grounds. " We, for our
part, [says Mr. Newman] have been taught to consider that faith
in its degree as well as conduct must be guided by probabilities,
and that doubt is ever our portion in this life. We can bear
to confess that other systems have their unanswerable arguments
in matters of detail, and that we are but striking a balance
between difficulties existing on both sides, that we are follow
ing as the voice of God what on the whole we have reason to
think such." (p. 129.) " According to English [I] principles,
faith has all it needs in knowing that God is our Creator and
Preserver, and that he MAY, IF IT SO HAPPEN, have spoken
.... Doubt may even be said to be implied in a Christian's
faith." (p. 103.) Nay, saith Mr. Kehle, " evidence complete
in all its parts leaves no room for faith." (p. 82.) And to
put an end to all doubt as to the doctrine they hold on this sub
ject, Mr. Newman openly tells us, that " to accept revelation at
all " " we have but probability to show at most, NAY, TO
BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF AN INTELLIGENT
CREATOR." (p. 69.)
Such is the conclusion to which the views of our opponents on
" tradition" have led them, and which it seems they can not only
contemplate with unconcern, but commend to the adoption of
their readers. The authority of " tradition" as a divine inform
ant is, it appears, at all hazards to be maintained. The reader
may here see the doctrine to which the maintenance of such
views confessedly leads. In this place I make no further observa
tion upon it than to commend it to his serious attention, but shall
take an opportunity to consider it more fully hereafter.
Having thus, I hope, given the reader sufficient proofs of the
necessity of being at least on his guard in the perusal of these
works, and that even in points where he might have least ex
pected it, I proceed in the next chapter to show the identity of
the doctrine of our opponents on this subject with that of the
Romanists.

CHAPTER in.

COMPARISON OF THE DOCTRINE MAINTAINED IN THE WORKS ABOVE
MENTIONED ON THE SUBJECT OP PATRISTICAL TRADITION WITH
THAT OF THE ROMISH CHURCH.
After the explicit declaration of Dr. Pusey, quoted in the
preceding chapter, that our controversy with Rome on this sub
ject is not a doctrinal but a "purely historical" controversy, i. e.
relating only to the validity of some particular traditions, and
also some intimations of a very similar kind from Mr. Newman,
such as that "we agree with the Romanist in appealing to anti
quity as our great teacher" (p. 47,) it may seem almost super
fluous to attempt to prove the identity of the doctrine maintained
hy the writers whose views we have been considering, with that
of the Romanists. As, however, in other places they speak as
if there was some not inconsiderable difference between their
views and those of the Romanists on the subject, and as such an
impression is likely to be entertained almost involuntarily by their
readers, from the fact of their being ministers of the Church of
England, it is desirable to show that the doctrines of the two par
ties are precisely the same.
The reader will bear in mind that I am not now speaking of
the traditions received by either party, but of their doctrine
on the subject of tradition.
The doctrine on this point advocated in the works under con
sideration may be summed up, as we have already observed, in
the five propositions which we have given in the preceding chap
ter ; (pp. 40, 41;) and these propositions represent precisely the
doctrine of the Church of Rome in this matter, as I shall now
proceed to show with respect to each of them seriatim.
I. That consentient patristical tradition, or "catholic consent "
is an unwritten word of God, a divine informant in religion, and
consequently entitled, as to its substance, to equal respect with
the Holy Scriptures.

identical with THE ROMISH. 73
" We assert," says Bellarmine, " that the whole necessary doc
trine either concerning faith or manners is not contained expli
citly (expresse) in the Scriptures ; and that consequently be
yond the written word of God is required also the unwritten word
of God, that is, the divine and apostolical traditions. . . . They
[i. e. the Protestants] think that if there were any apostolical tra
ditions they do not now exist, that is, that there cannot be any
certain proof had of any apostolical tradition. . . . We, on the
contrary, assert that there are not wanting certain ways and
methods by which apostolical traditions may be manifested. . . .
If the authority of an apostle when giving an oral precept is not
less than when giving a written one, there certainly is no temerity
in considering anything unwritten equivalent to the written
word." [Which last observation is of course very true and ad
mitted by all, and .therefore to no purpose but to lead the reader
to misapprehend the views of the Protestants ; but I notice it to
show how precisely the Tractators have echoed the statements of
the Romanists on this subject.] (De Verb. Ub. iv. c. 3.)
The Council of Trent says,- — " The most holy synod . . seeing
that the evangelical doctrine and polity are contained in the
written books and those unwritten traditions which were received
by the apostles from the mouth of Christ hinnself, or, emanating
from the apostles themselves, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit,
and delivered down from hand to hand, haye descended to us, fol
lowing the example of, the orthodox Fathers, receives and vene
rates with a like feeling of piety and reverence all the books as
well of the, Old as of the New Testament, since one God is the
author of bp|;h, as also traditions themselves, as well those relating
to faith as those relating to manners, as either uttered by Christ
or dictated by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic
church by an uninterrupted succession," (Cone. Trid. Sess. 4.)
And the rules given by Bellarmine for ascertaining such tra
ditions are delivered by him thus ; — "The first rule is, When the
whole church embraces any thing as an article of faith which is
not found in the divine Scriptures, we must say, that that is de
rived from the tradition of the apostles  The second rule
is. When the whole church observes any thing which none but
God could ordain, which nevertheless is nowhere found written,
it'must be admitted that it was delivered (traditum) by Christ
himself and his apostles .... The third rule is. That which
has been observed in the whole church, and in all past times, is
justly considered to have been instituted by the apostles, although
it is of such a nature that it might have been ordained by the
church. . \ . The fourth rule is. When all the doctors of the
church declare with one consent that any thing descends from
apostolical tradition, either wEen assembled in a general council,
VOL. I. g

74 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS
or writing individually in their works, that is to be considered to
bean apostolical tradition  The fifth rule is. That is to
be believed beyond doubt to descend from apostolical tradi
tion which is considered to be such in those churches where there
is an entire and uninterrupted succession from the apostles."'
It is hardly necessary to say that he adds the limitation, — r" We
admit no tradition that is contrary to Scripture;"^ "we never
defend traditions that are at variance with the Scripture," "
The first four of these rules for ascertaining what is supposed
to remain to us of oral apostolical tradition are in effect the same
as those of Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble. That the fourth ac
cords with the views of our opponents will not be questioned.
And so does the first practically. For when Bellarmine speaks
of the universal church holding this or that, he means not mere
ly the present church, but the church as including the Fathers;
and both he and I believe, I might say, all the best writers of
the Romish communion hold that the testimony of the Fathers
in their wiitings is necessary for the establishment of any thing
as having proceeded from the oral teaching of the apostles. The
examples given by Bellarmine on this rule show this, being the
perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord, and the number
of the canonical books, for a proof of both which they would send
us to the Fathers. And he says, " That is called unwritten doc
trine, itot such as is nowhere ivritten, but that which is not
written by its first author. As, for instance, the baptism of in
fants. That infants are to be baptized is called an unwritten
apostolical tradition, because it is not found written in any apos
tolical book, although it is written in the boolfs of almost all the
antient Fathers." * And again, " Those rites only we receive as
apostolical which we can prove to be apostolical by firm testi
monies of the antients."^ And one of his notes of the true church
is " agreement in doctrine with the primitive'church."
And Cardinal Perron distinctly lays down the catholic consent
of the primitive church as the test of truth in the way that our
opponents have. " That then," he says, " shall remain truly uni
versal and catholic that the most eminent Fathers of the times of
the four first Councils have taught in several regions of the earth ;
and against which none (except some persons noted for dissension
in the church) hath resisted, or that the Fathers of those ages do
testify to have been believed and practised by the whole church
in their times. And that shall remain truly antient and apostolic
that the Fathers of those ages do testify to have been observed by
'. De V. Dei. lib. iv. c. 9.
2 Nec ullam traditionem admittimus contra Scripturam. Ib. c. 3.
3 iMec enim traditionescumScripturapugnantes unquamdefendimus. Ib c 11
4 De V. Dei. iv. c. 2. ^ De V. Dei. iv. c. 3." '

IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 75
the whole church, not as a thing sprung up in their time, but as
zi thing derived down to them either from the immemorial succes
sion of former ages or from the express tradition of the apostles."
And he takes the pbriod of the four councils (he tells us) because,
if the period taken be much shorter, " there remain so few
writings oi that date" that " the face of the antient doctrine
and practice cannot evidently appear to be therein represented."
(Letter to Casauboh, inserted at the beginning of his " Replique,"
&C.) So that the tradition of which these authors speak must
derive its proofs from the writings of the early Fathers, and be,
in fact, as that of our opponents is, patristical tradition. I do not
deny, but am well aware, that some writers among the Roman
ists have not apparently owned the necessity of finding the whole
doctrine of the church in the Fathers, but have seemed to sup
pose that some part of the oral teaching of the apostles might yet
he unwritten, and in the possession of the church, so that the
church might at any time declare a doctrine not opposed to Scrip
ture or what is called the unanimous consent of antiquity, to have
come down by successive oral delivery from the apostles; and
that upon ber testimony, she being the keeper of the oral teach
ing of the apostles, we are bound to believe such doctrine to be
apostolical. But this is not the doctrine of such men as those we
have quoted. They clearly held, at any rate in theory, with our
opponents, that the oral teaching of the apostles was to be sought
for in the written patristical report of it. And even in the case
-of the others, I suspect it would be generally found, that any ap
parent difference in their statements arose only from our affixing
a different sense to the phrase oral tradition to what they did,
and supposing it to mean a tradition that has never been put
in Writing, instead of a tradition not put in writing by its
author. Hence it was said by Mr. Eyre, in his " Reply to the Rev. Pi.
Churton,"— " Had yoii examined the expositions of their faith as
stated in councils, by universities, divines, &c. ypu would have
learnt that the uninterrupted and common consent of all ages was
requisite to constitute tradition a rule of faith." ... " You do
not seem to comprehend what is meant by the unwritten word of
God, or oral tradition. You suppose, if it be upon record (to use
your own words) it ceases to be oral tradition or the unwritten
word of God. No such thing. It is not called the unwritten
word of God because it is nowhere committed to writing, as I told
you before, but because it is not written in the inspired books of
Scripture. And though we should admit oral tradition in the
sense you take it, yet every discriminating article, either as to
faith or morality, we can readily prove from tradition in the sense
1'ka.ve explained it" (pp. 121,2.)

76 DOCTRINE or THE TRACTATORS
And so it was said by one of the Roman Catholic speakers in
the " Downside discussion," — " Secure in these assurances [i. e.
Matt, xxviii. 20 ; &c.] the church collates the writings of the
Fathers, and judging by their morally unanimous testimony, it
discerns true traditions from false." ^ And the Council of Trent
enjoins'' that no one shall interpret Scripture contrary to the
unanimous consent of the Fathers (contra unanimem consensum
Patrum.) And Pius IV. orders all the clergy and regulars of
every order to take an oath that they will never understand nor
interpret Scripture but according to the unanimous consent of
the Fathers. ^
The fifth rule, understood with the limitation which of course
was intended, viz. that the point established by it be not contra
dicted by other similarly obtained testimony, (for otherwise this
rule would be contradictory to the preceding,) is also in perfect
accordance apparently with the views advocated in the works
under consideration. 1 am not speaking of the use made of this
rule by the Church of Rome, who, boasting that she is the only
church remaining that has preserved the apostolical succession
sanctifies by this rule all her impositions, shutting out by her ex
clusive claims the possibility of contradiction ; but I speak of the
rule in itself, and according to its fair application. And if I
rightly understand the doctrineof "episcopal grace" as delivered
in these works, it completely establishes the truth of this rule.
" Apostolical or episcopial graced says Mr. Keble, " is by God's
ordinance the guardian of sound doctrine ; the spirit abiding
in Timothy is to watch incessantly the deposit or trust of divine
truth left in his charge ; and where the one, the succession, fails,
there, as this verse would lead us to expect, and as all church
history, proves, the other, the truth of doctrine, is immediately
in imminent jeopardy." (p. 44.)
But, however this may be, the theory of the two on the sub
ject of tradition is evidently precisely the same ; and the power
which the Church of Rome in every age assumes of declaring
what is and what is not an apostolical tradition, is a power limited
in theory by these rules. It is true that in the application of
these rules the Church of Rome may be "neglectful of antiquity"
for the sake of maintaining some favorite doctrine or rite, as Mr.
Newman justly charges upon her, but so may others also, and
some think that the writers of the Tracts for the Times may in
some points be included in the number; nay, the Church of
- Downs, discussion, p. 70. 2 gegg. 4
3 Nec earn [i. c. Scripturam] unquam nisi juxta unanimem consensum Patrum
accipiam et interpretabor. Bull. Pii IV. sup. form. Juram. prefix, ad Cateeh.
Concil. Trid.

IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 77
Rome may (as Bellarmine does for her in the passage we have
been quoting) claim to be the only church remaining that pos
sesses the apostolical succession. But these matters are quite
distinct from her doctrine of tradition. They may lead her into
error in her application of that doctrine, but they are quite dis
tinct from and independent of it. The doctrine is precisely the
same as that advocated by the Tractators.
Mr. Newman has devoted his second lecture to the subject of
"Romanism as neglectful of antiquity." The charge is a just
one, but I cannot think that Mr. Newman has there proved it;
for all which his observations go to prove is, that some individual
members of the Church of Rome have without difficulty con
ceived themselves to have found in the Fathers precisely what
their prejudices led them to wish for.
Now did it never strike him that if his own great argument is
just, viz. that the meaning of Scripture must be uncertain and
obscure, because it is quoted in support of opposite doctrines, this
is one of the best proofs he could have given of the uncertainty
and obscurity of patristical tradition, that the Fathers can so rea
dily be adduced in favour of contrary views?
In making these remarks, I would by no means be understood
to deny that practically the system of the Romish church is much
worse than a faithful adherence to such a rule of judgment would
produce. On the contrary, we are at issue with Rome, not mere
ly as to her theory of tradition, but also as to her allegation that
primitive antiquity is on her side. We deny altogether that pa
tristical testimony taken as a whole is in her favour, and claim it
in behalf of the doctrines of our own church, and therefore are
opposed to Rome, as it respects the fact what doctrines and prac
tices have the support of antiquity. And lo this^«r^ of our con
troversy with her our opponents would limit our whole contro
versy with her, and still further reduce even this part of it, by
admitting doctrines repudiated both by the authoritative docu
ments and the best divines of our church, and claiming for them
with the Romanists the support of antiquity. We may say of
them, therefore, what both we and they agree to say of the
Romanists, that their doctrines are worse than a faithful adhe
rence to their own rule would produce; ever remembering that
besides this controversy as to the matter of fact, \Ve have another
and a more important with them, as to what is the sole divine
rule of faith and practice.
II. That such tradition is consequently a part of the divinely-
revealed rule of faith'and practice.
In addition to the extracts given under the last head, I subjoin
the following,—
"I assert," says Bellarmine, "that Scripture, although not
G*

78 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS
composed principally with the view of its being a rule of faith, is
nevertheless a rule of faith, not the entire rule but a partial rule.
For the entire rule of faith is the word of God, or God's revela
tion made to the church, which is distributed into two partial
rules. Scripture and tradition."^
And so the Tridentine Catechism says,—" The whole of the
doctrine to be delivered to the faithful is contained in the word of
God, which is distributed into Scriplure and traditions.""
III. That it is a necessary part of the divine rule of faith and
practice, on account of the defectiveness of Scripture, for that
(1) though it does not reveal to us any fundamental articles of
faith or practice not noticed in Scripture, Holy Scriplure con
taining, that is, giving hints or notices of, all the fundamental
articles of faith and practice, it is yet a necessary part of the
divine rule of faith and practice as the interpreter of Scripture,
and as giving the full development of many articles, some of
which are fundamental, which are but imperfectly developed in
Scripture: and, (2) it is an important part of that rule as convey
ing to us various important doctrines and rules not contained in
Scripture. The former of these two propositions includes two points ; the
first, that Holy Scripture contains all the fundamental articles of
faith and practice ; the second, that nevertheless it is to be con
sidered as even in these only a part of the rule of faith and of the
divine rule of practice, the other part being tradition as its inter
preter, and as giving a sufficient development of those articles.
On the first of these points, Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble both
assert that it is not held by the Church of Rome. With how
little reason the following extracts will show.
" There are two things," says Bellarmine, " to be particularly
observed .... The first is, that there are some things in the
Christian doctrine as well of faith as of morals, that are in
themselves (simpliciter) necessary to all for salvation, such as is
a knowledge of the Articles of the Apostles' Creed, likewise a
knowledge of the ten commandments and certain sacraments.
The rest are not so necessary, that without an explicit knowl
edge and belief and profession of them a man cannot be saved,
if only he have a ready mind to receive and believe them when
they shall have been legitimately propounded to him by the
Church  Observe, secondly, that those things which are in
themselves (simpliciter) necessary, the apostles were in the habit
of preaching to all ; but of other things they did not deliver
1 De V. D. iv. c. 13.
2 Omnis doctrinae ratio, quaj fidelibus tradenda sit, verbo Dei continetur, quod
n Scri pturam traditioncsque distributum est. Cat. Trid. Prsef ^. xix.

IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 79
all to all men, but some of them to all, those, namely, which
were of use to all, some to the prelates, bishops, and presbyters
only*  These things being observed, I assert, that
all those things were written by the apostles which are neces
sary to all, and which they themselves had openly preached to
all without distinction ; but that of other things not all were
written."'* And further on he says, (going quite as far as, if not
beyond, even our opponents, themselves in his admissions on this
point,) — " I assert, that of all those articles which relate to the
nature of God, there exist proofs (testimonia) in the Scriptures,
and that we may be fully and clearly instructed concerning
those articles from the Scriptures if we take them in their right
sense."^ And, like our opponents, he repudiates, with indignation the
charge made against the Romanists by the Protestants, of under
valuing Scripture. " It is usual," he says " with them, [i. e.
the Protestants] to treat the matter as if they defended the
Scriptures only, and we defended traditions only, nor cared whe
ther traditions were agreeable to Scripture or contrary to Scrip
ture. But it is not so : for we put a higher value on Scripture
(Scripturam pluris facimus) than they do ; nor admit any
tradition against Scripture."*
From the two former of these passages, then, it is evident that
the more learned Romanists hold that all those doctrines the
belief of which is essentially necessary to salvation, including
particularly the articles in the Apostles' Creed, are contained in
the Scriptures. There is, indeed, an intimation that there must
also be a willing mind to embrace those points which may be
propounded for belief by the church, but then it must be recol
lected that the Church of Rome does not profess to introduce
new doctrines, but only to inculcate those which are derived
either from Scripture or that church-tradition which (like the
Tractators) it receives as apostolical. That is, the concession
here made that the Scriptures contain all things necessary to
salvation is accompanied by the requirement that that is also to
be believed which the church propounds as an apostolical doc
trine derived from tradition; a demand which seems to me to be
equally made by the Tractators.
And when it is intimated that what is propounded by the
1 This notion of there being a reserve observed by the apostles in the commu
nication of religious knowledge, and of some matters having been committed by
them more especially to the custody of the clergy, has also been embraced by our
opponents, and an exhortation given by them to the present church to practise
a similar reserve ! See Tract 80, " On reserve in communicating religious knowl
edge." 2De V, D, iv. c. 11. 3 lb. 4 lb. c. 3.

80 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS
church is a necessary article of faith, it is not meant that the
matter of it is in itself a necessary article of faith, but that a
direct rejection of what the church delivers from "tradition" as
divine revelation is a mortal sin. As it is said by a" learned and
esteemed writer" (as he is called by Chalmers) of the Romish
communion, viz. Abraham Woodhead,* "Fundamental, indeed,
they [the Romanists] call sometimes all points defined by the
church's councils, and hold them necessary to be believed for
attaining salvation ; but not necessary in such a sense as ratione
niedii necessary ; or absolutely extra quas (creditas) non est
salus, but only necessary to be believed upon supposition of a
sufficient proposal of them made to any person that they have
been so defined .... because if after such proposal and suf
ficient notice given him of their being detined he believe them
not, he now stands guilty, in this his disobedience to his supreme
spiritual guides, of a mortal sin (unrepented of) destructive of his
salvation." "The church's anathema in many of her canons
seizeth on a person not so much for the matter of his error,
though this not denied to some degree hurtful to him, and dimin
ishing his perfection in the faith, as for the pertinacy of his
erring, and the contumacy and perverseness of his will, disobey
ing the church and his spiritual superiors, sufficiently manifest
ing the contrary truth to be her doctrine and a portion of the
Christian faith. "^ And so strongly is this held by them that their
learned Bishop Fisher, who Mr. Newman tells us' is " as fair a
specimen of the Roman controversialist as could be taken," says,
— " The doctrine of purgatory being necessary to be believed of
all men, it is not credible but that it may be proved by Scrip
ture."' Hence the Romanists do not deny the sufficiency of the doc
trines contained in the Holy Scriptures for salvation, but holding
that they possess an unwritten word of God in that which claims
to be apostolical tradition, and that what they propound as a
church from that source ought to be received as such by the
faithful, they hold unbelief in such propositions to be a mortal sin,
as being a deliberate rejection of a divine testimony, and so far
that a belief in them is necessary to salvation. What the Ro
manists deny with respect to the sufficiency of the Scriptures in
' " Among the polemic writers of the seventeenth century, few, are more gene
rally read or respected than the celebrated Abraham Woodhead." — Charles But
ler. 2 Account of doctrine of Roman Cathoics concerning the Ecclesiastical Guide
in Controversies of Keligion. By R. H. Second Edition, 1673, 4to. (pp. 245, 8 )
3 Led. p. 90.
^ Cum doctrina purgatorii sit omnibus scitu necessaria, non est crediliile, illam
non posse probari ex Scripturis. Adv. Luth. Art. 18. See Bp. Morion's Prot
Appeal, I. 2. §. 13. p. 15.

IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 81
the fundamental points, is only that which our opponents deny
concerning it in the second part of the position under considera
tion, viz. that in these points Scripture is to be considered the
whole of the rule, being, as they think, only a part of it, the
other part being tradition as its interpreter.
" We assert," says Bellarmine as above quoted, " that there is
not contained in the Scripture, in express terms, (expresse) the
whole necessary doctrine either concerning faith or concerning
manners ; and therefore that beyond the written word of God is
required also the unwritten word of God, that is, the divine and
apostolical traditions."* " Scripture is very often ambiguous and
obsciire, so that unless it be interpreted by some one who cannot
err, it cannot be understood ; therefore itis not sitfficient alone.
 It is to be observed that there are two things in Scrip
ture, the written words and the meaning contained in them . . .
.' . .Of these two the first is possessed by all  the second
is not possessed by all, nor can we in many places be certain of
the second, but by the addition of tradition."*
Comparing, then, these negative with the former affirmative
propositions, we find that what Bellarmine denies with respect
to the Scripturesj as to the fundamental articles of faith and
practice, is only that they contain them so expressly or expicitly^
as to render unnecessary what is called the unwritten word-
That is, there is asserted to be an obscurity in Scripture which
needs the aid of the unwritten word to clear it up. And this is
all which the Romanists deny to the sufficiency of Scripture in
the necessary points, as is more fully stated in the work to which
I have just alluded, "As for the sufficiency or intireness oi
the Scriptures for the containing all those points of faith that are
simply necessary of all persons to be believed for attaining sal
vation, Roman Catholics deny it not ; but only deny such a clear-
ness of Scripture in some of those as Christians cannot mistake
or pervert  Though Catholics maintain several credends
that are not expressed in Scriptures necessary to be believed
and observed by Christians after the church's proposal of them
as tradition apostolical, amongst which is the canon of Scrip
ture; yet they willingly concede that all such points of faith as
are simply necessary for attaining salvation, and as ought ex
plicitly by all men to be known in order thereto, either ratione
: De V. D. iv. c. 3. 2 Ib. c. 4.
3 The inference as to the necessity of tradition, shows that the word expresse
must be taken to include both a formal and virtual expression of the doctrines
in question. Words fairer to the Protestant view, therefore, might have been
used, because the Protestant doctrine is that all such points are contained in
Scripture eitlter expressly or virtually, in such a way as to be deducible thence
by direct and necessary inference.

82 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS
medii or prcecepti, as the doctrines collected in the three
Creeds, the common precepts of manners and of the more ne
cessary sacraments, &c., are contained in, the Scriptures ; con
tained therein, either in the conclusion itself or in the principles-
from whence it is necessarily deduced. [He here refers for proof
to passages in Bellarmine, Stapleton, F. Fisher, Thomas Aquinas,
and Fr. a S. Clara.] Therefore the church from time to time
defining any thing concerning such points, defines it out of the
revelations'made in Scripture. And the chief tradition, the ne
cessity and benefit of which is pretended by the church, is not
the delivering of any additional doctrines descended from the
apostles' times extra Scripturas, i. e. such doctrines as have not
their foundation at least in Scripture ; but is the preserving
and delivering oi the primitive sense and church-explication of
that which is written in the Scriptures, but many times not there
written so clearly ; which traditive sense of the church you may
find made use of against Arianism in the first Council of Nice.
 It is not the deficiency of Scripture as to all the main,
and prime, and universally necessary-to-be-known articles of
faith, as if there were any necessity that these be supplied and
completed with other not written traditional doctrines of
faith, that Catholics do question; but such a non-clearness of
Scriptures for several of these points as that they may be mis
understood, (which non-clearness of them infers a necessity of
making use, of the church's tradition for a true exposition and
sense,) is the thing that they assert  I say then; not
this. Whether the main, or if you will, the entire body of the
Christian faith, as to all points necessary by all to be explicitly
believed, be contained there, [i. e. in the Scriptures]; but this ;
Whether so clearly that the unlearned using a right diligence
cannot therein mistake, or do not need therein another guide,
is the thing here contested." (pp. 136 — 9.
The Romanists therefore affirm, as we do, that Holy Scripture
contains all things which are in themselves necessary to salvation,
but add, like the Tractators, that it contains them obscurely,
and so as to render it necessary for us to have some other authori
tative guide to point them out there ; and they hold that we have
such a guide in " tradition," which is, they say, an unwritten
word of God, and the authoritative interpreter of the written
word, and that from it we also derive some supplementary arti
cles of faith and practice; to which they add, that when these
latter articles are legitimately propounded to the faithful bv the
church, they are binding upon the consciences of men, which, if
their views of " tradition" and " the church" are correct, is
undeniable.

IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 83
Now whether the Tractators agree with the Romanists on this
last point is a matter not worth considering here, because itis not
relevant to our present subject ; but it is evident, at least, that
in all other respects these views are precisely the same with
those advocated in the works under consideration.
Mr. Keble, therefore, is altogether mistaken in imputing to the
Romanists that they hold " tradition of the substance of doctrine
independent of Scripture, and purporting to be of things ne
cessary to salvation." (p. 71.) And Mr. Newman, in saying,
" We differ from the Romanists in this, not in denying that tra
dition is valuable, but in maintaining that by itself and without
Scripture warrant it does not convey to us any article necessary
to salvation." (p. 370.)
When the Romanists use the expression that Holy Scripture
does not contain all the articles of the Christian faith necessary
to be believed, they are speaking not with reference to any sup
posed insufficiency in Scripture as to containing all the doctrines
essentially necessary to salvation, but to the necessity of belief
in that which they, as the church, pronounce to be an apostolical
tradition, on pain of committing a mortal sin. If in this view of
the extent of church-authority there is any difference between
our opponents and the Romanists, yet nevertheless as to the place
and value to be assigned to .Scripture and tradition respectively,
the views of the two are evidently identical ; and how near they
approximate to each other on this very point of church-authority
in enforcing tradition, we may judge by the extracts already
given from Mr. Newman in the former chapter.*
And it is well worth the consideration of our opponents, and
those who are disposed to agree with them, how far their charges
against the Church of Rome for affirming things to be apostolical
traditions which are not so, go to prove the uncertainty atten
dant upon all practically attainable declarations of "the church"
in the present day, as to what are apostolical traditions, and still
more upon such declarations when made by individuals.
The second of the two propositions we are now considering,
viz : —
That patristical tradition is an important part of the divine
rule as conveying to us various important doctrines and rules
not contained in Scripture, —
Is thus advocated by Bellarmine. He remarks that tradition
is necessary because there are many points which we ought not
to be ignorant of, and which yet are not contained in Scripture, in
stancing, among the other examples which he gives, the doctrines
of the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary, (the example
' See pp, 43, et seq. above.

84 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS
mentioned by Mr. Newman,) purgatory, and the practice of ir
fant baptism.*
Hence he says, " I affirm  that Scripture althoug
it was not written principally with a view of its being a rul
of faith, is nevertheless a rule of faith — not the entire but a pai
tial rule. For the entire rule of faith is the word of God, o
God's revelation made to the church, which is divided into tw
partial rules. Scripture and tradition. And truly Scripturi
inasmuch as it is a rule, has in consequence this property, tha
whatever it contains is necessarily true and to be believed, an
whatever is contrary to it is necessarily false and to be rejected
but inasmuch as it is not the entire but a partial rule, the const
quence is, that it is not a rule for all things, and moreover, tha
there may be something relating to the faith which is not con
tained in it. . And in this way ought the words of St. Augustin
to be understood. For he nowhere says, that Scripture is th
only rule, but says, that Scripture is the rule by which th
writings of the antient Fathers ought to be examined, that w-
may receive those things which are agreeable to Scripture, ani
reject those things which are opposed to Scripture."^
Now, I must say, that the estimate we should form from thi
remarks of Bellarmine in this place of the value of tradition a
supplementary to Scripture, would fall below that derived fron
the observations of Mr. Keble on the same point, quoted pp. 37—
38 above.
The fourth position, viz : —
IV. That patristical tradition is a necessary part of the divin(
rule of faith and practice, because of the obscurity of Scriptur(
even in some of the fundamental articles, which makes Scriptun
insufficient to teach us even the fundanientals of faith and prac
tice, —
Corresponds with that of Bellarmine when speaking of th(
seventh use of tradition.
" Seventhly," he says, " it is necessary not only to be able t(
read Scripture but also to understand it. But very often Scrip
ture is ambiguous and obscure, so that unless it be interpreted bj
one who cannot err, it cannot be understood : therefore it is noi
sufficient alone. Examples are numerous. For the equality oi
the divine Persons, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the
Father and the Son as from one original, original sin, the desceni
of Christ into hell, and many similar things are deduced indeec
from the Holy Scriptures, but not so easily but that if we could
contend for them on the ground of Scripture testimonies only
controversies with froward opponents would never be brought tc
1 De Verb. Dei. lib. iv. c, 4. 2 Ib. c. 12.

IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 85
an end. For it is to be observed, that there are two things in
Scripture, the written words and the sense contained in them.
The words are as it were the scabbard, the sense is the sword
itself of the Spirit. Of these two the first is possessed by all,
for whoever knows his letters can read the Scriptures ; but the
second is not possessed by all, nor can we in many places be cer
tain of the second, unless tradition come to our aid."*
With this agrees also the quotation which we have given
above from Woodhead. (See pp. 81, 2.)
In correspondence with the fifth position, viz. —
V. That it is only by the testimony of patristical tradition that
we are assured of the inspiration of Scripture, what books are
canonical, and the genuineness of what we receive as such, —
Bellarmine, in describing the fourth, fifth, and sixth uses for
which tradition is necessary, maintains as follows ; — " Fourthly,
it is necessary to know, that there exist certain truly divine
books, a truth which certainly cannot be obtained in any way
from the Scriptures. For although Scripture may say, that the
books of the Prophets and Apostles are divine, yet I cannot be
lieve this for certain, unless I should previously have been brought
to believe that the Scripture, which says this, is divine. For in
the Alcoran of Mahomet we every where read that the Alcoran
itself was sent by God from heaven, and yet we do not believe
it. Therefore, this so necessary article, namely, that there is
some divine Scripture, cannot be sufficiently proved from Scrip
ture alone. Therefore, since faith is founded upon the word of
God, (nitatur verbo Dei,) unless we have an unwritten word of
God, we can have no faith. . . . Fifthly, it is not sufficient to
know that there is a divine Scripture, but it behoves us to know
which it is ; a thing which cannot in any way be had from the
Scriptures  Sixthly, it behoves us also not only to know
which are the sacred books, but also in particular that those we
have are those books . . . which certainly cannot be known
from the Scriptures. . .. If it be so, then Scripture is not suffi
cient alone. . . . For if it be left destitute of this unwritten
tradition and the testimony of the church, it will be of little ser
vice. Moreover, if this tradition has been able to come doivn
to us, why cannot others also have come down in the same
luay?"" And hence one of the most common arguments with the Roman
ists, as with our opponents, is, that having received Scripture
upon this testimony, we ought not to object to receive the doc
trines that may come down to us upon this testimony.^ I should
1 lb. c. 4. 2 lb.
3 See the " Guide in Controversies," by E. H. p. 366 ; Eyre's Reply to Chur
ton, pp. 117—119; &c.
VOL. 1. H

86 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS
add, however, that there are some few, even among the Romar
ists, who take a sounder view on this point, and believe the ai
thority of the Scripture, independently of the judgment of th
church ; as, for instance, the learned Huetius, in his " Evangelica
Demonstration." *
Whether, then, we regard the nature and character of patris
tical tradition, the place and value to be assigned to the Scrip
tures, or the purposes for which that tradition is supposed to b
necessary, the views advocated on all these points in the work
under consideration, are precisely identical withf those of th
Church of Rome. In some minor and unimportant points con
nected with this subject, there may be a little difference of opiti
ion, as there is, in fact, among the Romanists themselves. Fo
instance, some of the reasons given by Bellarmine (ch. 4) in proc
of the necessity of tradition, may not be adopted by the author
under consideration. But the doctrine of tradition, as it may b
called, is evidently involved and comprised in the points we hav
just been considering, and in these there is clearly a perfect agree
ment betft'een them and the Romanists.
The doctrine, as above stated, is charged upon the Romanists
and refuted, in a Treatise which I would strongly recommend t(
the notice of the reader, namely, Placette's "Incurable Scepti
cism of the Church of Rome," translated and published bi
Archbishop Tenison, and inserted by Bishop Gibson in his Pre
servative against Popery, where the author shows the insufficienc;
of all the various grounds on which the Church of Rome professe
to rest her faith. ^
The general agreement between our opponents and th
Romanists may be still further confirmed by a comparison c
their views with a dissertation on Tradition, given in a Romai
Catholic work, published a few years ago, on the Fathers f ani
the reader may observe not only a remarkable similarity in th
views advanced as to the point now in question, but also som^
rather curious coincidences in the ybrm of expression. If Mi
Newman had seen this treatise, it might have been well for hin
to have directed our attention to it, as containing, though mixe(
with some things respecting the Pope, in which, perhaps, he couh
not agree, a much more lucid statement of the matter than h(
has given us. In the treatise we find it placed before us in i
clear and precise manner, as if the author was not afraid to le
his readers fully see its length and its breadth ; so that any oni
1 See Placette's Incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome, c. 3.
2 See particularly cc. 2, 3, and 20 — 27.
3 LuMPEK Histor. Theol. — Crit. de vita, &c. Patrum. Aug. Vind. 1783 &c
13 V. Svo. This work is a compilation from various works on the Fathers. Th
dissertation above alluded to is principally taken from Massuet.

IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 87
who reads it sees at once what he is called upon to embrace ;
whereas, in Mr. Newman's work it is so mixed up with such
names as Stillingfleet, Butler, and others, and such expressions
of regard for the doctrine of the Church of England, and abhor
rence of certain practices of the Romanists; in a word, the
poison is so spread out in infinitesimal portions through the work,
and gilded with Protestant names, that the greater part of his
readers would have but a very indistinct notion of what they had
been imbibing, and still less of the consequences to which it must
lead them. I will not say, however, that Mr. Newman has not
herein judged skilfully of the means best likely to attain the
end he has in view, of bringing the English Church to a recep
tion of his doctrine ; and we find from Mr. Froude's "Remains,"
published by Mr. Newman, that the value of prudence in the
mode of bringing forward their doctrines, is fully estimated by at
least some of our opponents.
I shall now give a few extracts from this dissertation, which is
written more particularly on Irenaeus.
" That the sacred Scriptures are the words of God, and a cer
tain and immutable rule of truth, to which nothing must be
added, and from which nothing must be taken away, Irenaeus
most rightly teaches. Nevertheless, that all the words of God
are not expressly contained in them, but that the apostles, as the
ambassadors and heralds of Christ, taught other things which
they never consigned to writing, he not less clearly declares."
And then, after having quoted some passages from Irenaeus, (lib.
3, cc. 3, 45,) he adds, — " From which these things evidently fol
low ; first, that the very worst of all the heretics acknowledged
and confessed that the Scriptures were ambiguously expressed;
that is, were sometimes obscure, and admitted of several senses;
secondly, that the meaning of the obscure passages was to be
sought from tradition, not that which was written, but that which
was delivered orally. This Irenaeus blames not,* nay, in what
follows, approves of, as we shall presently see. Thirdly, that
tradition is fuller than the Scriptures, and distinct from them, as
heing their interpreter  But the medium, and as it were
canal, through which the apostolical tradition has come down to
us uninjured, is the succession of bishops lawfully ordained in the
catholic church."
And in a subsequent note (p. 348) he tells us, " If these tradi
tions were uncertain, the genuineness of the books of Scripture
would itself be uncertain. For whatever arguments the Pro
testants adduce for these are also of force to prove the certainty
1 How far thia is true we shall see hereafter, when we come to inquire into the
sentiments of Iiensus on this matter. (See c. 10.)

88 DOCTRINE or THE TRACTATORS
and stability of tradition" (Nam argumenta quaecunque qu:
Protestantes pro his adferunt etiam pugnant pro traditionis cert
tudine et firmitate.) Just as Mr. Newman tells us that, " what
ever explanations the Protestant makes in behalf of the pn
servation of the written word, will befourid applicable in t)
theory io ihe unwritten." (p. 46.)
And in the latter part of the Treatise, we have the followin
marks given us of apostolical tradition. First, the negative mark
that is, those that show a thing not to be an apostolical traditioi
being, "(1.) Every tradition that is clearly opposed to Hoi
Scripture, is not divine. (2.) A tradition contrary to a traditio
knovin to be divine, is not divine. (3.) Every tradition that i
contrary to the common consent of the Fathers and the definitio
of the church, is not divine. (4.) A tradition, the origin of whic
was clearly subsequent to the times of the apostles, is not divint
(5.) A tradition, respecting which churches of like dignity ar
divided, is not indubitably divine." Secondly, the positive mark
of divine tradition, being, " (1) That which was always every
where and by all believed as revealed, is most certainly a divin
revelation. Although it cannot be sufficiently clearly, or by an'
convincing argument, derived from Holy Scripture, it must bi
considered as certainly flowing from divine tradition. In th^
first case, where the doctrine is contained in Scripture, but no
sufficiently clearly or of necessity, it will be a declarative tradi
tion. In the second case, where it is either evidently not coi)
tained in Scripture, or at least cannot be derived from it by an;
convincing argument, it will be an oral tradition.
" (2.) That any thing should be considered as having beei
believed always, every where, and by all, it is not necessary tha
all individual churches should mathematically or physically agree
but a moral consent of the churches is sufficient, and those thi
chief ones; whence, if these agree together in stating any doc
trine which cannot be derived from Scripture, it is most certainh
to be held that it emanates from divine tradition.
" (3.) The uniform agreement and uniform practice of th(
church of the fourth and fifth century, except this practice i
known to have originated in the decree of the church or a coun
cil, is a certain sign that that which was then believed wa
always and every where believed as a divine revelation befori
the fourth and fifth century." Precisely according to the doc
trine of our opponents, in Tract 85, sect. 8, pp. 102, &c.
" (4.) When the universal church observes any thing as per
taining to faith, religion, or manners, the institution of whicl
exceeds human power, and which is not found in the Holy Scrip
tures, it is to be believed as certain that that was derived fron
divine tradition.

IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 89
" (5.) The doctrine which the universal church has defended
in any age, although it be not clear that it prevailed in particu
lar churches, if it has been always preserved in the principal or
apostolical churches, proceeded from divine tradition.
" (C. ) Whatever the church hath either defined in a general
council, as a doctrine of faith or manners, or even universally
professed without any decision of a general council, that, if it
either clearly cannot, or at least cannot sufficiently, be proved
from Scripture, is of divine tradition.
" (7.) The uniform consent of the Fathers of the first fi/e cen
turies bearing witness universally of any doctrine not contained
in Scripture, affords a certain foundation for considering that that
doctrine is of divine tradition, although it is altogether specula
tive." And in a note on this mark he says, — " It is not required
for that consent that they should all of them have spoken just
alike, and written so that none disagreed with the rest [i. e. it is
not necessary to that consent that they should all have consented] ;
for that consent is not to be taken mathematically , but mo
rally. But how many Fathers precisely may be sufficient and
be required, cannot be generally defined, as always happens in
those things which are to be judged of morally, and which are
left to the judgment of persons of good sense." (Neque ad
earn consensionem requiritur ut omnes illi prorsus idem dixerint
scripserintque nemine discordante : ejusmodi enim consensus non
mathematice sed moraliter accipiendus est. Caeterum quinam
prsecise Patrum numerus sufficiat et requiratur, generaliter defi-
niri nequit, ut semper contingit in lis quae moraliter asstimanda
sunt et prudentum judicio relinquuntur.) Which remarks are
surely remarkably similar to the following observations of Mr.
Newman, : — " The rule of Vincent," says Mr, Newman, " is not
of a mathematical or demonstrative character, but moral, and
requires practical judgment and good sense to apply it. For
instance, what is meant by being ' taught always'? .... And
does the 'consent of Fathers' require us to produce the direct
testimony of every one of them ? How many Fathers, how
many places, how many instances, constitute a fulfilment of the
test proposed ? . . . What degree of application is enough, must
be decided by the same principles which guide us in the con
duct of life," &c. (pp. 68, 9.)
" (8.) If the universal church observes any thing which is found
to have been observed in it in all past times, though the institu
tion of it may not be beyond human authority, if its origin cannot
be ascertained, it is deservedly thought to have been instituted
by the apostles ; but if ascending upwards, and inquiring into its
origin, we find it, it is only a human ecclesiastical tradition."
And to these marks are appended the following " corollaries."

90 DOCTRINE or THE TRACTATORS
" (1.) To those divine traditions whose existence is proved by
the foregoing marks, the assent of a divine faith is due equally
as to Scripture.
"(2.) The divine traditions of which we are certain, are a
rule of faith. [To this all will subscribe.]
" (3.) Tradition certainly and continuously diffused through
out the universal church, is the fittest mean for applying to us
divine revelation.
"(4.) Therefore Scripture is not perfect in the Protestant
sense. For it does not suffice alone to prove convincingly all
the doctrines of faith and precepts of manners of the church,
either those that are necessary or those that are useful."
" Therefore," adds the writer, " the complete rule of faith is
Scripture joined with divine tradition, which if ProtestAi\ts
WOULD ADMIT, ALL THE OTHER CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN US AND
THEM WOULD SOON CEASE."*
There is only one point in which I conceive our opponents can
object to this statement as differing from theirs, and that is, that
it does not distinctly state that all the fundamental doctrines
are contained in the written word ; but this was a point not in
question, and nothing here stated opposes that view, and I have
already shown that our opponents are totally mistaken in sup
posing that the Romanists do not hold this, that is, in the sense
in which they themselves hold it, namely, that these doctrines
are so contained in the Scriptures, that tradition is necessary to
show that they are there. But certainly the Romanists holding
this view do not pretend to refer us to Scripture only ior proofs
of a doctrine which they think that we could not find in Scrip
ture but by the aid of tradition, and herein are much more con
sistent than the Tractators.
If more evidence were wanted of the views of the Romanists
on this point, it would be easy to find it. One of our opponents'
own witnesses. Dean Field, will tell them, " For matters of faith
we may conclude, according to the judgment of the best and
most learned of our adversaries themselves, that there is nothing
to be believed which is not either expressly contained in Scrip
ture, or at least by necessary consequence from thence and other
things evident in the light of nature or in the matter of fact to
be concluded." (Of the Church, bk. 4. c. 20, p. 377.) And for
modern evidence, they will find it in the Downside discussion.
where one of the Roman Catholic speakers says, " The catholic
doctrine  is, that all absolutely essential revelations
are contained in the ivritten word, but it cannot be proved that
all the doctrines, all and every one of those truths which Christ
> See Lumper, vol. iii. pp. 318—62.

IDENTICAL WITH THE EOMISH. 91
came from heaven to reveal, and which he willed should be
handed down to future ages, that all these are contained in the
written word." (p. 172.) And again, — " Protestants maintain
that the Bible alone is the rule of faith: we maintain that all
absolutely essential doctrines are expressed in the Scriptures ;
either in the conclusions themselves, or in the principles
whence they are deduced." And then, having quoted several
authorities for this statement, he proceeds, " But whilst we hold
that almost every doctrine of religion is contained in the Scrip
tures, yet we maintain that there are some few doctrines which
are Jiqt expressly contained therein; and that there are many
others contained therein which are obscure. Of this we have a
proof in the immense diversity of opinions which we find amongst
those who make Scripture their only rule. We maintain, there
fore, that Scripture is not the only rule oi faith ; that there are
some few doctrines handed down to us exclusively, and others
more expressly manifested, by the unwritten word, forming a
part of the good tidings which Christ came from heaven to com
municate; and this is called tradition. These two parts com-
jjlete the rule of faith of the catholic church." (pp. 27, 28.)
"Tradition iorms a pctrt of the rule which Christ left to his
church, and as Protestants exclude tradition, they have not a
complete rule of faith." (Ib. p. 118.)
It is difficult to conceive how our opponents can have fallen
into a mistake so important, and one which, though no doubt in
advertently made, looks very strange, because it tends to make
the reader suppose that there is an important difference between
their doctrine and that of the Romanists, when in fact they are
substantially identical. If, however, our opponents have any
doubts remaining about the mistake, I will supply them with seve
ral other references in confirmation of the preceding.*
' It is worthy of observation that we have had not long since in our own church
a practical proof of what the principles of the Tractators on this subject may lead
to, and an acknowledgment of their identity with those of the Church of Rome
of a very remarkable kind. I allude to the cose of the Hon. and Rev. Mr. Spen
cer. It is quite true that this is not a/iroo/of the identity for which we contend,
but it is a practical argument in favour of it which wise men will not think lightly of.
Thus writes Mr. Spencer himself on the subject. " I could hardly fail telling him
that in becoming a Catholic I had come into the principles tehich Mr. Sikes and
he himself held in common, and on which Mr. Sikes had done so much to endea
vour to lead me to without effect ; because I used always to conceive the princi
ples of church-authority, which when proposed to me by Catholics afterwards I
embraced, quite inconsistent with the pretensions of the Church of England, and
with the principles of the Reformation, to which both Mr. Sikes and f adhered.
I have publicly stated that one step in my approximation to catholicity was
owing to the conversation of a Protestant clergyman with whom I happened to
pass an evening a year before my conversion. The clergyman was the late Mr.
Vaughan, brother to Sir Henry Halford, in argument with whom I was main-

92 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS
Lastly, let the reader compare the doctrine of our opponents
with the following summary of the Romish doctrine of the rule
of faith, given by Dr. Hawardine,* in his Treatise on that sub
ject Dr. Hawardine sums up the Romish doctrine on the sub-
taining the principle which I held most strenuously of regarding nothing but the
Scriptures as my guide. He made me observe for the first time, what it was
strange enough I had never before observed, that the Scriptures were not the
original rule of faith delivered as such by the apostles to the church, and he
pressed me with arguments to show that the tradition of the church must be at
tended to, [that is, as part of the rule of faith]. This part of his argument I took
little notice of, because I was quite clear that in our hands Ihe principle vias un
tenable ; but I FEIT KVEH AFTER, THAT I ¦WANTED SO.TtETHING MORE EXPLICIT
THAjr THE SIMPLE SCHIPTUHES TO OITE ME XS ASSUBANCE OF FAITH, ASD I WAS
THE MOREKEADT TO EMBRACE THE CATHOLIC DOCTRIHE OIT THE RULE OF lAITH
WHEN AT LEirOTH IT CAME TO BE CONSISTKNTLT PROPOSEn TO ME  I am
convinced the argument you hold against Ihe high churchmen of the Establish
ment is unanswerable." (British Magazine for May, 1840, pp. 530, 531.)
No wonder that the Romanists are exulting in the success of the Tractators,
and congratulating themselves upon a great and speedy addition to their ranks
from those who have made such advances towards them ; among the many testi
monies of which that might be quoted, I will content myself with the following
from the " Catholic Magazine" for March, 1839.
" Most sinceiely and unaffectedly do we tender our congratulations to our
brethren of Oxford, that their eyes have been opened to the evils of private judg
ment, and the consequent necessity of curbing its multiform extravagance. It
has been given to them to see the dangers of the ever. shifting sands of the desert
in which they were lately dwelling, and to strike their tents and flee tbe perils of
the wilderness. They have already advanced a ff real -may on their return to
wards that church within whose walls the wildest imagination is struck with
awe," &c. — " We can — we do forgive them, — that, urged hy the clamour of their
opponents, many of them exhibit towards us an extreme degree of intol
erance, by ivay of proving their abhorrence ofszicli of onr tenets as they do not
as yet hold, and exhibiting themselves as good and true men to the eyes of their
brethren." — " Some of the brightest ornaments of their church have advocated a
re-union with the church of all times and all lands ; and the accomplishment of
the design, if we have read aright the " signs of the times,' is fast ripening. Her
maternal arras are ever open to receive back repentant children ; and as, when
the prodigal son returned to his father's house, the fatted calf was killed, and a
great feast of joy made, even so will the whole of Christendom rejoice greatly
when so bright a body of learned and pious men as the authors of the 'Tracts for
the Times' shall have made the one step necessary to place them again within
that sanctuary, where alone they can be safe from the moving sands beneath
which they dread being overwhelmed. The consideration of this step will soon
inevitably come on ; and it is with the utmost confidence that we predict the ac
cession to our ranks of the entire mass."*
The Tractators boast of having the great majority of our able and learned di
vines in their favour. Will they have the kindness to inform us when and where
those divines were so addressed by members of the Church of Home f
1 " A person of consummate knowledge in all ecclesiastical affairs, scholastic
moral, and historical, and, to do him justice, perhaps the present age cannot show
his equal." — Dod. "Dr. Hawardine's works are distinguished for brevity, accu
racy, clearness, order, and close reasoning." — Butler.
zThe rule of faith truly stated. 1721. VZmo. Pt. 3, pp. 275 et seq.
* pp. 17.5, 6.

IDENTICAL WITH THE ROMISH. 93
ject in the following twelve rules. " First rule. The doctrine
of Christian religion which the apostles delivered by word of
mouth was of equal authority with their writings. Second rule.
What directions soever the apostles were inspired to give for the
exercise of religion were of equal authority with their writings.
Third rule. The distance of the present age from that of the
apostles is no just exception against the certainty and authority
of apostolical tradition. Fourth rule. Some points of Christian
religion are certainly known by apostolical tradition, which in
particular are not plain in the Holy Scripture alone. Fifth
rule. All the chief articles of Christianity are contained in
the Holy Scripture." " This rule," he adds afterwards, " is I
think beyond dispute." " Sixth rule. All the chief and most
necessary articles of Christianity are plainin the Holy Scripture,
if we consider it in that sense in which it is and always has been
understood by the faithful. Seventh rule. Considering the
Holy Scripture in that sense in which it was always understood
by the faithful, all the articles of religion which it is necessary
for every Christian to know are plain in it. Eighth rule. The
Holy Scripture evidently contains in general all points whatso
ever of Christian religion. Ninth rule. All points of religion
may be solidly proved by arguments grounded on the Holy
Scripture ; and by them all heresies may be solidly confuted.
Tenth rule. Some controversies of religion may be decided by
the Holy Scripture alone. Eleventh rule. The true church
may be found out by Scripture alone. Twelfth rule. What
ever contains the chief and most distinguishing articles of Chris
tian religion may be truly called the rule of faith." Such is the
Romish doctrine of the divine rule of faith and practice, as given
by Dr. Hawardine; and his comment upon these twelve rules,
which is too long to transcribe here, identifies his doctrine still
more completely with that of our opponents. The reader will
not fail to observe that by the last of these rules it is contrived
that Scripture shall be called " the rule of faith," but in a sense
which makes it far from being really the rule. In his explica
tion of the twelfth rule, he says, " Hence the Books of the New
Testament may not improperly be called the rule of Christian
religion."^ The same remark is made, as we shall see hereafter,
by Mr. Newman, and apparently for the same reason, viz. in
order to explain away some passages of the Fathers in which itis
so called, and which therefore render it necessary that the name
should in some way or other be admitted.
It would be easy to multiply such extracts, and I may just re
fer the reader to the statements of the Roman Catholic opponent
1 p. 306.

94 DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS, ETC.
of the late Rev. Ralph Churton (no low Churchman) on this
subject as almost identical with those which are now, alas ! put
forward by divines of the Church of England.*
But having given sufficient to enable the reader to compare
the doctrine of the two parties upon the subject, I pass on to the
more important task of examining its pretensions.
1 See Reply to Rev. R. Churton, by F. Eyre, of Warkworth, Esq. Lond.
1798, Svo. pp. 116—119 ; &c.

95

CHAPTER IV

THAT THERE ARE NO WRITINGS EXTANT ENTITLED TO THE NAME
OF APOSTOLICAL TRADITIONS BUT THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES.

In entering upon the inquiry whether there remain to us any
apostolical traditions besides the Scriptures of the apostles in the
New Testament, the first point which we have to ascertain is,
whether there are any writings extant entitled to that name.
That there are writings claiming to be so considered is well
known. Such, for instance, are various apocryphal gospels and
epistles, the apostolical canons, the apostohcal constitutions, and
various liturgies called by the names of the apostles. With re
spect to all these, however, it is so generally agreed that they
cannot be considered the genuine productions of the apostles, that
it is unnecessary to notice them any further in this place.
But besides these there is one relic of antiquity which has been
contended for by some as a genuine relic of the apostles, and for
which Mr. Newman evidently claims an apostolical origin and
authority, — namely, what is commonly called the Apostles'
Creed. Mr. Newman calls it "the formal symbol which the
apostles adopted, and bequeathed to the church;" (p. 270;) " a
collection ofdefinite articles set apart from the first ;" (p. 296 ;) and
says that it " is of the nature of a written document, and has an
evidence of its apostolical origin, the same in kind with that for
the Scriptures." (p. 297.) And upon such grounds he would make
it part of the authoritative rule of faith.
Now, however great may be the value to be attached to this
venerable relic of the primitive church, such claims as are here
made in its behalf are utterly without foundation. Indeed, to
hear such a claim advanced for it in the present day is not a little
remarkable. To say with Mosheim, " All who have the least
knowledge of antiquity look upon this opinion as entirely false,
and destitute of all foundation,"* would perhaps seem inconsistent
' Eccl. Hist. Pt. 2. c 3. Engl, transl. vol. i. p. 103.

96 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.
with the remarks which have dropped from the pen of one or two
learned men on the subject ; but certainly I will venture to say,
that Mr. Newman will find an overwhelming majority of the
learned divines of the last three centuries who have examined the
subject, altogether against him.*
As this matter is of some moment, I will enter somewhat fully
into it, and in proof of the statement just made will endeavour to
establish the following positions.
1. That no precise form of words was left by the apostles as the
Christian Creed.
2. That there was no such definite summary of the chief arti
cles of belief given by the apostles to the Christian church as the
Creed, and that what is called " the Apostles' Creed" is merely
the antient Creed of the Church of Rome, and no more entitled to
the name than any other of the antient Creeds.
3. That what is called " the Apostles' Creed" gradually attained
its present form, and that two at least of the articles it now con
tains were not inserted in it before the fourth century.
4. Thatthe Creeds of the primitive church were derived origi
nally from the Holy Scriptures.
And therefore
5. That none of the antient Creeds can be considered as an apos
tolical production.
1. That no precise form of words was left by the apostles as
the Christian Creed.
On this point we naturally refer, first, to the canonical Scrip
tures of the apostles and disciples of our Lord. And considering
the nature of those writings we might not unreasonably expect
to find some notice of such a formula having been published by
them, if so it had been. But for such a notice we shall search
in vain. Mr. Newman indeed, without any hesitation, but also
without any proof, maintains the contrary, and silently assuming
the correctness of his own private interpretation of one or two
passages that seem to him to favour his views, boldly tells us of
St. Paul " quoting" the Creed, and even the name he gives to
it. For after observing that history tells us the Creed was
drawn up in the apostles' days, he adds, " Indeed St. Paul in his
first epistle to the Corinthians so speaks of it, when quoting part
of it, viz. as that which had been committed to him, and which
he had committed in turn to his converts. (1 Cor. xv. 3.)" (p. 261.)
"To guard and to transmit it, [i. e. the Creed,] not to remodel
it, is her sole duty, as St. Paul has determined in his second
epistle io Timothy." (p. 267.) "His delineated and recog-
1 See Walch. Introd. in libr. symb. lib. i. c. 2. Budd. Isag. ad Theolog. lib.
i. c. 2. § 2. King's Hist, of the Apostles' Creed ; Pearson ; Harrow ; &c.

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 97
nised in Scripture itself, where it is called the Hypotyposis,
or ' outline of sound words.' " (p. 297.)
These cool assumptions are certainly very convenient, because
they cut all knots at once, and by many readers are doubtless
much preferred to the cautious and guarded statements of one
who has well weighed his positions, and speaks only according to
the evidence he possesses, but nevertheless must not be allowed
to usurp the place of proof by one who wishes to know the truth.
On what authority has Mr. Newman made these confident asser
tions of St. Paul quoting " the Creed ?" There is not a word
about " the Creed" in either of the passages here referred to, nor,
as it appears to me, would the expressions lead to Mr. Newman's
view of their meaning, even if we knew from independent sour
ces, that a Creed had been at that time drawn up. In the first
passage the apostle says, " I delivered unto you first of all that
which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according
to the Scriptures," dec. (1 Cor. xv. 3.) Now compare this passage
with one just preceding it, in the eleventh chapter, "For I have
received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that
the Lord .lesus the same night in which he was betrayed took
bread," &c. (xi. 23.) The expressions are all but identical, and
surely, therefore, the obvious mode of interpreting the passage in
the 15th is by that in the 11th chapter, where there is evidently
no quotation from the Creed. And if any thing further is want
ing to show that the apostle did not " receive" his faith from
" the Creed," we have it in his own words in his epistle to the
Galatians, where he says, " The gospel which was preached of
me is not after man, for I neither received it qf man, neither
was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal.
i. 11, 12. So much then for this "quotation from the Creed."
The next passage is an exhortation to Timothy, " Hold fast the
form (or, outline) of sound words which thou has heard of me,"
&C. 'Tw»Tt/i»"ft)o-»v t^i iyiciivoTut Xoyait, at irtif ife»v vKattFuf. (2 Tim.
i. 13.) Now the construction of these words in the original
completely overthrows Mr. Newman's interpretation. For the
apostle does not say that Timothy had " heard from him" " an
outline of sound words," but that he had heard from him sound
words, of which he was to hold fast the outline, that is, the great
characteristic features. The English reader will observe that
the word " which" refers to the " sound words ;" so that the
meaning of the passage would be more accurately conveyed to
the English reader by the following translation : " Hold fast the
form (or, outline) of those sound words which thou hast heard of
me." I admit that the passage has often been quoted in the
sense which Mr. Newman has attributed to it, and a remarkable
instance it is among the many that might be mentioned, of the
VOL. I. I

98 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.
way in which observations are handed down from one to another
and repeated on the mere authority of their having once been
made.* I repeat, then, we shall search Scripture in vain for any even
the slightest intimation that the apostles drew up a Creed for the
use of the Church. And it is hardly to be credited that had the
apostles drawn up such a formula, we should have had no notice
of it in the Acts of the Apostles.
Further ; if there was such a form of words where is it ? which
form, among all the various ones which have come down to us, is
that of the apostles'! The form called by us "the Apostles'
Creed" is not to be traced higher than the fourth century. And
the forms given in the early writers vary much both from this
and among themselves.
For instance, the earliest extant is in Irenffius, who, having
spokenof" the unalterable rule {xuvaii) of truth which he received
by baptism," («» 3(« nv /3«?rT(cr^«Tor uXm^i) gives " the faith
preached by the church" thus, — " The church, though scattered
over all the world from one end of the earth to the other, re
ceived from the apostles and their disciples the belief in one God,
the Father Almighty who made the heaven, and the earth, and
the seas, and all things that are in them; and in one Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, who was incarnate for our salvation ; and in the
Holy Spirit, who preached by the prophets the dispensations, and
the advents, and the birth by a virgin, and the passion, and the
resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven
of the beloved Jesus Christ our Lord, and his advent from heaven
in the glory of the Father to restore (ttyccxi(fixXaiao-xirext) all things,
and to raise all flesh of all mankind, that to Christ Jesus our Lord
and God and Saviour and King, according to the good pleasure
of the invisible Father, every knee should bow of things in heaven
and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every
tongue should confess to him, and that he may execute just judg
ment upon all ; that he may send the spirits of wickedness and
transgressing and apostate angels, and all impious and wicked
and lawless and blasphemous men into everlasting fire ; and to
1 Another instance, I would humbly submit, is in the common application of
Matt. xvi. 18. "The gates of hell (or, /md«) i shall not prevail against it."
(nxTic-^i^unuiriv xwni;.) The idea is that of prevailing by superior strength to keep
an adversary down. This text is almost always quoted as a promise that Satan
shall never destroy, Christ's church on earth ; and is so applied by Mr. Newman.
(p. 249.) But what can the gates of hades have to do with the church on earth 1
But viewing hades as the place of departed spirits, where they remain till the
resurrection, the passage is clear, and the excellence of the promise at once
seen. It is a promise that the church shall not remain always in that place of
intermediate rest, but shall be ultimately delivered from it by him who " hath
the keys of hades and of death." (Rev. i. 18.)

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 99
the just and holy, and those that have kept his commandments,
and remained steadfast in his love, some from the beginning,
others aftejr repentance, having given life, may confer on them
immortality, and put them in possession of eternal glory."*
The same writer, however, having occasion again to refer to
the rule of faith, which he now calls, " the order, or rule, of that
tradition which the apostles delivered to those to whom they
committed the churches," gives it in the following words, —
" Believing in one God, the maker of heaven and earth, and all
things which are in them, through Christ Jesus the Son of God;
who on account of his extraordinary love for his creature, submit
ted to be born of a virgin, uniting man to God in his own person,
and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and
being received in glory, shall come in glory as the Saviour of
those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are condemned,
sending the corrupters of the truth (transfiguratores veritatis) and
the despisers of his Father and of his advent into eternal fire"^
Passing from Irenaeus to one who flourished shortly after him,
viz. Tertullian, we have a " Rule of faith" delivered to us in
quite different terms. Tertullian himself, indeed, gives it us in
three different forms of words.
In his book, " On prescription against heretics," he says, —
"The rule of faith, — that we may now at once state what we
believe, — is that by which we believe that there is but one God,
and no other beside, the maker of the world, who produced all
things out of nothing by his Word which he sent forth first of all
things. That that Word was called his Son, was seen at various
times by the patriarchs Under the name of God, was always
heard by the prophets, and at last was brought down by the
Spirit and power of God the Father into the Virgin Mary, and
made flesh in her womb, and being born of her, lived in the per
son 6i Jesus Christ ; that from that time he preached a new law
and a new promise of the kingdom of heaven ; that he performed
miracles, was crucified, rose again the third day, and being taken
up into heaven, sat at the right hand of the Father, and in his
stead sent the power of the Holy Spirit to guide believers; and
that he shall come with glory to take the saints into the fruition
of eternal life and the heavenly promises, and adjudge the wicked
to everlasting fire, having restored to life both the one and the
other, and raised their bodies." " This rule," he adds, " instituted
by Christ, raises no disputes among us except such as heresies in
troduce, or such as make heretics.'"^
Again, in his treatise "On virgins being veiled," he says, "The
1 Ieek. Adv. hffir. lib. i. c. 10. Mass. c. 2. Grab.
2 Adv. hffit. Ub. iii. c. 3. 3 De Prtescript. adv. hssret. c. 13.

100 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.
Rule of Faith is but one, alone unchangeable and unreformable,
namely, of believing in one God Almighty, the maker of the
world, and his Son Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin IVIary, cruci
fied under Pontius Pilate, raised the third day from the dead, re
ceived in the heavens, and now sitting at the right hand of the
Father, who shall come to judge the quick and the dead by the
resurrection of the flesh."*
He refers to it again in his Treatise against Praxeas, where he
states it thus ; — " We believe indeed one God, nevertheless under
this dispensation, which we call ceconomy, namely, that there is
also a Son of that one God,; to wit, his Word, who proceeded from
him, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing
was made ; that he was sent by the Father into a virgin, and
born of her man as well as God, the Son of man and the Son of
God, aud called Jesus Christ ; that be suffered and was dead and
buried according to the Scriptures, and raised again by the
Father, and taken back again into the heavens, and now sits at
the right hand of the Father, about to come to judge the quick
and the dead, from whence also he sent from the Father accord
ing to his promise the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, as the sanctifier
of the faith of those who believe in the Father and Son and Holy
Spirit." And he adds, that " this rule had come down from the
beginning of the Gospel." (Hanc regulam ab initio Evangelii
decucurrisse.)* The passages we have just quoted are, as far as I can find,
(and as is generally understood,) the only passages in the writings
extant of the first two centuries in which we have a formal and
succinct delivery of the chief articles of the Christian belief, the
next occurring in the writings of Origenj who flourished towards
the middle of the next century.
It follows, therefore, I conceive, beyond doubt, that there was
no form of words left by the Apostles as the Christian Creed ; for
had there been, that doubtless would have been quoted in these
passages. Had there been such a form left by the Apostles,
there can be no doubt that it would have been religiously pre
served by the church, and recognized in such passages as those
we have quoted. But for the first three centuries and more there
is not the slightest indication given us that the Apostles left such
a form. Each person who has occasion to give a summary of the
chief articles of the faith, gives it in different words, and if more
than once, does not himself give always the same form. The
silence of the Nicene Council upon the matter is particularly
observable, because then at least there would have been a re
cognition of such a form had it existed. There were then no
I De virgin, veland. c. I. 2 Lib. adv. Prax. c. 2.

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 101
difficulties in the way to prevent its being openly brought for
ward if there had been such a formula, for persecution had then
ceased, and there could be no reason for concealing it, especially
when they were about to promulge one intended for the same
purposes as this is supposed to have answered. The rise of here
sies might have rendered some addition desirable, but there would
have been at least some respectful recognition of the formula left
by the Apostles had there been such. The silence of this council
upon the subject appears to rne conclusive against the idea.
Further, the early Fathers apply themselves to prove the
Articles of the Creeds they give, from the writings of the Apos
tles, which obviously would have been altogether useless and ab
surd for one composed by the Apostles. Such a Creed would in
fact have formed a portion of the Canonical Scriptures, and a
portion of the highest authority, as sanctioned by the unanimous
voice of the Apostles.
If it is replied, from a misunderstanding of the words of
Jerome, (quoted in the next page) that " the Creed" was not
written but delivered orally from one to another, I answer, that
this is evidently a misinterpretation of his words, for " the Creed"
had been before that time delivered without hesitation in writing
by Ruffinus, and so had been the Jerusalem form of it by Cyril,
to say nothing of the forms given by Irenaeus and Tertullian, and
therefore the meaning of Jerome, when he says, that " the Creed
is not written on paper or with ink, but on the fleshly tables of
the heart," is, that trUe Christians, as a body, were to inscribe
it on their hearts, and not on paper, which would be useless;
and perhaps there may be also an allusion to the fact that " the
Creed" was not to be written by the baptised, lest the catechu
mens might peruse it before they were prepared to receive the
faith it contained, as we learn from Cyril.* But such passages
do not mean that " the Creed" was not to be anywhere written,
for authors that make similar remarks have themselves left it in
writing, as for instance Cyril and Ruffinus."
It is not till the close of the fourth century that we meet with
the report of its being composed by the Apostles. We do not
even find the name " the Apostles' Creed," (a name which might
have been given to it on many other grounds than from the Apos
tles having been considered its authors) earlier than a letter of
Ambrose, written about the year 389.^ The first assertion of
its having been composed by the Apostles is found in Ruffinus,
> Catech. 5. sub fin. ed. Milles. § 7. p. 75.
^ Ruff, in Symbol, prope init.
3 Credatur symbolo Apostolorum, quod Ecclesia Romana intemeratum semper.
custodit et servat. Ad Siricium. Ep. 42. Ed. Bened. (Par. 1836, tom. iv. p.
338.) The earlier works to which reference has been made, are all long ago
I*

102

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.

who, in his Exposition of the Creed, written about the year 390,
tells us that it was said to be written by them,* though he him-
self, in a subsequent part of the same Treatise, speaks in a man
ner that shows he at least felt doubts on the subject.* Jerome
also speaks of the Creed as having been deUvered by the Apos
tles,' and similar language is held respecting it by several wri
ters in the fifth and sixth centuries,* and those that follow,* and
hence for a time the notion gained credit that the Apostles were
the authors of it. But the language of Jerome is not decisive as
to what his own view of the matter was, for- it may seem, as
Du Pin supposes it to mean, merely that the Creed contained the
apostolical faith And his great contemporary Augustine, not
only has nowhere in his genuine works^ even given to it the name
of " the Apostles' Creed," but has expressly said, as we shall
show presently, that it was compiled from the Scriptures.
The account of Ruffinus is this, — " Our Fathers say, that after
the ascension of our Lord .... the Apostles .... went each
to different nations. Therefore, being about to separate from
each other, they settle among themselves beforehand a rule for
their future preaching, lest perchance when apart from one
another, they should preach tp those who were invited to the
faiih of Christ doctrines at all dissimilar. Therefore, being
assembled all together and filled with the Holy Spirit, they com
pose that short summary of their future preaching, putting to
gether what each one thought fit to supply, and resolve that this
should be given to the faithful as a rule."
And the Author of the Sermon numbered ,115 of the "Ser-
mones de Tempore," of Augustine, kindly tells us what articles
each Apostle supplied, Thomas supplying the words, " he de
scended into hell," and Simon Zelotes, " the communion of saints,"
confessed to be spurious, as Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Jacob. Constit. Apostol. lib. vii.
c. 41. I " Tradunt majores nostri," &c. Expos, in Symb. § 2.
2 " Cautissme autem qui symbolum tradideruni etiam tempus quo haec sub
Pontio Pilato gesta sunt designaverunt." Ib. § 20. Ed. Pamel. Col. Agripp.
1617. 3 In symbolo fidei et spei nostra, quod ab Apostolis traditum non scribitur in
charta et atramento sed in tabulis cordis carnalibus, post confessionem Trinitatis
et unitatem ecclesiae omne Christiani dogmatis sacramentum carnis resurrectione
concluditur. Ad Pammach. adv. error. Jo. Hierosol. (written about the year
397.) Ed. Bened. tom. iv. col. 323. Vail. Ven. ii. 435.
4 Leo Magn. Ep. 13. Jo. Cassian. De incarn. Dom. lib. v. Venantius Fortuna-
tus, Expos. Symb. in Prsefat. Isidor. Hispal. Orig. lib. vi. c 9. Vigil. Taps. Adv.
Eutych. lib. iv.
s Raban. Maur. De instit. cler. lib. ii. c. 56, and others.
6 Serm. 115 and 181 of hia Sermones de Tempore are confessedly spurious and
rejected by the Benedictines.

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 103
which articles, as is well known, were not in the Creed till some
two centuries at least after the death of the Apostles.
A very pretty story, but coming rather too late in the day in
the year 390, to make much impression, and withal not very
complimentary to inspired men, that they should be so careful to
confer with one another before they separated, lest they should
preach different doctrines.
We assert further,
2. That there was no such definite summary of the chief ar
ticles of belief given by the Apostles to the Christian Church, as
" the Creed ;" and thtit what is called " the Apostles' Creed" is
merely tbe antient Creed of the Church of Rome, and no more
entitled to the name than any other of the antient Creeds.
In the first place, as we observed on the former head, Scrip
ture is silent as to their having left any such summary.
That they required a confession of faith from candidates for
baptism is doubtless true, but how far that confession extended
we have at least no evidence in Scripture, and the only recorded
confession is, I think, that of the Ethiopian eunuch, — " I believe
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God," — which was evidently ac
cepted by Philip as a sufficient baptismal confession, and which
might be said to include virtually a confession of the whole
Trinity. (Acts viii. 37.) And a similar confession is spoken of on
other occasions as involving virtually an avowal of the Christian
faith. (See ch. xvi. 31.)
So much, then, is of course freely granted, that the Apostles
required a confession of faith previous to baptism, which might
and probably did include several of the articles now in "the
Apostles' Creed." But as to the extent of that confession, or that
it had any definite limits, there is at least no evidence upon
which we can depend. Ingenious as are the conjectures which
have been offered, founded upon the catechetical instructions of
the Apostles, that such and such articles must have formed part
of the baptismal Creed, they are but conjectures, and grounded
upon a mode of argument which would prove too much; for if,
as has been argued, the articles of the resurrection of the dead
and life everlasting are to be admitted, because the Apostle
mentions in one place the resurrection of the dead and eternal
judgment as doctrines belonging to the "foundation," on the
same ground we must conclude that "the doctrine of baptism
and of laying on of hands" formed part of that Creed in the
time of the Apostles.
Moreover, had there been such a fixed and definite summary
there would not have been so great a variation in the confessions
given by the early writers. Had there been a collection of cer
tain definite articles made by the Apostles, and left with the

104 ON IHE ANTIENT CREEDS.
church, on the understanding that those were the articles which
should form the Creed, there would not have been this vari
ation. Nor can there be any doubt that we should have had some
reference to this fact in the Fathers of the first three centuries,
and the proceedings of the Nicene Council. They would have
told us, especially when delivering "the rule of faith," that the
Apostles had left a rule of faith consisting of certain definite
articles; but instead of this, when giving the Rule of faith, they
vary in the number of articles given, and uniformly leave out
some of those given in our present Creed.
Nay, more, the summaries given by the same Father vary in
extent, so as to show that the selection was made by the indi
vidual writer. And all that is stated merely amounts to this,
that the summary so given was agreeable to the faith delivered
by the Apostles, that the faith delivered in it had come from the
Apostles. To the argument, that unless there had been such a summary
there would not have been the similarity we find in these Creeds,
it is quite a sufficient answer to refer to the parting direction of
our Lord to his disciples, " Go and teach all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost," (Matt, xxviii. 19,) in which we find at once the rudi
ments of the earliest Creeds, and from which " the Creed" ap
pears to have derived its origin.
Such is the view taken of this passage by the great Atha
nasius. "Let us moreover," he says, "observe, that this was from the
beginning the tradition and doctrine and faith of the catholic
church, which the Lord gave, and the Apostles preached, and
the Fathers kept. For upon this the church was founded, and
he who falls away from this could not be, nor be called, a Chris
tian. Therefore, there is a holy and perfect Trinity, &c. . .
[proceeding to deliver the doctrine of the trinity] . . . And (hat
this faith is the faith of the church, let them learrt from this, that
the Lord, when he sent forth his disciples, commanded them to
lay this foundation for the church, saying, ' Go and teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost'; and the apostles went and taught
thus ; and this is what is preached to every church under heaven.
Therefore, since the church has this as the foundation of its
faiih, let them tell us in reply, and answer whether there is a
Trinity or a Duality," &c.*
' Icfoi^fV fi D/Aie; y-x'i ¦Trpo; nuToic kj.) xutuv tuv ?| 'PX"^ TrxpuS'.iriv x.ui S'li'iTX.-JXia.v «.ui
T.TT/l' TJK V.'J.6o\IKH EmASITWC, «» 0 /J^iV Kup'.IC iiucX-iV, ii S'i A.Vi.O-'nKOI ix.il p'jilLV , XU sj
TTXtipH iilyvKU^XV' iv rXVTil ") ^P » i.K>i?u^^tX T'SifAiKIU^TUt , XXt 0 Tziun? iXTTITfTaV CUt' UV

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 105
And so again; — "This is the faith of the catholic church.
For the Lord hath founded and rooted it upon the Trinity,
saying to his disciples, ' Go and teach all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost.' "*
And again, speaking of the name Father as being more ap
propriate for the first Person of the Trinity than Unbegotten, he
says, " Moreover, when teaching us to pray, he [i. e. our Lord]
did not say, But when ye pray, say, 0 God, unbegotten, but. But
when ye pray, say, Our Father who art in heaven ; and also he
wished the summary of our faith to lead likewise to this [name,]
where having commanded that we should be baptized, it is not
in the name of the Unbegotten and the begotten, nor in the name
of the Creator and the created, but in the name of Father, and
Son, and Holy Ghost."»
Hence it is said in the " Catholic Letter" attributed to Atha
nasius, " The symbol, therefore, of our faith is the Consubstantial
Trinity."^ Hence, therefore, Tertullian, after giving "the Creed," adds,
itii, cut' xv in Xiyaira, Xpi^nxvoc. Tpixc tcivov dyix xat *ri\itx iir^iv .... K«i oTi
ctitTH H rnvni; ths E.xxX)i^txe i^tti, juxQrraifxv, True o fjitv Kvpto?, xvonTihXeev tous ATroino-
xcuc, TrapnyyuM t^utov Bi^fXtov TiBivxt th ^xx\iia-ix, \eym, IlopivQtvris fAx^viTiva-ttTi irxwa.
TX ibvn' ^ATTTi^ovnc xvTcu; its TO tivofitx TOU IlaTpof XXI Toy Tiou Kxt TOU ityiou Ilviu/^xros.
Ol Ji ATTitrToxot TtcpiuQiVTi; ouTOc? iStS'x^xv. V.XI TcuTo s^Tiv w? TTxtrxv T«v t>5r' avpxvov
^XKKniTtav TO xupvyy-x. Ovkcuv toutcjv s;^;ooff¦«f twc EKuxxo-istf tov BifjiiXiov T«f mtrTiees,
ilTrxraiTxv Trxj^lv v/xiv aceivo/ xxt x7roxpivxahu.irav, Tpixs iVTlv » Aux;; x. t. X. Athanas.
Epist. ad Scrap. Contra eos qui dicunt, Spiritum S. creaturum esse. §§. 28, 9.
Op. ed. Ben. tom. i. Part 2. pp. 676, 7. Ed. Col. 1686. tom. i. pp. 202, 3. See
also the same Treatise at §. 6. p. 653, (or p. 179.) et Epist. ad Serap. contra eos
qui dicunt Filium creaturum esse, §. 6. p. 687, (or, p. 170,) tho former particu
larly. I Aut« TJjf KxQoxixnc ^xxKHff-ix; ^ TruTTis. Ev TpixSt yxp avrm iSi/uiXiaitri xxi ippi^affiV
0 K'upi^c, iipuxas Tot; fjiahnrai;, TlipiuBivri; jUxSureua-xri x. r. ' X. Epist. ad Scrap. De
Spir. S. §. 6. ed. Ben. tom. i. Pt. 2. p. 695. ed. Col. tom. ii. p. 14.
2 AXKx XXI iijux; iv^i^Qxt St^aa-xcev, dux imiv, 'OTrtv (Te Tepoiriv^trBi Xeyeri, Ba Ayeyvnn,
awx juxwov, 'OTstv tTg 7rpoc-6uxi<rSi, Xiyvn, TlXTttp iijum o iV this ovpxvoi;. xxi to xi^xxettov
(Tg T«? -TTiaTiu; «j«a)v u; touto auvTimiv n&exntre, xiXiua-xc vif/.x; ^xTTTi^arBxi, cvx u; ovo^ct
Aymimu xxi Tivvnnv, oucTe u; ovo/ua Kt-o-tou xai TU'riar/ji.x'TK, xx\' ii; cn/xx XlxTpcit xxi
Tiou xxi ayiou nviu/jaroc. Contra. Arianos. Orat. la. §. 34. ed. Ben. tom. i. pp. 438,
9, orat. 3a. ed. Colon, vol. i, p, 341, See also orat, 4. § 21. tom. i, p. 633. (or,
orat. 5. tom, i. p. 535.) And so in the Treatise, " Contra Sabellii Gregales," at
tributed to Athanasius, and supposed by Du Pin and others to be genuine though
the Benedictines place it among those of doubtful genuineness, it is said, Mxi'iK
apvou/jiivo; tx Tptx thv MovxSx ivpirxav vcfjtt^trai, xx\' iv th Tptxit voutoi to sv, iyav to
xs^AXxiov Tfl; TTiff'Titu; iV Tai ^XTTTTivf^xTi XXI iV TXts TpiiTiv xyiats r^pxyia-t. ed. Ben, tom,
ii. p. 43. ed. Col. vol, i. p. 658. The " Epistola ad Jovianum," vol. ii. p. 241,
(or, p. 34.) contains a similar passage, but I do not quote it as that Letter is gene
rally considered spurious,
3 'Su/A^xov CUV ns OTs-Teac i/um o/aoovo-ks i Tpias. ed. Bsned. tom. ii. p. 30. ed.
Colon. 1686. tom. i, p. 571. This letter is considered by Du Pin and others as
genuine, but the Benedictines have placed it among the doubtful.

106 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.
(in a passage already quoted, pp. 99 above,) that " this rule" was
"instituted by Christ."
So Basil, after giving a summary of " the Creed," taken pro
fessedly from Scripture, adds, " Thus we believe, and thus we
baptize into the Consubstantial Trinity, according to the com
mand of our Lord Jesus Christ, when he said, 'Go and teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' "*
So in the Creed of Lucian, (quoted p. 113 below,) these words
of our Lord are referred to as the foundation upon which the
Creed was built.
Thus also Gregory of Nvssa says, " And afterwards he [i. e.
our Lord] adds the words by which they [i. e. his disciples] were
about to take captive as in a net the whole earth, and in luhich
is contained the whole mystery of true religion; for he says,
'Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.'"" And
so in another place he says, " We believe in accordance with
that faith which our Lord set forth to the disciples, saying, " Go
and teach all nations,' &c. This is the declaration of the mys
tery by which, through the birth from above, our nature is
changed from that which is mortal to that which is immortal."^
And thus speaks Augustin: "Who can be ignorant that it is
not Christ's baptism, if the words of the Gospel, in which the
Creed is contained, have been there wanting."*
Thus also Hilary : " To believers the word of God, which was
transfused into our ears by the testimony of the Evangelist united
with the power of its own truth, was sufficient, when the Lord
says, ' Go and teach all nations, baptizing them,' &c. [Matt.
xxviii. 19, 20.] For what is there which concerns the mystery
of the salvation of man, which is not contained in it? Or what
1 'OuTaf <ppovou/uiv, XXI gutois /ixTrrl^OjUiy us TptaSx ojuoou^tov, xAtx thv svto'ahv xuTm
TOU Kupiou iifj^m Jiio-ou Xpta-Tou enrovros, TrcpsijBsvTis /ux&HTSvT-xTi x. t. a. Serm. de fide. §.
4. ed. Bened. tom. ii. p. 228. Par. 1618. tom. ii.p. 255.
2 Kit/ STT/^S/JS/ XOITTOV Ta p'/l/UXTX ^l' OlV ifXzKXOV THV OiiiOU/UiVHV DXUV trxyhVSUSlV, XXt SV ok
iO-TlV XTTXV TO rUS iU^s/SilXS ^UO-THpiOV. IXopSuQsVTiS yxp, CpH^t, JUxQiiTiUiTXTi TCXJITX TX sflvH,
fixTTTi^ovTis X. T. X. Do Tcsurr. orat. 2a. (Par. 1638. tom. iii. p. 414. Par. 1615 —
18. tom. ii. p. 846)
3 ThVTS^OfJLiV OUV XxBuS i^sBiTO Tots fXxBllTXlS THV TTITTIY 0 KupiOS 0 ieTTOlV VTI TTOpSuBiVTiS
f.ixB»Tiuo-xTi X. T- X- [Matt, xxviii. 19.] OuTos iTTiv 0 Xoyos TOV fjtua-Tuptou, sv ai Six ths
XVOoBiV yiVVHTimS JUSTXirXiUX^iTXt Mfxuy H ^U^tS XTTO TOU ^BxpTou Trpos TO x^QxDTOV. Id.
Contr. Eunom. Ed. 1615. orat. la. tom. ii. p. 2. Ed. 1638. orat. 2a. tom. ii.
4 Quisnesciat non essebaptismum Christi si verba Evangelica quibus symbolum
constat illic defuerint. Aug. De bapt- contra Donat. lib- 6. c. 25. tom- ix. col. 176.
There can be no doubt what the " verba Evangelica" mean, as he had said just be
fore, " Deue adest Evangelicis verbis suis, sine quibus baptismus Christi conse-
crari non potest."

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 107
is there which remains to be said, or is obscure ? All things are
complete, as from one who is complete, and perfect. . . . But we
arc compelled, through the sins of heretics and blasphemers, to
handle points of which we have no permission to speak ; to climb
the heights of divine truth ; to speak of ineffable mysteries ; to pre
sume beyond what is revealed to us  Their infidelity
carries us into the region of doubt and danger, when it is neces
sary to put forward any thing concerning things so great and
recondite beyond ihe heavenly ride. The Lord had said that
the nations were to be baptized in the name of the Father,
and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The form (or, rule) of faith
is certain ; but as it regards the heretics, the whole meaning is
in dispute."*
And lastly, thus speaks Theodoret : " ' Go, said he, and teach
all nations, baptizing them,' &c. And, according to this law,
both the divine apostles, and the teachers of the church who
followed them, teach those who come to them to believe in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and
baptize those who are thus taught, in the name of the Father
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."^
The foundation of " the Creed," therefore, was laid in these
words delivered by .our Lord himself. Each bishop or church
baptizing according to our Saviour's command, in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, required first
and principally a brief confession of belief in the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, in the terms which they thought most suit
able to the orthodox faith; and this direction of our Lord was
evidently considered by the early Fathers as intimating that the
sum and substance of the Christian faith consisted in such a con
fession; and hence Christians are called by Tertullian "those
who believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. "^
1 Sufliciebat credentibus Dei «ermo qui in aures nostras Evangelistce testimonio
cum ipsa veritatis sute virtute transfusus est, cum dicit Dominus, 'Euntesnunc
(locete omnes gentes baptizantes cos,' &c. Quid enim in eo de sacramento saluiis
humanse non continetur t Aut quid est, quod sit rellquum aut obscurum 1 Plena
sunt omnia ut a pleno et a perfecto perfects  Sed compeliimur hajreticorum
et blasphemantium vitiis illicita agere, ardua scandere, ineffabilia eloqui, inconces-
sa priEsumere .... Horum infidelilas in anceps nos ac periculum protrahil, ut
necesse sit de tanlis ac tam reconditis rebus aliquid ultra prsescriptum ccBleste pro-
forrc. DIxeraf Dominus baptizandas gentes in nomine Patris et Filii ct Spiritus
Suncti. Forma fidei certa est; sed quantum ad h:ereticos omnis sensus incertus
est. Hilar. De Trin. lib. 2. §§ 1, 2, 5. Ed. Bened.
^ r\'AuBiVTis yxp, fr^H, fxxBirriUiTXTi  Y.xtx toutov ^i tov v:y.ov xxi oi hirA Ar'.7-
TOXot, xu it fJ.iT' iXilVOUS Tflf iXXXtl^lXS S'tS±7XxXOI, fiUtBllTiVOUTt TOUS TTpOITtOVTXS TriOTiUHV US TO
OVOjUX TOU IlXTpoS XXI TOU TlOU XXI T'.U XyiOU TlViVfjlXTOS, XXI TOUS fJixhyiTlubiVTx: ^XTTI^'.UTIV
i.s TO cH|U» TOU WxTpos, », T. X. Thcud. Haer. Fab. lib- iv. c. 1. Ed.Schulz. torn, iv
pp 350, I.
3 Adv. Prax. c. 2.

108 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.
That any determinate amplification of this confession (i. e. one
including certain fixed and definite points) was made by the
Apostles, there is not the slightest ground to suppose. The tes
timony of the earliest Creeds is certainly opposed to such an
idea ; for while the degree of similarity there is among them is
fully accounted for by recollecting that common foundation from
which they originated, our Lord's precept for baptism, the varia
tions they exhibit show that there was no definite confession formed
upon that foundation by apostolical authority. And as the time
at which some of the articles now found in " the Apostles' Creed"
were inserted can be traced, (as we shall prove presently) and as
these articles were inserted by ecclesiastical authority, so the
articles previously inserted may have been placed there by the
same authority.
" The earliest Christian Church," says L'Estrange, " knew, I
conceive, no other creed, no other confession of faith, as antece
dently necessary to baptism . . than that of belief in the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, as was the direction of our Saviour relating
to baptism .... Afterwards, as upstart heresies did administer
occasion, several articles were added in opposition to those false
teachers."* The same view of this question is taken by Bishop
Stillingfleet.'' " That in the more antient times," says Dr. Barrow, " there
was no one form generally fixed and agreed upon, to omit other
arguments that persuade it, is hence probable, for that the most
learned and generally knowing persons of those times, when in
their apologies against disbelievers for Christianity, or in their
assertions of its genuine principles and doctrines against misbe
lievers, they, bj the nature and sequel of their discourse, are
engaged to sum up the principal doctrines of our religion, they
do not yet (as reason did require, and they could hardly have
avoided doing, had there been any such constantly and univer
sally settled or avowed form) allege any such ; but rather from
their own observation of the common sense agreed upon, and in
their own expression, set down those main doctrines wherein the
chief churches did consent; as may be seen by divers of them,
especially by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latins, if we compare
several places wherein he delivers the rule of faith, (as he con
stantly calls it, that is, such a summary of Christian principles by
which the truth of doctrines concerning matters therein touched
might be examined;) wherein I say he delivers such rules of faith
to the same purpose in sense, but in language somewhat different,
yet never referring us to any standing and more authentic
1 Alliance of Div. Offices, 2d ed. p. 168.
2 Vindic of Doct. of Trin. p. 225.

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 109
form. Among these forms, that which now passes under the
title of the Apostles' Creed (about which we discourse) seems to
have heen peculiar to the Roman Church, and that very an-
tiently, (as to the chief articles thereof, for it appears that in
process of time it hath been somewhat altered, especially by
addition;) and because it had been used from such antiquity,
that its original composition and use were not known, was pre
sumed to have derived from the Apostles, the first planters of
that church /a* it was then usual io repute all immemorial
customs to be deduced from apostolical tradition;) or possibly
because the Roman Church (as in common belief founded by the
two great apostles, Peter and Paul) was by way of excellency,
called the apostolical church, and the succession of Roman
bishops sedes apostolica, so whatever belonged to that church
obtained the same denomination ; and among the rest, the Roman
symboln\\ght, for that reason, be caWed symbolum apostolicum;
that is, symbolum ecclesiae apostolicas. For that it was com
piled by joint advice, or by particular contributions of all the
Apostles, is a conceit sustained by very ivectk grounds, and
assailed by very strong objections; as that a matter of so illus
trious remarkableness, and of so great concernment, should be
no where mentioned in the Apostolic Acts, nor by any authentic
record attested, (and, indeed, had it been so testified, it must
have attained canonical authority ;) that it was not received by
all churches; and that those which used the substance thereof
were so bold therewith as to alter and enlarge it, are considera
tions ordinarily objected thereto ; but that which most effectu
ally to my seeming doth render such original thereof altogether
uncertain, fand doth amount almost to a. demonstration
against it, I mean against the truth, or, which is all one in
matters of this nature, its certainty of being composed by the
Apostles,) is that which I before intimated; viz. that the most
antient (and those the most inquisitive and best seen in such mat
ters) were either wholly ignorant that such a form, pretending
the apostles for its authors, was extant, or did not accord to its
pretence, or did not at all rely upon the authenticalness thereof;
otherwise (as I before urged) it is hardly possible that they should
not have in most direct and express manner alleged it, and used
its authority against those wild heretics who impugned some
points thereof."*
I conclude this head with the following observation of the Bi
shop of Lincoln. " The inference to be drawn from a compari
son of different passages scattered through Tertullian's writings
is, that the Apostles' Creed in its present form was not known
1 Exposition on the Creed, init. See his works, Oxf. 1818, vol. v. pp. 221 — 3.
VOL. 1. K

110 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.
to him as a summary of faith ; but [of which there can be no
doubt] thatthe various clauses, of which it is composed were
generally received as articles of faith by orthodox Christians."*
So little ground has Mr. Newman for his remark, — " This ele
mentary confession [i. e. " I believe in Jesus Christ"] seems, even
before the Apostles' death, to have been expanded and moulded
into form, and in that form or type it has remained up to
this day in the Baptismal Service. I say this was done in the
Apostles' days, because history bears witness to the fact, calling
it ' the Creed,' ' the Apostles' Creed,' the treasure and legacy of
faith which the Apostles had left to their converts." (p. 260.)
That it may be said to contain " ihe faith which the apostles had
left to their converts," is very true, (and we can prove it by their
writings,) but this is no proof that the Creed was "moulded into
form" in the days of the apostles ; and when Mr. Newman adds
that "this was done in the Apostles' days, because history bears
witness to the fact, calling it ' the Creed,' ' the Apostles' Creed,'"
he very sadly misrepresents the real state of the case. It is not
till quite ihe close of the fourth century that we hear anything
about " the Apostles' Creed." The name (symbolum aposto
lorum) certainly is given to the Creed about that period by some
writers, but only in the Latin church,^ and the period at which
they lived is evidently too late to admit of their evidence being
considered as sufficient to establish such a matter. So that from
the time of Erasmus very few authors of repute have maintained
the opinion that the Creed was, strictly speaking, an apostolical
formula. Indeed how to account for such statements from a stu
dent of antiquity I know not.
That " the Apostles' Creed," and all the other Creeds of the
orthodox, might be said to be " the faith (or, creed) delivered by
the holy apostles,'"^ "the holy and apostolical faith," (or, creed,*)
as they are often called by the Fathers, is no doubt true, because
they may be proved from Scripture, but this is very different to
speaking of the Apostles as the authors of the formulae themselves,
which, had it been the case, would have been stated by the
Fathers in defence of them, and have rendered their proofs of the
statements contained in them from the writings of the Apostles
unnecessary. 1 Eccl. Hist, illustrated from Tertullian, p. 324.
2 I say this on the authority of Du Pin, himself a Romanist.
3 As Epiphanius says of a Creed given by him as the baptismal Creed of his
church, and which differs much both from that called " the Apostles'," and the
Nicene, — Ka( xutii fxa « otctt/c vxpiioBii xtto Taiv xyim xtto'ttoxuv xxi iv ixxxamx th
xyix TTOXit x'TTo TTAVTOiv 0/xou Tftiv ofytm sTrio-xoTrcxv tiTTip Tpixxoa-im ^ixx TOV xpiBuov. Epiph'
Anchor, sub. fin. Op. ed. Petav. v. 2. p. 123.
4 As Cyril calls the Creed which he gives of the Church of Jerusalem  'Ayix,
xcu xma-ToxiK-n tti^tis. Cat. 18. Ed. Milles. p. 274.

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 1 1 1
The Creed called by us " the Apostles' Creed," therefore, has
got that name appropriated to it with us merely through the
partiality of some authors of repute in the Latin church at the
end of the fourth century to the Creed of their own church, for
it has clearly no more right to the title than the Creeds of the
Oriental churches, of which the most antient extant are those of
the churches of Cassarea and Jerusalem,* given respectively by
Eusebius of Caesarea (as already quoted) and Cyril of Jerusalem,
(both of them, by the way, more antient writers than any from
whom we have the Creeds of the Latin church,) nor have any of
those Creeds a better right to the title than the Creeds of the
Councils of Nice and Constantinople.^ Each of these Creeds is,
in fact, an exposition by one or more pastors of the church, of the
faith dehvered by the apostles, (whether taken from their oral or
written tradition is hereafter to be considered ;) an exposition
gradually extended from that simple confession of faith required
from the eunuch by Philip, (Acts viii. 37,) or that confession of
faith in the Trinity, to which our Lord's directions for baptism
(Matt, xxviii. 19) would lead. And that which is commonly
called among us " the Apostles' Creed," we might more properly
name, with Dr. Barrow, the antient Roman Creed, to distinguish
it from those of Jerusalem and Nice and others, which are equal
ly entitled with it to the name of the Apostles' Creed. And so,
indeed, it is called by Ruffinus.'' In fact the appellation is mere
ly due to the spirit in which the Church of Rome has acted from
a very early period,* attempting to obtain currency for all her
rites and usages, by calling them apostolical.
It is maintained,
3. That what is called " the Apostles' Creed" gradually at
tained its present form, and that two at least of the Articles it
now contains were not inserted in it before the fourth century.
It will have been already observed that in the Creeds or con
fessions of faith just quoted from the works of Irenaeus and Ter-
'I do not notice the Creed given by some writers as the antient Oriental Creed,
derived from the Exposition of Ruffinus upon the Creed, because it is derived
from thence merely by inferential reasoning. The Creed which he there gives is,
as he himself tells us, the Creed of the church of Aquileia, but from his occasion
al notice of some discrepancies between that and the Creeds of Rome and the
churches of the East, it has been taken for granted that these latter Creeds were
precisely the same as that of Aquileia, which he gives, except in the passages he
has noted. This may be so, but it is merely conjecture.
2 This Creed has in fact been called " the Apostles' Creed" even in the Latin
church, which may suggest the probability that this title was not always intended
to imply that the Apostles had delivered the formula, but only the faith contained
in it. In an antient missal in use in the Latin church about the year 700, it is
said of this Creed, " Finite Symbolo Apostolorum, dicat sacerdos," &c. Miss, ed
Argent. 1557, p. 41. See Usher, De trib. symb. p. 16.
' See p. 118 below. ¦* See Firmilian's Letter to Cyprian.

112 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.
tullian, the faith is comprised in the articles relating to the Father,
Son and Holy Spirit, none of those which follow in our present
Creed being introduced except that of the resurrection of the
flesh, which is connected with the articles relating to the Son,
nor that of the descent into hell. Such also is the case in all the
Creeds down to that of the Nicene Council, that also included.
For the satisfaction of the reader, I will here add them in the
order in which they occur.
Among them may be noticed the statement made by Origen at
the beginning of his work, " On first principles," wherein he lays
down the doctrines maintained, as he conceives, by successional
delivery in the churches from the time of the apostles, though
this statement is hardly to be reckoned a brief summary of the
chief articles of the faith, taking, as it seems, a much wider range.
However the reader will find it in the next chapter.
There is, however, in a work attributed to Origen a delivery
of such a summary as follows : — " I believe that there is one God
and Creator and Maker of all things, and God the Word derived
from him, consubstantial, eternal, who in the last times took upon
him human nature of Mary, and was crucified and rose again
from the dead. And I believe also the Holy Ghost, who is eter
nal."* This work, however, is not considered to be a genuine
work of Origen.
The next in order is the Creed of Gregory of Neocsesarea com
monly called Gregory Thaumaturgus, which he caused to be used
in his own church, and which, if we believe Gregory Nyssen's ac
count in hislifeofhim,was revealed to him ina vision from heaven.
It runs thus : — " There is one God, the Father of the living Word,
the subsisting Wisdom and Power, and the eternal Image [of
the Father]. A perfect Begetter of a perfect Being, a Father of
an only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, one of one, God of
God, the character and image of the God-head, the operative
Word, Wisdom comprehending the system of the universe, and
Power creative of the whole creation, a true Son of a true Father,
invisible of invisible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and im
mortal of immortal, and eternal of eternal. And there is one
Spirit, who has his existence from God, and through the Son,
was manifested to men, a perfect image of the perfect Son, Life,
the Cause of those that live, the Fountain of holiness. Sanctity,
the Author of sanctification ; in whom is manifested God the
Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son who per
vades all. A perfect Trinity, neither divided nor separated from
one another in glory, eternity, or dominion. In this Trinity,
therefore, there is nothing created or servile, nor anything in-
• De recta in Deum fide sive Dial. Contr. Marcion, § 1. Op. Orig. tom. i. p. 804.

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 113
troduced into it as not existing before and afterwards added to it.
Never, therefore, was the Father without the Son, nor the Son
without the Spirit, but the same Trinity existed always un
changed and invariable."*
The next is the Creed of Lucian the Martyr, which is as fol
lows: — " We believe agreeably to the Evangelical and Apostoli
cal tradition [i. e. the New Testament] in one God the Father,
Almighty, the Creator and Maker and Administrator of the uni
verse, of whom are all things. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, his
only-begotten Son, who is God, by whom are all things ; who was
begotten before the worlds of the Father, God of God, whole of
whole, one of one. Perfect of Perfect, King of King, Lord of Lord,
the living Word, living Wisdom, the true Light, the Way, the
Truth, the Resurrection, the Shepherd, the Gate, the inconverti
ble and unchangeable image of the Deity, the exact image of the
essence, and wisdom, and power, and glory of the Father, the
first-born of every creature, who was in the beginning with God,
God the Word, according to what is said in the Gospel, ' And the
Word was God,' by whom all things were made, and in whom
all things consist; who in the last days descended from on high
and was born of a virgin, according to the Scriptures, and was
made man, the Mediator between God and men, the Apostle of
our faith and Giver of life, as he says, ' For I came down from
heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him who sent me ;'
who suffered for us and rose again the third day, and ascended
into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and
shall come again with glory and power to judge the quick and
the dead. And in the Holy Ghost, who is given to believers for
their comfort and sanctification and perfecting. As also our Lord
Jesus Christ commanded his disciples, saying, 'Go and teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost,' to wit, of a Father who is truly a Father,
and of a Son who is truly a Son, and of a Holy Spirit who is truly
a Holy Spirit; the names not being applied unmeaningly and to
no purpose, but signifying precisely the proper hypostasis, and
order, and glory of each of those named, that in hypostasis they
are three but in consent one. Therefore holding this faith even
from the beginning, and holding it to the end before God and
Christ, we anathematize all heretical false doctrine ; and if any
one teaches contrary to the wholesome right faith of the Scrip
tures, saying, that there is or was a time or season or age before
the Son was begotten, let him be anathema. And if any one
says that the Son is a being created as one of created things, or
1 Gregor. Thaumat. Op. Ed. Par. 1622, p. 1., and Gregor. Nyss. Op. ed. Par.
1638, tom. 3, p. 546. Ed. 1615—18, tom. 2, pp. 978, 9. K*

114 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.
procreated as one of things procreated, or made as one of things
made, and not as the divine Scriptures have delivered each of
the things aforesaid, or ii he teaches or preaches anything else
contrary to what we have received, let him be anathema. For
we truly and reverently believe and follow all those things that
are delivered to us from the divine Scriptures by prophets and
apostles."* These are the only Creeds that remain of the period anterior
to the Council of Nice.^
In that Council, Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, who took so lead
ing a part in it, gave the following as the antient Creed of the
church of Caesarea, as we learn from his Letter to the inhabitants
of Cassarea, respecting the acts of this Council, preserved by
Athanasius^ and others.* " The formula, therefore, proposed by
us, which was read before our most pious emperor, and approved
as sound, runs thus, — As we received from the bishops that were
before us, both in the catechetical instructions and when we were
baptized, and as we have learnt from the divine Scriptures, and
as we have believed and taught when holding theoffice of presby
ter and in the episcopate itself, so still believing, we lay before
you our Creed ; and it is this ; — We believe in one God the Father
Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible ; and in
one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of
Light, Life of Life, the only-begotten Son, the first-born of every
creature, begotten of the Father before all worlds, (or, ages,) by
whom also all things were made, who for our salvation was incar
nate, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third
day, and ascended unto the Father, and shall come again in glory
to judge the quick and dead. We believe also in one Holy Spirit,
believing each one of these to be and exist, the Father to be truly
a Father, and the Son truly a Son, and the Holy Spirit truly a
Holy Spirit, as also our Lord when he sent forth his disciples to
preach, said, ' Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' "
The Creed published by the Council of Nice (preserved to us
in the letter of Eusebius just quoted and in other works ^ was as
'The orginal of this confession is to be found in Athanasius, Epist. De Syn.
Arim. et Seleuc. § 23. and Socraf. His. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 10. A Latin translation of
it is given by Hilary in his book De Synodis, § 29. who also vindicates its ortho
doxy from the suspicion that had been attached to it from its having been re
ferred to by the Arians, in which he is followed by Bishop Bull, (Def fid. Nic. ii.
13, 6.) who proves that Lucian was the author of it, and Bingham, (Antiq. book
I. c. 4, § 6.)
2 1 do not notice the Creed inserted in the Apostolical Constitutions, because
they are confessedly spurious, and of very uncertain age.
^ Atban. Epist. de decret. Syn. Nic. sub fin.
¦•Socr. Hist. Eccl. lib, 1. c. 8 ; Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. lib. I.e. 12; &c.
¦^ Athanas. Epist. ad Jovian. §, 3. Theodoret. Hist. Eccl. lib. 4. c. 3. Socr.
Hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 8. Basil. M. Epist, 125. Op. tom. 3. p. 215. Ed. Ben. &c.

ON THE ANTIENT CRXEDS. 115
follows; — " We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker
of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only-begotten, that
is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God, begotten not made, of one substance with
the Father, by whom all things were made both that are in
heaven and that are in earth, who for us men and for our salva
tion came down and was incarnate, having been made man, suf
fered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and
shall come to judge the quick and dead. And in the Holy Spirit.
And those who say that there was a time when the son of God
was not, and that he was not before he was begotten, and that
he was made out of nothing, or those who say that he is of an
other hypostasis, or substance, or that he is a creature converti
ble or changeable, the Catholic Church anathematizes."
Now in all these various forms it will be observed, that there
is not one of them which includes more than the confession re
lating to the Trinity. And so the Creed is often referred to by
the Fathers, as consisting of belief in the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost. Thus Cyril of Alexandria says; — "For he [i. e. Christ]
offers our confession, that is, our faith, which we are also ac
customed rightly to make, saying. We believe in God the Father
Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ his Son, and in the Holy
Ghost."* And again, — "There is made by us the confession of
the right faith in one God the Father Almighty, and in one Lord
Jesus Christ his Son, and in one Holy Ghost.'"'
There is also a passage in the writings of Tertullian, which
seems very clearly to intimate that the earliest Creed or symbol
was only a confession relating to the Father, Sort, and Holy
Spirit. Speaking of the Holy Spirit as the " leader into all
truth," he adds, " which, according to the Christian sacra
ment, is in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost."" The
term sacrament we may observe is applied by other authors also
to the Creed'* and Ambrose compares it to the soldier's " sacrament
(or, oath) of warfare."^
It was therefore the opinion of Erasmus and Vossius, that the
Creed for more than three centuries did not extend further than
' lipoupyit yxp HfxCiiV THV OjUOXOylXV, T0UTi7Tt THV TrltTTlV, HV XXI opBces XXTuBlTfJiiBx 'TTOliHr.
6x1, XsyovTis. TlitrTiuofjLiv us ivx ©gov TrxTipx TTxvroxpxTopx' XXI US ivx Kuplov ]ncrouv Xpia-rov
TOV utov xuTou" XXI US TQ Tlviufjix TO xyiov. Cyrili. Alex. De recta fide ad Reg. Op.
ed. Aubert, tom. v. P. 2. p. 148.
2 'H THS 0pBHS7ri7Til£S oy.oXoyiA TrpXTTiTXt Trpos HfAOIV us iVX ©iov, X. T. X. Id, ib. p. 158.
' Deductorem omnis veritatis, quae est in Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto se
cundum Christianum sacramentum. Adv. Prax. c. 30.
* As Ruffinus in Apol, adv. Hieron. lib. i. 4 5. "sacramentum symboli" and
Hieron. Ad Pammach. adv. Joann. Hieros. (See p. 101.)
* Militiae sacramentum. De virg. lib. 3. c. 4. § 20.

116 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.
that; and their opinion is adopted by Bishop Stillingfleet;' and
certainly as it respects that collection of articles which the earli
est Fathers have pointed out to us as comprising the chief points of
Christian doctrine, and called " the rule of faith," it is clear from
the passages quoted above, that it did not extend further than
that confession.
But then this rule of faith was not during that whole period
identical with the confession required to be made at baptism; and
it appears to me that the want of this distinction has occasioned
much of the disagreement which appears in the various accounts
given of the history of the Creed. The Creed or Rule of faith,
as given by the earliest Fathers, comprised only the articles re
lating to the Trinity, (if we except that on the resurrection of
the flesh,) and in that state probably formed for some time the
whole baptismal confession, that confession being, as we have
seen, derived from our Lord's precept for baptism (Matt, xxviii.
19, 20,); but it seems clear that from an early period there were
generally added to that confession some other points, which
though not at first inserted in the Creed, formed the subject of a
separate interrogation at baptism.
Thus Tertullian, in his Tract on baptism, says, " But when
both the declaration of faith and the promise of salvation were
pledged by the Three, there is necessarily annexed the mention
of the church, since where the Three are, that is, the Father, and
Son, and Holy Spirit, there is the church, which is the body of
the Three."^
And Cyprian still more clearly intimates that such was the
case ; — "If," he says, "any one starts tnis objection, that Nova-
tian retains'the same form of baptism which the catholic church
holds, that he baptises with the same creed as ourselves, that
he acknowledges the same God the Father, the same Son the
Christ, the same Holy Spirit, and consequently that he may
assume the power of baptizing, because he seems not to differ
from us in the interrogation used at baptism, let such an one, who
ever thinks to object this, know first, that there is not one and
the same form of Creed to us and the schismatics, nor the
same interrogation. For when they say, ' Dost thou believe
the remission of sins and life eternal through the holy church V
they speak falsely in the interrogation, since they have not a
church."" 1 Vindication of doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 225, 6.
* Quum autem sub Tribus et testatio fidei et sponsio salutis pignerentur, neces-
sario adjicitur Ecclesiae mentio, quoniam ubi Tres, id est. Pater et Filius et Spiri-
tus Sanctus, ibi Ecclesia, qus Trium corpus est. De baptismo, c. 6. See also c. 1 1 .
3Qund si aliquis illud opponit, ut dicat, eamdem Novatianum legem tenere,
quam Catholica Ecclesia teneat, eodem symbolo, quo et nos, baptizare, eumdem

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 117
And again; "The very interrogation which takes place at
baptism is a witness of the truth. For when we say, ' Dost thou
believe in eternal life and the remission of sins through the holy
church,' we mean that remission of sins is not given but in the
church."* In the first of these passages Cyprian clearly seems to distin
guish between the symbol or Creed containing the confession re
lating to the Trinity from the interrogation relating to " remission
of sins and life everlasting through the holy church," or at any
rate his words imply that these points were the subject of a dis
tinct and separate interrogation. And by a passage in the letter
of Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea, to Cyprian, this matter is placed
almost beyond doubt, where, speaking of a baptism performed by
certain heretics, he says, " To which neither the Creed of the
Trinity, nor the legitimate interrogation, and such as is used by
the church, was wanting.'"*
The points noticed in the above passages, then, were clearly
subjects of interrogation at baptism at an early period, but they
did not then form part of that summary which was called " the
rule of faith," which, as derived from our Lord's precept for bap
tism, was at first kept distinct from these additions, and always
held to be the most important part of the baptismal confession.
We may add also to the preceding testimonies that of Cyril of
Jerusalem. For in his fourth Catechetical Lecture, he says, —
" But beforethedelivery of any comment upon the faith, it seems to
me to be desirable now to give a compendious summary of the
necessary doctrines, (t«» amyxociat ^oyftitTu*)." He then proceeds
to give the doctrines relating to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
as in the Creeds already quoted, and then immediately adds, —
" Retain this seal, (or, symbol or mark, o-ippayiSa) ever in thy
mind  And after the knowledge of this venerable and
glorious and holy faith, (or Creed, a-io-rews,) know also thyself,"
&c. 8
nosse Deum Patrem, eumdem Filium Christum, eumdem Spiritum Sanctum, ac
propter hoc usurpare eum potestatem baptizandi posse, quod videatur in interroga-
tione baptismi a nobis non discrepare, sciat, quisquis hoc opponendum putat, pri-
muni non esse unam nobis et schismaticis symboli legem, neque eamdem inteiro-
gationem. IV am quam dicunt; ' credis remissionem peccatorum et vitam aeternam
per sanctam Ecclesiam,' mentiuntur in interrogatione, quando non habeant eccle
siam. — Ctph. Ep. ad Magn.
1 Sed et ipsa interrogatio, quae fit in baptismo, testis est veritatis. Nam quam
dicimus, ¦ Credis in vitam aeternam et remissionem peccatorum per sanctam Eccle
siam,' intelligimus remissionem peccatorum non nisi in Ecclesia dari. — Ejusn. Ep.
ad Januarium, &c.
2 Cui nec symbolum Trinitatis nec interrogatio legitima et ecclesiastica defuit.
Ep. 75, inter Cypriani Ep,
3 Cyr. Hierosol. Cat. 4. §§ 2 and 12. pp. 46 and 56. ed. Milles. (Ed. Par. 1631,
pp. 24et 30.)

118 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.
Proceeding, however, in the subsequent Lectures to comment
upon the confession required at baptism, he says, that after the
confession of faith relating to the Trinity, this followed. " In one
baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, and in one holy
catholic church, and in the resurrection of the flesh, and in the
life everlasting."*
So that even in the time of Cyril, in the middle of the fourth
century, there was a distinction between the confession relating
to the Trinity and that required at baptism.
But from about this time the distinction appears to have been
very much lost sight of, and the whole of the confession required
at baptism was spoken of as the Creed, the Rule of faith.=
Further; it appears from the Creeds we have already quo
ted, that even in the part relating to the Trinity, an article which
occurs in the (so called) " Apostles' Creed," viz. that relating to
Christ's descent into hell, formed no part of the primitive summa
ry of the articles of the faith. The first Creed in which it ap
pears was one published by the Arians at the Council of Arimi-
num, A. D. 359, which had also been previously exhibited by them
at the Council of Sirmium.^ It is also to be found in the Creed
of the church of Aquileia, given by Ruffinus* towards the close
of this century, who, however, also tells us that this addition was
not to be found in the Creed of the Roman church, nor in the
churches of the East.^ This article, therefore, was not intro
duced into the Creeds of the Roman and Oriental churches until
after the fourth century. That it was a doctrine taught by the
Apostles ° and Fathers' there can be no doubt, but it was not in
serted in the summary of the chief articles of belief for several
centuries. Passing on to the consideration of the articles that follow that
relating to the Holy Ghost, and considering the Creed as we find
it when including points not relating to the Trinity, we find not
1 Id. Cat. 18. § 11. p- 269. (Ed. 1631. p. 220.)
2 Since writing the above, I have found that Dr. Waterland favours the view
taken above of the brevity of the original Creed, and its being distinct from the
confession required at baptism. See his "Importance of the doctrine of the
Trinity," c 6. Works, vol. v. pp. 160, 161.
3 Socr. Hist. Ecc. lib. ii. c. 37. Kxi us tx xxtx^Bovix xxtixBovtx. And see lib.
ii. c. 41.
¦i Expos, in Symb. Apost.
5 " In Ecclesiae Romane Symbolo non habetur additum descendit ad inferna ;
sed neque in Orientis Ecclesiis habetur hic sermo." Expos, in Symb, Ap. § 20.
6 Acts ii. 27. Eph. iv. 9.
7 Cyrili. Hieros. Cat. 4. § 8. p. 53. (Ed. 1631. p. 27.) Epiphan. Adv. Har. lib.
iii. in Expos. Fid. Cath. § 17: Iren. lib. iv. 27. ed. Mass. c. 45. ed. Grab. And
see Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. ult. where an account is given of the preaching of
Thaddsus at Edessa of which this article formed one topic. Others are mentioned
by Pearson.

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. ] 19
a little diversity in their phraseology and number in the earliest
forms in which they appear.
Thus in the article relating .to the church, the most antient
Creeds have only the words " holy church," the word "catholic"
having been added by the Greeks.* And, what is more worthy
of remark, the article of the " communion of saints" is not to be
found in any Creed or baptismal confession of the first four cen
turies, nor in many of those of a subsequent date. Its earliest
occurence, perhaps, is in the 115th and 181st of the Sermones
de Tempore erroneously ascribed to Augustine.
It is maintained,
4. That the Creeds of the primitive church were derived
originally from the holy Scriptures.
in proof of this [ will point out, first some internal indications
of the earliest Creeds having been derived from Scripture.
Thus, in the first creed given above from Irenasus, in addi
tion to the fact observable at a glance, that the whole tone of
the phraseology is remarkably scriptural, we have in one part
a direct quotation from Phil. ii. 10, 11. The way in which it
is made also, without acknowledgment, seems an additional proof
how completely Scripture was the guide throughout, if indeed,
any other than the general phraseology were wanting. I sub
join the original below, with one or two references to Scrip
ture in illustration of the scriptural nature of the phraseology,
and the language may in other parts, as any reader conversant
with the Greek Testament will see, be easily traced to the same
source.^ 1 See Pearson in loc.
2 'H.|«6)' yxo 'ExxXHO'ix, xxi^rsp xxB^ oxh? thc aixoufuvHs \t£S VipxToov THS yns S'urTrxpfAivH,
Txpx. cTe Ta'!/ A^oittoXqiv xxi tcdv fixavoiv (W*9htu'V 'TTxpxxxQiijua-x thv us iVX Qiov IIstTsoa. ttxv-
ToxpxTopx TOV myoiHxoTX TOV oupxvov xxt THV yHv xxt Tfitc Bxxxo-tj-xs, XXI TrXVTA TX iv XVTOIS,
[See Acts iv. 24; xiv. 15.] ma-Tiv xxt us iva-Xwo-Tov Innuv, [See 1 Cor. viii. 6, which
reference I give on the authority of the following passage in Ruflinus. " Orientis
Ecclesiae omnes ita tradunt, ' Credo in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem ;' et
rursum in sequenti sermone, ubi nos dicimus, ' Et in Jesum Christum, unicum
Filium ejus, Dominum Nostrum,' illi tradunt, ' Et in vnvm Dominum Nostrum
Jesum Chrtstum, Filium ejus.' Unum scilicet Deum et unum Dominum, secun
dum auctoritatem Pauli Apostoli profitentis.' Ruff, in Symb. § 4. and see § 1 1.
A remarkable observation this for one who tells us elsewhere that the Apostles
drew up the Creed.] tov uiov touQsou, tov a-xpxaiBiVTX i-np thc Hi^inpxs o-aiTHpixs xxs us
Tlviujux xyiov, TO cTiA Tm rrpopHTCnv xixupu^os Ttt? oixovoij.ixs, xxi Tctc iXiuiriis, XXI t;i;' sjo
TXl^iVOU yiVVHTlV, XXt TO TTxBoS, XXI THV iyipO-IV ix ViXpaiV, xxt THV iVtrXpXOV its TOUS OvpXVOVS
xvxXH-^ty TOU HyxTTH/xivfiu Xpta-Tou Iho-ou TOU Kuptou tiuuev, xxt thv ix Tm oupxvatv ev th cTo^^h
tou YlxTpos JMatt. xvi. 27 ; Mark viii. 38.] ttxdouo-ixv xutou, vri to xvxxi^xxxtaia-x^Bxi
TX TTXVTX, [Eph. i. 10.] xxt XVXiTTHa-Xt "TrXUXV irXpXX TTXTHS XvBfiOlTroTHTCS, tvx XpttrToi \naQu
TOO Kupiai HfXaV, xxt QiCU, xxt iralTHpi, xxt SxtriXit, XXTX THV iV^OXtXV TOU TlXTpOS TOU XOfiXTOU,
Txv yovu xXfjtifH ereouoxvtm xxt iirryi^m xxt xXTX^Bovtwv, xxt txo-x yxao-trx. i^o[jtoXoyH<rHTXi
xuToi, [Phil. li. 10, 11.] xxt xptirtv iixxixv ev tois rrx^t -TrotHO-HTxr tx fjnv Trviu^xTixx ths
7rcvHpta4, xxt xyyiXous vxpx&t&HXOTXs, xxt iV XTTOTTXirtX yryovoTXs, xxt TOUS XTi&US XXi
x^ixovs xxt xvofXQvs, xxt SxxTOHfjour Tojv xvBpum'mv us to mmm ^rup 7rifjt.^H' tois S'i Stxxtots,
xxt OtrtOtS, xxt TXS iVTOXa^ AUTOU TiTHpHXOa-l, xxt iV TH ttyxTTH ttUTOU SlXfiifXiVHXOiTt, TOIS XT^

120 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.
Again, in the third of the Creeds quoted above from Ter
tullian, we have two manifest quotations from scripture. "There
is also," it runs, " a Son of that one God, namely his Word,
who proceeded from him, by whom all things were made, and
without whom nothing was made." In the beginning," says
St. Johu in his Gospel," was the Word, and the Word was with
God, &c. ; by him all things were made, and without him
was nothing made that was made." (John i. 1,3.)'
Again, in those words, " that he suffered and was dead and
buried, according to the Scriptures, and raised again by the
Father,"^ it is evident from other passages of the Treatise where
this Creed occurs, that there is an allusion to 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4.^
And this is particularly observable in the formula we are
now considering, because it is of this that Tertullian says that
it had come down from the beginning of the Gospel, for it
clearly shows that it is of the faith itself delivered in it that
he is speaking as having been the rule of belief from the be
ginning, and not of the particular form or summary he is de
livering, and that for a description of that faith he went to
Scripture. Proceeding to the Creed given us by Origen, we find similar
indications of the source whence it was derived. Besides seve
ral passages in the body of it, showing from the phraseology, (as
it appears to me,) that the author had Scripture in his eye as
his guide,* there is one direct quotation from Scripture, namely
in these words, "Who after he had administered to the Father
in the creation of all things, for hy him all things were made,
in the last times humbling himself" &c., referring to John i. 3.^
As it respects the Creed of Lucian the martyr, there can be
no doubt of the way in which it was drawn up, as it not only
professes throughout to be derived from Scripture, but refers to
the Scripture as the alone rule of faith, the alone source from
apyjis. Tots Si ix fxirxvotxs, ^oihv ^xpiTxuivos xiBxpa-ixv Stapno-HTxt, xxt So^xv xtmixv Inpt-
TToLHo-H. Iren. Adv. Haer. lib. i. c. 10. ed. Mass, c. 2, Ed, Grabe,
1 " Filius Sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso processerit, per quem omnia facta sunt et
sine quo factum est nihil." Tertull. 'O Ao^oc . . . TlxnxSi xutou iytvero- xxt x"?'^
xvTou iyiviTO ouSih 0 y^oviv. (John i. 1, 3.)
2 " Hunc passum, hunc mortuum et sepultnm secundum Scripturas et resusci-
tatum a Patre."
3 Adv. Prax. c. 29. Also c. 15, of the same Treatise, where it is said, " quem
mortum contestatur, [i.e. Paulus,] secundum Scripturas."
¦1 The loss of the original Greek renders the similarity probably less striking,
but the reader may compare the following, " Sicut per prophetas sues ante pro-
miserat." Acts iii. 18. " Misit Dominum Nostrum Jesum Christum primo qui-
dem vocaturum Israel." (Acts iii. 26,) " Ante omnem creaturum natus" (Col. i.
15.) " se ipsum exinaniena." (Phil. ii. 7.)
6 Qui quum in omnium conditione Patri ministrasset, per ipsum enim omnia
facta sunt, novissimis temporibus ee ipsum, &c.

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 121
which the faith was to be derived, and upon the authority of
which it rested, and that not only as it respected the Church as a
body, but as it respected individuals in it, for this, be it remem
bered, is a creed drawn up by an individual, and collected out of
the Scriptures.
From an inspection, then, of these, the earliest Creeds that re
main to us, I think we may fairly conclude that the early church
went to the Scripture as the source from which to form their
" Creed." I do not, however, rest this conclusion upon such evidence alone,
but upon direct testimony in favour of it, such as appears to me
tolerably decisive.
In the first place, Irenaeus, when speaking of the misquotations
of Scripture by which the Valentinians supported their errors,
observes, that " he who retains the rule of truth immovable which
he received in baptism, will recognize the words, and phrases,
and parables (referred to by the Valentinians) as derived from
the Scriptures, but will not recognize the blasphemous hypothesis
as so derived."* Consequently, " the rule of truth" received at
baptism, was either Scripture itself or a confession derived from
Scripture ; and immediately after this passage follows the Creed
or confession we have just referred to as given by Irenaeus, and
which by all authors whom 1 have yet seen is considered to be
the " rule of truth" previously spoken of.^
Further, Cyril of Jerusalem, speaking of the Creed of his church,
writes thus, — "For since not all are able to read the Scriptures, but
some are prevented by want of learning, others by want of leisure,
from obtaining a knowledge of them, that the soul may not perish
through ignorance, we comprehend the whole doctrine of the
faith in a few sentences  And at a proper tirne obtain
from the divine Scriptures the proof for each one of the articles
contained therein, for the articles of ihe faith were not, as it
seems, composed by men, but the most suitable passages hav
ing been collected together out of the whole Scripture, fur
nish one exposition ofthefaith."^

' Iren. Adv. hrer. lib. i. c. I. sub fin.
^To my mind, however, the context seems rather to show thatthe "rule of
truth" was Scripture itself, for I see not how the " words and phrases and para
bles" quoted by the Valentinians from Scripture could be recognized througli the
medium of any brief confession of faith ; in which case of course the argument
from this passage for the scriptural origin of the Creed falls to the ground ; but
the passage becomes still more important in another point of view.
3 EwfiiTj, yxp ou irxvTis SuvxvTXi TXS ypx^xs xvxytvceo-xitv, xxxx tous fjtiv tS:mTiix tous Si
tta-^oxtx Tts iy.7roStl^it Trptis thv yvtuirtv, uynp tou fjH thv ¦^uX*'^ ^? XfAxBtxs xTroxurBxi, iv oxiyots

122 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.
This testimony is clear and explicit, and coming from such a
quarter as it does, is upon such a point of no little weight. Nor
does it stand alone.
In the Latin Church we have first the testimony of Augustine.
" This," he says, " is the Creed which ye are about to recite and
deliver. Those words which ye have heard are scattered
throughout the divine Scriptures, but collected thence and put
together, that the memory of men of slow understanding might
not fail, so that every one might be able to say and retain in his
mind what he believes."*
Again, in one of the homilies attributed to Eusebius, a French
bishop, and by others to Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons, (both of
whom flourished in the early part of the fifth century,) we have
the same testimony. " The Fathers of the churches," he says,
" anxious for the salvation of the people, collected together out of
the different books of Scripture weighty testimonies to the
truths of religion. Providing, therefore, a wholesome feast for
the food of souls, they collected together words few and definite,
brief in phrase but containing niany mysteries, and ihis they
called the Creed.'"'
And that this opinion as to the source from which " the Creed"
was derived became common in the church, we may judge not
only from the statement made by these authors being repeated
in substance by others,^ but from the fact that some even of those

TOIS TTtXOtS TO TTXV SoyfXX THS "TrilTTUjOS TTipiXXfJtQxVOlJtiV . . . ^xSiXOU Si XXTX TOV SiOVTX
XXtpOV THV XTTO TUV Biim ypX^OlV TTipi ixXO-TOU TOOV iyxU/XiVm TU^TXtTlV. Ou yXp, OUS iSo^lf,
XvBoCtlTOtS O-UViTiBn TX THS TTITTiOOS, XXX' iX TTXUHS yt'XfHS TX XXlfjfmTXTX CTUXXixBiVTX [JLtXV
xvATTXHpot THV THS TTifT^iois StSxTxxxixv. Cyrili. Hicrosol. Cat. 5, ed. Milles. § 7. pp.
75, 6. (Ed. Paris. 1631. pp. 44, 5.)
1 Hoc est symbolum quod recensuri estis et reddituri. Ista verba quae audistis
per divinas Scripturas sparsa sunt ; sed inde collecta et ad unum redacta, ne tar-
dorum hominum memoria laboratet ; ut omnis homo possit dicere, possit tenere,
quod credit. Aug. De Symb. Ad. Catech. u. i. Op. ed. Bened. tom. vi. col. 547.
2 " Ecclesiarum patres de populorum salute solliciti, ex diversis voluminibus
Scriplurarum collegerunt testimonia divinis gravida sacramentis. Disponentes
itaque ad animarum pastum salubre convivium collegerunt verba brevia et certa,
expedita sententiis sed diffusa mysteriis, et hoc symbolum norninaverunt." And
a little after, — " Ecclesiarum magistrl, sludiosissimi salutis nostra negotialores, in
Scripturis Sanctis de magnis maxima separaverunt mentium in pagina inscribenda,
ut cuilibet cordi, quamlibet angusto, quamlibit rustico, sine ullius difficultatis im-
pedimento facile insinuari possit veritatis agnitio." Euseb. Gallic. De symb.
homil. prim. Biblioth. Patrum. Cnl. Agripp. 1618. tom. v. p. 1. p. .5.52.
3 Thus Thomas Aquinas, in reply to the difficulty, — " Videtur quod inconveni-
enter articuli fidei in symbulo ponantur j sacra enim scriptura est regula fidei cui
nec addere nec subtrahere licet. . . . ergo illicltum fuit aliquod symbolum con-
stituere quasi regulam fidei post sacram iScripturam editam" — says — " Veritas
fidei in sacra Scriptura diffuse continetur, et variis modis, et in quibusdam
obscure, ita quod ad eliciendum fidei veriiatem ex sacra scriptura requiritur Ion-
gum studium et exercilium, ad quod non poasunt pervenire omnes ilh quibus

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 123
writers who speak of the Creed as if it had been composed by the
Apostles, tell us that it was collected by them from the Scrip
tures,' a notion which no doubt is sufficiently absurd, but which
shows how general was the belief that it was derived from the
Scriptures. Upon the whole, then, there can, I think, be little doubt how
this summary of the faith was formed, and whence it was collec
ted. It is maintained therefore, —
5. That none of the antient Creeds can be considered as an
apostolical production.
The truth of this follows immediately from the proof of the
foregoing positions. Neither as a form of words nor as a sum
mary of the faith is any one of them entitled to be considered
as of apostolical origin. That the orthodox Creeds, as convey
ing the faith delivered by the apostles, may all, in a sense, be said
to be of apostolical origin, especially as derived from the writings
of the apostles, is quite true, but this is all which can be justly
claimed for any of them in respect of apostolicity.
This view of the history of the antient Creeds may enable us
to judge of the accuracy of Mr. Newman's observations on the
subject, in his ninth and tenth Lectures. His object is to find
out an authoritative digest of the essentials of the Gospel. This
he thinks is supplied by " the Creed," and to clothe it with full
authority, he resolutely maintains that this digest was made by
the apostles, and as it is convenient to include all the Articles of
all the orthodox Creeds down to the Constantinopolitan (commonly
called the Nicene) Creed, so we are somehow or other to suppose
that they are all identical, though, as might be imagined, there
are some contradictory statements upon this latter point ; and
having thus jumbled the formulse of four centuries and all
churches together, with all their discrepancies, (treating even the
Creeds of Irenaeus and Tertullian as identical with the Constan
tinopolitan) and speaking of them all as one formula, he adds,
" I say, then, that the Creed is a collection o/'definite articles
SET APART PROM THE FIRST, passiug from hand to hand," &c.
(p. 296.) And these " definite articles" are the essentials of the
necessarium est cognoscere fidei veritatem ; quorum plerique aliis negotiis occupati
studio vacate non possunt : et ideo fuit necessarium ut ex sententiis sacrte Scrip
turas aliquid manifestum summarie coUigeretur, quod proponeretur omnibus ad
credendum, quod quidem non est additum sacrae Scripture, sed potius ex sacra
Scriptura sumptum." — See Sec. q. 1, art. 9. See also Durand. in 3. dist. 25, q. 2.
1 " De totis scripturis haec breviatim collecta sunt ab apostolis, ut, quoniam
plures credentium literas nesciunt, vel qui sciunt prae occupatione saeculi scrip
turas legere non possunt, hffic corde retinentes, habeant sufficientem sibi scientiam
salutarem." Rab. Maur. De instit. cleric, lib. 2. c. 56. See also Paschasius
Ratbertus De Spir. S. in preef. quoted by Vossius, De tribus Symb. pp. 4, 5.

124 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.
Gospel, the fundamental articles of the Christian faith. Thus,
after having spoken of the Apostles' Creed, the Creeds of Irenaeus
and Tertullian, and that found in the Apostolical Constitutions, he
adds, speaking of them all, — " We find it [i. e.. the Creed]
digested inform, limited in its topics, circumscribed in its
range, one and the same everywhere," (p. 265) ; and still more
explicitly, " Irenaeus, Tertullian, and the rest, cite the Apostles'
Creed, and say, ' this is the faith which makes a Christian, the
essentials of revelation, the great truths of the Gospel,'" &c. (p.
267.) And so, though the docrine of baptism is not alluded
to in the Apostles' Creed, yet because it is contained in the form
agreed upon at the Council of Constantinople, (and elsewhere,)
it is said that in "the Creed" "the doctrine of baptism is ex
pressed in an article," (p. 266,) and the variations are treated as
mere "varieties in the detail," not " interfering with the sub
stantial identity," so that " we must consider the Nicene and the
Apostles' Creed as identical." (pp. 270, 271.)
Now that the orthodox Creeds all contained, «* far as they
extended, the same faith, and were so far apostolical and identi
cal, is most true, but that they are identical as formula, or as
collections of certain definite articles, as Mr. Newman has intima
ted, and which alone would answer his purpose, or that the arti
cles of which they are composed were " set apart from the first,"
is manifestly and on the face of it a mistake ; as the preceding
historical notices of the facts of the case have fully shown.
Before concluding this chapter, however, I would offer a few
remarks upon the notion here advocated by Mr. Newman, (which
is also supported by Mr. Keble,) that " the Creed" is a selection
of the fundamental articles of the faith; and also consider what
we are to understand by the name " rule of faith," applied by the
early Fathers to the Creeds which they delivered.
Mr. Newman says that " the Creed" is " the abstract of saving
faith," (p. 286,) and holds language respecting it implying that it
is a selection of the fundamental points of the Christian faith.
The same appears to be Mr. Keble's view of it.
Now this language seems to me to require (to say the least)
considerable modification, and to be calculated as used by these
authors to lead to very erroneous views of the matter. There is,
I believe, a sense in which it may be said that the Apostles'
Creed contains the elements of the Christian faith in the funda
mental points. But that it contains all the fundamental points,
or is exclusively an abstract of these particular points, cannot I
conceive be maintained.
If we were to judge by the Creeds of Irenasus and Tertullian,
and the testimony of the early Fathers, as above quoted, we must
suppose that the fundamental faith was limited to points connec-

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 125
ted with the nature and acts of the Three Persons of the God
head.' Indeed we are told by Tertullian and Athanasius, as we
have seen, that the whole faith is founded upon and may be sum
med up in an orthodox confession relating to the Three Divine
Persons. And to the passages there quoted many others might
be added to the same effect.
Thus Basil says, " For baptism is the seal of faith, and faith is a
belief in the Godhead.'"'
And as an orthodox belief in Christ includes a belief in the
whole Trinity, so the Christian's faith is sometimes spoken of (as
in Scripture) as included in a belief in Christ. " God," says Hilary,
" does not call us to the life of happiness by means of points diffi
cult to be understood, nor allure us by a multiplied kind of flow
ing eloquence. Eternity is placed perfectly and easily within
our reach. We are to believe that Jesus was even raised from
the dead by God, and confess him to be the Lord."^
Thus also speaks Augustine ; — " When therefore it is inquired
what is to be believed which pertains to religion  it is
sufficient for a Christian to believe that the cause of things crea
ted, heavenly or earthly, visible or invisible, is nothing else but
the goodness of the Creator, who is the one and true God, and
that there is no nature which is not either God himself or from
him ; and that he is a Trinity, namely, a Father, and a Son begot
ten of the Father, and a Holy Spirit proceeding from that same
Father, but one and the same Spirit of the Father and the Son."*
There is also a remarkably clear passage in the Exposition of
the Creed by Ruffinus upon this point. "From all these things,"
he says, " let the faithful turn away his ears : and let him adhere
to the holy church, which confesses God the Father Almighty,
and his only begotten Son Jesus Christ our Lord, and the Holy
Spirit, of a concordant and consonant kind of substance, and be
lieves that the Son of God was born of a virgin, and suffered for
I Neither the articles of the church, tho communion of saints, nor baptism, are
noticed in the Creeds of Irenaeus and Tertullian, nor in the selection of "neces
sary articles" given above from Cyril of Jerusalem.
2 Eo"Ti yxp TO ^x-TTTirfjLX. aiip±yts ths Tri<TTio>s, ii Si Trta-Tis BioTHTos TuyxxTxBurtH. Adv.
Eunom. lib. iii. § 5. ed. Bened. tom. i. p. 276. (Par. 1618. tom. ii. p. 84.)
3 Non per difficiles nos Deus ad beatam vitam quaestiones vocat, noc multiplici
eloquentis facundiae genere sollicitat. In absoluto nobis ac facili est aeternitas ;
Jesum et suscitatum a mortuis per Deum credere et ipsum esse Dominum con-
fiteri. Hilar. De Trinit. lib. 10, sub. fin. ed. Bened. col. 1080.
^ Cum ergo quaeritur quid credendum sit quod ad religionem pertineat . . .
Satis est Christiano rerum creatarum causam sive caelestium sive terrestrium sive
visibilium sive invisibilium non nisi bonitatem credere Creatoris, qui est Deus
unus et verus, nullamque ess^ naturam quae non aut ipse sit aut ab ipso ; eumque
esse Trinitatem, Patrem acilicet et Filium a Patre genitum et Spiritum Sanctum
ab eodem Patre procedentem, sed unum eundemque Spiritum Patris et Filii.
Enchirid. ad Laur. c. 9. vi. 198. *L

126 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.
the salvation of man, and rose from the dead in the same flesh in
which he was born, and trusts that the same will come as the
judge of all ; in which [church'] both the remission of sins and the
resurrection of the flesh is preached."* The reader will observe
the distinction here made between the fundamental faith of the
church, and theprivileges promised by the ministers of the church
to that faith ; and that the fundamental faith is a belief in the
Father, Son, and Spirit, in their revealed nature and acts.
A still more remarkable passage occurs in the Acts of the Coun
cil of Nice. A philosopher disputing with the bishops and others
at Nice, previous to the meeting of the Council, was encountered
by an aged and unlearned confessor, not with argument, but with
a simple declaration of "the doctrines of the truth,"" which he
gave in the following words, — " There is one God who, having
made the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and all things that
are in them, and having formed man out of the earth, sustained
all things by his Word and Holy Spirit. This Word, O philoso
pher, knowing him to be the Son of God, we adore, believing that
for our redemption he took flesh of a Virgin, and was born and
made man ; and that by the sufferings of his flesh upon the cross,
and his death, he rescued us from eternal condemnation, and by
his resurrection obtained for us eternal life; who, having returned
to heaven, will, we expect, come again, and be judge of all those
things which we have done."
The philosopher, upon being asked by the confessor whether
he believed these things, replied in the ftffirmative; upon which
" the old man said to him. If thou believest that these things are
so, arise, follow me, let us hasten to the church, in which thou
mayest receive the seal of this faith ;" and the philosopher arose,
followed him, and was " baptized and united to the church of
God," and " the Synod rejoiced at the wonderful works of God."^
We have here, then, a clear proof that the essentials of the
baptismal Creed were, even at the period of the Council of Nice,
considered to be comprised in an orthodox confession respecting
the Sacred Trinity.
Judging from these passages, we should conclude that the early
church considered that in a full and orthodox belief in the nature
I " Ab his, inquam, omnibus fidelis declinet auditus; sanctam vero Ecclesiam
teneat, qux Deum Patrem omnipotentem et unigenitum filium ejus Jesum Chris
tum Dominum nostrum et Spiritum Sanctum concordi et consona substantiae
ratione profitetur, filiumque Dei natum ex virgine et passum pro salute humana,
et resurrexisse a mortuis in eadem carpe qua natus est, credit, eundemque ventu-
rum judicem omnium sperat, in qua et remissio peccatorum et carnis resurrectio
prmdicatur." Expos, in Symb. art. " Sanctam Ecclesiam."
2 Tx THS xxhBuxs Soy^AXTX,
3 Gelas. Cyzic. Acta. Cone, Nic, Part. 2. c. 13. pp. 90—93. ed. 1599. The
same account is given by Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. i. 17.

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 127
and acts of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as represented to
us by Divine revelation, was included a belief in all the essentials
of Christian doctrine.
Now if this is the case, (upon which question, however, I shall
not here enter,) the Apostolical, > Nicene, or Constantinopolitan
Creed, would be, in one sense, too long to be called a selection of
the fundamental points, for they embrace points not connected
with articles relating to any of the Persons of the Sacred Trinity.
But it will be admitted by all, that whether these points are
fundamental or not, all essentially important points connected
with the orthodox doctrine relating to the Three Persons of the
Sacred Trinity, are fundamental, and consequently that these
Creeds are too short to be called a selection of the fundamental
articles, for they do not contain all those points. They need to
be greatly expanded to answer that character, and a wide field
for amplification is opened on many important points. Who will
undertake to enumerate all the heretical notions that might be
connected with, and vitiate, a professed belief in Christ 1 Now,
as many heretical notions as there are that might be entertained
respecting his person and work, so many fundamental points are
there connected with this article alone. And the Creed appears
to have been gradually expanded as heresies arose in the church,
and expanded only as those heresies might seem to render it
necessary. As, for instance, the Arian heresy was the occasion
of the insertion of the article of the consubstantiality of the Son
with the Father ; and this article, though fundamental, was not
expressed in the Creed till that time, and consequently all the fun
damental articles were not previously expressed in the Creed ;
and as this fundamental article was not there for some centuries,
so are there others, equally fundamental, that have never been
inserted. True, this article, as well as that of the descent into hell, is sup
posed fo have been always implied, though not always expressed,
and doubtless it was implied in an orthodox belief respecting the
Son. And so also may other articles be said to be equally implied,
though circumstances did not seem to the early church to require
a further amplification of the Creed by the enumeration of other
points; as, for instance, the doctrine of justification, and others.
But the question is not whether a person of orthodox belief would
carry out the meaning of the Creed so as lo include all the funda
mental articles of the faith, for this such a person would do in the
case of a much shorter confession ; but whether the Creed ^?ye,!r
expression to all the fundamental points of the faith, so that
either in words, or by virtue of direct and necessary inference,
they are all to be found there.
Moreover, when we come to draw out the points included in

128 ON 1"HE ANTIENT CREEDS.
it, may not some be fundamental, and others not? So that not
only is there no easily ascertainable limit to the points included,
but further direction is needed for the classification of those points,
and the determining which are fundamental, and which not.
Hence there may be many fundamental points not mentioned in
the Creed, and there may be some in the Creed (as, for instance,
the article of the descent into hell) which are not absolutely
fundamental. There is no reason, indeed, to suppose, that the early churches
ever considered their Creed to be any more a selection of the fun
damental points than the words of our Lord, Matt, xxviii. 19, 20,
upon which it was founded ; and they certainly had no authority
to determine what they were, if they had attempted to do so.*
How far Mr. Newman feels the weight of these difficulties to
press upon his hypothesis, may be judged by the following extract
from his work: — "How much, then, or how little, doctrine is
contained in the Creed ? What extent and exactness of mean
ing must be admitted in its articles by those who profess it ? What,
in fact, after all, is that faith which is required of the candidates
tor baptism, since it is not to be an acceptance of the mere letter
of the Creed, but of a real and living doctrine? For instance, is
the doctrine of original sin to be accounted part of the Creed ?
or of justification by faith ? or of election ? or of the sacraments ?
If so, is there any limit to that faith which the Creed represents?
I answer, there is no precise limit."{p. 303.)
Surely, then, it is a mistake to say, as Mr. Newman does, that
"the fundamental or essential doctrines are those which are con
tained in the Creed," (p. 259) ; as if the Creed was a selection of
the fundamentals of the faith.
Putting aside, then, the question whether the articles added
in the Apostolical, Nicene, and Constantinopolitan forms, beyond
those relating to the Sacred Trinity, are fundamental or not, it
does not appear that those Creeds are a selection of the funda
mental points, even as far as the confession relating to the Trinity
is concerned, but only an orthodox amplification, as far as they
go, of the Christian faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
giving expression pairticularly to some points which had been
misrepresented by prevailing heresies. All that could be said of
1 "The judgment of the primitive churches is no doubt of great use and weight
. . . But still, since their judgment must finally be submitted to the test of Scrip
ture and right reason, and cannot be admitted but as consonant thereto, it is very
plain that the ratio of a fundamental rests not ultimately in their judgment or
definition, but in the nature of the doctrine itself, and the credentials which it
brings with it, by which all the rest must be tried. The definition, therefore, even
of the primitive churches, can never be justly looked upon as the proper or ade
quate rule." Waterland, Disc, of Fundam. (Works, viii. 105.)

ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS. 129
any of these Creeds in this respect is, that it gives the principal
articles of the Christian faith, and contains the rudimental ele
ments of the whole faith,* and rtiay thus be called a summary of
the Christian faith, as all the vital points of the faith may be con
nected with, and made to enter into, the right interpretation of
its articles f but then this leaves the question of what are the
fundamentals of the faith, the essentials of the gospel, almost as
much open as ever.
Moreover, we must ask our opponents, if one of these Creeds
is to be taken as a precise list of the fundamental articles, which
of them it is; for to talk of a Creed which takes not the slightest
notice of the articles, for instance, of the church and the commu
nion of saints, as being identical with another which contains
them, is manifestly absurd. And when they have pointed it out,
they will only have involved themselves in a fresh difficulty, by
being left to give a reason for the omissions or additions in the
others ; for their position is, that what was given in each of those
Creeds was given as representing the fundamental articles of the
faith. And to endeavour to escape from this difficulty, by declar
ing that they are all identical, is an attempt which none but
those wedded to a hypothesis could ever have made.
Without entering, then, here into the question, what in parti
cular are the fundamental articles of the faith, certain it is, that
" the Creed" is not a selection or representation of them ;' except
in the sense in which it may be said that belief in Christ is the
only fundamental article, or that our Lord's words. Matt, xxviii.
19, comprise the whole fundamental faith; in which sense, of
course, the appellation is not worth disputing about to either
party. Moreover, since " the Creed" is proposed to us apparently as
the interpreter of Scripture, to teach us the fundamentals of the
faith, we may take this opportunity of asking in what point the
language of" the Creed," take which you please, is clearer than
that of the Scripture. Those who are so inclined, can make
heresy harmonize with the one as easily as with the other. Nay,
St. Augustine says, " So also it may happen that a catholic cate
chumen may light upon some heretic's book, and, unable to dis
cern error from truth, may believe something contrary to the
catholic faith, which error, nevertheless, the words of the Creed
I As the Apostles' Creed is spoken of by Ruffinus as containing " prima fidei
elementa." Expos, in Symb. art. " Crucifixus," &c.
2 Thus it is said in the " Reformatio legum eccles." of the Apostolical, Nicene,
and Athanasian Creeds, " ista tria symbola ut fidei nostrae compendia qusedam
recipimusetamplectimur." (Tit. 1. c. 5.)
3 On Ihe question, what are the fundamental articles of the faith, the reader may
see Waterland, Stapfer, Spanheim, &c.

130 ON THE ANTIENT CREEDS.
do not oppose ;for, under the same words, innumerable errors
of heretics have arisen." '^ Nay more, the Socinians themselves
have contended for the apostolical origin of the Apostles' Creed,
and argued from it that the Apostles did not hold the divinity of
the Son and Holy Ghost, because they have not there (as they
maintain) expressly taught it.=
The antient Creeds, then, (to proceed to the second point on
which we proposed to offer a few remarks,) being thus brief sum
maries of the chief articles of the Christian faith, were justly
called by the Fathers the rule of faiih. Even the Creeds given
by Irenaeus and Tertullian are called so, as containing the prime
articles of the faith, in the right explication of which, in full
meaning and consequences, all the vital articles might be includ
ed. They were so called as expositions of the faith publicly pro
fessed on the chief points in the primitive churches, just as the
symbolical books of the Church of England, the Lutheran Church,
&c., form the rule of faith to those churches respectively, (the
Lutheran heing called the Normal books^), differing only in the
degree, not in the nature, of their claim upon us ; their degree
of claim upon us being greater from their being sanctioned by the
primitive catholic church, while the nature of their claim is the
same, i. e. of a secondary and entirely subordinate character,
depending upon their conformity to the Divine will, to be judged
of by us by their conformity to that revelation of the Divine will
which we possess in the inspired Scriptures. And hence the
Creed is sometimes called by Augustine the " confession" of faith.*
1 Sic etiam fieri potest ut in alicujus haeretici librum catholicus catechumenus
incidat, et a veritate nesciens discernere errorem credat aliquid contra catholicam
fidem, cui tamen errori verba symboli non repugnant, sub iisdem quippe verbis
innumerabiles haerelicorum errores, exorti sunt. De Bapt. contr. Donat. lib. 3.
c. 15. ix. 115.
2 Bishop Stiliingfleet's Vindic. of Doctrine of Trinity, p. 224.
3 " Veteres symbola etiam tti^tiv, ixBio-iv ths Trta-TUDs regulam fidei vocabant,
quemadmodum et apud nos interdum Ubrorum normalium nomine veniunt." —
" Pro norma quadam ac regula fidei sed secundaria habeantur [i. e. libri symbo-
lici] quae vim omnem atque auctoritatem a convenientia cum Scriptura sacra acci-
piat .... AtquG ita quoque accipiendum quando libri symbolici in quibusdam
locis normales adpellitantur." Budd. Isag. in Theolog. vol. i. p. 395. and p. 476.
¦* "Hoc nisi creJamus, periclitatur ipsum nostrae Confessionis initium, quae nos
in Deum Patrem omnipotentem credere confitemur." Enchirid, ad Laurentium
defide, &c. c. 94. tom. vi, col. 231.

131

CHAPTER V.

THAT PATRISTICAL TRADITION IS NOT A " PRACTICALLY INFALLIBLE"
WITNESS OF THE ORAL TEACHING OP THE APOSTLES NOR RECEIVA
BLE AS A DIVINE INFORMANT.

SECTION I. — PRELIMINARY REMARKS.

We now proceed to a consideration of the five points in which,
as we have already observed, (pp. 40, 1,) the doctrine of our
opponents upon this subject is contained ; and we shall in this
chapter endeavour to prove, in opposition to the first, that pa
tristical tradition is not a " practically infallible" reporter of the
oral teaching of the apostles, nor receivable as a divine inform
ant. This question lies at the root of the whole controversy, and a
proof of what we here maintain cuts away the ground altogether
from under the feet of our opponents, and leaves them without
any foundation to rest upon. It demands, therefore, a full and
attentive consideration.
When our opponents refer to patristical tradition as a divine
informant, they are not to be understood as attributing any au
thority to the Fathers in themselves as individuals, but only as
witnesses of what they had received from others; and the pa
tristical tradition which they regard as a divine informant is not
(i. e. in theory) that which is delivered by one or two Fathers,
but that which is delivered by the consentient testimony of all
the Fathers; which they dignify by the name of "catholic con
sent," and it is to this " catholic consent" alone that in theory
they attach the notion of a divine informant.
The practical rule for ascertaining this " catholic consent" is
taken* by them from Vincent, a monk of Lerins, who lived in the
' See Newman's Lectures, p. 63, aud Keble's Sermon, pP' 32, 3, &c.

133 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
fifth century, by whom it is thus delivered. I quote from the
translation lately published at Oxford under the sanction of our
opponents. " We are to take great care," he tells us, " that we hold that
which hath been believed every where always and of all men ;
for that is truly and properly catholic (as the very force and
nature of the word doth declare) which comprehendeth all things
in general after an universal manner, and that shall we do if we
follow universality, antiquity, consents Universality shall we
follow thus, if we profess that one faith to be true which the
whole church throughout the world acknowledgeth and confess-
eth. Antiquity shall we follow, if we depart not any whit from
those senses which it is plain that our holy elders and fathers
generally held. Consent shall we likewise follow, if in this very
antiquity itself we hold the definitions and opinions of all, or at
any rate almost all, the priests and doctors together. What then
shall a catholic Christian do, if some small part of the church cut
itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What else
but prefer the health of the whole body before the pestiferous
and corrupt member ? What if some new infection goeth about
to corru pt not in this case only a little part but the whole ehurch ?
Then likewise shall he regard and be sure to cleave unto an
tiquity, which can now no more be seduced by any crafty novelty.
What if in antiquity itself, and amongst the antient Fathers, be
found some error of two or three men, or haply of some one city
or province? Then shall he diligently take heed that he prefer
the universal decrees and determinations of an antient General
Council, if such there be, before the temerity or folly of a few.
What if some such case happen where no such thing can be
found ? Then shall he labour, by conferring and laying them
together amongst themselves, to refer to and consult the antient
Fathers' opinions, not of all, but of those Only which living at
divers times and sundry places, yet continuing in the communion
and faith of one catholic church, were approved masters and
guides to be followed (magistri probahiles) ; and whatsoever he
perceiveth not one or two but all jointly with one consent, plainly,
usually, constantly to have holden, written, and taught, let him
know that this without scruple or doubt he ought to believe."
(cc. 2, 3.)
Such is the rule to which our opponents refer us for ascertain
ing "catholic consent."
To guard against misapprehension, I would at once premise,
that to these observations, taking them generally and as pointing
out a useful practical guide in the interpretation of Scripture, I
am far from offering any objection, and as such they have been
quoted by many divines of our church. I am quite ready to ad-

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 133
mit, nay, I would firmly maintain, that the concurrent testimony
of many of the great lights of the primitive church in favour of
any particular interpretation of Scripture in a fundamental
point is the strongest possible confirmation of the truth of that
interpretation, and the opposition of any view on a fundamental
point to the sentiments of all the Fathers that remain to us, is of
itself a good reason for its rejection.
But this is a view of the matter totally different to that taken
by our opponents. With them all which stands the test of this
rule is to be considered " catholic consent," and as such a divine
informant, and is consequently binding upon the conscience as a
matter which demands our faith. How far Vincent himself
agreed with our opponents in this we shall consider hereafter,
when reviewing the sentiments of the Fathers on this subject.
Now it is evident, in the first place, that this rule, in its prac
tical application, must be subject to many restrictions and limita
tions; and accordingly we find that in the latter part of the trea
tise Vincent himself admits as much. Nay, he makes an im
portant restriction (to which our opponents have paid little at
tention) as to the subjects respecting which this patristical tra
dition is to be inquired into. For he tells us that " this antient
consent of holy Fathers is not so carefully and diligently to be
both sought for and followed in every small question of the divine
Law, but only, or, at least especially, in the rule of faith."
(c. 28.) And again, — '" It is necessary that the interpretation
of the heavenly Scripture be directed according to the rule of
the church's understanding: only be it observed, especially in
those questions upon which ihe foundations of the whole catho
lic doctrine do depend." (c. 29.)
Beyond a few fundamental points, then, he does not con
sider this antient consent much worth inquiring after.
Still further, even in these, when he descends to the descrip
tion of the practical mode of finding this antient consent, he is of
course driven to make various restrictions and limitations
and at last to admit that this antient consent is in fact the con
sent of some dozen individuals who are taken as the representa
tives of some dozen millions.
' Neither yet," he adds, " are heresies always nor all after this
sort to be impugned, but only such as are new and upstart;
to wit, at their first springing up and before they have (as hin
dered by thc shortness of time) falsified the rules of the antient
faith, and before that, the poison spreading further, they go
about to corrupt the Fathers' writings ; but those heresies which
have already got ground, and be of some continuance, are not
this way to be dealt withal ; because by long tract of time they
have had long opportunity to steal the truth. And therefore
VOL. 1. M

134 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
such kind, whether of profane schisms or heresies, which be of
longer standing, we must not otherwise convince but only, if
need be, by the authority of the Scriptures ; or else avoid and
detest them as already convicted and condemned in old time by
general councils of catholic priests  But those Fathers'
opinions only are to be conferred together, which with holiness,
wisdom, and constancy, lived, taught, and continued in the faith
and communion of the catholic church, and finally deserved either
to die faithfully in Christ, or happily for Christ to be martyred:
whom notwithstanding we are to believe with this condition,
that whatsoever either all or the greater part with one and the
same mind plainly, commonly, and constantly, as it were in a
Council of Doctors agreeing together, have confirmed by receiv
ing it, holding it, and delivering it; let that be accounted for
undoubted, for certain and acknowledged truth. And whatso
ever any, although holy and learned, although a bishop, although
a confessor and martyr, hath holden otherwise than all or against
all, let that be put aside from the authority of the common pub
lic and general judgment, and reputed among his own proper,
private, and secret opinions, lest with the utmost danger of our
eternal salvation, we do, according to the custom of sacrilegious
heretics and schismatics, forsake the truth of the universal doc
trine, and follow the novel error of some one man." (c. 28.)
And further on, recapitulating these means for determining
the truth, he adds, " Lest any man might think that we said this
rather of our own presumption than from any authority of the
church, we give an example of the sacred Council holden almost
three years since at Ephesus, a city in Asia, in the time of the
right honourable consuls, Bessus and Antiochus, in which dispu
tation being had of authorizing rules of faith, lest there might
by chance some profane novelty creep in, as happened at that
perfidious meeting in Ariminum, this was thought the most catho
lic, faithful, and best course to be taken, by all the priests there
present, which were about two hundred in number, that the
opinions of those holy Fathers should be brought forth, of whom
it was certain that some of them had been martyrs, some confes
sors, and that all had lived and died catholic priests, that by their
consent and verdict the true religion of antient doctrine might
be duly and solemnly confirmed, and the blasphemy of profane
novelty condemned: which being so done, that impious Nestori-
us was worthily and justly judged to have taught contrary lo the
old catholic faith, and blessed Cyril to have agreed with holy
and sacred antiquity." And he then proceeds to give us the
names of the Fathers according to whose judgment " the rule of
divine doctrine" was established, which were, Peter, Athanasius,
and Theophilus, Bishops of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazian-

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 135
zum, Basil of Cassarea, and Gregory of Nyssa, Felix Martyr and
Julius, Bishops of Rome, Cyprian of Carthage, and Ambrose of
Milan, adding, " albeit a far greater number of Fathers might
have been alleged, yet was' il not necessary, because it was not
fit that the time of business should be spent with multitude of
witnesses ; and further, no man doubted but that those ten did
think little other than all the rest of their colleagues." (c. 30.)
Such is " catholic consent" at its very best. The testimony
of ten witnesses, whose remarks upon a question not in their
mind at the time will probably be more or less indirect, with an
accommodating " &c." and an intimation that no doubt the rest
agreed with them I
The fact is, that when we come to the practical application of
the rule, we find ourselves beset with endless difficulties, and
hence it was that Vincent himself was obliged to clog his rule
with so many exceptions and limitations as to lead Bishop Stil
lingfleet (one of our opponents' best referees) to make the remark
we have already quoted, that " wise men, who have thoroughly
considered of Vincentius his way, though in general they cannot
but approve of it so far as to think it highly improbable that
there should be antiquity, universality, and consent, against the
true and genuine sense of Scripture, yet when they consider this
way of Vincentius, with all those cautions, restrictions and limi
tations set down by him, (1. 1, c. 39,) they are apt to think that
he hath put men to a wild-goose chase to find out any thing
according to his rules ; and that St. Augustine spake a great
deal more to the purpose, when he spake concerning all the
writers of the church, ' that although they had never so much
learning and sanctity, he did not think it true because they
thought so, but because they persuaded him to believe it trite,
either from the authority of Scripture or some probable rea
son.' "*
And so in another place he says, " The utmost use I can sup
pose, then, Vicentius his rules can be of to us now is in that case
which he puts when corruptions and errors have had time to
take root and fasten themselves, and that is, By an appeal to
Scripture and Antient Councils. But because of the charge
OP INNOVATION against us, we are content to be tried by his
second rule, By the consent of the Fathers of greatest reputation,
&c."^
The period over which the inquiry for this catholic consent is
to extend, is left by our opponents altogether indefinite, but ap
parently it includes about the first five or perhaps six centuries.'
1 Rational Account of Grounds of Protestant Religion, 1665, p, 279,
! Council of Trent examined, &c. p. 24.
» See Newman's Lectures, pp. 241 — 9,

136 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
Mr. Newman seems contented with the first four, for he says,
" If the voluminous remains of that era, including the works of
Ambrose, Austin, Jerome, Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory Nyssen,
Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasius, and Cyril of Jerusalem, will not
afford a standard of catholic doctrine, there seems little profit to
be gained from antiquity at all." (p. 246.)
A less period than this our opponents have already found (like
the Romanists) would not at all answer their purpose. And
they have practically confessed that their Creed depends for its
patristical proof upon the writings of the fourth and fifth cen
tury. For thus writes the author of tract S5.
" In both cases, [i. e. " the canon of Scripture," and " the
catholic doctrines,"'] "we believe mainly because ihe church
of ihe fourth and fifth centuries unanimously believed." —
" We depend for the canon and creed upon ihe fourth and
fifth centuries. We depend upon them thus : as to Scripture,
former centuries certainly do not speak distinctly, frequently, or
unanimously, except of some chief books, as the Gospels ; but still
we see in them, as we believe, an evergrowing tendency and ap
proximation to that full agreement which we find in the fifth.
The testimony given at the latter date is the limit to which all
that has been before given converges. For instance, it is com
monly said, exceptio probat regulam ; when we have reason to
think that a writer or an age would have witnessed so, and so,
BUT FOR THIS on THAT, and that this or that were mere accidents
of his position, then he or it may be said to tend towards such
testim,ony. In ihis way the first centuries tend towards the
fifth. Viewing the matter as one of moral evidence, we seem to
see in the testimony of the fifth the very testimony which every
preceding century gave accidents excepted, such as the pre
sent loss of documents once extant or the then existing miscon
ceptions which want of intercourse between the churches occa
sioned. The fifth century acts as a comment on the odscure
TEXT of the centuries before it, and brings out a meaning which
with the help of the comment any candid person sees really to
belong to them. And in the same way as regards the catho
lic creed, though there is not so much to explain and account
for. Not so much, for no one, I suppose, will deny thai in the
Fathers of ihe fourth century, it is as fully developed and as
unanimously adopted as it can be in the fifth." (pp. 102, 3.)
Now as it respects the canon of Scripture I say nothing here,
because this will form the subject of a future chapter, but as it
respects what the Tractator calls " the catholic creed," this pas
sage appears to me worthy of the reader's especial notice, as
throwing very considerable light upon the true nature of "catho
lic consent," and the testimony of " every body, always, every

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 137
where. '' In the writings of the whole of the first three centu
ries, it seems, we get, not a proof of our opponents' version of
" the catholic creed," but only something that in their view
tends towards it, something which, when we interpret it by the
writings of the fourth and fifth centuries, seems, accidents
excepted," to mean what the writings which we have selected
as the interpreter express, though it must be admitted after all
that it is but an " obscure text." So that if we were even to
add the writings of the first three centuries to Scripture to ob
tain " the catholic creed," we should only get an obscure com
ment upon the obscure writings of the Apostles, and should not
find what we wanted until we admitted the light of the fourth
and fifth centuries to interpret the obscure comment upon those
obscure writings. The Tractator, therefore, justly remarks,
that " we," i. e. he and those who think with him, "believe
mainly because the church of the fourth and fifth centuries
unanimously believed," "we depend for the canon and creed
upon the fourth and fifth centuries."
The reader will observe how completely this coincides with
the ground taken by the Romanists. And in the following pas
sage he will see what was the view taken of their conduct in
this respect by one of the best of our opponents' own witnesses.
" I know," says Bishop Stillingfleet, " some of the greatest pa
trons of the Church of Rome, and such who know best how to
manage things with best advantage for the interest of that church,
have made little account of the three first ages, and confined
themselves within the compass of the four first Councils, upon
this pretence, because the books and writers are so rare before,
and that those persons who lived then had no occasion to write
of the matters in controversy between them and us. But if the
ground why those other things which are not determined in Scrip
ture are to be believed by us and practised as necessary, be, that
they were apostolical traditions, who can be more competent
judges what was so, and what not, than those who lived near
est the apostolical times? and those certainly, if they writ of
any thing, could not write of any thing of more concernment to
the Christian world than the knowledge of such things would
be."* We might at once, then, on the ground of such admissions as
these, demur to the doctrine of our opponents, and reply that
these admissions are altogether fatal to their cause. For to claim
for their creed the consent of every body, always, every where,
in the catholic church, even such a universal consent as proves
its apostolical origin, and makes that consent a divine informant
I Rational Account of Grounds of Protestant Religion, p. 262. ed. 1665,
M*

138 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
or practically infallible reporter of the oral teachirtg of the Apos
tles, and then to admit that all the writings that remain to us of
the first three centuries form but an obscure text, tending only,
eveni7i their view, towards the confirmation of their creed, and
needing to be interpreted by the writings of the fourth and fifth
centuries to make it really speak that creed, has so much in it of
direct self-contradiction as to leave one, not in hesitation about
the matter itself, but only wondering what can induce men to put
forth such statements.
The purity of the motives by which the Tractators are influ
enced 1 call not in question. They are desirous of inducing men
to embrace what they believe to be the truth, and therefore give
the most high-sounding names to the testimony by which they
think it is established, and hope thus to induce men to embrace it.
Mr. Keble in particular reminds us how it would tend to •' exempt
us once and for ever from haunting doubts," if we would but be
convinced " that the Nicene tradition is true and divine."^ In a
word, how comfortable it would be to come to the conclusion, no
longer to give ourselves any trouble in deciding between the
claims of conflicting doctrines, but pin our faith at once upon cer
tain individuals.
And with many minds their scheme is suited to succeed. It
exempts men from the trouble of thinking. It affects to place
them under the direction of an infallible guide. It entangles
them in the mazes of a magnificent vocabulary of words which
delight, perplex, and ensnare them, and out of which they'often
neither wish nor are able to see their way. But they must ex
cuse others if they look a little further into the nature of the testi
mony they adduce, and call things by their right names, and not
suppose that anything is gained by shutting their eyes to the
real state of the case, and building their faith upon words instead
of reaUties, upon claims to the consent of every body, always,
every where, when upon investigation the " eyery body" turns
out to be not one in a million, the " always" not one for every
quarter of a century, and the " every where" not one for each
country; to say nothing of the fact that there is hardly a doc
trine respecting which we do not get conflicting testimonies.
But leaving the reader to judge how far these concessions of
themselves overthrow their cause, I shall now proceed to point
out the various grounds upon which we reject the notion of our
opponents, that what they call "catholic consent," is a certain
informant of the oral teaching of the Apostles.
1 See p. 124.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 139
SECTION II.  NO DEGREE OF CONSENT THE KNOWLEDGE OF WHICH IS
ATTAINABLE WORTHY OF BEING CONSIDERED A DIVINE INFORMANT,
OR CERTAIN WITNESS OF THE ORAL TEACHING OF TIIE APOSTLES.
The great argument upon which the system of our opponents
is founded, is, that catholic consent in Me wAo/e primitive chui ch
for several centuries in favour of any doctrine or interpretation
of Scripture or other point, is a sure proof that it was derived
from the Apostles, for that otherwise such consent could not have
been found in such a widely scattered body. Consentient pa
tristical statements, they say, must have had a common origin in
the teaching of the first preachers of Christianity.*
This is the theory upon which their whole superstructure is
built; and in words it is no doubt plausible enough, and sufficient
ly likely to captivate any man who will take words for realities.
There is a natural anxiety to know something of the doctrines of
the early church, and he who finds a few remains of the primi
tive doctors, almost naturally pleads for them as a sufficient testi
mony to demonstrate the primitive faith ; just as a zealous anti
quary, upon the testimony of a few relics accidentally turned up.
Will pronounce upon the state of the arts at the time when they
were executed. What, moreover, could be more convenient and
desirable, than to have such a standard of appeal for the termina
tion of controversies, as the consentient testimony of the whole
primitive church ? It is quite refreshing and delightful, in the
present state of the church, to contemplate the existence of such
a court of appeal. The mind is at once attracted fo the notion
by a recollection of the benefits that might arise from it; for
mark how the argument runs, — This or that is a doctrine or view
which was held by all the members of the whole church, (sem
per, ubique ei ab omnibus,) everybody, alway si everywhere, for
the first three or four centuries. What an overwhelming argu
ment against a man who presumed to controvert it! But are
you quite sure, he will say, that everybody always everywhere
for the first three centuries did hold this view ? The church was
very widely spread during that period. Millions were included
within it, and had but little intercourse with one another. You
must have vast means of information. Are you quite sure that
there were none who took an opposite view of the matter? Can
you answer even for ten in every hundred ? Yes, quite sure of
' There is also another ground on which Mr. Newman seems to claim for such
consent the authority of a divine informant, namely, the jiromises made to Ihe
church, which are supposed to have secured infallibility to it, while it remained
one and undivided. See Newman's Lectures; 8. pp. 224, &c. But without
entering upon a discu'jsion of the question here involved, our reply in the fol
lowing work to the claim made for catholic consent, on the ground mentioned
above, equally meets this case.

140 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
" everybody always everywhere," say our opponents; so much
SO, as to have made this universality of consent the very ground
work upon which our claim for the certainty of the witness as
a correct record of the oral teaching of the Apostles is founded.
Well, then, there is no help for it, but that he who does not wish
to unchristianize all the members of the catholic church who
lived immediately after the times of the Apostles, must, if the
point be an important one, accept what such a body of Chris
tians unanimously held, as beyond controversy the truth of God.
For it cannot be supposed that all the Christians of the first ages
of the church were in error ; and therefore, what they all agreed
in must be, in important points, that true faith which it is every
good man's wish to embrace. For the true faith must in all ages
be the same ; and therefore the belief of true Christians in all
fundamental points must be the same now as in the first ages of
Christianity. True catholic consent, then, might well conclude
us, and though perhaps not altogether derived from apostolical
tradition or teaching, would, as true, be identical with it.
And in this, but no other, sense did our learned Bishop Morley
grant, in his Conference with the Jesuit, that the church was in
fallible. " If," said he, " by the word church were meant all
Christians in all places, he would willingly grant that the church
in that sense did never, nor could never, err in any point of faith
or manners absolutely necessary to salvation."*
And this might be granted for the present as much as for the
antient church.
And it is remarkable that Bellarmine himself, when driven to
an explanation of what is meant by the infallibility of the church,
states it thus, — " The church cannot err, that is, that which all
believers hold as of the faith, is necessarily true and of the faith,"
respecting which there cannot be two opinions among those who
suppose that there has always been a succession of individuals
in the church holding the true faith. And when he adds, — " And
likewise that which all bishops teach as belonging to the faith
is necessarily true and of the faith, "2 we should not, perhaps,
think it worth while to raise much dispute on the abstract ques
tion. So far we fully agree with our opponents. Only let them prove
anything by Vincent's rule, and we will most submissively accept
it. No wonder that those who take words as realities, and think
they know what everybody always everywhere in the church of
1 Several Treatises, &c. No. 1. p. 5.
zEccIesia non potest errare, id est, id quod tenent omnes fideles tamquam de
fide necessario est verum et de fide ; et similiter id quod docent omnes Episcopi
tamquam ad fidem pertinens necessario est verum et de fide, De Cone, et Eccles.
lib. 3. c. 14.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 141
Christ thought for several centuries respecting any matter, should
dogmatize about it, and anathematize dissentients. There is, in
fact, only one objection against Vincent's method of proving a
doctrine, namely, that its application in that strict sense which
would make it capable of producing a proof, is utterly impracti
cable. That the principle of it, indeed, is applicable, to a limited
extent, I am far from denying; and that its application to that
extent is useful, as afiording a probable and confirmatory argu
ment for the truth, is also not to be doubted. Nay, in any point
put forward as vital, it may well be required that we should be
able to show, from the records of antient times, that the doctrine
we maintain, though we maintain it from Scripture, is not a
novelty, but was held in the primitive church ; which is a safe
guard against the dreams of enthusiasm, and so used by the
Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries, whose appeal to this
patristical testimony in their favour is often incorrectly taken as
supporting the doctrine of our opponents respecting " tradition."
But to a very limited extent only is Vincent's rule applicable in
any case, and therefore the certainty which would follow from
it, if we were able fully to carry it out, is not attainable.
For let us consider what is the practical application which can
be made of this rule. As it respects the number and value of
the records remaining to us of the primitive church, I shall speak
in the next section. But my object here is to consider the ques
tion generally. Let us look around us, and view the church as it
exists in the present day, when the facilities of intercourse are
such as no former period ever enjoyed. What sort of application
could we make of Vincent's rule at the present day, even for the
generation now living ? How should we be able to ascertain
what doctrines were held by everybody everywhere?
And if we go back fo the times of the primitive church, the
difficulty is a thousandfold greater; for we have nothing to de
pend upon for those times but the writings of a few antient
Christian authors. So that I see not why, for fundamental points,
we should not rather seek the catholic consent of some age near
er our own, of which we know more than of the first ages of
Christianity. For if, as our opponents maintain, and I am by
no means disposed to question, there have always been, and al
ways will be, some true Christians in the world, real catholic
consent, or that which all believe respecting fundamental points
in any age, must be the orthodox faith, for otherwise the true
Christians, who form part of this total, must be in fundamental
error, which is absurd. But the truth is, that in no generation
is the argument derived from this source applicable, because the
knowledge of that catholic consent is not attainable.
And as Dean Sherlock justly observes, " It is absolutely im-

142 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
possible that the catholic church should be represented, for the
catholic church is the whole multitude of Christians, considered
as the whole company or multitude; now a multitude, as a
multitude, can never be represented by anything but itself; there
can be no formal nor virtual multitude, but the whole entire
number. The catholic church signifies all Christians, and if you
leave out any of the number, it is not all, and therefore is not the
catholic church  Anything less than all makes it cease to
be catholic ; and therefore the catholic church cannot be repre
sented by a few of the whole number, because a few are not all,
and therefore not the catholic church."*
So that, on the notion that the catholic church is an infallible
guide, he remarks,— "We do say, and we may safely say, that
there always has been, and ever will be, a visible church ; for
while there are any men who visibly profess Christianity, there
will be a visible church. And what then? 'What then? Why
then you must hear the church, then you must submit to the au
thority of the church, then you must believe as the church be
lieves, and receive your faith from the decrees and definitions of
the church.' But pray why so? Has every visible church this
authority? No, but the catholic church has. Suppose that ; but
how shall I speak with the catholic church, which is dispersed
over all ihe world, and is nothing else but the whole number
of Christians all the world over ? Now it seems impossible
for me to speak wifh all the Christians in the world, and to know
what their belief is in all matters of controversy ; and though
the catholic church is visible, and part of is to be seen in Eng
land, and part in Holland, and part in France, &c., yet no man
can see it all together, nor speak with all the Christians in the
world together ; and therefore, though the catholic church be visi
ble, it cannot determine any one controversy, unless there be some
visible catholic tribunal from which we must receive the faith of
the whole church [which he has before proved that there is not].''^
Hence we may observe, that though we should admit, (as,
indeed, we willingly do,) that there is a sense in which the church
may be said to be infallible, or indefectible, in the fundamental
points, it does not follow that the church is capable of being an
infallible guide to us in such points ; a distinction which the
Tractators seem entirely to have overlooked.
It must never be forgotten that all the promises of Christ to the
church would be fulfilled by the existence of a succession of in
dividuals in the external church attached to the true faith.
1 Disc. cone, nature, unity, &c. of church, pp. 44, 5 ; or in Bishop Gibson's
Preservative. ^ Ib. p. 46. See also Bishop Taylor's Dissuasive, Pt. 2. Works, vol. x. pp:
347, 8;

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 143
This is distinctly admitted by Mr. Newman himself, and is an ad
mission fatal to his doctrine of the church catholic being in any
sense an infallible guide, for then it follows that we must absolute
ly collect the suffrages of every individual Christian before we
can be certain of the orthodox faith, and therefore, as Bishop
Taylor says, " If by the church they mean the communion of
saints only, though the persons of men be visible, yet because
their distinctive cognizance is invisible, they can never see their
guide, and therefore they can never know whether they go right
or wrong."* Nevertheless thus speaks Mr. Newman, — " The
promise that the word of truth should not depart out of the mouth
of the church is satisfied in what we see fulfilled at this day,
viz. in the whole church, in all its branches, having ever main
tained the faith in its essential outlines; nay, it might be satis
fied even in a much scantier fulfilment, — for instance, though
this were all, which many think to be its highest meaning,
that there should always be in the church some true believers."^
And this admission makes the statement that " the whole church
in all its branches has ever maintained the faith in its essential
outlines," a mere assertion requiring proof of its truth, indepen
dently of what any number of christian churches or communities
can give. The public standard of faith in a church being regu
lated by the ruling power, may become corrupt even in essential
points, while at the same time some of the members of that
church adhering to the written word, and taught by the Spirit,
though united in external communion with a corrupt church,
through the effect of circumstances, or from mistaken notions of
church communion, may preserve the pure faith. And this we
hold to be in all probability the case in the Church of Rome.
That there were such persons in that church before the Refor
mation is very capable of proof. And of these the Protestants
are the successors. " Even in the times of the greatest and most
general defections," says Bishop Sanderson, " there have been
always particular men, and those eminent either for number,
place, learning, or godliness, who, though living in the midst of
corrupt churches, and in the communion and visible profession
thereof, have yet, according to the measure of their grace and
knowledge, and the exigence of times and occasions, either first,
openly resisted the errors, superstitions, and corruptions of their
times ; or secondly, noted the corruptions as they grew, and com
plained of them and desired reformation ; or thirdly, in private
dissented from them in the explication of the most dangerous
doctrines, and kept themselves free from the foulest corruptions
1 Diss, from Popery, Pt. 3. Bk. 1. § 1. Works, i. p. 347.
« Lect. p. 234.

] 44 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
 in these men did the succession of the trite church,
taking it comparatively and in the second sense, especially con
sist, and ihe visibility of ii continue in the time of universal
defection. In which men ihe true church continues visible
always and perpetually without interruption."'^
And so our learned Dr. Chaloner; "There may be a church
which, in respect of her chief prelates and a predominant faction
thereof, may be false and antichristian, yet may contain some
members of the true church within her pale, who though they
refuse not to communicate with her, nay more, are infected with
some smaller errors of the time, yet swallow not down all un
truths without difference, but keep still the foundation of faith
intire and unshaken. Thus it was with the church of the Jews
at the coming of our Saviour . . . and thus doubtless it was
with some, which being outwardly of the Church of Rome, we
may justly notwithstanding challenge to ourselves.""
Further, our opponents' own witness. Bishop Morton, tells us
that "the catholic church," in the Creed, is this succession of
true believers, the faithful people of God. " Some of our adver
saries," he says, referring more particularly to Bellarmine,
" to take away the distinction of visible and invisible church,
have so conceited of the catholic church, the article of chris
tian belief, as to think that wicked men and the limbs of Satan
may be true members of this mystical body of Christ, even for
their outward profession sake. We contrariwise teach, that
those glorious titles of spouse of Christ and catholic church do
properly appertain unto the faithful and elect of God; which
accordeth unto S. Gregory his judgment, professing that ' within
the limits of the church are all the elect, without it are the
reprobate; because the holy church against which the gates of
hell shall not prevail, consisteth of the elect unto eternal life.'
(Moral, lib. 28, c. 6. In Psalm, v. Psenit.)'' And to this agrees
Dr. Chaloner.* Thus also speaks Irenseus. Commenting on Ps.
Ixxxi. 1, he says, — "He speaks of the Father and Son, and of
those who have received adoption ; and these are the church.
For this is the congregation of God, which God, that is, the Son
himself collected through himself."^ I need hardly remind the
reader that such also is the language of our own church, which
1 Disc, concerning the church, pp. 10, 11.
z Credo sanctam eccles. cathol. 1638. pp. 221 — 3.
3 Catholic Appeal, lib. 1. c. 5. § 2, p. 63. And a little further on, p. 69, he
tells us that Bede applied the title " catholic church," in the same way, " to the
society of the elect only."
4 See his " Credo ecclesiam, &c." Comp. pp. 15 and 70, ed. 1638.
6 De Patre et Filio et de his qui adoptionem perceperunt, dicit: hi autem sunt
Ecclesia. Haec enim est synagoga Dei, quam Deus, hoc est, Filius ipse per seme-
tipsum collegit. Adv. haer. lib. 3. c. 6.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 145
tells us that " the mystical body" of Christ is " the blessed
company of all faithful people."^
And of this body, and tiiis body only, may it be said that it
cannot err in fundamentals. To say that this church is always
orthodox in fundamentals is a mere truism, because it is supposed
to be composed only of true believers. And as it respects the
church at large, it can only be said to be indefectible and iner
rable in fundamentals, as it contains within it those individu
als who form the body of true believers, as Archbishop Laud
admits.^ If such, then, is the case, and that the true mystical body of
Christ, consisting of the succession of individual saints scattered
over the whole church, can alone be a certain and infallible
guide, and that the faith of such individuals cannot even be cer
tainly gathered from the public confessions of the churches to
which they belong, then the notion of obtaining such a catholic
consent as can make the church a sure guide to us falls to the
ground. Such individuals moreover may always have been from
the times of our earliest records, in the comparison, very few in
number ; and whatever may be our private opinion as to the
question of fact, yet seeing that such may at any time have
been the state of the church, our opinion that the case has not
been so must depend upon our supposing that the maintenance
of the true faith has not been so limited, which takes for grant
ed that we know from an independent source what the true
faith is.
But Mr. Newman identifying (like the Romanists) the church,
the catholic church, with those representative bodies or indi
viduals that have spoken in her name, points us to " the church"
as our infallible and authoritative ^ide to the orthodox faith,
having authority to declare and enforce the truth, (pp. 226 —
8) ; and by an extraordinary mistake as to the meaning of an
article in the Creed, tells us that by the Creed we are bound to
faith in the holy catholic church in the sense of being bound to
believe what that church delivers, (Pref. p. 7,) when neither he
nor any one else can tell us what that church, taking it either
as the nominal catholic church, or as the company of the faith
ful, does deliver. And so Dr. Pusey admonishes us that " to the
decisions of the universal church we owe faith.'"
Nay, Mr. Newman would fain make us believe that this is the
doctrine of our church, telling us (as we have noticed in a for
mer page,) that our 20th Article shows that the English church
I Communion Service.
2 Against Fisher, § 21. Numb. 5. Note. p. 90, ed. 1686.
3 Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, p. 53.
VOL. I. N

146 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
holds " the infallibility of the church in matters of saving faith."
(See pp. 226, 7.) Let one of his own favourite witnesses con
vince him of his mistake. In controversies of faith, says Leslie,
(speaking in the way of dialogue with a dissenter,) " She [i. e.
the Church of England] has authority as ' a witness and keeper
of holy writ,' as the article words it. Diss. What Authority
is that ? C. E. [the representative of the Church of England re
plies,] The same that is acknowledged in your Westminster
confession of faith, c. i\,' ministerially to determine contro
versies of faith,' as you there word it. But in regulating the
worship of God, and in discipline for the better government of
the church, there to determine authoritatively."^
And to Dr. Pusey's statement that " to the decisions of the
universal church we owe faith," I reply in the words of the able
treatise by Placette, translated and published by our Arch
bishop Tenison, " That there is nothing whereon the faith of all
private Christians can less rely; and that for these reasons : 1.
Because it doth not appear what is that universal church whose
faith is to be the rule of ours. 2. Because it is not known what
is the faith of that church. 3. Because it is not manifest whether
the faith of any church assignable be true ;"" on each of which
points the reader will find some valuable observations in the
treatise referred to.
But Mr. Newman says that " Scripture itself conveys to the
church the charter of her office, to be the keeper and interpre
ter of Scripture."^ And he quotes three passages to prove it, of
which the only one that even seems to support his statement is
the following, " The church of the living God, the pillar and
ground of the truth;"* and he adds, " How Protestant sectaries
understand these passages, f know not; how, for instance, the
first cited [which is the one given above] is understood at all by
those who deny a visible church."
Now first, let us notice the disingenuousness of this. No one
denies the visibility of the church, taking it even as referring to
that church of the faithful, which consists of certain individuals
scattered over the world. And to this church our learned Dr.
Chaloner considers this passage to refer, namely " the church
essential, which is Me congregation of all faithful believers."^
For are these individuals hid from the world so as not to be a
1 Leslie, Of Private Judgment and Authority in matters of Faith. See also
Archbishop Tenison's Discourse concerning a guide in matters of Faith, p. 18.
2 Incurable scepticism of the Church of Rome, c. 24. See the whole of cc.
20 — 27. It was first published in 1688, 4to, and was inserted by Bishop Gibson
in the third volume of his " Preservative."
3 Lect. p. 228. « 1 Tim. iii. 1 5.
^ Crede eccles. sanct. cathol. ed. 1638. p. 70.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 147
visible church? Rather are they not " the light of the world,"
" the salt of the earth ?" And however widely scattered, they
form but one body, even the mystical body of Christ, united to
him as their Head by one all-pervading Spirit, and with each
other in the bonds of spiritual communion, having one Lord, one
faith, one baptism. And may they not therefore be justly said
to be in their generation " the pillar and ground of the truth,"
aye and be much better entitled to the name than any other
body of men in the world ? When it is said that the true church
is invisible, it is merely indicative of our inability to point out the
precise individuals who form the collective body of the faithful,
and in that sense it is invisible, or rather indefinable; and see
ing that such a body can only be recognised by us by our know
ing first what is the true faith, such a body cannot be our au
thoritative guide to the true faith.
Nay, the phrase, " pillar and ground of the truth," might be
not improperly applied to the universal nominal church of Christ
as being the depositary of the oracles of God, and as having with
in her those who are living epistles of Christ, known and read of
all men, and thus the supporters of the truth in a corrupt world.
I think, therefore, that the passage may well be understood as
it stands, as conveying no such sense as Mr. Newman affixes
to it.
But further, I will give him another answer to it, and that
not from a sectary but from one of his own best and most learned
witnesses. Bishop Stillingfleet, who, when his Romish antagonist
objected this passage precisely in the sense for which Mr. New
man here contends, observes, — " But the defender saith, ' the
Holy Scripture assures, us that the church is the foundation and
pillar of truth.' I confess I cannot be assured from hence that
the church hath such an authority as is here pleaded for, sup
pose it be understood of the whole church. For how was it possi
ble, the church at that time should be the foundation and pillar
of truth, when the Apostles had the infallible Spirit, and were
to guide and direct the whole church. It seems, therefore, far
more probable f o me that those words relate to Timothy and not
to the church, by a very common ellipsis, viz. how he ought to
behave himself in the Church of God, which is the house of
the living God, as a pillar and support of truth ; and to that
purpose this whole epistle was written to him ; as appears by the
beginning of it, wherein he is charged not to give heed to fables,
and to take care that no false doctrine were taught at Ephesus.
Now, saith the Apostle, ' If I come not shortly, yet I have writ
ten this epistle, that thou mayest know how to behave thyself in
the church, which is the house of God, as a pillar and support of

148 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
truth.'* What can be more natural and easy than this sense?
And that there is no novelty in it appears from hence, that
Gregory Nyssen (De vit. Mos. p. 225,) expressly delivers this to
be the meaning; and many others of the Fathers apply the
same phrases to the great men of the church. St. Basil (Ep. 62.)
useth the very same expressions concerning Musonius. S. Chrysos
tom (Hom. 148, tom. 5) calls the Apostles, ' the immovable pil
lars of the true faith.' Theodoret (De Prov. Orat. 10) saith con
cerning S. Peter and S. John, ' That they were the towers of
godliness and the pillars of truth.' Gregory Nazianzen (Ep. 38)
calls S. Basil, ' The ground of faith and the rule of truth ;' and
elsewhere (Orat. 19, Ep. 29.) 'The pillar and ground of the
church,' which titles he gives to another bishop at that time.
And so it appears in the Greek Catena mentioned by Heinsius (in
loc.) S. Basil read these words, or understood them so, when he
saith, ' The apostles were the pillars of the New Jerusalem, as
it is said, The pillar and ground of the church.' I forbear
more, since these are sufficient to show that they understood this
place as relating to Timothy and not to the church.'"' Thus
speaks Bishop Stillingfleet, in a small work which I would earnest
ly commend to the perusal of our opponents, particularly the
chapter from which I have quoted the above, where he under
takes to discuss the three following points. " First, whether Christ
and his Apostles did establish such a standing judicature in the
church, to which all Christians were bound to submit in matters
of faith. Secondly, whether the primitive church did own such
a judicature, and did accordingly govern their faith. Thirdly,
Whether it be an unreasonable thing to suppose the contrary,
viz. that Christ should leave men to judge for themselves in
¦matters which concern their salvation according to the
Scriptures."' But it may be said. We need not surely ascertain the faith of
all Christians. It will be sufficient to know what everybody
always everywhere among the pastors of the church believed.
This, it must be admitted, contracts tbe extent of the rule with
in limits very much narrower than the words signify, so that if
this is all that is meant, it is difficult to see why it should not be
so stated. And although, for my part, I should be quite willing
to admit the conclusiveness of a proof so obtained, I cannot pass
it over without reminding the reader that there have been pe
riods in the history of God's church which should make ns very
jealous of such admissions for any definite period. Who formed
1 Eitf Si f^OX^UVU, tvx itSns TTjCS Su iv OtXUI ©S3U avATTpg^Str9*i, HTlS iTTtV iXXXHTtX Qiou
^ci'/Tos, ^.Tuxos xxt iSpxtuuxTHs xxuBitxs. 1 Tim. iii. 15.
2 Vindication of the Answer to some late papers, pp. 32, 3,
3 Ibid, p. 30.

KO DIVINE INFORMANT. 149
the Church of God in the time of Ahab, when Elijah only was
left of God's ministers? Who formed the Church of God in the
time of our Lord, when rulers, priests, and people, with the ex
ception of a few humble and despised individuals, cried out. Away
with him, crucify him. Never let it be forgotten that it was by
the catholic consent of his day that our blessed Lord was cru
cified. For the notion that such a handful of humble individu
als as constituted his followers could be of any account in the
matter, would have been scouted by the followers of " catholic
consent" as an utter absurdity. Here were all the venerable in
terpreters of the Scriptures and depositaries of the tradition of
the church ranged on one side, in declaring that tradition, and
the true meaning of Scripture as interpreted by it, were alto
gether against the claims of Jesus Christ ; on the other a few ob
scure and unlearned individuals, who pretended to interpret
Scripture for themselves. Could the followers of " catholic con
sent" doubt for a moment on which side the truth was to be found?
These cases very clearly show us how much we may be mis
taken if we make the majority, or even the pastors of the church,
the representatives of the true church of Christ, the sure witness
es of the orthodox faith.
But granting all that is here asked, — and it may, no doubt, be
presumed that among the collective body of the faithful forming
the true church, there are not wanting faithful pastors of Christ's
flock, — what do we gain by it? How do we know what every
body always everywhere among the pastors of the primitive
church believed ? How should we be able to ascertain this
even for the generation now living ? How much less, then, can
we ascertain it for generations that lived ages since ; of whom we
know nothing, but from the writings of a few individuals who
lived at the period, and who themselves were unable to trace it.
Take the case of the Church of England alone at the present
day, with her express and particular confession of faith branched
out into points on which the public records of the early church
are altogether silent. In the belief of that confession, all her
members profess to agree. But do thej' all hold in reality the
same doctrine on all the points of that confession ? Take the
doctrine of justification, for instance. Will the article give you
the precise doctrine held by all the members of the church ? No ;
one interprets it in one way, others in another ; and he who reads
it to know what is the view of our church upon the subject, may,
if his inclination so dispose him, strain it to a third sense. And
each will tell you the article is plainly on his side ; for it is as im
possible to bind error by words, as by chains. It has been often
bound with both ; and both have been broken through and burst
asunder by it, and even turned to the promotion of its own pur-

150 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
poses. How, then, I ask, even with this confession of faith, in
our hands, shall we be able to tell what everybody everywhere
in the Church of England holds respecting the doctrine of justifi
cation ? Clearly as the article speaks, it does not show what pre
cise views are entertained on the subject, by all who subscribe it.
I can no more say, therefore, what are the precise views of all
our clergy, because they have subscribed this article, than I can
say what their views are, becau.se they hold Scripture to be the
Word of God, and profess to believe all that it deUvers. Even
where there is so definite a confession of faith, therefore, there
is some uncertainty as to the views of those who profess to hold
it. Nay, let us hear what Mr. Newman himself says on this sub
ject. " In the English Church we shall hardly find ten or twenty
neighbouring clergymen who agree together, and that not in the
non-essentials of religion, but as to what are its elementary and
necessary doctrines." (pp. 394, 5,)
Now, then, let us go back to primitive times, and let our oppo
nents show us of which of the primitive churches we have such
evidence of the doctrine held by it, as we have in the case of the
Church of England. No; we have not any such public confes
sions even oi particular churches to guide us, much less of the
Catholic Church.
There is nothing, indeed, that could claim to be considered
the voice of the Catholic Church, until we come to the Council
of Nice. How is it possible, therefore, that we can undertake to
say what all the pastors of the various churches, or even of all
the Apostolically-founded churches, believed ? To take the iew
individuals whose writings happen to remain to us, as the repre
sentatives of this whole body, is as absurd as it would be a thou
sand years hence to take the writings of some half dozen indi
viduals of the last three centuries that may happen to have sur
vived to that period, as the representatives of the whole church
since the Reformation to this age ; and who, if they happen to be
Romanists, would represent the whole Catholic Church as agree
ing with them, and their only opponents to be a few contemptible
sectaries. Nay, those individuals themselves could not tell what was the
faith of " the church," when " the church" had not publicly de
fined it. And hence the Romanists themselves make this apology
for the errors of some of the Fathers on various points, that " the
church" had not then determined it ; allowing that individuals
might easily err, where there had been no public decision of the
church ; while, nevertheless, the desire and purpose of such indi
viduals must have been to retain the faith of the church, which,
therefore, they must have supposed themselves to do ; and would,
therefore, in their writings, have maintained that they did.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 151
Hence, still further, suppose we were even to grant that the
consent of the public confessions of faith of all the primitive
churches for the first few centuries, might be taken as indica
tive of such a catholic consent as ought to be considered a suffi
cient proof of the oral teaching of the Apostles, where can we
find those confessions ? The utmost of the kind that we can find
for the first three centuries, is in the remains left to us of three
authors of the second and third centuries, who, in their contro
versies with some who were opposed to them, give us (as we shall
see presently) a Creed shorter than what is commonly called the
Apostles' Creed, and consisting of articles which, in the present
day, are not called in question ; for which they claim the consent
of the churches founded by the Apostles.
Now these Creeds are, no doubt, entitled to great respect. But
when we recollect that these churches had no fixed and publicly
' agreed-upon formula or confession of faith to be judged by, and
that even in the case of churches that have, the representation
given of their doctrine, varies with the private views of him who
gives it, we cannot surely accept even these as infallible witness
es. These writers, to use the words of Doctor Barrow, " allege
the general consent of churches planted by the Apostles, and pro
pagated by continual successions of bishops from those whom the
Apostles did ordain, in doctrines and practices opposite to those
devices, as a good argument; and so, indeed, it then was, next
to a demonstration against them."* Then the truth of the state
ment could be tested ; and doubtless their report of such agree
ment, is a strong argument in our day ; but one, the strength
of which is greatly diminished to what it was then; and that
on several accounts. We cannot verify it. We have to trust
to the report of two or three partial writers, who themselves
must have judged greatly from report. And when we find, as
we shall hereafter, how freely the name of the church was
afterwards used for doctrines that had no pretence to claim
such an authority, we can hardly consider these testimonies
conclusive. We have not even the writings of those who vvere
opposed to them, to consult in the matter; and who, we know,
laid claim to apostolical tradition in their favour. Even in the
few points mentioned in those Creeds, therefore, we believe that
they were held generally in the primitive church, because we
find them so clearly expressed in Scripture, not because we have
any certain testimony of catholic consent in their favour. And
lastly, those Creeds, if admitted, are open to almost all the errors
which agitate the church, having been originally directed against
' Works, vol. vi. p. 198,

153 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
those outrageous absurdities of the Valentinians and Marcionites,
which, in the present day are equally despised by all parties. ,
Moreover, were we to suppose that what is called a General
Council might be taken as an undoubted representative of the
whole church in its day, yet there was not a single Council of the
kind for the first three centuries and more. Nay, if we speak of
a Council truly general, faithfully representing the whole church,
it may well be doubted whether there ever was yet such a Coun
cil. Bishop Stillingfleet, speaking on this subject, and showing
the far better title which the Antient Councils had to be called
General than the modern ones of Rome so called, adds, — " I do
not say. There was ever such a General Council as did fully re
present the universal church, which could not be done without
provincial Councils summoned before in all parts of Christendom,
and the delegation from them of such persons as were to dehver
their sense in the matter of faith to be debated in the General
Council, and I have reason to question whether this were ever
done."* And suppose such a Council assembled, and having (which is
all that would be practicable at any time) a few deputies from
every church in existence, could we be sure that those deputies
spoke anything more than the sense of the majority of the posters
of the church they represented ? Take an instance. What do
our opponents think of the representation made by the English
deputies at the Synod of Dort of the doctrine of the Church of
England ? Let them honestly say, whether they believe that the
doctrine of the Church of England was truly represented there.
If they do, what becomes of their subscription ; if they do not,
they at once confess that such assemblies afford no proof of the
doctrine of the churches there represented. Nay, it undeniably
follows from this case, that it is only the majority that is repre
sented, because it is notorious that there were those, as for in
stance Bishop Montague, in the Church of England, who took a
very different view of the doctrine of our church to what was
there given.
On this whole subject, therefore, Archbishop Tenison, when
discoursing of a guide in matters of faith, speaking of the preten
sions that have been made by the Romanists to an infallible one,
says, (and his words apply equally to the arguments of our oppo
nents,) — " This guide could not be ihe church diffusive of the first
ages. For the suffrages of every Christian were never gathered.
And if we will have their sense, they must rise from the dead
and give it us. This guide cannot be the faith, as such, of all
I Vindication of the Answer to some late papers, p. 53, and see Placette on
the Incurable Scepticism of the Church of Borne, c. 12.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. ] 53
the governors of all the primitive churches. The sense of it
was never collected. There were antiently general Creeds, but
such as especially related to the heresies then on foot ; and who
can affirm upon grounds of certainty, that each bishop in the
world consented to each Article, or to each so expressed ? This
guide is not a Council perfectly free and universal. For a
guide which cannot be had is none. If such a Council could as
semble, it would not err in the necessaries of faith  But
there never was yet an universal Council properly so called .
... In the Councils called general, if we speak comparatively,
there were not many southern or western bishops present at them.
It was thus at that first oecumenical Council, the Council of Nice;
though in one sacred place, as Eusebius hath noted, there were
assembled Syrians and Cilicians, Phoenicians and Arabians, Palaes-
tinians, Egyptians, Thebseans, Libyans, Mesopotamians, a Per
sian, a Scythian bishop, and many others from other countries.
But there was but one bishop for Africa, one for Spain, one for
Gaul, two priests as deputies of the infirm and aged bishop of
Rome ; whilst, for instance sake, there were seventeen bishops
for the small province of Isauria  This guide is not the
present church declaring to particular Christians the sense
of the church of former ages. How can this declaration be
made, seeing churches differ, and each church calls itself the true
one, 'and pretendeth to the primitive pattern."*

SECTION ni. — THE INADEQUACY OF THE RECORDS THAT REMAIN TO US
OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH TO BE TAKEN AS ANYTHING LIKE A SUF
FICIENT AND INDUBITABLE REPRESENTATION OF THE FAITH OF THE
WHOLE CHURCH.
We now come to the consideration of the number and value
of the writings themselves from which we have to collect the
"catholic consent" of the primitive church. And, I think, it
will be evident to every impartial reader, that if we include in
our review the writings of the first three centuries, we are giving
our opponents as long a period as they can with any shadow of
justice require. For the argument is, that we must go to tbe
primitive church to learn the doctrines of the faith, because, as
corruptions came in by degrees, the nearer we get to the times
of Christ and his Apostles, the more likely we are to obtain the
1 Discourse concerning a guide in matters of faith, pp. 14 — 18, or Bishop
Gibson's Preservative. Tit. iv. c. 1. p. 8, &c. and see the whole of Placette's
"Incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome;" and respecting General Coun
cils, see Dean Sherlock's " Vindication of some Protestant Principles," &c. in
Gibson's Preservative, vol. iii. p. 415.

154 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
truth unmixe,d with error. I know, indeed, that we are so far
removed from the Apostolic age, that men who lived some three
or four centuries after the Apostles, are viewed by many as al
most their contemporaries. The Apostles and the Fathers of the
first three or four centuries are to us in this respect like the stars.
They are all so far off from us that they appear almost equi
distant. The difference of their distances is so small in the com
parison, that it is almost lost sight of. But if we allow ourselves
to judge thus hastily, we may easily be deceived. It cannot be
pretended that what is not found in the writers of the first three
centuries can be proved to be the oral teaching of the Apostles
by the testimony of subsequent writers, though subsequent wri
ters may act as a check upon those of this period, and may also
be included for a negative testimony, that is as negativing a doc
trine by their silence ; for if a doctrine is unknown to the Fathers
of the first five centuries, there is still stronger reason to suppose
it to be false, than if we could only say that it was unknown to
the Fathers of the first three. The longer the period you can
include for the negative argument, the stronger it becomes. And
hence, we willingly give the Romanists the first five or six centu
ries from which to prove the doctrines in dispute between them
and us. But for a positive testimony in proof of any doctrine
the case is precisely the contrary. Here we want respectable
proof of catholic consent at a period very near the apostolical
times. Let us observe, then, on this head,
First, and more especially, the paucity of the remains of the
primitive church for the first three centuries.
That there were many writers at all in the church compared
with its extent, during the ages of persecution, is not probable.
But when we come to view the records that actually remain to
us, we shall find that we can hardly reckon upon having one
witness for a milhon. For who are our witnesses for this period?
We have first, nine brief epistles to various churches by Clement,
Polycarp, and Ignatius. We have the works of Justin Martyr,
Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen
and Lactantius ; a few small Treatises by Athenagoras, Theo
philus of Antioch, Hippolytus, Gregory of Neocsesarea, Minu-
cius Felix and Arnobius. These with a few fragments of some
other authors preserved by subsequent writers, form the sum
total of our witnesses for more than the first three hundred years.
And almost all these works are written in reply, either to the
heathen opponents of Christianity, or to heresies which in the
present day would be equally despised by all parties, and conse
quently have a very indirect reference to any of the disputes by
which the church is now agitated. These, then, are to be taken.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 155
according to our opponents, as the certain representatives of the
whole church, as equivalent to everybody always everywhere
during this period, and hence, as presenting us, where they
agree, with a certain record of the oral teaching of the Apos
tles. Now, whether these writers do give a consentient testimony
in behalf of any doctrine is a point which we shall discuss here
after. But at present I would only submit to the reader whether
such a claim in behalf of the few individuals above named, namely,
that their concurrent statements should be taken as a certain
record of the consent of the whole church, and so of the oral
teaching of the Apostles, is admissible.
Consider the small number of those whom we are thus making
the uncommissioned plenary representatives of the universal
church for three hundred years. And that too when we know
that they form but a very small proportion even of the writers of
those ages. For the author of the " Synopsis of Scripture," at
tributed to Athanasius, having given a list of the canonical books
of the New Testament, says, — " Such are the books of the New
Testament, those at least that are canonical, and as it were the
first fruits or anchors and props of our faith, as being written and
composed by the A postles of Christ themselves, and those that
associated with him, and were taught by him; but afterwards,
in accordance with their teaching, and in harmony with them,
myriads of other books without number -were composed by the
Fathers who in their time were great and excelling in wisdom
and taught by God."* And again, further on, he speaks of these
writers as "very many and infinite in number."^
Is it not, then, absurd to make the testimony of the few indi
viduals above mentioned equivalent to the " catholic consent" of
the whole primitive church for the first three centuries?
For the whole of this period, be it observed, we have no re
corded public confessions either of churches or councils to guide
us. The utmost of this kind to be found among the records of
this period are the brief confessions (already alluded to, and which
will be considered more particularly hereafter) recorded by Ire
naeus, Tertullian and Origen, and for which they claim the con
sent of the churches founded by the Apostles.
It must be added also, that were we to include a longer period
in our review, sp as to take in some of the Councils best entitled
I TorOAITX XXI TX THS XXtVHt SixBhxhs &1&XIX, TX yi XMIOVlO^OfllVX, XXI THS TTtTTiae Hum
olovii xxpoBtvtx H xyxupxt xxt iputrfAXTX' cas Tvxf auTm tchv xttoittoXoov tou Xpt^Tou, tuv
xxt ruyyivo(Aivm cks/vw xai iiir^ xutou fxxBHTiuBiVTm ypx^ivTX xxt EXTeflavTat. 'Ettutoi y-i
uTTiptiv XXTX THV ixuvm xxoxouBta.v xxt iru(x^bi.>txv, xxxx fjiupta xxt xyxptB/Awrx Si&xix i.'jTro-
vH^Ho-xv vJco Tm XXTX xdupovs [Aiyaxm xxt a-o^ooTX/rav Bicfoptev TTimipm. Synopsis Script.
Sacr. § 4, Inter Athan. Op. vol. ii. p. 131. ed. Bened.
2 n.xfj.Troxxm xxt xaptrTm. lb.

156 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
to the name of General, our opponents would gain nothing by it.
For such Councils have proved themselves to be far from infallible
witnesses of the faith of the true church by contradicting each
other. If we come to consider what Councils we have that can
make any pretences to being considered general, we shall find
that the two which can make the best claim, namely, those of
Nice and Ariminum with Seleucia, are entirely opposed to each
other in a vital point, and that the latter, which Bishop Stilling
fleet calls, " the most General Council we read of in Church his
tory,'" decided against the orthodox faith.
, So that Augustin, when disputing with an Arian, virtually ad
mits that, as far as the testimony of Councils is concerned, his op
ponent's argument from the Council of Ariminum would be as
good as his own from the Council of Nice ; and therefore, that
they must both betake themselves to the Scriptures."
It is not a little strange, then, how our opponents can use the
language they do as to the authority of the witness given by
General Councils respecting the faith, and even charge their doc
trine upon our own church, because of its admission of the deter
minations of the first four General Councils as agreeable to the
orthodox faith, when it is even made a ground of objection to us
by well informed Romanists, that we admit those Councils, not
on the ground of any intrinsic authority in the nature of their
witness, but because we judge their witness to be correct, when
it might have been otherwise.^ We may say to the Tractators,
as it was long ago said by a learned writer among us to the Ro
manists, — "If General Councils cannot err, how come these gen
tlemen to be persuaded that the Council of Ariminum, consist
ing of about six hundred bishops, which also was backed by a
Synod of Eastern bishops at Seleucia, did not discharge the church
of all obligation to quit [? hold] the belief and profession of the
Son's being consubstantial with the Father? The second Coun
cil of Ephesus had a general summons, and in respect of the num
ber of bishops, it was as general as Councils sometimes were
which are esteemed so, and yet we all say they erred with Dios-
Corus. And many more instances there are of this nature."*
Secondly, the view we have of antiquity, in the remains of it
that are left to us, is a partial view.
I Vind. of Answ. to some late papers, pp. 53, 4.
2 Adv. Maximin. lib. 2. u. 14. tom. 8. col. 704.
' R. H.'s Rational Account of doctrine of Roman Catholics concerning Guide
in Controv. Disc. 3. c. 4. § 40. p. 174. 2d. ed. 1673. ,
¦1 Hutchinson and Claggett's Auth, of Councils, &c. pp. 7, 8 ; or in Bishop
Gibson's Preservative, tit. 4. vol. 1. p. 143. The same doctrine is maintained
by Dean Field. See his Treatise " Of the Church," p. 851. 3d. ed. And by
Bishop Jer. Taylor, in his Liberty of Prophesying, § 6.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 157
When estimating the title of the writings that remain to the
character iu vvhich they are put forward by our opponents, we
must pursue the inquiry, not as men who have already decided
in favour of particular doctrines, not with a bias towards particu
lar Fathers, but wifh a simple regard to the intrinsic value of
their testimony, apart from any consideration of the doctrine
vvhich it supports; for otherwise our decision will be founded
merely upon our own prejudices, and thus, though it may be very
satisfactory to ourselves, will bring no conviction to others, and
forms no sufficient foundation for our own faith. The writings
of the Tractators appear to me to be very open to censure in this
respect. There is throughout them a tacit assumption that such
men as Ignatius and Irenaeus, &c. were so excellent and ortho
dox, that we may well abide by their decisions in important
points, as representing to us the faith of the true church. And
this is the secret which explains all their statements. But this
is, in fact, an assumption of the very thing which we profess to
be seeking, namely, the orthodox faith. How, I beg to ask, did
we obtain this bias in^favourof these men, but from finding that
they agreed upon the whole in our view of the orthodox faith as
delivered by the Scriptures?
We must observe, therefore, that in the works which remain to
us, we see antiquity through the medium of those records and
writings only which the ruling party in the church has allowed
to be preserved.
Whatever, then, may be our private view as to the effect pro
duced, whether it has been more or less favourable to what
we hold to be the orthodox faith, it is undeniable that this fact
greatly affects the value of those writings, as giving an impar
tial and certain representation of the faith of the whole churCh.
It is certain that thousands of books published in the primi
tive church have perished; and among these the works of all
those who were condemned by any conciliar decisions. Now this
is, indeed, what might be expected. The influence of the ruling
party would naturally prevail, — especially at a time when books
were not multiplied with the facility with which they now are,
— for the gradual extinction of the writings of those who had
been publicly condemned. When Christianity came to be pro
tected and supported by the state, we find the ruling party in
the church, whichever it might be, enforcing strict prohibi
tions, and a rigid suppression, of the books on the other side,
even though they might have been written long before by those
who had died in the communion of the catholic church. Thus
we find the fifth General Council (as it is called) anathematizing
the books of three bishops, Ibas, Theodoret, and Theodorus of
Mopsuesta, all of whom had died long before in the commu-
VOL. I. o

158 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
nion of the catholic church : and on the case of one of wliom,
namely Ibas, the fourth General Council had expressly passed
a different decision. And in this Council (as " the seventh
General Council and all the Greek historians testify"*) the con
demnation of Origen, who had been dead about three centuries,
was pronounced; and this condemnation is probably the reason
why we have so few of his works remaining in the original
Greek. And as the church became more corrupt, the effect of these
anathemas and prohiliitions, (whatever it may have been previous
ly,) became proportionably injurious to the cause of truth, as we
see remarkably exemplified in the canon of the second Nicene
Council that decided in favour of image worship, which decreed,
as Du Pin himself represents it, " that all the works against
images shall be put in the palace of the Patriarch of Constanti
nople, among the heretical books, and threatens to depose or ex
communicate those that shall conceal them,'' which was in accord
ance with the letter of Pope Adrian to the Council, in which
(as Du Pin says) he " establisheth the worship of images, and
affirms that the church of Rome received it by tradition from
St. Peter ; and proves, by a false relation, that in St. Sylvester's
time, St. Peter's and St. Paul's pictures were in the church ;"='
and accordingly his Legates required that all the books against
images should either be anathematized or burnt. Daille, who
mentions this case, justly remarks,* that it is probably the effect
of this anathema that we have not the original Greek of the
Epistle of Epiphanius to John of Jerusalem anywhere remaining,
but only the Latin translation of it by Jerome, which has been
preserved to us among St. Jerome's own letters. And hence the
want of the original has been taken advantage of by Dureus,
Sanders, and Baronius, to deny that it is a work of Epiphanius.^
Such is the progress of corruption in these matters.
So, also, Pamelius confesses that the Greek Treatise of Ter
tullian on baptism was probably suppressed on account of his
having there defended the opinion that the baptism of heretics
was null and void."
Upon this principle the Church of Rome has acted ever since,
particularly from the period of the Reformation ; at tbe very
1 Du Pin, who, however, contends that it was "in the Council held in 540
under Menn'as, which made a part of the fifth Council." See Du Pin, under
fifth General Council.
2 Can. 9. See Du Pin under this Council.
3 Du Pin, ib. , r. ¦ .i
4 On the use of the Fathers, Parti, c. 4.
6 See Coci Censura in Prcf. , „, . .
6 See Pamel. Annot. in Tertull. p. 650- ed. Col. Agnpp. 1617.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 159
dawn of which this principle of suppressing whatever might be^
contrary to her views, appears to have been, as far as was in her
power, rigidly enforced ; for, at the tenth session of the fifth Coun
cil of Lateran under Leo X., in 1515, it was ordained, in the
Third Constitution, that all books printed at Rome should be ex
amined by the Pope's Vicar, and Master of the Holy Palace, and
in other places by the Bishop and Inquisitor, under a penalty
against the printer of forfeiting the books issued without such ex
amination, which were to be burnt, and paying a heavy fine ; a
decree which applied to the works of the antients, as well as the
moderns ; as appears from the fact, that when all the bishops pre
sent but one had assented to it, the remaining one remarked that
he assented to it as respected new works, but not as to old. And
as we are indebted almost wholly to the Romanists for all the
earlier editions of the Fathers, the mischief that may have been
done to their remains in this way is incalculable; not merely by
the suppression of whole treatises, but more especially by their
corruptions of the works which they have given, which we shall
notice presently.
In the Council of Trent this decree of the Lateran Council was
specially recognized and enforced. And from these decrees sprung
the Prohibitory and Expurgatory Indexes with which the world
has since been favoured ; which have not spared even the works
of the antients. Dr. James tells us that in the first two editions of
the " Bibliotheca Patrum,"* " there are many treatises which
make rather against, than for them ; as well knew the Roman
Index, which hath commanded them to be left clean out ; and
according hereto, they are omittedin the last edition of Paris ;"^
namely, the third of 1609, 10.^ It was originally designed that
the Admonitions of Agapetus should have been among the num
ber; but this work seems to have been afterwards spared, on the
condition of a marginal note being affixed to an obnoxious pas
sage, which was this ; " The king hath no superior in the earth."*
" Write in the margin," says the Roman Index, " Understand
among secular and temporal dignities ; for the ecclesiastical dig
nity is superior to the kingly."" A gloss, which is not only con
trary to the words, but directly contradicted by several other
1 By M. de la Eigne, Paris, 1575—9, 9 vols ; and Paris, 1589, 9 vol.
2 James's Corruption, &c. Part 2. n. 19. p. 214. These two first editions,
therefore, were prohibited. See James. Index Gen. Libr. Prohib. Oxon. 1627,
12mo, under " Bibliotheca-"
3 The " auctarium" and " index" to this third edition, were also ordered to be
expurgated in various parts. See James. Index Libr. Prohib. under " Biblio
theca." ¦1 Non enim habet [i. e. Rex] in terris se quicquam excelsius.
5 Scribe ad marginem, Intciligo inter saeculares et temporales dignitates, nam
ecclesiastica dignitas sublimior est regia. Ind. Rom. p. 200.

160 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
passages of the work ; but which will be found duly inserted in
the Bibliotheca.*
We may here observe, also, that in the Roman Index of 1559,
we find, among the prohibited books, Bertram on the body and
blood of Christ, the Imperfect work on Matthew, attributed to
Chrysostom, (of which their own Sixtus Senensis says that it had
been " approved for ages by the common consent of the church,"
and which had been quoted by Gratian, Aquinas, the Rhemists,
and other Romanists, as a genuine work of Chrysostom,'') and
" a Treatise on the Irue and pure church;" "most falsely," says
the Inquisitor, " ascribed to Athanasius."^ As it respects the last
of these, the prohibition appears to have been but too successful,
as I can find no notice of it anywhere else ; but, in the case of the
two former, it has fortunately proved but brutum fulmen. And
doubtless these Prohibitory Indexes have been less injurious, than
the tacit suppression of the works before publication ; for, when
once abroad, the universal destruction of the copies was no easy
task. Of this, the Romanists have been well aware ; and conse
quently have done their best to strangle obnoxious works in the
birth. A curious case of this kind was brought to light by Arch
bishop Wake, which is throughout so illustrative of the Romish
system in this matter, that I will here present it to the reader.
In 1548, Peter Martyr, in his dispute wifh Gardiner, Bishop of
Winchester, concerning the Eucharist, produced a passage from
an " Epistle of Chrysostom to Csesarius," evidently overturning the
Popish doctrineof transubstantiation, professing that hehad copied
the epistle from a Florentine MS., and placed it in the library of
Archbishop Cranmer. Bishop Gardiner, not being able to deny
this, endeavoured to get over the difficulty as well as he could ;
and ascribed the epistle to another John of Constantinople, who
lived about the beginning of the sixth century. This answer
was adopted by others : though, as the Archbishop observes,
" still the argument recurred upon them ; forasmuch as thisother
John was in the beginning of the sixth age; and transubstantia
tion, by consequence, was not the doctrine of the church then ;"
and accordingly, the copy in Cranmer's Library being, of course,
lost in the dispersion of his books. Cardinal Perron, in his Treatise
of the Eucharist, " flatly accuses Peter Martyr of forgery ; and
uses abundance of arguments to persuade the world that there
never was any such epistle as had been pretended." And so
says Bellarmine.* Thus the matter stood till 1680, when Bigo-
1 See James. Ib- pp. 213 &s.
2 James's Corruption, &c. Pt- 2. n. 2. p. 165.
3 Traotatus de vera et pura ecclesia, D. Athanasio falsissime odscriptus.
4 Nihil ejusmodi umquam scripsisse Chrysostomum, neque enim in toto Chry-
sostomi opere ullus est liber vel Epistola ad Casarium, De sacr. euchar. lib. 2. c. 22

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 161
tins, having brought a copy of the epistle from Florence, printed
it with his edition of Palladius, and strengthened it, says Dr. Wake,
" with such attestations, as show it to be beyond all doubt authen
tic." But, before the publication of the book, this part of it
was interdicted and suppressed by the doctors of the Sor-
bonne, and " the printed leaves cut out of the book ;" and " of
this, the edition of Palladius of that year remains a standing
monument, both in the preface and in the book."* However,
" the very leaves cut out by those doctors of Mr. Bigot's preface
and the epistle rased out of the book," fell into the hands of Dr.
Wake, by whom they were published in the appendix to his
" Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Eng
land against M. de Meaux," (pp. 127, &c.) The offensive pas
sage is this. I use Dr. Wake's translation. " Before the hread
is consecrated, we call it bread ; but when the grace of God, by
the priest, has consecrated it, it is no longer called bread, but is
esteemed worthy to be called the Lord's body, although the
nature of bread still remains in it.""
It only remained for the Romanists that came after, to main
tain that the whole epistle is spurious ; which is accordingly done
without any hesitation, by the Benedictines, in their elaborate
edition of Chrysostom. It is with them " altogether spurious,"
(omnino spuria,) written by nobody knows who; though they
admit that it is quoted asChrysostom's, by John Damascen, Anas-
tasius the Presbyter, Nicephorus, and others.^
Indeed, as Archbishop Wake says, " So many antient authors
have cited it as St. Chrysostom's Epistle to Caesarius, such frag
ments of it remain in the most antient writers as authentic ; that
he who after all these shall call this piece in question, may with
the same reasonableness doubt of all the rest of his works ; which,
perhaps upon less grounds, are on all sides allowed as true and un
doubted."' So much for the impartiality of the Benedictines,
upon whom far too much reliance has been placed.
It is impossible, then, fo consider the remains we have of the
antient ecclesiastical authors, as beyond doubt exhibiting to us all
the variations of doctrine that were to be found in the primitive
' For the'truth of which I can also testify, having a copy of the book; which
is not, indeed, of uncommon occurrence.
2 Antequam sanctificetur panis, panem nominamus, divina autem ilium sancti-
ficante gratia, mediante sacerdote, liberatus est quidem appellatione panis, dignus
autem habitus est Dominici corporis appellatione, etiamsi natura panis in ipso
permansit. Wake's app. pp. 156, 7.
3 See Chrysost. Op. ed. Bened. Tom. 3. Praef. § 3. et Monit.in Ep. ad Cssar-
pp. 737, 8.
* P. 145. This mode of getting rid of treatises in which passages occur opposed
to their views, has long been in common use among the Romanists. See the
Preface to Coci Censura. O*

163 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
church ; and therefore we could not regard even the consent of
those writings, as representing the Catholic consent of the whole
church. It is no aid to the cause of orthodoxy, to put forth such
a claim. It looks like a confession of weakness ; a desire to en
trap men into a belief of doctrines for whose divine origin there is
(as they will suppose) no sufficient foundation.
Thirdly, the view we have of antiquity, in the remains of it
that are left to us, labours under much uncertainty, from the
way in which the works of the Fathers have been mutilated and
corrupted, and works forged in their name.
None have suffered so much in this respect as the Fathers.
He who sits down to read the Fathers, in order to be guided by
them to the true faith, will find himself encumbered at the out
set with difficulties of the most formidable kind. For if he is
to take them as the ground upon which his faith is to rest, it is
very necessary that the works upon which he depends, should
be really theirs; and that they should be in the state in which
their authors left them. But as to a vast number of these works
he will find not only that their authors are disputed, but that
they are set down by many as the forgeries of mischievous or
heretical persons ; and that many others have been grievously
corrupted, (and how far the corruption extends, it is impossible
to tell,) by the heretics in antient, and by Romanists in modern
times. Thus above one hundred and eighty treatises, professing to be
written by authors of the first six centuries, are repudiated by
the more learned of the Romanists themselves as, most of them,
rank forgeries ; and the others not written by those whose names
they bear; though, be it observed, they have been almost all
quoted over and over again by celebrated controversial writers
of the Romish communion, in support of their errors against
Protestants.* And any one who will consult the works that have been writ
ten by Cave, Du Pin, and others,'on the ecclesiastical authors of
antiquity, and particularly that of Robert Cooke on the spurious
and doubtful works attributed to the Fathers,^ will find three or
four times as many more, noted as either shameless forgeries, or
at least of very doubtful authority, and very uncertain author
ship. So that before we commence our task, we must strike out of
our list of patristical relics a whole mass of writings, which the
criticism of an age removed a thousand years and more from the
period when these writings profess to have been published, may
1 See James's Corruption of Fathers, (Sc. Part 1.
2 Rob. Coci Censura quorundam scriptorum, &c. Lond. 1614. 4to.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 163
command us to reject. This, it must be admitted, is not a very
satisfactory commencement ; because we are naturally disposed
to ask whether we can be quite sure as to the genuineness of
those that remain ; and shall, in fact, find ourselves not a little
puzzled to know the grounds upon which some have been elimi
nated, and others allowed to stand, not to say that our critics are
sometimes grievously divided among themselves ; some contend
ing stoutly for the genuineness of a piece, others as stiffly main
taining the contrary.
But what is worse, we have also to guard against the corrup
tions introduced into the genuine works of the Fathers. This is an
evil which it is still more difficult to remedy, especially as it is one
which has been growing since the very earliest times. We have
to deal with the corruptions both of antient and modern times.
Of these interpolations we find many complaints in the Fathers
themselves. Thus Augustine, speaking of a charge of corruption
brought against the works of Cyprian, says, — " For the integrity
and a knowledge of the writings of any one bishop, however
illustrious, could not be so preserved, as the canonical Scripture
is preserved by the variety of languages in which it is found, and
by the order and succession of its rehearsal in the church ; against
which nevertheless there have not been wanting those who have
forged many things under the names of the Apostles. To no
purpose indeed, because it was so in esteem, so constantly read,
so well known. But what such boldness could do in the case of
writings not supported by canonical authority, is proved by the
impiety with which it has not even refrained from exerting ilself
against those that are supported by a knowledge so universal."'
This testimony is the more observable, because it shows that in
Augustine's view, the Holy Scriptures stand upon very different
ground in this respect to the writings of the Fathers, and that
we may justly fear corruptions in the latter fo which the former
are from the circumstances of the case in an infinitely smaller
degree liable.
" So great," says Isidorus Hispalensis, " is the cunning of the
heretics, that they mix falsehood with truth, and evil things with
good, and generally insert the poison of their error in things that
are salutary, that they may more easily insinuate their wicked
1 Neque enim sic potuit integritas atque nolitia litterarum unius quamlibet il-
lustris episcopi custodiri, quemndmndum Scriptura canonica tot linguarum litteris
et ordine et successione celebrationis ecclesinsiicffi custoditur, contra quam tamen
non defuerunt qui sub nominibus apostolorum multa confingerent. Frustra qui
dem, quia ilia sic commendata, sic celebrata, sic nota est ; verum quid pnssit
adversum Iitteras non canonica aucloritate fundatas etiam bincdemonstravit impiae
conatus audaciae, quod et adversum eas quae tanta notitiae mole firmatae sunt sese
erigere non prtelermisit. August. Ep. ad Vincent. Rogat. ep. 93. vol. ii. col. 246,
7, ed. Bened.

164 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
error under the appearance of the truth. The heretics generally
indite their doctrines under the name of the catholic doctors, that
being read without question, they may be believed. Sometimes
also they deceitfully insert their blasphemies in the books of our
doctors, and corrupt the true doctrine by adulteration, namely,
either by adding what is impious or taking away what is agreea
ble to the faith. We must cautiously meditate upon, and test
with careful discrimination, what we read, that according to the
apostolic admonition we may both hold fast that which is good
and oppose that which is contrary to the truth ; ahd so take in
struction from the good as to remain uninjured by the evil."*
So also it is said by Anastasius Sinaita, — " The catholics of
Alexandria told me, that after the times of the blessed Eulogius
the Pope [i. e. Patriarch of Alexandria] there was a certain
Augustalius [or, Augustan prefect] there, a follower of Severus,
who for long time had fourteen amanuenses of like mind wifh
himself, to sit down at his comrpand and falsify the books con
taining the doctrines of the Fathers, and especially those of the
holy Cyril." ^
Of the partisans of Dioscorus if is said in the letter of the
monks of Palestine, preserved by Evagrius, that they had fre
quently corrupted the works of the Fathers, and had attached
the names of Athanasius, Gregory Thaumaturgus and Julius to
many of the works of Apollinarius.'*
It would be easy to add other passages of a similar nature.
But we will proceed to point out some particular iiistances.
Of the constitutions of Clement of liome, it is complained by
the sixth Council, that certain corruptions of the true faith had
been introduced into them by heretical persons, vvhich had ob-
1 Tanta est haerelicorum ralliditas ut falsa veris malaque bonis permisceant,
salutaribusque rebus plerumque erroris sui virus interserant, quo facilius possint
pravitatem perversi dogmatis sub specie persuadere veritatis. Plerumque sub
nomine catholicorum doctorum haeretici sua dicta conscribunt, ut indubitanter
lecta credantur. Nonnunquam etiam blaspbemias suas latenlidolo in libris nos-
trorum inserunt, doctrinamque veram adulterando corrumpunt; scilicet vel adji-
ciendo quae impia sunt vel auferendo quae pia sunt. Caute meditanda cautoque
sensu probanda sunt quae leguntur, ut juxta Apostolica monita et teneamus quae
recta sunt et refutemus quae contraria verilali existunt, sicque in bonis instruamur,
ut a malis illaesi permaneamus. Lib. 3. Sentent. c. 12. Roni. 1802. tom. 6.
2 AinyOUVTO TOtVUV HfJ^tV 01 THS XxBoXlXHS iXXXHTlXS iV AXi^XvSpUX, OTI fJO^TX TOUS XJOVOUS TOU
uxxxpiov 'EuXoytou tou Hxttx, yiyoviv Tts Auyovo-TxXios iVTXuBx liUipiXVOS, xxt iTrt Ixxvous
ypovovs i^X} ^ xxxxiypxtpous o-ufAZfovxs xutou, xxt' h^itiiotthv xutou xxBi^o/j.i':ous, xxt liXX-
(TiuovTxs Titc &1&X0US Tm Soyfj.xTm tkv vrxTipm, xxt (jiXXttrTx -rae tou aytyj Kuptxxcu.
Anastas. Sinait. Viae dux. c. 10. p. 198. ed. 1606.
s Kiti yxp xxt xoyous "^XTipaiv ttoxxxxis vivoBiuxxo-i, ttoxxcus Si AToxi'txuw xoyous AQaya-
(TJffl xxt Xpnyoptst) TUl Qxu^xToupyia xxt louxttn Six Tm iTriypxzuiv xvXTiBuxx<riv. Evagr.
Scholast. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 31. See also Leont. Byzant. Adv. Apollinarist.
in Canis. Antiq. Lect. tom. iv. pt, 1 p. 105. or in Biblioth. Patr. Tom. xii. p.
701. ed. Galland.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT, 165
scured the beautiful character of the divine decrees.* The same
is said of the " Recognitions" attributed to him, by Ruffinus, "
Photius, = and Epiphanius.*
That the epistles of Ignatius were corrupted by heretics, we
have proof in the variations of the copies still extant of them ;
under whose name also are to be found several epistles now gene
rally given up as spurious.
In the same case, probably, are the " Shepherd" of Hermas,
and the Epistle of Barnabas, and hence by some they are wholly
rejected as spurious, while by otheis, as Archbishop Wake, &c.,
they are defended as the true productions of those apostolical
men ; and certainly a book under the former title, and contain
ing passages to be found in that we now have, is quoted wifh the
greatest respect by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and
others. As it now stands, however, it is disfigured by passages
hardly reconcileable with the orthodox faith.
Nay, of one of the most valuable remains of antiquity we pos
sess, the work of Irenasus against heresies, we are warned by our
present learned Bishop of Lincoln, "we should always bear in
mind, that far the greater portion of the work of Irenaeus is ex
tant only in a barbarous Latin translation, which lies under
heavy suspicions of interpolation."^
The boldness of these corrupters of the writings of the Fathers
may be conceived from the fact that they did not spare an
author's works, even in his own life time, witness the complaint
of Dionysius of Corinth; " I wrote some epistles," he says, "at
the request of the brethren, but the ministers of the devil filled
them with tares; taking away some things and adding others;
for whom wo is reserved.""
That the " Hypotyposess" of Clement of Alexandria were
thus corrupted can hardly be doubted by any one who reads the
account given of them by Photius, who himself supposes it to
have been the case.''
On this ground, as is well-known, Ruffinus endeavours to de
fend the writings of Origen, viz. that they had been grievously
corrupted by heretics, an apology however which Jerome would
' Quibus jam olim ab iis qui a fide aliena sentiunt adulterina quaedam et a
pietate aliena introducta sunt, quas divinorum nobis decretorum elegautem ac
decoram speciem obscurarunt. Can. 2.
2 Ap. Hieron. in Contr. Ruff. lib. ii. § 17. tom. ii. col. 507.
3 Bibl. ed. Hoeschel. p. 155 et seq.
¦•Adv. haer in haer. 30. vol. i. p. 139.
5 On writings of Tertullian, p. 90. note.
fi ^TTi^Toxxs yxp xhxpm x^ixrxvTm fxi ypx\xi rypxyl.x, xxt Tayratc ot tou Six.Soxou a^otr-
Toxot ^t^xvim ytyifAixxv. x fniv t^xipouvTis, x Si -rpoo-.TtBivTis' ots to ouxi xutxi. Euseb.
Hist. Eccl. iv. 23.
1 Phot Biblioth. cod. 109. ed. Hoeschel. p. 154.

166 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
not receive, and therefore we will only refer the reader to the
contest between Jerome and Ruffinus on this point, where he
will also meet with many observations illustrative of this subject.*
And it is somewhat remarkable fhat so little was Jerome ac
quainted with the fact, now contended for, of catholic consent
among all the writers of the early church on all important points,
that (rejecting the supposition so convenient for such an hypothe
sis that, wherever they had spoken incorrectly, their writings had
been falsified by the heretics) he does not scruple to say, — " It
may happen that either they absolutely erred, or wrote with
another meaning, or their writings were by degrees corrupted
by unskilful copyists. Or, at any rate, before the rise of fhat
meridian daemon Arius in Alexandria, they spoke some things in
nocently and incautiously.'"'
One thing, however, seems quite certain, and that is, that the
Latin translations of the Greek Fathers, by Ruffinus, are not fo
be trusted. He is clearly convicted by Jerome, of having both
published the first book of Eusebius' six books of the defence of
Origen, under the name of PamphilusjHe Martyr, in order to
obtain greater respect for it, and of having altered the sense of
various passages, so as to make them speak the language of the
Nicene Creed. ^ I say clearly convicted, for Ruffinus, in his reply,
does not attempt to deny it. He is charged with doing the same
in his translations of the works of Origen, in order to make therp
consonant with the orthdox faith, and as far the greater part of
what we possess of Origen's works remains to us only in his trans
lations, we have but little of Origen that we can at all depend
upon. The translations of Ruffinus are given up by all parties
as wholly unworthy of credit.* Such adulterations of thc works
of the Fathers, therefore, were not all on the side of the heretics.
Another instance is recorded by Cyril of Alexandria, in the
case of the epistle of Athanasius to Epictetus, Bishop of Corinth.
Writing to John of Antioch, Cyril remarks, — " Having learnt
that some have published in an adulterated form the epistle of
our illustrious Father Athanasius fo the blessed Epictetus, so that
many may be injured thereby, we have thought it useful and
necessary to the brethren to send your holiness a transcript from
some antient and incorrupt copies that are preserved by us."^
1 See Hieron. libr, contra RufHn. and Ruffin. Apol. apuJ Hieron. Opera.
2 Fieri enim potest, ut vel simpliciter erraverint, vel alio sensu scripserint, vel a
librariis imperitis corum paulalim scripta corrupla sint. Vel certe antequam in
Alexandria quasi daemonium mcridianum Arius nasceretur, innocenter quaedam et
minus caute loquuti sunt. Hieron. Contr. Rulf. lib. ii. 4 17, tom. ii. col. 508, 9.
3 See Hieron. Contr. Ruffin. lib. i. % 8—10, and lib. iii. § 12.
i See Huetii Origen. lib. iii. c. I, § 3, et passim, and Cave, sub nom. Rujinus.
S'EVitSxV Si /JtiUxBHXAy.i:', OTt xxt THV TTpoS TOV fAXXXOtOV UtTIXTHTOI iXfTTOKHV TOU -TTXViU-
^HfAOU -XXTpoS Hf.m ABxvXTIOU, tfSjJo^a; iX'U'TCV, TTXpxpB iipXVTiS TlViS ixSiSuXXirlV, US iVTiU-

NO DIVI^'E lA-pOIiMAJTT. 167
And again, to Acacius he writes, — ' Paul, Bishop of Emisa, asked
me very earnestly whether I assent to what was written by our
celebrated and most blessed Father Athanasius to Epictetus,
Bishop of COrinth. I replied, ' If you have the epistle in an un-
corrupt state (for many things in it have been falsified by the
enemies of the truth,) I assent to it altogether, and in every
point.' He replied that he had the epistle, and would be glad
to be assured by my copies, and ascertain whether his own copies
were corrupted or not. And having taken the antient copies, and
compared them with those he had brought, he found that his
were adulterated, and advised me to make transcripts from our
copies, and send them fo the church at Antioch, which also was
dpne."* He repeats this statement in his first and second letters
to Succensus, in the former attributing the corruption to the fol
lowers of Nestorius.^
In the second of these letters fo Succensus also, he cautions
him that if any carried about a letter purporting to be written
by that most pious presbyter of the Church of Rome, Philip, and
intimating fhat the most holy Bishop Xystus was grieved at the
deposition of Nesforius and assisted him, he was not to believe it,
or if a letter was brought to him, purporting to be written by
himself, (namely Cyril,) and intimating his regret at what he had
done at Ephesus, he was only to laugh at it :^ which evidently
shows that such letters were being then circulated.
That the works of Cyril were corrupted after his death we
have several testimonies. Dioscorus, his successor in the See of
Alexandria, is accused of having adulterated them by Leonfius
of Byzantium.* So Nicephorus Callistus tells us that iElurus, who
forced himself into the See of Alexandria in the times of the
Emperor Leo, " is said to have corrupted many of the writings
of the divine Cyril, not published abroad, and to have inserted
in them false doctrines."^ The same is intimated, as we have
62:- aStxito-Bca rroxxous. Six touto xi^Hirtfjiov ti xxt xvxyxxiov irt-joouvTis tois xSiXi^ots, s? xvti-
y,ixpm xoxxtm, Tm irxp H[j.tv, xxi x-yxoos ixovTmv, xrnr.TUXxuiv tx tax th th otiothti.
Epist. ad Johann. Antioch. Op. tom. v. Part. 2. Inter Epist. p. 109,
1 Ejr/c-xcToc nayXoc thc "E^jtio-mm .... SuTruvBxviT'. uou, xxt juxxx unrouSarfAivms, it
cruvxi\'a} TOIS ypxjpuTi Trxpx tou ths xotSifAou jt/.vH/xHs xxt TptT/AXxxpiou TTXTpos Hpjtm AQxvxo-iou
^pos "S-'TtxTHTov eTrttrxciTrov THS mopivBtm. Eyo) St i^HV oti, u o-ix^iTxi rrxp' u/4iv ou vivoBiupjuvov
TO yoxfxux- Tx^xTTiTroiHTXi yxp Tm iv xuTce TToxxx Ttxpx Tm THS xxhBuxs ixBpm' truvxtvio-xt
fJti XV TrXVTH Ti XXI TTXVTOIS. 'O Si TTpOS TOUTO iJiXTXiV, iX^tV UiV XXt XUTOS THV iTTlTTOXHV,
&ouXi7Bxt Si XXI. ix Tm ?rxp' Hy.tv xyTiypxjpm TrxHpopopHBHvxt, xxt pjixBuv, TToTtpov itcts tx
xuTm [it&xix TrxpsTTotuBH, H fjtH. Kxi Sh xxt xx&m xvTtyoxjix ttxxxix, xxt ots iTn^ipiTO irufA-
(hxXl£V, HUplO-Xi TXAJTX, ViVoBiUfAiVX.' XXI TTpoiTpi^iV iX Tm TtXp HfJitV &l8xim t^X TrotilO-Xt, TTi/jt-
•^xi TiTH AvTioxi'.n ixxxHcrtx' i Sh xxt yiyovi, Epist. ad Acacium Melitanens, episc.
tom. V. part. 2. Inter Ep. p. 120.
2 Ib. pp. 140 and 161. 3lb. p. 151. 4 De Sectis Act. 8. fin.
s AryiTxi fitiv ttoXXa toutov Shta tov Aixoupov Tm (ruyypx^^XToav tou Buou Kupixxou fxHrce
ittrrxxTtei ixSoBivTm, Stxxu[AHvx.vBou, voBx toutois i^iTTnipxvTx Soyf/.XTX. Hist. Eccl. lib.
XV. c. 16.

168 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
already observed, by Anastasius Sinaita ;* who also gives an in
stance of such corruption as occurring in the first Epistle to Suc
census, where the words being <Ji;o t«5 ^vfus mxi tpttftn, they had
been in most copies altered, and he tells us, that in only one copy
shown him by the Librarian at Alexandria, did he find the cor
rect reading, the rest being all altered ; some reading 3uo tputrsif
tivas-ecti (pctftit, others, ^v6 Tccctpvriif iwoiiirSeti (pctfiiv. Consequently, it
may be doubted whether our reading in the present day, which
is, Jao T«« tpvirtu iivui fiufiiv Tui ivuhiTxi;," is the genuine reading,
and if so, we have here an instance how easily we may be de
ceived in such a matter.
The same Anastasius mentions a corruption in the works of
Ambrose, where, for, " let us observe the difference of the divini
ty and the flesh," had been substituted, " let us observe the dif
ference of the reading."^ The passage as we now have it in the
works of Ambrose, presents us with the true reading.*
In the sixth Council, Macarius and his colleagues were con
victed not only of corrupting the testimonies they brought from
the Fathers,' but also of circulating corrupt copies of the Acts of
the fifth Council.^
And these forgeries appear to have been committed sometimes
upon a large scale. Witness the book of Basil on the Holy Spirit,
where it is justly suspected that the latter part, and that more
than half of the whole, has been added by another. This was
first noticed by Erasmus, and in his judgment our two learned
prelates Jeremy Taylor and Stillingfleet fully coincide, the for
mer stating that the last fifteen chapters " were plainly added
by another hand,"' and the latter, fhat besides the evidence from
the connexion and style of the parts, so we must suppose it to be
if we think that St. Basil " would not utter palpable and evident
contradictions in his writings," his testimony here respecting tra
ditions being totally contradictory to several passages in his ac
knowledged works. ^ And this judgment is further confirmed by
the learned Robert Cooke.^ And as Bishop Stillingfleet justly
observes, " Erasmus was not the first who suspected corruption in
St. Basil's writings. For Marcus Ephesius in the Florentine
iSee p. 164 above.
2 See Cyril. Op. ed. Aubert. tom. v. Part 2. Inter Epist. p. 137. E.
2 AvTt TOU; ipUXX^.*UiV THV SlX^opXV THS BiOTHTOS XXt THS irXpXOS, tpuXA^UfHiV THV StXfOflXV
THS d,vx.yvoii(riiais . Auast. Sinait. Viae dux, c. 10. p. 200.
4 Servemus distinctionem divinitatis et carnis. Ambros. De fide, lib. ii. c. 9. n,
77. tom. ii. col. 485.
5 Concil. Sext. Act. 8 and 9.
6 Ib. Act. 14.
' Lib. of proph. § 8.
8 Rational Account, &c. ed. 1665, pp. 243, 4.
9 Censura Quorundam Scriptorum. Lond. 1614, 4to. pp. 120 et seq.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 169
Council, (Act. 20.) charged some Latinizing Greeks with corrupt
ing his books against Eunomius, protesting that in Constantinople
there were but four copies to above one thousand which had the
passages in them which were produced by the Latins."'
Other instances might easily be adduced.* And against the
corruptions of antient times we have scarcely any defence, except
that which is founded upon criticism and conjecture, grounds far
too insecure to build faith upon.
Nor must we omit to observe that these antient corrupters of
the Fathers have had their imitators in later tinies, whose frauds,
though certainly more open to detection by us than those of
antient times, have not always been easy to be discovered.
I will not here enter upon the various charges mutually made
against each other by the Greeks and Latins of corrupting the
Fathers to speak their sense,^ except to notice that not even the
Creed has escaped ; witness the dispute as to the phrase "filioque"
of such importance in the doctrine of the procession of the Holy
Ghost which the Greeks charged the Latins with adding, and the
Latins charged the Greeks with abstracting, so that, be it as it
may, on one side or the other a fraud has been committed.
But I will rather notice the performances of the Romanists of
this kind, which may seem more especially to affect us.
Their corruption of St. Cyprian's treatise " On the unity of the
church," in the edition by Manutius published at Rome in 1564,
under the sanction of the Pope, and afterwards followed by Pa
melius, is so well known, that I need hardly dwell long upon it
here. It is fully stated by James in his work on this subject,* and
is thus briefly noticed by Bishop Taylor; "The third chapter of
St. Cyprian's book ' On the Unity of the Church,' in the edition
of Pamelius, suffered great alteration. These words, primatus
Petro datur, ' the primacy is given to St. Peter,' wholly inserted ;
and these, super cathedram Petri fundata est ecclesia, ' the
church is founded upon the chair of St. Peter:' and whereas it was
before, super unum cedificat ecclesiam Christus, 'Christ
builds his church upon one,' that not being enough, they have
made it, super ilium unum, ' upon that one.' Now these addi
tions are against the faith of all old copies before Manutius and
Pamelius, and against Gratian, even after himself had been chas
tised by the Roman correctors, the commissaries of Gregory XIII.
as is to be seen where these words are alleged, Decret. c. 24. q. 1.
can. Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum. So that we may say of
I Rational Account, &c. p. 243.
2 Several are mentioned by Daille, On the true use of the Fathers, Part 1. c. 4.
' See particularly the discussions in the Council of Florence.
•> Treatise of the Corruption of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers, by the Pre
lates, &c. of the Church of Rome, Part 2. pp. 1 1 3—1 60. ed. 1 688.
VOL. I. P

170 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
Cyprian's works, as Pamelius himself said concerning his writings
and the writings of others of the Fathers ; saith he, ' Whence we
gather that the writings of Cyprian and others of the Fathers
are in various ways corrupted by the transcribers.' (Cypriani
scripta ut et aliorum Veterum a librariis varie fuisse interpolafa.
Annot. in Cypr. super Concil. Carthag. n. 1.)"*
In the same place, the bishop after James* notices a similar
corruption introduced by Gratian, where quoting that passage of
Ambrose, " They do not hold the inheritance of Peter who have
not the fait hoi Peter," (non habent Petri haereditatem qui non
habent Petri fidem), he quotes it as, " They do not hold the in
heritance of Peter who hold not the seat of Peter" (for fidem
substituting sedem).
So again, in that passage of Augustine, " In reckoning the ca
nonical Scriptures, let a man follow the authority of the greatest
number of catholic churches, among which truly are those which
deserved both to have the seats of the Apostles, and to receive
their Epistles,"^ the latter part is quoted by Gratian in the
Canon Law as, "among which Scriptures those Epistles are
which the Apostolic See hath, and others have deserved to re
ceive from her;"* and to this is prefixed the title, " The decretal
Epistles are reckoned among the Canonical Scriptures,""* fo lead
the reader to suppose that Augustine refers in these words to the
Decretal Epistles of the Popes."
In such corruptions, however, none seem to have outdone Pa
melius. We have already noticed those which are to be found
in Cyprian's Treatise, " On the Unity of the Church," in his edi
tion. Another instance occurs in Cyprian's Tract, " On the Ad
vantage of Patience," where, for the words, after the reception
of the eucharist (post gustatam eucharistiam) we find, after
the carrying about of the eucharist (j^ost gestai am eucharist
iam) to maintain the Romish custom of the circumgestation of
the eucharisf So in his fortieth Epistle of this edition, we have
petram the rock, changed into Petrum, Peter. And though the
Epistle of Firmilian is admitted on account of its having been
already published, so that it was of no use to try fo suppress it,
Pamelius very candidly admits that he wishes it had never been
1 Liberty of prophes. ^ S.fin.
' Corruption of SS. &c. Part 2. n. 23. p. 222, ed. 1688.
3 In canonicis autem Scripturis Ecclesiarum catholicarumquamplurium authori-
tatem sequatur, inter quas sane illae sunt quae apostolicas sedes habere et Epistolas
accipere meruerunt. De Doct. Christiana, lib. ii. u. 8.
¦* Inter quas sane illae sunt quas Apostolica sedes habere et ab ea alii meruerunt
accipere epistolas. Decret. Pt. i. dist. 19. In Canon. 6.
5 Inter canonicas Scripturas Decretales Epistolae connumerantur.
6 James's Corruption, &c. Part 2. n. 7. p, 185.
' James, ib. p. 239.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 171
published, and that probably Manutius intentionally omitted it
in his edition of Cyprian.* And certainly Romanists are not
likely to be much gratified with an Epistle written in the third
century, in which it is stated that, " Anybody may know that
those at Rome do not in all things observe those things that were
delivered from the beginning, and vainly pretend apostolical au
thority."* Another remarkable instance occurs in Tertullian, where,
until Rigaltius had the honesty to give the passage as he found it
in the MSS., an important testimony was altogether lost through
the falsification introduced into it. The passage occurs in his
" Exhortation to Chastity," where, according to the reading
given by Rigaltius from the MSS., we read, " Where there is
no assembly of the ecclesiastical order, you [speaking to a lay
man] both offer [i. e. in the eucharist] and baptize, and are alone
a priest to yourself ;"^ which passage has been corrupted into
the following, — " Where there is an assembly of the ecclesiastical
order, the priest, who is there alone, both offers and baptizes,"*
which is altogether incongruous with the context, and turns the
whole passage into nonsense ; but it was preferable to make
Tertullian speak nonsense, than utter such a testimony as his
real words give us. To the testimony supplied in these words
we shall have occasion to advert hereafter.
In the Roman editions of the Fathers by Manutius, various
instances of the same kind might be pointed out. What, indeed,
could be expected from one who professes to have received a
charge from the Pope to print them " so corrected that there may
be no error remaining, which, by holding out the appearance of
false doctrine, can influence the minds of the simple" ?' It was
his duty to print them as he found them ; instead of which, he
makes a boast of suppressing all which was reckoned at Rome
I Fortassis consultius foret, nunquam editam fuisse hanc epistolam, ita ut
putem consulto illam omisisse Manutium, Argum. ad epist. 75. These two cases
are noticed by Daillo, lib. i. c. 4.
2 Eos autem qui Romae sunt non ea in omnibus observare quae sint ab origine
tradita et frustra Apostolorum auctoritatem pratendere, scire quis etiam inde
potest, quod circa celebrandos dies paschas et circa multa alia divinae rei sacra-
menta videat esse apud illos aliquas diversitates, nec observari illic omnia aequa-
liter quae Hierosolymis observantur.
a Ubi Ecclesiastici Ordinis non est consessus et offers et tinguis et sacerdos es
tibi solus, De exhort, cast. c. 7. p. 522. ed. 1664.
'' Ubi Scclesiastici Ordinis est consessus, et offert et tinguit sacerdos qui est
ibi solus. See the editions of Pamelius. I quote from that of Col. Agripp. 1617.
To whom the corruption may be due it Is impossible precisely to say, but Pame
lius, in his note, admits that he struck out the " non."
5 Sic emendati, ne qua supersit labes quae imperitorum animos objecta falsce
doctrinae specie possit infieere. Manutii Prasf. ad Pium 4m. in lib. Poli De
Concil.

173 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
false doctrine. It was in conformity, I suppose, with these direc
tions, that he left out, as Pamelius tells us, the letter of Firmilian
to Cyprian, and introduced the corruptions we have already
noticed in his edition of Cyprian's treatise " On the Unity of the
Church." Well may thc Romanists, with such editors, boast of
having all the Fathers on their side.
Another of his "emendations," occurring in the works of Gre
gory, is thus noted by Dr. James. The genuine passage is this,
" All things that were foretold are come to pass. The king of
pride is near ; and (which is a wickedness to name) a whole host
of priests is provided to attend his coming. (Sacerdotum ei
prae paratur exercitus.) For they also march with as proud a
countenance as he, which were appointed to be examples of meek
ness and humility to others."' " The Roman edition wifh sun
dry others," says Dr. James, " read most absurdly, contrary to
the faith of the MSS. and the circumstance of the place, sacer
dotum est prxparatus exitus." " The king of pride is near.
And (which is a wickedness fo name) when he comes ihe prie.sis
shall be executed and put to death." " Whereas, " says Dr.
James, " the word militant, do march, in the next words,'makes
the matter clear on our side against them. For if they were put
to death, how should they walk up and down ? unless they did
as St. Denis is said fo have done, that carried his head in his
hand ; and yet methinks a more modest gait than Gregory speaks
of should have become them. Add hereunto that the epistle is
written to tax the pride of a bishop (John of Constantinople, which
took upon him the title of universal bishop) and not of a king, of
the clergy and not of the laity. Lastly, to make the matter sure,
all the MSS. that I could yet procure or get into my hands, (that
is seve7i MSS.) do read exercitus and'not exitus." And he adds
that, for " citing these words truly," Bishop Jewell had been
" traduced and slandered among the Papists," as one who had
misquoted Gregory to serve his purpose;* a very apt specimen of
Popish dealings, first to publish corrupted editions of the Fathers
themselves, and then charge others with misquoting them, if they
swerve from that corrupted text. One thing more we may ob
serve from the genuine passage of Gregory ; namely, that he held
the assumption of the title of universal bishop to be a mark of
antichrist. Would that his successors had been of his mind.
Another instance, apparently, of such corruptions, and one
which remains in the Popish editions to this day, occurs in the
1 Omnia quffi praedicta sunt, fiunt. Rex superbiss, prope est ; et, quod dici
nefas est, sacerdotum ei praeparatur exercitus; quia cervici militant elationis qui
positi fuerant ut ducatum prffiberent humilitatis. Greg. Magn. Epist. lib. 4. Ind.
13. Ep. 38. as quoted by James. Ed. Ben. lib. v. Ind. 13. Ep. 18.
= Jan.es's Corruption, &c. Part 2. n. 26, pp, 230 et seq.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 173
works of Augustine, in a passage much quoted by the Romanists
in support of their notions of tradition. Augustine, speaking of
baptism, says, according to the reading of three MSS. at Oxford,*
— " The custom of our mother the church in baptizing infants is
not to be despised, nor by any means to be thought superfluous,
nor at all to be believed to be anything but an apostolic tradi
tion."* And this agrees with what he says elsewhere on this
subject, where, speaking of infant baptism as having been
always practised in the church, he says, "That which the uni
versal church holds, and was not instituted by councils, but has
always been retained, is most rightly beheved to have been de
livered by no other than apostolical authority.'" How far this
rule is admissible, is a question into which I do not here enter.
But the meaning of Augustine in both these passages is clear.
The former passage, however, has been corrupted by the Roman
ists, by the addition of a letter to one word, into this ; " The
custom of our mother the church in baptizing infants is not fo
be despised, nor by any means to be thought superfluous, nor
at all io be believed, were it not an apostolical tradition.""
And so it remains to this day in the Benedictine edition,
without even the slightest intimation of the MSS. having
any other reading. And hence the passage is quoted by Romish
controversialists, as showing that in Augustine's opinion, infant
baptism ought not to be believed at all but for tradition, and
therefore could not be proved from Scripture,* which is clearly
contrary to Augustine's own remarks elsewhere; and so this pas
sage was to stand as a proof that for some points of the highest
importance we must go to tradition, and cannot get any sufficient
proof from Scripture.'
Again ; the following passage of OEcumenius has been alto-
1 James's Corruption, &c. Pt. 2. n. 4. pp. 177 et seq.
2 Consuetude matris ecclesias in baptizandis parvulis nequaquam spernenda est,
neque ullo modo superflua deputanda, nec omnino credenda nisi apostolica esse
traditio. De Genes, ad lit. lib. 10. c. 23.
3 Quod universa tenet ecclesia, nec conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum
est, non nisi auctoritate apostolica traditum rectissime creditur. De bapt. contr.
Donat. lib. 4. c. 2,3.
•» Consuetude matris ecclesiae, &c. (as above) , . . nec omnino credenda nisi
apostolica esset traditio.
5 As by the Rhemists in their notes on 2 Thess. ii. 15, and the author of The
grounds of the old religion and the new, (see James, p. 180,) and by the answerer
of Archbishop Laud. (See Stiliingfleet's rational account, &c. p. 108.)
6 See James, ib. This corruption was first suspected by Bishop Bileon, partly
by the course of the sentence, and partly by a comparison with other places, and
upon referring to the MSS. Dr. James ascertained that the suspicion was well
founded. How is it that these valuable MSS. of the Fathers have been so little
used, and that we have been left by the possessors of them, though with a " Cla
rendon Press" at hand, to the tender mercies of Romish editors for almost all tbe
editions of the Fathers we possess 1 P*

174 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
gether omitted in the printed editions: " For those who favour
the Law introduced even the worship of angels, because through
them the Law v^as given; and this custom remained in Phrygia,
so that the Council of Laodicea made a decree, prohibiting the
making addresses and praying to angels;* whence also there
were many temples among them erected to the archangel
Michael,"* This passage David Hceschelius, in his notes on the
work of Origen against Celsus, testifies that he himself had seen
in the MSS. of CEcumenius.'
Nay, they are not contented with leaving obnoxious passages out
of their printed copies, but will even blot them out of the MSS.
where they have the opportunity. Thus, when that famous
passage in the " Imperfect work on Matthew," attributed to
Chrysostom, in which it is said — that there should come a time
when the church being corrupted, men should be utterly unable
to find the true church but by the Scriptures, and should perish
if they took anything else for their guide, — is urged against
Bellarmine, he very coolly rephes that that whole passage had
evidently been inserted by the Arians, and had been removed
from some MSS. that had been lately corrected.^ And ac
cordingly in the edition printed at Paris, 1557, Svo. it is altogether
omitted.' Fifty examples of this kind are noticed by Dr. James,° to
which he tells us he might have added hundreds more.
Their forgeries and falsifications in the acts and canons of the
early Councils, have been largely investigated by Dr. Comber.'
And these forgeries, we must observe, are not all the produce of
modern times, but commenced as early as the ambition of the
Roman Pontiffs for universal dominion in the church ; insomuch
that even at the Council of Chalcedon in the fifth century, the
Pope's Legate cited the sixth canon of Nice as containing the
words, " The Church of Rome hath always had the primacy,"
the falsehood of which was showed by the Constantinopolitan
1 See Concil. Laod. Can. 35. Cod. Can. Eccl. Univ. Can. 139.
2 *0; yxp TOi voy.ob sruvnyopouvTis xxt tous xyyiXous o-i^uv ittrnyouVTo, oti St' xutuv xxt
c vof/.os iSoBn. Ef^iivi Si TOUTO XXTX '^puyixv to iBos, C€s XXI THV iv AxoSixitx truvoSov voy.ct
xMXutrxi TO TrpoTtivxi ayyiXols xxt TTpoyiuXi^Bxi. Ap' ou xxt vxolTr&o) xuTots tou atoy.'ff-^itT>i-
you ytix^HX TTOXXOl.
3 See Daille, lib, i. c. 4.
¦• Totus hic locus tanquam ab Arianis insertus e quibusdam codicibus nuper
emendatis sublatus est. Bellarm. De Verb. Dei, lib. iv. c. 11.
5 See James, Pt. 2. n. 2, pp. 16 L et seq. And see somewhat similar instances
mentioned, ib. n. 12. pp. 195. et seq. and n. 13. pp. 198 et seq.
6 Corruption of Scripture and Fathers, &c. Part 2. pp. 113 et seq.
1 Roman Forgeries in the Councils. Fart 1. Lond. 1689. 4to. Part 2. Lond.
1695. 4to. Many are also mentioned by Daille, On the true use of the Fathers.
Pt. 1. c. 4; and in the "Historical Examination of the authority of General
Councils,"

N'O DIVINE INFORMANT. 175
Code then produced.* A pregnant instance this, surely, of the
dangers to which such documents have been exposed, in their
passage through the Roman Church to our hands.
There is not, in fact, an edition of the Councils in which there
are not, Bishop Barlow says, "spurious canons and decretal
epistles of ancient Popes put in, and genuine canons left out or
corrupted."* To all which we must add the well-known mutual
accusations of the Greeks and Latins against each other of direct
forgeries and sweeping suppressions and alterations in the de
crees and canons of the various Councils, even from the first
great Council at Nice, which leaves us in still greater uncertainty
in the matter.
Nay, more, they have not hesitated openly to profess to correct
the writings of the Fathers, where they have spoken erroneously.
Dr. James refers to two Expurgatory Indexes' where certain
sentences or words in the text of Gregory Nyssen, Chrysostom,
Anastasius, Eucherius, Procopius, Agapetus, and Didymus Alex-
andrinus, " against idolatry, satisfactions, Peter's primacy, and
for the supremacy of temporal kings and princes," are ordered
to be erased ; and testifies to having seen a copy of Chrysostom,
in which "divers sentences" had been blotted out by the Inqui
sitors.* And so that the famous work of Bertram on the Eucharist, is
in some Indexes altogether forbidden f and in others expurgated
of the part which opposes Romish errors."
And this practice is openly defended by the Jesuit Gretser, in
his treatise on the subject,' where he maintains that though " the
sayings of the Fathers, as they are Fathers, need no purging ;"
yet that, " being considered as sons, their words may be corrected
and censured by the chiirch."^
Such are the principles and practices of those through whom
principally we have received the works of the Fathers.
These examples very clearly show the extensive and systema
tic corruption to which the writings of the Fathers havebeensub-
jected by the Romanists ; a corruption, of which the detection, in
a few cases, such as those given above, can afford but a very in
adequate idea, considering the opportunities they have enjoyed.
' See Concil. Chalced. Ate. 16.; and Comber's Rom, Forg. p. 93.
2 Directions for choice of books, &c. p. 32. A remarkable instance is mentioned
by Dr. James in his Corruption of SS. and Fathers. Pt. 2. n, 38. pp. 250 et seq.
3 Madrit. 1584. 4to. Rom 1607. Svo.
¦> Corruption, &c. Part 4. pp. 410, 11.
5 As in that published at Rome, 1559. 4to.
^ .iVs in the Index. Belg. Antw. 1571. 4to.
' Do jure et more prohib.
' James ib. p. 4 12. Where he adds some remarks well worth consideration, on
the early Roman editions of the Fathers.

176 PATRISTICAL TRADlrioN
Now it is quite true that it would be wrong to infer, from these
facts, that we have no remains of antiquity that we can depend
upon. But, at the same time, they do undoubtedly show us the
necessity of caution with respect to those writings that come to
us under that name. They necessarily weaken the argument
derived from those writings in favour of any doctrines, and take
away that certainty that is necessary to make them authoritative
witnesses. Their statements, though useful as a guide in the in
terpretation of Scripture, and as a check upon the extravagance
of private interpretation, are not such as can be made binding
upon the conscience. Would it not be absurd to call our com
mon-places, gathered from these writings, a " practically infalli
ble" testimony of the oral tradition of the Apostles ?
We are not called upon, then, be it observed, to determine
whether, in an abstract view, a society like the church could
be a safe depositary for the oral teaching of its founders, whether
the state of the church might have been such, and the records
testifying of the oral tradition of the Apostles so abundant and
well preserved, as to ensure the safe conveyance of that tradition
to succeeding ages. We must look to facts ; and facts show that
the state of the church and its records has not been such as fo
make them trustworthy witnesses of oral Apostolical tradition.
That the reader may not suppose that I am pressing this argu
ment beyond what the great divines of our own church would
sanction, I would here call his attention to what our opponents'
own witness. Bishop Jer. Taylor, has said on this subject. "There
are some," he says, " who think they can determine all questions
in the world by two or three sayings of the Fathers, or by the
consent of so many as they will please to call a concurrent
testimony. But this consideration will soon be at an end." And
then having produced various objections to such a notion, he
thus proceeds, — " But I will rather choose fo show the uncertain
ty of this topic, by such an argument which was not in the
Fathers' power to help; such as makes no invasion upon their
great reputation, which I desire should be preserved as sacred as
it ought. For other things, let who please read M. Daille ' On
the true use of the Fathers ;' but I shall only consider that the
writings of the Fathers have been so corrupted by the intermix
ture of heretics, so many false books put forth in their names, so
many of their writings lost which would more clearly have ex
plicated their sense, and at last an open profession made and a
trade of making the Fathers speak, not what themselves thought,
but what other men pleased, that it is a great instance of God's
providence, and care of his church, that we have so much good
preserved in the writings which we receive from the Fathers ;
and that all truth is not as clear gone as is the certainty of

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 177
their great authority and reputation." And having given
various instances, as of the epistle written to Constantine by the
Arians, under the name of Athanasius, and a work written by
the Eutychians against Cyril of Alexandria, under the name of
Theodoret, and of the chapters added, as he maintains with
Erasmus, to the work of Basil on the Holy Spirit ; and the testi
mony of Erasmus that, in the eighth century, " books, under the
assumed name of illustrious men, were everywhere to be met
with," he adds, "Indeed the whole world hath been so much
abused, that every man thinks he hath reason to suspect whatso
ever is against him ; that is, what he please; which proceeding
only produces this truth, that there neither is nor can be any
certainty, nor very much probability, in such allegations.
" But," he proceeds, " there is a worse mischief than this,
besides those very many which are not yet discovered, which,
like the pestilence, destroys in the dark, and grows into inconveni
ence more insensibly and more irremediably ; and that is, corrup
tion of particular places, by inserting words and altering them to
contrary senses." And having given several examples, the prin
cipal of which will be found more fully stated among those we
have given above, he adds, — "Bxitthat the Indices Expurgatorii,
commanded by authoriiy, and practised with public license, pro
fess to alter and correct the sayings of the Fathers, and to recon
cile them to the catholic sense, by putting in and leaving out, is
so great an imposture, so unchristian a proceeding, that it hath
made the faith of all books and all authors justly to be suspected.
For considering their infinite diligence and great opportunity, as
having had most of the copies in their own hands, fogether with
an unsatisfiable desire of prevailing in their right, or in their
wrong, they have made an absolute destruction of this topic ;
and when the Fathers speak Latin, or breathe in a Roman dio
cese, although the providence of God does infinitely overrule
them, and that it is 7iext to a miracle that in the monuments of
antiquity there is no more found that can pretend for their advan
tage than there is, which indeed is infinitely inconsiderable, yet
our questions and uncertainties are infinitely multiplied, instead
of a probable and reasonable determination. For since the
Latins always complained of the Greeks for privately corrupting
the antient records both of councils and fathers, and now the
Latins make open profession not of corrupting but of correcting
their writings (fhat is the word), and at the most it was but a
human authority, and that of persons not always learned, and
very often deceived, the whole matter is so unreasonable,
THAT IT IS not WORTH A FURTHER DISQUISITION."*
1 Lib. of Prophes. | 8.

178 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
SECTION IV. — THE WITNESS OF PATRISTICAL TRADITION, EVEN IN THE
WRITINGS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESERVED, IS OF A DISCORDANT KIND,
AND THAT EVEN IN FUNDAMENTAL POINTS.
We have already shown, that even the consent of the few
writers whose remains we possess of the primitive church, could
not be taken as any just representation of the doctrine of the
whole church of that period, and therefore certainly as no divine
informant or certain record of the oral teaching of the Apostles.
But thus much we are perfectly ready to admit, that if we
take the writings of the first five or six centuries, considering the
character of thier authors and their extent, it is not likely that
the orthodox faith, in all fundamental points, should not be con
tained therein. Consequently, the consent of those writings, upon
any point admitted to be a fundamental article, would in all pro
bability, represent the true faith. I say admitted to be a fun
damental article, because if it be a question whether it be a
fundamental article or not, then it is also a question what is the
value of such consent. And I know of nothing but Scripture that
can determine what the fundamental articles are. Moreover, it
must really be the consent of those writings. It is not sufficient
to say four or five have given their testimony in its favour, and
the rest are silent. For this destroys the very groundwork upon
which the argument is built, namely, that such and so many au
thors are not likely to have all erred in fundamentals. But four
or five, or more, among them, may have erred.
Nay more, I admit fully fhat our church has (wisely, in my
humble view) sanctioned the principle, that nothing is to be ad
mitted as a fundamental point of faith that has not some support
in the patri?tical testimony of the first five or six centuries; a
rule which (especially at the lime when it was first made) was a
prudent precaution against the novelties of enthusiasm and
Popery ; and hence it was that Bishop Taylor said, that the
Church of England " ties her doctors as much as the Council of
Trent does fo expound Scriptures according to the sense of the
antient fathers."' And this quotation reminds me of a very im
portant erratum in Mr. Keble,* who, quoting this passage from
Bishop Taylor, (inadvertently, no doubt, but still somewhat ex
traordinarily) substitutes for "sense," "consent," thereby mak
ing Bishop Taylor seem to intimate fhat "consent" is to be found
in the Fathers, directly opposite to his own express determination
to the contrary, both in a previous work,' and also in the context
1 Diss, from Popery, Pt. ii. Introduction. Works, vol. i. p. 322.
2 App. to Sermon, p. 149.
" 3 Liberty of Prophesying, § 8,

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 179
of this very passage.* True, it would follow from what he says,
that the consent of the writings of this period in a fundamental
point is not to be controverted by us where it can be found, but
that is vastly diflerent to asserting that there is such consent. The
latter would make the Fathers a very clear guide in such points,
while the fact is, that they are a very obscure one from their
contradictions. Further; on what ground is it that our church has given them
this authority ? Clearly because, on inspection and comparison
with Scripture, they were considered to be, taking them as a
body, in possession of the truth, that is, that the true faith was
contained in their writings. " The Protestants," says Dr. Water-
land, " having well studied the Fathers, were now willing to
rest their cause not upon Scripture only, but Fathers too; so far
at least as the three first centuries. And they thought that a
much greater difference was due to the judgment of those
early ages of the church than to that of the ages succeeding,
while the Romanists were used to value the latter equally with
the former, or even to give them the preference."^
When the Protestants referred to the Fathers as judges of the
disputes between them and the Romanists, this was not from their
holding their witness to be authoritative'in the matter, but from
their finding that such an appeal might safely be made, and on
the natural supposition that it would be the most influential with
those who professed to guide themselves by that witness.
We allow, then, that the consent of the Fathers whose remains
we possess of the first five or six centuries, would be a most strin
gent argument in favour of any doctrine on a fundamental point ;
and admit readily that the principle sanctioned by our church of
requiring some patristical testimony in favour of any doctrine put
forward as fundamental, would make such consent, (not from any
intrinsic authority, but from the acknowledgment of our church
as to these writings,) a conclusive argument that it was the doc
trine of our church.
We will now proceed, then, to inquire further, whether such
consent is to be found.
Among the writers of the first three centuries are three indi
viduals, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen, who have left us a
brief summary of the Christian faith, for which they claim the
consentient testimony of all the churches founded by the Apos
tles. These summaries, then, have clearly the best claim of anv-
1 lb. p. 324.
' Second Vindication of Christ's Divinity, Pref. p. xvii. Works, vol. iii. See
also Stiliingfleet's Council of Trent examined, p. 24, quoted p, 137 above, and
other testimonies in c. 11 below.

180 PATRISTICAL TRADIl ION
thing in antiquity to be considered the representatives of the
catholic consent of the primitive church, and as agreeable to the
teaching of the Apostles, and beyond doubt are entitled to very
great respect. I shall, therefore, begin with them. The sum
maries of Irenaeus and Tertullian have been already given, but
for the convenience of the reader I will here repeat them, and
subjoin that of Origen.
The following is given by Irenaeus as "the faith preached by
the church."
" The church, though scattered over all the world from one
end of the earth to the other, received from the Apostles and their
disciples the belief in one God the Father Almighty, who made
the heaven and the earth, and the seas, and all things that are
in them ; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was in
carnate for our salvation ; and in the Holy Spirit, who preached
by the Prophets, the Dispensations, and the Advents, and the
birth by a virgin, and the passion and the resurrection from the
dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven, of the beloved Jesus
Christ our Lord, and his advent from heaven in the glory of the
Father, to restore all things, and to raise all flesh of all man
kind, that to Christ Jesus our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and
King, according to the good pleasure of the invisible Father,
every knee should bow of things in heaven, and things in earth,
and things under the earth, and that every tongue should con
fess to him, and that he may execute just judgment upon all ;
that he may send the spirits of wickedness, and transgressing and
apostate angels, and all impious, and wicked, and lawless, and
blasphemous men into everlasting fire ; and to the just and holy,
and those fhat have kept his commandments, and remained
steadfast in his love, some from the beginning, others after re
pentance, having given life, may confer on them immortality,
and put them in possession of eternal glory."*
Having occasion again to give a summary of the doctrine of
the church, he delivers it in these words, (which he calls " the
order or rule of that tradition which the Apostles delivered to
those to whom they committed the churches") ; —
" Believing in one God the maker of heaven and earth and all
things which are in them, through Christ Jesus the Son of God ;
who on account of his extraordinary love for his creature, sub
mitted to be born of a virgin, uniting man to God in his own per
son, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again,
and being received in glory, shall come in glory as the Saviour
of those who are saved, and the judge of those who are con
demned, sending the corrupters of the truth, and the despisers of
his Father, and of his advent, into eternal fire.""
1 Iben. adv. haer, lib. i. c. 10. Mass. c. 8. Grab. See pp. 119, 120, above.
2 Iren. adv. hssr. iii. c 3.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 19]
The summaries given by Tertullian are as follows : —
(1. "The rule of faith, — that we may now at once state
what we believe, — is that by which we believe that there is but
one God, and no other beside, the maker of the world, who pro
duced all things out of nothing by his word which he sent forth
first of all things. That that word was called his Son, was seen
at various times by the Patriarchs under the name of God, was
always heard by the Prophets, and at last was brought down by
the Spirit and power of God the Father into the Virgin Mary,
and made flesh in her womb, and being born of her lived in the
person of Jesus Christ ; that from that time he preached a new
law and a new promise of the kingdom of heaven ; that he per
formed miracles, was crucified, rose again the third day, and be
ing taken up into heaven, sat at the right hand of the Father,
and in his stead sent the power of the Holy Spirit to guide be
lievers ; and that he shall come with glory to take the saints into
the fruition of eternal life, and the heavenly promises, and ad
judge the wicked to everlasting fire, having restored to life both
the one and the other, and raised their bodies." This rule insti
tuted by Christ raises no disputes among us except such as here
sies introduce, or such as make heretics."*
(2.) Again, elsewhere ; — " The rule of faith is but one, alone
unchangeable and unreformable ; namely, of believing in one
God Almighty, the maker of the world, and his Son Jesus Christ,
born of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, raised
the third day from the dead, received in the heavens, and now
sifting at the right hand of the Father, who shall come to judge
the quick and the dead, by the resurrection of the flesh.'"'
(3.) Again ; " We believe, indeed, one God ; but, neverthe
less, under this dispensation, which we call ceconomy, namely,
that there is also a Son of that one God, to wit, his Word, who
proceeded from him, by whom all things were made, and with
out whom nothing was made ; that he was sent by the Father
into a Virgin, and born of her, man as well as God, the Son of
man and the Son of God, and called Jesus Christ; that he suffer
ed, and was dead and buried, according to the Scriptures, and
raised again by the Father, and taken back again into the hea
vens, and now sits at the right hand of the Father, about to come
to judge the quick and the dead, from whence also he sent from
the Father, according to his promise, the Holy Spirit, the Para
clete, as the sanqtifier of the faith of those who believe in the
Father and Son and Holy Spirit." And he tells us that "this
rule had come down from the beginning of the gospel."'
The summary given by Origen is as follows : —
! De Prajscr. c. 13. 2 De Virg. Vel. c. 1. » Adv. Prax. u. 2.
VOL. I. Q

183 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
" Since, therefore, many of those who profess to believe in
Christ, disagree, not only in small points, and those of no mo
ment, but also in important points, and those of the highest
moment; that is, either concerning God, or concerning the
Lord Jesus Christ, or concerning the Holy Spirit; and not only
concerning these, but alsO qoncerning others that are creatures ;
that is either concerning Dominions, or concerning holy Powers;
it seems necessary on that account first to lay down a certain
line and clear rule respecting each of these, and then after
wards to discuss other points. For as, while many among the
Greeks and Barbarians promised the truth, we left off seeking
it among all those who delivered it according to their own false
notions, after that we believed that Christ was the Son of God,
and were persuaded fhat it was to be learnt by us from him ; so,
since there are many who think that they understand the doc
trines of Christ, and some of them may understand them differ
ently from those who preceded them, while, nevertheless, the
ecclesiastical doctrine (praedicatio) delivered from the Apostles,
through the order of succession, and to this day remaining in the
churches, may be preserved ; that alone is to be believed as the
truth, whieh in no respect disagrees with the ecclesiastical and
apostolical tradition. But it is right that we should know that
the holy Apostles, when delivering the faith of Christ, with re
spect to some things, whatever they considered to be necessary
they delivered most plainly to all, even to those who seemed
slow in searching after divine knowledge, leaving the full pur
port of their declarations to be inquired into by those who
should deserve the excellent gifts of the Spirit, and had obtained,
in an especial degree, through the Holy Spirit himself, the gift of
speech, wisdom, and knowledge: but with respect to other
things, they said that they are so; but how or whence they are
so, they give uo account ; in order that the more studious of those
who should come after them, who might be lovers of wisdom,
might have a subject for study, in which they might show the
fruits of their understanding; those truly who should make them
selves worthy and fit to receive wisdom. But the outlines
(species) of those [truths], fhat are manifestly delivered in the
preaching of the Apostles, are these : First, that there is one
God, who created and made all thjngs, and who, when nothing
existed, brought the whole universe into being, from the first
creature and the foundation of the world, the God of all the
saints, of Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Enoch, Noah, Shem, Abra
ham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve Patriarchs, Moses, and the Pro
phets; and that this God in the last days, as he had before
promised by his Prophets, sent our Lord Jesus Christ, first to
call Israel, and then, after the treachery of the people of Israel,

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 183
the Gentiles. This just and good God, the father of our Lord
Jesus Christ himself, gave the law, and the prophets, and the
gospels, being also the God of the Apostles, and of the Old and
New Testament. Then, that Jesus Christ' himself who came,
was begotten of the Father before all creatures ; who, after he'
had ministered to the Father in the creation of all things, for by
him all things were made, in the last times depriving himself of
his glory, being made man, was incarnate through God ; and,
when made man, remained what he was, God. He assumed a
body similar to our body, differing only in that it sprung from
the Virgin and the Holy Spirit. And that this Jesus Christ was
born and suffered in reality, and not merely in appearance suf
fered the death which is common to all ; he was truly dead ; for
he truly rose from the dead, and having conversed with his dis
ciples after his reurrection, was taken up into heaven. Then
further, they have declared that the Holy Ghost is associated in
dignity and honor with the Father and the Son. In this it is
not yet clearly discerned whether he [i. e. the Holy Spirit] is
to be cdrisidered as begotten or not,^ or a Son of God or not.
But these points are to be inquired into, as far as we are able,
from the sacred Scripture, and to be investigated by acute re
search. That that Spirit truly inspired all the saints, both the
Prophets and Apostles; and that there was not one Spirit in the
ancients, and another in those who were inspired at the advent
of Christ, is most clearly proclaimed (prsedicatur) in the churches.
Moreover, that the soul, having a subsistence and life of its
own, when it shall depart out of this world, shall be dealt with
according to its deserts; and shall either enjoy eternal life and
the inheritance of blessedness, if its deeds shall have afforded
it this blessing, or shall be committed fo eternal fire and punish
ment, if its wickedness shall have brought upon it such a fate ;
and, moreover, that there shall be a time of the resurrection of
the dead, when this body, which is now sown in corruption, shall
rise in incorruption ; and that which is sown in dishonor shall
rise in glory. That, also, is declared in the ecclesiastical tradi
tion (praedicafiohe), that every rational soul has a free choice
and will ; also that it has a contest to wage against the devil and
his angels and opposing powers, because they strive to load it
with sins ; while we, if we live correctly and prudently, endeavor
to free ourselves from such a burthen. Whence it follows that
we must understand that we are not subjected to necessity, so as
to be compelled to do either good or evil against our inclination.
• Such is Ruffinus's version, in which alone this work remains. But Jerome
(Ep. ad. Avit. 124, Vail.) says the words were, " made or not made," which from
Origen's statements elsewhere was no doubt tho case. (Se« p, 241.)

184 PAfKISTICAL TEADITION
For if we are free agents, some Powers may perhaps impel us
to sin, and others assist us in obtaining salvation ; but we are
not compelled by necessity either to do well or ill, as those think
who say that the course and motions of the stars are the cause
of human actions, not only of those which happen beyond the
liberty of the will, but also of those which are placed within
our own power." He proceeds to observe that, with respect to
the origin of the soul, there is no sufficiently clear testimony ;*
and adds; — "Concerning the devil and his angels and evil
Powers, the ecclesiastical tradition (praedicatio) hath taught us
that they exist ; but what are they, or what is their nature, it
has not sufficiently clearly explained. Most, however, entertain
the opinion that the devil was an angel, and having become an
apostate, persuaded very many angels to transgress with himself,
who are still called his angels. Further, the ecclesiastical tra
dition (praedicatio) informs us that the world was made and had
a beginning, and is to be destroyed for its wickedness. But what
was before this world, or what shall be after the world, is not
clearly known to many. For there is no clear testimony con
cerning these things in the ecclesiastical tradition (praedica tione).
Then, finally, that the Scriptures were written by the Spirit of
God, and have not only the sense which is apparent, but also an
other concealed from most. For those things that are described,
are the outlines of certain mysteries (sacramenforum) and the
images of divine things. On this point the whole church is
agreed, that the whole law is spiritual, but that those things
which the law intimates are not known to all, but to those only
to whom the gift of the Holy Spirit in the word of wisdom and
knowledge is vouchsafed .... That is also to be found in the
ecclesiastical tradition, that there are certain angels of God and
good Powers who minister to him in promoting the salvation of
men ; but ,wben they were created, or of what kind they are, or
what is the mode of their existence, is not sufficiently clearly
pointed out. But with respect to the sun, and moon, and stars,
whether they have souls or not, is not clearly delivered. It be
hooves, therefore, every one who desires to form a connected
statement and body [of theology] out of all these, to use such
truths as elementary and fundamental, according to the precept
that says, enlighten yourselves with the light of knowledge, fhat
by the aid of manifest and necessary positions, he may diligently
search out, wifh respect to each individual point, what is the truth ;

: De anima vero utrum ex seminis traduce ducatur, ita ut ratio ipsius vel sub-
stantia inserta ipsis seminibus corporalibus habeatur, an vero aliud habeat initium •
et hoc ipsum initium si genitum est aut non genitum ; vel certe si exirinsecus
corpori inditur, necne, non satis manifesta prsedicatione distinguitur.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 185
and, as I said, may form one body by examples and affirmations,
either thoke which he may have found in the Holy Scriptures,
or those which he may have discovered by diligent inquiry into
consequences, and by the course of direct inference."*
These, as far as I am aware, are the only passages in the writ
ings of the first three centuries, (I might say a longer period,) in
which we have any statement of doctrine for which is claimed
the universal consent of the apostolical churches. There are
doubtless appeals made to antient writers by subsequent Fathers
in favour of certain doctrines, as may be made now, but what I
speak of is a claim to the consent of all the apostolical churches.
I would observe, then, upon these passages, first, that whatever
force the argument from such alleged consent might have at that
time, if corhes before us in a very altered form. The grounds
upon which the argument stood might then be verified. The
churches appealed to were in existence. The doctrine maintained
by them might be ascertained. And until the argument was veri
fied by such an inquiry into the grounds upon which it stood, it
had no claim even at that time to be received by any prudent
man as infalUble evidence, for in such statements as those we have
quoted, there was nothing more than the persuasion of one or
two individuals, that a great humber of distant communities of
Christians held such and such doctrines. Place, then, the proba
bility of the individual being rightly informed at what amount
you please, you get nothing more than a probable testimony even
for his contemporaries until they have verified his assertions.
And after all, in those early days, when there were no public con
fessions of faith agreed upon by the churches, how was their doc
trine ascertained ? Probably from the testimony of one or two
of their clergy, or at best from the statements of their chief
bishop. But is this sufficient evidence? Would the statements
of Archbishop Whitgift and Archbishop Laud as to the doctrine
of the Church of England, even in some of those points men
tioned above by Origen, have been the same? Or will our op
ponents subscribe to the statements made by the English deputies
at the Synod of Dort ?
And when we come to consider the argument as it now stands,
its force is immeasurably reduced from what it then was. For
with us there is no possibility of verifying these statements. We
have the bare word of their authors to depend upon ; men who
had but few means of information to what we now have ; who
could hardly have had even themselves the opportunity of veri
fying their statements, and therefore must have spoken in a great
measure from general report ; and moreover men whose writings
' Origen. De Princip. lib. 1. Prsf. Op. ed. Ben. tom. I. pp. 47 — 49,

186 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
have been exposed for ages to mutilation and corruption, and
have confessedly suffered therefrom, as in the case of Irenaeus
and Origen can hardly be denied.
However, then, we may regard their statements as tending to
confirm the truth, and affording an additional motive to men to
believe it, to put them forward as a divine informant is both un
fair and unwise, calculated only to prejudice the truth in the eyes
of thinking men, who may be doubtful respecting it, when they
see our anxiety thus to stop their mouths and cut short their
doubts by unfounded claims fo evidence " practically infallible"
in our favour.
Every man of common experience in such matters will feel
how liable these individuals were to be warped by their owfn
views and prejudices in their statements of the doctrine of the
Apostolical churches. Nay, 1 would confidently appeal to our
opponents themselves, whether in this statement of Origen there
is not distinct evidence of the influence of his own private views
in his remark as to the double sense of Scripture. And yet he
puts it down definitively as a point in which the whole church
agreed; and consequently when he comes to the exposition of
Scripture, he turns plain narratives into the most fanciful alle
gories. He is found fault with on this very ground by Jerome,
who complains that he " makes his own fancies mysteries of the
church."^ Have we not here a distinct proof that such state
ments cannot be fully depended upon ?
They are, in fact, when descending at all into particulars, too
much like the large and general statements of the Romanists, as
to the prevalence of their views, such, for instance, as that of
the great opponent of Bishop Jewell, Harding, as to the preva
lence of private masses, when he says, " So it is all Greece over ;
soit is in Asia, in Syria, in Assyria, in Armenia, and whereso
ever the religion of Christ is professed." (See Jewell's Def. of
Apol. Pt. 5, ch. 15, div. 1.) But is this to be quoted some thou
sand years hence in the absence of evidence to prove the asser
tion as sufficient to establish what is there stated, even though
half a dozen others of the same persuasion should say the same ?
It is undeniable, indeed, that many of the best of the Fathers
were very apt to make large and general statements in favour
of their views, which if examined might often be shown to be
exaggerated statements even by the documents that happen to
remain to us; as, if necessary, I will show, but otherwise I have
1 Ingenium suum facit ecclesise sacramenta. In Is. lib. 5. Prief Op. tom. 4.
col. 168. And were we to take Jerome's account. (Ep. ad Avit.) of the work
from which we have quoted above, instead of Rufl5nu.>i's probably unfaithful ver
sion, we should find Origen claiming the sanction of tbe church for vital errors.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 187
no wish to take a course which might diminish that respect
which is their due.
I must add, however, that this statement of Origen appears to
me clearly to labour under this fault; particularly when I ad
vert to the language of Tertullian, when delivering the Creed
quoted from him above, where be seems clearly to intimate that
what was beyond the rule of faith he had given was not estab
lished as that rule was, but more open to investigation,* and,
therefore, we may reasonably doubt whether Origen had any
sufficient ground, half a century afterwards, to make that Creed
two or three limes longer, and pronounce so dogmatically as to
the Apostolicity and universal reception of various other points.
Such assertions partake of the infirmity of their authors.
Nay, it appears to me that the first sentence of the third sum
mary given by Tertullian is, to say the least, very open to an
unorthodox interpretation ; and I confess more than open to it,
in my opinion, because there is confirmatory evidence in favor of
it in other parts of Tertullian's writings, and even in the same
treatise. He says, — " Unicum Deum credimus; sub hac tamen
dispensatione quam oeconomiam dicimus, ut unici Dei sit et
filius, sermo ipsius," &c. These words may be understood, I ad
mit, in an orthodox sense, but the question is, in what sense they
were used by Tertullian ; and I shall show presently, that there
are several passages in his works, indicating that the dispensation
or ceconomy of which he here speaks, was a temporary state of
existence, by which it would appear that he held the notion of,
not a permanent but only, a dispensational and temporary fri-
personality in the Godhead. His view, in a word, appears to
have been somewhat like that of Marcellus.*
If such, then, is the case, we here see another specimen of the
way in which the sentiments of the individual may influence his
delivery of the faith preached by the Apostolical Churches.
At the very best, what is the real state of the case with re
gard to these summaries? Clearly that all such statements are
to be received wifh caution and reserve, as emanating from men
who might not only be deceived when they made such large
statements, but might, with the best intentions and an orthodox
meaning, speak hastily, unguardedly, and incorrectly, and so as
to give countenance to an error not in their minds at the time,
and still less, perhaps, in the minds of those to whom they were
referring. And if so, it is quite clear that the consciences of men
are not to be concluded and bound by such statements.
I De PriEBcr. c. 14. See also Adv. Marc. i. 21.
2 See 'J'heuiloret. Hieret. Fab. lib. ii. § 10. (ed, Schuize, tom. iv. p. 336.)
•T^eSsTO 'XpixSx iXTUVOUiVHV XXt ITUO-TiXXOfAiVHV XXTX S.X^ODCUS OlXOVO^tXS.

188 PATRISTICAL TEADITION
Still further, (and most important it Is to observe this,) these
statements clearly place definite limits, and those narrow
limits, to the doctrines for which the consent of the early
church can be loith any decent show of probability pleaded.
For, not to confine ourselves to those of Irenaeus and Tertullian,
which may be said only fo be intended to refer to the most essen
tial points, nothing can be clearer than that Origen here gives us
as he supposes a definite list and account of all the points for
which the consent of the early church might be pleaded, and
states that nothing beyond those points was capable of any
such confirmation. Can there, then, be a greater absurdity
than that any man living long after him should attempt to add
to these other points of catholic consent? Surely at the very
most we must be contented with Origen's list. We cannot in
reason pretend to enlarge it.
To claim, indeed, the consent of the early Apostolical
Churches upon points about which there was, as far as we know,
no discussion among them, but which subsequent heresies
brought into notice, is evidently most unreasonable. True, we
may perhaps find such a notice of those points in very early au
thors as may justly lead us fo suppose that they held this or that
view respecting them, and this is to us as far as it goes a confir
mation of the correctness of the view which they support. But
I need not say that such indirect notices of points not in ques
tion, are but an indifferent proof of the sentiments even of the
writers. Now, with respect to these statements, it is obvious that there
is hardly a point in dispute among Christians af the present day
fhat can be settled by them, except, perhaps, as to the article of
the divinity of our Lord against those who consider him a mere
man. And, surely, no one will pretend to say that they are
clearer upon this point than Scripture is.
The principal value of these summaries, as it appears fo me,
lies in the testimony they bear to the genuineness of the writings
of the New Testament. It was not pretended by Irenaeus or
Tertullian, (whatever might be the case with Origen,) that they
stated anything more than was to be found in the writings of the
New Testament, but when the heretics denied the genuineness
of parts of the Sacred Writings, these Fathers adduced as an argu
ment in favor of the doctrines contained in them, that those
doctrines were still preached in all the Apostolical Churches.
And so we might argue now in a similar case ; though with some
abatement from the want of documents and proximity to Apos
tolical times, and other favorable circumstances which these
writers enjoyed. That is, if any one denied the genuineness of
parts of Scripture in which the doctrines of the incarnation, re-

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 189
surrection, &c. as stated in these summaries, are delivered, we
might argue from the widely-extended acceptance and inculca
tion of such doctrines among the followers of Christ, from the
earliest to the present times, that such doctrines formed part of
the Christian faith, and hence obtain an indirect argument for
the genuineness of the parts questioned.
With us, however, who hold the genuineness and inspiration of
the whole of these writings, it is both absurd and irreverent to
the Divine Author of Scripture to be guided by an account of
thoge doctrines given us by fallible men, instead of going at once
to the Divine Word, and taking our views from thence.
And so thought the earliest writer we have subsequent to the
Apostolical age, Justin Martyr, who says to Trypho when about
to prove the divinity of Christ, "There are some, I admitted, of
our community (yemut,) who confess that he [Jesus] is Christ, but
affirm that he is a man, born of men ; with whom I do not agree,
nor should I even if the great majority of those who are of my
own religion shouldsay so, since we are commanded by Christ
himself to be ruled by, not thedoctrinesof men, but those preached
by the blessed prophets, and taught by him."*
Al the same time, I beg to be understood as maintaining that
the evidence of patristical tradition forms a very important and
powerful argument in favor of the correctness of any interpreta
tion of Scripture so supported.
Let us observe, how one of the earliest Fathers uses the argu
ment. The writer to whom I allude is the Author of " The
Little Labyrinth," composed against theheresy of Artemon about
the commencement of the third century, and of which the follow
ing fragment is preserved by Eusebius. "The heretics say,"
observes this author, " that all the antients, and the Apostles
themselves, both received and taught those things which they now
affirm ; and that the truth of the gospel ('¦oa xnf uyftaro}) was pre
served until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop
of Rome from Peter ; but that from the time of his successor
Zephyrinus the truth was adulterated. And the remark would
perhaps be probable but for that first the divine scriptures
OPPOSED them, and that there are w ritings of certain brethren
older than the times of Victor, which they wrote against the
heathen in defence of the truth and against the heresies of that
time. I mean the writings of Justin, and Miltiades, and Tatian,
and Clement, and many others, in all of which Christ is spoken of
as God. For who is ignorant of the volumes of Irenaeus, and
Melito, and the rest which speak of Christ as God and man? And
how many psalms and hymns of brethren written by believers
' See the passage in c. 10 below.

190 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
from the beginning praise Christ as the Word of God, and speak
of him as God (tsu Aoy»» tcu ®i»u to» XftTTOf Vftuvrt tifXtytVfns ?)
How, therefore, is it possible, that when the doctrine received by
the church was preached so many years ago, all up to the time
of Victor should have preached such doctrine as they say ? And
how is it that they are not ashamed to bring this false accusation
against Victor, knowing well fhat Victor excommunicated Theo-
dotus the tanner, the leader and father of this God-denying apos
tasy, who first maintained that Christ was a mere man. For if
Victor, according to them, entertained such notions as their blas
phemy teaches, how could he have cast out Theodotus the author
of that heresy ?"*
Now here are no high-sounding claims of universal consent,
which even at that early period could not be strictly verified. No ;
these are left for the heretics to make, who, as we here plainly
see, liked the argument as well as others have done. But the
matter is placed upon just and reasonable grounds. The claim
of the heretics, that their doctrine was held and preached by
the Apostles and all their earliest followers, is denied, first, be
cause THE DOCTRINE WAS OPPOSED TO SCRIPTURE, and sccoiidly, be
cause some of their earliest followers had left writings in which
the contrary was maintained. Now this is precisely the ground
taken by the reformers and their true followers. Heresy is re
futed first by Scripture, and then antiquity is appealed to in con
firmation, to show that what is considered the orthodox doctrine,
the correct interpretation of Scripture, is no novelty, but has
been held by many from the earliest times. In a word, the ar
gument from patristical tradition is pressed only so far as it can
be made good. And I need not add, that if this was the best
mode of arguing in the third century, we have infinitely stronger
reasons to adopt it now.
This fragment, moreover, shows us how little we can rely upon
the assertions of individuals, that the catholic consent of the early
church was in favor of their views; for here we see, that a di
rect claim was made to that consent at the commencement of the
third century, as favorable to the heresy of Artemon, while
Origen (nearly a contemporary) claims if for the opposite doctrine.
Both could not be right ; and it would little advance the cause of
truth to assert, that one party was to be believed and the other
not. And as to proof, neither could prove their assertions, ex
cept so far as quotations from a few antient writers could prove
them. Artemon, perhaps, could hardly have done that ; and his
orthodox opponent just quoted does not pretend to do more.
Further ; the heresy of Arius remains untouched by these state-
> Euseb. H. E. v. 28. Routh Reliq. Sacr. vol. ii. pp. 7, 8.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 191
ments, for he and his followers have always acknowledged the
divinity of Christ, but have considered it as in certain respects in
ferior to that of the Father. Their heresy consists in drawing
subtile distinctions between the nature of the Father and the
Son, against which these statements of the doctrine held by the
Apostolical Churches prove nothing; because, though we may be
lieve that the term God is not properly applicable as the Arians
have applied it, this is hardly more than a matter of opinion.
Moreover, as these summaries will afford us, no help against
the errors of Arius, neither will they against those of Nesforius
or Pelagius, or indeed scarcely[any of the vexatse qusestiones that
have agitated the church in modern times.
By these statements, then, even admitting that they may be
fully depended upon as infallibly correct, the doctrines that can
be supported by the catholic consent of the early church are
reduced within an exceedingly narrow compass, so narrow, that
it is hardly worth disputing about whether that consent, as here
represented, is to be regarded as binding upon the conscience or
not; for even as fo the important point of the divinity of Christ
against the Socinians, I suppose that he who can explain away
the declarations of Scripture, that " the Word was God," &c.,
can as easily explain away the testimony borne to that truth in
these statements. For as " an excellent writer, thoroughly con-
versantin these subjects" (as Bishop Home calls him, when quot
ing the following testimony) has said, " Cannot one know that the
Socinian interpretation of John i. 1, and Hebr. i. 10, or of the
texts relating to Christ's pre-existence, is not the mind of Scrip
ture? Yea, one may know it as certainly as that a counter is not
the king's coin, or that a monster is not a man."*
In proceeding to consider the nature of the evidence which we
possess in the writings that remain fo us of the first three centu
ries, Upon the points connected with Arian, Macedonian, Nesto
rian, Eutychian, Pelagian, and such like errors, in connexion
with our present subject, I am entering upon an examination
which I would fain have been spared the necessity of making.
Much rather would I have been engaged in showing to those who
may oppose the orthodox doctrine in these points, the strength
of the evidence in favor of orthodoxy, than in showing, against
those who are setting up unwarranted claims for the supreme
authority and conscience-binding nature of that evidence as
catholic consent and a divine informant, that it has no claim
to such a character. To show the weak side of one part of the
argument for truth is a painful task, and one which, no doubt,
exposes one to the being placed in the unenviable predicament of
1 Bp. Home's Sermon at Cant. July 1, 1786. Oxf. 1786. p. 13.

192. PATRISTICAL TRADITION
being quoted by the unorthodox as a friend of error, and abused
by the hot and violent champions of orthodoxy as having aided
the cause of heresy. I will not, however, allow myself to be
deterred, even by the prospect of such a fate, from holding out
a warning against placing truth in any degree upon a foundation
that will not stand investigation. Our opponents seem fo me like
men, who when they have got a rock to build upon, prefer
making their foundation partly of sand, and moreover putting
the sand uppermost; and the consequence is, that even in points
where they may have got the right foundation underneath them,
their whole edifice is in danger; because, not satisfied with the
rock, they must have the sand above it. I think then, that I
shall do no harm, if I persuade those who are about to build for
themselves, to be satisfied with the rock; and this I shall best do,
by showing them that what our opponents have added to the
rock, is as a foundation little better than sand. It may be very
useful lo aid them in the construction of the building, but it will
not bear the house.
First, then, as to the doctrine of the Trinity.
Do we find catholic consent among the writings that remain fo
us of the three first centuries, even upon this fundamental point ?
Let us inquire.
First, as it respects the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.
There are, no doubt, most clear and satisfactory testimonies to
this point to be found in some of the writers of this period ; a
fact, which I trust every reader will bear in mind, while I pro
ceed to point out other authors of this period who have borne a
contrary testimony.
Thus, for instance, Cyprian says, " If a person may be bap
tized among the heretics, he may also obtain the remission of
his sins. If he has obtained the remission of his sins, he is also
.e^anctified, and made the temple of God. I ask, of what God?
If of the Creator, il is impossible, for he has never believed in
him ; if of Christ, neither can he be his temple, who denies
Christ to be God; if of the Holy Spirit, since the three are one,
how can the Holy Spirit be at peace with him who is the enemy
either of the Father or the Son."*
Nothing can be clearer than this; and many other similar
testimonies might be brought from the writers of this period.
1 Nam si baptizari quis apud haereticos potuit, utique et remissam peccatorum
consequl potuit. Si peccatorum remissam consecutus est et sanctificatua est et
templum Dei factus est. Qusero, cujus Dei 1 Si Creatoris, non potuit, qui in
eu.-n non credidit : si (Jhristi, nec hujus fieri potest templum qui negat Deum
Christum : si Spiritus Sancti, cum Ires unum sint, quomodo Spiritus Sanctns
placatus esse ei potest, qui aut Patris aut Filii inimicus est? Cyprian Ep 73
ed, Pamel. Col. Agr. 1617. p. 106.

no divine INFORMANT. 193
But as our opponents claim the consent of all the writers of the
primitive catholic church for it, our present object is to show
the error of this notion, by pointing out writers of the catholic
church who delivered in their writings unorthodox doctrine on
this point.
Thus, then, speaks Origen. He is commenting on 1 John i. 3.
"All things were made by him;" and he says, — "Since it is
true that all things were made by him, we must inquire whether
the Holy Spirit was made by him. For I think that he who says
that it [the Holy Spirit] was made, and who admits the truth of
the declaration, "all things were made by him," must necessarily
embrace the notion that the Holy Spirit was made by the Word,
the Word being more antient than the Spirit. But with him
who is unwilling to believe that the Holy Spirit was made by
Christ, and yet judges what is contained in this gospel to be true,
it follows that he must call the Spirit unbegotten [or, uncreated].
But besides these two, him namely who believes that the Holy
Spirit was made by the Word, and him who supposes him to be
uncreated [or, unbegotten], there may be a third who holds that
there is no proper personal existence of the Holy Spirit distinct
from the Father and the Son .... We truly believing that
there are three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
and believing that there is nothing unbegotten [or, uncreatedj'^
but the Father, receive as the most pious and true the opinion,
that of all the things made by the Word, the Holy Spirit, is the
most honourable, and ranks higher than all the things made
by the Father through Christ. And perhaps this is the reason
that he is not called the very Son of God, the only-begotten
alone being originally by nature Son, who appears to have been
necessary to the Holy Spirit, ministering to the formation of his
person, not only with respect to his existence, but with respect to
his being wise, and endued with reason, and just, and everything
which we ought to suppose him to be, according to the parti-

1 In this and two preceding places I have Intimated a doubt as to the reading.
My reason is this, that it appears to me that in all of them we must, from the
nature of the sentence, read the same word, that is, in all these places we must
either read uncreated or unbegotten, which words in the Greek differ only in one
letter, being xyivHTov and xynvHTOv, and as Dr. Burton (On Trin. p. 99,) says.
" the evidence of MSS. is very little in these cases." He adds, speaking of the
frst t-wo cases, " I should be inclined to read aytvHTov in both places," not observ
ing, I think, that if so we must probably read xyivHTot, or, uncreated, in the third
place, which affects the real divinity of the Son, from which error Dr. B. has en
deavoured to rescue Origen, but of ¦which he is vehemently accused by some of
the best authorities of the early church, as I shall notice presently. It appears
to me that xymiTov is probably the true reading in all, these places.
VOL. 1. R

1 94 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
cipation of those qualities of Christ which we have already
mentioned."* And again, soon after, he twice repeats that the Holy Spirit
was mctde by the Word or Logos.'
It appears to me a waste of words to attempt to reconcile this
passage with the Orthodox doctrine. Nor am I aware of any
clear and decisive passage to be found in Origen in opposition to
the statement here made, and in support of the orthodox doctrine,
except, perhaps, in those translations of his works by Ruffinus,
which on such a point are of no authority, as having been noto
riously altered by the translator. And, further, when we find
that such men as Jerome, Basil, Epiphanius and Photius, all
agree in condemning his sentiments on the subject of the divinity
of the Son and Holy Spirit as unsound, can we suppose that
there was no ground for the accusation ?
Of Pierius also, who is said to have succeeded Origen in the
school of Alexandria, Photius informs us, that in his writings
" he delivers very dangerous and impious doctrine concerning the
Spirit, for he affirms that he is inferior in glory to the Father
and Son,"^ adding a charge against him of other errors.
The same charge is brought by Photius against Theognostus.'*
Nor can Novatian be freed from the same error. For in his
work on the Trinity, not only does he say that "every spirit is a
creature,'" but he calls the Paraclete " inferior to Christ, ""^ and
when treating expressly, in the latter part of his treatise,'^ of the

1 U^iTXO-TiOV Si, XXhBocS OVTOS TOU, TTXVTX SC XUTOU S^SVSTO, it XXI TO TTViUfJiX TO XyiOV St
XUTOU iyiviTO. OtfAXl yXp OTt T^ fXiV OXtTXOVTl yiVHTOV XUTO itVXt, XXI TTpotijuhai TO, TTXVTX
SC XUTOU iyiviTO, XVXyXXlOV TTXpxSi^XG-Bxi OTt TO XytOV TTViUfJlX StX TOU Aoyou iTyiViTO, TTpiiT-
BuTipOU TTXp' aJUTO TOU AoyOU TUyXXVOVTOS. Xoe Si IXH £0UXOfAiVQi TO XyioV TTViUfJtX StX TOU
'KpiTTOU yiyovivxt, i-TTiTXt TO XyiVVHTOV XUTO XiTyiPJ, XXhBh TX gy TOD iuxyyiXlOU TOUTUi iiyXt
XptVOVTl. Ha-TXl Si Tis xxt TpiTOS TTXpX TOUS SuO, TOV Ti StX TOU AoyoU TTxpxSiXOf^iVOV TO TTViU-
(jLX TO xytov yiyovivxt, xxt tov xyiVHTov xutov uvxt uttoxx/xSxvovtx, SoyfjtXTt^m /xnSi outixv
TtVX tSlXV U<pi7TXVXl TOU xytOU TTViUf^XTOS iTiOXV TX^X TOV TTXTipX XXt TOV litOV . ... 'Hf/S/C
^£VT0(^5 TpitS UTTOTTXTitS TTitBoy.iVOt TUyXXVitV, TOV TlrfTSpa, XXI TOV UtOV, XXi TO XyiOV TTViU-
fjl.X, xxt XyiVVHTOV [XnSiV iTipOV TOU TlXTpoS ilVXl TTllTTiUOVTiS, OiS iUTi&i(TTipOV XXI XXHCiS, TTpotT-
liUiBx TO, TTXVTm StX TOU AoyoU yiVOfMVOIV, TO XyiOV TTViVy.X TTXVTOdV UVXI TlfAtSVTipOV, XXt TX^il
TTXVTtXiV Tm WTO TOU TlXTpoS SiX XptO-TOU yiyiVHfJ.iVm. Y.XI TXXX XJUTH UTTtV H XITIX TOU fJ.H
xxt XUTOUtOV XP'Hf^^Tt^itV TOU &iOU, f^OVOU TOU fAOVoyiVOUS IJlUTit vtOU XPXnBiV TuyXj^VOVTOS, OU
yOH^itV iOtXi TO xytov TTViUpAX, SjXXOVOUVTOS XUTOU TH UTTOTTXiJil, OU fXOVOV US TO UVX4, XXXui.
xxt (TO'POV itVXt, xxt XoyiXOV, xxt SlXXtOV, xxt TTXV OTITTOTOUV X^''^ XUTO VOUV TUyXXVUV . XXTX
fi.iTox«v Tm TTpoiipHfiivm HfJi.lv Xpt^Tou uTTsvoimv. Orig. Comment, in Johann. tom. ii.
§ 6. Op tom. iv. pp. 60—62.
2 To TTviuy-x yiVHTov ov Six TOU Aoyou yiyov vxt. Ib. p. 62. and see p. 63.
3 Tlipi fXiVTOl TOU IlViUfJiXTOS VTTlCTtpXXUiS XtXV XXi SuiTITi&UlS SoyfJiXTli^U, UTTO&i^HXiVXt yxp
g;uTo THS TOU XlXTpos xxt 'Ttou XTToipxa-xu Sofns. Phot. Blbhoth. Art. 119. col. 300.
ed. 1653.
i Ib. Art. 106. col. 280.
5 Omnis Spiritus creatura est. c. 7. ed Pamel. cum Op. Tertull. Col. Agr.
1617. fol.
6 Minor Christo Paracletus. u. 34. ib.
' See c. 29.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 195
Holy Spirit, he never shows him to be God, or speaks of him as
God, though he had before proved at large of the Father and the
Son, that they were God; and towards the conclusion affirming
that the Father and Christ, though both God, are but one God,
and rebutting the accusation he alleges to have been brought
against him, that he thus made two Gods, he takes no notice of
the Holy Spirit, nor joins him with Christ in the unity of the
Godhead.* These passages are referred to by Pamelius, who
was well able to pronounce judgment in sUch a case, as show
ing the unorthodox character of his sentiments on this point.
And still further, this very treatise is said by Ruffinus,'' to have
been circulated by the Macedonians, the deniers of the divinity
of the Holy Spirit, as favorable to their cause.
Of Lactantius, we are told by Jerome, that " in his writings,
and especially in his letters to Demetrian, he altogether denies
the entity of the Holy Spirit, and by a Jewish error says that he
is to be referred either to the Father or the Son, and that the
holiness of each person is pointed out under his name.'"'
And, lastly, the same Father, Jerome, tells us, " Many
THROUGH IGNORANCE OF THE ScRiPTURES asscrt (as also Firmi-
anus does in the eighth book of his letters to Demetrian) that
the Father and Son are often called Holy Spirit. And while
we ought clearly to believe in a Trinity, they taking away the
third Person imagine it to be not a hypostasis of the Trinity, but
a name."* And if we include Eusebius (whose orthodoxy is stoutly con
tended for by some) among these Fathers, we shall find a pas
sage precisely similar to that of Origen. He tells us that the
Holy Spirit is " one of those things that were made by the Son,
for 'all things were made by him,'" and he adds that this is the
doctrine of" the catholic and holy church."^
Further, as to any notion of the correct orthodox doctrine
1 See c. 30.
2 Apol. pro Orig. Inter. Op. Orig. ed. Ben. tom. iv. App. p. 53.
» Lactantius in libris suis et maxime in Epistolis ad Demetrianum Spiritus
Sancti omnino negat substantiam, et errore Judaico dicit eum vel ad Patrem re-
ferri vel Filium et sanctificationem utriusque Personae sub ejus nomine demon-
strari. Hieron. Ep. ad Pammach. et Ocean, § 7. Ep. 84. Vail. 41. Ben. 65. al.
4 Multi per imperitiam Scripturarum (quod et Firmianus in octavo ad Deme
trianum Epistolarum lihro facit) asserunt Spiritum Sanctum saepe Patrem saepe
Filium nominari. Et quum perspicue in Trinitate credamus, tertiam Personam
auferentes non substantiam ejus volunt esse, sed nomen. Is. In Ep. ad Gal. lib.
ii. In c, 4. ver. 6. ed. Vail. Ven. tom. vii. col. 450.
S loSiTTXpXXXarOV ThiUp,I.X, OUTi QiOS, OUTi ^TtOS' iTTU fXH iX TOU TlXTpOS Of^OlOiS TM 'T/W
XXI XUTO THV yiViTtV UXHgnV. *EV Si Tl Tm Six TOU *TiOy yiVOfXiVm TuyXXVU, OTt XXI TTXVTX
^C XUTOU iyiViTO, XXt ^ftJ/J/? XUTOU iyiViTO OuSi iV. TcilUTX (AiV OUV THS KxBoXtXHS XXt AytX,S
V-xxXHsTixs o^i '^H Six Tm Biim tpmoov TTxpxStSoTxt TX y.uvTHptx. EcsEB. De Eccles.
Theolog. lib. iii. c. 6. p. 175. (Col. 1688.)

19f) PATRISTICAL TRADITION
having been handed down to posterity by the catholic Fathers
of this period, as a body, it is thus summarily overthrown by
Basil, who denies that there was any such delivery of it to be
found in the writings of those Fathers even in his time. For
he says, that the question respecting the Holy Spirit having
been passed over in silence by the antients [i. e. compara
tively, for there were some exceptions], through its not having
been opposed, was left unexplained, and therefore that he
would proceed to discuss it agreeably io ihe mind of Scrip
ture ;^ and though he here says that it was passed over in
silence through its not having been opposed, this is in contra
diction to his own testimony elsewhere, for he has accused
Origen,* (if, at least, the latter part of the book on the Holy
Spirit is his,) and certainly Dionysius of Alexandria,^ of having
in their writings delivered unorthodox doctrine respecting the
Holy Ghost ; and hence it was probably, viz. from the neglect
of the early Fathers on this point, that, in the time of Basil, the
opponents of the orthodox doctrine accused the catholics of in
troducing novel doctrine when they insisted on the divinity of the
Holy Spirit*
Further, as it respects the full orthodox doctrine of the divinity
and generation of Christ, have we such consent? I admit with
thankfulness that against the Socinians the testimony of those
that remain to us of the Catholic Fathers is, if v/e take their
works, as they ought to be taken, as a whole, unanimous. But
that their witness is one whit stronger or more precise than that
of several passages of Scripture, and upon which by the way
their testimony seems grounded, I utterly deny. But have we
such testimony for the full orthodox doctrine on this point ? Let
us inquire.
I begin with Tatian, whose " Oration against Ihe Greeks" was
written before his defection to the heresy of Valentinus. He
speaks thus ; — " God was in the beginning ; but the beginning we
have understood to be the power of reason. For the Lord of the
Universe being himself the subsistence of all things,^ was, as it
respects the non-existence of creation at that time, alone. But
inasmuch as he was all Power, and was himself the subsistence of
all things visible and invisible, wifh him were all things ; for with
him through his power of reason the Word himself also who
I 'EttuSh Si TO vuv xvxxu^'Xv TTxpx Tm a-u xxtvoTo/^m iTTixupouvTm l^HTHHX, TTXpXTiaiTrHBlV
TOIS TTXXXl, Six TO XVXVTlfOHTOV, oJ'tXfBpatTOV XXTiXU^Bn (XSJ-S) Sh to TTipi TOU XytOU TTViUUX-
TOS) TrpOTTlBijxiV TOV TTipi TOUTOO Xoyov xxoxouBtes TB THS ypx^Hs inoix. Basil. Ep. 159.
tom. iii. p. 248.
2 De Spir. Sanct. c. 29. § 73. tom. iii. pp. 61, 2.
3 Ep. 9. tom. iii. p. 91.
4 See § 7 of this chapter, below.
5 .\s Tertullian says, " Ipse sibi et mundus et locus et omnia,"

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 197
was in- him subsisted. But by the will of his single-mindedness
the Word comes forth ; but the Word not having proceeded from
him in vain, becomes the firstborn work of the Father. This
we know to be the beginning of the world. But he [the Word]
was produced by distribution not abscission. For that which is
cut off is separated and taken away from the first ; but that which
arises by distribution, having assumed an oeconomical condition,
does not leave that from which it is taken destitute of it. For as
from one torch many flames are produced, but the light of the
first torch is not lessened by the ignition of many torches, thus
also the Word having come forth from the power of the Father,
did not leave him who begot the Word destitute of it. For also
I speak and you hear. And yet I who address you do not by any
means become destitute of my word through the transmission of
it."* Here the Word seems clearly represented to have beenjo>'o-
duced but just before the creation of the world, as a personal
agent, and before his birth for the formation of the world to have
existed only in the reason of the Father. This is a doctrine
which several of the early Fathers whose writings remain to us
have delivered, and particularly Tertullian as we shall see pre
sently. But it is certainly contrary to the doctrine of the co-
eternity of the Son with the Father, as Son, and asa personal
agent. There are also other expressions in this passage not very
agreeable to the orthodox doctrine, such as that the Word is
" the firstborn loork oi the Father," and that the distribution (to
use his own word) of the Godhead into three Persons was an
oeconomical state of the Godhead ; on which matter we shall have
some further remarks to make when we come to consider the
testimony of Tertullian. "
The same doctrine is delivered by Athenagoras, who says of
1 ©soe HV iV XOXH, THV Si c«fl^«V Xoyou SuVXUtD TTXpUXHtpXUiV. *0 yxp StTTTOTHS Tm oxaiv
SLUTOS ilTTXpXm TOU TTXVTOS H UTTOfTTXTtS, XXTX (J.iV THV fXnSiTTX yiyiVHfJiiVHV TTOlHlTlV fJLOVbS HV.
RstQo Si TTXTX SuVX^lS, 0pXTO6V T£ XXI XopXTUsV XUTOS I/TTOTTXTIS HV, (TUV XUTCD TX TTXVTX, CUV
XuTOi yxp Six XoytXHS SuVXuatlS XUTDS xxt O xoyos O? HV iv XutOI irTirrTHCi. QiXHfJtXTl Si THS
xTXoTHTos AUTOU TTpoTTnSx xoyos. v Si Xoyos ou XXTX xivou X'^oHTXs, spyov TTpanoToxov TOU TTX
Tpos yiviTxt. Toutov tcfxiv tou xotr^ou thv ttipXHV. Xiyovi Si xxtx /xipty/xov, ou xxtx xttoxo-
TTHV. To yxp X.7T0TfJtHBiV TOU TTpaiTOU XiX^^Pt^Txr TO Si ^iptrrBiV OtXOVOfJtlXS THV XlpiVtV TTpotT-
XxQoV OUX ivSiX TOV oBiV ttXHTTTXl TTiTTOlHXiV. UiTTTip yxO ATTO f^lAS SxJ'OS AVXTTTifTlU fitiV TTUpA
VOXXX, THS Si TTpaiTHS SxSoS SlA THV i^X.^tV Tm TTOXXm SotjSieV OUX iXATTOUTAt TO flWf. OUTU XXt
0 xoyos TTpoixBm ix ths tou TTXTpos SuVXp^iOIS, OUX AXoyoV TTiTTOlHXi TOV 7.S>6VV;jX0T(t. K«* yAp
AUTOS iycu XXXa, xxt U/XUS AXOUiTi, XXt OU SffTOU SlA THS fXiTASiXtTims TOU XoyoU XSVOC 0 TTpO-
trajxixw Xoyou yivofjiAt. Tatiait. Contr. Grsec. Grat. § 5. Ed. Ben. pp.247, 8.
The words o-uv auTai yxp are put by the Benedictine editors within brackets as of
doubtful authority, but without any sufficient ground. I have interpreted xo^'O,
in the first place in which it occurs, reason, for which rendering see the observa
tions on Tertullian.
2 In connexion with these remarks see the dissertation on Tatian at the end
of Worth's edition. See also Cave, Hist. Lit. R*

198 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
" the Son," that " he is the first-born of the Father, ncit as a
created being, (for, from the beginning, God— 6em^ an eternal
mind — had the Word {or Reason) in himself, being endued
with reasonfrom eternity,) but as having come forth to be the
form and energy of all material things." &c.* And in the words
immediately preceding, he says, that " the Son of God is the
Father's reason (or word) in form and action.'"" So that the
generation of the Son is the putting forth of the Father's reason
in action, as a personal agent for the work of creation.
So Theophilus of Antioch. " God, therefore, having his Word
within him in his own bowels, brought him forth, having given
birth to him with his wisdom, before all things. This Word he
had as his minister in the creation of his works, and by him he
made all things."^ And again : — "The God and Father of the
universe is not comprehensible within any fixed space, and is not
found in any certain place. For there is no place of his rest.
But his Word, by whom he made all things, being his power and
wisdom, assuming the appearance of the Father and Lord of the
universe, was present in Paradise in the form of God, and con
versed with Adam. For the Divine Scripture itself also teaches
us that when Adam spoke, he heard a voice; but what else is
this voice, than without doubt the Word, which is of God, who is
also his Son ? — not in the sense that poets and mythologists speak
of sons of Gods . . . but as truth declares, as the Word that was
always laid up within in the heart of God. For, before that
anything existed, he had this [Word] as his counsellor, being his
m,ind and understanding ; but when God wished to make the
things he had resolved upon, he brought forth this Word as an
eternal Word, born before the whole creation ; not being himself
rendered destitute of his Word, but, after having generated the
Word, being still always in communion with his Word."*
1 ITpftiTov yivvHfxx itvxi TU TiXTOt, OUX t^s yivo/xivoy (i^ ApXHS yxp 0 ©fioc, vous xj^tos m,
ilX^V AUTOS iv iXUTU TOV Ao^'OV, xiSius Xoyixos m) AXX' a>s TOOV vxtxaiv ^UfXTTAVTm . . tSiX xxi
aipyitx uvxt TTpoixBm. Athenag. Leg. pro Christianis. § 10. Ed. Ben. p. 287.
2 EffTiv 0 uios TOU Qiou xoyos TOU ITitTpCi: iV iSiA xxt iVipyUA.
3 E^atV OUV 0 &iOS Tov iXUTOU AoyOV ivStxBiTOV iv TOtS iStOtS TTTXXyXVOtS. HyiVVHO-iV XUTOV UiTX
THS iXVTOU COipiXS i^ipiU^X/AiVOS Tpo Tm OXm, TouTOV TOV Ao^V fifTVfiV UTTOUpyOV TU)V U7T* aty-
TOUy^yiVHp^iVm, xxt St' AUTOU TXTTAVTATTiTTOtHXiV. Theoph. Antioch. Ad. Auto. lib.
ii. § 10, Ed. Ben. p. 355.
4 *0 /UiV QiOS XAl IlXTHp Tm OXm AX^plfTOS iTTl, XXI 6V TOTTOi OUX iUpitTXiTAl. OU yxp imf
TOTTOS THS XXTATTAUtTiOlS XUTOU. 'O Si AoyOS AUTOU, St' OU Tit TTXVTA TTiTTOtHXi, SuVXfjils cOV
xxt 0-O'ptA XUTOU, AVXXX/X&XVm TO TTpOTCeTToV TOU TlXTpoS XXt Ku,ilOU TUiV OXm, OUTOS TTApt^lViTO
its TOV TTXpASitTOV iV TTpoiTOmU) TOU ©SOy, XXt Up/.lXU Tie ASxfJL. Kxt yxp AUTH H BilA ypx^H Sl-
SxTXU H/AAS TOV ASA[A XiyoVTA THS ^avHS XXHXOiVAl p.jjyw Si Tt AXXo iTTtV, AXX.' H 0 Aoyos 0
TOU QiOU, OS itTTl xxt UlOS AUTOU, OUX ^S Ol TTOIHTXI XXt fjLuBoypAfOt XiyOUTtV UtOUS QiUV iX (TUV-
WTIXS yiVVia^iVOUS, XXXA tUS AXhBuX SlHyUTXt, Tov AO^OV TOV OVT/t StXTTXVTOS ivStxSiTOV fiV XXp-
SlA TOU QiOU. ITpo yxp Tt ytvicBxt, toutov uxi oufjt&ovxav, Ixutou vouv xxt <ppovHa-tv ovta-
^OTTOTi Si nBiXHffiV 0 QiOS TTOlHCAt OTA i^OUXiU^XTO, TOUTOV Tov Ao^OV iyiVVHITi TTpo^OptXOV, TTpOO.
TpTOXOV TTXtTHS XTt(riCi>S, OU XiVmBus fltfTOC TOU Aoyou, xxxx AoyoV yiVVHO-AS XAI TC0 A'jya aiUTOU
StXTTXVTOS ofiixm. Ib. % 22, p, 365.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 199
Here again it can hardly be maintained that the Aayes «>?(«*»-
T«{, the internal Word, when existing only as " the mind and
understanding" of the Father existed as a person distinct from
the person of the Father ; and the generation of the Aoyos srfoipo-
(iKis, the external Word, is traced to a voluntary act of the
Father, taking place just before the creation of the world.
And here I would observe that in all these statements, as in
others which we shall notice presently, the generation of the
Word or Son, is represented as an act of the Father's will, con
tingent upon his conceiving the purpose of creating the world.*
A similar generation of the Word is also asserted by Hippoly
tus, and in terms which seem clearly to indicate that before that
generation, he had not a distinct and personal existence. For,
after speaking of this generation in terms very similar to those
we have already quoted, he observes, " And thus there was
present to him [i. e. the Father] another. But when I say
another, I do not mean two Gods, but as light from light, or as
water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun.'""
It is quite true that Bishop Bull has attempted to reconcile
these statement with the orthodox doctrine. Whether he has
explained them correctly, I leave the reader to judge.
But supposing that his interpretation of them is the right one, it
does not appear to me to vindicate their orthodoxy.
In whichever way we understand them, they appear to me
to be irreconcileable with the orthodox doctrine. For if, as some
think, and as the expressions used would certainly lead me to
conclude, these Fathers held that the Word or Son did not exist
as a Person, until the generation of which they here speak,
which is unquestionably a generation for the purposes of creation,
they certainly spoke contrary to the generally-received orthodox
doctrine. But if, on the other hand, they intended by these
statements, as Bishop Bull supposes, to intimate the existence of
the Word as a Person in the Father, before the generation of
which they here speak, then their statements amount lo a main
tenance of the doctrine of an original and essential plurality
of persons in the Godhead, which is equally unorthodox.^ For
they say that the Word or Reason (^loyoj) was always in the
Father, because the Father was always endued with reason
1 That these statements are Platonic rather than Christian, is allowed by Le
Quien and Lumper, See Lump. Hist. Crit. Patr. vol. 3. pp. 170, &c.
i YiXt oJtW? TTApttTTATO AUTO) iTipOS. *Et8/;0V Si Xiym OU SuO QiOUS XtytU, XXX' CDS fOU iX
tfarros, k.t. X. HippoL. Contr. Noet. num. 10. Ed. Fabric.
s " There can be but one Person originally of himself subsisting in that infinite
Being, because a plurality of more persons so subsisting would necessarily infer
a multiplicity of gods. . . . Wherefore it necessarily foUoweth that Jesus Christ,
who is certainly not the Father, cannot be a Person subsisting in the Divine na
ture originally of himself," Pearsos, Expos, of Creed, pp. 203, 4. ed. Dobson.

200 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
(PioyiMs), and as being his " mind and intelligence." No%v the
Divine Being was originally and essentially endued with reason
(Xov"""?) ; and hence, according to these authors, the Word or
Reason was originally and essentially in the Father. If, there
fore, we suppose that they meant that the Word (Aoyo;) existing
thus originally and essentially in the Father was a Person, their
language implies that there is an original and essential plurality
of persons in the Godhead. There is nothing in these statements
to bear out the ingenious fiction of Bishop Bull, that by the gene
ration of which they speak, their authors meant a figurative or
metaphorical generation succeeding to a prior and eternal gene
ration. Nay, on the contrary, they speak of this generation as
that by which the Son became the first begotten of the Father.
Consequently, if he existed as a Person in the Father before this,
he existed, not as one generated of the Father, but as one origi
nally existing as a Second Person in the Godhead ; and thus as
being equally with the Father, underived and without a begin
ning. Let us compare with them the language of Justin Martyr.
He says that "before all created things, God begot a certain
rational power Qwotfon Mytxn) of himself,"* which he proceeds
to say is called by the various names of the Son, the Word, &c.
This generation of the Son, is evidently the same as that spoken
of by the authors we have just quoted ; and is clearly no figura
tive or metaphorical generation, but the generation of the Son,
which is here described (as it appears fo me) as a putting forth
of that " rational power" that always existed in the Father, as
a personal agent ; for if this rational power, as it previously
existed in the Father, was a personal agent, then there was an
essential plurality of persons in the Godhead ; and the Second
Person was essentially and originally, and not by generation, in
the Godhead ; which is contrary to the orthodox doctrine : for
though the essence of the Son existed originally in the Father,
and was not begotten of him, the person of the Son was begot
ten of the Father.
Nay, more ; I would put it to the reader whether the lan
guage of these writers is not such as clearly to show that thev
considere'd the generation of which they here speak, to be the
donation of personality (if I may so speak) to the Word by the
Father, particularly that of Hippolytus. And their idea seems
to have been that the putting forth of the Father's reason as a
personal agent, was like a lighted torch igniting another; which
act of ignition does not diminish the light of the first torch, but
is, as it were, an extension or distribution of the original flame ;
! Dial, cum Tryph. ^61. p. 157. ed. Ben.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 20l
and so the rational power of the Father was not diminished by
this distribution of it.
Nor is the argument of Bishop Bull against this, derived from
their speaking of the Word or' Son as having been always in the
Father, of any avail ; because their words may apply to the
essence, and not theperson ; and when they say that the word,
or reason, Aoyo?, was always in the Father, because the Father
was always and originally rational, Xoyixot, it seems clear that
they were intended to be so applied. And it is undeniable that
such expressions were used in fhat sense ; as, for instance, by
Paul of Samosata, who, as Dr. Burton* tells us, " believed the
Logos to be God, and to reside in the Father, but not to have a
separate existence." Nay, Dr. Burton, speaking of these very
writers, tells us" that they borrowed their notions from the Plato-
nizing Jews of Alexandria, who, as he says, "had learned almost
to personify the mind or reason of God, as may be seen in the
works of Philo Judseus ;" while " it may be demonstrated that
these Alexandrian Jews did not really mean to speak of Wis
dom, or the Reason of God, as distinctly existing Persons ;"
and the cautions which Dr. Burton seems to think are given by
these writers against a Platonic application of the terms, I am
unable to find ; but, on the contrary, their words seem to me
clearly to show that they held that there was no Second Person,
till the generation of which they here speak.
When, therefore, Hippolytus calls the Son " co-eternal with
the Father" [o-vtai^io; t« n«Tp<),'' there can be no doubt that
with his views he is speaking with reference to his essence ; for
otherwise he would contradict himself. It is, in fact, language
of the same purport as that which is used by those we have al
ready quoted, when the Word or Reason is said to have been
always in the Father, because the Father was always endued
with reason (Aoymoj). Let it not be replied that it would have
been absurd to have used the words in that sense, because it is
undeniable that such language was used in that sense. Nay,
similar language was used, even where it was held that there
was a time when the Son was only potentially in the Father.
Thus Eusebius says, — " Moreover it was judged not improper
that the saying that he was not before he was begotten, should
be anathematized; seeing it was confessed by all that he was
the Son of God, even before his generation according to the flesh.
1 Testim. of Ante-Nic. Fathers to Div. of Christ. 2d ed. p. 398.
« Testim. of Ante-Nic. Fathers to Trin. p. 30.
' Demonstr. contr. Jud. c. 7. Op. vol. 2. p. 4. The work " De consummatione
mundi et de Antichristo," from which Bishop Bull gives an extract, in which
Christ is spoken of as a-uvxvxpx's tu HxTpi, is now by almost universal consent
adjudged spurious. See Hippol. Op, ed. Fabric, vol. 1. App. p. 3, and p. 26.

302 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
And further, our emperor, beloved of God, argued that he was
before all ages, even with respect to his Divine generation ; since
even before he was actually begotten, he was potentially in
the Father without generation; the Father being always
Father, as also always King and Saviour, ^nd potentially being
all things, both always and in the same manner, and continuing
unchanged."* This pas-age is, as might be expected from its author, evasive
and unorthodox, and in such a case where a single word makes
all the difference, we may reasonably hesitate to receive this re
port of Constantine's opinions as one altogether trustworthy.^
But be that as it may, the statement shows that the co-eternity
may be held in words where the sense in which it is held is any
thing but orthodox. For God is here held fo have been always
a Father only in the same way that he was everything else, that
is potentially, which strikes at the foundation of the doctrine of
the consubstantiality, as well as of the ^e^owa/ co-eternity.
True it is that there were others who used such terms to ex
press the orthodox doctrine, and applied them fo the Person of
the Son, in, order more efTecfually to refute the error of Arius,
who said that there was a time when the Son was not. The
sense, therefore, in which these terms were used by any particu
lar Father must be determined by the views he has advanced
elsewhere. I may here add also, that there seem to have been those who
though they anathematized the errors of Arius, scrupled fo use
such terms. The objection, in the case of many of them at least,
was that such terms seemed equivalent to a denial of the gene-
tion of the Son, and made Him a Person originally self-existent
in the Godhead," and not from their denying his virtual co-
eternity, as the effulgence proceeding from light is virtually co-
eternal with it. Their difference, therefore, in this respect,
was a mere diflTerence in words, because there were some at
least who used these words, who did not mean to convey by them
the idea of the Second Person in the Trinity being originally in
the Godhead as an underived Person.
Hence, perhaps, it was that the Nicene or Constantinopolitan
1 Et/ pXHV TO AVxBifAXTl^iTBxi, TO TTpO TOU yiVVHBnVAt OUX HV, OUX XTOTTOV iVOfJUcBn, TM TTXpX
TTXCIV OfAOXoyUcBxt, uvxt AUTOV ''TlOV TOU SiOU xxt TTpO THS XStTiA ITXpXX yiWSCiUiS. Hcl« S'i 0
BiOiptXiiTTXTOS Hum SxTlXiUS TU> Xoyo) XATiO-XiuX^i, XAI XXT A THV ivBiOV XUTOU yiVVHiTlV TO
TTpo TTXVTm xtmm uvxt xutov, erii xxt Trpiv 'ivipyux yivvHBHVxt, Suva/au hv sv tu JJxTpt xyivvH-
TaC, OVTOC TOU IlXTPbS Xitt TTATpOS, 06S XXI lixrTVXiUS XU. XXI rXOHTHpOS, XXI SuvXfAU TTXVTX OVTOS
Xil T€ xxt XXTX Tci. auTa, Xil urxuTois iXovTos. Euseb. Epist. ap, Theodorit,'Hist.
Eccl. lib. i. i;. 11. Op. tom. iii. pp. 781, 2.
2 See as opposite testimony, Constantine's Letter to the Nicomedians against
Eusebius and Theognis, and his Letter to Arius in Gelas. Cyz. De Act. Cone.
Nic. p. 3.
3 See Athanas. De Synod. § 26. tom. i. p. 739. ed. Bened.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 203
Creed says of the Son, only that he was begotten of the Father
before all worlds or ages, (srpo tcuvtui tui atmat). Here the di
rect affirmation goes no further than to maintain that the Son
was begotten of the Father before all time, or was, as some of
the Fathers express it, ^xpiH, as the Arians themselves allow
ed.* Indeed, the very words of the Constantinopolitan Creed
occurs in a Creed given by Athanasius, as one of the numerous
semiarian formulae drawn up about the middle of the fourth cen-
tury.° And certainly, as Dr. Burton says, " Our powers of ab
straction will perhaps not allow us to have a more definite idea
of eternal existence than this." (Testim. of Ante-Nic. Fathers to
Doctrine of Trinity, pp. 146, 7.) It does no doubt imply eter
nity, and I suppose was intended to imply a virtual co-eternity
with the Father by most if not all of those who annexed it to
the Creed, though there might be others who used it in a lower
sense. The Creed was so worded probably for the sake of those
who would have scrupled the use of the words co-eternal with
the Father, though in reality holding the full orthodox faith;
and as it often happens in such cases, the words are open to a
lower sense. ^
It appears to me, then, that all these Fathers held, — That the
Son is not as a Person even virtually co-eternal with the Father,
his generation or prolation as a personal agent taking place be
fore any act of creation, but yet not from all eternity, and taking
place for the purpose of his acting in the work of creation, and
contingently upon God's having conceived the purpose of creating
the world.
Is this orthodox doctrine ?
Bishop Pearson says, "The essence which God always had
without beginning, without beginning he did communicate, being
always Father as always God." (p. 209.)
It is quite triie that it is not Sabellianism, because the Sabelli-
ans did not regard the Son as ever becoming a distinct Person,
nor is it Arianism, because the Arians considered the Son to be
created by the Father, and of a different essence to the Father,
whereas these Fathers considered the generation of the Son to be
only a prolation as a personal agent of that reason, or word,
which was always and essentially in the Father, and which Son,
therefore, they did not scruple to call without beginning, like the
Father, and co-eternal with the Father, because that reason or
word, which the Father, when he pleased, put forth as a personal

> See Athanas. De Synod. § 16. tom. i. pp. 729, 30.
^ Athanas. De Synod. § 27. tom. i. p. 742.
And in this lower sense they were used by the Ari
Synod. § 16. tom. i. pp. 729. 30. and Hii. De Trin. iv. § 12. col. 833.

204 r.vTRisTrcAL tradition
agent, was without beginning in the Father, and co- eternal with
him. But is it the orthodox doctrine ? Is it not Semiarianism ?
The best defence of what these Fathers have advanced, as it
appears to me, would be that they probably thought that the
work of creation was one of the first acts of the Godhead, and
therefore that when they placed the generation of the Son pre-
cedently to the work of creation, they in effect made the Son
almost coseval with the Father. * And perhaps we should not be
far from the truth in supposing this to be their meaning. This I
say is the best defence I can see for their statements, and one
that brings them nearer to the orthodox view than any other
interpretation of their words, for the exposition of Bishop Bull
seems to me to place them as far from orthodoxy as that of
Petavius. The fact is, that, as it respects the original relation of the
Second Person of the Trinity to the First, there was much diver
sity of opinion in the primitive church. " It must be confessed,"
says Dr. Waterland, " that the catholics themselves were for
some time pretty much divided about the question of eternal
generation, though there was no question about the eternal exis
tence ; Whether the Aoyos might be rightly said to be begotten
in respect of the state which was antecedent to the vfoiXevaii
was the point in question. Athanasius argued strenuously for
it, (Contr. Arian. orat. 4.) upon this principle, that whatever is
of another and referred to that other as his head (as the Aoyo?
considered as such plainly was) may and ought to be styled Son
and begotten ; besides, the Arians had objected that there would
be two unbegotten Persons if the Aoyof ever existed and was not
in the capacity of Son, and the church had never been used to
the language of two unbegotfens. These considerations, besides
the testimonies of elder Fathers, who had admitted eternal gene
ration, weighed with the generality of the Catholics, and so
eternal generation came to be the more prevailing language,
ctnd has prevailed ever since. There is nothing new in the
doctrine more than this, the calling that eternalgenerafion which
others would have styled the eternal existence and relation of the

> There are some observations of Hilary on this point in hia Treatise on the
Trinity, (lib. 12. §§ .30— 45. col. 1127—36. ed. Ben.) which are remarkable.
" Natum semper esse," he says, " hoc est, sensum teraporum nascendo prscurrere
neque intelligentim patere aliquando fuisse non natrum." (§ 30.) " Idcirco nunc
Sapientia natam se ante ssecula docens anteriorem se non solum his qu<e creata
sunt docet, sed aeternis coeeternam, prsparationi scilicet cxli et discretioni sedis
Dei . . . Perpetua enim et mterna rerum creandarum est praeparatio." (§§ 39,
40.) " Omnis horum prxparatio Deo est costema." (§'40.) " Ubi ante ssculum
est nativitas, infinitse generationis aeternitas est." (§ 45.) See also Cyrili. Alex
Thesaur. c 11. Tom. 5, Part t. p. 87.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 203
Aoytsto the Father, which at length amounts only to a differ
ence in words and names." (Waterland's Second Defence,
Works vol. iii. p. 296.) Npw in this passage (which appears to
me altogether a most extraordinary one) it is distinctly admitted
that there was no catholic consent on the important point,
whether the Second Person of the Sacred Trinity was begotten
of the Father, but that some contended for his not being original
ly begotten. And it is added, out of a desire to spare the
Fathers, the prudence of which may well be doubted, that the
difierence was only a diflerence in words and names !
And as to their alleged agreement as to the eternal existence,
this is no proof that they were of one mind in the matter. For
there are at least three opinions wrapped up in this phrase. One,
of those who hold the virtual coeternity of the Son as Son with
the Father ; another, of those who speak of his eternal existence,
because the reason or word, which became by the will of the Fa
ther, a Person, existed always in the Father ; another, of those
who mean by his eternal existence, his having been generated
only just before creation or time commenced. Nay, the phrase
might be even used by those who consider him to have originally
existed only potentially in the Father before his generation for
the work of creation, as in the passage already quoted from
Eusebius. For the orthodox doctrine I would refer more particularly,
among the writers of this period, to Dionysius of Alexandria,
who seems to me to have given in a passage quoted by Atha
nasius (however he may have expressed himself elsewhere) the
best and clearest statement of it; and such is the opinion of
Athanasius, to whom chiefly we are indebted for the fragments
that remain of this author, and from whom I extract the follow
ing passage.
" He [i. e. Dionysius] after other remarks writes thus ; — There
never was a time when God was not a Father. And in what
follows he acknowledges that Christ always existed, being reason
and wisdom and power ; for it was not the case that God, being
barren of these, afterwards produced a Son, but he is called a
Son because he is not self-existent, but has his being from the
Father. And shortly after he says again, concerning the same
matter; — But being the effiilgence of eternal light, he is him
self also altogether eternal ; for the light existing always, it is
manifest that the effulgence always exists ; for in this it is
known that it is light, namely in its shining, and light cannot
but be effiilgent. For let us come again to examples ; if there
is the Sun, there is light, there is day ; if there is neither of
these, the Sun also must be far absent. If, therefore, the Sun
was eternal, the day also would have no end. But now, this
VOL I. ' S

206 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
not being the case, when the Sun begins the day begins, and
when the Sun ceases the day ceases. But God is eternal light,
that never had a beginning, and will never have an end. There
fore the effiilgence is eternally manifested and present with him,
without beginning, and eternally generated .... And again.
Therefore the Father being eternal, the Son is eternal, being
light of light. For where there is a parent there is also a child ;
and if there were no child, how and of whom could he be a
parent? But both exist, and exist always  Again he
says; — But the Son alone always co-existing with the Father,
and filled with him who exists essentially, exists also himself
essentially, being of the Father."*
The difference between these passages and those which we
have just been considering, is apparent. Here the generation
of the Son as Son, and a person, is made virtually coeval
with the existence of the Father; and his virtual co-eternity
with the Father is grounded upon his eternal generation, whereas
the writers above quoted place his generation just previous to
the work of creation ; and though they speak of a previous ex
istence, ground that existence only upon the Father's having al
ways been endued with reason, to which reason he gave, when
he conceived the purpose of creation, a personal existence.
And we are warned by Dionysius against conceiving of this ge
neration as if any time had elapsed before God became a Fa
ther, and that by generation is meant, that the second Person of
the Trinity was derived from the first, and derived only as the
light is derived from the Sun, so that as the Sun and light are
co-existent, so also are the Father and Son. It is true that the
same metaphor is used by the writers of whom we have spoken
before, but it is not similarly applied, for Dionysius illustrates
the generation of the Son by it, with reference to the time of
that generation, (which is the point now in question), whereas
both Bishop Bull and Dr. Waterland allow that tbe generation

1 IpX^it . . UiB irpX. OUTOCS' Ou yxp hv CT£ O ©eo? OUX hv TTATHP. xxt TOUTO OlSiV iV TOIS
ipHS, Xil TOV XpiO-TOV ilVXt, XoyOV OVTX XXt tTO^lXV XXt SuVXfJ.tV OU yXp Sh TOUTtCV XyoVOS uv 0
&iOS itTX WTXtSoTTOtHa'ATO, AXX' OTt fJiH TTXp' iXUTOU 0 UtOS, AXK' iX TOU YlATpOS iXU TO ilVXl.
Kxt pAir' OXiyX TTXXIV Tnpt tou xutou ^HO-IV XTTXuyXTfAX Si uv l^CCTOS AiSiOU, TTXVTUS XAlAUTaS
XlSiOS 17TIV. OVTOS yxp xu tou ^UTOS, SuXOV us i^TlV AU TO XTTXuyAcy.X' TOUTU yxp xxt OTt
IPUS iO-Tl TU XXTXuyx^Uy VOitTAt, XXI tfiUS OU SuVXTAt /AH ^UTl^OV itVXl. TTXXlV yXp iXBu/AiV iTTl
TX TTApxSiiy/AATA. il iCTtV HXlOS, OtTTtV XUyH, iCTlV HfAipX' il TOIOUTUV /AHSiV iVTl, TTOXU yt Sii
xxt TTXpUVXt HXtOV it /AiV OUV AlSlOS 0 HXIOS, ATTXUTTOS XV HV XXt H H/AipX. yuV Si, OU yxp iTTtV,
Xp^X/AiVOU Ti. HP^XTO. XXi TTXUO/AiVOU, TTXUiTAl. 0 Si yi QioS XlwVlOV iCTl I^US, OUTi Xfi^A/AiVOV
OUTi XH^OV TTOTi. OUXOUV XIUVIOV TTPOXUTXI XXt TUViCTlV AUTU TO XTTXjjyXI /AX XVXpXOV XXt Xil-
yms . . . Kai xuBls . . . ovtos ouv Xiuvtou tou UxTpos, xtuvlos o ulos utti, tpus ix ^aiTo? uv'
OVTOS yxp yoViO)S, i7Ti XXt TiXVOV. il Si /AH TiXVOV UH, TTUS XXt TtVOS ilVXl SuVXTXt yoViUS ; AXX'
ittriV XU^U xxt itClV XU  TTXXIV I^HCf /AOVOS Si 0 ClOS XU CTUVUV TU riATPl. XXtTOU OUTOS
TTXHpou/Aivos. XXI XUTOS fTTiv UV ix TOU Hxtpos. Athakas. Dc Scntcnt. Dlonys. § 15.
tom. i. pp. 253, 4,

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 207
of which these writers speak was a temporal generation for the
purpose of creation ; and that generation those writers identify
with the donation of personality to the Son, and his becoming a
Son ; and they apply this metaphor only to show the intimate
connexion between the Father and Son upon that generation;
and that notwithstanding they were called Father and Son as
distinct persons, they were not more separated than a ray of the
Sun is from the Sun. As Hippolytus, after speaking of the
temporal generation, &aj%, " And thus there was present to him
[i. e. the Father] another. But when I say another, I do not
mean two Gods, but as light from light, or as water from a
fountain, or as a ray from the Sun." (See p. 199 above).
This is a different application of the metaphor, or at least an
application not equally comprehensive wifh that made by Di
onysius, and not including the point now in question. The same
application of it is made by Lactantius,* who, as we shall here
after show, did not hold the co-«fernity of the Son with the
Father. This passage of Dionysius is particularly valuable, because it
is sufficiently full to render it impossible to explain it away. The
incorrect use of orthodox terms makes it often impossible to rely
upon the testimony of particular passages ; for, to qualify them
to be a proof, it is necessary to show, by some other passage of
the same author, in what sense the terms used were employed,
which it is not always possible to do. And herein lies one
great difficulty in ascertaining wifh any certainty, and especially
in proving to others, what were the sentiments of the Fathers.
Not to say that there is every appearance with some of them of
self-contradiction. It is unnecessary here to add further testimonies, because my
object is only to show that there was not an agreement in the
Fathers of this period on the point.
Moreover, there are others whose statements are still further
removed from the orthodox doctrine, respecting the Second Person
in the Sacred Trinity.
And (first let us take Tertullian, with respect to whom it
cannot be denied that he has spoken in a way which it is im
possible completely to reconcile wifh the orthodox doctrine on
this subject. For instance, he says that " the Father is the
whole substance, but the Son a derivation and portion of the
vtrhole, as he himself professes, ' For the Father is greater than
I.' "^ No orthodox person will say that this is correct language.

1 Instit. lib. 4. c. 29. p. 230. ed. Cant. 1685.
2 Pater enim tota substantia est ; filius vero derivatio totius et portio, sicut ipse
profitetur. Quia Pater major me est. Adv. Prax. u. ix. p. 504.

208 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
True, when we recollect that certain controversies had not been
raised in the Church at this time, we may find an apology for it,
but this is no help to the theory of our opponents.
But there are still more objectionable passages. How, I would
ask, are we to understand the following passage ? " God is a
Father and God is a Judge, but He was not always a Father and
a Judge because always God. For he could neither be a Father
before there was a Son, nor a Judge before there was an offence.
But there v>as a time when there was neither an offence nor
a Son."^ At the same time it would be doing an injustice to him not to
state what his views are on this point, more fully than this nega
tive statement conveys to us, as they are not properly Arian,
though far from orthodox. Thus, then, he speaks on this matter
in his Treatise against Praxeas.
" That this cannot be true, I am led fo think by other argu
ments derived from the very constitution of the Godhead, as it
existed before the world up to the generation of ihe Son.^ For
before all things God was alone, his own world and place and
everything. But alone, because besides him nothing else existed
out of him. But he was not even then alone, for he had with
him that which he had in himself, that is his reason. For God is
rational (rationalis), and reason is in him at first, and thus from
him are all things. Which reason is his intelligence (sensus).
This the Greeks call Aoyo?, which we express also by sermo. And
consequently it is usual with us, by a translation not altogether
accurate, fo say fhat the Word (sermonem) was in the beginning
with God, when it is more accordant with the real state of the
case that reason (rationem) should be considered more antient
(antiquiorein) ; because God had not a Word (non sermonalis)
from the beginning, but God had reason even before the begin
ning ; and because the very Word itself consisting of reason, ex
hibits that pre-existent (priorem) reason as its substance. Yet
even so it makes no difference. For although God had not yet

1 Et pater Deus est et judex Deus est ; non tamen ideo pater et judex semper,
quia Deus semper. Nam nec pater potuit esse ante filium nec judex ante delictum.
Fuit autem tempus cum et delictum et filius non fuit. Adv. Hermog. c. 3. p.
234. Bishop Bull's explanation of this may be seen in his Def Fid. Nic. iii.
10. 2. et seq. He thinks that Tertullian spoke deceitfully, to answer the purpose
of his argument, and used the word Son as applying only to that state which
succeeded his coming forth from the Father for the creation of the world. But
surely this is too much like special pleading. And even were it so, it is destruc
tive of our opponents' notions, if the Fathers would thus speak deceitfully for the
sake of their argument ; which, however, after the ingenuous confessions of Je
rome, I will not ileny that they soraetimes did.
2 Hoc ut fiimum non sit, alia me argumenta deducunt ab ipsa Dei dispositione,
qua fuit ante mundi conslitutionem, adusque filii generationem. Adv. Prax. c. 5.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 209
sent forth his Word, he nevertheless had it with and in his own
reason within himself, by tacitly thinking and contriving with
himself those things which he was shortly about to give utterance
to by the Word. For thinking and contriving with his reason,
he made that reason his Word, which by his Word he made use
of" He then proceeds to illustrate this by referring to the ex
ample of man, in whom, he says, the word thought is in a man
ner a second entity within him, and the word itself, when utter
ed, a different entity from him.* And he adds, " How much
more fully, then, does this take place in God, of whom you also
are considered the image and similitude, that he should have
reason in himself even when silent, and in reason a word (sermo
nem) ? I might, therefore, not incorrectly have laid it down, that
God, even then before the formation of the universe, was not
alone, having in himself reason, and in reason a word which he
might make second from himself by causing them to act one
upon the other.^ This power and this distribution (dispositio) of
the Divine intelligence is also spoken of in Scripture by the name
of Wisdom. For what is wiser than the reason or word of God?
Hear, therefore. Wisdom speaking as one who was made the
second person. First, ' The Lord created me the beginning of
ways towards his works, before he made the earth, before the
mountains were placed ; before all the hills he begot me ;' to wit,
forming and begetting in his own intelligence. Then take notice
of Wisdom standing by at the moment of separation (assistentem
ipsa separatione^), ' When, saith Wisdom, he was preparing the
heavens I was present with him, &c.' For when God desired to
give their form and substance to those things which with the
reason and word of wisdom he had contrived within himself, he
first produced (protulit) the word itself, having in itself its com
ponent parts, reason and wisdom, that all things might be made
by that by which they were thought out and contrived, aye and
already made as far as they could be in the Divine intelligence.
For this was wanting fo them, that they should be openly re
cognized and possessed in their forms and substances. Then,
therefore, the Word itself also received its form and beauty,
sound and speech, when God saith, ' Let there be light.' This is
the perfect nativity of the Word as it proceeds from God ,•*
' Secundus quodammodo in te est sermo, per quem loqueris cogitando et per
quem cogitas loquendo. Ipse sermo alius est. Adv. Prax- c. 5.
2 In ratione sermonem quem secundum a se foceret agitando intra se. Ib. c. 5.
" The word separatio, if Tertullian's, must have been used hastily here by him,
as in cc. 8, 9, he denies that there is any saparatio between the Father and Son.
He uses elsewhere the word prolatio in this connexion. I suspect the true read
ing is, jdras/inrcft'one.
¦• HiEc est nativitas perfecta sermonis, dum ex Deo procedit. Ib. c. 7.
s*

210 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
being formed by him first for thought in the name of wisdom,
'The Lord made me the beginning of his ways;' then begotten
to bring to pass the purposed work (ad effectum), " When he was
preparing the heavens I was present with him.' "*
Again, when reasoning with Hermogenes against the eternity
of matter, he says, — " Finally, when he [God] perceived wis
dom to be necessary for the works of the world, he immedi
ately forms and generates it in himself. ' The Lord, saith
wisdom, made me the beginning of his ways, &c.' Therefore
let Hermogenes acknowledge that the wisdom of God was there
fore said to be born and formed lest we should believe anything
fo be without generation or creation but God alone. For if
within the Lord that which was from him and in him, was not
without beginning, namely, his wisdom, which was born and
made from the time from which it began to be roused in the
intelligence of God to arrange the works of the world; much
more is it impossible for anything to have been without a begin
ning which was out of the Lord."^
Here then, it appears, that Tertullian, though he denied the
eternal generation of the Word or Son, even in his character as
Wisdom, entertained the notion of the Word having been as it
were in an embryo state of existence in the Father, that is, in his
reason, before his generation. But then this is, in fact, merely
the existence of the essence, not the existence of the Son as a
Person. For if the Son did not exist as Son, he did not exist as
a Person, for the Second Person in the Trinity exists by genera
tion from the Father, and is a Son as soon as he is a Person.
Indeed it is evident, from other passages, that Tertullian con
sidered personality to commence upon the generation of the Son.
Thus he says: — "Everything which proceeds from anything is
necessarily the second of that from which it proceeds, but is not
separated. But where there is a second, there are two, and
where there is a third, there are three; for the third is the Spirit
from God and the Son."^ And again he says elsewhere, " We
> Adv. Prax. cc. .5—7. pp. 502, 3.
- Denique ut necessariam [i; e. Sophiam] sensit ad opera mundi, statim ea
[earn] condit et generat in semetipso. Dominus, inquit, condidit me initium
viarum suarum in opera sua ; ante secula fundavit me, prius quam faceret terram ;
prius quam monies collocarentur ; ante omnes autem colies generavit me; prior
autem abysso genita sum. Agnoscat ergo Hermogenes idcirco etiam Sophiam
Dei natam et conditam prsdicari ne quid innatum et inconijitum praeter solum
Deum crederemus. Si enim intra Dominum quod ex ipso et in ipso fuit, sine
initio non fuit : Sophia scilicet ipsius, exinde nata et condita ex s^wo in sensu
Bei ad opera mundi disponenda ccepit agitari : multo magis non capit sine initio
quicquam fuisse quod extra Dominum fuerit. Adv. Hermog. c. 18. p. 2.19.
3 Omne quod prodit ex aliquo secundum sit ejus necesse est de qtio proiJit, non
tamen est separatum. Secundus autem uhi est, duo sunt, et terlius ubi est, tres
sunt ; terlius enim est Spiritus a Deo et Filio. Tertull. adv. Prax. c. 8.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 211
assert two, Father and Son, and now three with the Holy Spirit,
according to the ratio of ceconomy which makes a plurality of
persons." *
This last passage reminds me of the observation previously
made respecting the third summary of the faith given by Tertul
lian, where, as it appeared to me, there was a recognition of the
notion that formed the heresy of Marcellus, viz. that the triper-
sonality of the Godhead, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, was
only a dispensational or oeconomical and temporary mode of ex
istence of the Godhead, for it was the notion of Marcellus that
the Godhead was extended and CQUfracfed according to different
dispensations {oixovofdet;). Had the passage in that summary stood
alone, one might have been contented to affix a different idea to
the words, but in this passage there is clearly a similar state
ment. And in the following the notion is still more fully express
ed. " Observe, therefore, lest you rather destroy the monarchy
[of God] who overturn its arrangement and dispensation, ap
pointed in as many names as God pleased. But it so far re
mains in its own state, though a Trinity be introduced, fhat
it even has to be restored fo the Father by the Son; as the Apos
tle writes concerning the last end, ' when he shall have delivered
up the kingdom to God even the Father.' "^ Here he evident
ly supposes that there might have been, if the Father had so
willed it, more than three persons in the Godhead, and that the
tripersonal state as now existing was not from all eternity, and
was only an oeconomical state.
Ho\^e\cr, be this as it may, his statements respecting the Son
are clearly incorrect.
The reader will observe also that I am not here attributing fo
Tertullian incorrect views on the ground of statements which
admit of an orthodox interpretation, or which may be reconciled
to orthodoxy by a comparison with other passages in his works,
fhout^h in themselves not the most fit expressions, (as Sembler,
for instance has done) but limit my remarks fo those points in
1 Duns quidem di'finimus Patrem et Filium, et jam tres cum Spiritu Sancto,
secundum rationem oeconomiie qvs facit numerum. Adv. Prax. c. 13, p. 507.
See also c. 16. And observe the following; — Qusecunque ergo substantia sermo
nis fuit, illam dico personam, ct illi nomen filii vindico. Adv. Prax. c. 7. p. 504.
2 Vide ergo ne tu poti\is nionarchiam desiruas, qui dispositionem et dispensa-
tionpm ejus evertis in tot nominibus constitntam in qiiot Setts volnit. Adeo au
tem manet in suo statu, licet Trinitas ihfehatur, ut etiam restitui habeat
Palri a Filio. Siquidem Apostolus sciibit de ultimo fine quum tradiderit regnum
Deo et Patri. Adv. Prax. c. 4 p. 502. Observe also the following; — Videmur
[videmus] igitur non oliesse jnonarchiie filium, etsi hodie apud filium est ; quia
et in suo statu est upud filium, et cum suo statu restituetur Patri a filio. Ita earn
nemo hoc nomine de.<truet, si filium admittai, cui et traditam earn a Patre el a
quo quandoque reslituendom Patri constat. Adv. Prax. c. 4. p 502.

212 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
which his views appear (as far as I am able to judge) to have
been incorrect. His view appears to have been that the produc
tion of the Word or Son is an act which must have been per
formed by one already in existence, and therefore that reason
only, and not the Word or Son, can be said to be co-eternal with
the Father. There is an important difference, however, between
his view and that of the Arians, because they spoke of the genera
tion of the Son as a creation, and of the Son as being made from
that which was not (el ovx ovtnv), and of a different essence to the
Father, which is contrary to the views inculcated by Tertullian.
There are perhaps other remarks in these subtile lucubrations of
Tertullian, upon which, if inclined to say all that might be said,
one might be disposed to offer an observation, but some allowance
must be made for the imperfection of human language when ap
plied to such mysteries. However there can be no doubt that
the language of Tertullian savoured more of Platonism than
Apostolicity; nor is this any new idea, for thus speaks Gennadius
of the fifth century, "Nihil ex Trinitatis essentia ad creatura-
rum naturam deducfum, ut Plato et Tertullianus."* And how,
indeed, can any author be depended upon of whom it is confessed
by his most strenuous defenders, that he argued deceitfully, and
cared little what he said of God in refutation of his oppo
nent ?^
Bishop Bull has laboured hard to bring hiin near orthodoxy,
though apparently giving up the hope of effecting more than an
approximation. His view and the difficulties under which it la
bours may be seen in the following passage of Dr. Waterland, in
which it is described. "Tertullian is known fo have dis
tinguished between ratio and sermo, both of them names of the
selfsame Aoyo;, considered at different times under different ca
pacities ; first, as silent and unoperating, alone with the Father ;
afterv/ards proceeding or going forth from the Father, to operate
in the creafion. With this procession he supposes, as do many
OTHERS, the Sonship properly to commence. So that though
the Aoyo; had always existed, yet he became a Son in time, and
in this sense there was a time when the Father had no Son."
(Second Def. Works, vol. iii. p. 101.) Consequently, if this view
is correct, the generation of the Son from the Father was in fact
not a generation but a mere procession from the Father of one
who existed before as a Person, an active and intelligent personal
agent, within him, and therefore the words generation and Son
are used without any proper meaning, and the Second Person in
I De eccles. dogmat. c. 4. Inter. Op. August. eJ. Ben. tom. 8 app. col. 76.
- buLL Def Fid. Kic. iii. 10. 4.

NO DIVINB INFORMANT. 213
the Trinity was not generated by the First. Is this orthodox
doctrine ?'
J proceed to Novatian, who says, — " He therefore, [i. e. the
Son,] when the Father pleased, proceeded from the Father ;
and he who was in the Father, proceeded from the Father ; and
he who was in the Father, as he was from the Father, was af
terwards with the Father, becaustj he proceeded from the Father ;
namely, that Divine Subsistence, whose name is the Word, by
which all things were made, and without which nothing was
made. For all things are after him, because they are by him ;
and he is before all things, since all things were made by hira ;
who proceeded from him by whose will all things were made ;
God, namely, proceeding from God, making a second person,
but not depriving the Father of being the only God."^
He has also a still more objectionable passage, in which he has
undeniably given the unorthodox interpretation to Phil. ii. 7.
" Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be
equal with God." He says, — " Nevertheless this very thing that
he should be both God and Lord of all things, and God, after the
form of God the Father, he obtained from his Father, being born
1 Bishop 13ull supposes that when the Arians at the Council of Nice affirmed
of the Son that he was not before he was begotten, they meant to oppose the no
tion advanced as he thinks, by some at that time, who, while they held a tempo
ral generation for the purposes of creation, frora which the Second Person of the
Trinity was called in Scripture the Son of God, and the first-begotten, maintained
also that he existed before by an eternal generation from the Father, and that
many of the catholics at Nice understanding the term begotten as used by the
Arians to refer to that temporal generation, meant to maintain, in their condem
nation of the Arians, that he was before he was thus begotten. (Def fid. Nic. iii. 9.
2.) But this is clearly disproved by the mode of arguing adopted by the Arians,
wliich shows that they spoke of the original generation of the Son from the Father,
without particular reference to such views. (See Athanas, De Synod. § 16. tom.
1. p. 729. Hilar. De Trin. lib. xii. Basil, adv. Eunom. lib. 2.) Whether there
were any at Nice who held the notion of a temporal generation for the purpose
of creation as distinguished frora the eternal generation, is a point respecting
which we have not the smallest evidence. But certainly Hilary in his replies
to the .Brians treats the question as one relating to the original generation of the
Son, (De Trin. lib. 12,) and particularly opposes any supposition that the catho
lics in condemning the Arian saying, " he was not before he was begotten,"
meant to affirm that he was before he was begotten, and contends against it only
on the ground of its seeming to impugn the eternity of the Son. (Ib. §§ 30, 31.
col. 1127,8.)
2 Hic ergo quando Pater voluit processit ex Patre ; et qui in Patre fuit processit
ex Patre; et qui in Patre fuit, quia ex Patre fuit, cum Patre postmodum fuit,
quia ex Patre processit ; Substantia scilicet ilia divina, cujus nomen est Verbum,
per quod facta sunt omnia, etsine quo factum est nihil. Omnia enim post ipsum
sunt quia per ipsum sunt et merito ipse est ante omnia, quando per ilium facta
sunt omnia, qui processit ex eo ex cujus voluntate facta sunt omnia : Deus utique
procedens ex Deo secundam personam efficiens, sed non eripiens illud Patri quod
unus est Deus. Novatiak. De Trin. c. 31. Apud Tertull. Op. Col. Agripp.
1617. p. 743.

214 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
and brought forth of him. Although, therefore, he was in the
form of God, [non est rapinam arbitratus aequalem se esse Deo;
which, from the remarks that follow, he must have translated, as
some others have done, to this effect ;] he did not think it fell to
his lot fo be equal wifh God. For although he remembered fhat
he was God of God the Father, he never either compared or
likened himself to God the Father, remembering fhat he was of
his own Father, and that he possessed existence because the Fa
ther had given it. Hence, then, both before his incarnation,
and after his assumption of a body, nay, moreover, after the resur
rection itself, he rendered, and still renders, all obedience to the
Father in all things. From which it appears that he never con
templated that any svch divinity fell to his lot, as that he
should equal himself to God the Father ; nay, on the contrary,
being obedient and subject to all his commands and will, he was
content fo take upon himself the form of a servant, &c."* And
again ; — " He is, therefore, God ; but begotten for this very pur
pose, that he might be God. He is also Lord, but born of the
Father for this very purpose, that he might be Lord. "^ Accord
ing to him, therefore, he was not co-eternal with the Father as
God; for he holds his generation, that generation by which he
was made a second person, to have been " when the Father
pleased ;" which was, when the work of creation was fo be per
formed ; and he distinctly states his divinity to be different to that
of the Father.
I must say that I know not what advantage the orthodox
cause can gain, by claiming the writer of these remarks as on
its side. It appears fo rne impossible to explain these expres
sions as applying only to an inequality in the order of existence
in the Persons of the Godhead; and it is somewhat remarkable
that the passage in which he interprets Phil. ii. 7, at least that
part of it which is objectionable, has usually been passed over

1 Hoc ipsum tamen a Patre proprio consecutus, ut omnium et Deus esset et
Dominus esset, et Deus ad formam Dei Patris ex ipso genitus atque prolatus.
Hic ergo quamvis esset in forma Dei non est rapinam arbitratus jequalem se Deo
esse. Quamvis enim se ex Deo Patre Deum esse meminisset, nunquam se Deo
Patri aut comparavit aut contulit, memor se esse ex suo Patre, et hoc ipsum, quod
est, habere se, quia Pater dedisset. Inde denique et ante carnis assumptionem,
sed et post assumptionem corporis, post ipsam prseterea resurrectionem, oranem
Patri in omnibus rebus obedientiam prajstitit pariter ac praestat. Ex quo prohatur
nunquam arbitratum ilium esse rapinam quandam divinitatem, ut aequaret se Pa
tri Deo : quinimo contra omni ipsius imperio et voluntati obediens atque subjectus
etiam ut formam servi susciperet contentus fuit, &c. Nov at. De Trin. c. 17.
p. 734.
2 Est ergo Deus, sed in hoc ipsum genitus ut esset Deus. Est ct Dominus,
ged in hoc ipsum natus ex Patre ut esset Dominus. c. 31.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 115
by those who have attempted to vindicate this treatise as or
thodox. How, moreover, are we to reconcile with the orthodox doctrine
those words of Methodius, where he calls the Son " the most
ancient of aeons, and the first of Archangels ?"*
And as to Lactantius, there can be no question about the
matter, with a writer who can speak thus. — " Since God was
most wise in designing, and most skilful in creating, before he
commenced the creation of the world ; since in him was the
fountain of full and perfect good, as it is always; in order that
from that good a stream might arise and flow widely abroad, he
produced a Spirit similar to himself, who was endued with the
qualities of God the Father. And how he did that, we shall en
deavor to teach in the fourth book. Then he made another, in
whom the disposition of the divine original did not remain 
Him the Greeks call S!«;3oAof [devil,] we criminator [the ac
cuser] .... God, therefore, on commencing the fabric of the
world, set that first and greatest Son over the whole work ; and
made use of him as at once his counsellor and artificer in plan
ning, beautifying, and perfecting things ; because he is perfect
in forethought, and reason, and power."^
More may be found in him elsewhere to the same effects Jt
is useless to attempt to reconcile such statements with the ortho
dox doctrine, and so Bishop Bull admits.
Nay, what says Dr. Cave, who, perhaps, was as well entitled
as any one to givea judgment in the case? — "The errors which
are observable in his writings concerning the divinity and eternal
existence of the Son, concerning the pre-existence of souls and a
future state after this life, concerning the end of the world, and
the thousand years reign, concerning the advent of Elias to turn
many to the worship of God, and other points concerning which
he has spoken obscurely, incautiously, and sometimes dangerously,
will be excused by candid observers on account oithe ignorance
of the age in which he lived about these things, the abstruse
' Tov TTpiff^UTXTOV TUV XtmobV XXI TTpuTOV TUV Apx^^yy^^^V. MeTHOD. CoUVlv. dc-
cem virg. orat. 3a. % 4. Bibl. Patr. ed. Galland. tom. iii. p. 686.
2 Cura esset Deus ad excogitandum prudentissimus, ad faciendum solertissi-
mus, autpquam ordiretur hoc opus mundi : quoniam pleni et consummati boni
tons in ipso erat, sicut est semper, ut ab eo bono tanquam rivus oriretur longe-
que profluerel, produxit similem sui spiritum, qui esset virtulibus Dei Patris prse-
ditus. (juomodo autem id fecerit, in quarto libro docere conabimur. Deinde
fecit alterum in quo indoles divina; stirpis non permansit . . Hunc . .
Grjeci Sixfioxov appellant, nos criminatorem vocamus  Exorsus igilur Deus
fabricam mundi ilium primum et maximum filium praefecit operi uiiiverso, eoque
simul et consiliatore usus est, et artifice, in excogitandis, ornandis, perficiendisque
rebus, quoniam is et providentia et ratione et potestate perfectus est. Lactakt.
Instit. lib. 2. c. 8. ed. Cant. 1685. p 84.
» See Instit. lib, iv. cc. 6, &c.

216 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
nature of the doctrines not yet sufficiently clearly explained by
theologians, nor defined by conciliar determinations, and in which
he had very many qf the Fathers qf the preceding ages in
agreement with him'"^ Similar remarks respecting the Ante-
Nicene Fathers are made by the learned Huetius in his Origen-
iana.'' And to these I need hardly add the name of the still more
learned Petavius. I shall not, indeed, undertake to defend all
the observations made by him on this subject, and believe that
his censures on the Ante-Nicene Fathers may have been too
general, but I must also express my conviction that there is too
much ground for many of his remarks, (in which, indeed, he is
borne out by many other learned men,) aind that it will be quite
time enough for Mr. Newman to attack him as having " shown
that he would rather prove the early Confessors and martyrs to
be heterodox, than that they should exist as a court of appeal
from the decisions of his own church," and having " sacrificed
without remorse Justin, &c., and their brethren to the maintenance
of the infallibility of Rome," (p. 74.) when he has exhibited one
hundredth part of Petavius's ability, and learning, and acquaint
ance with the Fathers. What possible advantage, moreover,
could the Romish cause gain by his showing that many of the
antient Fathers were unorthodox, when Rome vehemently pro
fesses to interpret Scripture only according to the unanimous
consent of the Fathers, and to adhere to those traditions which
are to be found in their writings? Surely Mr. Newman must see
that a proof of the errors of the Ante-Nicene Fathers is anything
but a proof of the infallibility of one who professes to follow them.
Nor is there any foundation for the somewhat similar insinuations
of Bishop Bull. It is evident, indeed, that the Romish cause is on
the whole as much injured by the proof of such a fact as that of
our opponents, for it utterly overthrows the hypothesis upon which
their whole system rests, namely, that there was a development
of the truth as delivered in the oral teaching of the Apostles, and
fuller than what we find in the Scriptures, handed down by all
the catholic Fathers from the time of the Apostles.
I will add one witness more, and that shall be one of the best
of our opponents' own referees, — Bishop Stillingfleet.
" Suppose," says the Bishop, " the question be not concerning
the express articles of this rule of faith, but concerning the sense
and meaning of them, how then are we to find out.the consent of
antiquity ? For they might all agree in the words, and yet have
1 Cave Hist. Liter, sub nom. " Lactantius," vol. i. p. 163. See also his Arti
cles on Origen and Eusebius.
2 Lib- ii. q. 2. %§ 10, 14 and 25. In Op. Orig. ed. Ben. tom. iv.

No DIVINE inpohmant. 217
a different notion of the things. As Petavius at large proves,
(Dogm. Theol. tom. ii. in Praef.) that there was an antient tradi
tion for the substance of the doctrine of the Trinity, and yet he
confesses that most of the writers of the antient church did
differ in their explication of it from that which was only
allowed by the Council of Nice. Andhe grants, (lib. i. c. 8. §
2.) that Arius did follow the opinion of many of the antients
in the main c^f his doctrines, who wei'e guilty of the same error
that he was before the matter was thoroughly discussed.
Here now arises the greatest difficulty io me in this point of
tradition ; the usefulness of it lam told is for explaining the sense
of Scripture; but there begins a controversy in the church about
the explication of the doctrine of the Trinity; I desire to know
whether Vincentius his rules will help us here ? It is pleaded by
S. Hierome, (Apol. c. Ruffin. lib. ii.) and others, ' That the writers
of the Church might err in this matter, or speak unwarily in it
before the matter came to be thoroughly discussed.' If so, how
COMES THE TESTIMONY OF ERRONEOUS OR UNWARY WRITERS TO BE
THE CERTAIN MEANS OF GIVING THE SENSE OF SCRIPTURE ? And in
mostof the controversies of the Church, this way hath been used
to takeoff the testimony of persons who writ before the contro
versy began, and spake differently of the matter in debate. I
do not deny the truth of the allegation in behalf of those persons,
but to my understanding it plainly shows the incompetency
of tradition for giving a certain sense of Scripture, when
thai tradition is to be taken from the writers of the foregoing
ages ; and if this had been the only way of confuting Arius, it is
a great question how he could ever have been condemned if
Petavius or S. Hierome say true."*
Moreover, if we are bound to suppose that all the Ante-
Nicene Fathers nominally belonging to the catholic church were
opposed to the views of Arius, how is it that all the bishops of
the church did not oppose his heresy when first promulgated,
which we find was far from being the case ?'' And, although the
favourers of his views were in a, very inconsiderable minority at
Nice, yet in a very few years we find them the triumphant
party. Views quite as unorthodox were, as we have seen, pro
mulgated by Origen without any recorded judgment, as far as
we know, of the church of his time and long after against them.
In fact, whatever errors may have arisen in the church, such an
1 Answer to several Treat, pp. 245, 6. Second edition 1674. Nor are bis
statements in his subsequent work on the doctrine of the Trinity contradictory
to these remarks, for they are made with reference to those who looked upon
Christ as a mere man, and do not assert any consent of Fathers for the full or
thodox doctrine of the Trinity against Arian or Semiarian errors.
3 See Sozomen. Hist, lib. i. c. 14.
VOL. I. T

218 patristical TRADITION
assembly as a General Council would hardly have been tolerated
before, and when error was patronized by some able and influ
ential bishop, as for instance Origen, a condemnation even in
a local Council was hardly to be expected. For the judgment
at Nice we are indebted entirely to the interference of Con
stantine, who hoped by that means to put an end fo the dispute.
And much are we indebted to the first Christian Emperor, for
providing us wifh such a confirmation of the orthodox faith as
is to be found in the recorded judgment, given at Nice, of so
many learned and venerable prelates from all parts of the world.
But that all the prelates and doctors of the nominal Christian
church for the three preceding centuries were precisely of the
sentiments of the majority of this Council, is a supposition ut
terly unnecessary for any good purpose, improbable in theory,
and contradicted by facts.
In selecting the extracts given above from the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, I have endeavored to view the matter with an impartial
eye, and to give those passages which should bring before the
reader the real views of those Fathers on the point in question.
Had it been my object merely to make out a case against them,
it would have been easy to have made the charge appear still
heavier. Nay, I will not hesitate to say, that without fully con
sidering the circumstances of the times, and carefully comparing
their expressions one with another, so as to judge from them as
a whole, as far as we can, what their views really were, it would
be impossible not to suppose them to have fallen more deeply
into error than is here laid to their charge. And hence it is
that such a plausible case has often been made out against them,
and even by those who were themselves on the orthodox side.
But I readily admit, that many such charges have been made
without a sufficient foundation.
As it respects many of the passages quoted against them, though
the words may be different fo those which vi'ere afterwards used
on the subject, and the expressions be even such as were after
wards carefully avoided by the orthodox, when it was found how
they were wrested by heretics to an unorthodox meaning, yet the
meaning of those who used them must be judged of by their gene
ral doctrine on the subject. And further with respect to many
others, there is a misunderstanding in the case arising from men
not fully comprehending the true nature of the orthodox doctrine.
For instance, when the early Fathers speak of the Son minister
ing to the Father in the creation of the world, (using such wt)rds
as wToapyeiv,) it is sometimes intimated that this is opposed to that
doctrine, whereas it is capable of a very orthodox interpretation,
though, in after times, such phrases might be rejected by some
from the use which had been made of them by heretics. For as

NO DIVINE INPORIIANT. 2f9
the Father is the Fountain of the Godhead, and alone self-existent
and underived, so every act of the Godhead may be said to pro
ceed originally from the Father, and to be performed through
the ministration of the Son, who, as derived from the Father, may
be said to minister fo the Father in the performance of the act,
as the stream dispenses the blessings derived from the fountain,
(an imperfect but yet to a certain extent correct and useful si
militude.), And as the essence of the stream is the same as that
of the fountain, and all the goodness, virtues, and power residing
in the fountain, are also in the stream, without any difference or
inequality, so is it in the case of the Son compared with the Fa
ther. But few deny that as it respects the source and order of
existence, the Father is prior to the Son. And according fo this
difference in the order of their existence, are we to contemplate
the acts of the Godhead. With the Father, as the Source of the
Godhead, originate all things. Hence it is said by Origen, that
as it respects the Father, it would be said, all things were made
iix' avrov, but as it respects the Son, that all things were made
3(' auTou. And it would be unjust to accuse him of making the
Son inferior to the Father by this, as it respects his essence.
I have already stated my belief that, as it respects the divinity
of our Lord, against the Socinians, the testimony of the catholic
Fathers that remain to us is unanimous, and I think their wri
tings render it highly probable that most of them held the doc
trine of his consubstantiality, and his being generated from the
Father as one of the same essence with him, and not as one
created by the Father. But I must add that it is impossible to
establish the latter point without a nice and laborious critical in
vestigation of the works of the Fathers, and an accurate compa
rison of the apparently discrepant statements often to be met
with in the same Father, by which we may ascertain what in
all probability his views really were. And with respect to some
it is next to impossible to arrive at any certain conclusion, or at
least we must suppose that either their works have been altered,
or that their views were different at diffl^rent times. Such is the
case with Origen, who was accused by many who lived near his
own time of having spoken of the Son erroneously. His ortho
doxy, indeed, is a matter much disputed both in antient and mo
dern times. And I must add, that in my humble judgment the
evidence against him overwhelmingly preponderates. And the
same must be said of Eusebius. And with respect to some of
them there is no proof to be adduced either on one side or the
other. And others must beyond doubt be given up.
What becomes then, I would ask, of the notion of our oppo
nents, that a correct report of the full orthodox doctrine in all
vital points, as delivered orally by the Apostles, was handed

220 patristical tradition
down (so far as the subject is touched upon) by all the catholic
writers of the primitive church? Instead of any such report,
we find that very many of these writers spoke at least most
unguardedly and incorrectly, as if they had imbibed error.
Did the Apostles speak so? If not, how can we learn what the
Apostles delivered from those who, even if their sentiments were
orthodox, mangled and misrepresented the tradition they had
received, so as to make their account of it look like error ?
Surely it is both unfair and unwise to boast of the consent of
all the Fathers as a necessary part of the rule of faith in vital
points, when the fact is, that if your reader goes to verify your
statements, so far from finding any such consentient delivery of
them, he finds many of these Fathers speaking, to say the least,
most unguardedly and incorrectly, and others undeniably unor
thodox. And yet notwithstanding this, we are directed to this sup
posed consent, — a consent founded, as far as it is obtainable,
upon a nice critical examination of apparently discrepant pas
sages and incorrect and ambiguous statements, — as the only
clear dehvery of the fundamentals of the faith, the necessary
and infallible interpreter of the word of God.
For'my own part, so far from thinking that there is in these
authors anything like a consentient delivery of the full ortho
dox doctrine in fundamental points, I believe there would be
much danger in setting down one not well grounded in the faith
as delivered in the Holy Scriptures to learn the faith from these
authors; not from its not being delivered clearly in one or other of
them, but from its being delivered by most imperfectly, and by
others erroneously, and almost always mixed up with various
strange notions and conceits.
Moreover, where we cannot establish catholic consent for the
first three centuries we cannot establish it at all. Tbe testi
mony of even the Nicene Council could at most establish the
consent of that age for the doctrine ; and not long after the
Arian doctrine was affirmed by a General Co;uncil, where there
were twice as many bishops present as were assembled at Nice.
And how happens it, by the way, that we hear nothing of this
latter Council, when the General Councils of the church are
enumerated ? When Augustine was arguing with an Arian, he
admitted that his opponent's appeal to the latter Council would
be as good as his own to that of Nice, and therefore that they
must go to some other quarter to decide the matter, and that
quarter was Scripture.*
It is quite true that large demands are made upon us for our
> See August, contr. Maxim, lib. 2. u. 14.

NO divine informant. 221
belief that the Nicene Council and Athanasius claimed catholic
consent for the doctrine established at Nice, and decided every
thing by it; but with how little reason I shall show hereafter.*
And if they had claimed if, their claim would have been a mere
claim, for proof of it they could not have. But the fact is that
they did not make any such claim.
And this leads me to notice another fact which appears to me
of considerable weight in this matter; viz. that the Fathers
of the fourth and succeeding centuries had no such scruples
about calling in question the orthodoxy of earlier Fathers,
though they died in the communion of the church, as some have
now, which nevertheless they must have felt if they had enter
tained this notion of catholic consent being part "of the rule of
faith. This is a fact, therefore, be it observed, which strongly
affects two points. For it not only indicates that there was no
such consent as is fancied, among the Fathers of the first three
centuries, but also that the succeeding Fathers, who are appealed
to by our opponents as supporting their views of tradition, held
no such notions. It appears to me a proof of the latter point
which it is utterly impossible to get rid of.
And now for the proof that they did so speak of some of the
earlier Fathers. With respect to Origen, it will not be denied that
the orthodoxy of his views was almost universally denied by these
Fathers, and that Jerome, though originally taking his part, be
came afterwards his violent accuser, which certainly looks but
ill for Origen's cause. Nay, even Dionysius of Alexandria, whom
we have quoted above, as having in one place expressed the ortho
dox doctrine very clearly, is strongly reprehended by Basil and
Gennadius on this head, notwithstanding that they must have
been well aware of his Letter in his own defence to Dionysius of
Rome, when called upon for an explanation of some of his state
ments, which indeed is expressly noticed by Basil. Thus is he
spoken of by Basil ; " As it respects your inquiries concerning the
writings of Dionysius, they have reached us, and that in great
numbers. But we have them not at hand, and therefore have
not sent them. But our opinion is this. We do not admire all
the writings of that man. And there are some which we alto
gether disapprove. For I might almost say, that of that impious
heresy which is now so rife, I mean the Anomcean, he, as far as
we know, was the first that supplied the seeds. But I think that
the cause of this was not any error in his own views, but his
vehement desire to oppose SabelUus. I am therefore in the habit
of comparing him to a gardener straightening a young plant that

222 patristical tradition
is bent, and by drawing it back too much missing the middle and
leading away the plant in the contrary direction. Something
like this we find to have happened to thia man. For opposing
vehemently the impiety of the Libyan, he was unconsciously car
ried himself into an opposite error by his vehement opposition ;
and when it was sufficient for him to show that the Father and
Son were not the same subjectively,* and thus to gain the victory
against the blasphemer, he, that he might most clearly triumph
and gain more than a victory, not only lays down a distinction of
hypostases, but also a difference of essence, and degrees of power,
and diversity of glory." So that it thus happened, that he ex
changed one error for another, and erred from correct doctrine.
Thus, then, he is inconsistent in his writings; at one time taking
away the consubstantiality on account of him who used the term
improperly so as to destroy the hypostases, at another time ad
mitting it in what he wrote in his own defence to his namesake.'
Moreover, concerning the Spirit also, he has uttered language by
no means suitable to the Spirit, separating it from that God
head that is to be ivorshipped, and numbering it among in
ferior beings with created and ministrative nature.* Such is
this man. "^
Such is the testimony of Basil ; and Gennadius of Marseilles
calls him the fountain of the Arian heresy.^ Can it be denied,
then, that even Dionysius of Alexandria wrote respecting the Son,
so as apparently to support error ; and fhat such a fact shows us
that, instead of finding in the early Fathers an accurate report of
Apostolical doctrine, we have often, even in the case of those who
may have been orthodox, language very much opposed to it?
They either held different sentiments at different times, or ex-

1 Ou TXUTOV TU UTTOXitJUiVU IlXTHp XAI UtOS.
1 OuX iripoTHTA /AOVOV TfflV VTTOTTXtTiav TtBiTAt, ct?,Xa XXt OUtTlXS SlA^opXY, Xai SuVX/Aims
li^ifTtv xxt Sa^HS TTxpxxxxynv.
2 TaUTH TOl xxt TTXVTcSxTTOS iTTtV iV TOIS (TUyypX/A/AXiTtV, VUV /AiV AVXtpUV TO 0/lOOUITtOV,
StX TOV irr' xBiTHO-U Tm UTTOtrTXTiUV XaXUS XUrU XiXpH/AiVOV. vuv Si TTpOffli/AiVOS fiV ots XTTO-
XoyilTXt TTpos Toy o/imu/Aoi.
3 ripOS Si TOUTOIS XXi TTipt TOU TVViU/AXTOS A^HXi <payXS, HXltTTX TTptTTOUlTXS TU UViUjUXTl.
THS TTpOirXVVOU/AiVHS XUTO BiOTHTOS i^opi^UV, XXI XATUTTOU TH XTIITTH XXt XilTOUpyU ^UffU CTUV'
ApiB/Am. With this testimony it is difficult to know what to determine respecting
the genuineness of the " LeUer to Paul of Samosala," attributed to Dionysius,
which on other grounds is, as Dr. Cave tells us, "suspected by many" (multis
suspecta). The testimonies it contains to the true and proper divinity (in the
highest sense of the term) of the Son and Holy Spirit are very strong and clear.
If it he his, we must suppose either that the expressions here referred to by Basil
were unintentionally incorrect, or that his views underwent some change.
4 Ba«i! M. Ep. 9. Op. ed. Ben. tom. iii. pp. 90, 91.
6 Nihil creatum aut serviens in Trinitate credendum ut vult Dionysius fons
Arii. Geniad. De eccles. dogmat. c. 4. Inter Op. Augustin. ed. Ben. tom. 8.
App. col. 76.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 223
pressed themselves so imperfectly and incorrectly, as to appear to
support error, even when they did not intend it.
In the same condition with Dionysius stands Theognostus, who,
although he is quoted by Athanasius, as supporting the doctrine of
the Son's consubstantiality, is reprehended by Gregory Nyssen for
very opposite doctrine. " Neither [says Gregory Nyssen] was
Eunomius alone deceived in this, &c. ; but we may find language
equivalent to his in the books of Theognostus, who says that God,
when he wished to construct the universe, first appointed his Son
as a Certain rule of workmanship."*
The same charge is repeated, with various weighty additions,
by Photius, who ctccuses him of calling the Son a creature (x.rtTft»),
and asserting that he has rule only over rational beings; and also
of speaking, in an unorthodox way, of the Holy Spirit.''
So the work of Novatian on the Trinity above quoted, is ac
cused by Ruffinus (who attributes it to Tertullian) of being unor
thodox on the subject of the Holy Spirit, and he charges the Mace
donians with having exposed it for sale at a low price at Constan
tinople, under the name of Cyprian.*
And of Lactantius, we have (as the reader will remember) this
account given us by Jerome. "Lactantius in his writings, and
particularly in his letters to Demetrian, altogether denies the
entity of the Holy Spirit; and, by a Jewish error, says that he is
to be referred either to the Father or the Son ; and that the holi
ness of each Person is pointed out under his name."* And again;
" Many, through ignorance of the Scriptures, assert (as also
Firmianus does in the eighth book of his Letters to Demetrian,)
that the Father and Son are often called the Holy Spirit. And
while we ought clearly to believe in a Trinity, they taking away
the third Person, hold it to be not a hypostasis of the Trinity, but
a name."^ And Augustine, having observed that to the Scriptures alone
he had learned to give such honour as to suppose the writers of
them certainly inerrable, adds, of all other writers, — '¦' But others,
however distinguished they may be for holiness and learning, I so
read as not to think anything true, because they thought it to be
so, but because they are able to persuade me, either by those
1 Ou /AOyoS sv TOUTU TTiTTXXVHTXt XXTX THV XTOTTIXV TOU Soy/IATOS 0 Euyo/AIOS' XXx' tlTTt
Xll IV TOIS QtoyvMna TTiTTovH/Aiyois TO iToy iupuv OS <f»ir; tov ©(ov ^ouxo/Aiioy to Si to ttav
KxTxcxiuxuxi, TTpuTov TOV u'tov oiovu TtVX xxvoyx THS Sn/Aioupyixs TTpouTrotTTHirxtrBai. Contr.
Eunom. Orat. 3a. tom. ii. p. 132. ed. 1615.
2 Photii Biblioth. Art. 107. col. 280. ed. 1653.
» Apol. pro. Orig. Inter Op. Orig. ed. Ben. tom. 4. App. p. 53. Jerome cor
rects him in his reply, as far as respects the name of the author, intimating that
U wa« known to be Novatian's.
* See p. iy5. above.
' See p. 195. above.

22-t PATRISTICAL TRADITION
canonical authors, or by some probable reason, that it is
agreeable to the truth'"^
Now, had Augustine held our opponents' doctrine of" catholic
consent," here would have been the fairest possible opportunity
for enforcing if ; indeed, it would have been impossible for him to
have passed it over; but, on the contrary, he tells us that he re
ceives no doctrine from any other source but the Scriptures,
except by being persuaded of its truth, either by arguments drawn
from the Scriptures, or by reason.
We see, then, that these Fathers made no scruple to find fault
with the Fathers that preceded them, and to accuse them of
heterodoxy, even on fundamental points; and even where they
indulged the hope that the heterodoxy of their writings was ra
ther the result of haste or carelessness, or the desire of victory
over their opponents, than their own convictions, they hesitated
not to pronounce them to be very unfit guides, on account of fhat
inaccuracy in their statements. How is if, then, that we are now
requested to take for granted — aye, and that even upon the au
thority of these very Fathers of tbe fourth and succeeding centu
ries — that all the catholic writers of the first three centuries
must have held the faith correctly in all fundamental points; and
moreover, must have expressed it so correctly in their writings,
that their consent is, in fundameiitals, a necessary and infallible
guide in the interpretation of Scripture?
It is quite true that these Fathers may have held, and proba
bly did hold, that there had been in the church a succession of
those who had delivered the true doctrine. And so do we. And
hence it is that we admit the principle, that if you take all the
remains of the primitive church for the first few centuries, (our
church seems generally held to include about the first five cen
turies,) you will find among them a correct statement of the true
orthodox doctrine in all fundamental and important points. And
thus those writings constitute a useful practical check against
the inroads of error, of Popish novelties, and fanatical conceits.
But the notion of our being able lo obtain catholic consent for the
whole orthodox faith, or even the consent of the Fathers that re
main fo us after the assiduous weeding that the patristical wri
tings have in all probability undergone, and which has left us,
out of the "innumerable" authors of the first three centuries,
the mutilated remains of about twenty, is both utterly opposed
to the statements of the Fathers themselves, and never could

1 Alios autem ita lego, ut quantalibet sanctitate doctrinaque prspolleant, non
ideo verum putem quia ipsi ita senserunt, sed quia mihi vel per illos auctores
canonicns, vel probabili ratione. quod a vero nnn abhorreat, persuadere potuerunt.
Epi^t. ad Hieron. 82. (al- 19 ) Tom. 2. col. 190. ed. Bened.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 225
dwell for a moment in the mind of any one fully acquainted with
their writings, and viewing them with an impartial eye. It may
be a very pretty theory viewed at a distance, but it will not stand
the test of examination. There is hardly one, perhaps not one,
single point of doctrine now controverted, in which an adversary
of the orthodox doctrine could not bring forward some plausible
patristical evidence in his favour.
How, I would ask, is it possible to deny this, when we see such
a man as Photius, whose learning, judgment, extensive reading,
and varied qualifications for pronouncing an opinion, are unde
niable,* sitting down to give an account of the writings of the
Fathers, which he possessed apparently to a much greater extent
than are now extant, and accusing one and another of them of
erroneous statements in the most fundamental points?'' To at
tribute this to want of judgment and power of discrimination is
out of the question. Against the practice of judging from insu
lated passages he particularly protests.' To attribute it to par
tiality is equally unreasonable, for what object had he to gain by
running them down? None. How, then, are we to account for
it? Clearly from the fact that these Fathers have expressed
themselves most erroneously; and if, in the judgment of charity, we
can hope that they did not entertain the sentiments they appear
to have expressed, but that their expressions are to be set down
to carelessness, or a desire of victory over their apponents, it is,
as Phocius says, but a very poor defence,* and certainly disqauli-
fies them from being considered safe guides, and shuts out the
possibility of catholic consent.
To say the least, then, I would ask. When learned men, even
on the orthodox side, are disagreed on the question of the ortho
doxy of these Fathers, even in fundamentals; when it is allowed
by all to require much consideration, and a nice balancing of
seemingly opposite passages, to arrive at the sentiments of these
authors; when it is a common saying that the Fathers often
thought more correctly than they spoke,' which is just the ex
pression of a charitable hope, that though their writings seem to
defend error, they did not mean to do so, and shows how little
fitted their writings are to be a standard of appeal; when it is
' Cave, speaking of his Bibliotheca, to which work I am here alluding more
particularly, says, — "Opus in quo ingenii acumen, judicii gravitatem, legentis
industriam an lectionis varietatem quis magis admiratur baud facile dixerim."
Hist. Lit. ii. p. 48.
2 See his observations on Origen, Theognostus, Pierius, Methodius, &c,
a See his Biblioth. Art. 225 on Eulogius, col. 761. ed. 1653.
* Phot. Biblioth. Art. 107. De Theognosto, col. 280. ed. 1653.
' Jam dudum observarunt Docti, Patres sjepenumero rectius sensisse quam lo-
cutos fuisse. Lumper, Hist. Crit. Patr. vol. 3, p, 157.

226 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
allowed that some of them must be admitted to have spoken very
indiscreetly and incorrectly, and some are altogether given up, is
it not preposterous to talk of catholic consent as the necessary
and infallible interpreter of Scripture, and even part of the rule
of faith ? Is it not absurd to maintain that there is a consentient
testimony in the Fathers on such points, delivering the^ faith
more clearly than the Scripture ? And it is worth remarking,
that it was upon the testimony of these very Fathers that Dr.
Clark and Mr. Whiston grounded their unorthodox notions on
this subject, and indeed from them they appear to have derived
them. It is, I admit, a disappointment to find such inaccuracies and
discrepancies, even in the highest points of faith, in the few re
mains that have come down to us of the earliest instructors of
the Christian church. It renders the argument from them, as
far as those discrepancies extend, very different to what it would
have been had we found them giving a clear consentient testi
mony to the full orthodox faith.
Nor can it be justly urged that the unorthodox statements of
a few of the Fathers are of no moment, because compared wifh
the small number that remain to us, they are an important part
of the whole. It is easy to say that a few authors are as nothing
compared with the sentiments of the great body of the church;
but unfortunately we have only the testimony of a few authors
as to what those sentiments were, and consequently a discrepan
cy in the statements of those that remain leaves us altogether
uncertain in the matter.
Now I am quite aware that there will be some who will be
very impatient at any attempt to show that there is no consent
of Fathers even on points of the greatest moment. Of such I
would merely beg to ask one question, — Of what possible con
sequence can it be to us that out of some twenty Or twenty-five
authors that happen to remain to us of the primitive church,
there are a few that seem very much to have misapprehended
the truth in some important points ? That it prevents our hav
ing anything that we can call an infallible rule by which to bind
the consciences of men to believe more than Scripture reveals,
or to believe that any certain patristical interpretation of Scrip
ture is infallibly true, is not to be denied. And this to those who
love to wield the sceptre of authority over others, is no doubt irk
some. But I cannot see any cause for alarm in it, or fhat it ex
poses the truth to any danger. Here are certain philosophizing
Christians, converts perhaps from Paganism, speaking very in
correctly upon points connected with the doctrine of the Trini
ty. What then? Is it any matter for surprise? What may
have passed upon the subject in the primitive church we know

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 227
not. And if we did know, circumstances may easily haTe pre
cluded any general or even synodical expression of feeling on
the matter. Why we should labour and toil to show that they
did not mean what their expressions sefem to imply, or that their
writings must be corrupted, or why we should suppose the truth
endangered by their errors, I know not. I think we may ven
ture to affirm, that even in modern times very dangerous tenets
may be propagated by writers without the church moving to con
demn them. At any rate, my opponents cannot condemn me for
quoting these passages, for their theory is, that the truth is de
livered obscurely in Scripture, but clearly in the Fathers. They
cannot surely then object to men being made acquainted with
those clear expositions (as they think them) of the orthodox faith.
If they are so clear they can do no harm, though quoted by one
who is dull enough to misapprehend them.
Having entered so fully into the evidence against any supposed
consent of the Fathers in the very highest points, I shall be more
brief as it respects the others I purpose noticing.
To go through all the points on which even the Fathers that
remain to us are divided in sentiment, would be to go through
almost all, if not all, the points of Christian doctrine, except per
haps such as are in so many words laid down in the Apostles'
Creed. I will instance, however, a few.
And first, the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit
from the Father and the Son. It will not, I conceive, be de
nied, that to obtain any clear evidence in favour of this doctrine
from the works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers is impossible, and
that, with the exception of such passages as fhat of Origen
quoted above, in which the Holy Spirit is represented as being
one of the things made by the Son,* wherever the relation of the
Holy Spirit fo the other Persons of the Godhead is mentioned,
the expressions used would rather favour the doctrine maintained
by the Greek Church of the procession from the Father only.
And when the point came fo be discussed, there was a great di
vision of opinion on the subject, the majority apparently holding
the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father
and the Son, but others, as Theodoret, maintaining that the
Spirit proceeded from the Father only. Thus Theodoret says, —
" That the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, if he [i. e. Cyril] means
as of the same nature, and proceeding from the Father, we con
fess it too, and receive it as an orthodox saying; but if he means
it in the sense of his being from the Son, or as having his subsis
tence through the Son, we shall reject this as blasphemous and
' See p. 1 93 above.

228 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
impious."' And itis maintained by the adherents of this doctrine
in the Greek Church, that this is the true catholic doctrine of
the church. Thus Michael Psellus, who wrote in the eleventh
century, says, — "The holy and catholic church holds that the
Spirit proceeds from the Father only, and not from the Son.""
And certainly as far as patristical testimony is concerned,
it forms a strong negative argument in favour of those who deny
the procession from the Son, that the Creed as agreed upon at
the Council of Constantinople, had only the words, " who pro
ceedeth from the Father ;" the words " and the Son" having
been added long after by the Latins.^
Others of the Greek Fathers appear to have approached near
er the doctrine of the Latin church in this point than Theodoret,
but hardly any of the antient Greek Fathers, as far as I am
aware, held properly the procession from the Son.
This surely is another proof that the notion that there was a
full and correct report of all the important doctrines of Christi
anity handed down by the consentient testimony of the Fathers
of each age is a mere dream of the imagination, completely dis
proved by the facts of the case.
The same may be said of the Nestorian and Eutychian here
sies. The defenders of these heresies stoutly maintained that the
primitive Fathers were in their favour, as we shall hereafter
show ; and this appeal, in the absence of the testimonies they ad
duced, it is but idle to treat as the mere falsehood of heretics.
Nay, Theodoret, one of the most learned of the Greek Fathers,
when denying the hyposfafical union of the divine and human
natures in Christ, which was the very essence of the Nestorian
heresy, says, " the hyposfafical union we altogether reject, as
outlandish and foreign to the divine Scriptures and the Fathers
who have interpreted them."*
Let us next inquire whether these Fathers bore a consentient
testimony on the points connected with what are now called
Pelagian errors. So far from it, that we find many passages in
them very pointedly in favour of those errors.
1 iJiop Si TO Hyiu/itx TOU *Tiou, it /Aiv us 0/Aoqiuis xxt ix TlxTpos tXTTOptUO/ASVOV i<pH, myo/AO-
xoynao/Atv, xxt anf iun^n Si^o/AiBx thv tpmnv a Si us f| ^Ttou, h SC *Tiov thv urrx/i^iv ix^v,
us ^xxir^H/Aov TOUTO XXI us Suo-Tifiis XTToppi.\.o/Aiv. Theodoret. Rcpr. Anathem. Cy
rili. adv. Anath. 9. Op. tom. v. p. 47. ed. Schuize.
2 <H XytX xxt XxBoXixA "ExxXttcriA Soy/AXTl^it  to TTViV/AX iX /AOVOU TOU TlATpo^
fXTTOpiUTOI, xxx' ouxt «« TOU 'TlOU. Cap. Thcol. c. 10. p. 157.
» See Pearson on the Creed, Art. 8, (pp. 486, 7. Dobson) and Burton's Testim.
to Doctr. of Trin. p. 144.
4 TuV XxB' VTro^TXrty IvUTIV TTXVTATTXfTty xyvoou/Aiv, as ^iVHV xxt AXXO^UXoy TMV Biim ypA-
^m xxt Totv TAUTXs Hp/AHviuxoTuy TTATipctv. TheodOhkt. Rcpr. Anathem. Cyrili. Op.
tom. V. p. 10. Schuize. And see the obseivations of Garnier, ib. ^p. 464 and
478, &c.

NO DIVINB INFORMANT. 229
Thus Clement of Alexandria, when disputing against the
Tatianists, says, " Let them tell us where the newborn infant
hath committed fornication, or how one who has done nothing
hath fallen under Adam's curse,"^ where in effect the doctrine
of original sin is clearly denied.
As it respects the doctrine of freewill, it is notorious that the
early Fathers have often expressed themselves most erroneously
on the subject. It is satisfactory, however, to be able to add that
most of them have done so inconsistently with their own state
ments in other passages. On this matter I know not that I can
do better than quote the following passage from the learned Bi
shop Morton, which probably contains a fair and just view of the
case, and to which I the rather refer the reader, because Bishop
Morton is not only an able judge on the point, but also one of
our opponents' favourite witnesses. In his reply to the Romish
Apologie, in which a sarcastic allusion had been made to the
complaints of the Protestants as to the erroneous statements of
some of the Fathers on this point, he speaks thus, — " The cen
sure which the judicious Protestants have passed upon antient
authors is not an universal taxation of all, but yet of many.
Now, if the Apologists had not in this their opposition rather
affected (as may be feared) seducement than judgment, they
might have taught their reader from theirown Sixtus Senensis, and
from three of their principal Jesuits, that in the root of the doc
trine of freewill, ' Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, Euthymius,
(Ecumenius, Ammonius, and most of others, especially in the
Greek church, did yield too much unto the power of nature in
the free will of man.' And in this and other doctrines of affini-
tie therewith did seem to have ' inclined, contrarie unto Scrip
ture, unto the error of the Pelagians.' Wherein we easily per
ceive with what prejudice the Apologists have been transported
thus to traduce Protestants as being injurious in that taxation,
wherein by the judgment of their own Jesuits they stand justi
fiable unto every conscience of man. Nevertheless we do not
so judge the Fathers as herein damnably erroneous, hut so far
EXCUSE them, as we shall be able to show, that the censured
Fathers were but inconstantly erroneous in their doctrine of Free
will, who did often deliver unto us concerning it most wholesome
receipts. The Protestant authors, viz. the Centurists and Sculfe-
tus in the places alleged by the Apologists, have particularly
and by name observed that Justinus, Iren^us, Clemens, Tertullian,
1 A£yiTU!TAy HfllV, TTOU KTOpViUC-iV TO yiVVnBiV TTAlStoy, H TTUS UTTO THV TOU ASx/a UTTOTTiTTTte-
XIV xpxv TO |U»9iv tvifyHtrxv. Strom, lib. iii. pp. 556, 7. ed. Potter. And if we are
to suppose that the work called " Hypotyposes," attributed to him, and mention
ed by Photius, was really his, he is chargeable with statements far more unortho
dox than this
VOL I. ^

230 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
Origen, Cyprian, and others, albeit many times they pleaded
for the freewill of the corrupt nature of man. yet were lliey
SOMETIME reduced unto the more orfhodoxal hold, writing there
of more commodiously." And he adds his belief that "the oc
casion of this difference" was " a whirlwind of contrary heresies,''
" for the overthrow of which some Fathers did contr arily yield
too much unto the power of the will."^
This passage presents us, I believe, wifh the true state of the
case, drawn by one inclined to take a charitable and favourable
view of what the Fathers have delivered, but never dreaming of
the notion that their consent was part of the rule of faith, and
a necessary guide to the right interpretation of Scripture, and
therefore giving an impartial view of their statements.'' And it
is obvious that if this passage gives us at all a correct view of the
case, it is absurd to think of deriving any thing like a consentient
testimony from them in favour of the orthodox doctrine, when
they have contradicted themselves in the matter, and some of
them spoken more frequently in favour of the erroneous than of
the orthodox doctrine. That there is a testimony in them in
favour of the orthodox doctrine is a proposition for which we con
tend, but that there is a consistent and consentient testimony
pervading the whole of them is what we wholly deny, and what
is altogether opposed to the plain facts of the case. And thus
again, in. this most important point, instead of obtaining in them
a sure interpreter of Scripture and judge of controversies, we
are compelled to make Scripture the judge of their controversies,
and even the judge between the contradictory statements of the
same individual.
I will give one more example on this head, viz. the interesting
and important question as to the intermediate state of the souls
of the just between death and the resurrection. And as it is
a point which has been less fully discussed than those already
mentioned, and which can hardly fail to be interesting to the
reader, I will enter more at large into it, especially as it is a re
markable instance how clearly and strongly a doctrine may be
laid down by primitive Fathers, and defended by a large body of
them, which yet was not held by others, and consequently a proof
how easily we may be deceived when concluding, that because a
doctrine was held by those whose works happen to remain, that
is, by those of them who have mentioned the subject, therefore,
it must have been held by the universal church.

1 Mortoh's Catholique Appeal for Protestants, pp. !20I, 2.
2 This view is abundantly confirmed by our learned Dr. Whitaker, in h is Trea
tise De peccato originali, lib. ii c. 2, but Bishop Morton is one nf our opponents'
own witnesses for the doctrine of our church on this whole subject.

wo DIVINE INFORMANT. 231
On this point then — viz. the intermediate state of the souls of
the just between death and the resurrection —
We find Irenaeus thus speaking; — "Since the Lord departed
to the valley of the shadow of death [alluding apparently to
Psa. xxiii. 4.] where the souls of the dead were, and then after
wards rose in the body, and after his resurrection was taken
up; it is manifest that the souls of his disciples also, on whose
account the Lord did these things, go away to the place [or, in
visible place] appointed for them by God, and there dwell until
the resurrection, awaiting the resurrection; and then having
had their bodies restored to them, and risen perfectly, that is,
wifh their bodies, even as the Lord arose, shall thus come to the
vision of God."* And in the context, he calls the opinions of
those who supposed that the souls of believers enjoyed the vision
of God immediately after their death heretical.
The same doctrine is delivered by Justin Martyr, who in his
Dialogue with Trypho, says, that " the souls of the pious re
main somewhere in a better sort of place, and the unjust and
wicked souls in a worse, awaiting the time of the judgment."^
And he, like Irena?us, classes the doctrine that the souls of the
just are immediately received info heaven among the notions of
the heretics ; — " If," he says, " ye meet with some who are called
Christians, who do not admit this, [i. e. the doctrine of the mil
lennium]  and who say that there is no resurrection of
the dead, but fhat as soon as they die, their .wuls are taken
up into heaven, you must not suppose them to be Christians."*
Here, doubtless, the gravamen of the heresy was in denying the
resurrection, but neverthel'ess, the doctrine that the souls of the
just are received at once into heaven, is part of the doctrine
here reprehended as heretical.
So, also, Tertullian. " But if Christ, who was God, because
he was also man, having died according to the Scriptures, and
been buried according to the same, complied also with this law,
' Quum enim Dominus in medio umbrae mortis abierit, ubi animx mortuorum
erant, post deinde corporaliter resurrexit, et post resurrectionem assumtus est,
manifestum est quia et discipulorum ejus, propter quos et haec operatus est Domi
nus, ai 4'^^'*'^ ATTipx'rvTxi us TOV TOTTov [invisibilcm locum. Vet. Lat. int. '\ tov upiu-
[AiVOV AUTXIS XTTO TOU QiOU, XXKil /AiX/t THS CtVitO'Tit3"££^f ItiOlTUITi, TTipiy.iVOU^Ai THV AVATTA-
triV iTitTA ATToXX&OUtTXi TX aUlAATA, XAI OXOXXHpUS AVATTATAl, TOUTiTl ffU/HATlXUS, XxBus
xxt 0 Y.upl0S XVUTTH, OUTUS iXiUffoVTAl US THV O^tV TOU QiOU. InEN. lib. V. C. 31. (p. 331,
ed. Mass.) There is also a passage, lib. v. t. 5. (p. 298.) which seems of similar
import. 2 Tfitf /Aiv TUV iuaifim, iV XpilTTOVl TTOt X'^?^ /AiVitV^ TitC Si xSlKXiUS XXt TTOVHpxS fiV %6'/=0Vi-
Tov THS xpiaius ix^iX^/AivAs x^ovov TOTi [TTOTi Thirlb.] Jdstin. Dial, cum Tryph. §
5. p. 107. ed. Bened.
^^Et yxp XXI a-UVif6XXiTi U/AitS TllTl XryO/AiVOlS XpilTT/itVOi?, XXt TOUTO /AH OfAOXoyOUtTlV, •
Ot xxt Xtyoual iah itvxi vixpm avxttxtiv, xxxx x/aa tu attoBvhitxuv Tctf -^uxxs xutuv xvxxa,
/A^xvirBxi EK TOV oupxvov, /AH UTTOXxdnTi XUTOUS i^pKTTixvous. Id. lb. ^ 80. p. 178.

232 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
having put on the appearance of human death in these lower
regions; and did not ascend to the heights of the heaven before
he descended to the lower parts of the earth, that he might make
the Patriarchs and Prophets there partakers of his presence, you
have also to believe a subterraneous region in the lower parts of
the earth, and drive away those who proudly enough think that
the souls of the faithful deserve a better abode than the lower
regions; being truly servants above their Lord, and disciples
above their Master, disdaining perhaps to receive in the bosom
of Abraham the comfort of an expected resurrection 
Heaven is open to none while the earth remains safe, not to say
closed. For the kingdom of heaven will be opened with the
passing away of the world  You have also a little trea
tise on Paradise, written by us, in which we have resolved, that
every soul is set apart in the lower regions against the day of the
Lord."* And further on in the same treatise, — " Are therefore
all souls kept in the lower regions ? You speak rightly. Be you
willing or unwilling, there are now there both torments and de-
lights."» And again, elsewhere, with a mere verbal diffisrence as to the
use of the phrase, "lower regions," he says, " Whence it is evi
dent to every wise man  that there is a certain place
which is called the bosom of Abraham, set apart for the recep
tion of the souls of his children, even of the Gentiles . . . that that
place therefore, I mean the bosom of Abraham, which, although
not in heaven, is yet above the lower regions, will in the mean
time afford refreshment to the souls of the just until the consum
mation of things shall bring about the resurrection of all in the
fulness of the reward."^

1 Quod si Christus Deus, quia et homo, mortuus secundum Scripturas et sepul
tus secus easdem, huic quoque leg! satisfecit, forma humanie mortis apud inferos
functus ; nec ante ascendit in sublimiora ccelorum quam descendit in inferiora
terrarum, ut illic Patriarchus et Prophetas compotes sui faceret, habes et regionem
inferfim subterraneam credere, et illos cubito pellere qui satis superbe non pu-
tant animas iidelium inferis dignas : servi super Dominum, et discipuli super
Magistrum, aspernati si forte in Abrahae sinu expectandae resurrectionis solatium
capere . . . Nulli patet ccelum terra adhuc salva, ne dixerim clausa. Cum
transaclione enim mundi reserabuntur regna ccelorum . . . Habes etiam de Para-
diso a nobis libellum, quo constituiraus omnem animam apud inferos sequestrari
in diem Domini. Tertull. De Anima. c. 55. p. 304. ed. 1664.
2 Omnes ergo animae penes inferos 1 Inquis. Veils ac nolis et supplicia jam illic
et refrigeria. Id. ib. c. 58. p, 306.
s Unde apparet sapienti cuique . . . esse aliquam localem determinationem,
qu£e sinus dicta sit Abrahae ad recipiendas animas filiorum ejus, etiam ex nationi-
lius . . . Eam itaque regionem, sinum dico Abrahae, etsi non cielestera, sublimio-
rem tamen inferis, interim refrigerium praebituram animabusjustorum donee con-
summatio rerum resurrectionem omnium plenitudine mercedis expungat- Id.
adv. Marc. lib. iv. c- 34. pp. 450, 451.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 233
Other similar passages may be found in his writings.*
There is also a passage of Clement of Alexandria, which seems
to show that he held the same view, where he speaks of " the
expected resurrection, when at the end of the world the angels
shall receive the truly penitent into the heavenly tabernacles
. . . and before all the Saviour himself meets him with a kind
reception, aflFording light, cloudless and eternal, leading him to
the bosom of the Father, to eternal light, to the kingdom of
heaven."" Thus also Origen. — "For not even the Apostles," he says,
" have yet received their joy, but themselves also wait for it,
that I also may become a partaker of their joy. For neither the
saints, when they depart hence, receive immediately the full re
ward of their deserts, but wait for us ... . You see, therefore,
that Abraham yet waits for the attainment of that which is per
fect. And Isaac waits, and Jacob, and all the Prophets wait for
us, that they may enjoy wifh us perfect happiness. On this ac
count, therefore, even that mystery is kept to the last day of the
deferred judgment."^ And again he says, elsewhere, " It is my
opinion that all the saints that depart from this life shall remain
in a certain place in the earth, which the divine Scripture calls
Paradise, as in a place of instruction."*
In the immediate context of this last passage, however, he
seems to intimate that their stay in this place is longer or shorter,
according to their deserts; and that they gradually ascend
through a succession of such places to heaven ; which is not
very reconcileable with the former passage, and is a specimen of
what we so often meet with in several of the Fathers ; namely,
that self-contradiction, which makes it almost impossible, and
sometimes quite impossible, to tell what their real views were.

1 See Tertull. Apologet. c. 47. p. 37. Scorp. c. 12. p. 498.
2 AVitO'TrtO'gtBp iXTTl^O/J.iVHS, OTfitV iV T« aUVTiXitX TOU AtU'.'OS, 01 AyyiXOt TOUS AXhBus /AiTXV-
OOUVTXS Si^UVTXt US iTTOUpXVtOUS TXHVXS, • . TTpo Si TTXVTUV fitUTOf 0 ^UTHP TTpPATrAVTA, Si^tOU-
/AiVOSi tus opiyuv A7XIQV, XTTAUTTPV. oSnyUV US TOUS XOXTTOUS TOU UXTpoS. (IS THV AtUvlOV ^UHy.,
its THV SxTixuxv TUV oupAvuv. Clem. Alex. Quls Dlvcs salvctur. ad fin. ed. Potter,
pp. 960, 961.
3 JVondum enim receperunt Iffititiam suam ne Apostoli quidem, sed et ipsi ex-
spectant, ut et ego laetitiee eorum particeps fiam. Neque enim decedentes hine
sancti, continue integra meritorum suorum prsemia consequuntur ; sed exspectant
etiam nos . . . Vides ergo quia exspectat adhuc Abraham, ut quae perfecta sunt
consequatur. Exspectat et Isaac, et Jacob, et omnes Prophetse exspectant nos
ut nobiscum perfectam beatitudinem capiant. Propter haec ergo etiam mysterium
illud in ultimam diem dilati judicii custoditur. Orig. Hom. 7. in Levit. § 2.
tom. 2. p. 222. See also Hom. 26 in Num. § 4. p. 372.
* Puto enim quod sancti quique discedentes de hac vita permanebunt in loco
aliquo in terra posito, quem paradisum dicit Scriptura divina, velut in quodam
cruditionis loco. Ohio. De Princip. lib. 2. ad fin. c, xi. § 6. tom. 1 p. 106. ed.
Ben,

234 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
However, as it respects the point now in question, his view is
evidently, to a certain extent at least, agreeable to that of the
Fathers already quoted.
The last I shall quote is Lactantius, who thus delivers the
same doctrine.—" Nor let any one think that souls are judged
immediately after death. For all are kept in one common place of
custody, until the time comes when the great Judge will make
inquiry into their deserts."*
To these authorities, various others might be added, both of
those who lived during the first three centuries, and of the best
writers of the succeeding times; insomuch that it has been
represented as a -doctrine in which all the primitive writers
consented. I would observe, also, that a full description of the place of
abode of the spirits of the departed, is given in a fragment of
a work on the universe, attributed to various authors, but more
particularly to Caius." Whence the writer got his information,
he does not tell us.^
We shall find, however, that it only affords us a proof how
clearly and strongly many of the primitive Fathers may deliver
a doctrine on an important point, (for such, unquestionably, is
the onel before us,) and even rank the opposite doctrine among
heretical notions; when, nevertheless, there were men of equal
authority in the church, who held that opposite view ; and con
sequently how impossible it is on such points, with the few re
mains we have of the primitive Fathers, to lay claim to Catholic
consent on one side or the other.
It so happens that there are two Fathers in this period, in
whom we find passages very clearly conveying the opposite
doctrine. The first is Ignatius, who, in his Epistle to the Romans, says,
in the prospect of his martyrdom, " Suffer me to become the
food of wild beasts, through whom it is in my power to attain
the presence of God."*
1 Nec tamen quisquam putct, animas post mortem protinus judicari. Nam
omnes in una communique custodia detinentur, donee tempus adveniat, quo
maximus judex meritorum faciat examen. Lactant. Instit. lib. 7. § 21. p. 396.
ed. Cant. 1685.
2 See the fragm. in the notes of Hoeschel. on Photius, pp. 10, 11 ; or in Hip
pol. Op. ed. Fabric. And see respecting it, Phot Cod. 48. Col. 36., and Routh
Reliq. Sacr. vol. 2. pp. 31, 2.
3 Tertullian in his Treatise De anima, and the Author of the ^uxst. ad orthod.
attributed to Justin Martyr (quest. 75, 76, 85,) venture upon the strange notion
that the place of happy departed souls, is the paradise in which Adam was ; ano
ther instance of the way in which the Fathers' statements oppose each other in
such points.
i A?£Tf |We Bnptuv itvAi (iopAy, St' m ivvxTiy Qiou ktitux»v. Ignatii Ep. ad Rom. h 4.

NO DIVINE INFOHMANT. 235
And again, still more clearly, — " The living water .... says
within me, ' Come to the Father.' "*
The other is Cyprian. — " How great," he says, " is the honor,
and how great the security, to go hence joyful ; to depart in
triumph amidst afflictions and troubles ! to shut in one moment
the eyes with which men and the world were seen, and to open
them immediately that God may be seen, and Christ I How
great the speed of the happy journey I You are suddenly taken
from the earth, that you may be placed in a state of rest in the
heavenly kingdom."^
There are some other passages in Cyprian, which intimate
the same view.
And were we to proceed beyond the first three centuries,
we should find the same view maintained by Epiphanius,' Am
brose,* (though perhaps inconsistently with himself in other
parts,^) and others.'
It is evident, then, that these Fathers held the doctrine which
the others repudiated, viz. that disembodied souls go at once to
heaven, and enjoy, previous to the resurrection, the beatific
vision of the Father. It is possible that other passages may be
found in the writings of this period of a similar kind, but cer
tainly the testimony in favour of this view will be found to be
small, compared with that we have for the opposite. I enter
not here into the question, which doctrine has the best claim
upon our belief. That is beside our present subject. But the
case clearly shows that even on such points, and where the doc
trine of one side at least was very emphatically laid down as
the only true doctrine, the Fathers widely differed. And it also
shows how easily we might have the appearance of catholic
consent in the writings that remain to us, where there was not
really catholic consent. For had it so happened that these two
or three passages, which express a doctrine contrary to that
which is so clearly delivered by the majority, had been lost, we
should have been told that we were opposing catholic consent.

ed. Jacobs, tom. ii. pp. 352, 4. A similar expression occurs S it. p. 348, and § 9
p. 368.
1 TSaip ^uv . . ttruBiv /Aot xtyov, Aiupo ttpos tov XlATipA. Ib. $. 7. pp. 364 — 6.
2 Quanta est dignitas et quanta securitas exire hine lietum, exire inter pressu-
ras et angustias gloriosum, claudere in momento oculos quibus homines videban-
tur et mundus, et aperire eosdem statim ut Deus videatur et Christus ! Jam feli-
citer migrandi quanta velocitas ! Terris repente subtraheris ut in regnis calesti-
bus reponaris. CvpRrAN. De exhort, mart, ad fin. ed. Pamel.
3 Adv. hsr. in bier. 78. Antidicomar. § 24. Tom. 1- p. 1056.
4 De fide lib 4. cc, 1, 2.
' See Admon. ed. Bened. in libr. De bono mortis. Ambros. Op. Tom. 1. col,
385. et seq.
« See King on the Creed, pp. 204—22. 4th. ed. 1719.

230 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
and the doctrine of the Apostles, in saying what these authors
have said, and what, for aught we know, hundreds and thou
sands held in the primitive church, and many perhaps have
published. The confession of the Benedictine Editors of Ambrose on this
subject is so remarkable and instructive, that I here subjoin it.
" It is not, indeed, surprising," they say, " that Ambrose should
have written in this way concerning the state of souls ; but it
may appear almost incredible how uncertain and inconsistent
the holy Fathers, from the very times of the Apostles to the
Pontificate of Gregory XI. and the Council of Florence,
that is, for almost the whole of fourteen centuries, were on this
point. For not only does one differ from another, as generally
hajjpens in questions of this kind before they are decided by
the church; but they are not even consistent with themselves;
for in some places of their writings they seem to concede the
clear vision of the Divine nature to the same souls to which
in other places they deny it. But it is not to our purpose here
to collect together those opposing testimonies of the antient
Fathers. Any one who wishes to know more on this matter
may consult Alph. a Castro, (lib. 3, adv. Iia3r.) Sixtus Senensis,
(Bibl. I. 6. Annot. 345.), Bellarmine, (lib. 1. De Beat. c. 1, et
seq.), Petavius (Theolog. dogm. de Deo, c. 13 and 14), and others.
We here only observe, that all that contrariety sprung from the
different ideas (principiis) which the reading of the Holy Scrip
tures supplied to those holy men.'"-
The reader will here observe, then, that so far from "the
church" deciding agreeably fo the consent of the preceding
Fathers, it is admitted that there is no such thing as consent to
be looked for until " the church" has decided, and that the
early Fathers gathered their views, not fiotn tradition, but from
Sciipture; conclusions which, though not perhaps in the mind of
the authors of this passage, clearly flow from it.
Further ; as tlie Fathers thus differ in their doctrinal state
ments both from one another and from themselves, so, as mifiht
be expected, and as it is hardly necessary to add, do they differ
in the interpretation they give to the Scriptures when comment
ing upon them, and that even in the case of the most important
texts. I will give some instances of this, and none are more pertinent
than those commonly adduced in proof of this point. But it will
be easy to add to them, if necessary, though but for the necessity
of showing the groundlessness of the ill-advised claims made by
1 Admon. in Ambros. libr. De bono mortis. Tom. 1. col. 385 6.

NO DIVINB INFORMANT. 237
our opponents, one would willingly have passed them all over in
silence. (1.) Prov. viii. 22. The Lord possessed [Sept. created) me in
the beginning of his way before his works of old.
This passage is, by most of the Ante-Nicene Fathers that re
main fo us, applied to the divine generation of the Son. Thus,
for instance, it is applied by (among others) Justin Martyr,*
Athenagoras,^ Clement of Alexandria,' and Tertullian.* But
Irenaeus applies it to the Holy Spirit.* And when afterwards the
Arians used it as favourable to their cause, it was generally ap
plied by the orthodox Fathers to the generation of the human
nature of Christ. That this is its proper meaning is very deci
sively laid down by Athanasius^ and Augustine ;' and the same
meaning is attached to it by Basil' and Epiphanius,' if the pas
sage is applied to Christ at all, though the latter gives his
opinion very decidedly against its being applied to Christ at all,
though on account, as he says, of some of the Fathers having so
applied it, the adoption of this meaning is not blameworthy, if
only it be limited to the human nature;*" and Basil is evidently
inclined lo the same opinion.**
And the interpretation given by Hilary does not precisely agree
with any of these; for he explains the words as referring to the
period when our Lord first assumed (as he supposes) a human
form, to carry on intercourse with men, and appeared to Adam
in Paradise, and afterwards to Abraham, (fcc.*"
(2.) John X. 30. I and my Father are one.
This is a text in which, had there been any traditive interpre
tation of Scripture handed down by the consent of the Fathers,
We might peculiarly have expected such a guide. But we find
nothing of the kind. For by some of the Fathers the unity here
spoken of is explained as being a moral unity, wifh reference to
an agreement in will, and purpose, and views, while by others it
1 Dial, cum Tryph. pp. 158 and 222. ed. Ben.
2 Leg. pro Christianis, % 10. p, 287. ed. Ben.
3 Cohort, ad gent. Op. tom. i. pp. 67, 8. ed. Potter.
4 See passages quoted above, p. 209.
5 Adv. haer. iv. 20. ed- Mass. iv. 37. ed. Grab.
^ De deer. Nic. Syn. § 14. tom. i. p, 220. ed. Ben. &c. &c.
' De fide et symb. § 6. tom. vi. col. 154. De Trin. lib. i. § 24. tom. viii. col.
765. 8 AvxyxH us THV AvBpaVoTHTA AUTOU voitv. Adv. Eunom. lib. iv. tom. i. p. 293. ed.
Ben. 9 See the passage below, near the end of this section.
10 Ib.
¦lib.
¦2 Crcatus est in vias Dei a seculo, cum ad conspicabilem speciem subditus crea
tures habitum creationis assumsit. De Trin. lib. xii. § 45. Op. col. 1136. ed.
Ben.

238 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
is explained as being a physical unity, with relation to the divine
nature and essence.
Thus Novatian says, — "The oneness bespeaks of has relation
to their concord, and their having the same view, and their being
united together in love, so that the Father and Son are properly
one by agreement, and by love, and by aflTection." And he pro
ceeds to illustrate it by the words of St. Paul relating to himself
and Apollos, " he that planteth and he that watereth are one."
(1 Cor. iii. 8.)*
Upon which Pamelius remarks, — "In this he does not write
with sufficient caution, in that he does not assert any communion
of essence between the Father and the Son, imitating even in
this TertulHan; and, more than this, he brings also an example
from the Apostle, 1 Cor. iii. which is as it were contrary to the
unity of the essence, in which I am not afraid to say that he was
certainly deceived."^
A similar explanation of this text is given by Origen, who
plainly says that the unity of will in the Father and Son " was
the cause of the Son's saying, ' I and the Father are one.' "'
To these might perhaps be added Tertullian* and Athenagoras,'*
as supposing the same view.
And the same explanation is given by Eusebius, whose ortho
doxy some have stoutly contended for ; though the Benedictines"
more wisely have given him up. He says, "For as he said that
he and the Father were one, saying, ' I and the Father are one,'
so he prays that we all, in imitation of him, may partake of
the same unity ; not that, as Marcellus thinks, the Word is
united to God, and connected with him in essence.' " ''
Among the Ante-Nicene Fathers, I am not aware that there
is any passage in which this text is interpreted as showing the
unity of essence between the Father and the Son. But, in the
disputes with the Arians, this text was constantly referred to in
that signification ; as, for instance, by Athanasius, Hilary,
' Unum quod ait, ad concordiam et eandem sententiam et ad ipsam charitatis
societatem pertinet, ut merito unum sit Pater et Filius per concordiam et per
amorem et per dilectionem . . Denique novit hanc concordae unitatem et Apos
tolus Paulus cum personarum tamen distinctione, &c. [1 Cor. iii. 8.] Novatiani
De Trin. c. 22. 2 Pamelius in loc.
3 AiTtov HV Toy Xiyuv TOV uiov, iyu, XAI 0 TTXTHp £V iT(Aiv. In Johann. torn- xiii- § 36 ¦
tom- iv. p. 245. See also De Princip. lib. i. § 8. tom. i. p. 66. and Contra Cels.
lib. viii. § 12. tom. i. p. 750. and in Ezek. hom. 9. tom. iii. p. 388. ed. Ben.
i Adv. Prax. c. 22.
6 Leg. pro. Christianis, § 10. p. 287.
' See Uivinitas Christi, &c. pp. 579, &g.
~i CltTTTip yAp AUTOS, iAUTOV TS XXI TOV TTXTipX iV UVXt iXiyi, ^X^Xm, 'Eyu XXt 0 XlXTHP iV
iT/AiV O'JTU XAI TTAVTAS H/AAS KitTfit THV XUTOU /Al/AHTtV TJIff VVOTHTOS THS AUTOU /HTXlTX^IV «WV-
jTx;. OU KctTat MitoxeXAov, tou Aoyou hu/Aivou tcd ©iu xxt th outriA g-uvx^BHcro/Aiyou. EusE-
Bii De Eccl. Theolog. lib. iii. c. 19. p. 193. ed. Col. 1688.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 239
Basil, Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Augus
tine, and others,' whose words 1 need not quote, because their
view of the passage is well-known and admitted.
(3) John xiv. 28. My Father is greater than I.
On this important text, we in vain look for consent in the in
terpretations of the Fathers. Irenaeus says, that when Christ
said that the Father, who communicates with the Son in all
things, alone knew the day and hour of the judgment, he said
so " that we might learn through him, that the Father was
above all things. For, saith he, 'The Father is greater than
I;'"- where it is evident that Irenasus considered the words as
applying to the divine nature of Christ ; though I suppose, from
his orthodoxy elsewhere, only wifh reference to the order of the
Persons in the Trinity, and not to their nature or essence.
But, as it respects Novatian and Origen, they not merely ap
ply the words to the divine nature of Christ, but seem to ac
knowledge a real inferiority of nature.
Thus Novatian says, — '• For who will not acknowledge that
the person of the Son is second after the Father, when he finds
it said . . . ' He who sent me is greater than I.'" To which he
adds, shortly after, — " The Son affirms that he was sanctified by
his Father. Since, therefore, he receives sanctification from the
Father, he is inferior to the Father. But he is consequently in
ferior to the Father, but nevertheless Son. For if he had been
the Father, he would have given sanctification, and not received
it; but now, by aflirming fhat he received sanctification from the
Father, by this very thing by which he proves fhat he is inferior
to the Father, by receiving sanctification from him, he proves
that he is the Son, and not the Father.''"
And Origen says, — " Be it so fhat there are some among the
multitude of those who believe and receive a diflerent doctrine,
who rashly maintain that the Saviour is the supreme God over
all ; yet, nevertheless, we do no such thing ; believing him who
1 See Maldonatus or Lampe in loc.
2 Si quis exquiral causam, propter quam in omnibus Pater communicnns Filio
solus scire horam et diem a Domino manifesiatUf e.-^t, neque aptabiiem magis neque
decentiorem nec sine periculo alteram quam hanc iriveniat in praesenti (quoni;im
enirn sidus verat magister est Dominus) ut discomus per ipsum super omnia es^e
Patrem Eienim Pater, ait, major me est. Iren. Adv. haer. lib. 2. c 28. ed. Mass.
c. 49 ed. Grab.
3 Quis enim non secundam Filii post Patrem nirnoscat esse personam, cum legat
dictum, &r  aut dum invenit positum, ' Quoniam qui me misit major me
est.' (Ol! Trin. c. 21.) Filius . . . sanctificatum se a suo Pane esse proponit. Dum
ergo accipit sanctificaiionem a Patre minor Patre est ; minor autem Patre conse-
quenter est, sed Filius. Paler enim si fuisset san<:tificationeln dedisset non accop-
isaet. Et nunc autem profitendo se acccpisse sanctificationem a Patre, hoc ipso
quo Patte se minorem, accipiendo ab ipso sanctificationem, probat, filium se esse
non Patrem monstravit. Ib. c. 22. ed. Col. 1617.

240 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
said, 'The Father that sent me is greater than I.'  We
who say that the material world is his who created all things,
clearly maintain that the Son is not stronger than the Father,
but inferior to him ; and we say this, believing him when he said,
'The Father that sent me is greater than I."*
And the same view of this passage is maintained by him else
where. °
Nor do I see how Tertullian can be explained otherwise than
as affirming the same doctrine from this passage, when he says, —
" The Father is the whole substance, but the Son a derivation
and portion of the whole, as he himself professes; 'For the Fa
ther is greater than I.' "^
But by others of the Fathers, especially those engaged in dis
putes with the Arians, these words are explained as referring to
the human nature of our Lord.
Thus Athanasius says, — " Whatsoever, therefore, the Scrip
ture says as to the Son receiving, and the Son being glorified, it
says this with respect to his humanity, not with respect to his
divinity. And when he says, ' My Father who sent me is great
er than I,' he says that the Father was greater than he, from
his having become man. But as the Word of the Father, he is
equal fo him."*
And Cyril of Alexandria says, — " The word of God is above
humanity as one who is by nature God and the Son ; but not dis
daining to appear to be in subjection, on account of his having
taken human nature. Tnerefore, at one time he said, ' He fhat
hath seen me hath seen the Father,' ' I and the Father are one ;'
at another time, on Ihe other hand, ' My Father is greater than
I.' For being not inferior to the Father as regarded identify of
essence or anything else whatever, in which he could be com
pared to the Father, he says, fhat he is among things inferior on
account of his human nature."'

1 Eo-TtB Si TtVXS US iV TTXilBit TTlO'TiUOVTUV, XXt SiXO/AiVUV SlA^UVlAV. SlA THV TTpoTTiTUXV UTTO-
TlBitrBxt TOV loPTHPA iiyXt TOV /Aiyt^TOV iTTl TTXCTl QiOV AXX' OUTI ^fi H/AUS TOIOUTOV, ol TTuBo/Ai-
VOt AUTU XiyOVTt, 'O IlXTHp, 0 TTiiA-\,XS «£, /AU^UV /AOU iCTtV  2*?*? yxo H/AilC, Cl
XiyoVTiS TOU TTAVTX XTl^XVTOS XXI TOV AIItBhTOV XO^fAOV itVAl, ZX/AiV TOV UIOV OUX irTXUpOTipOV
TOU HXTPOS, xxx' UTToSiiO-TipOV, xai TCUTO XiyO/AiVAUTU TTilBo/AiVOt UTTOVTl, X. T. X. COUT.
Cels. lib', viii. % 14, 15. tom. i. pp. 7.^2, 3.
2 See bis Comment, in Matth. tom. 15. § 10. Op. tom. 3. p. 665., and Comment
in Johann. tom. 13. § 25. Op. tom. 4. p. 235., and lb. tom. 32. § 18. p. 451.
3 Pater tota substantia est. Filius vero derivatio totius et portio sicut ipse pro
fitetur. Quia Pater major me est. Adv. Prax. c. 9.
4 fQo-at OUV XiyU H ypA^H, OTI iXX&iV 0 UtOS, XXt iSo^X-rBn 0 UtOS. S.'X THV AvBpUTTOTHTA AU
TOU Xtyil OU ilA THV eSOTHT=t. Kxi OTS XSJ/61, 0 TIolTHf /AOU 0 TTi/l-j-XS /Ai /Mt^Ut //.OU iCTTIV.
iTil AvBpa^OS yiyOViV /AU^U xutou XiyU tov TlXTipX. Ao>0? Si uv tou IlXTpOS lO-OC AUTOU S0--
Tiv. De Incarn. 5 4. lorn. i. pt. 2. p. 873.
6 'O ix QiOU Ao^/oc . . . ctvaiTSfJOC [AiV AvBpmTToTHTos, ns fUTit Qtos xxt ulos. OUX XTl/AA^Ooy
Si XXI TO iv iiitttru ym^Bxi Soxiiv, Six to nvSpara-ivov. Totyxproi TroTf /ay iixtrxa, o iupxxus
i/Ai MlMXf TOl UXTipX. syu XXt 0 n«THf iV W/AiV. IIOTf Si Xu TTXXIV, 0 UXTHp /AOU /Jit^m

NO DIVINE INF0R5IANT. 241
And so Augustine,* Ambrose," and others have explained it.
Many, however, maintain the opinion that it refers to the di
vine nature of Christ, and is intended to show the priority of or
der in the Father as the Original from whom the Son was gene
rated; and, strange to say, this view is advocated by both the
Fathers from whom we have just quoted, Athanasius and Cyril,
in other parts of their works. Thus Athanasius says, — "For on
this account it was that the Son himself did not say, ' My Father
is superior to me,' lest any one should suppose that he was of a
different nature to him, but he said, 'greater,' not indeed in
magnitude nor time, but on account of his generation from the
Father; nevertheless, even in saying he is greater, he showed
the quality of the essence.'"
And Cyril, — " The Son, therefore, being equal with the Father
as it respects his essence, and like to him in all points, says, that
the Father is greater, as being without beginning, he himself
having a beginning only as it respects his generation, although
he has a similar subsistence wifh him."* In the context,^ how
ever, he gives the other explanation, viz. that these words are to
be understood only with reference to the human nature of Christ.
All these amply show how utterly destitute the Fathers were
of any traditive interpretation of the text.
Among the others who have considered this passage as apply
ing to the divine nature of the Son may be mentioned Basil,
Gregory Nazianzen, and Epiphanius."
Even in such texts as —
(4.) Phil. ii. 6. Who being in the form of God thought it not
robbery [as our translation runs] to be equal with God — we find
patristical authority for an unorthodox interpretation.
These words have been used as evidence in the controversies
[AOU iVTtV- Ou /Aiim yxp uv tou TlXTpOS, K*Tit yi TO iV OUTIA TAUTOV, XAt XitTA TTAV OTtOUV
TO iTotTTATouy. iv iXATToiTiv UVXt ifHiTi SlA TO xvBpuTTttov. CvKiL. Alex. De rccla fido ad
Theodos. c. 28. Op. torn. v. Pi. 2 p. 25. ed. Auberti.
1 De Trin. lib. ii. cc. 6 and 7.
2 De fide. lib. ii. c 4. _ _
3 AlX TOUTO yxp xxt AUTOS 0 ulos OUX itpHXiV, 0 TlATHp /AOU XpilTTUV HOU i^TtV. \vA /AH ^iVOV
TIS THS iXitVOU IfiUa-iUS AUTOV ilTTOXA&Of AXXX /AiV^UV ¦tTTiV. OU /A^iBil TtVl, OoSi XPOVU, AAA*
SlA THV i^ AUTOU TOU TIXTPOS ytWHTlV TTXHV OTt XXI iV TU ilTTilV, /Ail^UV iWTtV. oSu^i TTXXlV
THV TTHS ouo-iAs tSioTHTx. Athanas. Orat. 1. Contr. Arian. § 58. tom. i. pp. 462, 3.
And see his treatise De Synod. § 28. tom. i. Pt. 2. p. 745.
4 lo-oc Toiyxpouy xxtx tov thp ouu-txs xoyov UTTXpXm o ulos tu XlxTpt, XAt O/AOtOS ICitTct
TTXVTX, fAU^OVA AUTOV ipHO-lV US AVApXOV, iX^^ SipXHV XX/TA /AOVOy TO ip OU, il XXi tTUvSpO/AOY
AUTUTHV uTTxp^iy ix^t- Thcsaurus, c. 11. Op. tom. v. Pt. 1. pp. 86, 6.
6 See pp. 85, 86 and 91.
6 See these and several others in Bishop Pearson on the Creed, Art. 1, who
takes thia view of the text. Forbes supports, and likewise from the Fathers, the
opinion that it refers to the human nature, and denies that it can have any refer
ence to the divine. (Instruct. Hist. Theolog. lib. i. c. 25.) Many modern com
mentators, as Lampe, consider it as spoken in reference to the complex person of
the Mediator, in which the divine and human natures were united.
VOL. I. ^

242 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
respecting the divinity of our Lord in precisely opposite significa
tions. Upon referring to the Fathers respecting them, what do
we find ? Exactly the same discrepancy.
Among the Ante-Nicene Fathers (with the exception of Nova
tian, whom I shall quote presently) I have not found any explana
tion of the passage such as can certify us of the way in which the
words were understood, as the passages in which they are quoted
give them merely in the form of a literal translation.*
For the orthodox sense we may refer to Chrysostom,'' Theodo
ret,' Augustine,* and many others.
While on the other hand, as we have already seen, the unor
thodox interpretation is evidently given to this passage by Nova
tian, who interprets it as meaning, " he did not think it fell to his
lot to be equal with God. For, although he remembered that he
was God of God the Father, he never either compared or likened
himself to God the Father," &c.=
This was the interpretation given to this passage by Arius, who,
as Chrysostom tells us, explained it thus, " being in the form of
God he did not take it to himself to be equal with God."°
Other instances, in points of less importance, the reader will
find in the comments of the Father upon Gen. vi. 2, 4. Mark^xiii.
32. 1 Peter iii. 19. iv. 6. In the first of these he will find the
authors of the first three centuries unanimously interpreting it
of the angels, while others in the fourth and fifth have no hesita
tion in denouncing such an interpretation as ignorant and absurd.
These instances are adduced merely as a specimen, but any
inquirer into this matter will find that they afford a fair sample
of the general state of the case, and that the notion of there be
ing any traditive interpretation of Scripture common to the catho
lic Fathers is perfectly unfounded and contrary to the plain facts
of the case. In all passages where there is any difficulty, the
Fathers are sure to be opposed to each other in their interprefa-
1 Thus Tertull. Adv. Prax. c. 7. Adv. Marc. lib. v. c. 20. and De resurr.
earn. c. 6.
2 In loc.
^ In loc.
4 Contr. Maximin. lib. 1. c. 5.
5 De Trin. c. 17. See p. 214 above. It is remarkable that Dr. Burton, when
giving, in his Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the divinity of Christ,
their remarks on this text, has not alluded to this passage, though he has quoted
the context of it. (pp. 122, 125, 133, 136. 2d. ed.) I have not referred to the
passage he has quoted (p. 124) from the letter written by the churches of Vienna
and Lyons, preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. v. 2.), because it appears to me
very open to opposite interpretations.
6 Era-s (i. e. Arius) oti ev /AopfiH Qiou imxpxm oux npTTAn to uvai kta Qut. Chrys. in
loc. In Phil. hom. 6. § 2. tom. xi. p. 235. On the various meanings that have
been given to this passage see Wolf in loc.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 243
tions, and I may add they are often similarly opposed where there
appears no difficulty. We need only consult those commenta
tors, who have given more fully the interpretations of the Fathers
to see the truth of this.*
Surely, then, we may say, as Bishop Patrick (our opponents'
witness) says of his Romish antagonist, " He knew, if he under
stood anything, there is no traditive interpretation of Scrip
ture."^ And Bishop Taylor, " It is said there are traditive inter
pretations as well as traditive propositions, but these have not
much distinct consideration in them, both because their uncer
tainty is as great as the other upon the former considerations, as
also because in very deed there are no such things as traditive
interpretations universal ; for as for particulars they signify no
more but that they are not sufficient determinations of questions
theological ; therefore because they are particular, contingent,
and of infinite variety, and they are no more argument than the
particular authority of those men whose commentaries they are,
and therefore must be considered with them."'
And so Placette, as translated and published by our Arch
bishop Tenison, says, — " How little help there is for Scripture in
tradition appeareth hence, that it can no otherwise teach what
is the true sense of Scripture, but by the unanimous consent of
the Fathers, which whether it be to be had in any one text of
Scripture may be much doubted. It was a hard condition,
therefore, which Pope Pius IV. prescribed in his profession of faith
to all who desired admission into the Church of Rome, and which
ma'^ forever silence all the Romish commentators, 'That they
will never receive nor interpret Scripture any otherwise than
according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.' Now I
would fain know how this Law can be observed, since I may
confidently affirm that there is no one place of Scripture ex
plained the same way by all the Fathers. For there are many
places which none of them have touched, and none which all
have interpreted. Nor will it suffice to say, that they agree who
have interpreted it, and that the silence of the rest is to be taken
for consent ; as if they must be supposed to consent who were
ignorant of such interpretations, or died perhaps before they were
made, or as if the antients were wont expressly to reject all in
terpretations different from their own, or those might not be re
jected, or at least others proposed, in those books of the Fathers
which are lost. It is not enough, therefore, to have the consent
I See particularly Cornelius a Lapide, and Maldonatus ; and Dr. Whitby's Dis-
sertatio De SS. interpret, sec Patrum comment. Lond. 1714. Svo. where many
similar instances are adduced.
2 Answ. to Touchstone, p. 15.
^ Liberty of proph. § 5.

244 PATRISTICAL TRADITION,
of a few unless we be assured of the concurrence of the rest. But,
granting that it is, it cannot be denied, that our adversaries can
collect nothing certain out of any place of Scripture, if any one
of the antients have interpreted it otherwise. Hence Alphonsus
a Castro requireth, that among the necessary qualifications of a
text of Scripture to be produced for the conviction of heretics,
this be the chief, ' that it be so plain and undoubted, that none of
the sacred and approved doctors interpret it in some other sense,
according to which such a proposition cannot be thereby con
vinced of heresy. ' But if this be true, how few places will there
be of whose sense we may not doubt 1 Certainly there are very
few explained the same way by all antient commentators ....
The anonymous writer of the ' Treatise of the liberties of the
Galilean church' maintains that there are few places of Scrip
ture which the holy Fathers have not differently interpreted.
As will also manifestly appear to any one who shall consult those
interpreters that are wont to produce the expositions of the an
tient writers. Hence the reader may imagine to what a strait
our adversaries would be reduced, if they were tied up to
there own laws, and allowed to urge noother places of Scripture
against us than what are unanimously interpreted by the Fathers
.... That the sense of Scripture cannot be learned from
tradition hence appeareth."^
And so lastly Dean Sherlock ; — " As for expounding Scripture
by the unanimous consent of primitive Fathers, this is indeed
the rule which the Council of Trent gives, and which their doc
tors swear to observe. How well they keep this oath, they
ought to consider. Now as to this, you may tell them fhat you
would readily pay a great deference to the unanimous consent of
Fathers, could you tell how to know it ; and therefore in the first
place you desire to know the agreement of how many Fathers
makes an unanimous consent ; for you have been told, that there
has been as great variety in interpreting Scripture among
the antient Fathers as among our modern interpreters ; that
there are very few, if any, controverted texts of Scripture
which are interpreted by an unanimous consent of all the Fathers.
If this unanimous consent then signify all the Fathers, we shall
be troubled to find such a consent in expounding Scripture.
Must it, then, be the unanimous consent of the greatest number
of Fathers 1 This will be a very hard thing, especially for un
learned men to tell noses : we can know the opinion only of those
Fathers who were the writers in every age, and whose writings
have been preserved down to us ; and who can tell, whether the
major number of those Fathers who did not write, or whose
> Incurable scepticism of tht Church of Eome, c. 3.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT, 245
writings are lost, were of the same mind with those whose writings
we have 1 And why must the major part be always the wisest
and best men 1 And if they were not, the consent of a few wise
men is to be preferred before great numbers of other expositors.
Again ask them, whether these Fathers were infallible or tradi
tionary expositors of Scripture, or whether they expounded
Scripture according to their own private reason and judgment.
If they were infallible expositors and delivered the traditionary
sense and interpretation of Scripture, it is a little strange
how they should differ in their expositions of Scripture. . . .
If they expounded Scripture according to their own reason
and judgment, as it is plan they did, then their authority is
no more sacred than their reason is ; and those are the best ex
positors, whether antient or modern, whose expositions are backed
with the best reasons. We think it a great confirmation of our
faith that the Fathers of the church in the first and best ages
did believe the same doctrines, and expound Scripture in great
and concerning points, much to the same sense that we do, and
therefore we refuse not to appeal to them, but yet we do not
wholly build our faith upon the authority of the Fathers, we for
sake them, where they forsake the Scriptures, or put perverse
senses on them  There is no other way, then, left of un
derstanding Scripture, but to expound it as we do other writings ;
by considering the signification and propriety of words and
phrases, the scope and context of the place, the reasons of things,
the analogy between the Old and New Testament, and the like.
When they dispute with Protestants they can reasonably
pretend to no other way of expounding Scripture, because
WE ADMIT OF NO OTHER."* And SO clscwhere on the general
question of doctrinal consent among the Fathers, when his op
ponents had urged " how great and manifest" primitive consent
was " to those good men who inquire," he sarcastically replies,
" Yea, how great indeed, for nobody can find it but the Vicar
of Putney."^
Nay, what is the testimony of Origen, in the middle of the
third century? "Celsus remarks," he says, " that they [i.e.
the earliest Christians] were all of one mind ; not observing in
this, that from the very beginning there were differences
among believers respecting the meaning qf the books that
were believed to be divine;"^ and further on, accounting for the
: Preservative against Popery, Pt. 1. pp. 52^4 ; or in Bp. Gibson's Collec
tion, vol. 2.
2 Vindication of Discourse of Notes of church, in Bishop Gibson's Preservative
against Popery, vol. i. Tit. 3. c. 2. p. 55. The allusion is to Sclater's " Consen
sus Veterum."
« «Ha-| Si KAl OTI ty tlptyOUV TTXyTtf OVJ' ii TIUTU OJOIV, 0T( otf VhSsV Tnpt thv iV tois TTiTTttrTlU-
X*

246 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
variety of sects among Christians, of which Celsus had complained,
he says that this arose " from many of the learned among the
heathen being desirous of understanding the Christian faith,
from which it followed that from their understanding differently
the words which were believed by all to be divine, there arose
heresies, taking their names from those who were struck with
the first principles of the word, but were somehow moved by
some probable reasons to entertain different views of it one from
another."* Now this is clearly inconsistent with the notion of there being
any traditive interpretation of Scripture commonly received in
the church, and thought to be from the Apostles; for here it is
evident that the Scriptures were taken as the rule by which to
judge what the Christian faith was, (which Origen mentions not
only without reprehension, but as corning in the natural course
of things,) and that from the diflFerent interpretations given to
the Scriptures (as was likely) by these learned heathen, there
arose various sects, and that he knew no such cure for this as a
traditive interpretation of Scripture coming from the Apostles.
The utmost he pleads for as coming from the Apostles by suc
cessional delivery, and which he evidently considers to be in
Scripture as well and as clearly, is the summary of the ele
mentary articles of the faith above quoted. For had he held
the views of our opponents, he would have thrown the blame
of those divisions upon their authors not having followed this
traditive interpretation derived from the Apostles, whereas it is
evident that he had no notion of the existence of this infallible
guide, but seeing that men would come with all manner of pre
conceived views and prejudices to the revelation God had made
of the truth in the written word, he held it fo follow as a mat
ter of course, that many different views would be taken of it,
and that such variety of sentiment ought not to be laid to the
charge of Christianity.
If, then, there was no such interpretation having a claim upon
men to be received as their guide in the earliest times of the
church, how much less can there be anything having such pre
tensions at the present day.
When, therefore, our opponents send us to the Fathers to learn
from their consentient interpretation of Scripture what is its true
meaning, they are sending us to that which has no existence, and
(tivots Bitois uvAi BtSxtois ixSoXHv yiyovxtTt Sixipuvixt tuv TTto-TiuovTTTv. Gontr Cels. lib iii
§ 11. tom. i. p. 453.
1 Aia TO (TTTouSxi^iiv truviivxt tx XftTTiAvir/Aou XAt Tm iptxoxoyuv ttxuovas. Toutu S" hxo-
XouBntri, Sixfopus ixSi^x/iivm tous a/aa ttao-i TTicrTivBivTAs uvai Biious Xoyous, to ytyi^BAt
Aipiiriis anrmu/Aous tuv BAu/AxiTAyTuv /Aiv thv tou xoyou ApxHv, xmBiVTuv S' mus ttot' om
{/iro Ttvuv ttiBavothtuv Trpos txs us xxxhXous SiAtmiAS. Origen. Contr. Cels. lib. iii. 5 12.
torn. i. p. 454, 5.

KO DIVINE INFORMANT. 247
to a search in which, if it be not most laborious and extended,
we are very liable to be misled in inferring consent from the tes
timony of a few, (as our opponents have been, as I shall show
presently), and in which, after all, it is next to impossible to ar
rive at any certainty ; and yet this " consent" is proposed to us
as part of the rule of faith, without which we cannot be sure
what is the meaning of Scripture, even on the most fundamental
points. What then, I would ask, must be the consequence, where
their system is received, and men go to the Fathers truly and
impartially to ascertain what they have delivered, and find that
there is hardly a single doctrine or text about which there is
consent, even in the few that remain to us ? Clearly this, that
men will feel that there is no certainty to be had with respect
to any one doctrine of Christianity ; and thus he who begins
with the Scriptures, as interpreted by the consent of all the Fa
thers, may end in neglecting both. Their system may look very
well in theory, and may please very well those who are satisfied
to pin their faith upon the representations of others, and accept
a few quotations from four or five Fathers as proving the con
sent of the whole primitive church, but the moment you bring
it fairly and fully to the test, its unsoundness is betrayed. It
falls to pieces at once.
And I will venture to add, that of those who have shown the
most intimate acquaintance with the writings of the Fathers,
there have been but few who hfive not practically confessed this
to be the case.
But it may be urged, that there are some cases in which tbe
Fathers expressly claim to be considered as delivering the doc
trine preached by the Apostles, and consequently that in such a
case we are bound to believe their statements.
It is, therefore, important to show further, that doctrines,
statements, and practices, were not unfrequently maintained by
primitive Fathers as having come from the Apostles, and were
called apostolical traditions, which were opposed by other Fa
thers, and which consequently, upon our opponents' own princi
ples, cannot demand our belief as having proceeded from the
Apostles; from which we may safely conclude, as in the former
case, that the testimony of a few of the primitive Fathers to
such tradition, even though it be not opposed by the writings
that happen to remain to us, is an utterly insufficient jt^roo/" of
its apostolicity.
As instances of this nature I would notice, —
(1.) The doctrine of the Millennium.
It is confidently delivered to us by the principal Fathers of the
first two centuries and a half, uncontradicted by the others

248 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
we possess of that period, that the Apostles affirmed that at
Christ's second coming there should be a resurrection of the just
to a life of joy and happiness upon earth, where they should live
with Christ for a thousand years, previous to the general resur
rection and the final judgment.
This, I admit, they attempted to prove, partly from Scripture;
but they also claimed an Apostolical tradition in its favour.
Thus Irenaeus says, — " The above-mentioned blessing belongs
undeniably to the times of the kingdom, when the just shall rise
from the dead and reign, when the creation, renovated and freed
[from the curse], shall bring forth abundantly of all kinds of
food, from the dew of heaven and the fertility of the earth; as
the Presbyters, who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, have
related thai they heard from him in accordance with what
the Lord taught concerning those times, and said, ' The days
shall come in which vines shall spring up, having each ten thou
sand branches,' &c. . . . These things also Papias, a hearer
of John, and who became the companion of Polycarp, a man
of antient times, witnesses in writing in the fourth of his books;
for there were five books written by him."* And again ; —
" Then, as the Presbyters say, shall those who are worthy of
dwelHng in heaven depart thither; and others shall enjoy the
delights of paradise; and others shall possess the beauty of the
city; for everywhere shall the Saviour be beheld according as
those who see him shall be worthy." ..." That this is the
arrangement and classification of those who are saved, the Pres
byters, the disciples of the Apostles, tell us, and that they ad
vance through such stages; and ascend through the Spirit to
the Son, and through the Son to the Father; the Son finally
giving up to the Father his own creation, as also it is said by the
Apostle." [referring to 1 Cor. xv. 25, 6.]="

1 Praedicta itaque benedictio ad tempora Regni sine contradictione pertinet,
quando regnabunt justi surgentes a mortuis: quando et creatura renovata et libe-
rata multitudinem fructificabit universee escEe, ex rore cffili et ex fertilitate terrse :
quemadmodum Presbyteri meminerunt, qui Johannem discipulum Domini vide-
runt, audisse se ab eo, quemadmodum de temporibus illis docebat Dominus, et
dicebat: ' Venient dies in quibus vinea; nascentur, singula) decern millia palmi-
tum habentes,' &c. . . . Ixutx Si xxt Hxttixs luxvvou /Aiv axouo-ths, TloXuxxpTTou St
iTxipos ytyovus, xpyAios avB>, iyypAipus mi/AApTupu iv tb TiTapTB tojv at/Toi/ &tlixm. utti
yxp AUTU TTivTi HiBxtx (TuvTiTxy/Aivx. Iren. Adv. bar. lib. v, c. 33. (ed. Mass. p. 333.)
2 'ns 01 TTpiT^UTifOl XiyOUiri TOTS XXt 01 /MV XXTxl^tuBiVTlS THS SV OUpXVU SlX/Tpi&HS, iXUHi
XUpHO-OUatf, Oi Si THS TOU TTXfXSilTOU TpUtHS XTTOXAUtTOUSriV, 01 Si THV XX/ATTpoTHTA THS TTOXiUS
xxBi^outrr ttavtxxou yxp o Xuthp ooxBHo-iTXt, jiaSai; x^iot urovTxi oi opuvTis xutov. .
Hanc esse adordinationem et dispositionem eorum qui salvantur dicunt Presbyteri
Apostolorum discipuli, et per hujusmodi gradus proficere, et per Spiritum quidem
[ad] Filium, per Filium autem ascendere ad Patrem, FiUo deinceps cedente Patri
opus suum, quemadmodum et ab Apostolo dictum est. [1 Cor xv 25 6 V'
Ib. c. 36. (p, 337.) ' '

wo DIVINE INFORMANT. 249
From these passages it appears, that this doctrine was delivered
as an Apostolical tradition, not upon the authority of Papias only,
as is sometimes stated, but of others, who were also the immedi
ate disciples of the Apostles. And as it respects Papias, there
seems no reason why we should question his capability to transmit
what he had heard more than that of any other of the Fathers.
Let us hear what he says as to the means of information he had,
and the use he made of them ; — " I will not be backward," he
says, " to set down in order for you, with the interpretations, those
things Which I formerly fully learnt from the presbyters, and well
remembered,* confirming the truth delivered by them. For I am
not accustomed, as most, to delight in those that talk much, but
in those that teach the truth ; nor in those that relate strange
precepts, but in those that relate the precepts really given by the
Lord, and that proceed from truth itself. And if anywhere I met
with any one who had conversed with the elders, I inquired dili
gently. after the sayings of the elders, what Andrew or what
Peter said, or what Philip, or what Thomas, or James, or what
John or Matthew, or any other of the disciples of the Lord, and
what things Arislion and John the elder (or, presbyter), the dis
ciples of our Lord, say. For I thought that the accounts given
in books could not profit me so much as what I might hear from
the mouth of those yet living and remaining in the world,"^
And although Eusebius says, that, judging from his books, he
was a man of very narrow understanding, yet this censure has
not much weight when it comes from one strongly opposed to him
in the doctrines he there stated, especially when it is admitted,
as Eusebius is obliged to admit, that he induced very many, of
whom Irenaeus is mentioned as one, to embrace the Millennarian
doctrine, for Irenaeus certainly was a better judge of his qualifica
tions than Eusebius. And when Eusebius mentions as the cause
of his error, his having understood those statements literally which
were to be understood figuratively, (upon which, by the way, he
seems partly to infer the narrowness of his understanding,) he is
in fact assuming the very point in question, and charging that as
a fault upon Papias, which Irenaeus, Justin, and others, whom no
man pretends to accuse of a want of understanding, stoutly de
fend.' 1 '0<rX TTOTi TTXpX TftlV TTpiO-^UTipm XAXUS i/AABoV XAt XXXUS t/AVH/AOyiUITA.
2 Papijb fragm. in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. ult. and in Kouth, Reliq. S. vol.
i.p. 8.
3 The words of Eusebius are these. Kar etxxct Si o autos a-uyypA^ius us ix ttapaSq-
cius Aypaopou us autov hxovtx vapxtiButou, l^evaf T6 TIVXS TTXpxSoXAS TOU TuTHpoS XAt Sttr-
ATXXXtAS AUTOU, XXt TtVX aXA* /AuBtXUTipX. Ev ols xxt X^^tsiSx TtyX ^HTl iTUV iTivBxt «6-
T4 THV BJt VflX/mJV AVATTAfTlV tru/AATlxUS THS Tou XpiSTTOU ^XTlXilAS iTTi TAUTH<Tl THS yHS UTTO-
a-THtro/AivHs. 'A Si nyou/Axt tac attoo-toXixxs ^xpixh^x^ivov SiHyHtrus uttoxxBuv, Tat cv urro-
Siry/AA7t TTpos xuTm /auttixus ittiH/Aivx /AH a-uvtjipxxoTx. l^oSpA yxp Tot <r/Aixpos m thv vouv,
us AV IX TUV XUTOU Xoym TiX/AUpX/AiVOV ilTTilV ipAtVtTAI. YlXHV XAt TOIS /Air' AUTOV TrXUOTOtS

250 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
Moreover, as this doctrine was maintained as one derived by
successional delivery from the Apostles, so was it more especially
defended as one supported by numerous testimonies of Scripture.
Thus Justin Martyr affirms that Ezekiel and Isaiah and the
rest of the prophets maintain it ; and having quoted some pas
sages, (viz. Isa. Ixv. 17 — 25. and Psa. Ixxxix. 4,) he adds, " And
one of us, by name John, one of the Apostles of Christ, in the
revelation made to him, predicted that those that believe in o'ur
Christ, should live a thousand years in Jerusalem, and that after
this should be the general, and, in short, the eternalTesurruction
of all together with one accord, and the judgment, which also
our Lord said, that they shall neither marry nor be given in
marriage, but shall be like the angels, being the children of the
God of the resurrection. [Luke xx. 35, 6.)"*
Similar evidence for the dactrine is still more largely adduced
by Irenasus, who quotes from more than a dozen books of Scrip
ture in proof of it.^ So Tertullian speaks of it as predicted both
by Ezekiel and St. John.''
Further; they maintain this doctrine with the greatest confi
dence as the truth of God, and intimate that those who did not
receive it among the faithful were such as had been led astray in
the matter by the heretics. Thus Irenaeus says, — " The aforesaid
blessing, [viz. that of Jacob by Isaac,] undeniably belongs to the
times of the kingdom."* And again ; " Such promises do most
clearly signify the feasting of the creature which God promises to
give in the kingdom of the just."^ And again ; " These and all
other such things are undeniably spoken respecting the resurrec
tion of the just."" And when introducing this subject, he attri
butes the necessity of discussing it to the circumstance of some
having imbibed " heretical notions" on the point. " Since," he
says, "some of those who are thought to be correct in their be
lief'' transgress the order of the promotion of the just, and are
ignorant of the steps by which they are gradually trained for the
incorruptible state, having in themselves heretical notions ;" for
OtrOiC TUV ixXXHTlXO-TlXUV THS 0/AOlAS AUTU So^HS TTXpXtTlOS yiyOVi, THV APXAIOTHTA TXvSpoS
TTpo&i&XX/AivolS. UTTTip OUV EtpHVXlu XAI u TIS XXXOS T* 0/AOlX fooVUV XVXTTifHVi. EusEB.
Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. ult.
1 Jcsxrir. M. Dial, cum Tryph. § 81. ed. Ben. pp. 178, 9. (ed. 1686. p. 307.)
2 See Ireit. Adv. hEer. lib. v. cc. 33—36.
sTebtull. Adv. Marc. lib. iii. u. 24.
i See p. 248 above.
6 Tales itaque promissiones manifestissime in Regno justorum istius creature
epulationem significant quam Deus repromittit ministraturum se Iben lib v
c. 34. (p. 334, ed. Mass.)
6 Haic enim [et] alia universa in resurrectionem justorum sine controversia
dicta sunt. Ib. c. 35. (p. 335, ed. Mass.)
' Quidam ex his qui putantur recte credidisse.
£ H^riticos sensus in se habentes.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 251
the heretics despising the work of God, and not believing in the
salvation of their flesh  say that as soon as they are dead,
they go beyond the heavens and the Creator . . . They, there
fore, who reject the resurrection altogether, and as far as is in
their power take it away, what wonder is it if they do not know
the order of the resurrection '?.... Since, therefore, the opi
nions of some are influenced by the discourses of the heretics,'^
and they are ignorant of the arrangements of God and the mystery
of the resurrection of the just, and of the kingdom which is the
commencement of the incorruptible state, by which kingdom
they who are worthy are habituated by degrees to enjoy com
munion with God, it is necessary to speak concerning these
things," &LC.^
And thus also speaks Justin ; — " Tell me," says Trypho, " do
you affirm that this place Jerusalem is to be really rebuilt, and
do you expect that your people shall be gathered together [there,]
and live happily with Christ, together wifh the patriarchs and
prophets, and those of our race, and those that became proselytes
before that your Christ came, or have you proceeded to affirm
these things that you might seem to overcome us in argument T"
To which Justin replies, — " I am not such a wretch, O Trypho,
as to speak differently to what I think. I have, therefore, al
ready confessed to you, that land many others are of this opin
ion." .... But I have also told you that many'feven of those
Christians who are of pure and pious sentiments, do not acknow
ledge this. For as to those who are called Christians, but are
in reality atheists and impious heretics, I have shown you that in
all things they teach blasphemous, and infidel, and absurd doc
trines  For I am resolved to follow — not men or human
doctrines, but — God, and the doctrines fhat come from him. For
if you fall in with some who are called Christians, and who do
not confess this, but even dare to blaspheme the God of Abraham,
and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and who say that
there is no resurrection of the dead, but that their souls as soon
as they die, are taken up into heaven, you must not suppose them
to be Christians. As neither would any one who rightly inquired
into the matter, affirm the Sadducees or the similar sects of the
Genistas and Meristse, and Galileans, and Hellenists, and Baptist-
1 Transferuntur quorumdam sententite ab hsereticis sermonibus.
2 IttEir. Adv. h r. lib. v. cc. 31, 32. (pp. 330, 331. ed. Mass.)
3 The words here omitted are, us xxt ttxvtus iTTio-TxirBi To:n-o yevHira/Auioy, which
seem clearly corrupt. Thirlby conjectures murTusrBai, which the Benedictine Edi
tor adopts, but which does not appear to remove the difficulty. The sentence ap
pears to me evidently to require iTrtirTA/tiBx, (which occurs in the latter part of
the paragraph,) and then the sense would be, " as also we fully know that this
will be."

252 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
Pharisees, (and bear with me while I speak my mind,) to be Jews,
but Jews and children of Abraham in name, and confessing God
with their lips, as God himself exclaimed, but having their heart
far from him. But L and all Christians altogether orthodox,*
know both that there will be a resurrection of the ffesh, and
a thousand years in Jerusalem built up, and beautified and en
larged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and the rest affirm."^
Here, then, although (according to the reading of the copies
that remain to us, the correctness of which is doubted by many^)
he admits that many Christians of pure and pious sentiments did
not hold this doctrine, yet he lays it down as certainly true, and
one which all those who were fully orthodox maintained ; and
he couples the denial of it with very serious heresies.
And to those already mentioned, we may add, as defenders of
this doctrine, among others, Nepos,* Victorlnus Petavionensis,*
Lactantius," Apollinarius Junior,' and Sulpicius Severus,* to
which some add even the Nicene Council.^
Moreover, as we have the testimony of Eusebius, quoted above,
to the number of those who embrace this doctrine, so we have a
similar testimony from Jerome, who says that though he did not
adopt the doctrine, yet he could not condemn it, because many
members of the church and martyrs had maintained it ;*° and
1 JLyu Si XAl st TtViS ilTlV opBoyvuuovis xxta ttxvta Xpta-TiAvot.
' Dial, cum Tryph. § 80. ed.Ben. pp. 177, 8. (ed. 1686. p. 306.)
3 It has been thought by many, that instead of ttoxxous S' au xxt tuv ths xABxpxs
XXI iutn/ious oyTuv XpiT-Tixvuv yvu/AHS, we should read ttoxxous J' au xxi tuv /ah ths xx-
B'jpus, X. cr. X. which certainly would suit the context better, but is an emendation
hardly admissible on conjecture. Archbishop Tillotson, however, in his " Rule
of faith," pleads strongly for it ; and he supposes the passage here referred to by
Justin, to be that occurring in § 35. pp. 132, 3. (ed. 1686. p. 253.) The words
of Irena3us, however, quoted p. 250 above, (note 7,) support the reading of the
MSS.
4 See Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 24. and Hieron. De vir. illustr. c. 69.
5 See Hieron. De vir. ill. c. 18. and Fragm. op. De fabr. mandi, in Cave, Hist.
Lit. sub. nom.
6 See Inst. vii. 24. and Epit. § 11. and Hieron. De vir. ill. c. 18.
7 See Hieron. De vir. ill. c. 18. and Comm. in In. in Prsef. ad lib. 18. Basil.
Ep. 263. ed. Ben. (al. 74.)
s See Hieron. Comm. in Ezech. c. 36.
9 Their words, according to Gelasius Cyzicenus, were these ; — " Wherefore we
expect new heavens and a new earth, according to the Holy Scriptures, when the
appearance and kingdom of the great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ, is mani
fested to us ; and then, as Daniel says, the saints of the most high shall take the
kingdom, and the earth shall be pure, a holy earth of the living, and not of the
dead ; which David foreseeing, by the eye of faith, exclaims, I believe that I
shall see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living, the land of the meek
and humble. For ' blessed,' saith he, ' are the meek, for they shall inherit the
earth.' And the Prophet, ¦ The feet of the meek and humble,' saith he, ' shall
tread upon it.' " Gelas. Cyzic. Acta Cone. Nic. P. 2. c. 31. § 8. pp. 156, 7. ed.
1599. 10 Que licet non sequamur tamen damnare non possumus, quia multi Ecclesi-

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 253
he admits that the majority of the Western Church in his part
of the world maintained it ; and that so earnestly, as to be in
dignant with those who denied it.*
It is impossible, then, to deny that the testimony in favour of
this doctrine, as an Apostolical tradition, is such as can be addu
ced for hardly any other; and by the earliest Fathers it is deliv
ered to us as one which it savours strongly of heresy to deny.
They deliver it to us as the undeniable sense of, Scripture, and
as confirmed by a testimony coming to them by successional de
livery from the oral teaching of the Apostles.
Nor is it till we come to the middle of the third century, that
we find any record of any person of note in the church opposing
it.' About that time we find, by an incidental notice of the work
in Eusebius' and Jerome,* that Dionysius of Alexandria wrote a
book against it, in refutation of one by Nepos, according to
Eusebius, or, as Jerome says, against Irenaeus; and was answer
ed by Apollinarius, who (as Jerome tells us in the passage above
quoted,*) was followed in this point by most of the Western
Church in Jerome's part of the world. And after this period
we find most of the authors that remain to us opposing, and even
ridiculing, the doctrine."
asticorum virorum et martyres ista dixerunt. Et unusquisque in suo sensu abun-
det, et Domini cuncta judicio reserventur. Huron. Comm. in Hierem. c. 19.
Tom. iv. col. 975, 6. ed. Vail. Ven.
1 De repromissionibus futurorum, quomodo debeant accipi, et qua ratione in-
telligenda sit Apocalypsis Johannis, quam si juxta literam accipimus, judaizan-
dum est, si spiritualiter ut scripta est disserimus. multorum veterum videbimur
opinionibus contraire. Latinorum, Tertulliani, Victorini, Lactantii; Grsecorum,
ut cfflteros prsetermittam, Irenaei tantum Lugd. Episc. faciam mentionem, adver
sum quem vir eloquentissimus Dionysius Alexandrinee Ecclesia pontifex elegant-
em scribit librum, irridens, mille annorum fabulam . . Cui duobns voluminibus
respondet .\pollinarius, quem non solum sua sectoe homines sed et nostrorum, in
hac parte dumtaxat, plurima seguitur multitudo, ut prcesa/;a mente jam cernam,
quantorum in me rabies concitanda sit. Hieron. Comm. in Is. in Praef. ad libr.
18. Tom. iv. col. 767, 1. ed. Vail. Ven.
2 Unless we think that the answer of the relations of our Lord to Domitian,
when questioned concerning the future kingdom of Christ, is pertinent to this
matter ; and it certainly appears to me worthy of observation, in connexion with
it. " Being asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, what it would be, and
when and where it was to appear, they answered that it was not mundane or
earthly, but heavenly and angelical ; and would be at the end of the world, when
he should come in glory and judge the quick and the dead, and give to each ac
cording to his works." (EpuTnBiVTXs SiTnpi tou X^io-tou xxt ths Sxa-txuxs xutou, ottoia
Tts (IB, xxt TTOTi XXt TTOt ^XVHTO/AiVH, XoyOV SoUVAt, Us OU XOIT/AtXH /AiV OuSi ilTiyilOS, iTTOUpAVtOS
Si XAt XyyiXtXH TUyXAVtt, tTt trUVTiXilX TOU XtUVOS yiVHO-O/AiVH, OTTHVIXX ixBuv iy So^H xptvu
^UVTAS xxt ViXpoUS, XXI XTToSuO-il iXA7TU XATA TA iTTtTHSiU/AATX AUTOU. EuSEB. Hist.
Eeol. iii. 20.)
3 EusEB. Hist. Eccl. lib. vii. c. 24. ; and see lib. iii. c. 28.
' Hibron. Comm. in Is. in Prief. ad libr. 18.
' See the preceding page.
8 See Edseb. iii. c. ult. Hikhok. in loc. cit. et passim. THKODoaiT. Hsret.
Fab. lib. 2. c. 3. tom. 4. p. 330. ed. Schuize ; &c. <&.c.
VOL. I. Y

254 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
Now I will not enter upon the question whether this doctrine
is true or false, for that might seem to involve a determination
of the very point in dispute; nor will I press the argumentum
ad hominem against our opponents, as not receiving what has
such witness in its favour, because they may justly take refuge
in the admissions of Justin and Irenasus, that there were those
among Christians who did not embrace it, as showing that there
was not catholic consent for it. But the conclusion (the, as it
appears to me, irrefragable conclusion) that I draw from it is
this. That a doctrine may be put forth as the indubitably cor
rect interpretation of Scripture, and an Apostolical tradition, by
a great number of the most esteemed Fathers, and consequently
might bear to us the appearance of having the catholic consent
of the early church in its favour, (judging, as our opponents do,
by the few remains we happen to possess,) which was really but
the view taken by a portion of the church; and moreover, that
what seems, if we are to judge with certainty from the few-
authors that remain to us, to have been the prevailing doctrine
of the church for a long period, and received as one handed
down by a successional delivery from the oral teaching of the
Apostles, may afterwards have been so repudiated by the great
majority, that yon can barely find a supporter of it, and will
generally see it loaded with obloquy; and therefore either that
it was not really the prevailing doctrine, or that the prevailing
doctrine became corrupted at too early a period for us to know
precisely, from the works that remain to us, what it was.
To this case Mr. Newman has alluded ; and his mode of get
ting over the difficulty, is by assuming that " the early opinions
concerning the Millennium," " probably in no slight degree"
"originated in a misunderstanding of Scripture;"* an assump
tion which, after the extracts given above, needs no reply; and
which, if true, does not help his cause in the least ; for though
it was held to be supported by Scripture, it was handed down as
also an oral Apostolical tradition; and he thinks fhat at any
rate " such local rumours about matters of fact cannot be put on
a level with catholic tradition concerning matters of doctrine."'^
Now the notion is new to me that a doctrine is more easily hand
ed down than a fact ; and the point now under consideration is,
as it appears to me, a doctrine. It certainly was so propounded
by Irenaeus and Justin. And I would ask, " what matter of doc
trine has a tradition in its favour, during the earliest times of the
church, so catholic as this? Mr. Newman adds, — "Certainlv
in Egypt in the third century they seem to have had their origin
in a misconstruction of Scripture. Euseb. Hist. vii. 24."= I can
1 Lect. p. 203. 2 lb. 3 lb.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 255
see nothing more, however, in this passage, than that those who
supported the doctrine, supported it, as Justin and Irenaeus did
before them, by testimonies of Scripture ; believing those testi
monies to be the proper proofs of all doctrines, even at that
early period ; and I would particularly commend to Mr. New
man's observation the account there given us by Dionysius of
Alexandria of a disputation he held wifh some of those who were
attached to this doctrine ; in which he tells us, in praise of his
opponents, that they, "acting most conscientiously and sincere
ly, and with hearts laid open to God's view, fully received those
things that were established by proofs and testimonies taken
from the Holy Scriptures."^
The two next cases I would notice, are instances of unfounded
claims to Apostolical tradition, on points connected with the
rites of the church ; namely, respecting the time of observing
Easter, and the re-baptization of those baptized by heretics.
I would point out, then, on this head, —
(2. ) The disputes respecting the time of observing Easter.
The account of this matter is preserved to us by Eusebius,
who tells us that towards the close of the second century " no
small controversy being raised, because the churches («-«(io(k<«/)
of all Asia supposed, aifrom a more antient tradition, that
they ought to observe the fourteenth day of the Moon as the
salutary feast of Easter, being the day on which the Jews were
commanded to kill the lamb; and that they ought always on
that day, on whatever day of the week it might happen, to ter
minate their fastings ; when, nevertheless, it was not the custom
of the churches over the rest of the whole world to celebrate it
in this manner, who observed the custom derived from apostoli
cal tradition, and still prevailing ; viz., that they ought not to
put an end to their fastings on any other day but that of the
resurrection of our Saviour ; upon this account synods and as
semblies of bishops met. And all of them with one consent, did
by their letters certify their brethren everywhere of the eccle
siastical decree ; viz., that the mystery of our Lord's resurrec
tion should never be celebrated on any other day but Sunday ;
and that on that day only we should observe to terminate the fast
before Easter. There is at this time extant the decree (yfitipt)
of those who then were assembled in Palestine, over whom The
ophilus, bishop of the church in Csesarea, and Narcissus, bishop
of that in Jerusalem, presided. In like manner, also, another of
those assembled at Rome concerning the same question, showing
that its bishop at that time was Victor. Also of the bishops in
Pontus, over whom Palmas, as being the most antient, presided.
' See the passage quoted below, ch, 10. under " Dionysius of Alexandria."

256 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
Also of the churches in Gallia, of which Irenseus was bishop.
Moreover, of those in Osdroenna and the cities there, and a pri
vate letter of Bachyllus, bishop of the church of the Corinthians ;
and of most others also ; all of whom having uttered one and the
same opinion and sentiment, gave the same judgment ; and this
we have mentioned was their unanimous determination."*
But, on the other hand, when this judgment was communicated
to the churches of Asia, they, as Eusebius tells us, " stoutly
maintained that they ought to observe the custom that came to
them by antient tradition ;"° and their bishop, Polycrates, wrote
back to Victor, bisbop of Rome, as follows ; — " We therefore,"
he says, "observe the true day unaltered, having neither added
to nor taken from [what has been delivered to us]. For in Asia
lie the great seeds (<rToii(,uii) [of the church], who shall rise in
the day of the Lord's advent, in which he shall come from heaven
with glory, and raise all the saints : viz., Philip, one of the twelve
Apostles who died at Hierapolis, and his two daughters that lived
to a great age as virgins, and his other daughter who possessed,
during her life, the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, who rests at
Ephesus. And moreover John, who reposed on the bosom of our
Lord, who became a priest, and wore a golden plate, who was
also a martyr and a teacher. He died af Ephesus. Moreover,
also, Polycarp the bishop and martyr of Smyrna. And Thra-
seas, the bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who died at Smyrna.
And why need 1 mention Sagaris, bishop and martyr, who died
at Laodicea? Moreover, the blessed Papirius also; and Melito
the eunuch, who enjoyed the peculiar gifts of the Holy Spirit
during the whole of his life, who lies' at Sardis, awaiting the visi
tation from heaven, in which he shall rise from the dead. These
all observed Easter on the fourteenth day, according to ihe
Gospel ; transgressing in nothing, but walking strictly ac
cording to the rule of faith. And I also, the least of all of you,
Polycrates, [so act], according to the tradition of my relations,
some of whom I have followed. There were, indeed, seven
bishops related to me. And I am the eighth. And my relations
always observed the day when the people [i. e. the Jews] re
moved the leaven. I therefore, brethren, being sixty-five years
old in the Lord, and having had communication with bre
thren from all parts of the world, and having read through
all the Holy Scriptures, am not alarmed at the threats directed
against me. For those who are greater than I, have said. It
behoves us to obey God, rather than men." And he adds after
wards, that he had called together very many bishops to give
'- Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. v. c. 23.
^ Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. .. u. 24.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 257
their opinion on the matter ; and that they entirely approved of
what he had written.' And Irenaeus, in his letter to Victor, reminds
him that Polycarp had thus observed the day ; and, that when
he came to Rome, Anicetus, the bishop of Rome, who observed
the contrary practice, could not induce him to forsake it ; " inas
much," says Irenseus, " as he had always so observed it with John
the disciple of the Lord, and the rest of the Apostles, with whom
hehad been conversant."^
And the difference, as we learn from Irenaeus, extended also to
the previous fast ; for he tells us that " some think they ought to
fast one day ; others, two ; others, more."^ And he thinks it
probable that the difference might arise from some bishops being
negligent, and allowing that to go down to posterity as a cus
tom, which was introduced through simplicity and igno
rance.* Here, then, surely we have a remarkable instance how easily
even a practice might be introduced, under the name of an apos
tolical tradition, which had no such sanction for it ; and this, as
Irenaeus thinks, might arise, even in the second century, from the
negligence of bishops allowing that to go down to posterity as a
custom, which was introduced through simplicity and ignorance ;
and thus the name of Apostolical tradition be pleaded for that
which was altogether abhorrent to the usages of the Apostles.
And, be it observed, that in the case before us, the evidence
(taking that which remains to us) appears to preponderate in fa
vour of that usage which is not now followed.^
So that our learned Dean Comber remarks on this matter,
" Though Binius's notes brag of Apostolical and universal tradi
tion, the bishops of Asia produced a contrary tradition, and call
ed it Apostolical, for keeping Easter at a diflferent time; which
shows how Ilncertain a ground tradition is for articles of
faith, when it varied so much in delivering down a practical
rite through little more than one century.'"
Before we pass on, let us observe the way in which this whole
dispute is spoken of early in the fifth century, by one whose
"peculiar judgment and diligence" are praised both by Valesius
and our own Cave, — the historian Socrates. " I think it not
unreasonable," he says," to declare in short what comes into my

I Euseb. H. E. lib. v. c. 24. 2 Ib.
J Ib. 4 Ib.
5 See further particulars relating to this matter, in Epiphan. Adv. hser. in hser.
70. §§ 9, 10, and Athanas. De Synod. Arim. § 5. p. 719. (ed. Ben.) and Ep. ad
African. Episc. § 2. p. 892, where Athanasius acknowledges that the churches
of Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia, at the time of the Nicene Council, all cele
brated Easter at the time of the Jewish Passover.
» Roman Forgeries, p. 33. ; or in Bishop Gibson's Preservative, vol. 3.
Y*

258 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
mind concerning Easier. Neither the antients nor the moderns
who have studiously followed the Jews had, in my judgment, any
just or rational cause of contending so much about this festival.
For they considered not with themselves that when the Jewish
religion was changed into Christianity, those accurate observan
ces of the Mosaic law and the types of things future wholly
ceased. And this carries along with it its own demonstration.
For no one of Christ's laws has permitted the Christians to observe
the rites of the Jews. Moreover, on the contrary, the Apostle
has expressly forbid this, and does not only reject circumcision,
but also advises against contending about festival days.
Wherefore, in his Epistle to the Galatians, his words are these,
' Tell me, ye that desire to be under the Law, do ye not hear the
Law?' [iv. 21.] And having spent some few words in his dis
course hereof, he demonstrates that the people of the Jews are
servants, but that those who have followed Christ are called to
liberty. Moreover il is his admonition that days, and months,
and years, should in no wise be observed. Besides, in his Epistle
to the Colossians, he does loudly affirm that such observations are
a shadow. Wherefore he says, ' Let no man judge you in meat,
or in drink, or in respect of any holy day, or of the new moon, or
of the subbath days, which are a shadow of things to come.' [ii.
16, 17.] And in the Epistle to the Hebrews, this very Apostle
does confirm the same things in these words, ' For the priesthood
being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the
Law.' [vii. 12.] The Apostle therefore and the Gospels have
no where imposed the yoke of servitude on those who have
approached the preaching of the faith, but have left the feast
of Easter and the other festivals to be honouredby their grati
tude and benevolence who have had benefits conferred upon
them on those days. Wherefore in regard men love festivals,
because thereon they have a cessation from their labours, each
person in every place according to his own pleasure has by a cer
tain custom celebrated the memory of the saving passion. For
neither our Saviour nor his Apo.Mes have enjoined us by any
law to observe this festival Nor have the Gospels or the Apos
tles threatened us with any mulct, punisnment, or curse,
as the Mosaic Law does the Jews. For it is merely for the
history's sake, in order to a publishing of the reproach of the
Jews, because they polluted themselves with blood on their very
festivals, that it has been recorded in the gospels that our Saviour
suffered even on the days of unleavened bread. Moreover it was
not the Apostles' design to make laws concerning festival days,
but to introduce good Hfe and piety. And it seems to me, that as
many other things in several places have been established by
custom, so the feast of Easter, also had a peculiar observation

No DIVINE INFORMANT. 259
amongst all persons from some old usage, in regard none of the
Apostles as I have said have made any determinate decree
about it. Now that the observation of this festival had its ori
ginal amongst all men in the primitive times from custom rather
than law, the things themselves do demonstrate." He then
notices, as a proof, the great variety there was as to the time of
observing it, and adds, " The Quartodecimans do affirm that
the observation of the fourteenth day of the moon was deliver
ed to them by John the Apostle. But the Romans and those
in the western parts say, that the usage in force with them
was delivered by the Apostles Peter and Paul. Notwithstand
ing neither of these tivo parties can produce any Written [or,
SCRIPTURAL TESTIMONY in Confirmation hereof."
And having hence taken occasion to notice "the different
usages of churches" respecting rites, particularly as to the time
and mode of fasting, he adds, " And in regard no one can pro
duce a command in writing [or, scripture] concerning this
thing, it is manifest thai the Apostles left every one to his
own will and free choice in this case, to the end that no per
son might be compelled through fear or necessity to the per
formance of what is good."
Hence he proceeds to notice the variety ih the time and mode
of conducting their religious assemblies, and respecting divers
ecclesiastical usages, the diversity of which according to the ac
count he there gives is not a little remarkable, and thus con
cludes,-;—" That there happened many differences upon this ac
count even in the Apostles' times, was a thing not unknown even
to the Apostles themselves, as the book of the Acts does attest.
For when the Apostles understood that a disturbance was raised
amongst the faithful by reason of a dissension of the Gentiles, be
ing all met together, they promulged a divine law, drawing it up
in form of a Letter; whereby they freed believers from a most
burthensome servitude and vain contention about these things,
and taught them a most exact way of living well which would
lead them to true piety, mentioning to them only such things as
necessarily ought to be observed  For these are the ex
press words of the Letter, ' It seemed good to the Holy Ghost to
lay upon you no greater burthen than these necessaries to be ob
served.' Notwithstanding there are some who, disregarding these
precepts, suppose all fornication to be a thing indiflferent, but
contend about holy days, as ifit were for their lives. These
persons invert the commands of God, and make laws for them
selves, not valuing the decree of the Apostles, nor do they con
sider that they practise the contrary to those things which
'seemed good' to God."*
1 Sorrat. Scbolasl. Hist. Eccles. lib. v. u. 22. I have given this passage accord-
ing to the English translation published with Eusebius, &c. Lond. 1709. foJ.

260 patristical TRAOniON
Leaving this passage to the careful consideration of the reader,
and of the Tractators more especially, I proceed to
(3) The question relating to the rebaptization of those bap
tized by heretics.
A controversy arose on this subject in the middle of the third
century between Cyprian and Stephen, Bishop of Rome, and the
question, says Eusebius, was, " whether it was proper that those
who went over to the church from any heresy should be purged
bv baptism."*
Stephen, Bishop of Rome, held that "from whatever here
sy" any one should go over to the church, having been baptized
by the heretics with whom he had been associated, he should be
admitted by the imposition of hands," including even such here
sies as those of Marcion, Valentinus and Apelles.^
Cyprian on the contrary held that those who had been baptized
out of the church among heretics or schismatics ought to be
baptized when they went over to the church, and that it was of
little use to lay hands upon them that they might receive the
Holy Spirit, unless they also received the baptism of the church.*
The former opinion was defended by Stephen upon the ground
of its being an Apostolical tradition. " If any one," he says,
'*¦ shall have come over to us from any heresy, let no new prac
tice be introduced, but that observed which was delivered (tradi
tum), namely that there be imposition of hands for repentance."*
And we are told by Firmilian that he defended his opinion on the
ground that " the Apostles forbade that those who came over
from any heresy should be baptized^ and delivered this to posteri
ty to be observed.'"*
And to this no doubt it is fhat Cyprian refers when he says, on
this subject, — •• Nor let any one say, we follow that which we
have received from the Apostles, since the Apostles delivered

• HtSiOl TOUS iZ OIXTOUV AlDi^iUS iTTtfrTpiJOVTXS SlX XOUTpOU XxBAipiiV. EUSEH. HlSt.
Eccl. vii. 2.
2 Si quis ergo a quacunque haeresi venerit ad nos, nihil innovetur nisi quod
traditum est, ut manus illi imponatur in pcenitentiam. Cit. a Cypr. in Ep. 74,
ad Pompeium.
3 Cypr. Ep. 74, ad Pomp.
4 Eos qui sint foris extra Ecclesiam tincti, et apud haereticos et schismaticos
profanae aquse labe maculali, quando ad nos atque ad Ecclesiam, quae una est,
venerint, baptizari oportere ; eo quod parum sit eis manum imponere ad accipien
dum Spiritum Sanctum nisi accipiant et Ecclesiae baptismum. Cypr. Ep. 73, ad
Steph. 5 Vide supra.
6 Quantum ad id pertineat quod Stephanos dixit, quasi Apostoli eos qui ab
hsresi veniant baptizari prohibuerint, et hoc custodiendum posteris tradiderint
plenissime vos respondistis. Firmil. Ep. ad Cypr. Inter. Op. Cypr. Ep. 75.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 261
that there was only one church and one baptism."* And Eusebi
us tells us, that the reason of Stephen's anger was, that he thought
it was not right to introduce any thing new and beyond the tra
dition that had been in force from the beginning."
The real state of the case was, that it was the custom at that
time in Rome, and some other churches, and therefore was dig
nified, as every other custom of that church was and is, with the
most unscrupulous audacity, with the title of an Apostolical tra
dition, such a name being well known to be with the multitude
an immediate passport to its reception ; but to which many of
the customs so observed even in the third century, as Firmilian
tells us,s had no right.
Now it is commonly represented, that on the other side the
charge of innovation was admitted, but that Cyprian, arguing
from Scripture, followed a practice which he admitted might be
new to the church. This notion, however, is altogether errone
ous, as the statements of Cyprian and Firmilian, and others, fully
show. Thus Cyprian says, that his opinion was " not new, but long
before laid down by his predecessors, and observed by him."*
And again ; — " It is not a new or suddenly introduced thing with
us, that we should hold that those who come over to the church
from heretics should be baptized, since it is many years and a
long period since a great number of bishops, meeting under
Agrippinus, a man whose memory is to be had in honour, decreed
this ; and between that time and this many thousand heretics in
our provinces being converted to the church," have been bap
tized.' And this decree of Agrippinus and the bishops who were
assembled with him, Cyprian says he followed, as being " pious
and legitimate and salutary, and agreeable to the catholic faith
and church."^ And he clearly denies the antiquity of the cus
tom pleaded on the other side. For he says, — " They say that
they follow in this antient custom, when among the antients
1 Nec quisquam dicat, quod accepimus ab Apostolis hoc sequimur, quando
Apostoli non nisi unam Ecclesiam tradiderunt et baptisma unum. Cypr. Ep. 73.
2 AXX' oyi 'XTitpAVOS /AH Sun Tl Vf»T«/10V TTXpA THV KfATHITATAy ApX«BiV TrApAjorlV WTtXAllO-
TO/AUV OlQ/AtVOS, €7rt TOUTOP StHyAVAXTU. EUSKB. Hist. Eccl. vii. 3.
3 See Firmil. Ep. ad Cypr. Inter Cypr. Ep. 75.
4 Sententiam nostram non novam promimus, sed jam pridem ab antecessoribus
nostris statutam et a nobis observatam. Cypr. Ep. 70. Ad Januarium.
^ Apud nos autem non nova aut repentina res est, ut baptizandos censeamus
eos qui ab haereticis ad Ecclesiam veniunt, quando multi jam anni sint et longa
aetas ex quo sub Agrippino bonae memoriae viro convenientes in unum episcopi
plurimi hoc statuerint, atque exinde in hodiernum tot millia haereticorum in pro
vinces nostris ad Ecclesiam conversi non aspernati sint, &c  ut layacri
vitalis et aalutaris baptismi gratiam consequerentur. Cypr. Ep. 73. Ad Jubaian.
6 Quorum sententiam et religiosam et legitimam et salutarem fidei et Ecclesis
Catholicse congruentem nos etiam secuti sumus. Cypr. Ep. 71. Ad Quintum.

262 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
were the first beginnings of heresy and schisms, so that they
formed the heretics, who departed from the church, and had
been previously baptized among us, whom when they returned
to the church as penitents it was not necessary to baptize. Which
we also observe at this day; so that as it respects those whom
we know to have been baptized in the church, and to have gone
over from us to the heretics, if afterwards acknowledging their
offence, and rejecting their error, they return to the truth and
their mother, (matricem) it is sufficient to lay hands upon them
for repentance."*
Such, also, is the testimony of every one of the eighty-seven
bishops convened on this matter by Cyprian, in the third Car
thaginian synod. They one and all declare that the baptism of
heretics is altogether nidi and void ; and that not as men lay
ing down any new rule on the subject, but merely as witnesses
to what had been a principle of the Christian faith from the be
ginning. The testimonies of these bishops were given by each
separately, and are still to be seen in the works of Cyprian.'
The same testimony is borne by Dionysius of Alexandria, the
contemporary of Cyprian, who writing on this subject says, — " I
have learnt this -also, that it is not the case that now at this time
the Africans only have introduced this [as some appear to have
represented it was], but that long ago this opinion was main
tained by the bishops before us in the most populous churches
and synods of the brethern at Iconium and Synada, and in
many places, whose determinations I cannot allow myself to
subvert, and throw them into strife and contention ; for it is said.
Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmarks which thy
fathers have set."^
And lastly, Firmilian, who was Bishop of Csesarea in Cappa-
docia, still more plainly says, — " We to truthyom also custom,
and to the custom of the Romans oppose custom, but the cus
tom of truth ; holding this to have been from the beginning which
was delivered by Christ and the Apostle. Nor do we recollect
' Et dicunt se in hoc veterem consuetudinem sequi; quando apud veteres
haereseos et schismatum prima adhuc fuerint initia, ut hi illic essent qui de Ec
clesia recedebant, et hic baptizati prius fuerant : quos tunc tamen ad Ecclesiam
revertentes et pasnitentiam agentes necesse non erat baptizare. Quod nos quoque
hodie observamus, ut quos constet hic baptizatos esse et a nobis ad hsreticos
transisse, si postmodum peccato suo cognito et errore digesto ad veritatem et ma
tricem redeant, satis sit in pcenitentiam manum imponere. Cypr. Ep. 71. Ad
Quintum. 2 See Concil. Carthagin. De baptiz. barrel, inter Op. Cypriani.
3 MifAxBHXA XXI TOUTO, 0T( ^» VUV Ot iV AippiXH /AOVoV TOUTO TTXpilO-HyxyoV, a\X« XXt TTpO
TTOXXOU H.«Ta T0U5 TTpO H/Am iTTtirXOTTOUS SV TXtS TTOXUAyBpUTToTATAlS iXXXH(TlXtS XXI TAtS ITUVO-
Sots TUV xiiXim iv Ixovia xxt IuvaSois xxt TTxpx ttoxxois touto iSohy, uv tas Houxxs xyxTpi-
TTUy US iptV xxt ttXoyUXlAV AUTOUS i/A&XXilV OUX UTTO/AiVU. Ou yXp /AiTAXlVHC-ilS, fHo-ty, OptA TOU
TAHff-loV TOU A iBiVTO Ot TTATipiS TOU. ElTSEB. Hist. Eccl. lib. vii. C. 7.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 263
that this had any beginning with us, since it was always
observed here, that we should acknowledge but one church of
God, and that we should reckon that only to be holy baptism
which was of the holy church."* And in this he speaks not as
an individual, but as representing the sentiments of a synod of
bishops from the neighbouring parts assembled at Iconium.^
So far, then, from admitting that their practice was a novelty
in the church, they stoutly maintained the antiquity of the cus
tom. And certainly Tertullian was on their side of the ques
tion, for in his Treatise on baptism written before his departure
from the church, he says, that the heretics, " without doubt,
have not" baptism f upon which the learned Pamelius remarks,
that it is impossible to deny (negare non possumus) that he was
of the same opinion as Cyprian, and that perhaps his Greek
treatise on baptism in which this opinion was more fully
stated was on that account suppressed ; a plain confession of
his opinion of the mode in which the writings of the primitive
church were dealt with by the dominant parties of after times.*
And such also appears to have been the opinion of Clement
of Alexandria.*
But says Mr. Newman, " Cyprian did not profess any Apos
tolical tradition on his side." (p. 204.) No doubt he did not
as far as their on ai, tradition was concerned; and the ques
tion is, whether he did not herein show more sense and judgment
than those who did make a claim which they could not substan
tiate. " The Roman Church," says Mr. Newman, " rested her
doctrine simply on Apostolical Tradition," i. e. what she chose
to call so, being at most a supposed correct report of it by others ;
" which," he adds, " by itself might fairly be taken as a suf
ficient witness in such a point." No doubt the Romish Church
is under great obligations to Mr. Newman for his favourable judg
ments of their reports of " Apostolical tradition ;" and on the
same ground he may add to these " Apostolical traditions" the
worship of images, which Pope Adrian declared to the Second
1 Ceterum nos veratati et consuetudinem jungimus, et consuetudini Eomano-
rum consuetudinem, sed veritatis, opponimus ; ab initio hoc tenentes quod a
Christo et ab Apostolo traditum est. Nec meminimus, hoc apud nos aliquondo
ccepisse, cum semper istic observatum sit, ut non nisi unam Dei ecclesiam nosse-
mus, et sanctum tiaptisma non nisi sanctae ecclesiae computaremus. Firmil. ad
Cypr. Inter Cypr. Ep. 75.
2 Plurimi simul convenientes in Iconio diligentissime tractavimus et confirma-
vimus repudiandum esse omne omnino baptisma quod sit extra Ecclesiam coosti-
tutum. Ib.
3 Quem, [i. e. baptismum] quum rite non habeant, sine dubio nan habent, nec
capit numerari quod non habetur ; ita nec possunt accipere quia non habent. —
Tbbtoii. De bapt. c. 15.
< Vide Pamel. Annot. in Tertull. p. 650. ed. Col. Agripp. 1617.
' See Strom, lib. i. § 19. p. 377. ed. Potter, (p. 317. ed. Sylburg.)

264 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
Nicene Council that the Church of Rome had received by tradi
tion from St. Peter. But Cyprian thought differently, and there
fore ventures to ask bow this claim can be verified. Whence,
saith he, is this tradition ? Does it come from Scripture 1 For
God tells us to do that which is written.* And he adds observa
tions to which I shall have hereafter to call the attention of the
reader, showing that he held that the Scripture only could cer
tify us assuredly of what the Apostles had delivered ; and that
what they had there delivered was (as he supposed) opposed to
the practice defended by Stephen.
And Firmilian still more plainly ridicules this pretence of
"Apostolical tradition." "That those," he says, "who are at
Rome do not in all things observe those things which were de
livered from the beginning, and in vain pretend the authority
of ihe Apostles, anj one may know from hence, that he may see
that there are among them some diflTerence respecting the cele
bration of Easter, and respecting many other ordinances of di
vine worship, and that all things are not alike observed there as
are observed at Jerusalem. "°
The difference, then, between the two parties is just this; that
Stephen, in the true Romish spirit, boldly says. The custom which
we observe was laid down by the Apostles in their oral teaching,
and therefore ought to be observed ; just as his successor Adrian
said to the Second Nicene Council respecting the worship of
images; while Cyprian and his party, while they maintain fhat
the argument from antiquity is, as far as it goes, in favour of their
practice, ground its claim to Apostolicity upon Scripture as tbe
chief and necessary and only sure evidence. And having both
those witnesses (as they supposed) with them, they willingly leave
Stephen and his party to boast of their knowledge of the oral
traditions of the Apostles, and Firmilian in particular tells him, it
is vain for him to pretend to it.
A more full and clear testimony (I would observe by the way)
in favour of the viewfor which we contend, than is here present
ed to us in the remarks of Cyprian and Firmilian, can hardly be
conceived. But say our opponents ; — True, but this shows how the adop
tion of such a view leads to error, for Cyprian was here in the
wrong.^ I Unde est ista traditio, &c. Cypr. Ep. 74. Ad Pomp. See the passage folly
quoted ch. 10 below.
2 Eos autem qui Romae sunt non ea in omnibus observare quae sint ab origine
tradita et frustra Apostolorum auctoritatem pratendere, scire quis etiam inde po
test, quod circa celebrandos dies paschas et circa multa alia divina: rei sacramenta
videat esse apud illos aliquas diversitates, nec observari illic omnia aequaliter quffi
Hierosolymis observantur. Firmil. Ep. ad Cypr. Int. Cypr. Ep. 76.
3 See Newman's Lectures, p. 206.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 265
Now in replying to this I will not stop to remark upon the in
validity of this argument to decide between the principles upon
which each acted, but I pass on to ask this question, — Was Ste
phen right? If not, then is the argument of our opponents from
this case in favour of their view completely overthrown ; aye, and
an additional reason afforded us for discrediting such claims as
that made by Stephen. The Apostles, said Stephen and the
Church of Rome of his day, ordered that from whatever heresy
any one should come over to the church, such a convert should
not be baptized, but only have hands laid upon him. But what
said the most eminent Councils and Fathers on this subject after
wards? " As to those that become Paulianists," saith the Coun
cil of Nice, " and afterwards betake themselves to the Catholic
Church, it has already been decreed that they be by all means
re-baptized."* " They that turn from the heresy of the Phry
gians," saith the Council of Laodicea, " are with great care to be
catechised and baptized by the bishops and priests of the church,
though they were among their clergy, and were reckoned of the
first rank among them."^ " Those," saith the Council of Con
stantinople, " who from among the heretics betake themselves fo
orthodoxy and to the parly of the saved, we receive according to
the order and custom subjoined ; viz. we receive the Arians,
Macedonians, &c., anathematizing all heresy  and hav
ing anointed them with the sacred ointment we seal them, &c.
.... The Eunomians, who are baptized only with one immer
sion, and the Montanisfs, who are here called Phrygians, and the
Sabellians, who maintain the Father and Son to be the same . .
. . and all other heretics, for there are many of them here . .
. . all those of them who are willing to betake themselves to or
thodoxy, we receive as we do the Greeks ... we make them
continue a long time in the Church and hear the Scriptures, and
then we baptize ihem."^
Similar directions are given to the 95th canon of the Sixth
Council, (or the Trullan canons) the 8th canon of the Second
Nicene Council, the 47th of the Apostolical canons, and the 1st
and 47th of the canons of Basil. The opinion of Basil,* indeed,
is almost wholly in favour of the view taken by Cyprian and Fir
milian, whom he mentions by name in his first canon, and ap
parently as approving their determinations even with respect to
' Wipt TAy TiAUXlAVlfTAVTUV, ilTA TTpotripuyoVTUy TH XitBoXlXH iXXXHTIX^ opos iXTiBilTXl AVX'
ixTtTii^io-Bxt AUTOUS it-A/TTxyTos- Can. 19. Vide. Biblioth. J. C. Vet. ed. Voell. et
Justell. tom. i. p. 34.
« Can. 8. Ib. p. 50.
3 Can. 7. Ib. p. 58.
* See Basii,. Ep. ad Amphiloch. Ep. 188. (Op, tom, iii. pp. 268—70,) and
Ep. 199. (ib. pp. 296, 7.)
VOL. 1. Z

266 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
those baptized by schismatics, though as the custom was different
in different places, he holds it best that the custom of the place
should be followed. And as to those baptized by heretics, he ex
pressly says, " It has seemed good lo the antients /ro/n the begin
ning, altogether to reject the baptism of heretics."*
And Athanasius pronounces even the baptism of the Arians as
well as that of the Manichees, the Phrygians, and tfie Samosa-
tenians to be "altogether useless and unprofitable."^ While the
notion of Augustine (and which has been very prevalent in the
Western Church since his time) seems to have been, that the
baptism of heretics was not valid if not preformed in the name of
the Three Persons of the Trinity, but that if so performed, it was
valid, whatever sentiments they might hold.^
What now becomes of Stephen's " Apostolical tradition,"
which Mr. Newman tells us, " might by ilself fairly be taken as
a sufficient witness in such a point?"
And yet this very case is brought by our opponents as a proof
of the safety of being guided by " Apostolical tradition," i. e.some
patristical report of it.
Be it observed, also, that Augustine, though he maintains that
the custom he followed was derived from Apostolical tradition,
maintains this upon grounds that are not trustworthy, and is
evidently conscious that his cause needed better support. For
he affirms this on two grounds, one, that it was a custom main
tained by the universal church,* which is abundantly disproved
by the facts and statements referred to above ; the other, that a
custom the institution of which could not be traced to those who
came after the Apostles ought to be considered Apostolical,^ on
which evidence of Apostolicity (not to say that it was just as ap
plicable fo the practice of Cyprian and his party, if we may be
lieve them, as to the opposite practice) Bishop Taylor justly re
marks in the last work he wrote, " which in plain meaning is this,
we find a custom in the church, and we know not whence it
comes, and it is so in this as in many other things, and therefore,
let us think the best and believe it came by tradition from the
Apostles ;" and again further on ; — " which"^kind of rule is some
I "ESoVi TOIS Sf XpXHS TO /AiV TUV AipiTtXUV, [i. e. eXTTTia-^x] TTAVTiXUS aSsTHo-sti. Ib.
p. 269.
i UxvTiXus xivoy XAt AXutTiTiXis. Orat. 2. contr. Arian. § 42 p 510 ed Ben
And see § 43. pp. 510, 11.
3 Aug. Cont. litt. Petil. lib. ii. §. 57. tom. 9. col. 236. De unic. bapt c 3 ib.
col. 529.
4 De bapt. contr. Donat. lib. v. c. 31. tom. ix. col. 156.
5 Ilia consuetudo quam etiam tunc [i. e. tempore Cypriani] homines sursum
versus lespicientes non videbant a posterioribus institutam, recte ab Apostolis tra
dita creditur. De bapt. contr. Don. lib. iv. c. 6. tom. ix. col. 126.
6 Diss, from Popery, Pt. 2. § 3. Works, vol. x. p. 433.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 267
thing like what a witty gentleman said of an old man and an old
woman in Ireland, that if they should agree to say that they were
Adam aud Eve, no man living could disprove them . . . This
rule is but a precarious pitiful presumption, since every antient
custom that any succeeding age hath a mind to continue, may
for the credit of it and the ignorance of the original, like new
upstart gentlemen, be entitled to an honourable house. ' Every
one believes the commandments of his ancestors to be traditions
apostolical,' said St. Jerome; and that these came in by private
authority, and yet obtained a public name, we have competent
warranty from Tertullian. (De cor. mil. c. 4.)"*
In another part of the same work," Augustine has put these
two requisites together, as forming jointly a sufEcient proof of
Apostolical tradition ; in which case the whole argument drops
at once from the want of universality in the practice.
Nor does Augustine, while in his controversial zeal against the
Donatists he opposes the sentiments of Cyprian, and espouses the
cause of his opponent Stephen, seem to remember that his own
view was not the same as that of Stephen, and therefore that he
must either give up Stephen too, or the apostolicity of his own
practice ; and in all ways the apostolicity of his own practice was
not only destitute of proof but against evidence.
It is manifest, also, that Augustine himself felt the necessity of
supporting his cause by some better proofs, and by showing that
Scripture was on his side. " Lest," saith he, " I should seem to
treat the matter with human arguments since the obscurity
of this question drove great men, in former times of the church,
before the schism of Donatus, and men endued with much Chris
tian charity, episcopal Fathers, to differ from one another, &c.
.... I produce/row the Gospel certain proofs, by which, the
Lord helping me, I prove how rightly and truly, according to the
Divine will, it has been ordained," &c.3
And so it appeared to Bishop Taylor, who, after the observa
tions quoted above, adds, " But it seems himself was not sure that
so little a foundation could carry so big a weight; he therefore
plainly hath recourse to Scripture in this question : ' Whether is
more pernicious, not to be baptized, or to be rebaptized, is hard
' Dissuasive from Popery, Pt. 2, § 3. Works, x. p. 445.
2 Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec conciliis institutum sed semper retentum
est, non nisi auctoritate apostolica traditum rectissime creditur. De bapt. contr.
Don. lib. iv. u. 24. tom. ix. col. 140.
3 Jam enim ne videar humanis argumenlis id agere, quoniam quaestionis hujus
obscuritas prioribus Ecclesiae temporibus ante schisma Donati magnos viros et
magna caritate praeditos patres episcopos ita inter se compulit salva pace discep-
tare, &c  ex Evangelic profero certa documenta quibus Domino adjuvante
demonstro quam recte placuerit et vere secundum Deum, &c. De bapt. contr.
Donat. lib. 1. c 7. tom. ix. col. 84.

268 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
to judge ; nevertheless, having recourse to the standard of our
Lord, where the monuments of this are not estimated by human
sense but by Divine authority, I find concerning each of them the
sentence of our Lord' (Cont. Don. lib. iv. c. 14, &c., 17 and 24),
to wit in the Scriptures."*
And this reference to Scripture proof is repeated in many other
parts of the same treatise.
Are we fo be told, then, that Cyprian erred because he rested
upon the authority of Scripture ?
There is one more remark, also, which the consideration of this
case suggests, viz.liow little we can trust the reports given by many
of the Fathers wifh respect to such matters. For in the case be
fore us, we are told by Eusebius that Cyprian was the first to
introduce the practice he followed. ° Nor are the statements
of Augustine free from similar error.3 But the Monk of Lerins
has, as usual, settled everything without hesitation to his own
liking, and thus faithfully chronicles this matter. " This," saith
he, " hath ever been usual in the church, that the more religious
a man hath been, the more readily hath he always resisted novel
inventions ; examples whereof everywhere are plentiful, but for
brevity's sake 1 will only make choice of some one, which shall be
taken from the Apostolic See, by which all men may see most plain
ly with what force always, what zeal, what endeavour, the blessed
succession of the blessed Apostles have defended the integrity of
that religion which they once received. Therefore, in times past,
Agrippinus, of venerable memory, Bishop of Carthage, the first
of all mortal men, maintained this assertion against the divine
Scripture, against Ihe rule of the Universal Church, auainst
THE MIND OF ALL THE PRIESTS OF HIS TIME, AGAINST THE CUSTOM
AND TRADITION OF HIS FOREFATHERS, that rebaptizatiou was to be
practised. Which presumption of his procured so great hurt to
the Church, that not only it gave all heretics a pattern of sacri
lege, but also ministered occasion of error fo some Catholics.
When, therefore, everywhere all men exclaimed against the
novelty of the doctrine, and all priests in all places, each one
according to his zeal did oppose, then Pope Stephen, of blessed
memory. Bishop of the Apostolic See, resisted, in common indeed
with therest of his fellow bishops, but yet more than the rest, think
ing it, as I suppose, reason so much to excel all other in devotion
towards the faith, as he was superior to them in authority of
place. To conclude, in his Epistle, which then was sent to Afri
ca, he decreed the same in these words ; That nothing was to be
1 Works, vol. X. p. 434.
2 ripaiToc TOTS (or, tuv tots) KuTfiotvoc ths xxtx KxpxnSova TTxpoixtxs ttoi/ahv, ouS' xxxi»s
H SlA XOUTpOU TTPOTipOV THS TTXAVHS ATTOXxBHpX/ASVOUS TTforrtiTBxt Sity HyUTO- EuSEB. Hlst.
Eccl. lib. vii. c. 3.
3 Vide August. De bapt. contr. Donat. lib. iv. e. 6. tom. ix. col. 126.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 269
innovated, but that which came by tradition ought to be ob
served. For that holy and prudent man knew well, that the
nature of piety could admit nothing else, but only to deliver to
our children all things with the same fidelity with which we re
ceived them of our forefathers, and that we ought to follow reli
gion whither it doth lead us, and not to lead religion whither
it pleases us; and that it is proper to Christian modesty and
gravity not to leave unto posterity our own inventions, but
to keep that which our predecessors left us. What, therefore,
was the end of that whole business? What but that which is
common and usual, to wit, antiquity was retained, novelty ex
ploded. But perhaps that very invention of novelty lacked
patrons and defenders ? To which I say, on the contrary, that
it had such pregnant wits, such flow of eloquence, such number
of defenders, such show of truth, such testimonies of divine Scrip
ture, but understood evidently after a new and naughty fashion,
that all that conspiracy and schism should have seemed unto me
invincible, had not the sole cause of such turmoil, the very pro
fession ITSELF OF NOVELTY, so taken in hand, so defended, so re
commended, left it without support. To conclude, what force
had the council or decree of Africa ? By God's providence none,
but all was abolished, disannulled, abrogated, as dreams, as fables,
as superfluous. And, O strange change of the world ! the au
thors of that opinion are judged to be catholics, but the followers
of the same heretics ; the masters discharged, the scholars con
demned ; the writers of those books shall be children of the
kingdom, but hell shall receive their maintainers. For
who is so mad as to doubt but that that light of all saints, bishops
and martyrs, the most blessed Cyprian, with the rest of his com
panions, shall reign with Christ fbr ever? And contrariwise,
who is so wicked to deny that the Donatists, and such other
pests, which vaunt that they do practise rebaptization by the au
thority of that Council, shall burn for ever with the devil ?"'^
I leave this passage to the reader's reflections, only remarking,
that we have here very sufficient evidence how far this writer is
to be trusted in his accounts, and also an exemplification of what
his " all men everywhere" practically means.
The excuse of ignorance may be his ; for, as Basil tells us, the
Western church often neither knew the true state of aflfairs in
the Eastern, nor went the way to learn it ;^ but this is but a poor
apology for one who professes to know what " everybody always
everywhere" thought about the matter, and to ground his deter-
' Vine. Ler. Commonit. § 6. I give it in the translation lately published at
Oxford. 2 OuTI l<J-X7t Tm TTXp' H/AtV THV AXhBuAV, OUTi THV oSoV St HS XV /AAvBAyotiV XA/TASiXOVTAt.
Basil. Ep. 239. ad Euseb. tom. iii. p. 368. ed. Ben. z*

270 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
minations thereon; and, indeed, cannot, after all, fully account
for the statements he has here made ; which I suppose no candid
mind can read but with disgust.
(4) Even in points in which one might have expected " tradi
tion" to have preserved the truth for some time at least, we find
it fail. Thus as to the duration of our Lord's public ministry, we are
told by Clement of Alexandria that he preached only one year,'-
and by Origen that he preached a year and a few months.'
Irenaeus, on the other hand, shows how contrary this notion is to
the testimony of the Gospels themselves, but with equal error
asserts that our Lord was forty or fifty years old at the time of his
death, for which he refers to Scripture,^ and tradition, asserting
that all the elders who had been acquainted with St. John in
Asia, testified that he had delivered this to them ; some of whom
had seen other Apostles, and heard the same account from them.*
I do not understand, therefore, what Mr. Newman can mean
when he tells us that this statement of Irenaeus is one of the
things which " improperly go by the name of traditions," and
" make out no claim to be considered Apostolical."^
And were we to proceed to a general review of the rites and
customs of the church, we should find many instances of claims
made by various Fathers to the sanction of Apostolical tradition
for rites and customs which no one in the present day would
affirm were ordained by the Apostles; as, for instance, the trine
immersion in baptism, which Athanasius, Jerome, Augustine, and
Ambrose, all call an apostolical tradition."
So that even in matters of fact, and ecclesiastical rites and
ordinances, we find the Fathers that remain fo us very insuffi
cient witnesses to assure us of what is or is not an Apostolical tra
dition. A fortiori, then, is their testimony insufficient in doc
trinal points, where the liability to misapprehension and mistake
is so much greater.
There is one remark, however, which I would here make to

1 'EvtxuTov /AOVOV. Strom, lib. i. p. 407. ed. Potter. And see other similar testi
raonies in the note of Potter on this place.
^-^vixAjTov TTOU xxi /AHvxs oxtyousiSiSx^^iv. Pbllocal. c, 1. lu his Commentary on
Luke iv. he makes the time one year. See Potter not. in Clem. Al. p. 407.
3 Adv. haer. lib. ii. u. 2'.i. ed. Mass. u. 39. ed. Grab.
4 XlAVTiS 01 TTpiT(iuTif,l UXOTUpOUTlV, Ot XXTX THV A<TIXV \UAVyH TU TOU KuPtOU /AxBhTH tTU/A-
&iSXHXOTiS, TAOxSiSuXiVXt TAUTX TOV luxyvHV. IlApi/AitVi yxp AUTOlS /AiXP' TUV TpxixvoU
Xfovuv. Quidam autem eorum non solum Joannem sed et alios Apostolos vide-
runt et haec eadem ab ipsis audu-runt, et testantur de hujusmodi relatione. Ib.
The Greek is preserved by Euseb. H. E. lib. iii. c. 23.
5 P. 203.
* Another instance may be seen in Epiphan. Haer. 28. § 6. tom. 1. p. 114, on
which see the remarks of Whitby in his Comm. on 1 Cor. xv. 29.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT.

271

prevent being misunderstood, viz. that I am not here questioning
the competency or fidehty of the Fathers as witnesses to those
facts and practices of which they were themselves cognizant ; or
the value of their testimony in these matters. Thus, for instance,
their testimony to Episcopacy, infant baptism and the observance
of the Lord's day, as usages in force in their time, is invaluable
as giving us an important confirmation of the correctness of our
interpretation of those passages of Scripture which show us the
apostolicity of those usages.
But that we have any patristical testimony which of itself is
sufficient to ussure us what was the oral teaching of the Apostles,
either in a matter of doctrine or practice, we altogether deny.*
When taunted therefore, as our opponents sometimes seem in
clined fo taunt us, with despising " Apostolical traditions," we say
with their own chosen witness. Bishop Patrick, " This is a
downright calumny ; for we have ever owned that Apostolical
tradition, if we knew where to find them in any place but
the Bible, are to be received and followed, if delivered by them
as of necessary obligation. But we do likewise say, that we
KNOW NO SUCH traditions." (Ausw. to Touchst. p. 27.)
Moreover as the sanction of Apostolical tradition was thus
groundlessly pleaded by some of the Fathers in favour of various
points, so also is their testimony not fully to be depended upon
when claiming, as they not unfrequently do, the sanction of the
Church. We have already seen in a former page how Origen's predilec
tions influenced him in this respect, and that according to Jerome
he made his own fancies mysteries oi the Church.^
And the reader of the Fathers will find this to be constantly
the case. Their own views are often unhesitatingly stamped by
them with the authority of " the Church," when to impartial
observers it is evident that such a claim is wholly unfounded.
Thus Jerome, in more than one place,'' maintains it to be the
' The degree of deference due to the rites and customs of the primitive church
is a quesiion which it would be out of place to discuss here, but I would observe
that the remarks made above must not be taken as denying that they have a claim
upori our respect and regard. Of him who claims more than this in their behalf
I would cisk, how it is that all parties have for ages given up many that were es
teemed of necessary observation in the primitive church, as, for instance, standing
at public prayers on Sundays, and from Easter to Whitsuntide, ordered by tbe
Council of Nice, of the non-observance of which Tertullian says, nefas duci-
mus. (De Cor. c. 3.) But on this subject we shall have to speak more at large
hereafter. (See chapt. 8.)
2 See p. 187 above.
3 Cain et Abel, primi ex primis hominibus, unde habuere animas 1 Omne dein-
«eps huraanum genua quibus animarum censeiur exordiisi Utrum ex traduce

272 PATRISTICAL TEADITION
doctrine of the church that the souls of infants are created by
God, and transfused into them before their birth ; and he is ex
ceedingly indignant at Ruffinus for venturing to express a doubt
on the matter, and to say that though he had read much on the
subject on all sides, he still felt ignorant as to the origin of the
soul. " Do you wonder," saith he, " that the reproaches of the
brethren are raised against you, when you declare that you are
ignorant of that which the Churches of Christ profess to know ?'"
And what makes this more remarkable is, that he admits else
where that Tertullian, Apollinaris, and the greatest part of the
Western ecclesiastics maintained that the soul was ex traduce.^
The same assertion, however, was made by Theodoret and by
Gennadius. Thus Theodoret says, — " The Church .... believing the
Divine Scripture, affirms that the soul is created together with
the body, not having its origin from man, but brought into exis
tence after the formation of the body by the will of the Creator."
And Gennadius reckons it among the doctrines of the church,
that the souls of men are not derived from their parents, but
juxta bruta aninialia.ut quomodo corpus ex corpore sic anima generetur ex animal
An rationabiles creaturae desiderio corporum paulatim ad terram delapsae, novissi-
me etiam humanis illigatae corporibus sintl An certe, quod ecclesiasticum est,
secundum eloquia Salvatoris, Pater mens usque modo operator, et ego operor ;
[Jo. 5. 17,] et illud Isaiae 1 [Zech. xii. 1.] Qui format spiritum hominis in ipso ;
et in Psalmis, Qui fingit per singulos corda eorum [Ps. xxxii. 15,] quotidie Deus
fabricuttir animas. Ad Pammach. adv. error. Job. Hierosol. § 22. tom. ii. c.
427. ed. Vail. Ven. Ep. 38. tom. iv. p. 2. col. 318. ed. Ben.— Quaeris a me quid
ipse de animabus sentiam ; ut cum professus fuero stratim invadas. Et si dixero
illud ecclesiasticum, Quotidie Deus operatur animas, et in corpore eas mitiit nas-
centium, illico magistri tendiculas proferas, et, Ubi est justitia Dei ut de adulterio
incaestuque nascentibus animas largiatur? Adv. Ruffin. lib. iii. § 28, tom. ii. c.
557, ed. Vail. Ven. tom. iv. p. 2. col. 464. ed. Ben.
1 Miraris si contra te fratrum scandala concitentur, quum id nescire te jures
quod Christi Ecclesia: se nosse fateantur ? Adv. Kuffin. lib. ii. § 10. tom. ii. u.
500. ed. Vail. Ven. tom. iv. p. 2. col. 399. ed. Ben.
2 Super animae statu memini vestrs qua^stiunculae, immo maximas ecclesiastica;
quaestionis, Utrum lapsa de caelo sit, ut Pythagoras philosophus, omnesque Plato
nic! et Origenes putant, an a propria Dei substantia, ut Stoici ManichiEus et His-
puna Priscilliani hasresis suspicantur ; an in thesauro habeantur Dei olim conJits,
ut quidam ecclesiastici stulta persuasione corifidunt; an quotidie a Deo fiant et
mittantur in corpora secundum illud quod in Evangelio scriptum est, ' Pater mens
usque modo operatur et ego operor ;' an certe ax traduce, ut Tertullianus, Apol
linaris, et maxima pars Occidentalium autumant; ut quomodo corpus ex corpore
sic anima nascatur ex anima, et simili cum brutis animantibus conditione subsis-
tat. Super quo quid mihi videretur, in opusculis contra Ruffinum scripsisse me
novi, <&c. Hieron. Ep. ad Marcell. et Anapsych. Ep. 126. ed. Vail. Ven. Inter
August. Ep. 165. Op. Aug. tom. 2. col. 582.
3 'H Si ExxXHo-ix ... TH Bvitx TTuBo/AiVH >^aj» Xiyii, THV 4.UXHV <ruvSH/Aiouoyii<rBxi TU
ITUIAXTI, OUX iX THS UXHS TOU TTTiP/lXTOS iyjlUdXV THS Sn/UOUpytXS TAS Aipop/AXS, AXXX TH Sou-
XHO-il TOU TIOIHTOU /AiTA THV TOU '7U//.XT0S TUVtTTA/AiVHV SlXTT/.AirtV. ThcodorCt. HierCt.
Fab. lib v. t. 9, tom. iv. pp. 413, 14. ed. Schuize.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 273
that the body only is thus propagated, and that after the forma
tion of the body the soul is created by God and infused into it be
fore the birth.*
But that this claim to the sanction of the church for this doc
trine was wholly unfounded we have abundant proof. For Ori
gen expressly tell us, as we have already seen,'' that with respect
to the origin of the soul there was no clear testimony preserved
in the church. This also clearly follows from the words of
Jerome himself in the last of the passages we have quoted from
him above.
Augustine openly professes that he could not make up bis mind
in the matter,'' and is evidently disinclined to the reception of the
opinion advocated by Jerome, since in his letter to him, advert
ing to the passages we have quoted from him above, he asks him
ho"\v his opinion can be reconciled with the doctrine of original
sin ;* and in his last work (The Retractations) he repeats the
expression of his doubt in the matter, remarking that " with re
spect to the origin of the soul, how it becomes united to the body,
whether it springs from that one which was first created, when
man was made a living soul, or whether the souls of all are cre
ated alike, neither did I then [i. e. when he wrote his book
" Contra Academicos"] know, nor do I yet know."^ And again,
alluding to his letter of inquiryon the subject to Jerome, he tells
us that Jerome replied that he had not leisure to answer it, which
had induced him not fo publish his letter to Jerome until after
Jerome's death, but that he then published the letter " for this
purpose, that the reader might be admonished either not to in
quire at all how the soul was given to those who were born, or
at any rate to admit on a. most obscure point such a solution of
the question as should not be opposed to things which are most
clear, which the catholic faith maintains concerning original
' Animas hominum non esse ab initio inter ceteras intellectuales naturas nec
simul creatas, sicut Origines fingit ; neque cum corporibus per coitum seminatas
sicut Luciferiani et Cyrillus et aliqui Latinorum prssumtores affirmant, quasi
naturae consequentiam servantes. Sed dicimus creationem animae solum Crea-
torem omnium nosse, et corpus tantum per conjugii copulam seminari, Dei vero
judicio coagulari in vulva et compingi atque iformari, ac formato jam corpore
animam creari et infundi, ut vivat in utero homo ex anima constans et corpore,
et egrediatur vivus ex utero plenus humana substantia. Gennad. De eccles. dog-
mat, c. 14. Inter Op. August, tom. 8. app. col. 77.
* See p. 184 above.
3 August. Ep. 166. Ad. Hieron. tom. ii. col. 583 et seq., and Ep. 190. Ad Op-
tat, ib. col. 700 et seq.
* Ep. 166. Ad Hieron. § 10. tom. ii. col. 587.
' Quod attinet ad ejus [i. e. animi] originem, qua fit ut sit in corpore, utrum
de illo una sit, qui primum creatus est, quando factus est homo in animam vivam,
an similiter ita fiant singulis singuli, nec tunc sciebam nec adhuc scio. Retract.
lib. i.e. 1. tom. i. col. 4, 5.

274 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
sin in the indubitable damnation of infants unless they are re
generated in Christ."*
And lastly, this division of opinion among the Fathers on this
point is particularly noted by Gregory the Great, and the ques
tion admitted to be one which could not be determined.^
Before I pass on, 1 would point the reader's attention to a re
mark of Augustine in the passage just quoted, as another illus
tration of what we are now endeavouring to prove, viz. fhat in
which he says that it was " ihe catholic faith" that unbaptized
infants were indubitably lost. Nothing can more fully show how
unhesitatingly the sanction of " the church," and " the catholic
faith," was claimed by the Fathers for doctrines which had no
pretence to such a distinction. It is here claimed by Augustine
in a<case where he is strongly accused by many of being himself
the father of the doctrine.^
So again it is reckoned by Gennadius among the doctrines of
the church, that "nothing is to be believed to be by nature in
corporeal and invisible, but God alone, that is. Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit  Every creature is corporeal, the angels and
all the heavenly powers are corporeal, although not of a fleshly
subsistence."* And the same is asserted by John, Bishop of Thes-
salonica, who says, " The catholic church acknowledges them
[i. e. the angelsj to be beings of an intellectual nature, not in
deed altogether incorporeal and invisible, but having bodies of a
subtile texture, and airy or fiery, according to that which is
written, ' who maketh his angels spirits, his ministers a flame of
fire.' "^
1 Ad hue edidi, ut qui legit admoneatur aut non quaerere omnino quomodo de-
tur anima nascentibus, aut certe de re obscnrissima eam solutionem quEstionis
hujus admittere quae contraria non sit apertissimis rebus, quasde originali peccato
fides catholica novit in parvulis nisi regenerentur in Christo sine dubitatione dam-
nandis. Retract, lib. ii. „. 45. tom. i. col. 57.
2 De origine animae inter sanctos Patres requisitio non parva versata est; sed
utrum ipsa ab Adam decenderit, an certe singulis detur, incertum remansit ; eam-
que in hac vita insolubilem fassi sunt esse questionem. Gravis enim est quaestio,
nec valet ab homine comprehendi ; quia si de Adam substantia anima cum carne
nascitur, cur non etiam cum carne moritur 1 Si vero cum carne non nascitur, cur
in ea carne quse de Adam prolata est obligata peccatis tenetur 1 Sed cum hoc sit
incertum, illud incertum non est, quia nisi sacri baptismatis gratia fuerit renatus
homo, omnis anima originalis peccati vinculis est obstricta. Grbg. Mags. Epist.
lib. ix. indict. 2. Ep. 52. tom. ii, col. 970. ed. Par. 1705.
3 See Bishop Taylor's Lib. of Proph. § 8, &c.
4 Nihil incorporeum et invisibile natura credendum, nisi solum Deum, id est,
Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum  Creatura omnis corporea est ;
angeli et omnes caelestes virtutes corporero, licet non carne subsistani. Gennad.
De eccles. dogmat. cc. 11, 12. Inter. Op. Aug. tom. viii. app. col. 77.
5 NoSfOUC /AiV AUTOUS H XxBoXiXH ExxXHCTtX ytVUCTXil, ou /AHV XTU/AXTOUS TTXVTH XXt X/,pX-
TOUS, US U/AitS 01 ''S.hXHtiS »!tT8, XSTTT OirU/lX/TOUS Si XAl AipuSus B TTupuSilS, XStTa. TO ytypX/A-
(AiVOV, 0 TTOtm TOUS AyyiXOUS xutou TTViU/AX/rA, XAI TOUS XUTOupyous XUTOU TTUp ^xiyoy.

NO DIVINK INFORMANT. 27.5
But this certainly was not the doctrine of the church, for the
contrary is distinctly maintained by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Gre
gory Nyssen, and many others.*
"Thus Chrysostom speaks of the angels as being incorporeal.^
And Theodoret says, — " We know that the angels are of an in
corporeal nature, but they assume appearances for the benefit
of the beholders."^ And again, — " Their natures are not seen, for
they are incorporeal ;" and after adding that they assume vari
ous appearances for the sake of those to whom they appear, he
observes, " but they are not of various forms, but as intellectual
natures are incorporeal, but as need may require their Lord
clothes them with certain forms to appear in."* And Gregory
Nyssen speaks of the angels as having " an incorporeal nature,"*
and being "incorporeal and immaterial."" •
Thus, also, Gennadius reckons it as a doctrine of the church,
that the angels and all the heavenly powers were made when
the darkness yet covered the waters.' But, as we have already
seen, Origen tells us that when and how the angels were creat
ed, is a point not clearly manifested in the teaching of the
church.^ And so say others.^
Many other of the doctrines attributed by Gennadius to the
church, are equally destitute of such authority.
Innumerable examples of such unfounded claims might be ad
duced from the Fathers. But these are amply suflicient for our
purpose ; viz., to show how little we can depend upon such claims
in themselves.
Nor must we fail to recollect, that such claims were equally
made by the heretics and by Eusebius (as we shall show present
ly,'") in favour of unorthodox doctrine, even on the highest points
of faith. Whatever was maintained was sure to be described by
its supporters as the doctrine of the holy Catholic Church.
JoEANN. Tbessaionic. cit. in Concil. Nic. 20. Act. 5. Concil. tom. vii. col.
353. ed. Paris. 1671.
' See the notes of Elmenhorst on Gennadius, cc. 11, 12.
2 Chrysostom. In Gen. hom. 22, § 2. tom. iv. p. 195. ed. Ben.
3 Aa-u/iATov S' o/aus ttr/Aiy tojv Ayyixuv thv <tu<Tiy. cxh /a at ti^ousrt Si Tac o.\.us Trpos to
XfHTt/Aov TUV opuiTm. Thj.odohet. In Dan. xii, 7. tom. ii. p. 1298. ed. Schuize.
4 ^OpteVTXt Si XUTUy OUX Sl^t>UITilS' ATU/AATOt yAp AUTAt . . . OU TTOXU/AOp^Ol Si, XXX' ATtil-
{AXTOt At VOHTXt ^UfTElC, TTpOS Si TQ Xl^HTt/AOy 0 TOUTUV AVTTTOTHS TXH/AATli^U TAS BiUpiAS.
In Zech. c. i. ver. 8 — 11. tom. ii. pp. 1597, 8. See also his Quaest. in Gen. q. 47.
tora. i. p. 58.
5 Tav THV cKTOJiaaTov a\H;toTo<v putriv. GnEG. Nxss. De vita Mosis. tom. i. p. 195.
ed. 1615.
6 Atru/AATos Ts XAl oiixos m. Id. Dc paupcr. amand, ib. p. 884.
' Cum adhuc tenebraae ipsam aquam occultarent, et aquam terra absconderet,
facti sunt angeli el omnes caelestes virtutes. Genhah. De eccles. dogm. c. 10.
Int. op. Augustini, tom. 8. App. col. 77.
« See p. 184 above.
" See the notes of Elmenhorst on Gennad. c. 10. "> See § 7. below.

276 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
We have thus considered the writings of the Fathers in all
the three points of view under which their authors appear ; viz.,
as private teachers, as witnesses of what they professed to derive
by successional delivery from the Apostles, and as witnesses of
what they claimed to be considered the belief of " the church ;"
and we have found that, in all these characters, they oppose and
contradict one another on various important points; and there
fore that no such consent existed in the nominal primitive church
as our opponents suppose.
Lastly, it must be added, fhat neither did the determinations
of the Fathers, when assembled together in Councils, even the
largest and most general which the church has ever seen, agree
together. For the proof of this, we have not far to seek. In less than
twenty-five years after the meeting of the first Council which
had any pretension to be called a General Council — namely, the
first Nicene, — the orthodox creed there established, was contra
dicted (as we have already observed) by a far more numerous
assembly of bishops, which met for the Western Church al Arimi
num, and for the Eastern at Seleucia ; and of which Bishop Stil
lingfleet says, " The Council of Ariminum, together with that of
Seleucia, which sat at the same time, make up the most Gene
ral Council we read of in Church History. For Bellarmine
owns that there were six hundred bishops in the Western part of
it. So that there were many more bishops assembled, than were
in the Council of Nice ; there was no exception against the sum
mons, or the bishops present."*
And this discrepancy between the two is (as we have already
observed) noticed and admitted by Augustine, as rendering it use
less to refer to either as an authority in the point in dispute.
To speak of the motives which actuated, or the influence
brought to bear upon, one or the other of these assemblies as
accounting for their determination, is quite beside the mark ; or
rather is an additional proof how little such assemblies can be
relied upon.
Again, another proof of this is afforded us, in the contradictory
determinations of the Second Council of Ephesus in 449 and the
Council of Chalcedon (called the fourth General Council) in 451.
It is a well-known fact, that the great question upon which
both these Councils were assembled, that relating to the Euty
chian error respecting the person of Christ, was determined by
them in a precisely opposite manner ; and the leading advocate
of each opinion punished and sent into exile by these Councils
> Vindication of the Answer to some late Papers, pp, 53, 4.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 277
respectively ; Flavianus by that of Ephesus, Dioscorus by that
of Chalcedon.
Nor can the force of this example be taken ofl' by the plea
which has been urged by some of the Romanists, that the latter
was a General Council, but the former not so. For this is not the
case, as has been already shown by Bishops JewelP and Stilling
fleet' (our opponents' own witnesses).
It was summoned as the other oecumenical Councils were, and
in all respects as to the presence of patriarchs, and the number
of bishops, and such matters, had as good a right to be considered
a General Council, as almost any of those that are so called.
This Council is cited by Bishop Jewell as a proof that General
Councils may err ; and he remarks to his Romish adversary,
" Where ye say, ye could never yet find the error of one Gene
ral Council, I trow this escaped you for default of memory. Al-
bertus Pigghius, the greatest learned man of your side, hath
found out such errors to our hands, namely, in his book that
he calleth Ecclesiastica Hierarchia. Speaking of the Second
Council holden at Ephesus, which ye cannot deny but it was
general, and yet took part with the heretic Abbot Eutyches
against the godly man Flavianus, he writeth thus. Concilia uni-
versalia etiam congregata legitime ut bene ita perperam in-
juste impieque judicare ac definire possunt ; that is. General
Councils, yea even such as be lawfully summoned, as they may
conclude things well, so may they likewise judge and determine
things rashly, unjustly, and wickedly."
And when his adversary accused Pigghius of error in this, and
denied that it was a General Council, he replies, — " Theodosius
the emperor that summoned the bishops together, as may appear
by his words, took it to be general. For thus he writeth to the
Ciiuncil ; Cogitantes non esse tutum absque vestra sancta Sy-
nodo et ubique sanctarum Ecclesiarum prsesulibus, hujus
modi qusestionem de fide renovari necessarium duximus
vestram sanctitatem convenire. These words, Sanctarum Ec
clesiarum quse ubique sunt, import a generality of all churches
through the world. Further, there was the Emperor's authority,
the Bishop of Rome's Legate, which, as some men think, maketh
up all together ; and other bishops of all nations. And how could
such a Council not be general V And having shown that both
Eutyches and Dioscorus spoke pf this as a General [universaW]
Council, he adds, — " But if perhaps ye doubt of these words, be
cause the one was Eutyches, the other was Dioscorus, by whom
they were spoken, (howbeit notwithstanding they were heretics,
1 See his Letters to Dr. Cole in his Works, pp. 34, 5.
* Vindication of Answer to Papers, p. 54.
VOL. I. A A

278 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
yet could they not lightly make an open lie in a matter that was
so evident,) then read ye the old father Liberatus, that was Ar-
chidiaconus Carthaginensis, and lived under Vigilius, Bishop of
Rome, at the least a thousand years ago, and writeth the very
story of this Council : his words be these, Fit Ephesi generale
concilium ad quod convenerunt Flavianus ef Eutyches tan
quam judicandi. There is appointed, saith he, at Ephesus a
General Council, in the which Flavianus and Eutyches made
their appearance as men standing to be judged."*
This extract from Bishop Jewell, may, I hope, serve not only
to show that what are called General Councils are no final and
binding authority in themselves, but that such also was the
opinion of our Reformers ; and thus abate the pretensions of
some among us, who seem desirous of identifying their reception
of what are called the first four General Councils, with an ac
knowledgment of an intrinsic binding authority in them over the
consciences of men.
What, then, is the ground upon which this Council is denied
the title of General ? Because of its violence, forsooth. A suf
ficiently disgraceful charge, certainly, against an assembly of
Christian bi.shops met fogether for the promotion of the faith of
Christ. But is it possible that any one who acknowledges the
first Euphesine Council to be a General Council, can deny that
appellation to the second, because of its violence ? Never, per
haps, was there exhibited in the church a worse specimen of
indecent haste, party spirit, tumult and violence, than in the first
council at Ephesus, called the third General Council, where the
party attached to Cyril had not even the decency to wait till the
arrival of the Eastern bishops. No one can read the account of
its proceedings without feeling that the truth owes nothing to it,
but the disgrace of having been so supported. And yet this
assembly, because its determination happened to be in favour of
orthodoxy, is fo be dignified as holy, and venerable, and sacred,
and oecumenical, (lo which last title, by the way, it could have
had no pretensions, whatever its conduct had been,) while an
other called in the same way, and precisely of the same kind, is
to be dismissed at once, on account of a similar spirit havingbeen
displayed in it, as a paltry Synod that met in a corner of which
no account is to be made. Some men seem to think that they
can change the nature of things, by imposing certain names on
them ; and the truth is, that with the majority of men who will
not give themselves the trouble to think and examine, especially
in religion, names are often taken in the place oi realities ; and
' Letter to Dr. Cole in Works, pp. 34, 5.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. \37J
to this the Romanists and our opponents owe nine-tenths of the
success they have met with.
To the above instances of the variety of sentiment that pre
vailed in the antient church even on the most important points,
it would be easy to add, but the task is a melancholy and un
grateful one. I have produced amply sufficient proof that the
notion of our opponents, that there is to be found in the writings
of the early Fathers a consentient delivery of the faith, derived
from the oral teaching of the Apostles, fuller than what is clearly
and plainly delivered in the Scriptures, is a dream which a very
little acquaintance wifh the writings of the Fathers will at once
put an end to. My object, therefore, is answered. " For" (to
use the words of one of our opponents' best and most learned
witnesses. Bishop Jeremy Taylor) " if I should inquire into the
particular probations of this article [i. e. " the inconsistencies of
the Fathers"] I must do to them as I should be forced to do now,
if any man should say that the writings of the schoolmen were
excellent argument, and authority to determine men's persuasions.
I must consider their writings, and observe their defailances,
their contradictions, the weakness of their arguments, the misal-
iegations of Scripture, their inconsequent deductions; their false
opinions, and all the weaknesses of humanity, and the failings of
their persons, which no good man is willing to do, unless he be
compelled to it by apretence that they are infallible, or that
they are followed by men even into errors or impiety. And,
therefore, since there is enough in the former instances to cure
any such mispersuasion and prejudice, I will instance in the in
numerable particularities that might persuade us to keep our
liberty entire, or to use it discreetly. For it is not to be denied,
but that great advantages are to be made by their writings, and
prohabile est quod omnibus, quod pluribus, quod sapientibus
videtur ; if one wise man says a thing, it is an argument to me
to believe it in its degree of probation ; that is, proportionable to
such an assent as the authority of a wise man can produce, and
when there is nothing against it that is greater ; and so in propor
tion, higher and higher, as more wise men, such as the old doc
tors were, do affirm it. But that which I complain of is, that we
look upon wise men that lived long ago with so miich veneration
and mistake, that we reverence them, not for having been wise
men, but that they lived long since."*
To these direct proofs, that there is no such consent as our op
ponents suppose in the writings of the early Fathers, we may add
very strong collateral evidence.
• Lib. of proph. Sect. viii. § 3.

280 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
We have this first in the statements of some of the best authors,
both among the Protestants and the Romanists, to this eflfect.
Thus, for instance, Gregory de Valentia says, — " It must be con
fessed that it can rarely happen that we can sufficiently know
what was the opinion of all the doctors."* Bellarmine is forced
constantly to acknowledge their disagreement on important
points.^ Huetius and Petavius, two of the most learned of the
moderns in such matters, so far from dreaming of such consent,
accuse many of the Fathers of error on the most important points.
And our own Dr. Cave agrees with them herein, as we have al
ready seen. Our learned Bishop White, in his. Answer to the
Jesuit Fisher, says, — " Whereas the Jesuit compareth unanimous
tradition of the sense of Scripture with the written letter and
text of the Scripture, unless he equivocate in the name, terming
that tradition which is collected from the Scripture, such uniform
tradition as he boasteth of is very rare, for it must be such as in
all ages, and in all orlhodoxal churches, hath been the same.
Now ihe most undoubted and uniform tradition of all other,
is concerning the number and integrity of the books of Holy Scrip
ture, and yet in this difference hath been between one church
and another. (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 23. and lib. iii. c. 3. and
22.)'" And so still more clearly speaks the able prelate recent
ly quoted, whom our opponents, drawn by his great name, would
fain persuade us is on their side of the question, I mean Bishop
Jeremy Taylor. " Since nothing," he says, " can require our
supreme assent but that which is truly catholic and apostolic, and
to such a tradition is required, as Irenaeus says, the consent of all
those churches which the Apostles planted, and where they did
preside, this topic will be of so little use in judging heresies, that
(besides what is deposited in Scripture) it cannot be proved in
anything but in the canon of Scripture itself; and, as it is now
received, even in that there is some variety." . . . " There is
scarce anything but what is written in Scripture that can, with
any confidence of argument, pretend to derive from the Apostles,
except rituals and manners of ministration; but no doctrines or
speculative mysteries are so transmitted to us by so clear a cur
rent, that we may see a visible channel, and trace it to the primi
tive fountains." " Either for the difficulty of their being proved,
the incompetency of the testimony that transmits them, or the
indifferency of the thing transmitted, all traditions, both ritual
and doctrinal, are disabled from determining our consciences
1 Fatendum est raro accidere posse, ut quae sit doctorum omnium &c. de reli-
gione sententia satis cognoscatur. Greg. Val. tom. iii. d. Trad. p. 377. Ae quoted
by Bp. White, in his Answer to the Jesuit, p. 121.
2 See his work De Controversiis, passim.
3 Bp. White's Reply to the Jesuit Fisher, pp. 124, 5.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 281
either to a necessary believing or obeying,"* And speaking of the
" inconsistencies of the Fathers," having shown, in the case of
Augustine, that there could be no innateauthority in the writings
even of such a Father, he adds, " The same I say of any com
pany of them ; I say not so of all of them ; it is tp no purpose to
say it, for there is no question this day in contestation in the
EXPLICATION of which ALL THE OLD WRITERS DID C0NSE^T. In the
assignation of the canon of Scripture they never did consent for
six hundred years together ; and then by that time the bishops
had agreed indifierently well, and but indifferently, upon that,
they fell out in twenty more; and except it be in the Apostles'
creed and articles of such nature, there is nothing which may,
with any colour, be called a consent, much less tradition univer
sal."^ And as to Mr. Keble's notion, that Bishop Taylor after.
wards changed his mind on this matter, I shall show hereafter, ^
from the very last work he wrote, that there is not the slightest
foundation for the idea.
It would be easy to multiply such statements ; and as it respects
the Angfican divines, many similar ones will be found in a subse
quent chapter.
We have similar evidence, secondly, in the way in which the
Fathers are quoted by all sides and all parlies as, more or less,
some or other, favourable to their views.
Thus at the second Nicene Council image-worship was defended
on the authority of the Fathers; and all the errors of the Romish
Church itself have, if you will believe the Romanists, the argu
ment from antiquity altogether with them. On the other hand,
the Protestants are universally agreed that the weight of patristi
cal testimony is altogether against those errors. And the Eastern
Churches are equally persuaded that the Fathers are on their
side. Again, among Protestants themselves, all the great parties have,
over and over again, claimed antiquity as on their side. All the
different views entertained by them, on the doctrines of the sa
craments, justification, &c. have been supported by the testimony
of Fathers. And zealots on all sides have been found to appiv
even the " everybody always everywhere agreed wifh me" argu
ment. And still further it is a notorious fact, that most of the
most learned modern Arians have urged more or less patristical
testimony as in their favour.
Now I admit that this is not a sufficient proof that there is
not a consentient testimony in the writings of all the Fathers on
these points. But the question is, whether there is not some
' Bp. Taylor's Liberty of prophesying. Section v. § 5.
2 Ib. Section viii. § 3. 3 See ch. 11 below. A A*

282 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
ground for their being so quoted, whether the admission made
by almost all those best qualified to judge on such a point, that
their writings abound with hasty and incorrect statements, does
not at once show that such consent cannot he proved, and there
fore cannot be a final standard of appeal, or judge of controver
sies; and that our opponents' plan for ending controversies by ap
pealing to the Fathers is perfectly nugatory and chimerical.
And this argument gathers tenfold force, when we find that
many of the most learned and able patristical scholars have open
ly confessed that many of the Fathers are against them in some
of the most important points. For here we have something more
than a mere reference to the Fathers for opposite doctrines, we
have an admission to reason upon, made contrary to the preju
dices of him who made it.
Moreover, as an argumentum ad hominem it is unanswera
ble. For our opponents charge Scripture with being obscure and
unable to be a rule of faith and judge of controversies because
it is quoted on opposite sides. If, then, this reasoning is correct,
their appeal to the Fathers for the interpretation of Scripture
and the decision of controversies is most absurd, for not only are
they quoted on opposite sides, but it is allowed, by those best able
to judge, that their writings abound with hasty and incorrect
statements, and, by many of the most learned judges, that they
disagree even on the most important points.
The mistakes lo which we are liable when relying on such a
foundation as a supposed consent of the Fathers are remarkably
illustrated by some instances selected by our opponents them
selves as instances of consent, and of course selected in the con
viction that they were among those that would best stand the
test of examination.
" How else," asks Mr. Keble, [i. e. how but by " catholic tra
dition,"] "could we know with tolerable certainty that Nlel-
chizedek's feast is a type of the blessed eucharist? or that the
book of Canticles is an allegory representing the mystical union
betwixt Christ and his Church ? or that Wisdom in the book of
Proverbs is a name of the Second Person in the Most Holy Tri
nity ?" " All which interpretations," he adds, " the moment they
are heard, approve themselves to an unprejudiced mind, and
must in all likelihood have come spontaneously into many read
er's thoughts. But it may be questioned whether we could ever
have arrived at more than a plausible conjecture regarding them,
but for the constant agreement of the early Church, taking
notice every where in these and the like instances of the manner
in which the Old Testament was divinely accommodated to the
wonders of Christ's religion."*
: Keble's Sermon, pp. 36, 7.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 283
Here, then, is a specimen (I allude more particularly to the
first and last of the examples mentioned) of what is the practi
cal meaning of "catholic tradition," and the "constant agree
ment of the early Church." It is just the consent of some half
a dozen Fathers falling in with the humour of the individual
quoting them. I will not now stay to inquire whether the notion
of Melchizedek's feast being a type of the eucharist approves
itself the moment it is heard to an unprejudiced mind, though I
must take leave to doubt it. But that it is delivered to us by the
consent even of the Fathers that remain to us, is altogether a
mistake. Mr. Keble's proof is as follows ; — " For this see S.
Cyprian, Ep. 63. p. 149. ed. Fell; S. Augustine, De Civ. Dei,
xviii. 20. [? xvi. 22.] S. Jerome, Ep. ad Marcellam, t. i. p. 123.
ed. Frob. Basil. These, with the distinct acknowledgment in the
antient Roman Liturgy, may perhaps be considered sufficient to
represent the sense of the Western Churches. Among the Greeks,
S. Chrysostom, (on Gen. xiv.) clearly implies the same construc
tion. But the reserve maintained by them on all liturgical sub
jects may account for their comparative silence on this point,
even supposing them to have received the same interpretation."
Such is the proof of " catholic tradition," and " the constant
agreement of the early Church .'"
Now it is quite true that Augustine and some other Fathers con
sidered that the bread and wine were brought forth by Mel-
chizedek in his sacerdotal character, and were a eucharistical
sacrifice to God, but that this was held by the Fathers generally
is a mistake not easy to be accounted for.
One of Mr. Keble's own most learned witnesses. Bishop Mor
ton, will tell him that other Fathers held it to have been " an
offering proceeding from the bounty and magnificence of Mel-
chizedek,/or the refreshing of the soldiers of Abraham, and
not from an act belonging lo the function of his priesthood by
way of sacrifice unto God."* And though, perhaps, all the Bi
shop's references may not be correct, yet Epiphanius at least is
clear in the matter. "He brought forth," says Epiphanius,
" bread and wine for Abraham and those that were wifh him, to
entertain the patriarch coming from [the slaughter of] the
kings.'" And hence, even some of the Romanists themselves
(most of whom have adopted the other meaning in the hope of
obtaining therefrom some support for their cause) have admitted
that the latter is the true meaning. Thus Pagninus and Vatab-
lus interpret the passage as meaning, that Melchizedek " re-

' Catholic Appeal, p. 166.
- A^OV XXI OtVoy . . l^lHiAXiV AUTU Ti XAl TOIS /Air' AUTOU, US XTTO ^XTtXiUV UTToSi^X/A^
VOS rm tpxo/Aivoy HATfixpXHy ¦ Adv. h«er. LV. tom. i. p. 475.

284 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
freshed the weary and hungry army with royal liberality."'
And Andradius says, " I am of their opinion who affirm that
Melchizedek did refresh Abraham and his soldiers with bread
and wine.'"'
Again, Mr. Keble's allegation that catholic consent and the
constant agreement of the early Church assure us, " that Wis
dom in the book of Proverbs is a name of the Second Person in
the Most Holy Trinity," is equally unfounded. His proof is, " the
disputes on the text, Prov. viii. 22. at the Nicene Council are
sufficient to prove agreement on this point." A very small
foundation surely for such a large superstructure as a claim lo
catholic consent.
Now let us hear what Epiphanius says on this matter. Hav
ing referred to this very text, he says, " And the Scripture has
not at all any where confirmed this passage, nor has any one of
the Apostles mentioned it, so as to apply it for a name of Christ.
So that consequently it does not at all speak concerning the
Son of God. . . . For the word itself [i. e. wisdom] does not at all
compel me to apply it with reference to the Son of God. For
he [Solomon] has not signified this, nor has any of the Apostles
mentioned it, nor the Gospel either."^ And having proceeded to
observe that some " dared"* so to apply the passage, he adds,
that it must not be considered as spoken of his divinity but only
of his humanity,* and that after all it was quite optional with us
to suppose it to be spoken of Christ at all or not,'^ and that
though " some orthodox Fathers" had so interpreted the passage,'
and that it was " a sense consistent with piety, because some
great Fathers had so understood it," yet that it was optional
with all to receive this interpretation or not as they pleased."
And the same was evidently the opinion of great Si. Basil ; for
(when meeting the objections of Eunomius, derived from this
passage,) having said that it was necessary to apply this passage
1 Lassum et famelicum exercitum regia liberalitate refecit. As cited by Mor
ton, Cath. App. p. 395.
2 Ego cum illis sentio, qui lassos Abrahje milites et diuturna piigna fractos
Melchizedechum paneet vino refecisse aiunt. Def. Cone. Trid. lib. iv. fol. 371.
b. as cited by Morton, Cath. App. p. 395.
3 l^Xl ou TTXVTUS TTOU i&iSxtUTi ypXpH, OuSi i/AVHrrBn TIS T&V A^O^-TOaOOV THS >.i^lUS TXUTHC,
IrX TTXpXyXyH XUTHV us OVO/AX XptO-TOU. UlTTi OUV ou TTXVTUS TTif.1 TOU TlOU TOU QiOU >.£a ':l
. . . Auto yxp to pH/AA ou ttavtus itvct^Ksti^ei y.i Tnpt tou Tiou tou Qiou Xiyuv' ou yup iS'n-
XUtriV, OuSi TIS TUV AtTOTTOXUV ilAVH/AOViWriV AXX' OUTi TO HuXyyi/.toV. EpjpUAN. sdv
haeres, in h, 69. adv. Arian. §§ 20, 21. tom. i. pp. 743, 5.
4 ToX/AUO-l T'.ViS iTTl TOV TlOV TOU QiOU TOUTO IfipUV . lb. p. 745.
5 lb. p. 745.
« OuSits HiAXs xyxyxxo-iii ttavtus TTipt TOU \plTTOu Xiyuv To Ihiax touto. lb. $ 24. p.
748. ' .
7 TtViS TUV TTATi-,UV H/AUV XXt OPBoSo^UV ATTiSuxXV TOUTO E.'f THV iVTAPXOV TTApOUTlXV. Ib
8 yiiyXXOt TTATipiS TO'JTO lUpHyHiTAVTa. XXi il _«H TIS ^OUXhBuh TUV OphoSo^U"' XXT xSi'^ Aah XI,
OU XXTXyxyXXTBH!TiTAi. lb.

NO DIVINB INFORMANT. 285
to the human nature, he adds, — " It is open also to any one to
say that Solomon spoke these things concerning that wisdom
which the Apostle mentions when he says, ' When in the wisdom
of God the world by wisdom knew not God.' "* And in his homi
ly on Proverbs he has himself thus interpreted the passage."*
Now I do not deny, but on the contrary maintain, that very
many, probably the majority, both of the antient writers that
remain to us, and also of the moderns, have affirmed that this
passage in the book of Proverbs refers to Christ, but this only
shows us the more how easily we may be deceived in inferring
catholic consent from the testimony of a great number of
writers. Hence if we adopt the views of our opponents, we may call
that one day an Apostolical tradition, and consequently a divine
revelation, which we find the next, by happening to meet with
some other remains of antiquity, to be nothing of the kind.
It is evident, then, that the notion that there is consentient tes
timony to the doctrines of revelation even among the authors
that remain to us, is a mere dream of the imagination, and that
even as it respects the very highest points of faith.
And the discrepancy we have thus shown to exist in their state
ments proves that we may have the consent of a number of Fa
thers to that which had not the consent of the Church in its fa
vour, and consequently that wifh the scanty remains we possess
of the writings of the antient Church, it is impossible to infer the
¦consent of the Church in any case, for though a doctrine may be
supported by many of the Fathers whose writings remain to us,
and not directly opposed in the other writings known to us, yet
this may be merely accidental from our not happening to possess
other works of the Fathers, or having the opportunity to know
the sentiments of others in the primitive Church, of which, we
must ever recollect, also, we have but a partial and limited re
presentation in the writings of those who choose to become au
thors, and who were many of them probably far less fitted to give
a sober and judicious account of the faith of the Church, than
many others who have left nothing behind them. Hence we must
observe, that even if some of the Fathers whose writings happen
to remain to us agreed together in any particular point, and the
rest were silent, which is the very utmost that the boasted " ca
thohc consent" of our opponents could amount to, this would be
vyholly insufficient to assure us of such a consent of the whole
1 Ewel S' xv Tts XAI TOV loXO/AmTA TTipt TH5 IToptAS iXUVHS itpHXiyaU TAUTX HS XAt 0 ATfOff-
TOXOS /At/AVHTAl UTTOBV UTruSH yAp flV TH (TO^/fit TOU 0900 OUX fi^VOfl 0 XOT/AOS SlA THS tTO^WC TOV
eiov. Adv. Eunom. lib. iv. tom. i. p. 293.
''¦ Homil. in princip. Proverb, tom. ii. p. 99. See also Adr. Eunom. lib. ii. ^
20. torn, i. p. 266.

286 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
primitive church in the matter as could be to us a sure record
of the teaching of the Apostles, or be on any ground a divine in
formant or authoritative guide.'
But in fact, though the theory put forward by our opponents
is that " catholic consent" only can be relied upon, (a testimony,
however, which by a voluntary self-deception they identify with
the consentient witness of the few remains of the Fathers that
happen to have come down to us) that which our opponents
practically rely upon to prove this consent, is often the dictum
of some half a dozen Fathers. In theory they hold it necessary
to establish the consent of the Fathers, but their practice is
totally different. And in truth, they must be well aware that
otherwise they must give up their ground altogether, as both
their favourite Vincent of Lerins, and Bellarmine, will bear re
luctant witness. For notwithstanding the magnificent rule pro
posed by Vincent, that we should be guided in our search after
truth by what "everybody always everywhere" in the catholic
church testified respecting it, we find in the latter part of his
treatise, that his practical proof of the doctrine held by " every
body always everywhere" may be derived from the testimony of
less than a dozen authors. And Bellarmine candidly admits that
of doctrine supported by the consentient testimony of all the Fa
thers, an " example is hardly to be found," (vix invenitur exem-
plum,) but he thinks that if a few Fathers of great name have
supported it, and others when mentioning the subject have not
contradicted it, that will do as well.* And thus our " divine infor
mant," " catholic consent," is practically the dictum of a few fal
lible men.
This evident failure of the theory, when reduced to practice,
is probably the reason why the Tractators are so shy of drawing
out the proofs of " catholic consent" and traditive interpretations
of Scripture delivered by the unanimous voice of the primitive
church. Certainly their success in the cases upon which they
have ventured, has not, as we have just seen, been such as is
likely to encourage them to enter further into particulars than
may be necessary. But one might suppose that maintaining, as
they do, that antiquity unanimously consents in the delivery of a
certain system of theology, they would be anxious to bring before
the public the proofs of such consent; and beyond doubt they
would advance their cause much more, in the eyes of all impar
tial men, by so doing, than by those general and vague appeals
1 Videtur sufficere si aliquot Patres magni nominis expresse id asserant, et
ceteri non coutradicant cum tamen ejus rei meminerint. Bellarm. De V. D. lib.
iv. i;. 9.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 287
and claims, accompanied with but few definite references, with
which they usually content themselves.
Instead of flourishing high-sounding words against us about the
infallibility of " the catholic church," and the certainty of what
"everybody always everywhere" has believed, let them set
themselves to produce the passages in which such tradition of
doctrine or traditive interpretation of Scripture is delivered, and
thus show its reception by " everybody always everywhere." In
this they might afford us some proof of that patristical learning
for which they take credit ; and of which they certainly have
not yet favoured the public with any very abundant testimony.
And to show them that we have no wish to be hard upon them,
we will offer them a doctrine upon which to try their powers in
such a research, which they have themselves very prominently
put forward as derived from " tradition ;" viz., the consubtanti-
alify of the Son with the Father. Will any one of our oppo
nents give us a Caten a Patrum for this doctrine for the first few
centuries, showing that during that period not only did no Father
speak somewhat inconsistently with such a doctrine, but, on the
contrary, that aW delivered that doctrine with one consent? Let
us see the evidence traced and drawn out. And be it remem
bered that it is to be so clear, as to counterbalance the (alleged)
obscurity of Scripture in this point. It is not clear, say our op
ponents, in Scripture : but only go to church-tradition, and you
will find that all the Fathers have clearly, and unambiguously,
and with one consent, delivered it. I beg to ask, then, for the
proofs upon which this statement rests. I do this by no means
denying that it has been in my belief a truth held by the ortho
dox part of the visible church from the beginning, because I hold
it to be a fundamental truth revealed in Scripture, and that we
can find a stream of testimony in its favour, running down to us
from the beginning. But I ask for the proofs of this boasted
catholic consent for it. Suppose the attempt made. Will they
include all those who have belonged to the visible church ? No,
they will say, we must go to the Fathers of the Catholic Church
only, and not think that the agreement of such heretics as
those that opposed the doctrine, is necessary. So, then, in the
first step, the truth of the doctrine to be established, is assumed.
But suppose it granted that we are to go only to the Fathers of
the catholic church. What evidence, I beg to ask, could we
show that there was catholic consent for it in the first three cen
turies? Moreover, Arius appealed to tradition as in his own fa
vour. And Athanasius, though he referred to the tradition of a
few antient authors as in favour of the doctrine, does not claim
catholic consent from the beginning in its favour ; a claim, indeed,
which, had he made it, could not have been alone a sufficient

288 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
ground for faith to build upon; and as to Mr. Keble's notion that
the Fathers at Nice affirmed that the doctrine there agreed upon
had been taught in all their churches from the beginning, it has
not the least particle of evidence to rest upon.
Or let them take the doctrine of the divinity of the Holy
Spirit, and show us the proofs of catholic consent in its favour,
for the first three centuries ; and they will find, if they attempt
it, that both Basil and Jerome will laugh at them for their pains ;
the one telling them that the doctrine was passed over in silence
and left unexplained, and fhat some were unorthodox respecting
it ; and the latter, that many through ignorance of the Scriptures,
and Lactantius among the number, erred respecting it*
Again, then, I say to our opponents, you talk about catholic
consent and traditive interpretations of Scripture received by
" the catholic church" for the whole Christian faith, produce
your proofs of such consent, deal no longer in vague generalities,
but let us know how many and what points of doctrine can be
thus proved, and present us with the proofs ; and I will venture
to say, that the leanness andpartiality of the Catena, — where
some ten or a dozen men will appear as the uncommissioned
representatives of as many millions, and a few sentences (some
probably ambiguous and equivocal) of fallible men, pretending
to nothing more than to deliver what, to the best of their know
ledge and belief, was the truth, will be delivered to us as an in
fallible interpretation of Scripture, — will be the best answer in
itself to all the claims made for "tradition."

SECT. v.  CONSENT EVEN IN THE WRITINGS THAT REMAIN TO US, NOT
TO BE EXPECTED.*
From the extracts already given from the writings of the early
Fathers, it is very evident that there was much division of senti
ment among them, even upon the highest points of faith, and con
sequently some among them involved in very serious error. And
I would ask, Are we to be surprised that such was the case, in a
vast society consisting of an immense number of distinct and in
dependent bodies, like the primitive church ? It must ever be
remembered that the church, as left by the Apostles, consisted of
a great number'of bishoprics, all independent of each other ; and
each bishop having no head or superior but the great Head of the
Church, to whom alone he was responsible. Archbishops, Palri-
1 See pp. 195, 6. above.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 289
archs, and Popes were a creation of the church. There was no
common earthly head, nor even any representative assembly, lo
act as a check upon the prejudices and fancies of men. Had
there even been such checks, experience would hardly warrant
us in expecting perfect unanimity in the teaching of such a num
ber of men as the pastors of the church even then amounted to.
For let me ask. Is theresuch consent, even among the teachers
of any one single body of Christians at this day, however full and
explicit their confession of faith maybe? We have already
seen fhat Mr. Newman confesses, nay, strongly urges, that it is
not the case, even in our own church. Is it not, then, most un
reasonable to assume that such must have been the case, in such a
body as the primitive church ?
For how was such unanimity to be obtained ? True, in the
first instance every church was, no doubt, sound in the essentials
of the faith. But the cases of Galatia, of Sardis and Laodicea,
prove how soon that orthodoxy might be exchanged for grievous
error. And how, I would ask, were such cases dealt with ? It
is easy to say that all the other churches that were sound in the
faith might convene a representative council and excommunicate
those churches. But did they do so? Nay, was it possible for
them to do so, until, by the favour of the Emperor, they were
allowed to call together such an assembly ? But such permission
was not given, nor consequently any such Council assembled, for
more than three centuries after the tinie of our Lord's incarna
tion. There were, no doubt, local assemblies of bishops; but
these had no pretence for concluding the whole church by their
decisions. They had weight proportionable to the characterand
conduct of the bishops of whom they were composed, and no
more. But our opponents reason as if the whole nominal and external
church, consisting of all these various independent parts, had
been from the beginning one united body, all whose members
were amenable to some common tribunal, and were immediately
separated from the body upon any defection from the pure ortho
dox faith ; a notion which is very pretty and pleasing in theory,
but utterly groundless.
Further, it is obvious that in those details of fundamental points
which had not been particularly the subjects of discussion in the
church, the early Fathers might easily express themselves so as
to appear favourable to views which they did not entertain.
For instance, it was easy for writers who preceded the Arian and
Nestorian and simitar controversies, even though orthodox, to
have expressed themselves in language apparently favourable to
those errors. These are slips " quas aut incuria fudit, — aut
humana parum cavil natura," and which on points not in the
VOL. 1. B B

290 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
immediate contemplation of the writer, are surely in the case of
human authors by no means uncommon. And certainly they are
not likely to have given, as a body, such statements as should
serve for the refutation of errors not contemplated by them. And
if from probability we come to fact, we find this to be the case.
Moreover, most of their writings are controversial, where in
zealously refuting one error, men are very apt to use language
easy of application in favour of some opposite error not in their
minds at the time. And to this, in the infancy of the church,
before the rise of almost all the great controversies that have
agitated her, men would be peculiarly liable. Extracts, there
fore, from such writings, upon points not in the contemplation of
the author, are very unsatisfactory arguments. It would be easy
to bring examples tO show this ; but the objection is so manifestly
well-grounded, and the point has been already so well illustrated
by Daille, that I need not here enlarge upon it.*
I might add, and not without reason, as the author just refer
red to has shown,^ that upon these occasions they were sometimes
too apt to strive for victory rather than truth: but I have no
wish lo depend upon such arguments, and would rather hope
that such cases were not of frequent occurrence, notwithstanding
the ingenuous statements of Jerome.^
Add to this, that they spoke sometimes with an intentional
obscurity, in order to veil their meaning from the uninitiated.^
Further, it is undeniable that their language is often of a high
ly coloured, exaggerated, and rhetorical kind, but little calcula
ted to give a sober and correct view of Christian truth. They
speak in the language they had learned in the schools Of philoso
phy and rhetoric, suited rather to attract and dazzle the hearer,
than to give him definite notions respecting the faith.*
Now all these facts render it most improbable that we should
be able to obtain from them any clear and definite consentient
testimony to the faith. Nay, as we have already seen, the state
ments of many of the Ante-Nicene Fathers are accused of direct
error, by some of the great lights of the fourth and fifth centuries.
And if I arn asked, as Ruffinus seemed disposed to ask Jerome,
" How it is that there are some errors in their books," I reply
with Jerome, "If I shall answer that I know not the causes of
those errors, I will not immediately set them down as heretics.
' See Daille, On the use of the Fathers, bk. i. c. S.Engl, ed. pp. 94 — 7. Irefer
to this -work, not as agreeing in all its statements, but as one that contains much
valuable matter on this subject.
2 tb. bk. i. c. 6. Engl. ed. pp. 112—16.
3 Ep. ad Pammach. 48. (al. 50.) § 13. tom. i. col. 222. ed. Vallars. Venet.
^ Uaille, bk. i. c. 5. pp. 83, 4., and c. 6. pp. 107  10.
^ See again Daille, bk. i. c. 5. pp. 86—9.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 291
For it may be that either they simply erred, or wrote with another
meaning, or their writings were gradually corrupted by unskilful
copyists; or certainly before that that meridian daemon, Arius,
arose in Alexandria, they may have spoken some things innocent
ly and incautiously, and fhat cannot escape the calumny of per
verse men."* But then I beg to inquire, with our learned Bishop
Stillingfleet, " How comes the testimony of erroneous or unwary
writers to be the certain means of giving the sense of Scrip
ture V"
To establish, also, such a consent as our opponents speak of,
namely, such as can practically end controversies, we need pe
culiar clearness and accuracy of expression, such as can fix the
meaning of the passage even in the view of those who would be
glad to interpret it otherwise. And to claim consent in favour
of what we hold to be the orthodox view, while at the same
time we are compelled to admit that the testimonies of sortie
Fathers on the subject are of doubtful meaning, and those of
others expressed so as to appear rather to favour the opposite
view, is merely to expose ourselves to just ridicule. If the Fa
thers have used unguarded and incorrect language, as far as
they have done so, so far it is absurd to claim their consent, or to
go to them for a definite decision on any point in controversy.
It must be added, without any wish to depreciate the value
of those remains of antiquity we possess, that it is more than
probable that there were hundreds of bishops in the primitive
church far better able to give us a correct view of the faith of
the church, than some of those whose writings happen to have
come down to us. A man may be very eloquent, who is not
very correct in his theological statements, as all ages of the
church have shown us. The learning of a converted philoso
pher may give him great weight and celebrity in his generation,
but he is not generally the best teacher of the Christian faith.
Nay, is it within the bounds of probability, however high a
view we take of the character of the early Christians, that the
oral instructions of the Apostles should be perpetuated by the
consentient testimony of such a body of fallible men as com
posed the nominal and external catholic church ? Liable as some
at least of those who were merely nominal Christians would be
I Quomodo, inquies, in libris eorum vitiosa nonnulla sunt 1 Si me caussas
vitiorum nescire respondero, non statim illos haereticos judicabo. Fieri enim po
test, ut vel simpliciter erraverint, vel alio sensu scripserint, vel a librariis imperi
tis eorum paulatim scripta corrupta sint. Vel certe antequam in Alexandria
quasi demonium meridianum Arius nasceretur, innocenter qusdam et minus
caute loquuti sunt, et quae non possint perversorum hominum calumniam declinare.
Hieron. adv. Ruff, lib. ii. § 17. tom. ii. col. 608, 9.
« See p. 217 above.

292 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
to misunderstand and misreport, liable as all would be to use in
adequate and uncertain language, and by a change of phraseolo
gy open the door to errors, which they might never contemplate,
how is it possible that all these should consent in giving a definite
and certain testimony for the true faith and that alone, and one
moreover so definite as distinctly to exclude and negative all
error ?
Further, is it likely that the Apostles should have left with
the church either interpretations of Scripture or statements of
doctrine more suitable than Scripture to negative all the various
heresies that might arise in the church? Yet in order to magni
fy the authority of the church as an infallible witness of the
Christian faith in all controversies, she is supposed to be the de
positary of oral Apostolical teaching sufficiently definite and ex
tensive to do this, and all her members are said to have ever
consented in handing down this Apostolical tradition.
For instance, in the case of the Arian heresy, we maintain
that Scripture bears a clear testimony against it, the direct and
necessary inference from its teaching being that the Son is con
substantial with the Father. No, say our opponents. Scripture
is not clear upon the point, but " tradition" tells us that the true
doctrine is that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and
this express testimony is alone sufficient to end the controversy.
The same for the Nestorian, Eutychian, Pelagian, and in fact all
the other errors that ever arose in the church. So that the sup
position is, fhat the Apostles not only published the true faith, as
we find it delivered in the Scriptures, but also in their oral in
structions added such a description of it as would suit, not mere
ly as Scripture does for an inferential condemnation, but for an
express, and verbal, and direct condemnation of every error
that would arise. Nay more, not only that the Apostles did this,
but that this teaching in all its fulness was perpetuated and
handed down for centuries, ready to be applied as each error
arose. Is this likely ? True, our opponents attempt to prove
that it was so a posteriori, namely, from the argument of the
consent of all the churches, which, they say, is not to be account
ed for but on such a supposition. With this argument we have
alreadv dealt, and shown that there is no such consent, but we
wish here still further to point the attention of the reader to the
extreme improbability of the hypothesis which this argument of
our opponents calls into existence.
However much, then, we must regret the absence of such a
consentient testimony in favour of the full orthodox faith, it is not
a matter which, under the circumstances of the case, ought to
occasion us any surprise. Rather is it a matter of astonishment
that any one should expect to find it, and still more to assume it

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 293
without, and even against evidence. Its absence is no evidence
that there has not been in all ages a church of Christ, a com
pany of faithful people in the world. Nay, it is no evidence that
there have not always been local communities of Christians pub
licly professing the true faith. While Origen was venting his
errors at Alexandria, and for his learning and eloquence was
followed and admired by vast numbers in his time, and his errors
never publicly condemned, there may nevertheless have been, at
the same period, and no doubt were, many churches that retain
ed the true faith. And the same we rnay say in the case of
others who remained, notwithstanding their errors, free from any
public condemnatioij by any body of men calling itself the church.
At a time when there were no General Councils of the church to
adjudicate on such matters, the difficulties were great in the way
of any public censure being issued by the whole church. And
probably much depended upon the weight and influence of the
individual among the neighbouring bishops. If he was sanc
tioned by them, that is, if the error had spread but a little, then
where was the tribunal that ever did or could call him to account?
True, it does seem surprising that no public censure should have
been passed upon Origen's doctrines in his life-time by the sound
portion of the church. But such is the fact, at least as far as
appears from the documents that have come down to us.
And let me ask. Had the other churches passed any public
censure upon the churches of Sardis and Laodicea when our
Lord rebuked them by his Apostle? We know of nothing of the
kind ; nor is it likely.' Nevertheless the errors of these unex-
communicated members of the cathohc church did not prevent
there being other members sound in the faith. Nay, even in
those local communities that were sound in the faith there might
be those who propagated erroneous doctrines, and yet aided by
circumstances escaped a public condemnation, as even Jezebel
was suffered to teach and seduce others to error in the church of
Thyatira. (Rev. ii. 20.)
The notion,, then, that all the members of the nominal and
external catholic church must have given a consentient testi
mony respecting the faith, is on the face of it most improbable.
And if all the writers whose remains we possess had done so, it
would only have shown how extremely joar^ia/ a representation
we have in them of tbe sentiments of the antient Christians.
In this want of consent, also, there is nothing at all to alarm
the Christian, nothing to show that the promises of Christ have
failed, nothing to show that there has not been in all ages a com
pany of faithful people visible to the world as Christ's mystical
body, nothing to obscure the light of divine revelation in the
Holy Scriptures or the teaching of those more orthodox portions
B B*

294 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
of Christ's followers that have shone as lights in the world, hold
ing forth the word of truth, nothing in fact to disturb any, but
one who wishes to erect upon earth an infallible tribunal to
which the consciences of men are to bow in bUnd submission.

SECTION VI.  THE UNCERTAINTIES AND DIFFICULTIES WITH WHICH
EVEN THAT SMALL AND PARTIAL CONSENT WHICH MAY SOMETIMES BE
ATTAINABLE AND IS CALLED BY OUR OPPONENTS " CATHOLIC CON
SENT," IS EMBARRASSED.
Let us now proceed to consider more particularly the value
of that partial consent that may perhaps be in some cases at
tainable, and which is dignified by the Tractators with the name
of " catholic consent."
And first, we must observe, that when they speak of such con
sent as necessarily showing that the truth of which it testifies
had its origin with the Apostles, they seem to be making a hasty
and unwarranted assumption. Even allowing such consent to be
more general than we can prove it to be, still it by no means
follows that it is due to Apostolical teaching. Supposing it to be
strictly universal, then indeed we need not hesitate to admit
such an inference. But as for any proveable consent, it might
originate as easily in the imaginations of the natural mind as in
Apostolical teaching. It needs no proof that any corruptions of
the faith suited to the natural feelings and prejudices of the hu
man mind would be likely at the very earliest period of the church
to obtain extensive circulation, especially if they were supported
by a few able and influential men. No man who knows any
thing of history or human nature needs to be told how great the
influence of even one able and zealous individual may be over a
whole community, especially if his teaching falls in wifh the bias
of human nature. Nor will any Christian deny, that in a vast
body such as that which composed the nominal Christian Church,
the tendency would be towards a corruption of the faith.
But a still greater difficulty with respect to any producible
consent is, that in many cases the expressions used are uncertain
and of doubtful meaning, and open to different and even opposite
interpretations. We have already noticed, in the last section, how little suited
many of the writings of the Fathers are, from their loose and in
accurate and rhetorical phraseology, their obscurity, and other
similar causes, to give a definitive sentence on controverted points;
and especially in the case of controversies subsequent to their

NO DIVINB INFORMANT. 295
times where the point in dispute was, as far as we know, never
distinctly brought under their notice. And this will be found to
render every attempt to show that they have borne a consentient
testimony in favour of any particular view almost useless and
nugatory. For passages of doubtful meaning will of course be
interpreted according to the view of the reader. And hence, as
we have already observed, the Fathers are quoted on all sides.
Thus, for instance, Bishop Bull claims them for his doctrine of
justification, as does Bishop Jebb,* while others claim them for
the doctrine of the Reformers on this point." Granted that these
opposing references do not prove that the Fathers dissent from
each other on the point, (though upon our opponents' principles
they would seem to do so) is it not nevertheless undeniable that
their loose, uncertain, and inaccurate expressions give just ground
for such opposite references ?
Moreover, almost all the great controversies that have agita
ted the church have been raised since the third century. The
writers, therefore, that preceded the fourth century wrote with
out any eye to such controversies. Their notices therefore of such
points are generally indirect and incidental. They no more give
a verbally definitive sentence respecting them than Scripture.
They cannot serve, then, for determining them, for we cannot
reason inferentially from them as we can from Scripture, because
no man holds their words to be inspired, or their indirect obser
vations to be sufficiently to be depended upon for such a pur
pose. In human writings we meet with much that, if applied to
a point not in the mind of the writer at the time, would convey
a very false impression of his views respecting it. With the wri
tings of the early Fathers, therefore, there is on almost every
point this drawback, that it had either not been mooted in their
times, or was not in their immediate contemplation when they
wrote, and consequently that they may have expressed them
selves differently to what they would have done had the point in
question been immediately before them. With Scripture the
case is different. That is perfect as indited by an Omniscient
Being. From thait we may safely reason inferentially, and there
is no drawback to weaken the force of the inference.
Now much of this is admitted by the lovers of the Fathers, but
then they seem to think that they may be permitted to decide
upon the allowances to be made for it, and so by a little inge
nuity contrive to bring even doubtful and indirect passages among
their witnesses for catholic consent. And if we come to investi
gate what is put forth as the catholic consent of the Fathers in
1 See Keble's " Catena." p. 114.
2 See Corpus confessionum.

296 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
behalf of any doctrine, we shall generally find that it has been
obtained by a process strongly resembling that for which the bed
of Procrustes is famed. The compiler having a model of doctrine
in his own mind, finds perhaps some statements that seem exact
ly to fit his standard, but for his "catholic consent" will encoun
ter many that are not so well suited to it. Nevertheless, the
haste of the author when he wrote, his ignorance of the contro
versies that were afterwards to arise, the circumstances of the
times or of the treatise in which he is writing, will afford many
excellent reasons why his statements should be either too long or
too short. It is therefore a kindness lo him, for which he would
no doubt be grateful could he know of it, to pare down his state
ments if they are somewhat too large, or put them on the rack if
they need a little stretching, to make them speak the language of
perfect orthodoxy. And so by a little contrivance we get a Ca
tena, that to those who made it is very convincing, but some
how or other generally fails in producing much effect upon oppo
nents able and willing to investigate for themselves. And the ar
gument from patristical testimony, in itself a valuable one, when
thus pressed too far sometimes loses even its legitimate weight.
To the generality of readers, however, it must be admitted,
such a mode of arguing often answers very well. And if we may
judge what people are ready to believe when it suits their fancy
from what writers have said on this subject, we need never be at
a loss for the support of the primitive church. For if all other
methods of obtaining it should fail, the Benedictine Editors of
Hilary seem to me to have given us a sure recipe for it, in the
following very ingenious remark when speaking on the doctrine
of the millennium. Being of course anfi-millennarians, and there
fore desirous of finding some support in that age for their own
view, they remark, — " Moreover, that our doctrine was already
received in their age, is proved by the efforts of Irenasus and
Tertullian to root it out of the minds of the faithful."' What
ever the Fathers may say, then, we can thus get good support
for the doctrine we wish to maintain. If the Fathers uphold it,
well and good ; if they oppose it, then their efforts to root it out
of the minds of the faithful show that the faithful believed it, and
so either way we get good testimony for it. A little ingenuity
will do great things in this matter.
Moreover, it is admitted, that instead of having positive state
ments from all the Fathers to depend upon for our " catholic con
sent," we must always content ourselves with having from some
of them the testimony of silence, because they have only written
1 Immo fidem nostram jam sevo tuo receptam probat Irenai atque Tertulliani
labor ut eam ex animis fidelium extorqueant. Pr^f. ad Hilar. Pictav. p. 68.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 297
on the particular points which were brought more immediately
under their notice. But this surely is a strange demand to make
upon us, that because six persons have given their testimony for
a doctrine, and three are altogether silent about it, we are to be so
sure that we have the consent of all the nine in the matter, that
we are to make that consent the foundation for our belief that the
doctrine is true.
Further, we must observe that in matters of church polity no
thing would be more likely than that the Fathers should suppose
and represent all that the Apostles had ordained, to be so abso
lutely essential to the being of a church, that that could be no
church that wanted any thing of the kind, speaking only in con
templation of the times then present, and never dreaming of such
a different state of things in the church as was to be found pre
vious to the Reformation. It was very natural that, without
any authority for the statement from the Apostles, they should
so represent the matter. It would be the notion sure to be en
tertained, and one which probably for the time and circumstan
ces contemplated was the correct view of the case, though with
our experience and in our times they might have judged differ
ently. We cannot therefore conclude that such a notion was ne
cessarily derived from the Apostles. It is obvious that even an
tient consent on such a point, if it could be proved, would not
show derivation from the Apostles, because it is easily accounted
for on other grounds. What Ignatius has said, for instance, on
this subject in his Epistles, was said with reference to the circum
stances of his day, and is not forthwith to be applied as a test by
which the churches that were the offspring of the Reformation
are to be tried. Granting fully that under ordinary circumstan
ces the ordinances of the Apostles ought to be adhered to, it ne
vertheless does not follow that under extraordinary circumstances
they are so necessary as to unchurch all who do not comply with
them. For such a view of the case we want direct Apostolical
authority, and are not to be bound by those patristical represen
tations which might be very just and true for the time then
present, but are not applicable to a completely altered state of
things. In the absence of any direct Apostolical injunction, the
Christian revelation must be looked at as a whole, and the pre
servation of its essentials, as delivered to us in the Scriptures,
be our first and great concern, to which every thing else must
give way.
Moreover, in some important points the Fathers changed their
minds, holding different views on the subject at different periods
of life.
We have a whole treatise of Augustine written at the close
of his Hfe, entitled his "Retractations," in which he corrects the

298 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
statements made in his former works. We find similar changes
of sentiment in other Fathers, and passages in their works con
tradictory to each other. And hence an exception is ofter taken,
and justly, to passages adduced on any controverted point, on the
ground that they were written when the author's judgment was
immature. And hence Vincentius himself requires that our judg
ment be formed from what the Fathers jt^er^et/erec^ in maintain
ing, and held to the end of their course.'
To perfect our catholic consent, then, we ought to know
whether the authors we quote persevered in the view maintained
in the passages we refer to, and were of sufficiently ripe judgment
when they wrote to make their testimony valid. But how we
are to ascertain this it is difficult to understand. Few have been
so ingenuous as Augustine to confess such change of views. And
if they had, it is a mere matter of chance as to such confessions
coming down to us. Jerome tells us" that such a letter was writ
ten by Origen to Fabianus, bishop of Rome, expressing his regret
at having written such things as he had ; but we know nothing
of this letter, but from this incidental notice of it by Jerome.
And this variation of sentiment, by the way, as far as it exists,
completely overthrows the idea of there being any traditionary
teaching pervading the whole church upon the point ; for had
there been, there would have been no room for such change of
views. So that it not only shows us the difficulty of proving con
sent, but also that there was not such consent, and that the views
held varied with the private opinions and judgment of indi
viduals. Again; to know the degree of value to be attached to even a
consentient testimony of the Fathers in favour of any view, we
ought also to know whether the point be a fundamental article ;
because otherwise we can have no security against even such a
testimony being erroneous.
Now, how we can ascertain this, but for those points which
are laid down in Scripture as fundamental, (and for which, there
fore, we need not patristical testimony,) I know not ; for it does
not by any means follow, that because the Fathers were not
Ukely to have all erred in fundamentals, therefore they could
not be wrong in determining what points are fundamental. And
if we were willing to admit their testimony on the point, we
should be unable fo get anything like a suflicient testimony from
them ; and at most the brief summaries of Irenasus and Tertullian
1 Perseveranter tenuisse, scripsisse, docuisse. Commonit. § 3 (al. 4) et § 28.
(al. 39.)
2 Ipse Origenes in epistola quam scribit ad Fabianum Romance urbis episco-
pum psBnitentiam agit cur talia scripserit. Hieron. Ep. ad Pammach. et Ocean.
ep. 84. (al. 65.) Tom. i. col. 531, 2. (Vall. Ven.)

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 299
would be all that could be established as fundamental, by such
testimony. Lastly, our opponents, to avoid the obligation of admitting any
thing they disHke, have themselves added to these another diffi
culty, and one which will be found altogether insuperable.
There are some points, it seems, to which the Fathers have
borne what our opponents, upon their own principles, are obliged
to recognize as a consentient testimony, but which, nevertheless,
are not quite to their mind, (some specimens of which we shall
give hereafter ;) and accordingly they have been compelled to
maintain that not only must we have catholic consent, but that
catholic consent must be accompanied with the declaration that
it is " traditionary teaching."
It is amusing, indeed, to see the straits to which our adver
saries are reduced, when they come to the practical application
of their principles to particular points. This may be remarka
bly seen in the Tract on Purgatory.* Speaking of Purgatory,
they say, — " Now it can only be an article of faith, supposing it
is held by antiquity, and that unanimously. For such things only
are we allowed to maintain, as come to us from the Apostles ;
and that only (ordinarily speaking) has evidence of so originating,
which is witnessed by a number oi independent witnesses in the
early church. We must have the unanimous ' consent of doc
tors,' as an assurance that the Apostles have spoken." (p. 25.)
Here, then, it is evident that what they mean by " the unanimous
consent of Doctors," is the consent of " a number." But, being
obliged afterwards to admit that a number of the best witnesses
among the Fathers speak contrary to their views, they are driven
to the necessity of making some further nice distinctions in the
matter, and shifting their rule to one which it is still more impossi
ble to apply. " What has been said," observes the Tractator,
" will illustrate what is meant by Catholic Tradition, and how it
may be received, without binding us to accept everything which
the Fathers say. It must be catholic, to be of authority ; that is,
all the writers who mention the subject, must agree together in
their view of it, or the exceptions, if there be any, must be such as
probare regulam. And again, they must profess it is tradition
ary teaching. For instance, supposing all the Fathers agreed to
gether in thier interpretation of a certain text, I consider that
agreement would invest that interpretation with such a degree of
authority, as to make it at first sight most rash (to say the very
least) to differ from them ; yet it is conceivable that on some
points, as the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy, they
might be mistaken. It is abstractedly conceivable that a mo-
' Tracts for the Times, No. 79.

300 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
dern commentator might, on certain occasions, plausibly justify
his dissent from them : — this is conceivable, I say, unless they
were explaining a doctrine of the Creed, which is otherwise
known to come from the Apostles, — or professed (which would
BE equivalent) that such an interpretation had ever been re
ceived in their respective churches, as coming from the Apostles.
Catholic tradition is something more than catholic teaching. Great
as is the authority of the latter (and we cannot well put it too
high) tradition is something beyond it. This remark is in point
here, for it might be objected that so many Fathers agree
together in the notion of a last-day Purgatory, that were it
not for the accident of others speaking differently, we should
certainly have received it as Catholic Tradition. I answer,
no ; whatever the worth of so many witnesses would have been,
— and it certainly for safety's sake ought to have been taken for
very much, — still Origen, Hilary, Ambrose, and the rest, do not
approximate in their remarks to the authoritative language in
which they would speak of the Trinity, or the benefits of Bap
tism. They do not profess to be delivering an article of the
faith once delivered to the saints." (pp. 37, 8.)
Here, by their own hands, the very foundation of their system is
all but overthrown. For if, as is here allowed, the unanimous con
sent of the Fathers that remain to us is not a sufficient proof that
what is so delivered came from the Apostles, but it is required
that they should also unanimously declare that what they were
delivering did come from the Apostles by a successional delivery
of it from one to another, then is the notion of any doctrine or
interpretation of Scripture being so established, preposterous in
deed. But this unanimous declaration must of course be, as in
the former case, the declaration of " a number." And we have
already given various instances in which this declaration was
made by " a number ;" and yet, in the judgment of " a number"
both of antient and modern divines, our opponents included, was
made without foundation.*
' There are some remarks on this matter by an able writer in the British Maga
zine for February, 1840, who signs himself S. T. R., so judicious and pertinent to
our present purpose, that I cannot but direct the attention of the reader to them.
Speaking of the Tract above quoted, he says, — " The principles of the Oxford
Tract Writers in this tract may lead to every corruption, they being unhappily
opposed to the spirit of a Canon which I quoted in a previous letter. Whether
they are harmless or not to their authors I do not know, but I feel sure that they
are capable of being very dangerous when imbibed and acted upon by others.
Upon that Canon Dr. Waterland observes, what cannot be too often repeated,
that 'it does not order that the clergy should teach whatsoever had been taught by
Fathers ; no ; that would have been setting up a new rule of faith : neither does
it say that they shall teach whatsoever the Fathers had collected from Scripture ;
no; that would have been making them infallible interpreters or infallible reason
ers.' And these observations, I submit, apply, however numerous those Fathers

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 301
In laying down these nice distinctions, I need hardly observe
that our opponents are as usual following the guidance of their
maybe. 'The doctrine must be /r«« found in Scripture; only to be more se
cure that we have found it there, tfie Fathers are to be called in, to be, as it were,
constant checks upon the presumption or wantonness of private interpretation.
(vol. V. p. 317.) But the Oxford Tract writers in this Tract, lay down rules which
do not require thatthe doctrine should be first collected out of the doctrine of the
Old and New Testaments ; they dispense with them ; they rely upon what thet
CALL THE CHURCH, WHTCH IS PftACTICALLT CERTAIS WRITERS WHOM THET
MAT CHOOSE TO CALL THE cutTBCH. They tell US, (p. 25.) that 'such things only,'
(speaking bf Articles of faith,) ' are we allowed to maintain as come to us from
the Apostles; and that only, ordinarily speaking, has evidence of so originating
which is witnessed by a number of independent witnesses in the early church.
We must have the unanimous consent of doctors as an assurance that the Apos
tles have spoken.' This is their rule for selecting doctrine, and calling it Apos
tolical, in cases where the Holy Scriptures are silent. Let us examine it. The word
' unanimous' coupled with the ' early church' in the other sentence must I should
think be intended to mean, not merely unanimous consent of a particular age,
but' of ages, especially some of the early ones, in order to give some appearance of
a connexion with the Apostles ; and if so, the word, ' unanimous,' must be con
strued liberally, and mean what is said in the former sentence, 'a number.' But
then if it be taken liberally, a question will arise, How many Fathers will make
up this number, and on what principle are they to be selected 1 And also out of
what centuries are they to be gathered ! And these questions are not to be de
cided by merely their opinion; they must be so decided as to leave no proper fear
that we can fall into error. We have a right to require this, as, on giving up the
guidance of Holy Writ, we are promised, and ought to have, very clear and intelli
gible lines, the matter depending upon them being no less than Apostolical doc
trine. But if the Oxford Tract writers cannot so answer the questions, not only is
their rule worthless, but they are opening tbe door for tbe maintenance of any early
opinion, however erroneous, {^since there are feiv that have not several patrons in
thefratfour or Jive centuries,') which may suit the taste of the theologian. The
Oxford Tract writers themselves felt this difficulty in respect of the doctrine of a
judgment purgatory, since it might be said that that doctrine being witnessed by so
raaiiy doctors must be believed, and yet it is erroneous ; and therefore, in pp. 37,
38, they make a supplemental rule by distinguishing between what tbey call
'catholic teaching,' and 'catholic tradition;' and affirm, that not only must all
the fathers ' who mentiion a doctrine agree in theiT view of it, or the exceptions,
if there be any, must be such as probare regulam, but also they must profess it to
be traditional teaching.' Now, without stopping to inquire what those unlucky
exceptions may be, (unlucky as leaving matters still in uncertainty,) let us see the
way in which they practically apply it to the overthrow of a judgment purgatory.
They allow that the worth of so many Fathers would, for safety's sake, be very
great, but that 'they do not approximate in their remarks to the authoritative
language in which they would speak of the Trinity or the benefits of baptism.
They do not profess to be delivering an article of the faith once delivered to the
saints. Now, since the Fathers in general express their doctrines rather confi
dently, or at least make no such difference as would afford those ' clear and in
telligible lines' which are promised, and which ought in a case of such impor
tance to be given to us, — while such a distinction, if not most clearly marked,
allows a very unfortunate license for abuse, — I suppose that the Oxford Tract
writers raean that nothing is to be received as unwritten apostolical doctrine but
what is declared in as many words to be ti^aditional teaching by this ' number of
independent witnesses in the early church.' If so, here we have, apparently, a
tangible rule, and if it be hastily read, as most books and tracts are now a days,
it will pass very well ; but a more close inspection will, I fear, show that bowev-
VOL. I. C C

302 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
friends the Romanists. " Our adversaries require two things to
make the testimony of the Fathers worthy to be relied on," says
er it may apply, being perhaps made for it, to the case of the judgment purgatory,
it will not answer our purpose, the discovery of unwritten apostolical doctrine, un
less we are also sure that -whatever the individual fathers and the bishops of the
catholic church tell us is traditional teaching, is in truth apostolical doctrine.
Will the Oxford Tract writers affirm thisi Perhaps they will. But will they
prove it? Until that be done, we have no 'clear and intelligible lines.' Among
the various doctrines, and many of them erroneous, like the judgment purgatory,
which the fathers held, the touchstone of truth will still, practically, be the taste of
the inquirer. Having lost the sure guidance of Holy VV^rit, he will adopt either
what he likes or what he thinks right in all the wantonness or weakness of pri
vate judgment.
Having thus examined these rules, and seen, I think, how very insufficient they
are for the discovery of unwritten apostolical doctrine, and how liable, on the
other hand, they are to be abused to the maintenance of error, let us see how the
Oxford Tract writers are able, when an erroneous doctrine is advanced against
them, to meet it. How do they meet the Romanist, for instance, on this doctrine
of purgatory 1 The Holy Scriptures, — those ' safe and substantial bulwarks' —
not being required by them, not even their testimony through the light of early
Christian writings, they have nothing wherewith to repel the Romanist but these
two arguments: first, that the fathers adduced, though teaching more than them
selves, do not teach purgatory ; and secondly, that their testimony is contradic
tory. A Romanist, I think, would smile, and say to them, ' Gentlemen, you do
not require the doctrine to be seen in the Scriptures, as your own is not there ;
neither do you require it to be seen in the fathers of the two first centuries, as
your own is not there. Now in the third century we have all the 'independent
witnesses' that exist in support of our doctrine. It may be true that each witness
does not in all points fully exhibit it as it is now defined, yet all present some por
tion of it. And allow me to recal to your recollection your own opinion, that
the more diffuse leaching of a later age may fairly be considered as the due de
velopment of the brief and sententious doctrinal declarations of an earlier period.
I recal this with the greater pleasure, since it is so well supported by an instance
of your own connected with our present subject. I allude to a passage referred
to in the British Critic, No. 49, p. 73, from the Epistle of Ignatius to the Mag-
nesians, § 9. . , . This passage you very properly, as we Romanists consider,
adduce as an apparent recognition by Ignatius, of the doctrine more fully devel
oped in later times of the Limbus Patrum. Now, if this passage, which, it must
be confessed, is somewhat indistinct, exhibiting at the most but a faint outline of
one portion of the doctrine, and which the generality of protestants, not so free
from prejudice as yourselves, would reject altogether as having nothing to do with
it, I say, if a such passage, so indistinct and so defective, be admitted by you as
apparently recognizing and sanctioning the more full development of a later age,
surely you cannot resist our evidence for the doctrine of purgatory 'i I must
really insist that, as far as the three first centuries are concerned, (and if you
wish it I will pursue the inquiry further down,) all the writers who ' mention'
the subject agree raore or less in their view of it, each of them exhibiting some
peculiar element of our doctrine ; and that, consequently, this may fairly be con
sidered as one of those admitted cases in which, in the silence of the apostolic
writings, we have ' suflicient assurance that the apostles have spoken.' As a
matter of course, as centuries roll on, and we have more writers, we have also
more full and comprehensive views of the doctrine, which enable us, as in the case
of the Limbus Patrum, more fully to exhibit it ; but supported as these early and
brief statements are by later and more fully developed ones, their evidence must,
I beg leave to submit, on our common principles, be deemed conclusive. And
with respect to your other objection, if it have any force at all, it will be fatal to

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 303
Placette ;* " first, that they consent, and secondly, that they do
not merely propose what seems most true to themselves, but testi
fy moreover that what they teach was either delivered by Christ,
or is of faith, or which is all one, the opposite of it heresy. If
either of these fail, then their testimony is not secure. The first
Condition is required by many, and particularly by Alphonsus a
Castro, who, inquiring out the ways whereby a proposition may
be convinced to be heretical, in the fourth place assigns ' the
unanimous consent ofall the Fathers who have written upon that
argument.' The latter condition is made necessary by many
more. Driedo tells us the authority of the Fathers is of no value
* any otherwise than as they demonstrate their opinion either
from the canonical Scriptures or the belief of the universal church
since the Apostles' times ; and that they do not always deliver
their sense as matters of faith, but by way of judgment, opinion,
and probable reason,' " &c. "Both conditions are required by
Canus and Bannes, who, laying down rules whereby true tradi
tions may be discerned from false, both assign this in the second
place and in the same words; ' If the Fathers have unanimously
from the beginning all along the succession of their times held any
article of faith, and refuted the contrary as heretical.' Bellar
mine and Gretser give this for their fourth rule, — ' When all the
doctors of the church teach anything by common consent to have
descended from Apostolical tradition, either gathered together in
a Council or each one apart in their writings' ..... Marti-
nonus, that ' none of the holy Fathers or doctors taken separately
is the rule of faith, nor all yet together conjunctly, unless they
assert their common opinion to be of faith, and not merely pro
pose their own judgment.' Lastly, Nafalis Alexander aflirms,
that ' when all the Fathers conspire in the same opinion, defend
it, and propose it as Apostolic doctrine, and an article of the
church to be believed by catholic faith, then doth their authority
afford a necessary argument of sacred doctrine.' " " It sufficeth
not therefore," observes Placette, "either that many Fathers
your own doctrine also ; except that in your case you have, I believe, the unani
mity of silence. But should your doctrine have any existence, it cannot be with the
' unanimous consent' of doctors. Doctors in every age from the third are op
posed to you ; while in our case, from the third century to the present day, we
can show you an uninterrupted descent — the stream of our doctrine flowing more
full and clear in every succeeding age.' I know not how the Oxford Tract writers
Would meet such observations as these ; but I fear that the Anglican believer, if
he yields to the principle of this tract, instead of 'expatiating in the rich pas
tures of Catholicism,' will soon find himself in ' the snare of popery.' " Brit. Mag.
for Feb. 1840. pp. 174—7.
' In his " Incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome," translated and pub-
lished by .Irchbishop Tenison, 1688, 4to., and inserted by Bishop Gibson in the
third volume of his Preservative against Popery.

304 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
deliver an opinion as of faith, or that all should simply teach it,
but not affirm it to be of faith. Now if these two conditions be
observed, how few articles of Christian faith shall we receive
from tradition? For the Fathers seldom all agree and more
rarely admonish us that what they teach is of faith. So that
IF TOU TAKE AWAY ALL ARTICLES WHEREIN EITHER OF THESE CON
DITIONS IS WANTING, IT MAY WELL BE DOUBTED WHETHER ANY ONE
WILL REMAIN .... From what hath been said, it appears
that matters of tradition and belief cannot be learned from
the Fathers. Hence iEgidius Estrix vehemently inveighs against
Peter van Buscum, a Divine of Gaunt, who in his ' Instruction'
had remitted young divines to the Fathers to learn the Christian
doctrine from them. And Nuetus the Jesuit fikens those writers
of controversy, who, passing by the Scripture, betake themselves
to the Fathers, to thieves and rogues, who deserting the cities flee
into thick woods that they may more securely hide themselves."*
In fact, our opponents when brought to the point are compelled
to admit the uncertainty of their boasted " catholic consent."
" We, for our parts," says Mr. Newman, speaking on this subject,
" have been taught to consider that faith in its degree as well as
conduct must be guided by probabilities, and that doubt is ever
our portion in this life ... we are but striking a balance
between difficulties existing on both sides."^ And therefore they
have very little difficulty when " striking the balance" to make
it pro or con in any particular case according to their own taste
and convenience. And the refuge which they have provided for
themselves against an objector is twofold, first that if this " con
sent" be not admitted, notwithstanding its uncertainty, as a sufli
cient foundation for faith to rest upon, we shall be left without
any ground for believing the Scriptures to be the word of God, a
statement for which the sceptics of the day will no doubt feel
greatly obliged to them ; and secondly (to make all right) that
faith means belief upon imperfect and uncertain evidence; both
which propositions we shall consider in the next chapter, but we
notice them here that the reader may know how far our oppo
nents themselves have been driven towards the admission of the
doctrine for which we have been contending in this chapter.
So far, then, from shrinking from such a charge as that which
Placette brings against the church of.Rome for patronizing such
doctrines, namely, that of " incurable scepticism," Mr. Newman
at once avows that such is his state of mind, and that he is so
fully conscious of the insufficiency of the grounds upon which his
faith rests, that he feels that " doubt is ever his portion in this

' Incur. Scept. of Church of Rome, c. 3.
^ Lect. p. 129. See also pp. 69 and 329.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 305
life." The reader will do well to consider whether he is desirous
that such should be his own portion, and if not, to take heed
how he embraces sentiments which, by the confession of their
authors, will lead him to it.

SECT. VII.— -THE RtVAL APPEALS MADE TO PATRISTICAL TRADITION IN
ANTIENT TIMES ON SEVERAL OF THE MOST IMPORTANT POINTS,
GROUNDED UPON TESTIMONIES, MANY OF WHICH WE DO NOT NOW
POSSESS, MUCH REDUCE THE VALUE OF ANY PARTIAL CONSENT WE
MAY FIND ON SUCH POINTS IN THE WORKS THAT REMAIN TO US.
We must now proceed to observe that the claim made to ca
tholic consent in favour of the orthodox faith is opposed by the
rival claims of antient heretics to a portion at least of patristical
tradition in their favour. And as they possessed the writings of
the Fathers to a far greater extent and in a far more correct
stat^ than we now do, it is impossible for us precisely to deter
mine what grounds they may or may not have had for such an
appeal. And in noticing this point, I must caution the reader against
the misrepresentations that are so common on this subject. Many
seem to take it for granted that those who did not receive the
orthodox doctrine are to be set down as men who had not com
mon honesty, and uttered falsehoods without hesitation ; which,
however true it may be of some, is not to be assumed of all of
them. Moreover, the Romanists, to answer their own purposes,
almost always represent the heretics as men v/ho. admitted that
their views were new and that they could plead no sanction for
them in antiquity, and who appealed only to Scripture; and our
opponents (somewhat strangely for men who profess so much
knowledge of antiquity) evidently proceed upon the same notion,
either from having fallen into the Romish snare, or from having
been misled by their great master, the monk of Lerins, who mis
represents this matter as much as the Romanists. For he uni
versally' represents the heretics as appealing only to Scripture,
and bringing forward what they knew and confessed to be new
doctrines, repudiating any appeal to antiquity, and yet with an
inconsistency not uncommon in such writers, tells us with respect
to some of those heretics, that they " commonly lay hold of some
rather darkly expressed writings of one antient Father or other,
which by reason of the obscurity may seem as it were to make
for their opinion, to the end they may be thought, whatsoever, I
know not what, they bring forth to the world, neither to have

306 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
been the first that so taught, neither alone of that opinion,"
(§ 7,) and accuses them (not without reason probably as it re
spected many) of corrupting the writings of the Fathers, (§ 3S,)
forgetting that if they repudiated any appeal to antiquity, they
would not have given themselves the trouble to do this; and with
respect to Nesforius, he pens the following downright misstate
ment ; that he " boasted that he was the first and only man
who understood the Scrijytures, and that all others were in
ignorance, which before his days, in their office of teachers,
had expounded the divine sayings, that is, all priests, all
confessors and martyrs, of whom some had expounded God's
law, others allowed and believed them so expounding : to
conclude, he maintained that the whole church both now doth
err, and always had erred, because as he thought she had fol
lowed and was following ignorant and erroneous doctors." (§ 32.)
Now it is notorious that Nestorius and his followers have always
maintained that their doctrine had been handed down from the
earliest times of the Christian church. It is painful to see such
statements made in defence of the truth. And it is not the only
one of this kind which Vincentius has made. A statement of the
same kind and even much more incorrect is made by him with
respect to Agrippinus on the question of the rebaptization of
heretics,* as we have already seen.
On this head, then, we remark, in the first place, that the ap
peal of the early heretics was very frequently made not to Scrip
ture, but to their own corruptions of Scripture, or to Scripture
mutilated to serve their purposes.
Thus Marcion mutilated the gospel of Luke, and removed from
St. Paul's Epistles all those things that were contrary to his views,
and rejected some whole books."
And Tertullian, speaking of these corruptions of Scripture as
common among the heretics, says — " They who purposed teach
ing a different doctrine were compelled by necessity to make
alterations in the documents that deliver the doctrine. For they
could not otherwise have taught a different doctrine unless they
had different documents to teach with. As their corruption of
doctrine could not have succeeded without a corruption of the
documents that deliver the Christian faith, so our integrity of
doctrine would not have belonged to us but for the integrity of
the documents by which the doctrine is expressed."*
So the author of " The Little Labyrinth," (sometimes attribu-
1 See c. 9.
2 Iren. Adv. har. lib. i. c. 27. ed. Mass. c. 29. ed. Grab, and lib. iii. c. 12. Ter
tull. Adv. Marc. lib. iv. and v. Epiphan. in hsr. Marcionit.
3 Tertull, De Priescr, u. 38. See the original under Tertullian in c. 10. iielow.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 307
ted to Caius,) speaking of those that followed the heresy of Arte
mon, (who denied the divinity of our Saviour,) says, — " They
have fearlessly adulterated the Scriptures, and have rejected the
canon of the antient faith, and have ignored Christ ; not inqui
ring what the Divine Scriptures say, [showing what he thought
they ought to have done] but labouring diligently to find out
what kind of syllogism might be discovered for the confirmation
of their impiety  They have fearlessly laid their hands
upon the divine Scriptures, saying that they have amended
them." And he goes on to say, that any one who will inspect
their copies will at once see the proof of this from the way in
which they differed one from another, and because they could
not point out the copies from which anyone of theirs was taken ;
adding that some of them had gone so far as to reject the whole
of the Law and the Prophets.*
So Clement of Alexandria accuses the heretics of refusing to
admit some portions of Scripture which went against them, and
blamed them not because they reasoned from Scripture, but
because they caught at words that might appear favourable in
stead of looking to the general sense of the passage, and reason
ed from a few isolated passages instead of taking a general and
connected view of what Scripture delivered on the subject ;" a
fault which, as Tertullian tells us, was common to all the here
tics.' Other instances may easily be found. I will add only one more,
viz., the case of the Manichees, who charged the Scriptures with
having been corrupted subsequently to the times of the Apostles,*
and rejected all the passages that were opposed to their heresy.^
And they who look further into the matter, will find that in the
appeals of heretics to Scripture, there was generally some slip
pery dealing with Scripture of this kind.
Nay, they were many of them noted for deterring men from
the study of the Scriptures.
For Eutherius, after an emphatic exhortation to men to search
for the truth in the Scriptures, which we shall notice elsewhere,
lays it down, as one mark of heretics, that they are glad to keep
men from the Scriptures ; — " they who desire," he says, "to be
judges in their own cause, drive men from the Scriptures, under
the pretext, indeed, of not daring to penetrate into their mysteries
1 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. v. c. 28. Routh, Reliq. Sacr. vol. ii. pp. 10 — 12.
2 Clem. Alex. Strom, lib. vii. p. 891. ed. Potter.
3 His tribus capitulis totum instrumentum utriusque Testamenti volunt cedere.
cum nporteat secundum pluia intelligi pauciora ; sed proprium hoc est omnium
hareticornm. Tertull. Adv. Prax. c. 20. p. 511. ed. 1664.
¦• See August. De uiil. cred. c. 3. tom. 8 col. 49.
5 See August. Contr. Faust, libr. xi. c. 2, tom. 8. col. 218. and haer. 46.

308 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
as inaccessible ; but, in truth, in order to avoid their condem
nation of their own false doctrine.'"
And so Tertullian calls them " men that fly from the light oi
the Scriptures.""
And Basil brings this as an especial charge against the Arians,
that it was "always their great care not to teach simple souls
from the divine Scriptures, but to circumvent the truth by hu
man philosophy."'
But further; and this is what I am here more particularly con
cerned to show ; they were in the habit of appealing to patris
tical tradition as in their favour.
Thus Irenaeus tells us of the heretics of his time, " when thev
are reproved from the Scriptures they immediately begin to ac
cuse the Scriptures themselves ; as if they were not correct,
nor of authority, and that they are not consistent ; and that
the truth cannot be found out from them, by those who
are ignorant of tradition."^ So far, then, from being opposed
to tradition, it seems that they were as great sticklers for it, as
our opponents ; and accordingly we find Irenaeus, in order to re
fute them upon their own ground, proceeding to show them that
tradition was against them, as well as Scripture ; for which he
has been himself set down by the Romanists, and our opponents,
as one of the great champions for the necessity of tradition ; with
what truth we shall see more fully hereafter.
And so, elsewhere, he tells us of the Marcosians^ and Carpo-
crafians" in particular, that they pretended a tradition in favour
of their notions.
And Clement of Alexandria informs us that Valentinus, Mar
cion, and Basilides, all professed to preach what was delivered
by Matthias ;' and thatthe followers of Basilides boasted that
their master was a pupil of Glaucias, the amanumensis of Peter;
and those of Valentinus, that their master was taught by Theo-
das, a friend of Paul.^
I 'Of ^ouxo/Aivot TX \xuTm xpiviiv XTiipyouo-t Tuy ypx'pm. TTpo^xru ixiv tou /ah xatatoX-
/AAV. US ATTpoO-lTUV T» Si AXhBuX UTTip TOU fiuyUV TM S? AUTUV iXiyX'' THS OtXilXS XXX'.So-
'ftxs. Euther. Serm. 2. Inter Theodor. Op. ed. Schuize, tom. v. p. 1126.
z Lucifugffi isti Scripturarum. Tertull. De resurr. carnis, c. 47. p. 354.
s Touto yxp xuTois xu io-Tiv imuiXis, /ah ix Tai> Bum ypApuv SiSxtrxnv txs xxipxtoTUXs
.^.ux^s, xxx' ix THS e.*a9sf (rofixs TrxpAxpouurBxt thv axhBuav. Basil. Ep. 8. ed. Bened.
torn. iii. p. 81.
4 Cum enim ex Scripturis arguuntur in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum
Scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, neque sint ex aulhoritate, et quia varie
sint dicta; ; et quia non possit ex his inveniri Veritas ab his qui nesciant traditio
nem. Adv. haer. iii. 2.
6 Lib. i. u. 20. ed. Mass. c. 17. ed Grab.
6 Lib. i. c. 25. ed. Mass. c. 24, ed Grab.
1 Thv MxtBiou xux"^i Trpoo-xr-rBxi So^av. Clem. Al. Strom, lib. vii. p. 900. (ed.
Potter.) 8 KABxTTip 0 BaTIXuShS. XAV YXAUXIXV iTTiypAfHTAt SiSasTXAXOV, tts AUXOUTIV AUTOl, TOV

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 309
And Ptolemy, the Valentinian, expressly asserts that ther doc
trine was derived from Apostolical tradition, handed down to
them by a successional delivery from the Apostles.*
And so usual was it for heretics to prefer this claim, that Je
rome says of them, generally, that they were accustomed to say,
— " We are the sons of those wise men who, from the beginning,
have delivered to us the doctrine of the Apostles ;"* and he con
trasts them with those who derive their knowledge from Scrip
ture.' It is quite true, that the tradition pleaded by these heretics,
was of a different kind to that claimed by Irenaeus, Tertullian,
and Origen. for that which they delivered as the substance of the
faith taught by the Apostles ; because the former was a tradition
handed down by certain private individuals only ; whereas the
latter was affirmed to be the tradition of all the Apostolical
churches ; but, nevertheless, it is evidence to an opponent, as far
as it goes, against the universaHty of the orthodox doctrine ; and
evidence which it is not fair altogether to keep out of sight, and
say that the heretics did not dare to appeal to tradition, for that
it was altogether against them, and rested upon interpretations
of Scripture, which they acknowledged to be new. The cause
of truth gains nothing by such statements.
And these claims must be judged by us, in a measure, upon
their own merits ; because, though the testimony of a few con
temporary authors, whose writings we possess, affords' wery strong
evidence against them, this evidence is not conclusive. What
we want is divine testimony ; and when professing Christians
are divided among themselves as to what is the truth, it is useless
to attempt to affix the title of a divine informant to the testimony
of any one portion of them, however large it may be.
But still further ; the appeals of the heretics to patristical tra
dition, were not all of this kind, but often of a more general
nature ; and especially in those questions which arose at a later
period of the church, and with which alone almost we are con
cerned at the present day, I mean those connected with the
Arian, Nestorian, Pelagian, and such like controversies.
From a fragment of a writer on the orthodox side, who wrote
rWrpou *i^/AHViX- us AUTBtS Si XAt OuAXiyTtVOV QioSASt AXHXOiVAt Cleg. QioSA SlHXHxOiVAl, Pot
ter et al.) ^ipoua-tv yyupi/Aos S' outos eyiyovu Hauxou. Lib. vii. p. 898.
' UaBhith yAp, Qiou SiSovtos, f?»c xxj thv toutou ApxHV Tt xat ytyvHtriv, a^m/AtVH ths
Attoittoxixhs TTXfxioimtS, m ix SiaSoxhs xai H/AUS TrXpUXHfA/Aiy, /aita xai tou XAyoVKTAI
TTAVTAS TOUS xoyous TH TOU 2MT)ifo5 StSxTxAXiA. Ptol. Ep. ad FloraDS, ap. Epiph.
Adv. hsr. h. 33. § 7. p. 222. ed. 1622.
2 Filii sumus sapientiura qui ab initio doctrinam nobis apostolicam tradide
runt. Hieren. Comm. in Is. c. 19. tom. 4. c. 293. ed. Vall. tom. 3. c. 184. ed.
Ben.

3 1 0 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
as early as the commencement of the third century, (the frag
ment is preserved to us by Eusebius,) we find that the followers
of Artemon, who denied the divinity of our Saviour, claimed " all
the antients and the Apostles themselves as in favour of their
views;" and maintained that their doctrine, which they call "the
truth of the Gospel," was " preserved until the times of Victor.'"
We have already quoted the passage more at length above, and
have seen how the claim was met by their orthodox opponent:
and in dealing with the opponents of the orthodox doctrine, should
remember with him that our evidence on the contrary side, is
only evidence of the same nature ; that is, resting upon the testi
mony of a few individuals; and not be hasty in stopping the
mouths of our adversaries with a claim to a divine informant. 1
believe that the claim of these heretics was an impudent asser
tion, diametrically opposed to the facts of the case ; but one great
reason why I believe it to be so, is from the fact that Scripture
clearly maintains the opposite doctrine.
The similar claims of succeeding heretics were of a still more
plausible kind, being connected with questions which had not
previously been the subjects of public discussion ; and on which,
therefore, the earlier Fathers had not in general spoken clearly
and determinately.
Thus Arius and his party confidently appealed to patristical
tradition as in their favour.
In the Letter fo Alexander, written by Arius and his earliest
followers, they call his doctrine " the faith which we have re
ceived from our ancestors."" And in a fragment preserved by
Athanasius, Arius uses the following language ; — " According fo
the faith of the elect of God, those to whom God hath given in
telligence, holy children, orthodox, and who have received the
Holy Spirit of God, I have learned these things from those who
are partakers of wisdom, pofished, taught of God, and in alt
things wise. Being of the same mind with them, I have closely
followed their footsteps," &c.'
Two of these are mentioned by their orthodox opponents, in
order to exculpate them from the charge of supporting Arianism;
viz., Origen* and Dionysius of Alexandria.* The defence of the
latter by Athanasius," is unanswerable; but this very case shows
1 Euseb. H. E. v. 28. Routh, Reliq. Sacr. vol. 2. pp. 7, 8. See p. 189 above.
2 'H TTiTTts H/Auv H ix TTpoyovuv. Eplphau. Adv. haer. h. 69. § 7. tom. 1. p. 732.
ed. 1622.
3 K(*T(t TTtiTTlV iXXiXTm QiOU, O-UViTm QiOU, TTAtSuV XyiUV, ppBoTO/AUV, OOyiOV QiOU TTViU/AA
XX^OVTUy, TxSh/AaBoV eyuryiUTTO tuv (TO^IHS /AOTiXOVTUV, AffTUUy, BioSlSxXTUV, XXTX TTXVTX
(To^m TV TOUTUV xfltT* *p^vo5 HxBov iyu &xtvuv 0/AoSoijus, X. T. X. Athanas. orat. la. con
tra Arian. § 5. tom. i. pp. 408, 9. ed. Bened.
4 Socrat. Hist. Eccl. iv. 21.
^ Athanas. De Sent. Dionys. Op. tom. i. pp. 243, &s.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 311
that it is impossible to expect to obtain the catholic consent of
the Fathers, upon a point not under discussion in their time ; for
Athanasius himself allows* that the passage cited by the Arians
would, if it had stood alone, have decided the appeal in their
favour. It was a passage written in the heat of controversy
against an opposite error to that of Arius ; but it so happened
that Dionysius was called upon to explain his views more folly on
the point, on account of the misapprehensions his statements had
caused ; and he satisfactorily showed that he held no such views
as those of Arius. But how many would there be who, having
expressed themselves thus unwarily, might never have been
called upon to give any further explanation, and whose state
ments, therefore, would seem to favour the views of Arius?
Nay, we have found that this is, in fact, the case, even
with some authors whose writings remain to us. What be
comes, then, of catholic consent, in such a case? We may
say, indeed, that such statements are to be accounted for as
those of Dionysius; and this may be very true; but those who
are inclined to the opposite doctrine are, of course, justified in
interpreting the expressions they find, as they stand ; and it is
only trifling with them and ourselves, to demand that they be in
terpreted according to our views, and then boast of catholic con
sent. It is one thing to be able to account for the statements of
many of the early Catholic Fathers, when they seem to deviate
from strict orthodoxy, and show that they may be reconciled
with the assertion of their having held the true doctrine by a
consideration of the circumstances of the case, and therefore fhat
it is probable that their meaning was orthodox ; and another to
maintain that that, and no other doctrine, is clearly and consist
ently maintained in their writings, and challenge their consent in
its favour. We shall find, indeed, practically that we are con
tinually called upon in the writings of the Fathers, to make al
lowances for the heat of opposition to the controversy they were
engaged in at the moment, which often led them into expressions
verging upon, or even decidedly favourable to, opposite errors.
And this is a fault which entirely prevents the Fathers from
bearing any such consentient testimony as our opponents dream
of, and peculiarly disqualifies them from performing the office of
a judge of controversies. And for the same reason, the Scrip
ture is peculiarly qualified to be so; because, though it may not
have entered into the particulars of the point in controversy, it
has stated the truth, simply and plainly, and without ever having,
when condemning one error, verged to the opposite ; or, when
stating a truth, overstated it. The elements which it gives us

' lb. p. 246, and see Basil. Ep. ad Max. Ep. 9. Ed. Ben. tom. 3. p.

90.

312 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
for determining the point in question, are all such as, when pro
perly used, lead to the truth. There are no statements calcula
ted to lead us astray, no representations for which allowances
are to be made, either for the words used, or for a possible bias
of mind or ardour of spirit that affected the tone of the instruc
tion given.
Many other testimonies might be brought of the claim made
by the Arians and Semi-Arians to patristical tradition. Auxen-
tius, Bishop of Milan, in his Letter to Valentinian and Valens,
says, — " My creed is that in which I have been taught from my
infancy as I have received from the holy Scriptures," proceed
ing fo recite the antient creed,' and he calls the faith which he
defends, (being as he allows that which was agreed upon at Ari
minum) the catholic faith, and declares that the catholic bishops
had always condemned and anathematized the opposite doctrine,
which he calls heresy.** And so Eunomius boasted — " We ad
here to those things which were demonstrated both by the saints
[or, according to other MSS. the holy Fathers] of old and now
by us."^
So the Semi-Arians at the Synod of Antioch in 341 say, "We
receive no other faith than that which was published from the
beginning;"* and at their Synod at Sardica in 347, they use such
language as the following ; "It is our constant prayer, beloved
brethren, first that the holy and catholic church of the Lord, free
from all dissensions and schisms, may everywhere preserve the
unity of the Spirit and the bond of love by a right faith 
Secondly, that the Church's rule, and the holy tradition and
judgments of our fathers may remain for ever firm and un-
moved,"* &c. And again, " Since therefore we cannot depart
from the tradition of our fathers^ .... neither do we our
selves receive the aforementioned [i. e. Athanasius and Marcel
lus] to the honour and dignity of the Church, and we justly con
demn those who do."' And so they speak of themselves after
wards as " adhering to the laws of God and the traditions of
their fathers."^
1 Ex infantia quemadmodum doctus sum sicut accepi de Sanctis Scripturis
credidi. Hilar. Contr. Auxent. § 14. Op. col. 1270. ed. Bened.
2 Ib. § 15. col. 1272.
8 ^H/AUS TOiS Tfi UTTO TUV AyiUV [al. AyiUV TTATipm'} xxt TTXXXl XXI vuv U0' H/AUV ATToSuXyU-
fAivois i/A/AivovTis. EoHOM. in Basil. Adv. Eunom. lib. ii. § 18. lom. i. p. 253.
ed. Ben.
4 Outs XXXHV TIVA TTHrTlV irafsl T»» £? ApXHS iXTiBuoTAV iSlf A/AiBA. SoCB. H. E. ii. 7.
5 Ut ecclesiae regula sanctaque parentum traditio atque judicia in perpetuum
firma solidaque permaneant.
6 Quamobrem quoniam a parentum traditinne discedere non possumus, &c.
' Hilarii Fragm. in Op. col. 1308 and 1319. ed Bened.
* Adhffirentes legibus Dei traditionibusque paternis. Ib.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 313
And at their Synod at Ancyra in 5.38, they speak in the same
strain still more strongly, " We entreat you, venerable Lords and
fellow-worshippers," they say in their synodical epistle, " that
having read these letters, ye will embrace firmly the faith de
livered to us from our fathers, and that you will signify that our
faith is agreeable to yours; that those who dare to introduce
this impiety, being fully assured that we preserve the faith which
we have received from the Apostolical times through the Fa
thers that have intervened down to our times, as our patri
mony, may either through shame be turned to the truth, or per
sisting may be cut off from the church."*
Similar language is usual at the other Arian Councils,'
The same claims we find to be made by the Aetians and Mace
donians, who accused the orthodox of introducing novelties into
the Christian faith ;' an accusation met by Gregory Nyssen by an
appeal to Scripture as the judge.*
And when at the Council of Constantinople, at its session in
383, it was proposed by the Emperor, at the suggestion of one of
the orthodox party, that the matters in dispute between them
and the heretics present, viz. the Arians, Eunomians and Mace
donians, should be determined by an appeal to the writings of
the Fathers, these heretics asserted their reverence for the Fa
thers as their "masters," and many of them were desirous that
the points io dispute should be so determined, though others ob
jected to such a course. The account given by Socrates is as
follows. The Emperor asks the heretics, " if they respect and
receive the writings of the doctors that lived before the division
of the church ; and they having not denied that they did, but
en the control-^ affirming that they altogether honoured them
as masters,^ the king again inquired whether they would follow
them as trustworthy witnesses of the Christian faith. The lead
ers of the sectaries and the logicians among them, for there were
many among them well fitted for disputation, doubted what to
do. For there was a division among them, some saying that
the king's proposal was a good one, and others that it was not
I TlApXXAXOU/AiV U/AAS KvtitPl Tl/AlUTATOt ruXXilTOupyot tVTUXOVTiS OTt ipAffBnTi TH ix TTXTi-
fflOy TTXpxSoBitaH TTltTTU, XXI US tTUiA^UVA U/AlV ^pOVOU/liV UC TTHTTltrTiVXA/AiV UTTOSTH/AHVAuBxr IVX
TTXHpO^OpnBiVTtS 04 THV XUTHV Asri^ilAy tTTilVXyuV ToX/AUVTiS. OTt XxBATTip XXHpoy TtVA THV ix
Tuy ATToffToxixm ^ovm SiA Tav iy tu /autu axpi xxt h/auv TiXTipm uTToSt^A/Aiyot ttio-tiv
ivXAO-a-^/Aiy, H XirXUvBiVTiS StOpBuBH^OyTXl, » ITTl/tivoyTtS ATTOXHpUXBuc-l THS EXXXHITIAS.
Epiphan. adv, Hier. h. 73. § 2. tom. i. p. 847.
2 See Socrat. Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. cc. 19, 30 and 37.
3 '^taTipOTTGlOUS H/AXS Xxt XAIVOTO/AOUS XAl i'PiupiTXS PH/AXTPBV XAt Tl yxp OUXi tTToyuStlTTim
axoxxxwiTtt. Basil, de Sp. S. c. 6. § 13. tom. iii. p. 10: And Gregor. Niss-
De Trin. jiro/ie init. tora. ii. pp. 439, 440. ed. 1615.
4 Greg. Nyss. ut supra. We shall notice the passage more particularly here-
«fier. See c. 10.
6 nstVD Tl/AAV AUTOUS US XABiryHTX^
VOL. I. DD

314 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
suitable fo their object. For they were differently affected to
wards the books of the antients ;* and they no longer agreed
one with the other, and they were divided, not only some sects
towards others, but those of the same heresy among themselves ;"
and he proceeds to say that in consequence of this diversity of
opinion the Emperor ordered each party to present their creed
to him." The appeal lo the Fathers, therefore, though dechned
by some, was by others willingly accepted.
And we are told by the learned Henry Wharton, that " Euno
mius, the heretic, in his Apology, extant in MS. in St. Martin's
Library, everywhere pleadeth ihe tradition of precedent ages,
and professeth lo follow that as his only rule of faith. ' It is ne
cessary,' saith he, ' for those who treat of matters of faith, setting
before them the holy tradition which hath all along obtained
from the times of the Fathers, as a rule and canon, to make use
of this accurate rule to judge of those things which shall be
5aid.'^ Afterwards proposing his blasphemous opinion about
the Holy Ghost, he inlroduceth it with this Preface,* ^Exactly
following the doctrine of the Holy Fathers, and receiving it
from them, we believe,' " &c. " This, then," he adds, " was the
artifice and practice of the ancient heretics. What the prac
tice of the Catholic Fathers was in opposing these heretics, or
establishing any necessary article of faith; that they accounted
Scripture to he ihe only adequate rule of faith, and to contain
in express and plain words all things necessary to be believed ;
that they rejected all articles which could not be thence deduced
as spurious and false, or at least uncertain and unnecessary ; and
always asserted the sufficiency of Scripture, I will not here in
sist to prove ; since that point hath been so often handled and
cleared by the writers of our church."^
The same was the case with Nestorius and his favourers among
the oriental bishops, who claimed patristical tradition as in their
favour. Nestorius appealed to the Nicene Fathers, as " those holy Fa
thers who are beyond all praise,"^ and maintains that their con
fessions is in favour of his views ;'' and when John, bishop of An-
I AXXOl AXXUS itXOy TTipt TA QtQxiA TUV TTAXAIUV.
2 Socr. Hist. Eccl. v. 10. ed. Read. tom. ii. p. 273.
^ AvAyxxtov S' la-US tous TTipi toutuv Xoyous ttoiou/juvous . . . thv xpxTOUtrxy AvuBiV ix
,rmv TTATipm iuo-iSn TTApx^oo-iv uovTip Tiyx yvu/Aovx xxt xxvoyx TrpoiXTiBi/Aivous AXpt&lt TOUTU
truyx"?'" Xf^^t-t xpiTHpiu Trpos TUf tuv Xiyo/Aivm imxpuriv. Apologetic, in fine Prologi.
4 tHV TUV XytUV iV XTTAyipuXATTOVTisSiSATXAXlAy, TTAp' Uy XABoVTiS , . TrglrtrTtuXA/AiV
Post med.
s See Preface to " A Treatise proving Scripture to be the rule of faith, by R.
Peacock, &c." 1688. 4to. pp. viii, ix.
« Sancti illi et supra omnem prsdicationem patres. Concil. Ephes. p. 1. c. 16.
CocnciJ. ed. Par. 1671. tom. iii. col. 350.
3 lb. „. 17. ib. col. 352.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 315
tioch, wrote to him on the subject, to induce him, for the sake
of peace, to apply the title, mother of God {(uroxcs), fo the Vir
gin Mary, as being one to which his people were accustomed,
and which might be understood in a good sense, he admits that
he had heard from many and common friends that his sentiments
were the same with those of the fathers and doctors of the church.*
And the oriental bishops, who favoured his views at 'the
Council of Ephesus, distinctly claim to be considered the defen
ders of the antient faith of the church. " We are called," they
say, in their Petition lo the Emperor, " to confirm the faith of
the holy Fathers.'"" And again, "Let not your majesty despise
the faith which is corrupted, into which both you and your pro
genitors were baptized ; upon which also the foundations of the
church are based, for which the most holy martyrs underwent
with joy innumerable kinds of death ; by the aid of which also
you have overcome the barbarians .... For it will be de
stroyed if the doctrine which Cyril has introduced into the faith,
and other heretics have confirmed, should prevail."
And again, in their letter to Rufus, bishop of Thessalonica,
having regretted his absence, they add, " For your holiness, had
you been present, would have appeased the tumults that hap
pened, and the disorders perpetrated, and would have contended
with us against the heresies introduced into the orthodox faith,
and that evangelical and apostolical doctrine which the children
ever receiving from their fathers have conveyed down unal
tered even to our times."*
It would be easy to add other proofs.
Nor must we forget that the Nestorians to this day " main
tain that the doctrine he [i. e. Nestorius] taught was much older
than himself, and had been handed down from the earliest
times of the Christian church."^
Pass we next to the Eutychians, who were condemned at the
Council of Chalcedon, and we shall find that they, in like man-
I E* yAp H StAVOlA (TOU TOU XUTOU TOIS TTATpA^i XAt THS iXXXHTlXS SlSxTXAXOlS tppOVH/AATOS
iyKTXt, {touto ^a,J SlA TToXXm XAl XOtVUV ptXittV TTipt trOU, SiTTTOTA, /Ai/AXBHXA/Aiv) Tl XUTTU TO
mnSis ifpovH/AA KATpoxxKXu oyo/AXTi Sh/aoo-hu^ai. Cone Eph. p. i. c. 25. ib. col. 389.
2 Vocati sumus ad confirmandam sanctorum patrum fidem. Tertia pet. orient.
episc. ad Imperat. inter Act. Concil. Eph. ib. col. 730.
3 Ne despiciat vestra Majestas fidem quae adulteratur, in quam et vos baptizati
estis et vestri progenitores ; inquam et ecclesiae fundamenta sunt jacta, propter
quam sanctissimi martyres innumera mortis genera cum voluptate suscepernnt,
cam qua et barbaros vicistis  disrumpetur enim si opinio quam Cyrillus
fidei induxit et alii hasretici confirmarunt invalescat. Ib. col. 731.
4 ETTAuirt yAp XV TTApxytyofAiVH [h 0-h Aytaa-uyn] xxt Tstc y^iytyn/AiVAs iriryxuiTiis, xai tac
TtTOX/AH/AtVAS A/TA^lAS, XAt (TUV H/AIV AU XATHyUVttTATO Titf iTTitlTAxBilO'AS AtpUTUS TH OpBoSo^U
TrtffTU, xxt T» iuAyyiXixH xxt xttosttoXixh SiSxa-xxxtx, hv TTxiSis TTxpx TrxTifUv xu Sixo/Aivot
/tiX}ts it/Am TAuTHv TTAoiTTi/A^Av. Ep. Orient. Ep. ad Rufum. Ib. eol. 736, 7,
' Mosheim. Eccl. Hist. Cent. v. p. 2. c. 5. § 12. Engl. ed. 1826. vol. ii. p. 67.

316 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
ner, urged the same claim ; maintaining that the orthodox Fa
thers were on their side.
At the Synod of Constantinople in 448, Eutyches himself says,
"I follow the Fathers"  "I have read the blessed
Cyril, and the other Fathers, and the holy Athanasius, that they
said that he was of two natures before the union; but after the
union and incarnation, they no longer spoke of two natures, but
one."* And in his Letter to Pope Leo, after his condemnation at the
Synod, he strongly urges the testimony of the Fathers in his fa
vour. So, also, in his Petition to the Synod (or rather. Council) of
Ephesus, in 449, he says, — " I hold all the holy Fathers equally
with your holinesses as orthodox and faithful, and have taken
them as my masters ; anathematizing Manes, Valentinus, Apoli-
narius, and Nestorius, and all the heretics up to Simon Magus.'""
And at this Synod, where the confession of Eutyches was re
ceived as orthodox, Dioscorus, the president, who favoured Eu
tyches, admonished the bishops present, at the commencement of
the proceedings, fhat they were to consider whether the views
advanced by the Eutychians, were agreeable to what had been
ordained by the holy Fathers.^
And when the monks who sided with Eutyches were asked by
Dioscorus, " respecting the presence of the Saviour in the flesh,
Are your views the same as thope of the blessed Athanasius, and
the blessed Cyril, and the blessed Gregory, and all the orthodox
bishops?"* their leader, Eleusinus, replied, "We are all of the
same mind with both the holy Fathers that met at Nicasa, and
those who were assembled here [i. e. at Ephesus, at the Third
General Council]."^
And in the Council of Chalcedon, Carosus, and the other Eu
tychian leaders, declare individually; — "My faith is that of the
three hundred and eighteen bishops that were at Nicsea, in which
I was baptized. I know no other."^
I AxoXouBu Tots TTxTpxo-iv . . . 'Eyu AViyVUV TOU /AXXApiOU Kupixxou XAt Tuy AXXm TTATi
pUV xxt TOU XytOU ABxyxatOU, OTt iX Suo /Aiy ipu^iUV ilTTOV TTpo THS iVUTiUS, /AiTX Si THV iVU^U
xxi THV (TApxuny ouxiti Suo ifua-us uttov oAXtt /aiav. Concil. Constant. Act. 7. Inter
Act. Cone. Chalc. ; Concil. tom. iv. col. 228.
2 TIavTXS tous XytOUS TTXTipXS, us XAl H U/AtTipA BiOTi&UX, OpBoSo^OUS fi'VOV XAl TTltTTOUS, XXt
StSxtrXAXOUS i/AAUTU iBi/AHV, AVABi/AATt^m MaVMI*, Bflt?,61'TiV0V> ATTOXiVAptOV, XXI 'HiVTOpiOV,
XAt TTXVTXS TOUS x'tpiTlXOUS iUS 'Xl/AUVOS TOU /Axyou. lb. col. 136.
3 XpH TOTVUV iXUVA TX AyXpuiJTA TTpOTipoV C^HThBhVAI, XAt H/AAS SoXl/AATAl U ffUVuSA TUyX*'
VO-J iri TOIS OptffBuirt TTXpATUV AytUV TTATipUV lb col. 128.
4 116^/ THS i'!(rApXOU TOU lUTHpOS TTAPOVtriAS OUTU ^poVilTi Us 0 /AXXXpiOS ABaVX/TIOS XXI 0
fAAXxptos Yiuptxxos XXI 0 /AAxApios TpHyopios XAt TTAvTis 01 opBoSot^ot KritrxoTToi. lb. col. 279,
282. 5 TlAVTiS OUTU ^poVOU/AiV, US XXt Ot iV NiXAlfit TUViXBoVTiS XXt Ot iVTAuBA auVltXiyjUiyOt XTyM
rATipis. Ib. col. 282.
6 Tur TUV TpixKoirtm SiXXoxTU Tav iv ^ixxix yivo/Aivuv TTATipm TTiirTty, iv h xai t&ATmv-
Bhv, oiSa- iTTu iryu AXXHV TTtcTiy 01/K oiS*. Cone, Chalced. Act. 4. Ib. col. 530.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 317
To these we might add the case of the Pelagians, who notori
ously claimed the support of primitive Fathers.*
Nay, Lactantius tells us that all heretics reckoned themselves .
to be the best Christians, and their own church to be the catho
lic church.^
And Salvian, speaking of heretics, says, " They are here
tics with us, not in their own estimation. For they so complete
ly reckon themselves to be catholics, that they decry us as he
retics. What, therefore, they are with us, that we are with
them.'" It is quite clear, then, that all these heretics considered that
patristical tradition was in their favour. And therefore I doubt
whether it was wise in Dr. Waterland (to whose learned and
valuable labours in proof of the great preponderance of the evi
dence in favour of the orthodox faith, we are deeply indebted,)
to bring forward the charges of novelty made by some of the or
thodox against the Arians, and while he is altogether silent as to
the similar charges made on the other side, quote these as an
undeniable proof that Arianism was a complete novelty,* — es
pecially when he must have been fully aware that even a worse
heresy, on the same point, had long before found its defenders
among Christians.*
These charges, being reciprocal, prove nothing on either side.
And when we come to investigate the actual evidence produci
ble from the writings that remain to us, we find the true state of
' See Whitak. De pecc. orig. lib. ii. c. 2.
' Singuli quique ccetus haereticorum se potissimum Christianos et suam esse
Catholicam ecclesiam putant. Div. Inst. lib. iv. c. ult.
3 Apud nos sunt hieretici, apud se non sunt. Nam in tantum se catholicos
esse judicant, ut nos ipsos titulo bsreticas appellationis infament. Quod ergo illi
nobis sunt, hoc nos illis. Salyian. De Guti. Dei. lib. v. prope init. ed. 1669.
p. 100.
* See the Preface to his Second Defence.
5 In the same place he has suffered himself to fall into a misstatement respect
ing the conduct of the heretics at Constantinople, with regard to the writings of
the Fathers. Having given a long extract from Socrates, showing the nature of
the proposal made, he stops precisely at the point where the reception given to
the proposal is narrated, and contents himself with giving the following account
of it, " Whereupon the heads of the different seels were at first much confound
ed and divided among themselves, some commending what the Emperor had pro
posed, and others not ; but in conclusion, they all chose rather to rest the cause
solely on logical disputation, than upon the testimonies of the ancients." (pp.
13, 14.) And in his chapter " on the use and value of ecclesiastical antiquity,"
in his " Importance of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity," he alludes to it again
as a proof that the heretics, when practically brought to the test, declined the
appeal to patristical tradition. (Works, vol. 5. pp. 324, 5.) This is clearly a mis-
representation of the matter; because the heretics in question asserted that they
" highly honoured the Fathers as their masters ;" and when put to the test, o
portion of them (large or small, we know not) were still willing and desirous to
bo judged by the tradition of the Fathers. Such statements are to be regretted.
In the end they prejudice the cause of truth.
D D*

318 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
the case to be, that the Fathers often wrote hotly and hastily,
and consequently incorrectly : and therefore may be quoted in
almost all the great questions of doctrine that have agitated the
church since the very earliest period, on both sides. This is the
case even with those writings that have been preserved to us;
and these, it must be recollected, form but a few of those that
were pubhshed, especially of the earlier ages.
And hence it was that so many heresies (as an antient writer
tells us) brought forward passages of the Fathers in their de
fence ; and that Eusebius, in his defence of Origen, was able to
give very many testimonies of preceding Fathers in favour of
some of his errors. *
Let me not, however, be misunderstood in the above remarks.
I am very far from meaning to convey the idea by them, that
the heretics had such support in the writings of the primitive
Fathers as they often boasted of. My conviction is fhat they
had not. And I maintain fhat an accurate examination of the
writings of the primitive Fathers will prove to any impartial in
quirer, that the weight of patristical testimony is beyond com
parison in favour of the orthodox faith. But my object is to show
to those who are claiming antiquity, as ifit were obviously and
exclusively in their favour, and putting forth pretensions to such
a catholic consent as can never be proved, and, in fact, never ex
isted ; and asserting that the heretics could find nothing favour
able to their views in the writings of the preceding Fathers, and
even (as some do) declaring that they rejected all appeals to an
tiquity ; and resting the claims of the orthodox faith to our belief
tipon such a foundation, to beware how they take such ground,
and especially how they make that supposed consent the sole
authorised interpreter of Scripture, and tell us that Scripture
cannot be understood without it. The preceding extracts (and
many more to the same purpose might easily be added) abun
dantly show that the Arians, Nestorians, and others, claimed
patristical tradition in their favour, as much as their opponents;
and enveighed against the novelties and heresies of their oppo
nents, and their opposition to the sentiments of the "catholic
church," as strongly as the orthodox.
Will it be said that they all made this claim without any
foundation for it ? It may, by men wedded fo a hypothesis, or
by hot and injudicious controversialists. But I suspect that men
of cooler judgment, when they come to view the whole case, will
take different ground; and content themselves with maintaining
that, taking the vt'rifings of the early Fathers as a whole, there is
very strong testimony fo be found in them in favour of the ortho-
1 Auctor Synod. Adv. Trag. Iren. c. 198, in Routh, Reliq. S. vol. iii. p. 267.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 3l£
dox faith, and that passages which appear favourable to viewi
which did not come into discussion till a period subsequent to th(
date of those passages cannot always be taken as proofs that the
writer supported those views, because, not having those views it
his mind, he might easily have expressed himself incautiously
especially if he was writing in opposition to a contrary prevail
ing error. So far we are on safe and immovable ground. Ant
such, as it appears to me, is all the aid we could naturally am
reasonably expect from the writings of the Fathers. But beyoni
this our claims are mere assertions ; assertions which if true couli
not be proved, and which are in reality contrary to tbe plain fact
of the case.

SECT. VIII.  WHAT THE TRACTATORS CALL " CATHOLIC CONSENT" 1
NOT TREATED BY THEMSELVES IN MANY CASES AS AFFORDING AN
SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE DOCTRINES SO SUPPORTED.
To illustrate this subject still further, I will now proceed f
point out some cases where there appears to be what our oppe
nents would call " catholic consent ;" and which may lead thei
and others to reflect how far their system is characterized b
consistency. (1.) The doctrine taught by the Fathers of the first three cei
turies as to the Divine appearances to man under the Old Tests
ment dispensation.
These Fathers seem universally to ascribe all these appearai
ces to the Son. And as the principal passages have been carefu
ly collected by Dr. Burton, I shall present the reader with h
statement of them, which probably may have more weight wit
my opponents than any catena of my own.
" It was Christ who talked with Adam, Gen. iii. 8, 9, where tl
person is said to be the Lord God. v. Theophil. in Autol. ii. 2
Tertull. adv. Prax. c. 16. p. 509. Irenaeus iv. 10. p. 239.
" It was Christ who spoke to Noah, Gen. vi. 13. Irenaeus i
10. "It was Christ who went down to confound the tongues i
Babel, Gen. xi. 5, where it is said that it was the Lord. Just
M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 127. p. 220. Tertull. adv. Prax. c. 1
p. 509. Novatian. c. 25. p. 723.
" It was Christ who appeared to Abram, and said unto him,
am the Almighty God, Gen. xvii. 1. Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryp
c. 127. p. 220. Clem. Alex. Paed. i. 7. p. 131.
" It was Christ who appeared to Abraham in the plains
Mamre, Gen. xviii. 1, where he is called the Lord and the jud^

320 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
of all the earth, ver. 25. Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 56,
p. 152. Clem. Alex. Psd. i. 7. p. 131. Tertull. Adv. Marc. iii.
9. p. 402. Origen. in Gen. Hom. iv. 3.
"It was Christ who rained fire upon Sodom, Gen. xix. 24. The
Fathers particularly mention the expression, 'then the Lord
rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and ivrefrom
the Lord: Juntin. M. Dail. cum Tryph. c. 56. p. 152 : c. 127,
p. 221. Irenaius, iii. 6. p. 180. Tertull. Adv. Prax. 13, 16, p.
507, 509.
" It was Christ who tempted Abraham, Gen. xxii. Origen. in
Gen. Hom. viii. 8. Cyp. Test. ii. 5. p. 286.
" It was Christ who appeared to Jacob, Gen. xxviii. 13, where
the person calls himself ' the Lord God of Abraham and the
God of Isaac' Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 58. p. 150.
Clem. Alex. Peed. i. 7. p. 131.
" It was Christ who spoke to Jacob in a dream. Gen. xxxi. 11,
13, where he calls himself the God of Bethel, (see Gen. xxviii.
13, 19.) Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 58. p. 155. Cyp. Test.
ii. 5. Novatian. c. 27. p. 725.
" It was Christ who wrestled wifh Jacob, Gen. xxxii. 24, where
it is expressly said that he was God, ver. 28, 30. Justin. M. Dial.
cum Tryph. c. 58. p. 155, 156. c. 125. p. 218. Irenaeus p. 239.
Clem. Alex. Pffid. i. 7. p. 132. Concil. Antioch. (Reliq. Sacr. ii.
p. 470.)
"It was Christ who appeared to Jacob, Gen. xxxv. 1, 9.
Justin M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 58. p. 155. where he says, ' he is
called God, and is God, and will be.' Cyp. Test. ii. 6.
" It was Christ who appeared to Moses in the Bush, Exod. iii.
2, where the person calls himself ' the God of Abraham, the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ;' and at ver. 14, ' I am
that I am.' Justin. M. Apol. i. 62. p. 80. Dial, cum Tryph.
c. GO, p. 157. Irenaeus iv. 10, 12. Clem. Alex. Cohort, ad Gent.
p. 7. Tertull. Adv. Jud. c. 9. p. 194.
" It was Christ who said to Moses, (Exod. xx. 2,) '« I am the
Lord thy God which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt.'
Clem. Alex. Pad. i. 7. p. 131.
" It was Christ who spoke to Moses, Levit. vi. 1, and conse
quently who delivered the whole of the Law. Origen. in Levit.
Horn. iv. init.
" It was Christ who appeared to Joshua near Jericho, Josh. v.
13. Justin. M. Dial, cum Tryph. c. 62. p. 159 — 60.
" These instances might be multiplied so as to make a volume ;
but enoiigh perhaps has been said to show that all the Fathers
agreed in entertaining the same opinion."'-
I Testim. of Ante-Nicene Fathers to divinity of Christ. 2nd. edit Ox 1829.
pp. 38—40.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 321
But notwithstanding this " catholic consent," Dr. Burton adds,
" / again repeat thcit I am not concerned to inquire into
the soundness of this opinion," which shows that he at least
did not consider such a consent as a sufficient proof of the truth
of a doctrine, or interpretation of Scripture, at any rate, on such
a point. He remarks, however, very justly, that " the Fathers
who held it could not have believed that Christ vias a mere man,
nor ever an angel ; they assert over and over again that the
person who appeared to the patriarchs could not be an angel, be
cause he is called God and Jehovah ; and they as expressly as
sert that he who revealed himself as God and Jehovah was not
the Father, but the Son." " I may add," he observes, "that
the Arians openly professed their belief that it was Christ 'to
whom the Father said. Let us make man, &c. who was seen by
the patriarchs face to face, who gave the law and spake by the
prophets, &c.' (Athanas. De Synodis, vol. i. p. 740. see also p. 743.)
Eusebius, who has been suspected of Arianism, devotes the fifth
book of his Demonstratio Evangelica to establishing this point.
See also this same work, i. 5. p. 11."
The fact is, the Arians stoutly contended for this opinion as
strengthening their cause, and showing that though the Son was
God, there was yet some diflerence between the nature of the
Son and the Father, and the earliest supporters of the opinion
that some of these appearances might be attributed to the Fa
ther are, I think, to be found among the opponents of the
Arians. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, however, very peremptorily con
tended for the former opinion as the only one which could be
tolerated. Thus Justin Martyr, speaking of the appearance to Moses at
the bush, says, " No one who has the least understanding will
dare to say that the Maker and Father of the universe, having
left all things that are above the heaven, appeared in a little
portion of the earth,"*
And elsewhere, that he who appeared to Abraham at Mamre
was sent " by another, who remains always in the supercelestial
regions, and is seen by no one, and never conversed with any one
in his own person, whom we look upon as the Maker and Father
of the universe.'"" And he says that the Jews who thought that
1 Ou TOV TTOIHTHV TOV OXm XAt TTXTipX XATAXtTTOVTA TX UTTip OUpXVOV mTTAJ/TA SV OXiyee yHS
/Aoptm TntAvBxi, TTXs ovTiiTour, XXV /Atxpoy youv iX^v. Tox/AHsTit uTTuv. Dial, cum Tryph.
h 60. p. 167. ed. Ben. (p. 283. ed. Col. 1688.
2 'TTTO AXXOU tou iV TOIS UmpOUpAVtOlS AU /AiVOVTOS, xxt OuStVt OpBlVTOS H O/AtXHO-AVTOS St'
iauTou TTOTI, iy ttoihthv tuv oxay xxt vrxTipx voou/aiv. Dial, cum Tryph. § 56. p. 150.
ed. Ben. (ed. Col. p. 275.) The same view is also expressed still more strongly
in § 127. p, 220, (ed. Col. pp. 356, 7.)

322 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
it was God the Father who appeared to Moses, were on that ac
count reprehended by Isaiah and our Lord as knowing neither
the Father nor the Son.*
The same view is enforced by Theophilus of Antioch, in a pas
sage already quoted from him in a previous page."
So also the bishops assembled at Antioch, against Paul of Sa
mosata, affirm that it was Christ who appeared to the patriarchs,
" sometimes spoken of as an angel, sometimes as Lord, sometimes
as God. For it is impious to suppose that the God of the universe
is called an angel. "^
So Tertullian observes that the God who appeared at various
times to men from the beginning, could be no other than the
Word who was about to become flesh,* and ridicules as an ab
surdity the supposition that the omnipotent invisible God, whom
no man hath seen nor can see,* should have walked about in
Paradise, adding with his usual vehemence, that these things
were not to be believed concerning the Son of God if they had
not been written, and perhaps not to be believed of the Father
even though they had been written. "
And, not to multiply authorities unnecessarily, the same view
is laid down in the same peremptory terms by Novatian' and
Eusebius.^ I would ask then. Do our opponents consider themselves bound
so to interpret Scripture ? If they do, it is more than Augustine
did, for he held that it was probably the Father who appeared
i Apol. la. § 63. p. 81. ed. Ben. (ed Col. Apol. 2a. p. 95.)
2 See p. 192 above.
3 ITOTE /AiV US AyyiXOS , TTOTi Si 6)f YiuptOS.TTOTiSi QiOS /AXpTUpOU/AiVOS' TOV fAiVyApQiOV TUV
oxw xa-iSis xyyixov vo/Atuxt xaxuo-Bai. Syn. Antioch. adv. Paul. Samos. in Rau,th.
Reliq. Sacr. vol. ii. p. 470.
4 Non alius potuit quam sermo qui caro erat futurus. Adv. Prax. c. xvi. p. 509.
5 Deus omnipotens ille invisibilis quem nemo vidit hominum nec videre potest.
Ib. p. 510.
6 Scilicet et haec nec de Filio Dei credenda fuisse si scripta non essent, for-
tasse non credenda de Patre lieet scipta. Ib. p. 510. And see his treatise Adv.
Jud. c. 9. med.
7 Ecce idem Moyses refert alio in loco, quod Abrahae visus sit Deus, Atquin
idem Moyses audit a Deo, quod nemo hominum Deum videat et vivat. Si videri
non potest Deus quomodo visus est Deus 1 Aut si visus est, quomodo videri non
potest? Nam et Johannes, Deum nemo, inquit, vidit umquam. Et Apostolus
Paulus, Quem vidit hominum nemo nee videre potest. Sed non utique Scriptura
mentitur. Ergo vere visus est Deus. Ex quo intelligi potest, quod non Pater
visus sit, qui nunquam visus est, sed Filius. De Trin. c. 26. See also c. 25.
8 See his Demonstr. Evangel, lib. v. c. 9. p. 234. (ed. Col. 1688.) and cc. 13,
14. pp. 239—41, &c. If any passage can be produced from the Ante-Nicene
Fathers opposed to this view, (and I shall not undertake absolutely to deny tbe
possibility of such a passage being found,) I have only to observe that its sole
effect will be to shift this example to the previous head, but I suspect that it will
ha AiffiouU in Hn an.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 323
on some occasions ;*. and evidently considered, as many others
have done since, that the view we have shown to have been
taken by the Ante-Nicene Fathers was an Arian view of the
subject.' (2.) The doctrine taught by the Fathers as to the re-appear
ance of Enoch and Elias hereafter on earth from the place to
which they are translated, (which Irenaeus tells us, as from apos
tolical tradition, is the Paradise in which Adam was) to wage
war with Antichrist.
" The Presbyters who are the disciples of the Apostles," says
Irenaeus, "say that those who were translated, were translated
thither, [i. e. to the Paradise in which Adam was].""
" Enoch and Elias," says Tertullian, " are translated, neither
is their death found ; that is, it is delayed ; but they are reserved
to die at a future time, that they may extinguish Antichrist with
their blood."*
So Hippolytus tell us that Enoch and Elias are the two wit
nesses spoken of in Rev. xi., who are to prophesy 360 days
clothed in sackcloth.*
Justin Martyr in like manner bears witness that Elias is to
come " when our Lord Jesus Christ is about to come in glory
from heaven."* '
A similar testimony is borne by Origen, though it is not so
confidently stated by him.'
So Pseudo-Cyprian, " Likewise Enoch, who before the deluge
was a righteous man and pleased God, and therefore was trans-
'See Augustine, De Trin. lib. ii. cc. 7 — 10. ed. Ben. tom. viii.
' Contr. Maximin. Arian. lib. ii. c. 26. tom, viii. col. 734 et seq.
^ Iben. adv. Haer. lib. v. c. 5. See also lib. iv. c. 16. ed. Mass. (t>. 30. ed.
Grab.) Augustine intimates the same, De Peccat. Mer. et Remiss, lib. i. e. 3.
torn. X. col. 3. et Op. imperf. contr. Julian, lib. vi. u. 30. tom. x. col. 1360. but
elsewhere speaks doubtfully, lie pec. orig. c. 23. tom. x. col. 264. Chrysostom
intimates that the place where Enoch is, is not known. In Gen. c. 4. hom. 31.
§ 4. tom. iv. p. 187.
¦* Translatus est Enoch et Helias, nec mors eorum reperta est ; dilata scilicet ;
ceterum morituri reservantur ut Antichristum sanguine suo extinguant. Ter
tull. De anima, c. 50. p. 301. See also c. 35. p. 291.
5 MiCtV /Aiy OUV i&So/AxSA iTUV THV iTXXTHV THV Vm TU Tip/AATl TOU iTU/ATTXyTOS XOT/AOU
wo^Bvflv rr' t^xATUy iffn/AAViv, iu e. IJaniel ix. 27.] «p IOSo/aaSos to /asv h/aio-u xh-^ovtai ot
Suo TTPOUPHTAI EVUX XAt HXIAS- OuTOt yAj, XHpU^_0U7tV H/AipAS X'^'** SlAXOtTlAS i^HXOVTA. TTtpt-
0i8xH/AtVit tTAKXOUS, /AiTAVOlAV TU XAU XAl TTATI TOtS iBviTl XATAyyiXXOVTiS. HiPPOL. Dc
Antichristo % 43. pp. 20, 21. ed. Fabric. And see §4 46, 47 where he refers to
this as a fulfilment of Mal. iv. 5. and Rev. xi. 3.
8 'O HuvTtpos Ku/tfoc ToyTo atyTo fiv Tots StSxy/Axa-iv xutou vrxpiSuxi yivHtroiAiyov, uTrm xxt
}iXlAV tXiUTirBxt. XAl H/AUS TOUTO iViVTA/AiBx yivHITO/Aiyol , OTBtV /AiXXH iV So^H i? OUf,AVUy
tAPxyniTBAt 0 H/AiTipos xupios hsTous XptiTTos. Dial, cum Tryph. § 49. p. 145. ed.
Ben. (p. 268. ed. Col. 1688.)
' TS.ttKiytSiA TouTm [i. e. Mal. iv. 5, 6.] ShXoustBxi oti TrfoiuTpario-u o Hxtxs th ivSofu
Xetimu mttH/Aut. Comm. in Matth. tom. xiii. % 2. vol. iii. p. 572. See also his
Comm. in Joh. 1. vol. iv, p. 92.

324 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
lated alive in the flesh in which he was born from that world to
a place which God knows ; from which place at the end of the
world he has to be brought again into this world, whence he was
translated, to confound and resist antichrist ; and being slain by
him, they shall fulfil their witness and live for ever to everlasting
ages."* So Pseudo-Ambrose or Hilary the Deacon. " Therefore, he
attributes this to himself, because he was always in want, suffer
ing persecutions and affiictions beyond others, as Enoch and Elias
shall suffer, who ih the last times are to be Apostles. For they
are to be sent before Christ to prepare the people of God and
fortify all churches to resist Antichrist ; and the Apocalypse wit
nesses that they are to suffer persecution and to be slain.""
So Augustine intimates that it is believed that Enoch and Elias
are to return to the earth and there die.'
Chrysostom expressly asserts that Elias himself is to reappear
on earth before our Lord's second advent.*
And lastly, Arethas tells us that " there is an uninterrupted
tradition in the church, that Enoch shall come with Elias the
Tishbite, (for they shall both come to bear witness beforehand to
those that are then living, that they may not be deceived by the
seductive miracles of Antichrist,) and bear witness for the space
of three years and a half."*
And to these might be added several other similar testimonies.
So that, as it respects the coming of Elias before our Lord's
1 Item Enoch, qui ante diluvium Deo Justus complacuit, et ideo de isto mundo
in carnis suae nativitate vivus translatus est in loco ubi Deus scit; ex quo loco
in consummatione mundi innovari habet in hoc mundo, unde etiam translatus est,
ad confundendum et revincendum antichristum. A quo interfecti martyria sua
complebunt, viventes in sternum in sEecula saeculorum. De Montibus Sina et
Sion. Inter Cypr. Op. ed. Pamel. 1617. p. 290.
2 Hoc ideo persons sua deputat quia semper in necessitate fuit, persecutiones
«t pressuras ultra ceteros passus, sicut passuri sunt Enoch et Elias, qui ultimo
tempore futuri sunt apostoli. Mitti enim habent ante Christum ad praeparandum
populum Dei, et muniendas omnes ecclesias ad resistendum Antichristo, quos et
persecutiones pati et occidi lectio apocalypsis testator. PssDno-AnsROSius (said
by some to be, Hilarius Diaconus) in Ep. la. ad Corinth. Inter Ambros. Op. tom.
ii. Appendix Col. 125. ed. Ben.
3 Creduntur etiam redituri ad hanc vitam, et quod tamdin dilatum est morituri,
Aus. De Gen. ad lit. lib. ix. c. 6. Op. tom. iii. pt. 1 col. 247.
4 A*;ov SixiUixuvo I^hth^tai, Ei o Avtix^kttos ipxirxt xai o Hxias ipxrrAi, ttus oTotv Xf-
yUTiy, ttpHVH XAl AO-fXXUA, TOTl AUTOlS At^VlStOS OXiBpOS UpttTTATAt ; TdMTA yAp OUX A^lHOTt /AV,
iiSivxi T»» HfAipxv, TiXfAHptA ovToi THS TTxpousrixs AuTHs. Chrysost. lu Ep. la. ad Thess,
c. 5. hom. 9. § 2. tom. xi. p. 488. 'Ot' xv /iiv yxp utth, oti Hxtxs /Aiv ipxyrai xx.
ATTOXX/TATTHITU TTXVTA, AUTOV HxtAV <pH7l. XXI THV TOTi iVO/AiVHy TUV ^OuSxttev iTTiaTpOtHV OT
AV Si UTTH, OTt 0 /AiXXUV ipXi^Bxl 1MT« TOV TPOTTOV THS SlAXOVlAS \uXvyHV fiXlAy XAXU. . . .
U7TTip yAp iXitVOS THS SiUTipAS ilTTAt TTXpOUITtAS, OUTUS OUTOS THS TTpOTipAS C^^KITO TT^ioSpO/AOS
Id. In Matt xvii. 10, hom. 57. § 1. tom. vii. p. 577.
5 KaJ 0T< ittev Hxtxs iif « o ttpo^hths Shxov, TrpoxyopiutrxtrHs ths ypAfns Sia MaSaxiou . . .
Hipt Si TOU ^VUX /AApTuplAV /AiV Ofl"oy TTpoS THV TTApoUiTlAy ATTO THS ypApHS OUX gVO^W, VXH Tot

» NO DIVINB INFORMANT. 325,
second advent, it is asserted by Huetius,* Maldonatus,' and Mede^
three as able witnesses as we could desire in such a case, it was
declared by the unanimous consent of the Fathers ; while Mr.
Mede, though he " thinks that the opinion  hath some
matter of truth in it," adds, " as for Elias the Thisbite's coming,
I find no ground at all but the contrary,"*
Now, I would ask. Is this to be received as " revelation 1"
With respect to Enoch particularly, I might ask, how this is
to be reconciled with the declaration of Scripture, that Enoch
was translated that he should not see death, {tov /m ihiy 6»tx-
T«»,) (Heb. xi. 5.) I might raise other difficulties to the reception
of these statements. But I content myself with putting the ques
tion to my opponents ; Do you yourselves feel bound to believe
this as you would if you found it stated in Scripture ? If not,
then by that very fact you prove that you do not consider
" catholic consent" in such points at least, as a certain witness
of what the Apostles delivered.
(3.) The doctrine of the Fathers as to the absolute unlawful
ness of an oath to a Christian.
Irenaeus says, that our Lord " hath commanded us not only not
to swear falsely, but not to swear at all."*
Justin Martyr, that he has commanded us " not to swear at
all."= So Clement of Alexandria says, that Plato's precept against an
oath agrees with our Lord's prohibition of it.''
"I say nothing," says Tertullian, " respecting perjury, since it
is not lawful even to swear. "^
Basilides the martyr, when required fo take an oath, affirmed
that it was not lawful for him as a Christian to swear at all.^
SlA /AiTABiO-US ATTxBAVATtirBHyAi. XtTyoS Si ^ipVTXl ix TTAPAjotriUS ^OlTUy TH IXXXH71A ATTXpx-
TpiTTTUS XAl AUTOy H^lfV ^fiTflt HXlOU TOU QurSlTOU (HpOUtri yAp X/A^ee TpoStX/AA^TUpAaBxt TOIS
OUa-t TOTS UH TOIS ATTATHXOIS TOU AVTlXpl^TOU TTApAyurBAl (TH/AitOts) XAt TH iSlA /AAjiTUptA
TxuTH Tpimyxtxjfovoy TfiiTtAs XAt H/Ai7ius. Abbth. u. 30. Comm. in Apoc. c. 11.
pp. 743, 4. ed. 1631.
1 Constans est Patrum omniumque consensu probatissima et receptissima Ec
clesia! opinio. Not, in Orig. Comm. in Matt. tom. xiii. In Op. Orig. tom. iii. p. '
572. 2 In Matth. xi. 14.
» Works, pp, 98, 9.
* Ib. p. 99.
6 Non solum non perjurare eed nec jurare praecepit. Ires. Adv. haer. lib. ii. c.
32. ed. Mass. c. 56. p. 187. ed. Grab.
S Ylipt Si Tou ,U« P/iyuVAi OXUS, TAXhBh Si XtryUV xu, OUTUS TTotpiXiXiurXTO- UH 0/A07HTi oxas,
X T. X. Apol. 1. § 16. ed. Ben. p. 53. (Col. 1688. Apol. 2. p. 63.)
1 Th TTipt TOU 0/Aoffou ATTAyopiutrii o-uvaSu nSi h sv tu Suoatu TOSV iio/AUV Xi^tS, ^TTAtVOS Si
opxosTi TTipt TTXVTOS ATTKTTu. Strom. lib. V. p. 707. ed. Potter, (al. p. 596.) See also
his Psdag. lib. iii. c. 11. p. 299. (al. 255.)
8 Taceo de perjurio, quando ne jurare quidem liceat. De Idol. c. 11. p. 91.
9 M« i^ltVAi AUTU TO TTXpA TTAV O/AfUyXt Slllil&AteuTO, ;^e/fl"Ti<tyeV ^atp UTTApXiiy. EUS£B.
Hist. Eccl. lib. vi. c. 5.
VOL. I. EE

326 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
Cyprian affirms, that Christians are not to take an oafh,* and
comforts them in the prospect of death, on the ground that if they
lived they might be obliged to take an oath, which was not law-
ful.= Origen expounds our Lord's precept in the same way.''
Lactantius says, that the Christian will not swear at all ;*
Eusebius, that the Christian has learnt from Christ not to swear
at all ;=
Basil says that an oath is altogether forbidden in the Gospel, °
and of Gregory Thaumaturgus he tells us, that " he avoided oaths,
not going beyond yea and nay, on account of the command of
Christ, who says, ' I say unto you, swear not at all.' "i
Epiphanius says, that our Lord, in Matt. v. 34, ordained that
it is not lawful to swear, either by the Lord or by any other
oath ; for it is wicked to swear ;" and that the Christian religion
requires us not to swear either truly or falsely, but to say yea,
yea, nay, nay.^
Chrysostom speaks at large to the same effect, in his homily on
Matt. V. 27 — 37, saying, that it was allowed in the Law of Moses,
only "on account of the infirmity of those who received the
Law;"*" and elsewhere he says, — " Let the Christians altogether
avoid oaths, attending to the saying of Christ . . [Matt. v. 34.]
. . Let no one therefore tell me, ' 1 swear in a just cause,' for it
is not lawful to swear, either in a just or unjust cause."** And
again, in a still more remarkable passage, — "But if you reve
rence nothing else, yet at least reverence the book which you
1 Non jurandum. Testim. ad Quirin. lib. iii. test 12. p. 218 ad. 1617.
2 Compelleris jurare quod non licet. De mortal, prope init. ed. Pamel. 1617. p.
174. 3 Vetuit omnino jurare. Comment; Series in Matt. § 17. Op. vol. iii. p. 842,
Repeated ib. § UO. p. 910. ed. Bened.
4 Hic non pejerabit, ne Deum ludibrio habeat ; sed ne jurabit quidem. Div. Inst.
Epit. c. 6. p. 506. ed Cant. 1685.
5 To /AHSiv iuopxiAs Sita-Bxi, ttoxxou yi Su ivrtopxuy. Six to Trpos autou /AAvBxyuy /AnSi o/avu~
yxt OXUS. Prap. Evang. lib. i. t. 4, p. 12. ed. Col. 1688. See also his Demonst.
Evang. lib. i. c. 6. p. 23.
s Ev TU EuxyyiXiu TTxvTiXus ATTnyopiuTAi. Horn. Prim, in Psalm, xiv. § 5. ed. Ben.
tom. i. App. p. 356. See also bis Epist. 199, Amphiloch. Can. 29. tom. iii. p.
T EipejyiTOUS opxous H XABApAixUVH ~^UXH, . ¦ . Xpxou/AiVHTUyxt XAl TUOU, StX TPTTpoo-TA-
yiAA TOU Kupiou TOU uttovtos, ... ; X. Epist. 207. ad cler. Neocaes. § 4. tom. 3. p. 312.
8 QiOTTliTXi TOV KuptOV, . . . TTpUTOV /liV OUV, 'oTl OU Sit O/AVUVAl, OUTi at/TOV TOV Kl/flOV OUTI
AKXov TciA opxov TOU yAp TTpvHpou iiTTt TO o/tvuvA,. HaBr. 19. Osscu. § 6. tom. 1. p. 44.
ed. Par. 1622.
9 M» 0/AVuyAt opxoy, /AtiTi iv xxhBux, /AHTi iV .^tuSu xxxx yxi, yxl, XAt ou, ou Xiyuv.
Hsr. 59. Cathar. § 7. p. 499.
1" Ths xtrBiyuAs tuv Sixo/Aivuv tous vo/aous. Hom. 17. in Matt. § 5. torn. vii. p. 229.
See the whole of §§ 5, 6, 7. pp. 228—233.
•I Tout opxOUS Si TTAVTiXUS <fSt/),6TOI XXHUUV THS ATTOIfXITias TOU XpUTTCU . . . Matt. T.
34.] . . . M» Toiyuv /Aoi Xtyi, oti itti Sixxia o/Avu/Ar oux i^itti yxp outi kti Sixaiu out!

NO DIVINB INFORMANT. 327
hold out to swear by, and open the gospel which you take into
your hands, and command men to swear by ; and having heard
what Christ there says respecting oaths, be alarmed and desist .
. . I do not Weep and lament so much at hearing of men being
murdered in the highways, as I weep and lament, and am horror-
struck, when I see a man approaching to this table, and placing
his hands upon it, and touching the gospel, and taking an oath .
....... When you are about to adjure any one, restrain thy
self, and prevent it, and say to him who is about to swear. What
shall I do to you ? God hath commanded me not to adjure ; he
now restrains me. This is sufficient, both for the honour of the
Lawgiver, and for ttiy safety, and to inspire fear into him who is
about fo swear. For when he sees that we thus fear to adjure
others, he will be much more afraid to swear rashly."*
Jerome says, — "This [i. e. to swear by God] had been allowed
by the Law as to children, that as they sacrificed victims to God
that they might not offer them to idols, so they might be permit
ted to swear by God, not because they might properly do this,
but because it was better to swear by God than by devils. But
the truth of the gospel does not admit of an oath."-'
"We find," says Theodoret, "in those laws [i. e. the Gospel]
that he who swears, though he swears truly, isa partaker of the
devil's portion."' And again ; " The old Law forbids a falsehood,
but the new even an oath."* And again, — " Our Saviour,
making laws respecting oaths, forbids oaths altogether, saying
that yea and nay suffice for a confirmation of what is said."^
^ Iu Si y /AnSiv 'iTtpov, auto youv to ^t^Ktov xtSitrBnTi o TrpoTUvus us opxov, xxt to iuxy-
yiXlOV, 0 /AVTA X''?^^ XX/A^AVm XAXiUilS 0/AVUVAt, XVATTTU^OV, XXt XXOUTXS Tt TTipt OpxUV 0
Xfl/(7T0C iXil SlAXiyiTXl, ippt^OV XXt ATTOTThBi. . . Ou^ OUTU tTTiVU XAt SxxpUU CT^X^o/AiVOUS
xxoum TIVXS 3v TXts oS'ois, us TTivu, Xxt Sxxpuu XAl ^ptTTu, htuSav tSu Tiyx TTXHtriOV THS
TpXTTi^HS TXUTHS iXBoVTX, XXi TXS X"!"^^ 6wTa, XXI TUV iUXyyiXlUy X-].-A/AiVOV XXt 0/AtUOVTA
. . B.TTitSxV /AiXXHS Tiyx OpXI^itV, iTTlT-XiS ITiXUTOV, XXt XUXUTOV, Xxt ilTTi TTpOs TOV /AiXXOVTA
0/AVuyxi, "Cl (rot tto-ihitu; o Qios eioswuiri /ah opxi^i:r ixuvos /ai x-atixh vuv. Apxu touto xxt
us Tt/AHV TOU VO/AoBiTHO-XVTOS, KXl US A7t^XXitXV (THV, )0XI Us <po/ioy TOU /AiXXOVTOS 0/AVUVXl.
*OTXy yxp iXilVOS iSh, OTt opXUTXl iTipOUS OUTU Sv^OtXX/AiV, TTOXXU /AAXXOV AUTOS 0/AOTXl TTpo-
vTiTus (fo^HBHir^xi. Homil. 15. .\d pop. Antioch. De Statuie. § 5. tom. ii. p. 159.
2 Hoc quasi parvulis fuerat Lege concessum, ut quomodo victimas immolabant-
Deo, ne eas idolis immolarent: sic et jurare permitterentur in Deum : non quod
recte hac facerent, sed quod melius esset Deo id exhiberequam daemonibus. Evan
gelica autem Veritas non recipit juramentum. In Matt. lib. i. c. 5. vv. 34, etsec.
Tom. vii. col. 30. ed. Ven. 1769. See also his Comm, in Zech, u. 8. vv. 16, 17.
Tom, 6. col. 850.
^ Eupta-KO/AiV iV iXitVOtS TOtS VO/AOts ... TOV O/AVUVrX, XXV axhBiuuv 0/AVUH, ths Slx^oXlxHS
cvTst o-u/A/Aopixs. Quaest. in Genes, q. 37. Op. ed. Schuize, 1769. tom. i. p. 48.
* 'O ^flv TTXxxios XTTxyopiuit TO ^f.fluJof, 0 Si yi vsof xxt Toy opxoy. Haerel. Fab. lib. v.
t. 16. tom. iv. p. 435.
6 Tlifi opxm yo'/Aous tiBus, xxt autous ATTxyopiuu tous opxous, ATToxjpHV ytyuv to Nxt, xxt
TO Ou, TTpos THV Toiv Xiyo/At UV ^ifixtutriv. Grffic. Affect. Cur. disp. ix. tom. iv. p.
946. See also his Dialog. 1. Immutabilis, tom. iv. p. 34. and Ep. 78. tom. iv. p.
1134.

328 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
Lastly, it is said in the Acts of the Council of Constantinople;
under Flavianus, in 448, that " we have been commanded by oui
Saviour Christ not to swear."*
Now I would ask both the Romanists and our opponents, whe
ther on account of this consentient testimony of the Fathers thej
consider themselves bound to believe this doctrine, and interpret
Scripture accordingly, or whether they do not consider them
selves at perfect liberty, as far as that testimony is concerned, to
admit or reject it, and whether they have not in fact wholly re
jected it. li so, then it clearly appears that practically they
admit this consentient testimony where they like it, and reject it
where they dislike it, dealing with it in fact as with any other
determination of " a number" of fallible men. Away, then,
with their pretence of considering themselves bound to interpret
the Scriptures according to the unanimous testimony of the Fa
thers. If their notion is good for anything, it is a principle by
which we must abide, and receive all things so proved. But if
they themselves reject this testimony when it displeases them, it
is deceiving men to tell them that they are bound to believe this
or that doctrine or interpretation of Scripture because there is a
consentient testimony of the Fathers in its favour, when there
are other doctrines and interpretations, having the same support,
which they themselves either wholly disbelieve, or af least hold
doubtful. (4.) Standing at prayer on Sundays, and during the period be
tween Easter and Whitsuntide.
The author of the "Questions and answers to the orthodox,"
in the works of Justin Martyr, gives the following question and
answer: "Why on Sundays, and from Easter to Whitsuntide,
do they not kneel when praying? And whence was this custom
introduced into the churches'!" The answer is, that we are fo
stand at those times, as a sign of the resurrection ; and it is add
ed, that " the custom commenced from Apostolical times, as
the blessed Irenasus, martyr, and bishop of Lyons, says. "^
Now let us hear Tertullian ; — " We account it a crime to
kneel at prayer on a Sunday."'
Lastly, we have the determination of the great Council of
1 ^VTirXXTXt H/AIV TTX/X TOU luTHpOS XpttTTOU /AH O/AOCrXt. Acta Coucil. CoHStant
Act. 1. Inter Act. Cone. Chalc. Concil. tom. iv.
2 Al=t Tl iV TXts XUptXXXtS H/AipXtS, XXt XTTO TOU TTX^XX UtS THS TTiVTHXOTTHS yOVU OU XXIVOU-
o-iv o' iuxo/Aivot ; TToBiv Si xxt H ToixuTH iv TXts ixxXHtTixis iio-HxBi truynBiix ; ... Ex TUV
ATTOTTOXIXUV ^OVUV H TOlXUTH (TUynBitA iXX^ THV ApyHV XxBus ifHtTty o fAXXXptOS EtPHVXlOS 0
/AxpTus xxt iTTio-xoTTos AouyJcuvcu. QuaBst. 115. Inter Op. Just. Mart. ed. Ben. pp.
489,90. 3 Die Dominico jejunium nefas ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare. Tertull
De Cor Mil. u. 3. p. 102. ed. 1664.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 329
Nice; — " Since there are some who kneel on the Sunday and at
Whitsuntide, in order fhat all things may be observed alike in
every diocese, the Holy Synod decrees that they shall offer their
prayers to God standing."*
Can our opponents get better testimony in the Fathers to the
apostoHcity and the importance of any custom of the primitive
church than we have here?" But the Romanists themselves
have wholly rejected this custom.
(5) The threefold immersion in baptism, which is witnessed to
by Tertullian," Jerome,^ Cyril of Jerusalem,* Ambrose,^ and wri
tings passing under the names of Dionysius Areopagita,^ Athana
sius,' Augustine,' and Basil.»
(6) Infant communion, or the giving of the eucharist to in
fants. 1
On this point I need only refer to the learned work of Mr. Bing
ham on the antiquities of the Christian church, who has fully
given the authorities on this subject, and whose opinion is, that
" it is beyond dispute" that this was the practice of the church
for many ages, and esteemed to be necessary by divine com
mand;*" and even the Romanist Maldonat, in the face of an op
posite decision of the Council of Trent, " asserts roundly that
the antients, and particularly St. Austin and Pope Innocent, did
believe that infants could not be saved without partaking of the
eucharist," and that this was the practice of the church for the
first six centuries.**
And hence Bishop Stillingfleet, after noticing the points
which had beeti adduced by his Romish antagonist, as instances
of cases in which we depend upon " tradition" for the knowledge
I EttuSh Ttvis ii7ty ev th xupixxH yoyu xxivoyTis, xxt iv Tsti? ths TTiVTHxoa-THs H/AipAts, urrip
TOU TtAVTA iv TTXrH TTXpotXta O/AOIUS t^UXATTitrBAt, icTTOPTXS iSo^i TH xytA VUVoSot TXS ivyXS
ATToSiSovAi TU 0EOII. Cau. XX. Justcll. Cod. tom. i. p. 34.
2 De Cor. Mil. c. 3. p. 102.
' Adv. Lucifer. § 8. Op. tom. ii. col. 180. ed. Vall. Venet.
* Cat. Mystag. ii. p. 286. ed. Milles.
* De Sacram. lib. ii. c. 7.
^ De eccles. hierarcb. c. 2.
' Quaest. in Psalm q. 92. tom. ii. p. 327.
' Serm. 40. In App. (al. De temp. 201.) tom. v. App- col- 79.
De Spir. Sanct. c. 27. tom. iii. p. 55.
'» Bk. XV. c 4. § 7.
¦' Butoham's Antiq. ib.- See also Zorwii Historia Eucharist, infant, c. xi. %
3. et passim. Mobtoh's Cath. App. ii. 25. § 10. p. 325. Dail. De usu Patr.
i. 8. Whitbt Dissert, de S. S. interpret, sec. Patr. pp. 212, &c. in Joh. vi. 53.
Watkrlakd has attempted to show that Augustine could not have considered
it absolutely necessary, but seems to me only to prove that some other passages
of his works appear somewhat inconsistent with such a notion, which however,
cannot outweigh his clear statements on this subject. (See Waterlands Works
vol. jx. pp. 473, &E.) See Daille and Zornius. c. 12. ^ 2.
E E*

330 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
of them, and which I need hardly say, are most of them the
same that are relied upon by our opponents, as infant baptism,
the observance of the Lord's Day, &c., which the bishop shows
are sufficiently deducible from Scripture, adds, — " But methinks
an author who would seem so much versed in Augustine, might,
among all these instances, have found out one more, which would
have looked more like a doctrinal tradition than most of these,
which is the necessity of the eucharist to baptized infants.
The places are so many and so express in him concerning it, that
it would be a needless task to produce them. I shall only, therefore,
refer you to your Espencaeus (De Eucharist, ad Orat. I. ii. c. 12.)
who hath made some collection of them. When you have viewed
them, I pray bethink yourself of some convenient answer to
them, which either must be by asserting that S. Augustine might
be deceived in judging of doctrinal and apostolical traditions, and
then to what purpose are your eight instances out of him? or
else that might be accounted an apostolical tradition in one age
which may not in another . . . which leaves us in a greater dis
pute than ever what these apostolical traditions are, when the
church in several ages doth so much differ concerning them."*
Now with respect to all those points we have mentioned, I
would ask any impartial reader whether the testimonies we have
quoted are not at least as good evidence of patristical consent
for them as the Tractators are accustomed to rely upon, and as
can practically be obtained for any doctrine, interpretation, or
practice. Again, then, I ask our opponents. Do they hold that we must
receive them? Will they affirm Ihat these are part of the
"precious Apostolical relics? If not, how are we to find such
relics ?
But if it be said that these are not vital points, and therefore
that even consent of Fathers is not sufficient to establish any
thing respecting them, then let it be clearly understood that con
sent of Fathers is only a valid proof of Apostolical tradition
in matters of vital moment and fundamental importance, which
will cutoff a large number of Mr. Keble's " precious apostolical
relics," especially the new ones to which he has alluded, when he
intimates that he may be " so happy as to find more" than
those hitherto brought to light.
And if it must be first determined whether a point is of fun
damental importance or not, before we can trust even the tes
timony of a whole host of Fathers, then how is this to be known
but by Scripture telling us that this or that doctrine is necessary,
and so informing us of the very point in question ; for I suppose
' Rational Account, &c. pp 166, 7.

NO DIVINB INFORMANT. 331
it can hardly be left to the Fathers to determine what is and is
not necessary and fundamental, or at any rate if it is, I know not
where we are to find their decision upon the point; and if our
opponents refer us to the formulae they have given as " the
Creed," or " Rule of Faith," as containing the complete list of
fundamentals, then (not to repeat the objections we have already
urged against such a notion*) we get from the earliest Fathers a
list of fundamentals, comprising less than is contained in "the
Apostles' creed ;" and moreover, the assurance that all the points
thus enumerated are clearly and plainly laid down in Scripture.
And if we seek to get beyond even the letter of this brief ele
mentary summary of the faith, we shall find the Fathers all at
variance on the highest points.
There is one more remark, also, which I would make upon
the reply (if offered) that catholic consent is not, in such points
as these, a sufficient proof of Apostolical tradition ; which is
this, that this admission annihilates the best, if not the only
ground, upon which such consent is put forward as a proof of
Apostolical tradition in any case, viz., that such consent proves
a common origin for the doctrine so delivered, and that il was
derived from a quarter to which the whole church looked up for
instruction. It is said, how can we account for such consent, but
by supposing that the doctrine was originally delivered by
those from v/hom the whole church learnt the faith ? This ar
gument, then, is as valid for the pointsiwe have just been consider
ing, as for the highest points of faith. If " consent," as il is
called, proves derivation from the Apostles in one case, so does it
in the other; and though the points are of very different im
portance, yet if they are both the subjects of "revelation,"
they have an equal claim to our belief, as the Word of God.
It is, therefore, justly remarked by Bishop Taylor, — " It is not
excuse enough to say that singly the Fathers may err, but if
they concur, they are certain testimony ; for there is no question
this day disputed by persons that are willing to be tried by the
Fathers, so generally attested on either side, as some points are,
vvhich both sides dislike severally or conjunctly; and therefore
it is not honest for either side to press the authority of the Fa
thers as a concluding argument in matter of dispute ; unless them
selves will be content fo submit in all things to the testimony of
an equal number of them, which I am certain neither side will
do."»

I See pp. 124 et seq. above.
2 Lib. of Proph. % 8.

332 PATRISTICAL TRADITION

SECTION IX.  THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRACTATORS FOUNDED UPON SUP
POSITIONS WHICH ARE CONTRADICTED BY PACTS.
The system of our opponents rests upon two hypotheses; —
First, That there was a steady permanent successional delivery,
from one to another, for several ages, throughout the whole
catholic church, of all the important doctrines of Christianity,
derived from the oral leaching of the Apostles, and in which the
teaching of air in communion with that church agreed; — »S'e-
condly, that the whole catholic church was so united together
as one body, and discipline so rigidly enforced throughout it,
that no parts or individuals belonging to it could publicly main
tain any errors of importance, without being excommunicated, or
at least censured, by the church, and so as that such censure
must have come down to us.
These two propositions are tacitly assumed by our opponents,
and are, in fact, the foundation upon which their system rests;
but both of them will be found, upon investigation, fo be con
trary to facts. They are the 5rp»T« ¦^tv^ti, the primary false prin-v
ciples upon which their arguments are founded.
In reply to them, I shall endeavour to show, —
First, That from the very beginning there were many here
sies, errors, and false doctrines prevalent among the professed fol
lowers of Christ; and secondly, that such errors were maintained
and propagated among those who formed what was called the
catholic church.
Our Lord has aptly compared his nominal church to a field in
which fares and wheat grow together; and such he tells us, will
be its character, even to the end ; for he forbids his angels to sep
arate them, lest they might inadvertently or by mistake root out
or injure the wheat. Both are to grow together until the har
vest. Such, then, is the state of the nominal Christian church.
It contains within it tares sown by Satan, intermingled with the
wheat, the produce of the good seed, who are alone in reality
the children of the kingdom. And I suppose it will readily be
admitted, that the tares represent as much those that maintain
false doctrine, as those that are involved in corrupt practice.
But was it so, it may be asked, from the beginning? Was
there not a time when the church contained wheat only? The
Apostolical Scriptures clearly prove that, even when they were
being written, the tares were already mingled with the wheat;
the tares not merely of orthodox but inconsistent professors, but
also of men altogether unsound in the faith; and that too, among
the professed teachers of the faith.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 333
There were, from the very first, « false Apostles," (2 Cor. xi.
13.); there were those that preached "another gospel," and
" perverted the gospel of Christ ; and so successfully, as to draw
over the Galatians to their doctrines, (Gal. i. 6, 7.); there were
" false brethren, unawares brought in," (Gal. ii. 4.); there were
some who " preached Christ, of envy and strife;" whose doctrine,
therefore, as derived from anything but divine teaching, would
vary with the prejudices of the preacher, (Phil. i. 15.); there
were even among the brethren "enemies of the cross of Christ."
(Phil, iii. 18.) Still more, there were those whose teaching was
Ctilculated to "spoil" Christians, " through philosophy and vain
deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the
world, and not after Christ. (Col. ii. 8.) There were those who
would forge letters in the name of an Apostle, to promote their
views. (2 Thess. ii. 2.) In fact, " thc mystery of iniquity" was
" already working." (2 Thess. ii. 7.) " Some, having swerved,
had turned aside unto vain jangling, desiring to be teachers of
the law, understanding neither what they said, nor whereof they
affirmed." (1 Tim. i. 6, 7.) There were those who, " concerning
faith, had made shipwreck," and "blasphemed." (1 Tim. i. 19,
20.) There were those that addicted themselves to " profane
and vain babblings and oppositions of science, falsely so called,"
and had, consequently, " erred concerning the faith." (1 Tim. vi.
20, 21. See also vv. 4, 5.) There were those that taught that
the resurrection was then already past. (2 Tim. ii. 18.) There
were " many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers," who " sub
verted whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for
filthy lucre's sake." (Tit. i. 10, 11.) There were those who, when
they " ought to have been teachers, had need that one should
teach them again which were the first principles of the oracles
of God." (Heb. v. 12.) There were "unlearned and unstable"
persons, who wrested the Scriptures unto their own destruction.
(2 Pet. iii. 16.) There were already " many false prophets gone
out info the world," and the people were to " try the spirits
whether they were of God;" for which St. John gave them — not
a direction to follow the catholic church or cathohc consent, or
submit themselves to certain earthly guides — but a doctrinal test.
(1 John iv. 2 ; and see 2 John, 7 — 10.)
Such was the condition of the church, even in the Apostolical
times; and the warnings given on this point with respect to the
future are clear and decisive. " I know this," says St. Paul to
the elders of Ephesus, " that after my departing, shall grievous
wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your
own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw
away disciples after them," (Acts xx, 30.) " There were false
prophets also among the people" [of the Jews], says St. Peter,

334 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
"even as there shall he false teachers among you, who privily
shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord fhat
bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And
many shall follow their pernicious ways, by reason of whom
the way of truth shall be evil spoken of." (2 Pel. ii. 1, 2.)
That these prophetic announcements, moreover, were fully
accomplished, even in the next generation after the Apostles, we
have very decisive evidence.
Thus we are told by Eusebius, that Ignatius, when on his way
to Rome to suffer martyrdom, (where he was put to death about
the year 116,) admonished the churches of Asia, as he passed
through, " to take especial heed of the heresies that were then
first springing up and increasing."*
So Papias, who flourished in the year 110, intimates fhat
there were those in his time who delivered strange and spurious
precepts.^ Again, Hegesippus, who flourished about the year 170, and is
said by Eusebius to have been in the first succession after the
Apostles,' and by Jerome to have bordered on the Apostles' times,*
tells us (according to Eusebius) that until the time of Trajan^
the church remained a pure and uncorrupt virgin, those fhat
endeavoured to corrupt the wholesome doctrine of the gospel of
salvation, if there were any, remaining till then concealed; but
when the sacred company of the Apostles were in different ways
extinct, and the generation of those who had been thought worthy
to hear the words of divine wisdom with their own ears had
passed away, then the conspiracy of impious error took its rise
through the deceit of false teachers, who, inasmuch as not one of
the Apostles was left, openly and confidently attempted fo incul
cate their miscalled knowledge in opposition to the preaching of
the trutb.^

1 Ev TTpUTOlS /AXXtO-TX TTpOt^UXXTTUrBat T^tC xlpiVUS, XpTt TOTfl TTpUTOV XVX^UiHrxS XXI iTTt-
TToXx^oucTxs TTxpHva. EpsEB. Hlst. EccL 111. 36.
^'Vxs xxxoTpiAsivToxxs /AVH/Aoysioun-iy. EosEB. Hlst. Eccl. iii. c. ult.
3 Etti ths TTpuTHs TUV Attoittoxuv yivo/iiyos SixSoxHS. Id. ib. ii. 23.
¦1 Vicinus Apostolicorum temporum. De Script, c. 22.
5 Dr. Routh thinks that the \vords of Hegessippus refer to even an earlier pe
riod than the times of Trajan. Sea his Reliq. SS. Patr. vol. i. pp. 233, 4.
6 For this passage we are indebted to Eubcbius, who speaking of Hegesippus
says, *0 XUTOS xvHp Stnyoi/Aivos tx xxtx tous Snxou/Aivous, iTTiXiyw us apx /Aixpt tuv tots
XfOVUy TTXpBivOS XxBxpX XXI xSlXifBopoS i/AitViV H ExxXHtrtX, iV xSnXU TTOU aXOTil (fOJ^SUOVTaiV
UtTiTl TOTl, TttIV, U XXI TlViS UTTHpX'V, TTXpx<fBil^liV irrfj^UpoUVTUV TOV iya xXyoyX TOU CTUTHPIOU
XHpUy/AATOS. us Si 0 lipOS TUy KTTOtTTOXm XH"^ SlX<fopOV UXH^U TOU StOU TlXOS, TTXptXHXuBi
TS H yiViX iXilVH TUV XUTXIS XXOXIS THS ivBiOU a-0(plXS eTTXXOUO-Xl XXTH^tU/AiV UV , THVtXXUTX THS
xBiOU TTXXVHS THV ApXHV iXX/lfixViV H irUITTXTIS, SlA THS TUV iTipoSlSuxTXAXUV ATTATHS, 01 XXI
aTS /AnSiVOS iTl TM A?rO(rTOXO)V XUTTO/AiVOU, yU/AVH XOIXOV »'J» TD XicpXXH, TW THS XXhBuX;
XHpuy/AXTl THV ^iuSuyU/AOV yVUO-tV XVTIXHpuTTUV VTiXUpOUV. Kct; TfitUTrt /Aiy oiiTos TTipt
TouTffiv SiAXa0uy uSi ttus ixi^iv. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii, 32. The Romish edi-

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 335
One single century therefore had hardly passed away after
our Lord's crucifixion, before the church became afflicted with
heresies and errors still more openly avowed and propagated than
in the times of the Apostles. For when Hegesippus here speaks
of the church having remained a virgin till the time of Trajan,
the passages of Scripture quoted above clearly show that he
must be understood as speaking comparatively, and not as deny
ing fhat corruptions existed therein before, or otherwise he is
clearly contradiicted by those passages ; from which also we may
correct the statements of Firmilian and others, who, for the sup
port of their respective hypotheses, have maintained that the
heretics were all posterior to the times of the Apostles. " What
soever," says Dr. Routh, " Firmilian may say to the contrary in
his Epistle to Cyprian, it is well known that some heresies, and
such as even separated from the communion of the church, existed
before the Apostles were dead, certainly before the death of the
Apostle John. (See 1 John ii. 19; Jude 19; Rev. ii. 6, 15.)">
And therefore, as the same learned writer observes, all these
authors are to be interpreted as meaning that the times of Trajan
and Hadrian were fruitful in haeresiarchs, who acted much more
boldly than those who went before them." That the seeds of
these heresies existed in the church in the times of the Apostles,
and are alluded to in such passages as those we have quoted
above, is distinctly maintained by Tertullian'' and Irenaeus.*
But, indeed, what can be plainer than the following statement
of Jerome on this subject? "While," saith he, "the blood of
Christ was yet but recently shed in Judaea, it was maintained,
that the Lord's body was but un appearance ; the Galatians
drawn away to the observance of the Law were again begotten
to spiritual life by the apostle; the Corinthians disbelieving the
resurrection of the flesh were urged by many arguments to re-
lor of Eusebius, Valesius, being very much troubled with this passage,
though he admits that Eusebius understood Hegesippus to be speaking of
the church at large, has the face to assert that Eusebius was in this mistaken,
and that Hegesippus was only speaking of the Church of Jerusalem, though we
havc nothing left us of Hegesippus but the few fragments that Eusebius has pre
served. A similar passage of Hegesippus on the same subject is preserved to us
by Eusebius in his 4th bk. c. 22. Some have supposed it to be the same passage
as ia here referred to, thinking thereby to curtail the passage given above ; but if
Eusebius is to be trusted, the passages were evidently not the same, and why
should we suppose that there could not be two notices relating to tbe same matter in
the five books nf Hegesippus 1 The very passages we are now considering show
Ihat we should be wrong in such a supposition in the case of Eusebius, and why
therefore might we not in that of Hegesippus '\ ¦^
1 Rebq. SS. Patr. vol. i. [i. 234.
2lb. 5 De PrEscr. hsret. c. 7 and c. 33.
« Adv. beer. lib. i. In prtef.

336 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
turn to the true path. Then Simon Magus and Menander his disci
ple asserted themselves to be Powers of God. Then Basilides feigned
his great God Abraxas with his three hundred and sixty-five
forms. Then Nicolaus, who was one of the seven deacons, pro
mulged his impurities. I say nothing of the heretics of Judaism.
.... I come to those heretics who mangled the gospels ; a
certain Saturninus, and the Ophites, and Cainites, and Sethoites,
and Carpocrates, and Cerinthus and his successor Ebion, and
other pests, most of whom brokeforth during thelifeof the Apos
tle John." And in the Apocalypse of St. John, he points out as
instances of heretics that, " To the angel of Ephesus there is im
puted the loss of love. In the angel of the church of Pergamos
the eating of things offered to idols and the doctrine of the Nico-
laitans are blamed. Likewise in the case of the angel of the
Thyatyreans, the prophetess Jezebel and the eating of things
offered to images and fornications are rebuked."*
Remarkable also is the testimony of Origen. Many of those
who profess to believe in Christ," he says, " disagree not only in
small points and those of no moment, but also in important points,
and those of the highest moment."" And again, in a still more
important passage ; " I wish that those only who are without the
church were deceived ; it would be easy to avoid the seduction.
But now they who profess to belong fo the church are deceived
and misled even on the necessary points, as their dissension is a
witness, since even those who are within the church are misled.
, ... It is bad to find any one erring in points of morals, but I
think it is much worse to err in doctrines, and not to hold that
doctrine which is agreeable to the most true rule of the Scrip
tures . . . Every one that is perfect .... and that has his
senses exercised for understanding the truth, will necessarily 'in
his inquiries fall in with many doctrines opposed to one another,
> Adhuc apud Judaeam Christi sanguine recenti, phantasma Domini corpus
asserebatur; (3alatas ad observationem Legis traductos Apostolus iterum paturit ;
CorinthiOs resurrectionem' carnis non credentes pluribus argumentis ad verum
iter trahere conatur. Tunc Simon Magus et Menander discipulus ejus Dei se
asseruere Virtutes : tune Basilides summum Deum Abraxas cum trecentis sexa-
ginta qninque Editionibus commentatus est; tune Nicolaus, qui unus de septem
Diaconis fuit, die noctuque nuptias faciens,obsc£enos et auditu quoque erubescen-
dos coitus somniavit. Taceo de Judaismi hffireticis ... Ad eos venio haereticos,
qui Evangelia laniaverunt; Saturninu'm quemdam, et Ophitas et Cainjeos, et
Setthoitas, et Carpocratem, et Cerinthum et hujus successorem Ebionem etcete
ras pestes quorum plurimi vivente adhuc Joanne Apostolo eruperunt." " Angelo
Ephesi deserta caritas imputatur. In angelo Pergamens Ecclesia idolothytorum
esus et Nicolaitarum doctrina reprehenditur. Item apud Angelum Thyalyrorum
Jezabel prophetissa et simulacrorum escte et fornicationes increpantur." Hieh-
ONiM. Dialog, adv. Luciferian. §§ 23, 24. Tom. ii. col. 196—8.
2 De Princip. lib. i. Prsef. Ed. Ben. tom. i. p. 47.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 337
and will hear many professing fo know the truth and different
traditions respecting it."^
To which we may add the passages already quoted iu a pre
ceding page ;' where he tells us that " from the very beginning
there were differences among believers respecting the meaning
of the books that were believed to be divine."
So also Dionysius of Corinth (who flourished a. 170) speaks of
" some teachers" who, in their esteem for the works of Nepos, an
Egyptian bishop, respecting the riiillennium, " despised the law
and the prophets, and neglected to follow the gospels, and made
light of the Epistles of the Apostles."'^ And these we find from
the context, were teachers in the catholic church.
Nay, we find that such a correct successional delivery of doc
trine as our opponents suppose, was not found even in matters
relating to the rites and practices of the church, where an altera
tion is so much less easy than in points of mere doctrine. As, for
instance, in the observance of Easter, the varieties in which are
attributed by Irenaeus to some bishops not being so diligent as
they ought, and leaving that as a custom to those that came
after them which had been introduced through simplicity
and ignorance.*
And we find Firmilian of Caesarea, in the middle of the third
century, charging the church of Rome with many such innova
tions, and telling them that they vainly pretended apostolical au
thority for them.*
And these corruptions, be it observed, must have been intro
duced at periods anterior to almost all the records we possess of
the primitive church.
1 Utinam soli qui extra ecclesiam sunt seducerentur; facile erat cavere seduc-
tionem. Nunc autem ipsi qui profitenturse ecclesiasticos esse de necessariis qui-
busque capitulis falluntur et seducuntur, sicut ipsa dissensio eorum testimonium
est, quoniam et qui intus sunt seducuntur; . . . Malum quidem est invenire ali-
quem secundum mores vitae errantem, multo autem pejus arbitror esse in dogma-
tihns aberrare, et non secundum verissiraam regulam scripturarum sentire. . . .
Omnis qui perfectus est . . . et qui exercitatos habet sensus ad capiendum, ne
cesse est ut quaerens et discotiens in multa iocurrat dogmatum praslia, audiet etiam
multos profitentes veritatem et diversas de ea traditiones. Orig. In Matth.
Comment. Series §§ 33, 35. Tom. iii. pp. 852, 853, 854.
2 See p. 245 above.
3 TiVWV SiSaVXAXuv tov /Aiv yo/AOV XAl TOUS TTpoJiHTAS TO /AhSsv Hyou/Atvm, XAl TO TOIS
iUXyytXtOtS iTn^BAt TTApiVTUV, XAl TAf TUV ATTOSTTOXuy KTHTTOXfit? iX^AuXttTAVTUV. DlONTS.
CoR. in EusEB. Hist. Eccles. vii. 24.
* Tuy TTApA TO AxptHiS, Us itXOS, XpATOUVTOPV, THV X5t9' ATTXOTHTA XAt tSioTIT/AOV truynBuAl
US TO /AiTKTUTA TTfiToiHxoTm. Ibbn. Ep. ad Vlctor. lu EcsiB. Hlst. Ecclcs. V. 24.
5 Eos autem qui Romce sunt non ea in omnibus observare, quae sint ab origine
tradita, et frustra Apostolorum auctoritatem prsetendere, scire quis etiam inde po
test quod circa celebrandos dies paschs, et circa multa alia divinae rei sacramen
ta, videat esse apud illos aliquas diversitates, nec observari illic omnia eequalitet
qusB Hierosolymis observantur. Fibmii.. Ep. ad. Cypr. Inter Cypr. Ep. 75.
VOL. 1. f F

338 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
If, then, such changes could be so easily introduced in matters
relating to the rites and usages of the church, and the innova
tions claim for themselves Apostolical tradition and authority, as
was the case with those we have just mentioned, how much
more easily might this be done in matters of mere doctrine. And
when such innovations were widely spread, (and if they were
corruptions suitable to the times or the bias of human nature,
they were sure to spread quickly,) then the remains of purer
doctrine or practice were proportionably condemned, and as far
as possible extirpated. It needs no great acquaintance with his
tory or human nature to see how easily such corruptions might
spread in the church.
To inquire at large into the causes leading to such corruptions
would here be out of place, where we are principally concerned
with facts. But we may just observe that there were many
such. One of the most fruitful sources of such corruptions was
the philosophizing spirit of learned heathen converts, who looked
upon the simple truths of divine revelation as they would upon
the oracles of Pythagoras, of that which was plain making mys
teries suitable to their own imaginations, and, resolving that to
them there should be no mysteries, boldly declaring the meaning
of everything really mysterious or but partially revealed. Ano
ther was a love in many for those oral reports of Apostolical tra
dition which in the earliest age of the church were of course
abundant. Instances of erroneous notions which thus became
prevalent have already been gi\'en in a former part of this chap
ter. Another was the influence of individuals who, from their
eloquence or any other cause, became celebrated throughout the
church. Who can calculate the mischief which must have been
caused in the church by the wild and unorthodox notions of Ori
gen, who in his time was looked up to as a prodigy throughout
the church ? The eariy church, accustomed to look up to the
Apostles for guidance, seems afterwards to have been too much
inclined to allow eminent individuals to take their place and to
follow human guidance. Such indeed is the natural disposition
of men in general. They want a leader, a great name, under
which to enlist themselves. One is of Paul, another of Apollos,
another of Cephas. Hence the almost incredible effect which
may be produced by one or two able, zealous, and influential in
dividuals, nay even by one, witness Augustine; a truth to which
Mr. Keble himself has borne testimony;' and to such influences
tbe early church was of course much more exposed than we are
at this day. And one great cause of this, as far as doctrine is
concerned, is that men are not satisfied with what is delivered in
' Pref. lo Hooker, p. Iiv.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 339
the Scriptures. However clear and plain the Word of God may
be in all vital points, it is not sufficiently full and distinct in its
revelations to satisfy the curiosity of man ; and hence in all ages
men have been anxious to be wise above what is written, the
fruitful source of most of the heresies with which the church of
Christ Jias been afflicted.
The authorities above cited, then, show that from the very
beginning errors of various kinds gradually crept into the church,
and that complaints of such corruptions are to be found in the
earliest records of the primitive church we possess.
True, such corruptions cannot reasonably be supposed to have
been universally received throughout the church, but neverthe
less we know that their effects were in some cases widely felt
and they cannot but operate in all impartial and judicious minds
to the prejudice of what comes to us on the authority of a few
individuals. It is both unfair and unwise to demand assent to
such testimony as a certain and infallible record of the faith of
the whole catholic church and the oral teaching of the Apostles.
And were we to pursue the inquiry further, so as to include
the fourth and fifth centuries, we should find the progress of error
still greater, and more fatal in its effects. So far are those cen
turies from presenting to us, as the Tractators have intimated, a
perfect model of the Christian church, that during them the
church was given up as a body to one of the worst heresies by
which it has yet been afflicted, namely, Arianism :* contradict
ing herself on this point, in the two most General Councils we
read of in ecclesiastical history;'' to say nothing of those nume
rous other heresies by which so many of her members were mis
led ; and even those that remained orthodox, are found counte
nancing divers errors, far removed from the spirit of the gospel;
as, for instance, the lawfulness of persecution, and the forced
celibacy of the clergy.
It forms, indeed, one of the strongest arguments against the
peculiarities of the Romish system, that they are almost all, if
not all, doctrines so new and corrupt, that not even among the
incorrect and unorthodox statements to be found scattered among
the works of the Fathers, or the errors which began to pervade
the whole church in the fourth and fifth centuries, can they find
any substantial evidence in their favour.'
And this leads me to the second point, viz., to show more dis
tinctly, 1 See Hieron. adv. Lucifer.; Idberii Epist. ad Ursac. Valent. et Germ, in Oper
Hilarii Pict. Fragm. 6 col. 1338, 9, et Ep, ad Vincent, ibid. col. 1340 ; Gregor.
Ndzianz. orat. 2 1 ; Vine. Lir. c. 6.
2 See p. 155, 156, and 276, 277, above.
See Jewell's famous challenge to the Romanists, in his sermon.

340 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
Secondly, That such errors were from the beginning main
tained and propagated among those who formed what was called
the catholic church.
The notion that what was called " the catholic church" was
always so united together as one body, and discipline so rigidly
enforced throughout it, that no communities or individuals be
longing to it could publicly maintain any errors of importance.
Without being excommunicated, or at least censured, by a judg
ment of the whole church, and so as that censure must have
come down to us, is one altogether contradicted by facts.
We may find a proof of this, even in the Apostolical churches
mentioned in Scripture. Thus St. Jude, in his Catholic Epistle,
warns the churches, that there were " certain men crept in un
awares;" " ungodly men, turning the grace of God into lascivi-
ousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Loi'd Jesus
Christ," that were " spots in their feasts of charity, when they
feasted with them ;" words which show that they were in the
communion of the churches, (Jude vv. 4, 12.) Again, in the
church of Pergamos, there were those that held the doctrine of
Balaam, and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, (Rev. ii. 14, 15.);
in the church of Thyatira, whose " works, and charity, and ser
vice, and faith and patience are praised, the false prophetess, Je
zebel, was suffered to teach, and to seduce the servants of God.
(Rev. ii. 19,20, 24.) Sardis, though enjoying the same "name
and pretensions to spiritual life" as the others, as an Apostolical
church, was, as a church, dead ; and had but " a few" faithful
servants of God. (Rev. iii. 1, 4.) Laodicea, an Apostolical church
in name, like all the rest, was altogether corrupt, spiritually
" poor, and 6/mrf, and naked." (Rev.iii. 14 — 18.) Once more ;
over the church in which Gains was, to whom St. John address
ed his third Epistle, presided Diotrephes; and of him and his
conduct, the Apostle says, — " I wrote to the Church, but Dio
trephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, re
ceiveth us not . . . and not content therewith, neither doth he
himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would,
and casteth them out of the church." (3 John 9, 10.)
Now suppose a man who had never enjoyed the benefit of
personal converse with the Apostles, endeavouring, some fifty
years only after their death, to ascertain the orthodox doctrine,
by the testimony of " the church." It will, of course, be ad
mitted, — as, indeed, it isa known fact, — that the heretics gene
rally pleaded as much for their doctrine being Apostolical, as the
orthodox did. The passages above quoted, indeed, would alone
prove that they endeavoured to shelter themselves under the
authority of the Apostles. And by this time such churches as
Sardis, Laodicea and that over which Diotrenhes nresided. soiri-

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 341
tually alive in name, andspirituallyrfeafi?inybc/, would natural
ly have increased ; for here are three specifically pointed out to
us in the Scriptures that became so, even under the very eye and
superintendence of the Apostles. Now I beg to ask, how is the
enquirer to determine which are the Laodicean, and which the
orthodox churches ? For mark, here is an end at once to the
¦notion of there being catholic consent in all important points
in all the Apostolical churches. There has evidently been no
such thing, even from a period previous to the death of the Apos
tles. What, then, would have been his best and only suflicient
test to judge by, in the absence of the only inspired teachers of
the faith ? Would he not naturally say. Have the Apostles left
any written record of the faith behind them ? Yes, would be
the reply. Here is a large and full record of the faith, acknowl
edged, with hardly an exception worth naming, as authoritative,
on all sides. What will a wise man, individually responsible
to God for embracing the true faith, do under such circum
stances? Will he not take those Scriptures into his hands, and
by a diligent perusal of them, united with prayer for the promised
guidance of that Divine Spirit that indited them, judge by them
what is the true faith, and which the true followers of Christ?
As time passed on, such a course would be still more necessary ;
for as we see, from the passages already adduced under the for
mer head, the supporters of false doctrine within the catholic
church progressed with the advance of time in boldness and in
numbers. " I wish," says Origen, " that those only who are
without the church were deceived ; it would be easy to avoid
the seduction. But now they who profess to belong to the
church are deceived and misled, even on the necessary points,
as their dissension is a witness ; since even those who are
within the church are misled."*
Nay, we require, surely, no further testimony than the passa
ges adduced from Origen himself and others, in a former part of
this chapter, to show that errors on the most important points
might be openly taught and promulgated by those who were all
their lives in the communion of the catholic church, and were
even followed, admired, and honoured members of it; of which
Origen is a most remarkable and undeniable instance; whose
writings were not condemned by the church till long after his
death. Were it necessary, we might point out many other instances
of erroneous statements on important points in the works of
Fathers who died in the communion of the church, and altogether
free, as far as we know, from ecclesiastical censure ;. but the task
• See page 336 above. F F*

342 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
is both ungrateful and unnecessary. The fact that there are
such statements, is undeniable. The Fathers, therefore, may
have erred on vital points, while, nevertheless, they remained in
the communion of the church ; and were not, as far as we know,
pubHcly censured for want of orthodoxy. From whatever cause
this might be, whether from their happening to be screened by
circumstances, or from the elevated position they held in the
church, or from the lack of any constituted authority to take
cognizance of the matter, or from their condemnation not having
come down to us, the fact is indisputable.
Now this appears to me to be fatal to the system of our oppo
nents; for it is a necessary hypothesis for the support of their
scheme, that had there been unorthodox notions in the writings
of any Fathers in the communion of the catholic church, there
would have been a condemnation of them by the church remain
ing to us. For this is the only reason for limiting ourselves to
those of the catholic church, namely, the supposition that in their
professed union with that church, we have a check against their
being supporters of error, under the idea that the church would
have rejected them, or condemned their errors, had they delivered
unorthodox doctrine ; and such a check, to a certain extent, we
no doubt have ; but, as might be expected, it is an insuflacient
one. To such instances of error in the Fathers, however, our oppo
nents immediately reply with an answer, which, to those who are
willing to be deceived by fine words, looks very plausible ; name
ly, that they " have no weight at all, one way or other, in the
argument from catholic tradition." (Newman, p. 66.) Which
would be very true, if we had really catholic testimony for our
" catholic tradition ;" but when we are sent to some half a dozen
or dozen authors as the ground for claiming " catholic tradition,"
then the erroneous statements of individuals of great name are
comparatively of great weight in the account, and seem to me
to afford a strong argument that there was no catholic tradition
in such matters, none, that is, that pervaded and was received
generally throughout the whole catholic church.
Here, however, I would observe, that I do not notice these
errors (as some have done) as if they lessened the authority of
" catholic consent," even supposing it to exist on any point ; for,
on the contrary, they would appear to me rather to strengthen
it ; for patristical consent, under such circumstances, would be a
still stronger evidence of the truth of what the Fathers did give
a consentient testimony to, than if they had been more free from
such imperfections. But they incontrovertibly show that there
was not that consent in the catholic church, on all the important
doctrines of the faith, which our opponents maintain there was,

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 343
and the supposition of which is essential to their system. The
errors that we have shown to have been openly maintained by
those who were in the communion of the church, without, as far
as we know, their incurring ecclesiastical censure, clearly prove
that the catholic church was not that exclusively orthodox and
united body our opponents suppose it to have been, and that it is
vain to look for " catholic consent."
Moreover, where is our " catholic tradition" for any point, even
in the authors that remain to us, ior erroneous statements are
to be found in one or other of them upon almost all points ?
How, indeed, was it to be expected that a vast number of dis
tinct and independent communities far distant from one another,
having no common tribunal or court of appeal, and maintaining
but an occasional, and precarious, and slight communion with each
other by the epistolary intercourse of their prelates, should re
main for two or three centuries precisely of one nhind in all the
important points of the faith ; and still more, all the teachers of
all those various communities ? Were there none to follow the
example of Sardis and Laodicea ? And when corruptions had
been introduced, where was the tribunal competent infallibly to
decide which had retained, and which had corrupted, the true
faith? Where for instance was the tribunal competent to cut
off the churches of Sardis, or Laodicea, or others similarly cor
rupted, from the catholic church, or that ever attempted to make
such a separation ? As far as appears, there was nothing of the
kind ever set up in the primitive church.
Nay, let us once again advert to the case of our own church,
and I would ask whether even here, with that full and explicit
confession of faith to be found in her articles, the writings and
teaching of all those who have died in her communion without
any public censure, have been in all cases strictly orthodox even
in fundamental points. It would be invidious to allude to indi
viduals. I will therefore leave the inquiry in this general form.
But can there be a doubt as to the answeir which must be given
in this or anysimilar case of a regularly constituted church having
a public confession of faith by which all her members profess to
abide ? How much less, then, could consent be expected where
there was no such confession of faith?
The fact is, as any one who will take the trouble impartially
to study the works of the Fathers themselves, will at once see,
there is the greatest possible diversity of sentiment among them
even on the highest points, as in the former part of this chapter
we have attempted to prove.

344 PATRISTICAL TR.4.DITI0N

SECTION X.  REPLY TO OBJECTIONS, AND CONCLUDING REMARKS.
I now proceed, in the last place, to reply to the objections that
have been urged against the views we advocate.
One of these has been already disposed of in the former part
of this chapter. It has been objected that the position we main
tain is just that of all the antient heretics, who always declined
the testimony of tradition. I have already abundantly shown*
that this is altogether a mistake, and that the heretics were in
the habit of appealing to the testimonies of preceding Fathers, a nd
calling their doctrines the doctrines of the catholic church, as
much as the orthodox.
But it may be said, —
If Scripture is our only divine informant, then if there had
been no Scriptures we should have had no divine informant. —
But would it not have been the duty of men to believe the tra
ditionary notices of religion they would have possessed, and may
not therefore what comes to us now under the name of " tradi
tion" have a claim upon our belief?
I reply, that God has not so left us, and therefore we cannot
reason upon such a supposition, because the only ground for sup
posing that it would have been necessary to consider those tra
ditionary notices a divine informant, arises from the hypothesis
that otherwise there would have been no divine informant. Now
it may be that God has given us the Scripture for the very rea
son, that without it tradition would not have preserved the truth
and been a divine informant.
It is further objected," however, —
That for more than two thousand years from the creation men
were actually left to " tradition."
A more unfortunate argunient never was urged, for, in the
first place, the example shows how utterly insufficient such a
mode of transmitting truth is, when it failed even to perpetuate
the knowledge of the one true God, the whole world having soon
lapsed into polytheism and idolatry; and the few cases of true
believers that are left on record, being such as were favoured
with some peculiar and extraordinary divine manifestations.
Moreover, if " tradition" was sufficient, why was the law given
through Moses so carefully written ?
Nor were nien left previously to depend upon such a broken
reed as " tradition." They had conscience and the light of na
ture to direct them ; insufficient guides doubtless to lead men to
1 See Sect. 7 above.
2 Newman, p, 330. Bellarm. De Verb. Dei. iv. 4.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 345
the knowledge of more than a few of the most elementary prin
ciples of religion, but nevertheless, all for the possession of which
they are called to account in Scripture ; for when the Apostle
rebukes the heathen world for their iniquities, he does so, not be
cause they disregarded " tradition," but because God's eternal
power and Godhead may be clearly seen and understood from
the works of creation, (Rom. i. 19, 20.) and he intimates that the
Gentiles may " do by nature the things contained in the law,"
and be " a law unto themselves," and " show the work of the
law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and
their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one ano
ther." (Rom. ii. 14, 15.)
And thus the Fathers themselves tell us, that before the wri
ting of the law, the bulk of mankind were left to the light of
nature. Thus Justin Martyr says that those among the heathen, such
as Socrates and Heraclitus, who lived according to the dictates
of reason, were Christians, though they might be reckoned athe
ists;' of the orthodoxy of which passage fas of others quoted
below J I say nothing, but it shows his view on the point now
in question.
Thus also Irenaeus identifies the decalogue with " those natu
ral precepts wfiich God from the beginning implanted in the
hearts of men.'"'
And Clement of Alexandria tells us, that " before the coming
of Chriht philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteous
ness ;" that " God is the cause of all good things, of some immedi
ately, as of the Old and New Testament, of others mediately, as
of philosophy. But perhaps it [i. e. philosophy] was then given
by him to the Greeks immediately, before that the Lord had
called the Greeks, for this, as a schoolmaster, led the Greeks to
Christ, as the law did the Hebrews. Therefore philosophy pre
pares beforehand, and makes ready the way for him who is per
fected by Christ."^
' 'Ol /AiTA xoyou &iu<rAyTK TUpto-TiAvoi iisrt, xav ABioi evo/AHrBHsTAr o'lov ev ExXHtrt /asv
Z(»Kf«Tiit XAl HpAxxuTos XXt Ol o^oioi AUTOlS. Apol. 1. § 46. p. 71. cd. Bcnod. (ed.
Col. Apol. 2. p. 83.)
2 Nam Deus primo quidem per naturalia priecepta, qua ab initio infixa dedit
hominibus, admonens eos [i. e. Judaeos,], id est, per Decalogum (quae si quis non
fecerit, non habet salutem,) nihil plus ab eis exquisivit, Iben. Adv. haer. iv. 15.
ed. Mass. c. 28. ed. Grab.
3 Hv /AiV OUV TTpo THS TOU KuptOU TTXpoUTlAS US StXXloruVHV EXXHtrtV AVXyxAtA ttXotrofiA
.... TTAVTUV ,«SV yAp AlTlOC TUV KitMBV 0 QiOS' AXXA TUV /AiV, XltTil TTpoHyoU/tiVOV, US THS
Ti SiaBhxHS ths TTAXAIAS XAt THS vsac' TW St, XXt' iTTXXoXouBnftX, US THS ipixotroiftxc . Ta;);"
Si xxt TTpowyou/Aivus Tots ExXHsrtv ftfofln tots, TTpiy h tov Kufiov xaxutai xai tous Ekxhvaa. btaj^
Sxyaryuyxp xai auth to E^^nviitov ait o V0|«o; touc ESpAious its Xpt^Tov. XlpoTTAfAa-XiuA^u
TOtVUV It pixoiroipix, TTpOoSoTTOtOUO-a TOV UTTO XpllTTOU TtXilOU/A&OV . ClEM. AtEI. Stroffi.
lib. i. p. 331. ed. Potter (al. p. 282.)

346 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
Thus Tertullian says, that " before the law was written by
Moses, the Fathers observed that which nature taught them,"
and that by this Noah and others were considered righteous.'
Eusebius, that " before the written laws of Moses, many of the
earlier Fathers were adorned with the virtue of piety, through
the right use of their reason."''
Theodoret, " that the Abrahamic race received the divine law,
and enjoyed the blessing of prophecy, but the Governor of the
universe led the other nations to piety through nature and crea
tion."' Now whatever may be thought of these passages in other re
spects, it is at least clear from them that their authors did not hold
that those who preceded Moses were left to the guidance of " tra
dition," but to that of reason and conscience.
The traditionary notices they might possess on the subject of
religion had not, as traditions, any definitive claim upon their
belief. They were not binding upon the conscience, on the ground
of their having been transmitted to them by their ancestors.
The uncertainty of the mode of conveyance made it necessary
for them to test those notices by some independent standard of
judgment. And that standard was the light of nature and the
works of creation.
Look at the present state of the heathen world. There are
evidently some remains of primitive tradition among them. But
have they anything which can be called the word of God, any
Divine rule of faith ? Are they bound to receive the traditionary
notices of religion that have come down fo them from their ances
tors ? Or rather, are they not bound, strictly speaking, to exer
cise the light of their natural reason and conscience, and reject
those traditions, as opposed to the voice of conscience and the
testimony of creation?
Such, also, had we been left to " tradition," would have been
the case with us. There would have been a vast number of
traditionary doctrines, some of them having their origin in
Divine revelation, though perhaps much corrupted from their
original purity, and the greater number probably having their
origin altogether in the dreams of the human imagination, and
1 Ante legem Moysi scriptam, qu» naturaliter intelligebatur et a Patribus cus
todiebatur. Nam unde Noe Justus inventus, si non ilium naturalis legis justitia
praecedebat? unde Abraham amicus Dei deputatus, si non de asquitate et justitia
legis naturalis ? &c. Adv. Jud. c. 2. p. 184. ed. 1664.
2 TlpO TUV iyypAfUV autou VO/AUV, TTXUOUS H^H tuv TTpOTTATOpUV OpBotS XoyiV/AOlS BiOO-iSitAS
ApiTH xxTixotr/AHBHirxv. Praepar. Evang. lib. vii. c. 7. p. 305.
a To /Aiv yAp A^pA/AtAlOV yiVOS, xai vo/AOV Buoy iSipXTO, XAt TTpo^HTlXHS ATTHXXVtTi XApiTOS.
TX Si yi AXXA iBvH SlA THS ^UlTiUS XAl THS XTltTiOiS iJToSHyU TTpos BiOSTi&UAV Tm OXftlV 0 TTpU-
Txtis. THEoroBiT. GraBc. affect, curat. Disput. 1. prope fin. Op. ed. Schuize,
tom. iv. p. 725.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 347
all of them coming down to us clouded with the doubt and un
certainty inseparable from the mode of conveyance by which
they were transmitted ; and we should have been left to the
guidance of our natural reason and conscience, to find our way
among them as well as we could.
Now I need hardly remind the reader, that though the practi
cal truths of Christianity are such as might be admitted to carry
evidence with them of their divine origin, many of the doctrines
of the Christian faith are not such as the natural reason and con
science would thus recognize as divine. We need very direct
proof of their revelation to convince us of their truth. Such
proof we cannot have in " tradition," and therefore it pleased
God to commit them to writing, that we might have a sure testi
mony to the truth in all ages to the end of the world.
In that which " tradition" delivers, the uncertainty of the
mode of conveyance makes it necessary for reason to judge
¦of the nature of the doctrine delivered. In that which Scrip
ture delivers, our reason judges not of the doctrine delivered,
but only of the grounds for believing Scripture to be the word of
God ; and having ascertained Scripture to be the word of God,
reason and conscience have only to accept the revelation there
made with an humble and implicit faith.
We do not, then, think it necessary to deny, that " tradition"
might hand down to us a report of some truths that have a di
vine origin ; but we rnaintain, that coming from such a source
such truths have not in themselves a claim to our belief. They
must be judged by reason and conscience, and in our case by the
light of that which we know to be a divine revelation ; and what
ever may be our individual feeling respecting them, never be laid
down as part of the authoritative rule of faith for mankind in
general. Nor is it any argument against this that some of the early Chris
tians believed, upon the testimony of those who gave only an oral
report of the gospel. For it will be allowed on all hands that
such oral report could not in itself have any authoritative claim
upon the faith of the hearers. But it was generally accompa
nied in those times with some external signs, manifesting its divine
nature, or otherwise it was still more effectually impressed upon
the heart by the Spirit of God, through the ministrations of those
who preached with the Holv Ghost sent down from heaven, ren
dering the more abundant testimony we possess to its divine ori
gin unnecessary.
Lastly, as our opponents think so much of the authority of the
Fathers, we may add that Chrisostom expressly refers the knowl
edge of the truths of religion enjoyed by the patriarchs before
Moses to the revelations made directly to them.

348 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
" We ought not," he says, " lo have needed the aid of writings,
but fo have lived so purely, that the grace of the Spirit might
have supplied to our souls the place of books; and as these are
inscribed with ink, so our souls by the Spirit. But since we have
driven away this grace, let us set sail afresh upon that second
course of navigation that is open to us. For that the former
was better, God hath manifested, both by what he hath said and
by what he hath done. For to Noah and Abraham, and their
descendants, and to Job and Moses, he did not speak through
writings, but he himself addressed them, finding their mind to
be pure. But when the whole nation of the Hebrews fell into
the depth of iniquity, then it was necessary that there should be
for the future writings and tables, and the remembrance of things
be preserved through these. And this happened, we may ob
serve, not only with the saints of the Old Testament, but also
with those of the New. For God did not give any writing to the
Apostles, but instead of writings he promised that he would give
them the grace of the Spirit. For ' he,' saith he, ' shall bring all
things • to your remembrance.' .... But when, in process of
time, they erred, some on account of doctrines, others in life and
manners, [which shows how soon Chrysostom believed such errors
to have prevailed] there was again need of writings to preserve
a remembrance of the truth."*
Theophylact, as usual, follows with precisely the same remark.
Again, it is objected, —
That the promises of Christ ensure to the Church Catholic free
dom from error in fundamental points, and therefore that in such
points at least the testimony of that church must be equivalent
to a divine informant.
But, as we have already seen," Mr. Newman himself admits
that all the promises of Christ to the Church would be fulfilled
by the existence of a succession of individuals in the church
holding the true faith. The promises of Christ, therefore, ensure
' ESU /Aiy H/AAS /AHSiSiltrBAl THS ATTO TUV ypA/A/AATUY SphBuAS' AXX' OUTU BtOV TTXpiX^^Bxi XA.
^Apoy, us TOU IlViU/AATOS THV X^P'^* S^^Tt &1&XIUV yiViffBxi TXtS H/AiTipXtS .^.UXXIS, XXI XxBxTTip
TatuT£^ StA /AiXAvos, OUTU Txj; xxpStxs Titc H/AiTipxs Slx TTviu/AXTOs fyyiypx^Bxi. EttuSh S^
TAUTHV SliXOOUTX/AiBx THV %APlV, <piph, XXV TOV SiUTipoV A^TTAtTUfAiBA TTXOUV. EtTU OTt TO
TTpOTipOV Afuv'OV HV, XXI Si UV ilTTi. XXt St' UV iTTOiHtTiy, iSnXUViV 0 QiOS. Kfitl yAP TU NftlS XXt
TU A8pXAU XAl TDIS yOVOtS TOIS iXUVOU. XAl TU lu3, xxt TU MuUCTil Si OU SlX ypA/A/iXTUV Sti-
XiyiTO, xxx' AUTOS Si' iXUTOU, XxBxPXV iUpHTXUy AUTUV THV SlAVOlAy. EtTuSh Si US AUTOV THS
XAXIAS iVeTTiO-i TOV TTuB/AiVA ATTAS TUy E^fAlUV 6 Sh/AOS, AVXyXAlUS XolTTOV ypX/A/AXTA XAt
TTXAXiS, XXI H StA TOUTUV uTTO/AyHSTlS. KaI TOUTO, OUX iTTl TUY iV TH TTXXXtX XyiUV, AXXX XXt
iTTi TUy iV Tit XXlVH TU/A&AV iSol TIS AV. OuSi yAp TOIS XTTOITTOXOIS iSuXi Tl ypXTTTOV 0 QiOS'
AXX' AVTt ypA/A/AATUv Tiiv TOU rivs^iOiaToc eufnyyuXATo Suo-iiv X"-?"- Exuyos^yx^ u/aas ava-
uLVHTit, fiHtri, TTAVTX. . . . EntSHSiTToxxouTouxp''VouTrpoiovTosifuxaxxv,oi/AiySoy/AXTm
iViXiV, ol St StOU xxt TPCTTUV, iSiHVi TTXXiV THS XTTO TUy ypXfA/AATUV UTToQvHCTiatS . ' ChrySOS-
tora. in Matth. hom. 1. init. tom. vii. pp. 1, 3.
i See pp, 49 an. I 14-1, &c. above.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 349
only the existence of a body of true worshippers in all ages.
Now certainly the testimony of this select body might be consid
ered a sure witness of the truth. But how are we to obtain it?
To gather the suffrages of all Christians is an impossibility. To
select those by whose judgment we will abide is to constitute our
selves the judges and make any appeal to others a mere self-de
ception. On this point, however, we have already spoken in a
former page.*
Further, it is objected that "tradition" is like that unwritten
law of custom, which is admitted by all states as binding.
Mr. Newman, speaking of the theory of the Romanists on the
subject of tradition (and the theory, as we have shown, both he
himself and Dr. Pusey accept) observes, — " By tradition they
mean the whole system of faith and ordinances which they have
received from the generation before them, and that generation
again from the generation before itself. And in this sense, un
doubtedly, we all go by tradition in matters of the world ....
At this very time, great part of the law of the land is adminis
tered under the sanction of such a tradition; it is not contained
in any formal or authoritative code, it depends on custom or pre
cedent .... When the Romanists say they adhere to tradition,
they mean that they believe and act as Christians have always
believed and acted; they go by the custom, as judges and juries
do." And this custom, " when traced back, has no beginning
short of the Apostles of Christ, and is in consequence of divine,
not of human authority, is true and intrinsically binding, as
well as expedient. If we ask, why it is that these professed tra
ditions were not reduced to writing, it is answered that the Chris
tian doctrine, as it has proceeded from the mouth of the Apos
tles, is too varied and too minute in its details to allow of
it ... . li, again, it be objected that this notion of an unwrit
ten transmission of the truth being supposed, there is nothing to
show that the faith of fo-day was the faith of yesterday, nothing
to connect this age and the Apostolic, they maintain, on the con
trary, that over and above the corroborative, though indirect,
testimony of ecclesiastical writers, no error could have arisen in
the church withput its being protested against, and put down on
this [? its] first appearance; that from all parts of the church a
cry would have been raised against the novelty, and a declara
tion put forth, as we know was the practice of the early church,
denouncing it."*
Thus does Mr. Newman countenance the delusive statements
by which Rome has gained over so many to her communion, that
¦ See pp. 49 and 143 above.
' Newman, pp. 38—40.
VOL. I. B G

350 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
would represent the catholic church as having always been a
compact, united body, keeping her communion free from the taint
of heresy, and handing down, from age lo age, with scrupulous
fideUty, a full and complete code of doctrine and rites, delivered
to her by the Apostles, — a representation as far as possible from
the truth, and which it is difficult to conceive how any one that
has looked with an impartial eye into the records of the church
can for a moment entertain. It is a notion which even the wri-
tihgs of the third century repudiate.
Mr. Keble follows in the same path, and contends, that on
principles exactly analagous to those on which certain customs
are received as part of the common law, certain "church prac
tices and rules" "ought, apart from all Scripture evidence, to
be received as traditionary, or common laws ecclesiastical ;" ad
ding, that " they who contend that the very notion of such tra
dition is a mere dream and extravagance .... must, if they
would be consistent, deny the validity of the most important por
tion of the laws of this and of most other old countries."*
The argument is, as usual, supplied by Bellarmine."
These remarks of Mr. Keble I must confess" myself unable to
understand ; for why it should follow that because I deny that
we have sufficient evidence of any oral traditions of the Apos
tles, and consequently the binding nature of anything which may
profess to be derived from them, therefore, to be consistent, I
must deny the validity of the common law of this country, I can
not comprehend. I can only say, that when Mr. Keble has
traced up any custom to the Apostles with the same certainty as
would be required in tracing up a custom beyond the period of
legal memory, to make it binding in a court of common law, I
shall be quite prepared to receive it as Apostolical.
Be it observed, also, that this argument affects merely the cus
toms, and not the doctrines of the church, notwithstanding Mr.
Newman's attempt, in the extract given above, to make it in
clude the latter as well as Ihe former.
But, after all, where is the similarity of the two cases, or what
does the argument prove? Customs fhat have prevailed for se
veral centuries are received by most states as an unwritten law;
so that if a custom can be clearly traced up beyond a certain
period, it is ordained that, however it may have airisen, it shall
be considered binding. But as it respects the church, there is no
tribunal or government authorised to enact such an ordinance ;
and if there were, it is obvious that the two cases are wholly
different, because the rites of the church are connected altogeth
er with the worship of God, for the regulation of which, customs,
' P. 33, 2 De verb. Dei, iv. 8,

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. •' ,• ' j35l
casually or voluntarily introduced, are a most insufficient guide.
Moreover, such rites only are binding upon the whole church,
as were laid down for its observance by our Lord and his Apos
tles. True, it may be, and no doubt is, necessary for the church to
have rules and customs beyond what are laid down in the Scrip
tures, and it is wise to innovate as little as possible in such mat
ters; and the duty incumbent upon her members of observing
such rules, as long as they are not inconsistent with the declara
tions of Scripture or their duty to God, is not here disputed. —
But the question is, whether such rules and customs are to be
enforced as having been ordained by the Apostles, for which the
evidence we have for that professed apostolical sanction is wholly
insufficient. Trace them to the Apostles with the same certain
ty that customs are traced beyond the period of legal memory
before they are allowed fo have the force of law, and we will at
once admit them to have apostolical authority.
. Lastly, a very favourite argument with our opponents, as with
the Romanists, is, that as we are satisfied to take the book of
the Scriptures from the early church, so we cannot reasonably
object to take the meaning of those Scriptures from her, for fhat
if we can trust the Fathers in the one case, so can we in the
other. There is a very true remark in one of the "Tracts," that
" any thing has been ventured and believed in the heat of con
troversy, and the ultimate appeal is to the common sense of
mankind." (Tr. 85. p. 79.) To that "common sense" I leave
the above argument.
Let me, however, give an illustration of it. Mr. Newman,
we will suppose, delivers a Treatise on Justification, rather ob
scurely penned, (for so must we suppose to preserve the similari
ty of the two cases in Mr. Newman's view of the matter,) to a
brother clergyman, to whom also he delivers orally an expla
nation of its meaning. The book travelling through many hands,
accompanied in each transfer with an attempted repetition of
the oral comment, comes at last into my hands, and the deliver
er gives me also the oral comment. Now I shall get the book
safe fenough, but shall I be sure to get the explanation safe ? If,
in controverting the book, I should remark that this or that pas
sage, though obscure as it stands in the book, certainly has such
a meaning, because Mr. Newman in his oral comment, which
came to me through only a dozen successive deliveries, declared
that such was its meaning, might not an opponent reasonably
say. My friend, you ought not to be so positive in the matter, for
recollect how liable an oral communication is to alteration in
passing through so many hands, and would not the rebuke be a

352 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
very just one ? Nay, who knows not how liable a sermon or
speech is to be misreported even in its first transit, so that we
hold any man to be unjust who condemns another upon such
evidence. And mark whither such a principle would lead us. We re
ceive the books of the Old Testament from the Jews. There
fore, according to this argument, we are bound to receive the
meaning of them from the Jews. Therefore we are bound to
reject the New Testament and Christianity altogether.
" We can never be assured," says our learned Henry Wharton
(in his Preface to an old treatise by Bishop Peacock on "Scrip
lure the rule of faith," republished by him in the great Popish
Controversy at the end of the 17th century,) " that any articles
were invariably and entirely without any addition or diminution
conveyed down to us by tradition ; since it hath been in all times
and ages observed, that matters oi fact, much more of belief,
not immediately committed to writing presently degenerated into
fables, and were corrupted by the capricious malice or ignorance>
of men. Nothing can exempt the tradition of the Christian re
ligion from this fate, at least from our reasonable suspicions of it,
but the infallibility of that society of men which conveys down
this tradition. But the latter can never be known till this cer
tainty of tradition be first cleared and presupposed, since the be
lief of this supposed infallibility must at last be resolved into the
sole truth and certainty of tradition. In the next place, tradi
tion cannot certainly and invariably propose the belief of Chris
tianity to all private persons. For from whence shall this tra
dition be received ? From a Pope, or a Council, or both, or
from none of these, but only the Universal Church? In every
one of these cases infinite difficulties will occur, which will singly
appear insuperable. As, Who is a true Pope, What his inten
tions in defining were, Whether he acted canonically. In what
sense he hath defined. What Councils, whether (Ecumenical,
Patriarchal, or Provincial, may be securely trusted ? What
are the necessary conditions and qualifications of a general
Council? Whether all these conditions were ever observed
in any Council? What these Councils are, what they have
defined, what is the true sense and intention of their definitions ?
From whom must we learn the belief of the Universal
Church, if Popes and Councils be rejected ? From all Chris
tians, or only from the clergy ? If from the latter, whether
the assent of every member of the clergy be required? If
not, how great a part may safely dissent from the rest?
From whom the opinion of the major part is to be received ?
Whether from the writings of doctors or the teaching of liv
ing pastors ? If from the latter, whether it be sufficient io

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 353
hear one or a few Parish Priests, or all, or at least the
major member, are personally to be consulted? All these
difficulties may be branched out into many more, and others no
less insuperable be found out; which will render the proposal of
religion by way of tradition, if not utterly impracticable, at least
infinitely unsafe. Thirdly, tradition is so far from being inde
pendent on other articles of the Christian faith, that the belief
of all other articles must be presupposed to it. For since all
sects propose different traditions, and the truth of none of them
is self-evident, it must first be known which is the true church
before it can be determined which is the true tradition. Now,
the knowledge of the true church can be obtained only two ways,
either from the truth of her doctrines, or from the external notes
of the true church. If the first way, then it must first be known
what are the true and genuine doctrines of Christianity, the sted
fast belief of which causeth this society to become the true
church. But if the true church be known only from some ex
ternal notes, these notes are either taught by Scripture, or found
out by the light of reason. If taught by Scripture, then the
knowledge of the Divine authority of Scripture is antecedent to
the knowledge of the true church, and consequently independent
on it. For otherwise Scripture will be believed for the authori
ty of the church, and the church for the authority of Scripture ;
which is a manifest circle  Lastly, if the notes of the
church may be found out by natural reason, then to pass by the
infinite contradictions which would arise from such a proposition,
these notes can be no other than antiquity, universality, perpetui
ty, and such like ; every one of which doth some way or other
presuppose the knowledge of the true doctrines of Christiani
ty, as well as those of the present church. For the end of these
notes is to compare the former with the latter, and consequently
both of them must be first known."*
Such is thc testimony of one of our most learned divines. It
would be easy to multiply such testimonies, and considering the
confident claims made by our opponents to the suffrage of all our
great divines in their favour, and which have justly contributed
more than anything else to the support of their cause, such testi
monies are of considerable importance. But as a future chapter
will be set apart for them, I will here only add one more, namely
that of Placette in his " Incurable scepticism of the Church of
Rome," as translated and published by our learned Arch
bishop Tenison. I have already quoted more than once from
1 Pref. to "A Treatise proving Scripture to be the rule of faith, writ by Regi
nald Peacock, Bishop of Chichester, before the Reformation, about the year
1450." Lond. 1688. 4to.
G G*

354 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
this treatise, but there are some valuable remarks on the notion
of grounding our faith on the" consent of doctors," of which I will
here present the reader with the substance; and in which, we
may observe, he distinctly maintains that no such consent has
been obtainable in any age of the Church.
" That il cannot be learned from the consent of doctors what
is to be believed," is clear, he says, " 1. Because it doth not ap
pear who those doctors are. 2. Because those doctors whosoever
they are do not always agree ... It doth not appear who are
those doctors whose consent is required [that is, as he explains,
whether they are bishopsonly or all the clergy] . . . But neither
would that suffice, if it were of faith. Somewhat else would be
yet necessary, viz. to know certainly whether to give assent to
the doctrine of these pastors and doctors, whosoever they be, it
be required that all should consent in their doctrine every one of
them, which they call all mathematically ; or whether the con
sent of all morally, that is almost all will suffice : again, who
they are exactly that may be called all morally, and how great
a part of the whole may dissent without prejudicing the infalli
bility of the rest, whether the third, or the fourth, or the tenth,
or the hundredth, <fec. who shall define this ? If all mathemati
cally must consent, God would have appointed a rule which
never existed ; for so absolute a consent never was among the
governors of the church. But he which shall say, it sufficeth
that almost all consent, ought not only to affirm but also to prove
what he says. But how shall so obscure a thing be proved? or
what certainty can be had in it? Yet grant it can be had, it is
still to be defined when almost all can be said to have consent
ed ; for that hath a certain latitude wherein some men will think
that number to be included which others hold excluded.
But not to seem too scrupulous, let our adversaries define this
as they please, and almost all be accounted to have consented
when only a tenth, twelfth, or twentieth part shall dissent. Let
all this be as certain, as it is indeed doubtful and uncertain. I
ask, whether that consent which it shall have pleased our adver
saries to define necessary is always to be had ? If any one think
so, he must be a stranger to all ecclesiastical history, and never
have heard of the prevailing heresies of Arius, Nestorius, and
Eutyches, not to mention others. But you will say, they were
heretics, whereas we require only the consent of catholics. Right ;
but it did not sensibly appear they were heretics ; rather that
was then the question, who were heretics and who orthodox.
For the Arians, Nestorians, and Eutychians took to themselves
the name of catholics, and branded the rest with the imputation
of heresy. Now if this question, which was certainly a mat
ter of faith, was to be determined only from the consent of

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 355
doctors, it could never have been determined to the world's
end, since that consent was never to be found. But to deal
liberally with our adversaries, have not those often dissented
whom themselves acknowledge catholic ? In the second and third
age the Asiatics dissented from the Europeans about the celebra
tion of Easter. In the third age, all the Africans, and many of
the Asiatics, from the rest about the rebaptization of heretics.
In the fourth age, the followers of Theophilus, Epiphanius, and
St. Hierome from the favourers of Origen about his condemna
tion," &c. &c. " That the consent of doctors, even when it can be
had, is more difficult to be known than that we can by the help
of it attain to the knowledge of the truth. . . . This consent, if
it could be had, is not so manifest and obvious as a rule of faith
ought necessarily to be, which by the confession of all must be
clear, evident, and easy to be applied. This Duvall assigns for
' an essential condition of a rule of faith,' and acknowledgeth that
' if a rule obscurely proposeth the mysteries of faith it would
thereby become no rule.' And for this reason our adversaries so
much exaggerate the obscurity of Scripture that they may there
by show it could not be given by God for a rule of faith. To
which end Gr. a Valentia layeth down this axiom, which he
afterwards applieth to the Scripture, ' The sentence of that au
thority which is to judge of all matters of faith ought to be mani
fest, that it may be easily understood by all the faithful. For if
that authority doth not teach perspicuously and plainly, it will be
of no use to that end.' So' he, and with him many others. If,
therefore, I shall show that the consent of pastors about matters
of belief is so obscure and difficult to be known that even the
most learned, much more illiterate, men cannot avoid error in
searching it out, I shall thereby prove that it could not be given
to us by God as a common rule of things to be believed. This
obscurity and difficulty ariseth from three causes. The first is
the amplitude of the church diffused throughout the whole world,
which permits not the faith of all pastors to be known unless we
travel through, all those regions wherein they are dispersed. . .
. . The second reason of the difficulty of knowing the common
consent of other doctors, is the obscure knowledge which is in the
church of some points concerning which no disputation hath been
yet raised. For nothing is more true than that opinions are illus
trated by controversies  We proceed to the third reason,
which consisteth in this. That some opinions are often divulged
in the church as revealed by God and approved by the church
and are everywhere taught, which at last are found out and
known to be false," &c. " That it doth not suffice, it be known
that anything is taught unanimously by the governors of the
church, unless it appear that it is taught to be of faith ; but that

356 PATRISTICAL TRADITION
this is most uncertain . . . Not whatsoever they unanimously
affirm is to be received as the revelation of God, and the doctrine
of the church, but only what they unanimously maintained to be
of faith. This Canw* and 5e//armme plainly insinuate ....
Before we believe therefore the doctrine of the Governors of the
church, we must consider how they teach it, whether as of faith ;
if not, we must suspendour assent. Now bishops, parsons and
preachers are wont to teach what seems true to them and agree
ing with divine revelation ; but very rarely to admonish whether
what they teach be of faith or a consequent of faith, whether ex
pressly revealed or coherent to things revealed. This Holden
acknowledgeth, ' We never heard,' saith he, ' that the church in
delivering the Christian doctrine exhibited or composed a Cata
logue of revealed articles and divine institutions, whereby those
articles of divine faith might be separately and distinctly known
from all others, which are either of ecclesiastical institution, or
not immediately founded upon divine revelation, but taught
all together confusedly and indistinctly.' Hence even those
divines who agree in the truth of any article often differ in judg
ing whether it be of faith."*
These remarks, though made with a more especial reference
apparently to the particular age of the church in which the in
quirer may live, are yet more forcible with regard to the system
of our opponents, for the difficulties here mentioned as operating
against the possibility of obtaining consent of doctors are such
as would be greater in the latter than in the former case. And
we may say the same for the remarks which follow these against
the possibility of finding any sure ground for our faith in the con
sent of the universal church, including clergy and laity, respect
ing which he proceeds to prove (as quoted in a former page)
" that there is nothing whereon the faith ofall private Christians
can less rely ; 1. Because it doth not appear what is that uni
versal church whose faith is to be the rule of ours. 2. Because
it is not known what is the faith of that church. 3. Because it
is not manifest, whether the faith of any church assignable be
true,'" on each of which points he adds some valuable remarks
which I would commend to the notice of the reader.'
It is worth remarking that the scheme of our opponents has
been a favourite notion with some of the ironical writers, who,
feeling the want of some court of appeal by which the differen
ces dividing the several parties of the Christian worid from one
another could be decided, have fancied like the Tractator? that
they could find such an arbitrator in the consent of the Fathers
> See cc. 20, 21, 22. J See c. 24.
5 See cc. 24—27.

NO DIVINE INFORMANT. 357
of the first few centuries. Such seems to have been the notion
of the Romanist Cassander, who in his irenical exposition of the
articles of the faith professes to have scrupulously followed that
consent as his guide.* Such also was the view expressly advo
cated by the Lutheran George Calixtus and others in the 17th
century, who entertained the hope of thereby effecting a recon
ciliation between the Romanists and Protestants, and bringing
the whole church fo a state of peace and amity," a consumma
tion worthy of any labours and efforts for its accomplishment,
but little likely to be brought about by such means, or indeed by
any human means. But " consent of Fathers" is indeed a bro
ken reed to depend upon for such a purpose.
I conclude with one remark, viz.. That my object in this chap
ter has not been to withdraw from the Fathers that respect that
is due to many of them, but to show that the notion put forward
by our opponents respecting their claim to our belief, as an au
thority binding upon the conscience is utterly without foundation.
In doing this, it has been impossible to avoid an exposure of their
mistakes and infirmities, which one would willingly have been
spared the necessity of making. If a near and dear relative were
to be set up by a party in the Christian church as an infallible
expositor of the Divine word, having authority over the con
sciences of men, and a right to our implicit /«iM in his decisions,
the nearness of the relationship would doubtless render the task
of exposing the absurdity of such a notion, one which we could
not undertake without considerable pain. Infinitely rather would
we have had the task of commending his good qualities to others
and exhorting them to follow him, as he followed Christ. But
are we, therefore, to acquiesce in the notion, and be parties to
the delusion ?
Very similarly circumstanced are we in the treatment of our
present subject. Certain Fathers of the Christian church, viz.,
those whose writings remain to us, have been placed before us by
a party in the church, as the infallible expositors of the Divine
word and doctrine.
Now, of such men it is painful fo speak but with regard to
those points in which we may justly respect and follow them. It
1 See Cassandri Consultatio prope finem.
2 Eo devenerunt [i. e. G. Calixtus, Conr. Horneius et Christ. Dreierus] ut
Scripturas Sacrae consensum Ecclesiae aut Patrum, praesertim quinque priorum
ssculorum adjungerent, contenderentque in rebus dubiis consensum ilium ceu
veritatis regulam ampleptendum, et quidquid isto consensu niteretur, hoc solum
creciilu ad salutem esse necessarium, nec adeo fundamentales errores exprobrari
illis posse, qui crederent quae cum isto Patrum consensu convenireni. Hoc
nimirum illud ipsum erat, quod Vincentium Lerinensem docuisse antea observa-
vimus, quem et ducem hic se sequi ipsimet proftebantur. Budd. Isag. ad Theo
log. lib. ii. c. 3. vol. i. p. 511. See also Walch. Biblioth. vol, ii, pp. 498 &».

358 PATRISTICAL TRADITION, ETC.
is an ungrateful task to point out their infirmities and dissensions.
But when their claims upon us are magnified to an extent to en
danger the very foundation upon which our faith is built, how
ever painful the task may be, jt is one of which duty to the
church requires the performance. It is the natural and inevita
ble consequence of their having been exalted by our opponents
to a seat of authority which does not belong to them. As men
of talent and piety, and connected with an early period of the
Christian church, their statements are of considerable value, both
from the character of their authors, and as witnesses of what
was held by some portion of the primitive church in their day.
As witnesses to facts coming under their own observation, their
testimony is invaluable. But to set up their consent as a prac
tically infallible reporter of the teaching and traditions of the
Apostles, is not only to give their witness an authoriiy over our
consciences lo which it has not the shadow of a title, but is, in
fact, to make an appeal to that which neither ever had any ex
istence, nor if it had, would be ascertainable by us.

359

CHAPTER VI.

THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE DOCTRINE RESTS THAT SCHIPTURB IS
THE WORD OF GOD.

It is a remark continually in the mouth of our opponents
and the Romanists, that if we do not allow the claim they set
up for patristical tradition, we take away the foundation upon
which rests the doctrine that Scripture is the word of God ; for
fhat upon the testimony of patristical tradition rests altogether
the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture.
This, I hope to show, is very far from being the case ; and
fhat however insufficient the testimony of the patristical tradi
tion we possess may be, to be a certain witness of the oral teaching
of the Apostles, or to be considered a divine informant, the doc
trine of the inspiration of Scripture stands unmoved, and on a
firm foundation.
This is the subject of the fifth of the positions we have no
ticed above (pp. 40, 41) as embodying the doctrine of our oppo
nents On the question we are discussing, and to it I think it desi
rable to direct the attention of the reader before we proceed
further. It will not, I hope, be denied, that a saving belief in Scripture
being the word of God, must be the work of the Spirit of God
upon the heart ; and that such a faith might be produced under
that influence, even though the external evidence should be in it
self weak and insufficient ; and that such a faith is of the highest
and most perfect kind, including all and more than all, which
can be produced by a faith wrought by the force of evidence
alone ; and that any other faith, as long as it stands alone, is, in
fact, useless.
Here, however, I cannot but remark, that when our opponents
are speaking on such subjects there is a remarkable and lament
able lack of reference (to use the mildest phrase) to the neces
sity of this spiritual influence in the hearts of individuals to pro
duce true Christian faith.

360 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF
For, as their favourite Archbishop Laud will tell them, it is
"God's Spirit who afowe works faith and belief of the Scriptures
and their divine authority, as well as other articles;" our assent
to this truth is " by the operation of God's spirit." " The credit
of Scripture to be divine, resolves, finally, into that faith which
we have touching God himself, and in the same order. For as
that, so this hath three main grounds, to which all others are redu
cible. The first is, the tradition of the church ; and this leads us
to a reverend persuasion of it. The second is, the light of na
ture . . . The third is, the light of the text itself, in convers
ing wherewith we meet with the Spirit of God, inwardly in
clining our hearts, and sealing the full assurance of the suf
ficiency of all three unto us. And then, and not before, we are
certain, that the Scripture is the Word of God, both by divine,
and by infallible proof;"* from which latter passage (and many
similar and stronger occur in the context) we may see how far
the Archbishop was from the sentiments of our opponents on the
point which forms the subject of this chapter.
True Christian faith, then, in Scripture being the Word of
God, rests ultimately upon a testimony of a much better kind
than the witness of man can supply in any case.
To the question. How shall we undoubtedly know the Scriptures
to be the Word of God ? " I answer," says Dr. Chaloner, " that we
may know them to be so, partly by the light of the Word, that is,
the divine notes and characters therein imprinted, and partly by
the enlightening and persuading grace of God's Spirit, enabling
us to see, and moving us to believe what we see.'"' And he re
marks, — " The former, (which is the word itself, and the notes
thereof,) cannot be denied by an ingenuous Papist, to be there
found; for howsoever some of them, by a just judgment of
God, for being injurious to the Scriptures, in branding them
with obscurity, imperfection, fyc, have been so blinded by the
Prince of Darkness, that, (setting aside the judgment of the
Church,) no reason to them hath appeared wherefore iEsop's
Fables should not as well as the Scriptures themselves be
thought canonical, yet others, as Bellarmine, Greg, de Valentia,
Gretser, &c. , do knowledge these distinguishing notes to be in
their kind argumentative, and to shine in them, as the excellen
cy of the doctrine, concord, efficacy, and the like, whereby may
be verified of the whole book of God, what the officers sent by
the Pharisees and Priests said of our Saviour, John vii. Never
man spake like this man. Nor is the latter (which is the in
ward testimony of the Spirit) denied, by the learneder sort of
1 Reply to Fisher, § 16, sub fin. ed. 1686. p. 74.
2 Credo Sanct Eccles. Cathol. ed. 1638. p. 104.

THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 361
Papists, to possess another chief place in the discovery of the
Scriptures. For although in popular air they seem to vent the
contrary, yet when they are called to give a more sober account
in writing, they utter the same in effect which we do."*
Be the case, then, as it may in this respect, with that which
patristical tradition delivers to us, Scripture at least has a testi
mony to the fact of its being a revelation from God, far higher
and more influential than aay human witness.
Hence the conclusion of the Tractators, that because there is
{as they suppose) as good testimony in the Fathers for the apos
tolicity of certain doctrines and rites, as for the apostolical origin
of the Scriptures, therefore if we believe the latter, we must also
believe the former, is altogether groundless and unwarrantable.
For even supposing that the patristical testimony for the two
should be equally strong (which we altogether deny) this is but
one, and the least persuasive portion of the evidence for the
divine origin of Scripture. The Fathers may bear equally strong
testimony to two things, one of which is true, and the other false;
and of which, therefore, the former only has the witness of the
Spirit in its favour.
And that more influential witness of the Spirit is, we may hope,
enjoyed by every humble-minded inquirer after the truth ; for if
they who are evil, as our blessed Lord reminds us, know how to
give good gifts unto their children, how much more shall our
heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him.
Nor will it be any cause for scepticism to a mind thus taught, if
it should even happen that the external evidence for the divine
origin of that Word which he venerates as the Word of God, is
less strong than it might be.
How, indeed, is a conviction of the divine origin of Scripture
to be produced otherwise in thousands who are unable to investi
gate the external evidence ? To those who know not what that
evidence is, or are unable to appreciate it, it cannot be a suffi-
rient founda,tion for faith.
And shall we deprive Christianity of its greatest glory, as being
the Dispensation of the Spirit, and leave the poor and illiterate
either to grope their way among the records of antiquity to find
a foundation for their faith, or to pin their faith upon the affir
mation of a few individuals, when Scripture offers such gracious
promises of assistance to the sincere inquirer after the truth ?
To make historical testimony the only ground for belief in this
truth, is equivalent to admitting that nine-tenths of mankind have
no sure foundation for their belief in it ; for however valid that
1 Credo Sanct. Eccles. Cathol. ed. pp. 98—100.
VOL. I. H H

362 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF
testimony may be, they neither know what it is, nor are able fo
appreciate its value.
Thus much, then, we have felt it necessary to premise on a
point, which, alas I the Tractators seem altogether to have over
looked. Further, to make the doctrine of the inspiration of Scriprture
rest upon the bare affirmation of the Fathers, (as our opponents
do,) is equivalent to saying that our belief in the divine origin of
Scripture is founded on no belter evidence than the belief of
Mohammedans in the divine origin of the Koran. For the chief
and vital point in this doctrine is the divine origin of the revela
tion contained in Scripture, for which the belief of any number
of individuals is no sufficient foundation for faith.
Let us observe that it is not a mere matter of fact which is
here involved, nor what could ever be the object of knowledge
to any individual, but a doctrine which, in all cases, could only
be an object oi faith. Moreover, it is a doctrine standing upon
a foundation peculiar to itself. For even granting that patristi
cal tradition might be a safe medium for ,the conveyance of the
oral teaching of the Apostles, the concession proves nothing for
the validity of such tradition, as a proof of the inspiration of the
Apostles; for it is not the assertion of any number of individuals,
or of the Apostles themselves, that can be any sufficient proof to
us of their inspiration.
Nor does it help us to take such tradition as indicating that
strict catholic consent which we may suppose from the promises
of Christ to ensure freedom from error, for supposing that we had
such catholic consent it could prove nothing in the point about
which we are now inquiring, because its suppdsed authority rests
upon the very truth in question. Catholic consent, to one who is
yet unconvinced of this truth, is but the consent of a certain
number of individuals, and he who says that he believes the di
vine mission of our Lord and his Apostles on such a ground, does
in effect say that he believes the Christian religion because a
certain number of persons believed it eighteen centuries ago,
which would be as good a reason for believing any form of Pagan
ism or Mohammedism.
This, therefore, is a truth, the proof of which extends over
a much wider field than patristical tradition, and requires a
much broader foundation than such tradition can supply it with.
We may, indeed, be indebted to patristical tradition as one
and a necessary witness of the facts upon which the external evi
dence for Scripture being the Word of God is founded, but no
assertions of Christian writers that the New Testament is a di
vine revelation can be of themselves any more a sufficient proof

THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 363
that so it is, than the assertions of Mohammedan writers that the
Koran came from God.
As this matter is of no little importance, let us consider it a
little more carefully.
We are to believe this doctrine, say our opponents, on the tes
timony of ecclesiastical tradition. Nay, they tell us that we
cannot prove it but by such tradition. Now, as we have alrea
dy observed, our belief, in ecclesiastical tradition is claimed on
two grounds, first, that it is a faithful witness of what the Apostles
delivered orally, and secondly, on the ground that the promises
of God forbid the supposition that the whole church should be in
error on an important point..
Take, then, first, the case of an unbeliever, and suppose him
lo be told that he is bound to believe this truth on the evidence
of ecclesiastical tradition. You, therefore, in effect tell him
that he is bound to believe this truth, because those of whose char
acter and inspiration he is in doubt affirmed it, (which by the
way he conld learn as well from their writings as from tradition,)
and because in that very book whose divine origin is in question
it is promised that Christians shall not universally err in such a
point. A wonderfully convincing argument this truly !
The absurdity of the attempt to prove the true character of
our Lord and his Apostles, upon which the inspiration of the
New Testament depends, from fhat church-tradition, whose
value as a teacher in the doctrines of religion has no founda
tion but that character to rely upon, is transparent.
Hence, perhaps, it is that the lovers of tradition are so luke
warm (to say the least) as to the distribution of the Scriptures
to such. For it must be admitted that he who endeavours to
teach men from the Scriptures (which blessed be God, is the
great principle of Protestantism) must be prepared to prove that
they are the word of God upon grounds that include much more
than the Church's testimony in their favour.
And here is observable the great difference between the mode
of teaching men advocated by our opponents and the Romanists,
and that which corresponds with the great principle of Protes
tantism. Our opponents anxiously urge upon us the doctrine
that we are to go to patristical tradition for what we teach men
and that after we have so done. Scripture is to be resorted to as
a parallel revelation to confirm us in the views derived from tra
dition. The Fathers, however, to whom they are so fond of appeal
ing, certainly took a different course, for they appealed to the
Scriptures as the great teacher of mankind, and urged upon
unbelievers the various evidences upon which their claim to di
vine authority rests, herein manifestly dissenting from our oppo-

364 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF
nents, and showing that they regarded those evidences as sufficient
to prove that divine authority.
The process of spiritual education, then, according to the notions
of our opponents is this, — The learner is to be taught by the re
presentative of the Church the traditions of the Church upon the
subject of religion, and then when he has embraced the truths
of Christianity upon the testimony of the Church, the Church
delivers to him certain writings composed by those from whom
she has originally derived the faith, and the learner having be
forehand become a believer in the faith and a faithful disciple of
the Church, receives those Scriptures as divine upon the testimo
ny of the Church.
" When we say therefore," our opponents may urge, " that it
is church tradition by which alone we know that Scripture is
the word of God, we are speaking of those who have been brought
up in the bosom of the Church, or at least have been instructed by
her," i. e. in short (whether they proceed to so distinct an admis
sion of the fact or not) believers, for men must be either believ
ers or unbelievers, that is those who already believe in the divine
mission of our Lord and his Apostles, and consequently that the
revelation made by them came from God.
Now there can be no doubt that in the very earliest times of
the Christian Church many did become acquainted with the re
velation now contained in the Scriptures through the medium of
that instruction which they received from ministers of the Church,
who communicated to them the true unadulterated doctrine de
livered by our Lord and his apostles. But even they did not
believe its divine origin on the sole ground of church-tradition.
Their belief was founded partly upon the internal evidence af
forded by the power and excellence of the revelation, and partly
upon those external testimonies which included much more than
the teaching of the Church.
But to assume, what is taken for granted in the reasoning of
our opponents just alluded to, that the true and unadulterated
doctrine delivered by our Lord and his Apostles has been per
petuated in the Church by tradition to the present time, so that
her pupils are instructed in that doctrine from tradition and not
from Scripture, is to assume the very point which is in dispute,
viz., that tradition is a safe medium for the conveyance of doc
trinal matters. We deny the truth of this position, and main
tain that had the truth been left fo church tradition for its per
petuation, it would have required a miraculous interference on
the part of God to have preserved it, and consequently that where
the teaching of the Church is agreeable to Scripture, it is to
Scripture that we are indebted as the means of its preservation,
and that where that teaching goes beyond Scripture, no claim

THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 365
can be justly made for it inspired teaching on account of the
uncertainty of tradition.
We deny, therefore, the truth of the assumption here made,
that the Church where she teaches the truth teaches from tradi
tion. Church-tradition has not preserved the truth. The Scrip
tures have preserved it, and the Church, through the Scriptures,
has been enabled to retain it. We consequently deny the infer
ence here drawn from that assumption.
And, in fact, the main question upon which the inspiration of
Scripture depends still recurs. For how, I would ask, was the
pupil of the Church convinced that the religion preached to him
by the Church came from God ? The chief and necessary mean
for that conviction was the power of the Spirit of God impress
ing it upon his heart and conscience, and this united with the in
ternal evidence in its favour, is all of which nine-tenths of man
kind would be capable. Have they not, then, equal proof in
every respect for the divine origin of the same religion when they
meet with it in the pages of Scripture ? Is the teaching of the
Church so superior to the teaching of the Apostolical writings,
that the Christian religion commends itself to the consciences of
men more in the former than in the latter? The evidence, then,
whatever it be, which would induce men to receive the orthodox
teaching of the Church as divine, is the evidence upon which they
believe the divine origin of the religion delivered to us in the Holy
Scriptures. How, indeed, were many of the heathen in early times brought
to a knowledge and belief of the Christian religion by the first
Christian Missionaries, if the internal testimony united with the
work of the Holy Spirit on the heart is not sufficient to produce
faith in it ? And if that testimony is sufficient, then the witness
of Scripture does not absolutely require the evidence of history
to produce faith in its declarations being a divine revelation. For
surely the testimony of the Apostles in the New Testament is as
efficient a preacher as any uninspired man can be.
True, it may be objected fhat even a proof of the divine origin
of the truths delivered to us in the Scriptures does not strictly
prove that those Scriptures were indited by inspired authors, but
not to say that under the circumstances of the case it goes a long
way towards it, the great and only essential point is, whether
the truths delivered in it are of divine origin, whether the au
thors of those revelations contained in it were inspired. In a word,
the great point in the question of the inspiration of Scripture is,
whether the religion delivered in it is from God. And though
the proof of this will not demonstrate the inspiration of the Scrip
tures, it is the most necessary part of the evidence for the proof
of that truth, and the only thing necessary for salvation. H H*

366 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF
The testimony, therefore, of the church or patristical tradition
falls at least far short of a proof of the doctrine of the inspiration
of Scripture.
But although the internal evidence, united with the operations
of the Spirit of God upon the heart, may be with the generahty
the great and almost sole proof, and with all a necessary part of
the proof, of the divine origin of the religion delivered to us in
the Scriptures, and consequently of the inspiration of the
Scriptures, yet no doubt there is also powerful external evi
dence to this truth ; and to the unassisted mind this external evi
dence is a necessary part of the proof of the inspiration of these
particular writings, and an important part of the proof of the di
vine origin of the revelation contained in them, though not per
haps absolutely necessary when we consider the force of the in
ternal evidence, which, I think, facts show us, is the great in
ducement to men fo embrace the Christian faith.
Now, this external evidence to the doctrine of the inspiration
of Scripture and to the question of the extent of the inspired
writings rests upon certain facts, the knowledge of which must
be conveyed to us by the testimony of others. Here, then, patris
tical tradition necessarily comes in as an important part of that
testimony. But even here it forms only a part of the testimony.
Let us now, then, proceed to observe what is the evidence we
have, apart from the witness of the Spirit, to the inspiration of
the Scriptures, a question which of course includes that of their
canonicity, genuineness, and uncorrupted preservation, as we
shall see in the course of the inquiry.
I will take the case of the New Testament only, as that is the
one more particularly concerned in this controversy, and the in
spiration of the New Testament being proved, the inspiration of
the Old Testament easily follows.
I would observe, then, on this head, first, that it must be ad
mitted that if we can establish the divine mission of our Lord,
and the inspiration of his Apostles, it follows, that their instruc
tions on the subject of religion are to be considered as the Word
of God.
I am quite aware that this position will be disputed by some,
who, in order to enhance the value of " tradition," do not regard
it as a sufficient proof that a book is inspired, that it was written
by an inspired Apostle, and therefore hold the necessity of " tra
dition," for assuring us that these particular productions of the
Apostles were inspired. But I would ask, how was the distinc
tion made between their inspired and uninspired productions?
By what authority did they who formed the canon of Scripture
decide that these productions only of the Apostles were inspired?
Will it be said that there were other writings of the Apostles on

THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 367
the subject of the Christian religion which were not inspired, or
was it not the sole question with the Church, when admitting
books bearing the Apostles' name into the canon, whether they
were genuine ? All that the Apostles delivered on the subject
of religion, being delivered by persons divinely inspired, may be
considered as the Word of God ; and all that the primitive church
ever imagined to be necessary to prove respecting the writings
of the Apostles, when determining the extent of the canon, was
their genuineness.
Suppose a work not included in the canon could be proved to
have been written by one of the Apostles after the day of Pente
cost, would any man who fully believed that it was written by
an inspired Apostle, venture to say that he would not receive it
because the Apostle might not have been inspired in writing it?
This question, as it appears to me, is one of prime importance
in this matter. For if it be not admitted that all that the Apos
tles wrote on the subject of religion was divinely inspired, then
what evidence have we that those particular productions of the
Apostles included in the New Testament were inspired? We
want, in that case, divine directions as to what productions of the
Apostles were inspired, and what were not ; and how is this to
be obtained ? The Romanists will reply, — from " tradition" and
the authority of the Church. But if by " tradition" they mean the
oral teaching of the Apostles, I reply that we have not the slight
est evidence that the Apostles ever did claim for those particular
productions of theirs any greater authority than for the rest of
their instructions ; and that the internal testimony of their wri
tings shows that they entertained no such idea. It is quite true
that they spoke sometimes by permission, and not by command
ment, and gave advice for which they did not claim the direct
sanction of the Holy Spirit; but this is no proof that they were
not at all times guided by that Spirit when formally delivering
the doctrines and precepts of Christianity.
Moreover, the language of the Fathers clearly shows that they
considered it to be only necessary to prove that a book or doc
trine came from an Apostle, to prove its inspiration and autho
rity;* and that, when determining the canon of Scripture, the
¦ See Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. cap. 24 and 25. (ed. Vales.) See also ch.
38, where the canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews is evidently supposed to
be proved if there is reason to think that it was written by St, Paul ; and par
ticularly the language of Serapion (lib. vi. c. 12.) where speaking of some wri
tings falsely ascribed to Peter, he says, " we receive Peter and the rest of the
Apostles as we would Christ, but we reject the writings falsely ascribed to them."
And this clearly follows from the way in which the books that were to be re
ceived as of authority in the Christian church are constantly mentioned by the
early Christian writers, who describe them aa the Gospels and the Epistles of
the apostles, the Evangehcal and .Apostolical Scriptures. And so Jerome says

368 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF
sole question with them was what writings they had, composed
by the Apostles, or at least under their immediate superinten
dence and sanction ; and, as 1 shall prove hereafter, that they
regarded no books as of authority but those that were so com
posed. And if you say it is from the testimony or authority of the
Church, you claim for the Church a degree of inspiration great
er than that you allow to the Apostles, for you can only attach
certainty to the decision of the Church by supposing that the
Church is permanently inspired to deliver the truth, while you
allow not such permanent inspiration to the Apostles.
It may be a matter for consideration how far fhat inspiration
extended, and we know from facts which they have themselves
stated, that it did not ensure them infallibility in all respects and
all matters, but we are now considering them merely as instruc
tors in the Christian religion. The common objection derived
from the reproof given to Peter by Paul, is well disposed of
by Tertullian.*
Observe, also, in what situation it places their favourite doc
trine of " tradition," if they say that, to prove the inspiration of
the Scriptures, it is not sufficient to prove the inspiration of their
authors. For then how are we assured that that which the
Church professes to derive by " tradition" from the oral teaching
of the Apostles was inspired? It is not sufficient evidence in
this case for the authority of such tradition, even to suppose that
it is an infallibly true report of whatthe Apostles delivered ; but
we must suppose that there is also some evidence or authority
somewhere to assure us, that those particular instructions of the
Apostles, which patristical tradition is said to have handed down
to us, were delivered by inspiration, and I would ask where that
evidence or authority can be found. There was certainly no
claim made by the primitive Church to distinguish between the
doctrines or instructions delivered by the Apostles, so as to de
cide which was delivered by inspiration and which not. If the
Apostles are not always safe guides in their instructions on the
subject of religion, where are we to look for such guides? for I
suspect that most men will be disposed to think, that if the Apos
tles were not always to be trusted in their instructions, neither is
the Church ; for certainly, neither the promises made to the lat
ter, nor its history, give stronger ground for confiding in it than
of St. John, that he was " both an Apostle, an Evangelist, and a Prophet ; an
Apostle in that he wrote to the churches as a master," &c. (Joannes et Aposto
lus et Evangelista et Prophets. Apostolus quia scripsit ad Ecclesias ut magis
ter, &c. Adv. Jovinian. lib. i. % 26. tom. ii. col. 279. ed. Vall. Venn.)
I Adv. Marc. lib. u. iv. 3. and De Praescr. cc. 23, 24.

THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 369
the promises made to the former, and their history, do for con
fiding in them.
As far, then, as concerns the books of the New Testament
which we can prove to have been written by the Apostles, a
proof of the divine mission of our Lord, and the inspiration of
his Apostles, will equally prove that the Scriptures of the Apos
tles are to be viewed as the word of God. And this I take to
be the only way of proving the inspiration of a// that they have
delivered on the subject of religion ; for it is evident that the in-
spiiation of each sentence Could not be separately proved by any
application of internal and external evidence, and can only be
deduced from a proof of the inspiration of the author, that is,
his being recognized as a teacher commissioned and empowered
by God to instruct mankind in true religion.
Besides the Scriptures of the Apostles, three books only, viz.
the Gospels of Mark and Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles by
Luke, have been admitted into the canon of the New Testament.
Their case we shall consider distinctly; our present inquiry re
lates only to the writings of the Apostles.
It is affirmed, that many ages ago there appeared on earth
those who professed to be authorized by God to instruct mankind
in the nature of true religion. We inquire, then, what evidence
is producible in favour of this claim, in order that if it be a just
claim we may guide ourselves by their instructions.
The first question, then, will surely be, what was their doctrine,
what the nature of their instructions ? The internal evidence
may be an insufficient witness, standing alone, to prove the di
vine origin of their doctrine, but its witness is material to
rational beings. The answer to this question we shall naturally
look for in those writings which have come down to us, attribu
ted to them, and professing to give an account of their doctrine ;
and our first inquiry must of course be, are these writings genu
ine and incorrupt ?
It does not, of course, enter into my design here to point out at
length the whole of the evidence on these and other points con
nected with our present inquiry, as such a discussion would be
both out of place and unnecessary, after what has been already
published on the subject,* and would require a volume to do any
justice to it ; but chiefly to point out the character of the evidence
we have on these points, in order to show where and how far
church-tradition comes in.
On what grounds, then, may we receive these writings as
genuine, that is, as written by those whose names they bear?
¦ See the works of Leslie, Addison, Jenkin, Stillingfleet, Lardner, Paley, and
others, and especially Mr. Home's very valuable " Introduction to the Study of
the Scriptures."

370 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF
We have, first, the internal evidence afforded by the writings
themselves. It cannot be denied, that from the language, style,
and general character of the contents of these writings, we have
strong evidence in favour of their being genuine.
We have, secondly, the external evidence.
And here we naturally look, first, lo the testimony borne in
their favour by the Christian writers, or, in other words, to pa
tristical tradition. There has been a series of writers in the
Christian Church from the earliest times, who have all acknowl
edged the genuineness of these writings; i. e. with some excep
tions, to which we shall advert presently : and considering the
way in which these writings have been handed down from one to
another, this is a strong argument in their favour.
Here, however, let me caution the reader against a statement
of Mr. Keble, that as long as the canon of the New Testament
was incomplete, the doctrinal " tradition" existing in the Church
of the oral teaching of the Apostles, was " divinely appointed in
the Church as the touchstone of canonical Scripture itself"
(p. 27.) This statement he attempts to prove by the admonition
of St. Paul to the Galatians, "Though we or an angel from
heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we
have preached nnto you, let him be anathema," (Gal.i. 8.); and
from 1 John ii. 7; 20, 21,27; iv. I; 3. 2 John 9. Hereisanother
instance of what our opponents are so fond of, an assumption of
the very point in question. The warnings here given are against
the hearers of the Apostles themselves believing anything con
trary to the doctrine which they had been taught by the Apos
tles themselves (and who ever denied that their oral teaching
was of authority ?) Therefore, says Mr. Keble, tradition, i. e.
the report of that teaching handed down from one to another,
was " divinely appointed as the touchstone of canonical Scrip
ture," and adds to this extraordinary nonsequitur the following
as extraordinary flourish about it. " This use of apostolical
tradition may well correct the presumptuous irreverence of dis
paraging the Fathers, under plea of magnifying Scripture.
Here is a tradition so highly honoured by the Almighty Founder
and Guide of the Church, as to be made the standard and rule
of his own Divine Scriptures. The very writings of the Apos
tles were to be first tried by it before they could be incorpora
ted into the canon. Thus the Scriptures themselves, as it were,
do homage to the tradition of the Apostles; the despisers there
fore, of that tradition [as if any one did despise the oral teach
ing of the Apostles, and that the question was not merely whether
we have got that teaching or not] take part inadvertently or
profanely with the despisers of the Scripture itself." (p. 28.)
Solemn words these, certainly, and as our friends across the

that SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 371
Atlantic say, " important if true ;" but all their apparent force
arises from his having confounded the real tradition or teaching
of the Apostles with the report of it by others. And then, adds
Mr. Keble, "on the other hand, it is no less evident, jthat Scrip
ture, being once ascertained, became in its turn a test for every
thing claiming to be of Apostolical tradition." And so tradition
having been in one generation the touchstone of Scripture, the
obligation was returned in the next, by Scripture saying this or
that is tradition ; and thus they mutually assisted one another.
But it would be worth knowing why, if tradition could be so de
pended upon in one generation as the touchstone for ascertaining
what was Scripture, there should be any need in the next of
Scripture to point out what was tradition. This looks very much
as if there was a lurking consciousness that, after all, tradition
stood upon a somewhat slippery footing.
But enough of such statements. How stands the real state of
the case ? The writings of the Apostles were either given in
person or sent by trusty messengers to the converts of the writers.
In the latter case (though it can hardly even then be said that
the oral teaching of the Apostles was " the touchstone" of such
a writing) no doubt the writing would not have been received if
it had contained anything clearly contrary to the oral teaching
of the Apostles. But there, at least, their office of judging end
ed, and the question of the genuineness of the writings was set
ut rest and determined by those who were contemporary with
the Apostles, and had heard them preach, and were in fact their
own converts. And it appears from 2 Thess. iii. 15, that St.
Paul adopted a particular mode of signature to his epistles that
might be a mark of their genuineness. " The salutation of me
Paul," he says, " with mine own hand, which is the token in
every epistle, so I write." And the writings thus admitted and
acknowledged as genuine (and the originals of most, if not all of
them, long preserved in the archives of the Apostolical churches)
were handed down from one to another, and hence found their
way info the universal church as writings of acknowledged au
thority.* And if, in after times, a question arose about any par
ticular book or books professing to come from the Apostles, the
inquiry was. Can it be traced up to the Apostles through the tes
timonies of those who have preceded us,^and a comparison was
instituted between it and the undoubted writings of the Apos
tles.' If the book could be plainly traced up to an Apostle,
there was an end to the question. If it could not be so traced
' See Tertull. De Prsescr. c. 36 and adv. Marc. iv. 5.
' See Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. cc. 3 and 25.
3 See Easeb. Hi»t. Eccl. iii. 25, and Tertull. adv. Marc. iv. 2. Denique, &c.

372 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF
up, even though it might not be contrary to Apostolical doctrine,
its canonicity would be proportionably doubtful. And hence it
was that doubts were entertained by some in the primitive church
as to the canonicity of some of those books which were after
wards admitted into the canon by, generally speaking, the uni
versal church ; admitted evidently not by " the touchstone" of
tradition, for I suppose that tradition was, at least, not more cer
tain, or definite, or authoritative, at the close of the fourth cen
tury, when the first canon of any General Council, giving a cata
logue of the canonical books, was passed at Laodicea,* than it
was in the earlier periods of the church, nor could a Council
make that cathohc consent to which alone authority is ascribed
where it did not find it, but because it was generally considered
that the evidence for their genuineness was such as to entitle
them to a place in the canon. And I must say that the recol
lection of those early doubts (though unwarranted doubts) might
have saved Luther from the opprobium sometimes cast upon him
by those who love to bark at the reformers for doubting at one
time as to the canonicity of a book about which some in the early
church also doubted. The notion, therefore, of any Father, or
collection of Fathers, setting themselves up in the purer times of
the church to judge of the canonicity of writings professing to
come from the Apostles by the touchstone of a doctrinal " tradi
tion," is utterly unwarranted.
Now, to return to our subject ,this testimony of Christian an
tiquity to the genuineness of these writings is both important and
necessary. Its absence indeed would be fatal. But is it all we
have, or is it even alone sufficient ? If the heretics, and the
Jewish and heathen adversaries of Christianity had all from the
beginning denied the genuineness of these books, would it have
been a satisfactory state of things ? We must inquire, then, what
their testimony was, and we find a still stronger proof of the
genuineness of these writings in the testimonies of the heretics
and the Jewish and heathen adversaries of Christianity.
I do. not mean to say that all the heretics universally admit
ted the genuineness of all the books of the New Testament as we
now have them, because some of them rejected some books and
others other books. But taking them as a body, the argument
derived from their testimony to the genuineness of Scripture,
even in parts opposed to their notions, is a very strong one, and
as such it was applied long ago by Irenaeus, — " So great certain
ty is there," he says, " with regard to these Gospels, that the
very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and every one of
them endeavours to confirm his doctrine out of them. For the
I This catalogue included all that we receive but the book of Revelations.

THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 373
Ebionites who use the Gospel of Matthew only, are by that very
Gospel refuted 'as in error respecting the Lord. And Marcion,
who mutilates the Gospel of Luke, is proved a blasphemer
against the one true God by those parts which are retained by
him. And they who separate Jesus from Christ, and say that
Christ did not suffer but that Jesus suffered, preferring the Gos
pel of Mark, may be convinced of their error by reading that
wifh a love of the truth. And the Valentinians using the Gospel
of John entire in order to prove their conjunctions, may be proved
by it to be in error, as we have shown in the first book. Since
therefore they who oppose us give their testimony to these
[i.e. the four Gospels] and use them, our proof derived from
them is firm and trustworthy."'-
From this passage, then, it is evident that even at that early
period Irenaeus considered that patristical tradition was but a
part of the proof of the genuineness, &c. of Scripture, and that
an important part of it consisted in the testimony of others, of
those who might be considered more independent and impartial
witnesses. Moreover, that the testimony of the heretics as a body was in
favour of Scripture as a whole follows from the very complaint
so frequently made by the Romanists and our opponents, — a com
plaint no doubt justified to some extent by fact, and supported
by the Fathers, — that the heretics were in the habit of appeal
ing to Scripture in support of their views.
We have next to inquire whether these writings as we now
possess them are in an incorrupt state.
Here, again, it is natural to observe, first, the care of the
church with regard to them. The early Christians would no
doubt be exceedingly solicitous to preserve these writings incor
rupt. The originals seem long to have been preserved with
great care in the custody, not of any private individual, but of
the archives of the churches, and copies were taken by persons
approved by the church. Moreover, the earliest preachers of
Christianity took great care to have copies dispersed every
where and left vvith their converts.^ And numerous translations
were made in very early times," some of which remain to this
day- But church-tradition strictly speaking has nothing to do with
the matter. We want only fidelity and accuracy in copying,
' Iren. adv. haer. lib. iii. u. xi. Ed. Grabe, p. 220. Ed. Mass. tom. i. pp. 189,
190. 2 See Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 37.
3 Aug. De doctr. Christ, lib. ii. c. 5. ed. Ben. tom. iii. p. 1. col. 21. Chrys. in
Joh. hom. ii. (al. 1.) ed. Ben. tom. viii. p. 10. Theodoret. De cur. GrEC. affect.
lib. V. ed. Schuize, tom. iv. pp. 839, 840.
VOL. I. I I

374 GROU.NDS FOR BELIEF
and handing down these writings themselves in an incorrupt
state to the next age, and this a deaf and dumb person could do
as well as any one else. It is obviously a very different thing to
hand down to posterity certain written documents and to hand
down reports of oral teaching. Written records left in the keep
ing of a Bishop, and handed down by each to his successor (as
the Scriptures were in early times) must surely be looked upon
in a very different light to oral reports of what this or that for
mer Bishop of the Diocese had preached.
And over and above this we have still stronger testimony in
favour of the incorrupt state of these writings in various other
ways; viz. in the number and antiquity of the copies and their
being found in all parts of the world, all agreeing with each
other in all essential points, in the antient versions, in the simi
larity of their contents lo the accounts given of them by the
earliest Fathers, and the quotations from them in those Fathers,
and also in the testimony borne to them by the great body of
the heretics, whose evidence tends to substantiate, some one
part, some another, of the sacred volume, and lastly in the quo
tations and references made by the enemies of Christianity.
But notwithstanding we have all this evidence (of the strength
of which we can form no idea without following it out into its
details) in favour of the genuineness and incorrupt state of these
writings, and that the question as to the preservation of written,
documents is essentially different to that which respects the
preservation of oral teaching, Mr. Newman coolly tells us, that
" whatever explanations the Protestant in question makes in be
half of the preservation of the written word will be found ap
plicable in the theory to the unwritten." (p. 46.) As well might
it be said, that one who heard a report that had passed through
a multitude of hands of a discourse orally delivered was as like
ly to be accurately informed respecting it, as he who had had
delivered to him through the same number of hands a written
copy of the discourse actually delivered. Even were it true that
we depended solely on patrjstical tradition for the incorrupt state
of the sacred books, that would not afford the slightest proof that
such tradition was to be depended upon for accurate informa
tion as to the oral teaching of the Apostles.
The argument is as usual taken from the Romish armoury.
" They," says the Jesuit Fisher, " that can deliver by uniform
tradition a false sense, why may they not also deliver a false text
as received from the Apostles ? an argument convincing and un
answerable." To which our learned Bishop White thus replies.
" The Jesuit imagineth that this argument is invincible. But let
not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that put
teth it off ... . The argument reduced to form will discover

THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. ;^75
its own weakness. ' If the text of the Scripture may as easily
be corrupted as the sense, then all they which can deliver by
uniform tradition a false sense may also deliver a false text. But
the text of the Scripture may as easily be corrupted as the sense.
Ergo, all they which can deliver by uniform tradition a false sense
may also deliver a false text.' The assumption of this syllogism,
which although it were concealed by the Paralogist, yet it must
be added to make the argument perfect, is apparently false, and
the contrary is true. The text of the Scripture cannot so easily
be corrupted as the sense, and therefore it is not necessary that
they which following human tradition or their own invention may
deliver a false sense shall likewise deliver a false text. First, the
text of the Scripture is contained in records and books which
are dispersed throughout the whole Christian world, and pre
served in all churches, and the copies and transcripts of them are
innumerable .... Secondly, when God Almighty would have
the knowledge and memory of things to be perpetual he com
manded that they should be committed to writing. Exod. xvii.
14, and xxxiv. 27. Deut. xxxi. 19  Thirdly, expe
rience of all ages testifieth that the text of the Scripture hath
been preserved inviolable even among Jews and heretics 
Fourthly, whereas the Jesuit compareth unanimous tradition of
the sense of Scripture wifh the written letter and text of the
Scripture, unless he equivocate in the name, terming that tra
dition which is collected from the Scripture, such uniform tra
dition as he boasteth of is very rare ; for it must be such as in
all ages and in all orthodoxal churches hath been the same.
Now the most undoubted and uniform tradition of all other is
concerning the number and integrity of the books of holy Scrip
ture, and yet in this difference hath been between one church
and another, and the later Roman church disagreeth with the
antient.'" And so elsewhere he says, " It is not necessary that
they which truly deliver the text shall also truly deliver the
Apostolical sense, and on the contrary a lying sense may be de
Uvered by them which retain the true and incorrupt letter of the
text, as appeareth by the Pharisees, Arians, Donatists, and many
other heretics.""
And so Augustine points out, in a passage already quoted, on
what a different ground the Holy Scriptures stand in this respect
to any other writings, and consequently to the sources whence
our opponents' traditive statements and interpretations are de
rived ; the writings of no bishop, however illustrious, being ca-
1 Reply to Jesuit Fisher's Answer to certain questions, pp. 123—5.
2 Ib. pp. 120, 121. Bishop White is one of the divines of the '¦ Anglo-Catho-
lic Library."

376 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF
pable of being preserved as the canonical Scripture is preserved
on account of the number of languages in which it is found, and
its being constantly rehearsed in the church, which rendered any
attempt at corruption or forgery useless.*
It may be well to inquire in the next place, what evidence
we have that these writings are authentic ; that is, that the
facts related in them, really took place. A consideration of this
evidence will lead the mind more easily to the great point which
we have to consider afterwards, the great truth sought to be es
tablished. We have, then, for this truth, first, the internal evidence of
these writings themselves. The facts related are not such as
men are likely to have feigned ; they are frequently injurious to
the character of the writers ; there was no reasonable motive
for such a fiction, for it led the authors only into temporal calami
ties and death ; and many similar weighty considerations conspire
to show the truth of the facts stated.
We have next the external evidence ; first, fhat derived from
the church. But this is not church-tradition, but merely the
fact of the belief of these books by so many, at a time, when, if
the events recorded in them had not been true, they would have
obtained no credit ; secondly, that derived from the witness of
heretics, and also from the numerous and direct testimonies af
forded by the Jews and heathen, the enemies of Christianity, that
the chief events here recorded did really happen.
To these evidences may be added further those considerations
which show us the credibility of the statements of Scripture ;
such, for instance, as prove the credibility of miracles, remove
apparent contradictions, and show that there is nothing in these
writings contrary to reason ; none of which, however, as is evi
dent, can be derived at all from church-tradition.
In all these preliminary points, then, there is one only in which
patristical tradition, properly speaking, can aid us; and that is, on
the question' of the genuineness of the Scriptures; and there,
though important and necessary as part of the proof, we have
other and still more unexceptionable testimony.
Supposing, then, that the Scriptures we possess are genuine,
incorrupt, authentic, and credible, we have next to inquire,
what evidence we have that they may be reckoned the word of
God ; which, as we have already observed, is tantamount to the
inquiry what evidence we have of the divine mission of our Lord
and the inspiration of his Apostles ; or at least a proof of the
latter will equally demonstrate the former.
Let us begin with the divine mission of our blessed Lord.
1 See pp. 200, 201 above.

THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 377
Now to go to church-tradition for any direct proof of this, or
of the inspiration of the Apostles, is obviously absurd; for if there
were no foundation for these truths, any, even the highest, de
gree of catholic consent, would have no real weight; for all the
value that can be ascribed to it in this case, rests, upon the sup
position that these are truths. The only weight, therefore, which
church-tradition can have in these points, is from its being the
representation of the opinion of a vast number of individuals, wbo,
frora the time of the appearance of our Lord to this, have held
that these are truths, which may reasonably be an introductory
motive* to belief in them, rendering their truth in some degree
probable, but nothing more ; for the same evidence is afforded to
Mohammedism and Paganism.
The truth we are now seeking to establish, rests upon two sorts
of evidence, external and internal.
The external consists chiefly of the evidence derived from the
four following sources.
(1) The voice from heaven at our Lord's baptism, and at his
transfiguration. (2) The miracles he wrought ; especially as connected with the
character of his doctrine.
(3) The prophecies of the Old Testament fulfilled in him, and
his own recorded in the New Testament.
(4) The power and success of the Gospel, notwithstanding its
opposition to the feelings and desires of the natural mind.
To enlarge upon these points, and show the demonstrative
nature of the proof derived from them, is not now our object.
It has been done over and over again, far more ably than we
•could hope to do it. But we have to point out upon what testi
mony this external evidence rests, and to show how little church-
tradition has to do wifh it.
For the first, then, we have the testimony of the Apostles in
their writings (already shown to be genuine and authentic) re
cognized by Celsus, the great enemy of Christianity. This af
fords at least some probable evidence of the divine mission of our
Lord. For the second, that is, our Lord's miracles, we have the tes
timony, not only of the Apostles, but what is more, of his great
enemies, the Jews; and fhat not merely as recorded by the
Apostles, but by their own writers, and also of heathen writers.
For the third, we have for the existence of the prophecies
fulfilled in him, long previous to his incarnation, the irrefutable
evidence of the books of the Old Testament, then and still in the
keeping of his great enemies, the Jews; and for those uttered by
1 See Land s Conf with Fisher, and Stiliingfleet's Grounds, &c. pp. 187, 8.

378 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF
him, the testimony (already proved to be authentic) of his Apos
tles, and for their fulfilment, as regards the Jews, the universally-
received attestations of history, as well as the evidence of their
present state.
For the fourth, we have the testimony, both of friends and
enemies, and of our own senses.
The reader may at once see, then, how far we have to de
pend upon church-tradition for this evidence.
The internal evidence is derived from the excellent nature
and effects of the doctrine which our Lord taught. The appeal
here is to the hearts and consciences of mankind ; and however
those who have been accustomed from infancy to enjoy its light,
may slight the evidence which its brilliancy affords of its divine
origin, it was looked upon at its advent, by those who could ap
preciate it, in a very different light. By the early teachers of
Christianity, this was the great evidence put forward in proof of
its divine origin ; an evidence, of which tirne cannot weaken the
force, and which, as it appears lo me, still remains the most pow
erful inducement to men to embrace the Christian faith, the
most convincing argument of its divine origin. It is quite true
that the prepossessions of the natural mind may often lead it into
error, when so judging; but that is due, not to the character of
the evidence from which the judgment is formed, but to the
corruption of our fallen nature. It is no more a proof that
Christianity does not show its origin by the internal evidence it
carries with it, than heretical misallegations of Scripture show
that Scripture does not bear a clear testimony in favour of the
orthodox faith.
There is one observation, however, I would make respecting
it ; and that is, that it appears fo me to be applicable only in
proof of the divine mission of the Founder of our religion; be
cause that religion, when once introduced, might be preached
by many who were entirely destitute both of inspiration and di
vine commission to do so. The evidence of the internal witness
of Scripture to its divine inspiration, is, I conceive, of this kind;
viz., that the revelation made, taken as a whole, is so excellent
in its nature and effects, as to bear a powerful witness to its di
vine origin, and consequently to the divine mission of Him who
first dehvered it to mankind ; not that the internal evidence can
be a sure criterion as to any particular book to establish its
inspiration ; though it may, in some cases, be sufficient to nega
tive it.
Thus, then, do we establish the divine mission of our Lord ;
and consequently the truth that what he delivered was the word
of God.
But then, it becomes necessary to inquire what were the quali-

THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 379
fications of those who have delivered his doctrine to us. Though
we may suppose that they were honest and faithful narrators of
events, have we any assurance that they were preserved from
error in delivering that doctrine to us, and still more in enlarg
ing upon, and explaining, and adding to that doctrine ? If, in
deed, we agreed with the Romanists and our opponents, that fal
lible men could convey to us a " practically infallible" report of
doctrinal truths, we need not, as far as our Lord's teaching was
concerned, have made any further inquiry ; but (and I shall leave
to our opponents to give the reason) it certainly appears that
even as to this, we have not been left to the teaching of mere
fallible men.
We have proof that the Apostles were inspired ; and this fact,
which may be proved by their miracles connected with the
character of their teaching, may show that when we assumed in
the proof of the divine mission of our Lord that their writings
were authentic, we had not merely the proof of it already given,
but a stronger in their inspiration.
Assuming, however, that the evidence adduced on the former
points has been conclusive, we ground the doctrine of their inspira
tion, on the following evidence.
(1) The promises of our Lord.
(2) The affirmations of the Apostles in their writings.
(3) The miracles they wrought, especially as connected with
the character of the doctrine they preached, showing that they
were to be depended upon.
(4) The prophecies they delivered.
In the first of these, I refer to such promises as that recorded
in John xvi. 13, that the Spirit should guide them into all truth,
and see John xx. 21, 22; in the second, to such declarations as
that of St. Paul, when he says to the Thessalonians, " When ye
received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it
not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God,
which effectually worketh, also, in you that believe;" (1 Thess.
ii. 13.) and those of St. Peter, where he says to the Christians of
his day, that the gospel had been preached unto them with the
Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, (1 Pet. i. 12,) and exhorts
them to be " mindful of the words which were spoken before by
the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the Apostles
of the Lord and Saviour," (2 Pet. iii. 2,) and ranks St. Paul's
writings with the " other Scriptures," (2 Pet. iii. 16;) and gene
rally to the tone of authority in which they speak, as infallible
expositors of the doctrines of Christianity.
To give weight to the evidence derived from these two sources,
we must, of course, assume the divine mission of our Lord, and
also that the Apostles were not impostors ; for which we must refer

380 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF
back to the proof of the authenticity of their writings ; or we may
ground it upon that which we have now to notice as
The third, and an independent and still stronger testimony to
their character, viz., the miracles they wrought, especially when
we consider the nature of the doctrine they preached. These
may not perhaps be a direct proof of the inspiration of all which
they delivered on the subject of religion, but they certainly show
their true character, and are a divine attestation to the truth of
their claim to be considered divinely-appointed teachers of man
kind. By these God bare witness to them.. (Heb. ii. 4.)
Now the testimony upon which we believe these miracles to
have been wrought, is derived — first, from the account left us
in writing by one of the followers of the Apostles; I mean the
book of the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke, of which the
genuineness, authenticity, &c. may be established, as in the case
of the Apostolical Scriptures ; and secondly, from the admis
sions of Jews and heathens, who were compelled to resort to the
charge of magical practices against them, to account for the
miracles they performed.
The fourth ground is that afforded us by the prophetical spirit
vouchsafed to them, the evidence of which we see not only in the
Scriptures, but in events confessedly subsequent to their times.
On these grounds, then, we believe that the Apostles were in
spired, and being thus divinely preserved from error, and instruct
ed in the truth, were both infallible witnesses of the doctrine
taught by our Lord, and infallible instructors of mankind in
religion. We thus establish, then, the truth in question, viz. the divine
mission of our Lord, and the inspiration of his Apostles, and con
sequently that the Scriptures of the Apostles are the word of
God. And whenever a strict proof of this truth is sought, it
must be of this kind and nature. And, as is evident, the sole use
of church-tradition in it is to bear witness to us, who live at a
considerable distance of time from the period in which Christi
anity was first promulgated, of certain facts cognizable by the
senses of mankind, matters which in the first instance were not
objects oi faith but of knowledge, not revelations of doctrine in
which fallible men are so likely to make mistakes, but facts such
as neither friend or foe, if honest, could make any mistake about ;
and further, the tradition of the church is only a part, and not
the strongest part, of the proof of those facts and events having
taken place.
There now remains, then, for consideration, the case of those
three books, the authors of which were not Apostles, viz. the
Gospels of Mark and Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles by Luke.*
' If the Epistle to the Hebrews is not allowed to be St. Paul's, (though there

THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 381
And here I wish to draw attention to a fact which appears to
me to have almost if not quite escaped observation, but which the
general language of the Fathers on the subject, and particularly
a passage of Tertullian, seem clearly to prove, namely, thatthe
rule by which the canon of the New Testament was formed was
this, that such works only should be admitted into it as were
either written by Apostles or directly commended to the Church
by them for its guidance and instruction. The passage of Ter
tullian to which I allude is one in his 4th book against Marcion,
where being about to prove that the Gospel received by Marcion
was spurious and of no authority, he says, " We lay it down in
the first place that the volume containing the authoritative re
cords of the Gospel, (evangelicum instrumentum) has the Apos
tles for its authors, upon whom this office of publishing the Gos
pel was imposed by our Lord himself; if besides these it admits
Apostolical writers, it admits not such in their own character
alone, but as associated wifh the Apostles, and as inferior to the
Apostles, since the preaching of the disciples might be suspected of
beinginfluenced by the desire of gloryif ^Ae authority of the mas
ters should not be affixed io it, or rather the authority of Christ
which made the Apostles masters. In fine, John and Matthew
of the Apostjes instil the faith into us, Luke and Mark of apostoli
cal men renew the faith already imparted," &c. (*) And further
on he adds, — " If the teacher himself of Luke, [i. e. St. Paul,]
sought the authority of those that were Apostles before him, both
for his faith and preaching, [alluding to St. Paul's going up to
Jerusalem soon after his conversion to see the Apostles,] how
much more should I require thai authority for the Gospel of
Luke which was necessary for the Gospel of his Master ?"{')
Nothing I think can be more clear than that these passages fully
show that, in the opinion of TertulUan, nothing was to be received
info the canon of the New Testament, but that which had an
Apostle for its author, or had received direct Apostolical sanction.
And this is very much confirmed by what Jerome says, in the
passage quoted from him a few pages back ; that John was " an
is as appears to me satisfactory evidence that it is,) it must be added to the
above. (i) Constituiraus in primis, Evangelicum Instrumentum Apostolos auctores
habere, quibus hoc munus Evangelii promulgandi ab ipso Domino sit impositum.
Si et Apostolicos, non tamen solos, sed cum Apostolis et post Apostolos. Quo
niam praedicatio discipulorum suspecta fieri posset de glorise studio, si non ad-
sistat illi auctoritas magistrorum, immo Christi, qui magistros Apostolos fecit
Denique nobis fidem ex Apostolis Johannes Matthaeus insinuant, ex Apostolicis
Lucas et Marcus initaurant, Tertulx. Adv. Marc. iv. 2. Ed. 1664. p. 414.
(2) Igitur si ipse illuminator Lucae auctoritatem antecessorum et fidei et prae-
dicationi suae optavit, quanto magis eam Evangelio Lucde expostulem qu« Evan
gelio magistri ejus fuit necessaria 1 Id. ib.

382 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF
Apostle, inasmuch as he wrote Epistles to the churches as a
master." The fancy, therefore, of some persons, fhat the early church,
that is, a certain number of its rulers, took upon themselves to
decide whether this man or that, this work or that, was inspired,
has no place but in their own imaginations.
Such was the principle, then, upon which the primitive Church
acted in forming the canon ; and accordingly we find in the Fa
thers a recognition of this principle, in their having taken care
to inform us that these books received Apostohcal sanction.
Thus of St. Mark's Gospel it is said by Tertullian, that it may
be considered as Peter's (Preti adfirmetur,) whose interpreter
Mark was;* by Eusebius, that the hearers of Peter, at Rome,
"earnestly entreated Mark, Peter's follower, whose gospels is
extant at this day, that he would leave wifh them some written
record of that doctrine they had heard ; neither did they desist
till they had prevailed with the man ; and thus they gave the
occasion of writing that gospel which is called the Gospel accord
ing to Mark. When the Apostle Peter understood by the
revelation of the Holy Spirit what was done, he was much de
lighted with the ardent desire of the men, and confirmed that
writing by his authority, that so thenceforward it should be
read in the churches -"^ which account Eusebius gives from Cle-
rpent of Alexandria, and says that Papias had borne the same
testimony.' The same thing is stated by Origen,* Jerome, the
author of the Synopsis attributed fo Athanasius, Cosmas Indico-
pleustes, Nicephorus, and Eutychiusof Alexandria.^ And there
is a passage in the Second Epistle of Peter, which seems strongly
to indicate an intention of leaving behind him some written re
cord of the gospel he had preached, where he says, " I will en
deavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these
things always in remembrance." (2 Pet. i. 15.)
Of St. Luke's gospel it is said by Tertullian, that it was " cus
tomarily ascribed to Paul;^ and in the passage quoted above,
that it owed its authority to Apostolical sanction ; and by Ori
gen it is called " the gospel commended by Paul ;"' and by Euse
bius it is said, "They say also that Paul was wont to mean the
Gospel according to St. Luke, when, speaking as it were of his
• Tertull. Adv. Marc. lib. iv. c. 5. p. 416.
2 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 15.
3 See Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. ult., and lib. vi. c. 14.
" Euseb. H. E. vi. 25.
"• See these testimonies in Lardner's Suppl. to his Credibility. Works, vol. ».
pp. 332, &s.
6 LucEE digcstum Paulo adscribere solent. Adv. Marc. iv. 5. p. 416.
'I Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 25.

THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 383
own gospel, he says, ' According to my Gospel ;' "* and by Nice
phorus, that it was published by the direction of Paul, and by
the author of the Synopsis attributed to Athanasius, that it was
dictated by Paul.^
Of both these Gospels, also, it is said by Eusebius, that they,
together with that by St. Matthew, were shown to St. John, who
" approved of them, and confirmed the truth thereof by his own
testimony."' The gospel of St. Luke particularly needs some such testimony
to it to give it authority, as St. Luke himself only professes (as
it appears to me) to give the accounts that had been furnished
him by others who had been eye-witnesses and ministers of the
Word.* With respect to the Actsof the Apostles, we have not the same
express testimony to its having received Apostohcal sanction, ex
cepting in the Synopsis attributed to Athanasius, where it is
said to have been dictated by Peter ;5 and as it seems probable
that both his Gospel and the Acts were written nearly about the
same time, and while Paul was at Rome, (whose companion and
disciple more especially Luke was,) it is not improbable that the
former part of the Book of the Acts might be Peter's dictation,
though not the latter, which relates to scenes witnessed not by
Peter but by Paul and Luke himself. The principle, however,
being established by the passage of Tertullian above quoted,
that the works of Apostolical men needed the sanction of an
Apostle to establish their canonicity,it is not absolutely necessary
for us to have direct testimony to the fact, knowing the princi
ple upon which the primitive Church went in recognizing its
canonicity. And still further, we have in St. Augustine a very
clear though indirect testimony, that such was the ground upon
which all these three books, the Acts included, were admitted
info the Canon. For speaking of the Gospel of St. Luke, he
says," But he [Luke] has not only brought down his narrative to
the resurrection and ascension of the Lord, so as to have a place
worthy his labour among the four authors of the Evangelical
Scripture, but also afterwards so wrote the things that were done
by the Apostles, — those things, that is, which he considered to
be sufficient for establishing the faith of those who read or heard
them, — that his book alone was considered trustworthy in the
Church, in its account of the acts of the Apostles, all those being
rejected who dared to give an unfaithful account of the acts and
' Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 4. (ed. Val.)
2 See Lardner as above, pp. 352, &3. And see Iren. lib. iii. c. 14.
3 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 24.
* Luke i. 1—3.
' Synops, Script. Sacr. n. 76. Athan. Op. tom. ii. p. 202. ed. Bened.

384 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF
sayings of the Apostles. Because (quippe) Mark and Luke
wrote at a time at which they .could be sanctioned, not only by
the Church of Christ but also by the Apostles themselves yet
remaining in the flesh."^
Such, then, being the principle upon which the canonicity of
these books was admitted by the primitive Church, we, admit
ting that principle, have only to inquire whether we have suffi
cient testimony to induce us to believe that the Apostles did
commend them to the Church for its guidance and instruction ;
and for this we have the fact of their admission into the canon
by the universal Church from the earliest times, as books that
had received that sanction (for this, as we have shown, was con
sidered necessary for such admission) united with the direct tes
timony borne to their having received that sanction by many of
the Fathers of the Church. And after we have received the
writings of the Apostles as inspired, I know no reason why we
should hesitate to admit this testimony as sufficient, seeing the
congruity of their statements with the revelation we have alrea
dy admitted, to entitle them to a place in the canon ; for all
that we want to know is the ^ac^ that they received Apostolical
sanction. If our opponents tell us that we are not able to judge of their
statements by " tradition," I would remind them of the way in
which Tertullian proved, in his controversy with Marcion, the
uncorrupted preservation of his copy of St. Luke's Gospel. " If,"
saith he, " the Apostolical Gospels have come down to us uncor
rupted, and our copy of Luke's Gospel has snch congruency
with their rule as to remain with them in the churches, then it
is clear that Luke's Gospel has come down fo us uncorrupted
until Marcion's sacrilege."^ If this argument is valid, then it
neither was nor is necessary to go to tradition to judge of the in
ternal evidence of these books, (which Mr. Keble would fain per
suade us was the great test in the admission of books inlo the
canon); but a comparison of them with the Apostolical, will
show a congruency with their rule, and this is all that the in
ternal evidence can do with respect to such books.
If asked, then, upon what grounds I receive any one of the
Apostolical books of the New Testament to be inspired, (for
> Iste autem non solum, &c  Eo quippe tempore scripserunt Marcus et
Lucas, quo non solum ab Ecclesia Christi, verum etiam ab ipsis adhuc in carne
manentibus ApostoUs probari potuerunt. August. De cousens. Evangelist, lib. iv.
t. 8. tom. iii. P. 2. p. 155.
2 Si enim Apostolica integra decurrerunt [decucurrerunt]. Lues autem quod
est secundum nos adeo congruit regute eorum, ut cum illis apud ecclesias ma-
neat, jam et Lucffi constat integrum decucurrisse usque ad sacrilegium Marcionis.
Tertull. Adv. Marc. iv. 5. p. 416.

THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 385
we must, of course, begin with those written by the Apostles,)
I reply, my first inquiry is as to the genuineness and uncorrupted
preservation of the book. The next as to the character of the
author, and the evidence I have fbr his inspiration. Finding
him to be one of the Apostles of our Lord, I inquire what evi
dence I have as to the divine mission of our Lord, and having
established on internal and external evidence (as before stated)
the character of our Lord and his Apostles, I conclude in favour
of the inspiration of the book. And this method will answer for
all the books of the New Testament, with the exception of the
Gospels of Mark and Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles.
There are, indeed, as we have already intimated, some books
of the New Testament, for the genuineness of which the testi
mony of the primitive Church was not consentient. Consequent
ly, as far as patristical testimony goes, there is an uncertainty in
the case. And hence, I suppose, it is undeniable, that he who
firmly believes those books to be part of the canon, must have
some better foundation for his belief than patristical testimony,
or the voice of the Church. And there is nothing, perhaps,
which more strongly shows the inconsistencies to which Romish
views on these matters lead, than the fact, that while the Romish
Church of the present day maintains the canonicity of the Epis
tle to the Hebrews as the infallible witness of church-tradition,
and tells us, that from church-tradition only can we learn the
canon, it is a historical fact, that in the fourth century this in
fallible witness of church-tradition maintained that it was not
canonical. And here I would ask our opponents, upon what evidence
they receive these books. If they say upon patristical tradition,
they contradict their own tenet, that catholic consent alone is a
sufficient foundation for faith, and pin their faith upon the decla
rations of that portion of the Catholic Church whose determina
tions please them. If they admit the insufficiency of patristical
tradition in proof of the canonicity of these books, they over
turn the position against which we are here contending.
With respect to the three books not written by Apostles, I
would remark that for the two former we have the internal tes
timony (to be judged of by its congruency with the writings of
the Apostles already admitted as inspired) which is not, I grant,
a sufficient proof after the introduction of Christianity, united
with the direct and express testimony of the Fathers, that they
were sanctioned and recommended by Apostles, and the unani
mous testimony (as far as it is ascertainable) of the early Church
in their favour, manifestly grounded on their having received
Apostolical sanction. With respect to the third, viz. the Acts of
the Apostles, we have the internal testiinony (to be judged of as
VOL. I. K K

386 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF
before) united with the unanimous testimony of the early Church
in its favour, grounded manifestly on the supposition of its having
received such sanction.
With respect also to those books that are rejected, the question
may be at once determined historically. For instance, as to the
pretended Epistle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans, the case is clear.
There is no sufficient proof of its genuineness. And the writings
of those who were not Apostles have, of course, no pretence,
apart from very strong and direct evidence in their favour, to a
place in the Canon, and therefore need not be considered. And,
therefore, when Mr. Newman tells us, " We include the second
Epistle of St. Peter, we leave out St. Clement's Epistle to the
Corinthians, simply because the Church Catholic has done so,"
(p. 341, 2,) he might as well say that we leave out the Epistles
of Ignatius, or the works of Irenaeus^ or anybody else, " simply
because" the Fathers have done so. We neither put in nor
leave out " simply because" the Fathers have done so, for I
would beg to ask whether, supposing that they had said, " we
grant that Clement's Epistle never received Apostolical sanction,
but we reckon it among the inspired books," that would have
been a sufficient reason for putting it into the Canon. If not, it
is not " simply because" the Fathers admitted one and rejected
another that we do the same. We look to the grounds of their
judgment. Such, then, is the evidence for the genuineness, uncorrupted
preservation, inspiration, and consequent canonicity of the New
Testament Scriptures. A brief sketch of its leading features
has been all that our limits in this place have allowed us to give.
But the more it is expanded into its details, the more complete
and convincing will it be found to be. And of this evidence the
tradition of the Church is but one part, and in the most import
ant part of the question, namely, the divine origin of the revela
tion contained in the Scriptures, it is a part of the evidence
wholly insufficient by itself to constitute a proof. The utmost
which it could do is to certify us of the genuineness and incor
rupt preservation of these writings.
Further; were we to admit that the patristical tradition we
possess is by itself sufficient to assure us of the genuineness and
incorrupt preservation of the writings of the New Testament,
(a question which it is unnecessary to enter into, because we have
other evidence on the point,) it would by no means follow that it
was a sufficient and certain witness of the oral teaching of the
Apostles so as to be a divine informant. For it is a totally differ
ent thing to hand down certain books as written or sanctioned
by the Apostles, and to give a correct report of their oral teach
ing, whether concerning doctrines or rites. In the case of doc-

THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 387
trines more especially, it is evident that testimony which might
be very sufficient to establish the genuineness of the Scriptures
might be very insufficient to establish the genuineness of doctri
nal statements professing to come from the oral teaching of the
Apostles. I may believe fully the genuineness of a work upon
evidence which would be wholly insufficient to establish the cer
tainty of a doctrinal statement reported to me as having been
orally delivered by the author of that work. True, our oppo
nents ground their proof of the correctness of the report of it
to which they refer on its being delivered by all Catholics every
where, urging that such consent proves its correctness. But then,
as we have already observed, the proof of this consent is lamenta
bly deficient, and in fact the claim to it evidently unfounded.
There is no such testimony for the Apostolical origin of any doc
trine or rite not contained in Scripture, or any interpretation of
Scripture, as for the genuineness of the books of the New Tes
tament, I believe I might say, of all, but certainly of all but
those books whose genuineness was doubted of by some in the
primitive Church, in which case neither party can be assured
on the point by the testimony of patristical tradition. And were
we even to suppose such consent, its weight in reporting an oral
doctrinal statement of the Apostles, however great, would be
very different, as we have already intimated, to the weight
which it has in bearing witness fo a certain book having come
from the Apostles. Were we even to allow, then, that in both
cases there was consent in the remaining Fathers (which we by
no means do) and that the testimony was sufficient in the latter
case, it would by no means follow that il was so in the former.
Nay more, the character of the testimony is altogether dif
ferent. The witness borne to Scripture is direct. It is of this
nature. Such and such a book was written by such an Apostle,
the book being cited under his name. But in the case of doc
trines, interpretations, or practices, it is not in general pretend
ed that the witness appealed to by our opponents is of this di
rect kind ; and if such a pretence be made, facts will imme
diately disprove its truth. There are few cases in which the
Fathers can be shown to have made generally any direct claim
to be delivering the oral teaching of the Apostles, and the two
in which such claims are made wifh the most confidence, and by
the greatest number, are just those which are generally disal
lowed, viz., the doctrine of the millenium and the practice of
giving the eucharist to infants.
Moreover, in the delivery of a doctrinal statement we have
to contend with all the difficulties arising from the carelessness
and inaccuracy of the writer, the indistinctness of his concep
tions, the bias to which his subject inclined him, difficulties

388 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF
which any man of experience in such matters will know are
quite sufficient to prevent the possibility of any proof of consent
even where consent might exist.
And as to matters of fact and the rites and practices of the
church, what is there for which we have anything like consentient
patristical testimony for its Apostolical origin ? We have, no
doubt, on many points patristical testimony strongly confirmatory
of the correctness of our interpretation of Scripture in matters
both of doctrine and practice, but the only testimony which
bears a comparison with that for the genuineness of Scripture is
a direct ascription of the doctrine or practice to Apostohcal
teaching. Now, then, let our opponents no longer envelope themselves
in the smoke of fine words and vague generalities, but fairly tell
us what doctrine or practice, or what interpretation of Scrip
ture can challenge such, direct testimony to its Apostolical origin
from the Catholic Fathers as a body, and point out the passages
in which such testimony is to be found. For instance, let
them point out the passages in which it is stated that the Apos
tles directed that infants should be baptized, and then let them
compare with the evidence they find on this point the direct tes
timonies of the Fathers to the authorship of the books of the
New Testament. The evidence will be found to be of an alto
gether different kind.
It is quite true that the process by which the truth that Scrip
ture is the word of God is arrived at, and the motives inducing
men to believe it, may be very different in different individuals.
One may begin at one part of the proof and another at another,
one may be chiefly influenced by one part and another by ano
ther. And generally in the case of those who have been in
structed by the Church, the teaching of the Church as to the
sacredness of these books is the introductory motive to belief in
them as the Word of God, so that any subsequent inquiry re
specting them is commenced with a feeling of reverent regard
towards them. And this feeling united with a contemplation
of the internal testimony to the divine origin of the revelation
they contain, in the excellent nature and effects of that revela
tion, may, and often will, (always, with the assistance of God's
Spirit) produce in the mind a belief in this truth, without any
such elaborate investigation of the evidence for it as that to which
we have just alluded.
But, in no case, and under no circumstances, can the tradition
of the Church be justly taken as sufficient proof of a matter
which involves a doctrine affecting the very foundation upon
which the church stands. Even were tradition a safe guide, as
far as concerns conveying to us the oral traditions of the Apostles,

THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 389
it would not at all follow that it was a safe guide in this point,
for the doctrine that Scripture is the Word of God, necessarily
depends upon the character of our Lord and his Apostles ; and
this cannot be proved by any oral declaration of the Apostles to
that effect, and still less by any decree of the Church.
But, doubtless, for the genuineness and inspiration of those
particular writings which form the New Testament, there can
be no sufficient proof to the unassisted mind, without good exter
nal evidence ; and the external evidence we have for these truths,
appears to me, to be, as far as external evidence can go, (for
those parts, at least, of the New Testament that have universal
tradition in their favour,) conclusive.
AfUd hence, it is the duty of every man who is qualified by edu
cation to do so, to inquire into the evidences for the doctrine that
Scripture is the word of God; and unless he does this, he cannot
possess that evidence of the truth of the doctrine of the inspira
tion of Scripture which is necessary (putting out of sight the
work of the Spirit upon the heart) to form so complete a proof
of it as to leave no room for reason to cavil or hesitate.
It is quite true that God may so convince the mind of any truth,
by a direct operation upon the soul, that such a man would be
guilty, and without excuse before him, for not believing it. But
in the first place, this can be no evidence to any one but himself.
And further, knowing the discordant opinions that have been
maintained under the su,pposition oi snch an internal testimony,
it is clearly the duty of such an one to see that it is not opposed
by other reasonable testimony, and to ascertain, as far as he is
able, how far it is supported by other testimony. Granted that
he may not be able to see or understand all the evidence there
is in its favour, and that if he finds that it is not opposed by other
valid evidence, this may be enough for satisfaction in such a case,
yet the inquiry it is his duty to make. And this I conceive to
be practically the situation of many Christians, who, from cir
cumstances, are prevented from taking that clear and compre
hensive view of the evidences for Scripture which could demon
strate its divine origin. Here, as far as human assent could go,
the ground for belief is lessened ; but, in the case which we are
now supposing, the work is one of Divine power, and therefore
the Satisfaction possessed by the mind proportionably strong.
Nevertheless, the same reason which makes it incumbent upon
such a man to look beyond the internal impressions produced
upon his own mind in favour of the truth, either by the intrinsic
power of the word or by divine influence, goes to show that the
inquiry should be carried as far as the inquirer is able to investi
gate the subject. It is the duty and the privilege of one who
feels that religion is his chief concern, thus to investigate the

390 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF
proofs for the divine origin of the Scriptures, and so to strengthen
and fortify his faith in what they reveal.
Instead, however, of wishing men to make such inquiries, our
opponents urge them against so doing as both unnecessary and
dangerous, and that, not on account of the power of the internal
evidence of the word or the work of the Spirit, but as if, forsooth,
it were an affront to " the Church." Men are to be content to
receive all on faith in the dictum of " the church." Their lan
guage is, in fact, You must shut your eyes and walk straightfor
ward as your ecclesiastical guide tells you, and then all will be
right. Only be sure not to open your eyes and look where you
are going, for in that case, we will not answer for the consequen
ces; for we can assure you that some people who have used their
eyesight, have made mistakes. And in truth, holding the opin
ions they do (which we shall notice presently), as to the nature
of these evidences, and the state in which men are left, it is no
wonder that such is their advice.
But, say our opponents, what are men in general, particularly
the illiterate, to do, who are unable to investigate the evidences
for this truth ? I return the question, and shall probably be told
that the iUiterate must believe upon the testimony of the church.
But to the illiterate man, the testimony of the church is merely
the testimony of the individual who happens to be his pastor.
Will any man say that such testimony is a fit and proper ground
for faith ? He is not left to such a fragile reed to lean upon. He
has a testimony to the truth that Scripture is the word of God
infinitely superior to this — I mean in the internal evidence which
that Word brings with it of its divine origin in the excellent na
ture and effects of the revelation contained in it ; which, when
applied to the heart by the Spirit, is known and felt to be the
truth of God. And this testimony of the Holy Spirit to the writ
ten Word, given either directly, or indirectly through the revela
tion contained in it, seals it with an impress not to be mistaken
by those to whom it is vouchsafed, and without which, faith in
Scripture, as the word of God, is a mere historical faith, allo-
gether unprofitable to any saving purpose.
I hope our opponents are not prepared to deny this, though,
alas, of such operations of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of indi
viduals, we hear scarcely anything in their writings; and I will,
therefore, take the opportunity to call their attention to another
passage from one of their own witnesses, Dr. Jackson. " The
Holy Spirit who instructed the first messengers of the Gospel with
the true sense and knowledge of the truths therein revealed, and
furnished them with diversity of tongues to utter them to the
capacity of divers nations, can and doth, throughout all succeed
ing ages, continue his gifts, whether of tongues or others, what-

THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 391
soever are necessary for conveying the true sense and meaning
of saving truth already taught, immediatelt to the hearts of all
such, in every nation, as are not for their sin judged unworthy
of his society ; of all such as resist not his motions to follow the
lusts of the flesh. And as for men altogether illiterate, that can
not read the Scriptures in any tongue, we do not hold them bound
(nor, indeed, are any) to believe absolutely or expressly every
clause or sentence in the sacred canon to be the infalfible oracle
of God's Spirit otherwise than is before expressed ; but unto the
several matters or substance of truth contained in the principal
parts thereof, their souls and spirits are so surely tied and fastened,
that they can say to their own consciences, wheresoever these
men that teach us these good lessons, learned the same themselves,
most certain it is, that originally they came from God ; and by
the gracious providence of that God, whose goodness they so often
mention, are they now come to us. Such are, the rules and
testimonies of God's providence, the doctrines or real truths of
original sin, of our misery by nature, and freedom by grace ;
such are, the articles of Christ's passion and the effects thereof,
of the resurrection and life everlasting  Many other
points there be, not of like necessity or consequence, which unto
men specially altogether unlearned, or otherwise of less capacity,
may be proposed as the infallible oracles of God ; unto some of
which it is not lawful for them to give so absolute and firm
irrevocable assent as they must do to the former, because
they cannot discern the truth of them in itself, or for itself,
or with their own eyes, as, it is supposed, they did the trutn
of the former." (Book ii. Sect. 1. c. 2.)
With respect to the nature of that faith by which we believe
Scripture to be the word of God, it is said by the Romanists
that it must be a divine faith, that is, one that stands on divine
testimony; because, in all the articles of religion, faith must have
divine testimony to rest upon.
The object in view is to make the testimony of the Church
the ground upon which our belief of this truth rests. And they
make use of this proposition in two ways; first, to make us the
humble servants of " the Church" for a knowledge of this truth;
and also to build upon it the argument that the testimony of the
Church must be divine, because otherwise we should have no
sufficient ground for a belief in this necessary truth.
Now it is quite true that, for all the truths of religion, we
need divine testimony as the foundation for faith. But the ques
tion whether this or that is a divine testimony, is not, strictly
speaking, any part of religion, but rather a previous question.
Religion consists in that which is revealed. The revelation itself
includes all the doctrines of religion, strictly speaking. And he

392

GROUNDS FOR BELIEF

who believes the revelation contained in the Scriptures, though
he might never see the Scriptures, (the case with not a few in
antient, and perhaps some in modern times,) is as much in a state
of salvation, as he who enjoys the higher privilege of possessing
the Scriptures and faith in their inspiration.
Moreover, if it were absolutely necessary that before we could
believe any testimony to be divine, we must have divine testi
mony that it is so, then there could be no proof to be had of a
divine testimony; each one requiring another to prove it, and so
on, ad infinitum.
We may here remark, however, that even apart from the di
vine testimony vouchsafed in the work of the Holy Spirit upon
the heart, convincing of this truth, there was originally divine
testimony to the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture. For
this doctrine follows from that of the divine mission of our Lord,
and the inspiration of his Apostles; and, for that doctrine, we
have the testimony of the Father at Christ's baptism, the mira
cles wrought by our Lord and his Apostles, the testimony of pro
phecy, and the power and success of the Gospel ; all divine tes
timonies, whether men are disposed to admit them as such, or
not. For God bore witness, we are told, to the Apostles, with
signs and wonders, and divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy
Ghost ; (Heb. ii. 4.) and confirmed the word with signs follow
ing. (Mark xvi. 20.)
It is certainly a matter for consideration with one who is con
sidering the evidences for revelation, whether he has sufficient
grounds to admit them fo be divine testimonies or not. And this
is a question, with which every man has to deal, who is made
acquainted in any way with any thing that professes to be a di
vine testimony. He must seek for some rational grounds of con
viction that such testimony is divine ; and the motives inducing
him to believe that such is the case, ought to be such as approve
themselves to the reason of mankind. To judge the evidences
upon which the claim of any thing to be a divine testimony
rests, is the proper province of reason ; while, upon the revela
tion itself, it is exercised only so far as to ascertain that there is
nothing directly contrary to its dictates; and accepts with hu
mility much that may be in its full proportions infinitely above
it, transcending the powers of human reason, as much as the
Divine nature does the human. The resolution of the question.
Upon what grounds do I believe any thing to be a divine testi
mony, " must be fetched," says Bishop Stillingfleet, " from those
rational evidences whereby a divine testimony must be distin
guished from one merely human and fallible."*
• Orig. S. ii. 8.

THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 393
It is quite true that this divine testimony comes to us in part
only in the report of falUble men, and so far loses a portion of
its force. But still there was originally divine testiinony to the
inspiration of the Scriptures; and the report of that testimony is
an important evidence on the point to us. But the only direct
divine testimony to the point we now enjoy, is that of the Holy
Spirit upon the heart.
The Romanists, however, not satisfied with there having been
originally divine testimony to the inspiration of Scripture, main
tain that the testimony upon which every man believes this
truth, miist be divine ; when, in fact, apart from the direct wit
ness of the Holy Spirit in the heart, no man now has more than
a human report of such testimony.
Upon the whole, then, let us observe what is the state of the
case in this matter. The great and important question is,
Whether the religion revealed to us in the Scriptures of the
New Testament, is from God. And the great evidence in favour
of the affirmative, is to be found in the excellent nature and
effects of that religion, which may, even to the natural mind,
and certainly will to the spiritually enlightened mind, produce
a eonviction of its divine origin. The sincere inquirer after the
truth, therefore, to whom the gift of the Spirit is promised, is not
left in this matter to depend upon any human testimony. His
faith is grounded upon far better evidence, even the internal
power of the Word, sealed in his experience with the witness of
the Spirit to its divine origin. And this is, in fact, the very
marrow and substance of the question of the inspiration of Scrip
ture ; and all other points are in the comparison of but secon-
dciry importance.
But this, it may be said, affects only those parts of Scripture
in which the great truths of Christianity are delivered ; and does
not even here show more than the divine origin of the truths so
delivered ; whereas it is of importance to know to what extent
we have divine testimony on the subject of religion; and wheth
er the Scriptures, as they stand, proceeded from the pen of in
spired authors.
Now I will not venture so to limit the operations of God's
Spirit in the hearts of the faithful, as to affirm that such is the
case. But thus much I freely admit, that it is the duty of those
who are capable of making the inquiry, to ascertain the evidence
that exists upon these points.
Here, then, comes in the question of the canon ; and we have
already shown that for most of the books of the New Testament
we have, besides the internal testimony, various testimonies to
their Apostolical origin or sanction, among which one is the
unanimous witness of the antient records of the church ; and for

394 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF
the other books, similar testimony, except that patristical tra
dition is not unanimous on the point, and consequently the ex
ternal testimony not so indubitably in their favour, as for the
others. For the former, the moral evidence that they are the genuine
writings of the Apostles, is, we hold, such as to leave no doubt of
the fact, in the mind of any impartial person.. For the latter
the external evidence is not equally convincing. The burthen
of proof must be thrown more upon the internal evidence ; and
the guidance of God's Holy Spirit sought to enable us to judge
aright. For to assert that any ecclesiastical affirmation at the
present day can be a sufficient ground for faith in a matter in
which the primitive church was divided, may obtain for a man
the credit of being a very bold and confident friend of " the
Ghurch" but not that of a very wise or A'ery trust-worthy man.
Such then, we conceive, to be the foundation upon which we
have to rest in this question. For the divine origin of the reli
gion delivered tous in theScriptures, in all its great and import
ant features, every sincere inquirer after the truth has not only
the internal witness of its excellence, but also divine, testimony.
The Holy Spirit works conviction within him, and gives him a
knowledge and assurance of the truth. And I see not how,
even without further divine assistance, when he couples this tes
timony with the evident claims of the writers of the Scriptures
to divine guidance in their delivery of the truth, he can doubt of
the inspiration of those parts of Scripture, at least, in which the
great truths of Christianity are delivered. But, besides this, he
has, for nearly the whole of the Scriptures, moral evidence, of the
most convincing kind, of their having proceeded from inspired
authors. Here, then, is sufficient ground for faith to rest upon. It is at
no uncertainties. It has a foundation amply sufficient for its sup
port : and were it not so, it would not be faith.
But, alas ! our opponents to induce us, if possible, to embrace
their notions on the subject of " tradition," seem willing to leave
Christianity itself without any firm foundation to rest upon.
They are quite aware of the weakness of the reed upon which
they are leaning when using patristical tradition for the purpose
to which they apply it. But rather than give it up, they have
laboured to show that Christianity itself stands on no better
ground, and that the Christian's faith is a mere persuasion, en
compassed with doubts and difficulties, such as results from a
balance of opposing probabilities !
" The rule of Vincent," says Mr. Newman, " is not of a mathe
matical or demonstrative character, but moral, and requires prac
tical judgment and good sense to apply it. . . . How many Fathers,

THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 395
how many places, how many instances constitute a fulfilment of
the test proposed ? It is, then, from the nature of the case, a
condition which never can be satisfied as fully as it might
have been : it admits of various and unequal application in va
rious instances, and what degree of application is enough must
be decided by the same principles which guide us in the conduct
of life, which determine us in politics, or trade, or war, which
lead us to accept revelation at all, for which we have but
PROBABILITY TO SHOW AT MOST, NAY, TO BELIEVE IN THE
EXISTENCE OF AN L\TELLIGENT CREATOR." (pp.
68 — 69.) " We, for our part, have been taught to consider that
faith in its degree as well as conduct, must be guided by proba
bilities, and that doubt is ever our portion in this life. We
can bear to confess that other systems have their unanswerable
arguments in matters of detail, and that we are but striking a
balance between difficulties existing on both sides ; that we
are following as the voice of God, what on the whole we have
reason to think such." (p. 129.) And, therefore, the Romanists,
who justly think that doubt is incompatible with faith,* and have,
therefore, very unnecessarily and unwarrantably invented the
doctrine of infallibility to remove it, are told that they have
troubled themselves very unnecessarily about the matter, (p.
103.) And we are told that " according to English principles,
faith has all it needs in knowing that God is our Creator and
Preserver, and that he MAY IF IT SO HAPPEN, have spoken."
. . . " If we are asked hovi faiih differs from opinion, we reply in
its considering his being, governance, and will, as a matter oi per
sonal interest and importance to us, not in the degree of light
or darkness under which it perceives these truths." ....
"Nay, doubt may even be said to be implied in a Christian's
faitn  To require such definite and clear notices of
truth, is to hanker after the Jewish law, a system of less myste
rious information, as well as less generous faith." And he
says, that " Scripture is full of instances in point." And what
does the reader suppose is the instance he gives ? That of our
Saviour himself, who, he tells us, " scarcely once declared to in
quirers that he was the Christ," but " left thera to gather the
great truth for themselves how they could, with whatever de
gree OF certainty," &c., implying that no evidence was given
sufficient to exclude doubt. (See the whole of pp. 103 — 5.)
And a writer in the principal organ of our opponents, the British
Critic, replying to the objection that the evidence for tradition
is insufficient to produce assurance of its truth, meets the objec
tion on the ground that there is not (as he would have us be-
1 See Placette's Incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome, c. 1.

396 grounds for belief
lieve) indubitable evidence for Scripture. (Brit. Crit. for April,
p. 467,) And this remark is made apparently on the ground
that there are those who object to the sufficiency of that evi
dence, just as they tell us that Scripture must be obscure, be
cause some people misinterpret it.
And thus the Author of the 85th Tract says, " How do we
know that the whole Bible is the word of God ? Happily, at
present, we are content to believe this, because we have been
*© taught. It is our great blessedness to receive it on faith. .
. , , It does seem to me preposterous to confess that free in-
¦quis-y leads to scepticism, [who confesses this ?] and scepticism
makes one less happy than faith ; and yet that such free inquiry
is right. What is right, and what is happy, cannot, on the
iong run, and on a large scale, be disjoined. To follow truth
can never be a subject of regret •,free inquiry does lead a man
to regret the days of his child like faith, [which shows who it
is that thinks free inquiry does lead to scepticism, and therefore
wisely advises us to shut our eyes] therefore, it is not following
truth." (pp. 72, 3.) And after having depreciated, as far as pos
sible, the testimony we have for the canon of Scripture, in order
to make it appear not more than what we have for any of his
favourite doctrines, (pp. 75, &s.) and collected together " start
ling" passages of Scripture as a set-off to anything startling we
may find in his traditional doctrines ; (pp. 86 &s.) and, at last,
¦concluded that " the canon of Scripture rests on no other founda
tion than [what he calls] the catholic doctrines," and that " in
both cases we believe mainly because the church of the fourth
AND fifth centuries unanimously believed ; (p. 102.) feeling,
of course, the utter weakness of the foundation to which he has
¦reduced both, boldly tells us that in the intercourse between our
Lord and the Pharisees, the latter "were bid to believe on weak
arguments and fanciful deductions ; (p. 111.) and having thus
paved the way for his conclusion, sums up all with the following
observations, — " In connexion with what has been said, observe
the singular coincidence, or rather appositeness, of what Scrip
ture enjoins, as togoing hj faith in religious matters. The diffi
culties which exist in the evidence, give a deep meaning to
the exhortation. Scripture is quite aware of the difficulties.
Objections can be brought against its own inspiration, its can
onicity; against revealed doctrines, as in the case of the Jews ;
against the Messiahship of Jesus Christ. It knows them all ; it
has provided against them by recognizing them. It says ' Be
lieve,' because it knows that unless we believe there is no means
of divine knowledge. If we will doubt, that is, if we will not
allow evidence to be sufficient which merely results in a ba
lance on the side of revelation ; if we will determine that no

THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 397
evidence is enough to prove revealed doctrine but what is over
powering ; if we will not go by evidence ih which there are
(so TO SAV) THREE CHANCES FOR REVELATION, AND ONLY TWO
AGAINST, we cannot be Christians, we shall miss Christ, either in
his inspired Scriptures, or in his doctrines, or in his ordinances."
" Love is the parent of faith. We believe in things we see
not from love of them  Faith is reliance on the word
qf another; the word of another is, in itself, a faint evidence
compared with that of sight or reason. It is infiuential
only when we cannot do without it. Why should not the
church be divine? The burden of proof surely is on the other
side. I will accept her doctrines, and her rites, and her Bible —
not one, and not the other, but all — till I have clear proof that
she is mistaken. // is, /feel, God's will that I should do so ;
and besides I love these her possessions — / love her Bible, her
doctrines, and her rites, and therefore i believe." (pp.
112—15. If this is not the ne plus ultra of enthusiasm, where can we
find it ? And why, I would ask, may not the Pagan or Moham
medan be allowed the same answer? I am a Pagan, because I
love the doctrines and rites of Paganism. I am a Mohamme
dan because I love the doctrines and rites of Mohammed. The
answer is just as reasonable in their mouths, as in that of the
Christian. That there is no influential saving belief in the doc
trines of the Gospel, without some love of them, and therefore
that we need the love of God to be shed abroad in the heart by
the Holy Spirit, is indeed most true; and thankful should we
have been to have seen a recognition of this truth ; but for a
man to make faith depend upon a mere feeling of love, and se
riously to maintain that if we came to investigate the evidence
for our religion, and weigh the arguments pro and con, we should
find that there was a mere balance in its favour, in the pro
portion of three for, and two against ; and that, too, where
all the " love" and prepossessions of the writer are professedly
engaged on the side of the scale which he tells us does but just
preponderate, is indeed a fearful specimen of recklessness in
the support of a hypothesis. As if rather than not maintain it,
he would endanger the cause of Christianity itself.
Thus, in their wild zeal for tradition, they are sapping the
very foundations of Christianity. The doctrine which they have
here advanced, is precisely that which is calculated to drive men
either into Romanism, in order to find something which at least
professes to relieve men from doubt and uncertainty, or into in
fidelity. No wonder that any one should discourage men from looking
into the evidences for religion and the inspiration of the Bible,
VOL. 1. ^ ^

398 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF
who thinks that there is no better evidence than a small balance
of probabilities for them.
As to Mr. Newman's remark in the first of the passages quoted
above, that there is but probability for the existence of an In
telligent Creator, there are many Deists who would not have
made it.
And to give weight to these views, he has ventured even to
quote Bishop Butler as giving his sanction to them. For after
the first of the passages given above, where he speaks of having
"probability at most to show for revelation, he adds, " This
character, indeed, of Vincent's canon, will but recommend it to
the disciples of the school of Butler, from its agreement with the
analogy of nature." So that the fact here supposed that the
evidence for revelation is doubtful, is actually a recommenda
tion to our belief of it, if we agree with Bishop Butler. From
which it of course follows, that the more doubtful the evidence for
such a matter, the better claim it has upon our belief. And this
monstrum horrendum fathered upon that acute reasoner,
Bishop Butler. And on what ground ? Because Bishop Butler
has in his " Analogy" taken upon him to show the infidel that,
even if the evidence for Christianity were not such as to afford
him a proof that he could consider beyond exception certain, still
it amounts to such a degree of probability, that he is doing unwise
ly in such a matter not to act according to its dictates ; just as in
many other matters he would himself reckon it unreasonable
not to act upon evidence, which, nevertheless, he did not feel to
be free from the possibility of cavil. Bishop Butler not only
gives no countenance to the notion that he sympathized in the
feeling that the evidence for Christianity was open to any just
cavil or reasonable difficulty, but clearly shows that he had no
such notion. For while he invariably puts such views only into
the mouths of his opponents, as, for instance, " Persons who
speak of the evidence oi religion as doubtful, and of this sup
posed doubtfulness as a positive argument against it, should be
put upon considering," &c. (Pt. 2. c. 6.) ; and again, "If, upon
consideration of religion, the evidence of it should seem to any
persons doubtful, in the highest supposable degree, even this
doubtful evidence will, however, put them into a general state
of probation" (lb.), he speaks so clearly as to show that he re
garded the evidence for Christianity in a very different light.
'< Though," he says, " this proof [i. e. miracles] is real and con
clusive, yet it is liable to objections, and may be run up into diffi
culties ; which, however, persons who are capable not only of
talking of, but of really seeing, are capable of seeing through,
that is, not of clearing up and answering them so as to satisfy
• their curiosity ; for of such knowledge we are not capable with

THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 399
respect to any one thing in nature ; but capable of seeing that
the proof is not lost in these difficulties, or destroyed by these ob
jections." (Ib.) Again, speaking of the evidence for Christianity
from prophecy, he reminds his opponents that " those persons
who have thoroughly examined it, and some of them were men
of the coolest tempers, greatest capacities, and least liable to im
putations of predjudice, insist upon it as determinately conclu
sive.", {?t. 2. c. 7.) " The truth of our religion, like the truth
of common matters, is to be judged of by all the evidence taken
together. And unless the whole series of things which may be
alleged in this argument, and every particular in it, can reason
ably be supposed to have been by accident, (for here the stress
of the argument for Christianity lies,) then is the truth of it
proved." (Ib.)
It is difficult to conceive how Bishop Butler's meaning could
be so misapprehended as it has been by Mr. Newman. And
on^ cannot but regret, for the honour of our church, that such
statements as we are now commenting on, should ever have seen
the light, from the quarter from which they come.
If Mr. Newman had confined himself to the observation, fhat.
Bishop Butler had shown that it was Reasonable to act some
times upon evidence which though open to some cavils, rendered
any thing probable, and that consequently patristical tradition
was not to be despised because it was open to some cavils, that
would have been more Uke a fair application of the bishop's
mode of reasoning. But even then the argument would not
have been tenable. For the things which Bishop Butler is speaking
of are the highest verities of religion. Now it might be very true
that, as it respects the great doctrines of Christianity, doubtful
evidence might be a sufficient inducement to reasonable men to
act as persons 'convinced of their truth, and yet it would not
follow that the same evidence should be considered sufficient for
other matters. He who had once seen the tide return after ebb
ing, would infer the possibility of its returning again, and upon
that inference might reasonably act as if it certainly would do
so, because his life was at stake ; but if the utmost which the
return of the tide could do would be immaterial to him, then
there would be no absurdity in his waiting for further evidence.
Moreover, the two cases are altogether different. In the one
case a religion is offered us, which it is alleged is the only guide
to happiness in another world, and the belief of which, even if
it should turn out not to be true, can do us no harm, but, on the
contrary, will promote our real happiness here. We may rea
sonably act, therefore, as if it were true, even on doubtful evi
dence. But, in the other case, statements are brought lo us, claim
ing to be reports of the oral teaching of the Apostles, which, while

400 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF
they do not pretend to be of vital importance, may be but cor
ruptions of Christianity, and therefore be more or less injurious
tous. The argument of Bishop Butler, indeed, if thus strained to
matters to which it was never intended to apply, loses all its force.
For it might be applied to any thing we meet with in one or two
of the Fathers. Such things (it might be said) being thus men
tioned, there is a degree of probability that they had an Apos
tolical origin, and therefore, as Bishop Butler tells us that in re
ligious matters a degree of probability is a sufficient ground for
us to act upon, we are bound to act as if these statements were
certainly Apostolical. But who sees not, that such an applica
tion of his argument would be absurd?
Mr. Newman is fond of appealing to Bishop Stillingfleet, as
one who held his views. Let me call his attention, then, to the
following extract from that able and truly Protestant Prelate's
writings. " Those evidences," says the bishop, " whereby a divine tes
timony may be known, must be such as may not leave men's
minds in suspense, but are of their own nature convincing
proofs of it ... I know it is a great dispute among many,
whether those things which are usually called the common
motives of faith, do of their own nature only induce a probable
persuasion of the truth of the doctrine as probable which they
are joined with, or else are they sufficient for the producing a
firm assent to the doctrine as true ? I grant they are not de
monstrative so as to enforce assent, for we see the contrary by
the experience ofall ages; but that they are not sufficient foun
dation for an unprejudiced mind to establish a firm assent upon,
is a thing not easy to be granted ; chiefly upon this account, that
an obligation to believe doth lie upon every one to whom these
evidences of a divine testimony are sufficiently discovered . . .
. . If, therefore, there be no evidences given sufficient to carry
the minds of men beyond mere probability, what sin can it be in
those to disbelieve, who cannot be obliged to believe as true what
is only discovered as probable. I cannot, therefore, see "how an
obligation to believe a divine testimony is consistent with their
opinion who make the utmost which any outward evidences can
extend to, to be only the bare credibility oi the doctrine attes
ted by them. lean very well satisfy myself with the ground
and reason why the more subtle wits of the Church of Rome
do assert this ; for if nothing else can be produced by all
motives of faith but only a probable persuasion of the trtith
of Christian doctrine, then here comes in the fairest pre
tence for the infallibility of their church; for otherwise they
tell us we can have no foundation for a divine faith ; for

THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 401
how can that be a foundation for divine faith which can
reach no higher than a moral inducement, and beget only a
probable persuasion of the credibility of the doctrine of
Christ ? But on what account those who disown the infalli
bility of the Church of Rome in the proposal of matters of
faith, shQuld yet consent with those of it in an hypothesis
taken up in probability, merely out of subserviency to that
most advantageous piece of the mystery of iniquity, is not
easy to resolve. Unless the over-fondness of some upon the
doctrineof the Schools more than of the Gospel, hath been the
occasion of it. For how agreeable can that opinion be to the
Gospel, which so evidently puts the most defensive weapons into
the hands of unbelief? For, doubtless, in the judgment of any
rational person a mere probable persuasion of the credibiHty of
tbe doctrine of Christ, where an assent to it as true is required,
can never be looked on as an act of faith ; for if my assent to
the truth of the thing be according to the strength of the argu
ments inducing me to believe, and these arguments do only
prove a probability of divine testimony, my assent can be no
stronger than to a thing merely probable ; which is, that it may
be or not be true, which is not properly assent, but a suspending
our judgments till some convincing argument be produced on
either side .  I cannot conceive that men, otherwise
learned and sober, should with so much confidence assert, that
the rational evidences of a divine testimony are insufficient to
prd^e a doctrine true, unless it be from hence, that they find
that, notwithstanding the strongest evidences, many persons con
tinue in unbelief. For, say they, ' if these arguments werescien-
tifical and demonstrative (as they speak) of the truth of the doc
trine attested by them, then all persons to whom they are pro
pounded must certainly believe.' But this is very easily answered;
for we speak not of internal but outward evidence ; not of that
in the subject but of the object, or more fully of the reason of the
thing, and not the event in us ; for, doubfjess there may be un
doubted truth and evidence in many things which some persons
either cannot or will not understand. If Epicurus should con
tend still that the sun and stars are no bigger than they seem to
be, will it hence follow that there can be no rational demonstra
tion of the contrary ? Nay, if the way of demonstration be
offered him, and telescopes put into his hands, yet if he be re
solved to maintain his credit, and therefore, his opinion, and will
not use the telescopes, or suspect still they are intended only to
deceive his sight, what possible way will there be of convincing
such a person, though the thing be in itself demonstrable ? Now,
if the strength of prejudice, or maintaining of credit, can prevail
so much in matters of mathematical evidence, to withhold assent,
L L*

402 GROUNDS FOR BELIEF
what power may we think a corrupt interest may have upon the
understanding, as to the arguments which tend to prove the truth
of that doctrine which is so repugnant to that carnal interest
which the heart is already devoted to ! Our blessed Saviour hath
himself given us so full an account of the original and causes of
unbelief in the persons he conversed with, that that may yield us
a sufficient answer to this objection. He tells us, the ground of it
was not want of light, nay, there was light sufficient to con
vince any, but that those to whom the light came loved dark
ness rather than it, because their deeds were evil. John iii. 19. .
. . . [And he proceeds to refer to John v. 44., Matt. vu. 14.,
John V. 40.] .... When the most convincing miracles were
used, they would rather attribute them to the Prince of devils
than to the power of God. (Matt. xi. 24.) And though our
Saviour presently, by rational and demonstrative arguments, did
prove the contrary to their faces, yet we see thereby it was a
resolution not to be convinced, or yield to the truth, which was
the cause why they did not believe ... It would be no difficult
task to discover in all those instances wherein the unbefief of
men is discovered in the New Testament, that the persons guilty
of it did not proceed like rational men, or such as desired truth,
but were wholly carried away through passion, interest, pre
judice, disaffection, or some other cause of that nature, which
may give us a sufficient account why those persons did not believe
although there might be clear and undoubted evidence to per- \
suade them to it. But although I assert that these rational evi
dences are sufficient arguments of the truth of the doctrine they
come to manifest, yet I would not be so understood that I there
by resolve all religion into a mere act of reason and knowledge,
and that no more power is required in the understanding to be
lieve the Gospel than to believe a mathematical demonstration ;
which is another objection some lay in the way of this opinion,
but it is not difficult getting over it. For the sufficiency which
I attribute to rational evidence is not absolute and simple, but/«
suo genere as an objective evidence."*
Such is the language of Bishop Stillingfleet on this matter, and
we see from it that this doctrine of Mr. NeWman appeared to
him to be one which admitted the fairest pretence for introdu
cing the Infallibility of the Church of Rome.
But, in truth, our opponents seem to think that where there
is indubitable evidence for anything there cannot be faith; that,
in a word, faith is some indescribable act of the mind by which
its assent is given upon evidence not sufficient to exclude doubt,
and fhat there must be some degree of doubtfulness in the evi-
1 Stiliingfleet's Oiiglnes Sacrs. Bk. ii. ch. 8. at the end.

THAT SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED. 403
dence to make it faith. For Mr. Keble tells us that " evidence
complete in all its parts leaves no room for faith." (p. 82.) And
again, " Perhaps had the evidence for it [i. e. the Nicene tradi
tion] been more overpowering, no room would have been left for
the requisite trial of our faith." (p. 148.) So that if a few per
sons were to tell us that there is such a place as Rome, we might
believe that there was, and that would be faith, but if the evi
dence was so strong in favour of there being such a place that it
was in reason indubitable that there was, then there would be
no room for faith. May I ask what there would be room for ?
I know not what faith can be but an assent of the mind upon
that rational evidence which excludes doubt. For it is surely
impossible to believe a thing, and yet be doubtful about it at the
same time. It may be difficult, and perhaps impossible, to de
cide the precise amount of moral evidence calculated to bring
conviction to the mind of an individual, but surely to maintain
that a man may believe, nay is bound to believe, a thing upon
evidence which you allow not to be indubitable, is beyond mea
sure strange. " Doth the strength of the argument," says Bishop
Stillingfleet, when meeting a precisely similar statement from one
of his Romish adversaries, " hinder me at all from believing what
1 did not see? I had rather thought, the more obscure the ob
ject had been, the greater necessity there had been of strong
evidence to persuade a man to believe . . . the greatest clear
ness and evidence as to the testimony is not repugnant to
the nature of faith." — "We think it our duty to believe firmly
whatever God saith, but withal we think it our duty to inquire
carefully whether God hath said it or no before we believe ; and
according to the evidence we have of this we assent to the for
mer."* I will add only (as there is no authority with our opponents
like the Fathers) a passage from the excellent Hilary. Speak
ing of St. Paul using the words " according to the Scriptures,"
when adverting to the death and resurrection of Christ, (1 Cor.
XV. 3, 4,) he says that he did it lo give security for the doctrine
to enable us to resist objections, when Christ Jesus was under
stood so to die and rise again as was written. " For faith knows
no danger, (or, uncertainty); and every Christian confession is
safe in the hidden mystery of God.""
1 See Discourse in Vindication of Protestant Grounds of Fauh, pp. 387—390.
2 Pia adversus calumniaih resistendi securitate proposita, cum ita mori ac re-
sureere Christus Jesus intelligendus esset, qualiter scriptus est. JVon enim
habet fides periculum : et omnis pia professio in occulto sacramento Dei tuta
est. Hii.. De Trin. lib. i. § 67. col. 1078.

404

CHAPTER VII.

THAT HOLY SCRIPTURE IS OUR 30LB DIVINELY-REVEALED RULE OF
FAITH AND PRACTICE, AND SOLE INFALLIBLE JUDGE OF CONTROVER
SIES IN RELIGION, AND IS CONSEOUENTLY IN THE CREDENDA OF RE
LIGION THE SOLE AUTHORITY WHICH BINDS THE CONSCIENCE TO BE
LIEF IN WHAT IT DELIVERS.
It will be readily granted, I suppose, that in religion, with
the exception of those truths which (as the Apostle intimates,
Rom. i.) reason, judging from the works of creation, may teach
us, nothing but a divine testimony can be sufficient to bind the
conscience to the belief of any doctrine. The divine will may,
indeed, be made known to us in various ways, and through the
agency of man, but all will agree I conceive in this, that what
ever is delivered by man on the subject of rehgion can have
power over the conscience only so far as it can be shown to have
come originally from God.
For faith, as it respects the truths of religion, must have for
its foundation a divine testimony. " Faith," says the Apostle,
" cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom.
i. 17.) And this Bellarmine himself acknowledges, that "faith
must have the word of God to rest upon," so that where there is
no divine testimony " there will be no faith."'
The ground, therefore, upon which our faith must rest, as it
concerns the truths of religion, must be some real or supposed
word of God. In our inquiries, therefore, as to " what is truth"
in religion, we have to inquire, " what hath God said." Our
knowledge on the subject must begin and terminate with that
which we have reason to consider divine revelation. Faith, theo
logically considered, expresses an assent of the mind to a truth
1 Cnm fides nitatur verbo Dei, nisi habeamus verbum Dei non scriptura nulla
nobis erit fides. De Verb. Dei, lib. iv. c. 4. I am not here concerned with Lis
reasoning in this passage, or the application he makes of the principle.

SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE RULE, ETC. 405
on the ground oi its having been revealed to us by God.* It is
belief in things not the objects of the senses built upon that which
is believed to be divine testimony, and our evidence that such
testimony is divine, must be satisfactory to tbe mind, otherwise
our assent must be proportionably uncertain.
Hence, as we have already observed, the divinely-revealed
rule of faith is our sole rule of faith.
In determining, therefore, what constitutes our rule of faith,
the great question is. Through what media may we obtain in
formation as to what God has revealed to man on the subject of
religion, sufficiently certain to bind the conscience to belief?
For the answer to this question, it is evident that we cannot
be guided by human authority. The Brahmin will send us to
one set of sacred books, the Mohammedan to another. And the
Credentials of any person or writing, professing to deliver to us a
divine revelation, must be judged by us upon our individual re
sponsibility to God, and not taken for granted upon any human
testimony ; and for this simple reason, that we are each of us
responsible to God for our conduct, and cannot shift that respon
sibility upon others. All, therefore, are obliged to allow the
right and duty of private judgment upon this point to a certain
extent. Even the Romanist himself, who begins with the doc
trine of the infalUbility of his Church, begs you to examine the
credentials of its infallibility, and thereby grants, in that point at
least, the right and duty of private judgment.
Mr. Newman himself, therefore, says," If man is in a state of
trial, and his trial lies in the general exercise of the will, and
the choice of religion is an exercise of will, and always implies
an act of individual judgment, it follows that such acts are in the
number of those by which he is tried, and for which he is to give
an account hereafter. So far all parties must be agreed, that
without private judgment, there is no responsibility." (p. 155.)
To which he adds, " Ronianist, I consider, agrees with Protestant
so far ; the question in dispute being, what are the means which
are to direct our choice, and what is the due manner of using
them," against which Mr. Newman must allow me to caution
the reader, for the question is, what is the degree of value at
taching to the various means we have to direct our choice, and
whether, of those means. Scripture is not our alone divine and
infallible informant ; and when he proceeds to tell us that popu
lar Protestantism would deprive us of all external means but
Scripture, because it will not give them that place which he
1 So Durandus (as quoted by Bishop Pearson in his exposition of the Creed,
Art. 1) says,— Fides est habitus quo assentimus dictis Scripturas propter auctori
tatem Dei revelantis. Durand. lib. iii. Dist. 24. q. 1. § 9.

406 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
assigns to them, he is making a statement which, with impartial
readers, can only be injurious to himself and his own cause. He
knows well that, to mention no others, one mean, used very dili
gently by " popular Protestantism," is the preaching of fallible
men, whom it believes to be often used by, God as the instru
ments for conveying saving truth to the heart, both in the choice
of a religion, and after that choice is made, in the further choice
between truth and error, inculcated by the various teachers of
that religion ; a choice, however, which we contend must be
grounded upon that which has reasonable proof of its being the
word of God.
Now we have already considered the grounds upon which Holy
Scripture demands our faith in it as the word of God. The
question, then, is, have we any other divine informant ? Our
opponents put in a claim for what they call the tradition of the
church, or catholic consent, i. e., the tradition delivered to us by
certain early writers of the church, and they tell us that Scrip
ture and this tradition form jointly the rule of faith, sending us
for that tradition to the writings of the first few centuries.
The reply is, that this tradition (as we have already endea
voured to prove in a former chapter) is, from its nature, utterly
unfit to be reckoned a divine informant, and, therefore, can form
no part of the rule of faith. Prove it to be a divine informant,
and we at once admit it into the rule of faith ; but ifit be any
thing less than a divine informant, it can form no part of that
rule. Mr. Keble may rest assured that we not only " cannot,"
but do not wish to " hide it from ourselves, that God's unwritten
word, if it can he any how authenticated, must necessarily de
mand the same reverence from us [i. e. as his written word] ;
and for exactly the same reason, because it is his word." (p. 26.)
And to suppose that this is denied, is to flight with a shadow of
his own creation, instead of meeting the real antagonist.
The "rule of faith," therefore, might be thus defined, that it
consists, besides the Old Testament, of all which we have rea
sonable ground of assurance was delivered to the church by our
Lord and his Apostles, or with their sanction and authority. To
those who heard them, and perhaps to some others, all which
they delivered, as from God, came with equal authority, and
formed, as a whole, the rule of faith. And if oral tradition had
been considered a safe conveyance for the truth, it would have
been left to be so handed down to us. But such is not the case ;
and the very fact that the Apostles were careful to commit the
doctrines of the Gospel to writing, shows that they considered
them unsafe but in writing. And hence the Holy Scriptures are
to us the sole rule of faith, because they embrace all which we
have reasonable ground of assurance was delivered to the church

RULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 407
by our Lord and his Apostles, or with their sanction and au
thority. We receive the Apostolic traditions given to us in the Scrip
tures, because we have sufficient reason to consider them genuine;
we receive not, as binding, statements pretended to be derived,
through the tradition of the Fathers, from their oral teaching,
because their genuineness is altogether incapable of proof. We
do not reject them because we have any doubt as to the good
faith of the Fathers, but because we know that, in matters of
doctrine, men are exceedingly liable to error in their representa
tion of the opinions of others ; and also from the utter insufficiency
and uncertainty of the documents remaining to us of the antient
church, to establish anything like catholic consent; and we may
add, the insufficiency and uncertainty of the evidence afforded
by even those that do remain, comparatively to what they ought
to aflbrd on the hypothesis of our opponents ; though at the same
time we do not (as our opponents misrepresent us) regard what
the Fathers have delivered to us respecting the faith as useless :
but, on tbe contrary, that, properly used, it may be of considera
ble value.
But, by " the rule of faith," we understand a testimony which
shows us infallibly those doctrines which we are bound by our
duty to God to receive ; and one which has such evidences of its
divine origin, as make it binding upon the consciences of all men ;
and of that rule, therefore, nothing can form a part which has
not reasonable evidence of its being the word of God.
And if Holy Scripture is thus the sole infallible and authorita
tive rule of faith, it follows, of course, that it is to its decision
alone that we must appeal, as of absolute authority and infallible
in controversies concerning the faith ; and hence it is justly called
the sole infallibleywc^^e of controversies of faith.
We say, also, that Holy Scripture is the sole infallible rule of
faith. /o every individual ; because, upon the very same grounds
upon which our opponents admit the right and duty of private
judgment in determining between the various forms of religion
existing in the world, do we contend for the right and duty of
private judgment in determining between the various meanings
affixed by nominal Christians to the word of God contained in the
Holy Scriptures. " Without private judgment," says Mr. New
man, " there is no responsibility ;" and to what individual or com
munity among Christians, I would ask, can my responsibility to
God as an individual, with what all grant to be his word in my
hands, be transferred ? Is there anything besides Scripture that
has power over the consciences of individuals ?
Nor does the case of an altogether illiterate person overthrow
the truth of this as a general rule ; which our opponents may

408 SCRIFPURE THE SOLE INF.4.LLIBLB
perhaps see, by asking themselves what they would do in the
case of an illiterate Mohammedan ? Would they say. You must
give up your religion and receive ours, because we are certainly
right; but we cannot allow you, as a very illiterate man, to ex
ercise your judgment upon the matter ? He might at once re
ply, I have been told by those who, for aught I know, may be as
good judges as you, that my religion is right ; and, therefore,
notwithstanding my disadvantages, I must make the best use I
can of my private judgment, and pray to God to direct me
aright; for as there is so much diflerence of opinion upon this
matter, I cannot follow one guide blindfold any more than the
other. And this holds equally for a choice between the different
meanings given to Scripture, as for a choice between the diffe
rent religions existing in the world.
And this admission of the right of private judgment, be it ob
served, does not prevent any Church from excommunicating one
who, in the view of that Church, errs obstinately in the funda
mentals of the faith. They who excommunicate, and he who ad
heres to his error, both act on their own responsibility, neither
pretending to infallibility, either through the possession of patris
tical tradition, or in any other way; but appealing primarily to
the Scriptures, and through them to the great Head of the
Church, as the Judge ; an appeal which can only be decided at
a future day. And when the Church becomes split into various
parties of different sentiments, it must be left to the judgment of
every individual to determine, as well as he can, as to their
tenets and rival pretensions ; a judgment which must be ground
ed upon the word of God in the Scriptures, as the only divine
informant ; though in forming it, he may derive much help from
the records of the Christian Church during the whole of its past
course, particularly in the earlier period of it ; while he takes
care to remember the uncertainties and imperfections attending
all informants but Scripture.
" If," says Dean Sherlock, " you ask whose judgment ought
to take place, the judgment of the Church, or of every private
Christian ? I answer. The judgment of the Church of necessity
must take place as to external government, to determine what
shall be professed and practised in her communion ; and no pri
vate Christian has any thing to do in these matters. But when
the question is, What is right or wrong, true or false, in what we
may obey, and in what not, here every private Christian who
will not believe without understanding, nor follow his guides
hX\ndio\d, must judge for himself ; and it is as much as his soul
is worth to judge right."*
1 Discourse concerning a Judge of Controversies, pp. 11, 12.

RULE AND JUDGE IN RF.LIGI0N. 409
We do not, then, be it observed, rest this truth upon any sup
posed necessity that God must have communicated liis will to
mankind, through the medium of writing ; or that the Scrip
tures must, of necessity, contain this or that. Such reasoning
appears presumptuous and unfounded. We take things as we
find them, and reason accordingly. It is not for us to determine
what it was necessary for God to do, or what he might do, and
suppose it done, but to use the reason which God has given us, in
ascertaining what he has done; and we thus find that there is
reasonable evidence that Scripture is his Word ; and that there
is no sufficient evidence for anything else being such.
If, then, the arguments given in the chapter on patristical tra
dition are a sufficitint proof that such tradition cannot be con
sidered an unwritten Word of God, and is thus not a sufficient
foundation for faith ta rest upon, the truth which we here advo
cate is by that admission (as far as our present subject is con
cerned) established.
And it follows from hence.
First, That tbe doctrines contained in Scripture, have an au
thoritative claim upon our faith, only as far as they are there
revealed ; and
Secondly, That no doctrine has any authoritative claim upon
our faith, that is not revealed hi Scripture.
These two corollaries we shall notice more particularly in our
next chapter.
And in the same way it follows that Scripture, being our
sole divine informant, is also our sole divinely -revealed rule of
practice. But the truth, for which we here contend, does not rest on the
arguments we have already adduced, as its sole foundation ; and
we shall now proceed to offer to the reader some further conside
rations respecting it.
I. On its true nature and extent.
II. The additional arguments by which it may be supported,
with a reply to the objections by which it is assailed.
We shall first argue the question as to Scripture being the sole
divine rule of faith and practice, and then show that is in like
manner the sole infallible judge of controversies in religion.
Our remarks will more particularly refer to matters of faith, ex
cept where stated ; these points forming the most important part
of the inquiry.
I. First, then, as to the true nature and extent of this truth,
that Scripture is the sole divine rule of faith and practice.
We premise some remarks on this head, in order to guard

VOL. I.

M M

410 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
against those misconceptions, and, I may add, misrepresentations
of our views, which are so frequently to be met with.
Let it be observed, then, first, that it is not affirmed by us that
we have, in the Holy Scriptures, everything that our Lord and
his Apostles uttered ; nor that what the Apostles delivered in
writing, was of greater authority than what they delivered orally.
It is undeniable that we have not all that they delivered. St.
Paul, in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, appears to
allude to information which he had given themorally, and which
he does not state in his writings. (2 Thess.' ii. 5, 6.) It is likely
that this might have been the case in some minor points. Nay,
it is possible that the Apostles may have given to some of their
converts, on some occasion, a more full and luminous exposition
of this or that doctrine, than what we find in Scripture. I will
even add that it is possible that as there had been a succession of
God's people from the beginning, so the substance, or at least a
portion of such additional matter may have been propagated
from one to another, and have thus come to the children of God
of our own day, commended to the spiritual mind by its own
light; but, as far as regards any direct proof, or external evi
dence of its Apostolical origin, utterly destitute of any such claim
upon us, and I should rather with Theodoret,* attribute any
similarity of sentiment that has prevailed among the children of
God on such points, to their having all been partakers of the in
fluences of the same Spirit.
But this we do affirm, that having four different accounts of
" the Gospel of Jesus Christ," the last written for the very pur
pose of making the account complete," and above twenty Epis
tles written by the Apostles to explain it still further, to say that
anything at all important is omitted, is a foul libel upon that
Holy Spirit by which the Apostles were guided. We want no
Fathers to tell us this ; notwithstanding that Mr. Newman can
not even believe that Scripture notices even the fundamentals
of the faith, but on the authority of the Fathers.^
And we add, that as there is nothing else entitled to be con
sidered a divine informant, so there is nothing else that has au
thority to bind the conscience to a belief of what it delivers.
Holy Scripture, therefore, is to us the perfect or complete rule
of faith.
We speak not of any abstract perfection, such that nothing
could be added to it that would throw additional light upon the
doctrines of religion ; for indeed it would not become us to at-
1 See extracts from Theodoret, ch. 10. below.
a See Euseb. Hist, Eccl. iii. 24.
3 Lect. pp. 339, 40.

RULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 411
tempt to pass any such judgment upon any revelation it might
please God to afford us. But it is perfect in the sense of entire-
ness. And of this sort of perfection only are we qualified to
judge. In determining, therefore, whether Scripture is such a rule,
we are not at' all concerned with the inquiry whether this or that
doctrine is contained there, nor even whether the truths there
delivered are revealed plainly or obscurely ; for neither of these
affect the solution of the question, which depends upon this, viz.,
whether Scripture is or is not our only divine informant. The
perfection of the rule to us, follows from the fact that there is
no other, nothing else that is entitled to the character of a divine
and infallible rule ; and by this, therefore, whatever it may be,
we must be guided. We say not, that it embraces everything
which God might have revealed, nor even all which the Apostles
did actually deliver, but that it includes all which we can know
to bie of divine revelation.
Nor let our opponents object that it cannot be supposed that
any, the least portion of what the Apostles delivered, could be
allowed to perish frpm the remembrance of the Church ; for the
reply is obvious, and one that is not at all flattering to their favour
ite hypothesis of the fidelity of church-tradition ; namely, that
such things have unquestionably perished. For instance, where
is the church-tradition from which we can learn what it was fhat
withheld the appearance of " the wicked one ?" (2 Thess. ii. 5,
6.) Where is the tradition which delivers to us those things to
which St. John alludes at the end of his Gospel ?
And this remark is a complete answer to the objection often
made by the Romanists to Protestant views, namely, fhat we
have a different rule of faith to the earliest Christians, because
theirs included more than what is delivered in the Scriptures;
for this is equally true of the Popish Rule, the Romanists them
selves not pretending to know some things which we are assured
from Scripture were delivered by the Apostles to their converts.
We do not deny, then, that there may be some particles of the
gold of the sanctuary in the records of Christian antiquity. And
we subject those records to the test of Scripture, reason, and
conscience, that we may, if possible, extract them. And we
look to the aid of the Divine Spirit to help us in our inquiries.
While certainly it is our belief that such a process would show
that the gold bears very, very little proportion to the dross ; and
that to the great majority, such a search would be as unprofita
ble as laborious. There is danger, indeed, in the search to all ;
for the same feehngs and prejudices which originally caused the
dross to accumulate, are still ahve to operate in its favour, and
make men often prefer it to the pure gold.

412 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
Here, then, is the great difference between us and our oppo
nents, that we allow men to judge of that which comes to them
by what is called church-tradition, by the light of Scripture,
reason, and conscience, and do not allow it to assume the charac
ter of an unwritten Word of God, and so to bind the conscience
to belief in whatever it may deliver. Our opponents will not
allow us to judge of it, but only to be judged by it, and submit
to it as a divine testimony.
Secondly, it is not affirmed that those doctrines only are to be
received that are laid down in express terms in Scripture, but
that those are to be received that are either delivered there in
express terms, or deducible by necessary consequence apparent
to reason for its statements.
For instance, it is nowhere stated in express terms in Scripture
that the Holy Spirit is God, but the doctrine of his divinity fol
lows by necessary consequence apparent to reason from the state
ments of Scripture. The same may be said of the doctrine of the
consubstantiality of the Son with the Father.
Thirdly, the grievous misrepresentations of Romanists and Ox
ford Tract writers compel us to add what might otherwise have
been thought to be unnecessary, viz. that when we spealjc of Scrip
ture as the sole authoritative rule of faith to every individual, we
are as far as themselves from " seeming to allow," or being" in the
way to allow" " that that is truth to each which each thinks to be
truth, provided he sincerely and really thinks it, that the divinity of
the Bible itself is the only thing that n(?eds to be believed, and
that its meaning varies with the individuals who receive it ;"* or,
again, from being desirous of " depriving" men of " all external
means except the text of Holy Scripture,"" or thinking that " to
inquire about the early church, the consent of Fathers, &c. . . .
or to make the primitive writers a comment upon the inspired
text, are but melancholy and pernicious follies,"' or of "chiefly
employing ourselves in assailing the Christian Fathers."* All
these are representations which ultimately only recoil upon their
authors, showing most forcibly the inherent weakness of their
cause, when they are compelled to attempt to make the reader
believe that the theory of the great body of their opponents is
something very different to the reality, and will strongly remind
those who know anything of the controversial writings of the Re
formation of the Popish artifices of that period. The cause of
all this misrepresentation is simply this, that we affirm that
Scripture is our only divine informant, and therefore of course
esteem Scripture as much above everything else as that which is
' Nfwman, p. 35, and see pp. 291, 2. 2 Ih. p. 156.
^ Newman, p. 192. < Ib. p. 195.

RULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 413
divine is above that which is human. But we do not reject as
valueless, but on the contrary attach considerable value to, the
writings of God's saints who lived in former times, knowing that,
among much of all kinds, we may meet with much in which we
may trace the footsteps of that Divine Spirit, whose gifts are be
stowed at his pleasure for the edification of the Church, and we
look up to Him who is promised as the Teacher of all the chil
dren of God, to enable us to separate the precious from the vile,
receiving all as coming from the mouth of fallible witnesses.
And, lastly, in reply to every question as to what we mean by
saying that Scripture is such a rule of faith to every individual,
we mean that it is so to every individual who is conscious of the
existence of the Scriptures and able to become acquainted wifh
them, and is of an age and a state of mind to be responsible to
God for believing what God has revealed. Every such person is
bound by his duty to God to ascertain, as far as he is able, that
what he may have been previously taught by man is accordant
with that which God has there revealed ; and if there appears
to him to be any discordance between the two, to believe God's
own words rather than those of men, seeing that he is responsi
ble not to man but to God. Any arguments, therefore, derived
from the abstirdity of placing the Bible in the hands of a child
for him to draw out a system of truth from it, or from the case
of those who may be prevented by peculiar circumstances from
consulting or understanding the Scriptures, fall quite wide of the
mark. Such arguments evidently prove nothing, because it is
clearly quite a possible case, at any rate, that God should
have made the Scriptures such a rule, and our only divine in
formant, and we cannot argue from any supposed consequences
of such a state.of things that God has not done so. Nor is there
any reason why we should suppose that the statements of either
the Fathers, the Church, or the Pope, are an infallible rule of
faith, or any part of it, because children and clowns may need
guidance lo point out the true faith in Scripture. The disad
vantages under which some may labour in this respect, can be
no proof that tradition is to be depended upon, or that Scripture
is obscure. You will have to teach a child or a clown by more
or \ess oi explanation that things that are equal to the same
are equal to one another, while I suppose no man will deny that
if this proposition was in the Bible as a point of faith, the Bible
could not be accused of obscurity or be said to want tradition to
interpret its meaning, and be taxed with imperfection as a rule
of faith in this point. A Newton may want assistance as a child
to enable him to understand the most simple proposition, but it
follows not that he is to be dictated to in mature age by one who
taught him tbe alphabet.

414 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
Such objections are most vain and foolish. They do not touch
the point at issue.
1 now proceed, then, to point out
II. The additional arguments by which the view here taken
may be established, with a reply to the objections by which it is
assailed. And »
(1) Let us observe the arguments and objections derived from
Scripture itself on this point.
Now here I admit at once that there is no passage of the New
Testament precisely stating that t^e Christian rule of faith is
limited to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament ; and
for the best of all reasons, viz. that such a statement would, at
that time, (i. e. during the publication of the books of the New
Testament,) have been utterly inapplicable to the circumstan
ces of the infant Church and untrue. For a little time there
were no Scriptures of the New Testament, and the Scriptures
which we possess were gradually written, and did not at once
find their way into the whole Christian Church, and no one -ever
dreamed that the oral instructions of the Apostles were not to
those who heard them as authoritative as their writings. They
among whom the Scriptures were originally promulgated had
been themselves hearers, that is, very many of them, of our Lord
and his Apostles, and to them the unwritten word was as au
thoritative as the written. Consequently such a statement could
only have been made as a prospective announcement, applicable
only to a subsequent period of the Church. Was it, then, to be
expected, was it, indeed, possible, that the Apostles should pre
cisely fix the period at which, or the persons to whom, their
writings would be the sole infallible rule of faith, when with the
earliest Christians it would evidently depend very much upon
situation and circumstances how far this was the case ?
But though we have not, and were not likely to have, such an
announcement in Scripture, we have there what may answer as
well, the determination of a parallel case, viz. fhat of the Jews
at the time of our Lord's incarnation. We learn clearly from
Scripture, that the Canon of the Old Testament was fo them at
that time (the divine voice being no longer heard among them)
the sole rule of faith ; and that the traditions of the Fathers, not
withstanding their pretended divine origin, were not worthy of
being considered the Word of God.
That the Scriptures of the Old Testament were to the Jews
of that period the sole authoritative rule of faith, we have, I
conceive, very sufficient testimony in Scripture. In the parable
of the rich man and Lazarus, our Lord himself evidently refers
to them as bearing that character, when he makes Abraham
reply to the rich man begging for some messenger to be sent to

RULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 415
instruct his brethren on earth; "They have Moses and the
prophets, let them hear them." (Luke xvi. 29.) And still more
clearly, in his reply to the lawyer who asked him, " Master,
what shall I do to inherit eternal Hfe?" "He said unto him.
What is written in the law ? How readest thou ?" (Luke x.
25, 6.) And so in the scene of temptation in the wilderness, he
meets the tempter at every turn with the written word as his
guide and rule. (Matt. iv. 1 — 10.) Further ; to them and to them
alone our Lord constantly appealed, in proof of the truth of his
doctrine, as the rule of judgment. " Search the Scriptures."
(John V. 39.) " Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures." (Matt.
xxii. 29. ) And so far from appealing to or even recognizing
any " tradition," he (as we have seen) only mentions traditions
in the way of rebuke. See Mark vii. 1 — 13, where " the com
mandment of God" and " the word of God" are identified with
Scripture, and put in opposition to the " traditions" of the
Pharisees, which are called without distinction " the command
ments of men." Now the authority claimed for these "tradi
tions" stood upon a foundation precisely similar to that upon
which the supposed authority of the " traditions" of the Christian
Church rest. The one were said to have been handed down
from the oral teaching of Moses, through the " elders," or, as
we should say, Fathers. The other from the oral teaching of
the Apostles, by a similar mode of conveyance.
Moreover, it is evident from the whole of our Lord's teaching,
fhat in his references to Scripture he appealed to the conscience
of individuals as the interpreter of Scripture, and willed them
to judge of the meaning of Scripture, not by " tradition," or
any other; pretended authority, but by their own reason and con
science. And they alone who did so could receive him, for tra
dition and the Church, in our opponents' sense of the words,
were against him ; and they who followed these guides, stifled
inquiry wifh the observation, " Have any of the rulers or Pharisees
believed on him?" The doctrine of those who adopted these
guides, was precisely that of our opponents ; and notwithstanding
the warnings of reason and conscience, they waited till the au
thorities of the Church, the keepers of Scripture and witnesses
of tradition, should declare in his favour, and spoke of those who
exercised the right of private judgment exactly as our opponents
do now.
Still further, the Apostles refer to the Scriptures of the Old
Testament so as evidently to show that they recognized them as
bearing this character. Observe the constant references made
to them hy St. Paul as the rule of faith. " What saith the
Scripture ?" (Rom. iv. 3., xi. 2. ; Gal. iv. 30.) And when he
argued with the Jews, he " reasoned with them out of the Scrip-

416 SCRIPTURE THE SoLE INF.VLLIBLE
tures." (Acts xvii. 2.) And when pleading his cause before Felix,
he gives this summary of his creed, that he " believed all things
which are written in the Law aijd in the Prophets." (Acts. xxiv.
14.) And the Bereans are praised by St. Luke for referring to
the Scriptures of the Old Testament as their rule of judgment,
by which to try the preaching of St. Paul. (Acts xvii. 11 -J
Lastly, as a full and irrefragable testimony to this truth, let
us mark what St. Paul says to Timothy on this subject. " Con
tinue thou in the things which thou hast learned, and hast been
assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them, and that
from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able
to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ,
Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profita
ble for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for insfructipn in
righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly
furnished unto all good works." (2 Tim. iii. 14' — 16.)
We thus find, then, that though there is no direct testimony
in the Old Testament to its perfection as the sole infallible rule of
faith to the Jews in the time of our Lord, such assuredly it was,
and that for the same reason that the Scriptures of the Old and
New Testament are to us, namely, that through the uncertainty
of tradition there was nothing else which had any sufficient evi
dence of its being the word of God. For it might have been said
then of the Old Testament, as it is now of the New, What is
here written is not all that Moses and the prophets delivered,
and therefore if we refuse to receive the traditions of the elders,
we shall be rejecting part of what God has revealed, and mak
ing to ourselves a different rule of faith to what our forefathers
had. But that the objection was worthless, is clear from the
declarations of our Lord and his Apostles we have Just quoted.
As, then, in the time of our Lord, the Canon of'^the Old Tes
tament was the sole rule of faith to tlie Jews, notwithstanding
that those who had been contemporary with the authors of the
Old Testament Scriptures might have heard from them some
other things of minor importance, which therefore entered into
their rule of faith as derived from the same source with the
Scriptures, so to us the Canon of Holy Scripture is the sole rule
of faith, notwithstanding that those who were contemporary
with the Apostles might have received from them some statements
of minor importance, which came to them with equal authority
as the Scriptures.
And if it is the sole rule of faith, it follows that it is the sole
divine rule of practice, the rule of faith being co-extensive with
divine revelation.
Further, it is to be considered that the Gospel was not a reve
lation altogether new, being, in all its great features atleast.only

RULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION 417
a deveolpment of the types and prophecies of the Old Testament,
where the language of the inspired writers of the New Testa
ment leads us to recognize a very full adumbration of its whole
doctrine. Thus St. Paul describes himself to Felix as believing
all things written in the law and the prophets, with a manifest
reference to his Christian faith, (Acts xxiv. 14.) and when argu
ing with the Jews, he reasoned with them out of those Scriptures,
(Acts xvii. 2,) and says, that the revelation of the mystery of
God in the Gospel is " by the Scriptures of the prophets, ac
cording to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known
to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Rom. xvi. 26.)* And
the Bereans are praised by St. Luke ior judging the doctrines
preached by the Apostle Paul by the Scriptures of the Old Tes
tament. (Acts. xvii. 11.)
Consequently, we have, even in the Old Testament, an adum-
bratory representation of all the great truths of the Gospel. —
Are we, then, to suppose, that when besides this we have four
differertt accounts of the doctrines and precepts which our Lord
deUvered while on earth, and above twenty epistles by the Apos
tles to different churches, that we must still go beyond the Scrip
tures to find any important truth ?
Be it observed, also, from the passage we have just quoted
from St. Paul's 2d Epistle to Timothy, how perfect the Canon of
the Old Testament was considered to be as a rule both of faith
and practice, even sufficient fo render the man of God perfect,
and thoroughly to furnish him to all good works. Is not, then, the
Canon of the New Testament sufficient to supply such informa
tion-respecting the religion adumbrated in the Old Testament,
as to render the two Testaments together as sufficient to us as
the Old was to Timothy ?
But to all such considerations our opponents seem to think that
they have a ready answer, for they say that Scripture itself is
in favour of their doctrine of tradition. I shall now, then, pro
ceed to consider the passages adduced by them in proof of this
1 It is supposed by Whitby, that the Scriptures of the Prophets here mentioned
are the Scriptures of the Prophets of the New Testament; and he refers to
Eph. iii. 6. in corroboration of this interpretation, where it is said that the mys
tery of the gospel was " not in other ages made known unto the sons of men as
it is now revealed unto the holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit," where
evidently the prophets mentioned are those of tlie New Testament. But I con
fess, though the interpretation is possible, and would afford strong evidence in
favour of the view for which we are here contending, I cannot bring myself to
think that such was the meaning of the Apostle, but that he rather had ii^ view
the prophetical Scriptures of the Old Testament, which formed the groundwork
as it were of tho preaching of the Apostles and first teachers of Christianity, as
we see illustrated both in the Apostolical Scriptures and tbe Epistle of Clement,

418 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
assertion, and show how utterly destitute of foundation is the ar
gument so raised.
This argument is insisted upon more particularly by Mr. Keble,
whose sermon is written, indeed, for the purpose of enforcing it.
I need hardly say that the texts he has chosen in support of if
are precisely those which Bellarmine* and the Romanists adduce
for the same purpose ; and it is somewhat sfrange, that tbe ar
guments by which the applicability of these texts to such a pur
pose has been over and over again disproved by some of the most
able divines of our church, are entirely unnoticed, and the state
ments of Rome, even to the petitio principii upon which they
are almost all founded, repeated almost verbatim.
The passages chiefly insisted upon are of course those in the
Epistles to Timothy. " That good thing which was committed
unto thee (xnn xaMi a-«p«x«T«Si)K)i»), keep by the Holy Ghost
which dwelleth in us." (2 Tim. i. 14.) " The things that thou
hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou
to faithful men who shall be able fo teach others also." (2 Tim.
ii. 2.) " 0 Timothy, keep fhat which is committed to thy trust."
(1 Tim. vi. 20.)=
The first of these passages forms Mr. Keblte's text, and the
first thing he endeavours to prove is, that " the good thing left
in Timothy's charge" " was the treasure of Apostolical doctrines
and church rules : the rules and doctrines which made up the
charter of Christ's kingdom." (p. 20.) Now that it comprised
the fundamentals of the faith is at once granted, but as to its
being " the treasure of Apostolical doctrines and church rules,"
in the sense in which Mr. Keble has afterwards explained these
words, viz. that it " contained besides the substance of Christian
doctrine, a certain form, arrangement, selection, methodizing
the whole, and distinguishing fundamentals, and also a cer
tain system of church practice, both in, government, disci
pline, and worship;" and was " something so wholly sufficient,
so unexceptionably accurate, as to require nothing but fidelity in
its transmitters," (p. 21,) such a notion is a pure fiction of the
imagination, utterly unsupported by Scripture, or by the Fa
thers, who speak of this deposit (as Mr. Keble himself admits)
as meaning "the truths committed by St. Paul to Timothy ;"
" the deposit of the /a«'M," (Jerome) "the Catholic /o«M" (Vine.
Lir.)^ And this seems clearly to follow from the context of these
passages. For in the first the " deposit" is mentioned immedi
ately after the Apostle had exhorted Timothy, "hold fast the

I De Verb. D. lib. iv. u, 5.
2 See Keble's Serm. pp. 5, 22, and 49.
"Serm. pp. 18, 19.

RULF. AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 419
form of [those] sound words which thou hast heard of me ;"
and the last with the context runs thus, " Keep that which is
committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings and
oppositions of science falsely so called ; which some professing
have erred concerning the faith."
When, therefore, Mr. Keble says, " Upon the whole we may
assume, with some confidence, that the good thing left in Timo
thy's charge" was what we have above quoted from him, he is
doing what we have but too often to lament in this controversy,
" assuming with some confidence^' what be has not the slight
est right to assume at all, and what both Scripture and Fathers
are opposed to; and this interpretation, so " assumed with some
confidence" and no reason, serves him afterwards in great stead.
For as it is evident that we have not in Scripture such an
" arrangement, selection, methodizing the whole, and distinguish
ing fundamentals, and also a certain system of church practice,
both in government, discipline, and worship," it enables him to
jump to the conclusion, that Timothy's deposit embraced much
more than we have in Scripture, when, judging both from Scrip
ture and the language of the Fathers, tbe probability is that it
contained much less. And as Timothy was exhorted to keep it
safely, so the more Mn Keble can make it include, the more im
perfect will Scripture appear to be, and the more important that
patristical tradition which professes to hand this deposit down to
us. And the great reason why Mr. Keble wants it is, that, like
Bellarmine, he separates the sense of Scripture from Scripture,
and makes Scripture and its meaning two different things, as if
ScripturCiWas so obscure that it could not be understood without
patristical tradition.
As to the precise amount, however, which it contained, we
can safely allow Mr. Keble's imagination (which in other sub
jects we highly value) to have some little scope, and will willing
ly give him the fundamentals both of faith and worship, if only
he will allow as to make use of our reason to consider how far
patristical tradition is either wanted or to be trusted for convey
ing to us this " deposit." But all the speciousness of Mr. Keble's
arguments from these and similar passages ofScripture, is derived
from his assuming the very point in question, i. e. the trustworthi
ness of patristical tradition, for all his arguments amount merely
to this, that because the Apostles told their converts to recollect
and act according to all which they had delivered to them by
word as well as writing, therefore we are to believe and act ac
cording to all that a few Fathers of the Church have reported to
us as derived from their oral teaching, or even as tbe doctrine of
the Church in their time, because such doctrine must be consid
ered the doctrine of the Apostles. In a word, because the Church,

420 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
in the Apostolic age, received as divinely-ilispired the oral instruc
tions of the Apostles ; therefore we are to receive the patristical
tradition of those traditions as an infallible and divine informant.
*' The holy writings themselves intimate," says Mr. Keblfe, " that
the persons to whom they were addressed were in possession of a
body of truth and duty totally distinct from themselves, and in
dependent of them." (pp. 21, 2.) Of course they were, for the
simple reason, that the Apostles preached and formed a church
before tbey wrote. But what then ? " Timothy, for instance,"
he adds, " a few verses after the text, is enjoined to take measures
for the transmission, not of Holy Scripture, but of the things which
he had heard of St. Paul, among many witnesses." How, let me
ask, could he transmit what in all probability he had not? And
when, in a subsequent page, he intimates that because Timothy
was exhorted to " keep that comn^itted to his charge," we are
thei"eby warned to keep what patristical tradition has delivered
to us,* he is unworthily assuming the very point in question.
There is one point, however, in which I fully agree with him ;
and that is where, after several pages of proof, he " ventures to
assume," " from the nature of the case, the incidental testimony
of Scripture, and the direct assertions of the Fathers," that it was
" an unwritten system" which St. Paul spoke of, when he " so
earnestly recommended the deposit;"" for nothing can be more
certain than that the Gospel, before it was written, was unwrit
ten ; and, as Mr. Keble himself tells us, " the time spoken of was
not the time when St. Paul was writing, but when Timothy re
ceived his charge."^
To sum up all, then, in one word, what Mr. Keble and the
Romanists have got to prove, before they can in any way avail
themselves of these passages, is, (1) that Timothy's deposit em
braced something of importance not in Scripture ; and (2) that
patristical tradition is an infallible informant as to what that de
posit was ; which are precisely the two points " assumed with
some confidence," with scarcely an attempt at a proof.
Before, however, Mr. Keble attempts to prove the former of
these two points, let me commend to his consideratipn the follow
ing passage to Tertullian, showing his opinion on the matter.
These passages, it seems, were quoted by some heretics in Ter
tullian's time, to prove their traditions, — and they inferred from
them, that there yvere some things which were committed by the
Apostles to a few only of their more trustworthy converts, and
not preached openly to all; and that such was the deposit com-
*mitted to Timothy, spoken of in these passages. But, says Ter-
1 See p. 49, ^ See p. 31.
spp. 115, 16. >

RULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION, 421
tulUan, " What is this secret deposit, that it should be reckoned
as a different doctrine ? Was it of that charge, of which he
says, 'This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy.' [1 Tim. i.
18.] Likewise of that commandment, of which he says, ' I
charge thee in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and
before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good
confession, that thou keep this commandment.' [1 Tim. vi. 13.]
But what commandment and what charge? It will be
KNOWN FROM THE CONTEXT  Neither, moreover, because
he admonishes him to ' commit these things to faithful men who
should be able to teach others also,' [2 Tim. ii. 2.] is that to be
interpreted as a proof of any hidden gospel? for when he says
'these things,' he speaks of those things of which he was
THEN WRITING ; but of hidden things he would have said, as of
things absent, in the remembrance of Timothy, not ' these things,'
but ' those things.' "*
This passage of Tertullian, then, will, I hope, somewhat shake
Mr. Keble's " confidence" in his own interpretation of the text in
question. Another of the passages brought by our opponents'* in support
of their views, is that in 2 Thess. ii. 15. "Therefore, brethren,
stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught,
whether by word or our epistle." And I will venture to say
that, beyond the occurrence of the word " traditions" in it, there
is not a pretext for so applying it. The Epistles to the Thessa
lonians, we must observe, were, with the exception possibly of
St. Matthew's Gospel, the first written of all the books of the
New Testament. And St. Matthew's Gospel was written more
especially, in the first instance, for the use of the Jewish converts.
Consequently the Thessalonians had, at the time when these
Epistles were addressed to them no other books of the New Tes
tament. And of this Mr. Keble is fully conscious ; for he says,
when mentioning this text, " They could not be exhorted to hold
the Christian Scripture, since at that time, in all probability, no
Christian Scriptures yet existed, except perhaps St. Matthew's
Gospel." (p. 22.) Much, therefore, at least, that we learn from
¦ Quod hoc depositum est tacitum, ut alteri doctrins deputeturl An illius
denuntiationis, de qua ait, Hanc denuiitiationem commendo apud te, fill Timo-
thee. Item illius praecepti, de quo ait; Denuntio tibi ante Deum qui vivificat
omnia, et Jesum Christum qui testatus est sub Pontio Pilato bonam confessionem
custodias prseceptum. Quod hoc praeceptum et quffi denuntiatio 1 Ex supra et
infra scriptis intelligetur .... Sed nec quia voluit ilium hsac fideUbus homini
bus demandare, qui idonei sint et alios docere, id quoque ad argumentum occulti
alicujus Evangelii interpretandum est. Nam cum dicit, htec, de eis dicit de qui
bus in prssenti scribebat : de occultis autem, ut de absentibus apud conscientiam
iron hac sed ilia dixisset. De Prescr. c. 25. Ed. Prior. 1664.
s See Keble's Serm. p. 22.
VOL. 1. " "

422 scRipruRE the sole infallible
the Scriptures, must have been communicated orally to the
Thessalonians by the Apostle ; as, for instance, the ordinances of
baptism and the Lord's Supper. They had no Scriptures pro
fessing to give them an account of our Lord's Gospel. And
these were traditions which they had themselves received from
the mouth of the Apostle himself. And who denies that the
oral teaching of the Apostles was of equal authority with their
writings ? So that the argument from this passage runs thus, —
Because the Thessalonians, when destitute of the Scriptures,
were exhorted by the Apostle to observe all things that he had
himself delivered to them, either orally or by letter, therefore
we, possessing: the Scriptures, are to conclude that there are ini-
portant points of Apostolical teaching not delivered to us any
where in all the various books of the New Testament, and are
bound to receive patristical tradition as an infallible informant
on such points. Now the chief question at issue is, whether we
have that oral teaching, in any shape in which we can depend
upon it, in the writings of the Fathers. And yet, in a subse
quent page (p. 47), Mr. Keble applies this passage to the pre
sent day, as coolly and unhesitatingly as if we were precisely in
the situation of the Thessalonians, and had been ourselves hear
ers of the Apostles, and received from them instructions not con
tained in Scripture.
To make this passage at all suitable to their purpose, they
must show that there was something important in the oral teach
ing of the Apostles, which is not to be found in all the books of
the New Testament; a notion, against which we can array the
whole body of the Fathers ; (of which it is apparent, from Mr.
Newman's thirteenth Lecture, that our opponents are fully con
scious ; although they attempt to get over the difficulty, by as
serting that, though all things essential are there, yet they are
there so latently, that we cannot find them until patristical tra
dition has pointed them out;) or at least they must prove that
the patristical tradition we possess of the oral traditions of tbe
A postles, is an informant sufficiently certain to bind the conscience
to belief.
The same answer will suffice for a similar passage in a subse
quent part of the Epistle, viz., 2 Thess. iii. 6.
Mr. Keble proceeds to cite two other passages in support of
his view.
" Much later," he says, " we find St. Peter declaring to the
whole body of Oriental Christians, that in neither of his Epistles
did he profess to reveal to them any new truth or duty, but to
'stir up their minds, by way of remembrance of the com
mandment of the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour.' (2 Pet. iii.
1.) St. John refers believers for a standard of doctrine, to the

eule and /udge in religion. 423
word which they had heard from the beginning, (1 John ii. 24.) and
intimates that it was sufficient for their Christian communion, if
that word abode in them. If the word, the commandment, the
tradition, which the latest of these holy writers severally com
mend in these and similar passages, meant only or chiefly the
Scriptures before written, would there not appear a more sig
nificant mention of those Scriptures ; something nearer the tone
of our own divines, when they are delivering precepts on the
rule of faith ? As it is, the phraseology of the Epistles exactly
concurs with what we should be led to expect ; that the Church
would be already in possession of the substance of saving truth,
in a sufficiently systematic form, by the sole teaching of the Apos
tles." (pp. 22,23.)
I have given the passage in full to show the reader precisely
Mr. Keble's mode of reasoning upon these texts; and one is
almost tempted to ask. Can the writer be serious in making
these observations, or is he . sarcastically showing how utterly
destitute of evidence is the cause he professes to defend. St.
Peter and St. John (says Mr. Keble) refer Christians of their
age to the commandments and instructions which they had re
ceived orally from the Apostles, and did not say to them, directly
one or two books of Scripture had been written (which they
might or might not possess), you must forget all which the Apos
tles told you, and be careful to believe nothing but what you
find written in one or two books which haVe been published by
the Apostles, which you must get if you can ; and therefore
we, who have all the books of the New Testament, including
four accounts of the gospel, who have never had any instructions
from the Apostles, and are at the distance of eighteen centuries
from them, are to take the patristical tradition of their oral tra
ditions as binding our consciences to belief. Such an argument,
I must say, carries with it much more than its own refutation.
There remain a few other passages, which are sometimes ad
duced by the Romanists on this subject, which it may be well
to notice before we pass on ; but they are precisely similar in
character to that given above from the Epistle to the Thessa
lonians, and need no other explanation than what has been given
for that. Thus the Apostle says to the Corinthians, " I praise
you brethren that ye remember me in all things, and keep the
ordinances [frttfxhtrsir traditions^ as I delivered them to you."
(I Cor. xi. 2.) Well; what were these traditions? Were they
anything more than what we have in Scripture ; and if they did
include more, where is the informant who will certify us of them ?
Resolve these two questions, and then proceed to apply the pas
sage accordingly ; but until these questions are satisfactorily re
solved, the passage will prove no more than that the Corinthians

434 scripture the sole infallible
did right in following the pnecepts which the Apostle had given
them, which nobody doubts. And we may observe that the
Apostle has told us, in a subsequent part of the same chapter,
what one of these traditions was, viz., the institution of the Lord's
Supper (See ver. 23 &s.), and thus we see that the only one of
these traditions which is mentioned, we have (as we might ex
pect) in the Scriptures of the Evangelists.
Again, the Apostle says, " If any man seem to be contentious,
we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." (ib. ver.
16.) Now, to make this observation practically applicable to our
times, we must have satisfactory evidence what the customs of
the Church when under the superintendence of the Apostles
were ; and to make these customs binding upon the Church of
our day, we must know that they were intended to be binding
upon subsequent ages. I suspect, therefore, that the utmost we
shall be able fo get from the passage, (and an important and
useful admonition too, and one which it were to be wished had
been more attended to by many,) is that the peace of the Church
ought not to be disturbed by individuals for the sake of their pri
vate fancies, in matters of external order not involving anything
unlawful ; but that the custom of " the churches of God" ought
to be followed.
Moreover, the Apostle, further on in the same chapter, -says,
" The rest will I set in order when I come," (v. 34.) so that he
might have given some directions which we do not find in his Epis
tle ; and, of course, it is most conveniently assumed that these un
written directions comprised a great deal of important matter
respecting ordination and the sacraments, to be met with nowhere
in Scripture, "neither," says Bellarmine, "can the heretics
prove the contrary." This closing challenge to us to prove the
contrary, is certainly somewhat amusing ; but the learned con
troversialist should have recollected that it is a two-edged weapon,
for we can just as well shape out St. Paul's " ordering" to our
liking, and say that it had reference only to some minor points,
and then add, " neither can the Romanists prove the contrary,"
and then the balance will be even ; nay, I think it will incline
in our favour, for the burthen of proof does rest upon those who
assert that it had reference to important points not mentioned in
any part of the New Testament, and a still further and equally
weighty burthen of proof in behalf of the preservation of those
directions. Lastly, St. John says, " Having many things to write unto
you, I would not write with paper and ink ; but I trust to come
unto you and speak face to face." (2 John 12, and similarly 3
John 13 — 14.) " Hence," says Bellarmine, " many things were
spoken by the Apostle which are not written." No doubt there

rule and judge in religion. 425
were, and when any one can certify us what they were, we are
ready to receive them with reverence and delight.
These, as far as I am aware, are all the texts usually pro
duced in support of the views of our opponents, and certainly
they are all that need any answer.
With respect, then, to all these passages, I would commend to
Mr. Keble's and the reader's perusal, the passage with which
the former has himself supplied us from Bishop Taylor; of whom,
notwithstanding all that he has written against such notions, Mr.
Keble would fain make us beUeve that he was on his side of the
question. " Because," says the bishop, " the books of Scripture were
not all written at once, nor at once communicated, nor at once
received ; therefore the churches of God at first, were forced to
trust their memories, and to try the doctrines by appealing to the
memories of others, i. e. to the consenting report and faith de
livered and preached to other churches, especially the chiefest,
where the memory of the Apostles was recent and permanent.
The mysteriousness of Christ's priesthood, the perfection of his
sacrifice, and the unity of it, Christ's advocation and intercession
for us in heaven, might very well be accounted traditions before
St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews was admitted for canonical ;
but now they are written truths, and if they had not been
written, it is likely we should have lost them. But this way
could not long be necessary, and could not long be safe."*
This is precisely that for which we contend, that though in the
Apostolic age, before the Scriptures were written or in circula
tion in the Church, and where men had been instructed by the
oral teaching of the Apostles themselves, or their immediate dis
ciples under the sanction of the Apostles, those oral instructions
connected with the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and what
Scriptures of the New were accessible, formed the rule of faith;
yet that the mode of conveying those oral instructions, through
a successional delivery by fallible men, " could not long be safe."
We are not obliged precisely to fix the time when or the persons
to whom this observation first applied. Circumstances might ren
der it applicable in some cases earlier than in others. All with
which we are practically concerned is our own case ; and with
respect to that, we contend that we are left utterly destitute of
any sufficient evidence to substantiate to us any doctrine or state
ment of the Apostles but what we find in Scripture. We are
removed eighteen centuries from them, and for the traditions of
the first three centuries, we have but the scanty, mutilated, and
probably in some respects corriipted, remains of some dozen
I Works z. 435. (Serm. p. 118.) N W*

426 scripture the sole infallible
writers, united with some notoriously spurious liturgies. Where,
then, I would ask, are the materials from which to extract any
thing that could be received as the catholic consent of that
period ? Nay, the earliest Fathers themselves did not (as we
have seen) plead even the consent of the principal churches in
proof of anything but a few of the primary and most elementary
principles of the faith. Tradition, therefore, was not even then
appealed to as it is by our opponents now, sixteen centuries later.
Let us now proceed to notice,
(2.) The arguments and objections which may be derived from
the nature and character of the Scriptures of the New Testa
ment as it respects the object for which they were written.
On this head the Romanists have much to urge, showing, as
they think, that the Scriptures were never intended to form the
rule of faith. Thus, Bellarmine says, that if the Apostles had
designed to commit their doctrine to writing, they would have
composed a catechism or some similar book. But they either
wrote a history as the Evangelists, or Epistles, as occasion offered,
as Peter, Paul, James, Jude, and John, and in them treated of
doctrine only incidentally.^
What may be the precise view taken by our opponents on
this point, I feel it difficult exactly to determine ; for while they
seem to wish it to be thought, that they do not sympathize with
the views of the Romanists on this point, the difference seems to
me to be more apparent than real, and the appearance of it to
arise from their misconception of the real sentiments of the Ro
manists. Nay, more, when Mr. Newman sums up the objections
of the Romanists on this ground, he mentions among them several
which, though he here attributes them to others, from whom he
would have us suppose that he differs, he has himself in other
parts of the same work distinctly maintained. There is, indeed,
in the language used by our opponents on this whole subject, a
most extraordinary degree of confusion and inconsistency, arising
from a desire to draw a distinction between their views and those
of the Romanists which does not exist.
Mr. Newman says, " They \i. e. the Romanists] observe, it
[the New Testament] is but an incomplete document on the very
face of it. There is no harmony or consistency in its parts. [Do
the Romanists maintain this ?] There is no code of command
ments, no list of fundamentals. It comprises four lives of Christ,
written for different portions of the Church, and not tending to
make up one whole. Then follow epistles written to particular
Churches on particular occasions, and preserved, (as far as there
can be accident in the world,) accidentally. Some books, as the
1 Bellarm. De Verb. Dei. lib. 4. c. 4.

eule and judge in religion. 427
Epistle to the Laodiceans, are altogether lost ; others are pre
served only in a translation, as perhaps the Gospel of St. Matthew,
and the Epistle to the Hebrews ; some delivered down with barely
sufficient evidence for their genuinebess, as the second Epistle of
St. Peter. Nor were they generally received as one volume till
the fourth century. These are disproofs, it may be said, of any
intention, either in the course of Providence, or in the writers,
that the very books of Scripture, though inspired, should be the
Canon of faith, that is, that they should bound and complete it.
Also, the office of the Church as the ' keeper of Holy Writ,' seems
to make it probable that she was intended to interpret, perhaps
to supply, what Scripture left irregular and incomplete. On the
other hand, the circumstance that rehgious truths can be con
veyed by ordinances, or by catholic tradition, as well as by wri
ting, seems an intimation that there is such a second Rule of Faith,
equally authoritative and binding with Scripture itself." (pp.
336,7.) Now I beg to ask whether some, at least, of these objections do
not represent Mr. Newman's own views? And does he not dis
tinctly advocate the conclusion that Scripture is not " the Canon
of faith?" Hear his own words in a preceding page. "The
phrase ' rule of faith,' which is now commonly taken to mean the
Bible by itself, would seem, in the judgment of the English Church,
properly to belong to the Bible and Catholic Tradition taken to
gether. These two together miike up a joint rule." (p, 327.)
And as we have already shown, the view advocated by him and
Mr. Keble, is that the two make a joint rule in the necessary
points of faith, and in some others tradition forms the rule by it
self, i. e. is, in fact, "a second rule of faith," and one "equally
authoritative and binding with Scripture itself;" for, as Mr.
Keble tells us, " the unwritten word, if it can be any how au
thenticated, [and the supposition is that it can] must necessarily
demand the same reverence from us \i. e. as the written Word]."
(p. 26.)
Turn we now, however, (for we should be sorry that any part
of the case should be kept back,) to p. 346, and there, to our
utter amazement, we find, in reply to these statements of the
Romanists, a professed defence of the truth, that Scripture is " the
sole canon of our faith."
Here, then, Mr. Newman has, in his desire to appear opposed
to the Romanists, directly and in terms contradicted himself.
But he proceeds to prove this ; and his first proof, that Scrip
ture is " the sole canon of our faith," is derived from three " pecu
liarities" distinguishing it from the " unwritten word" of the Apos- '
ties, First, that " the New Testament is commonly called a tes
tament or will," and that " Testaments are necessarily writ-

428 SCRIPTURE the sole INFALLIBLE
ten" which strikes one as about as unfortunate a remark as any
we have yet had to notice. Has Mr. Newman, then, never
heard of a nuncupative will ? But if he had observed that nun
cupative wills had always been found liable tjamany frauds and
impositions, and therefore that it was likely that such a will
should be, through God's mercy, written, in order to guard
against such frauds and impositions, there would have been
much force in the remark. His conclusion from this, however, is
as follows, that " granting tradition and Scripture to come from
the Apostles, it does not therefore follow that their written word
was not, under God's over-ruling guidance, designed for a parti
cular purpose, for whichtheir word unwritten was not designed,''
(p. 346.) ; which seems to me a conclusion which falls far short
of the premises, when it is asserted that Testaments must neces
sarily be written ; for one would suppose from that, not merely
that the written word was designed to serve a " particular pur
pose," for which the word unwritten was not designed, but that
it was absolutely the sole and whole rule of faith.
The second peculiarity is, that Scripture only is inspired, that
is as to the words, while tradition is only so as to its substance.
(pp. 346, 7 ; and see Mr. Keble, p. 107.) The " third peculiari
ty" is, that " Scripture alone contains what remains to us of our
Lord's teaching." (p. 347.)
On the ground, then, of these three peculiarities, it is con
tended that Scripture is " the sole canon of our faith ;" while it
is at the same time impressed upon us, that the phrase " rule of
faith" belongs to " the Bible and catholic tradition taken to
gether." In the succeeding Lecture (the 13th,) the same orthodoxy, in
terms not in sense, is retained ; and we there see clearly the
reason, namely, the consciousness that the Fathers refer to Scrip
ture as the rule of faith.
Referring to the preceding Lecture, Mr. Newman says, that it
was "intended to show how far there is a presumption that
Scripture is what is commonly called ' the rule of faith,' inde
pendently of the testimony of the Fathers, which is the direct
and sufficient proof of it;" (p. 369.) and therefore we might
suppose a " direct and sufficient proof" that it was not made up
of Scripture and tradition taken together. And thi< is so evident
a deduction, that " before proceeding to the Fathers," it was
very necessary for Mr. Newman to tell us what was " the point
to be proved," lest we should think t[iat their language proved
much more than he would be willing to allow. The " point to
be proved," then, is this, " that Holy Scripture contains all things
necessary to salvation ; that is, either as being read therein, or
deducible therefrom ; not that Scripture is the only ground of

RULE AND JUDGE IN EELIGION. 429
the faith, or ordinarily the guide into it and teacher of it, or
the source of all religious truth whatever, or the systematizer
of it, or the instrument of unfolding, illustrating, enforcing, and
applying it ; but that it is the document of ultimate appeal in
controversy, and the touchstone of all doctrine [i. e. the docu
ment of appeal and touchstone not to individuals, but to the
Church, and who form the Church, and how you are to get the
decision of the Church, he cannot tell us.] We differ, then, from
the Romanist in this, not in denying that tradition is valuable
[mark the misrepresentation implied in this word] but in main
taining that by itself, and without Scripture warrant, it does not
convey to us any article necessary to salvation ; in other words,
that it is not a rule distinct and co-ordinate, but subordinate and
ministrative." (pp. 369, 70.)
So that though Scripture is " the rule of faith" it is not
" the only ground of faith ;" no ; for tradition is part of the
ground, even in fundamental points: nor " the source of all re
ligious truth whatever," for oth6r points to be believed, that is,
other points of faith are to be derived from tradition. But
Scripture " contains all things necessary to salvation," a confes
sion forced by the sixth article, but explained away by suppo
sing that it contains them so obscurely, that we cannot find them,
except the unwritten word assures us that they are there, and
so imperfectly, that vve need tradition to give us a complete
representation of them. And as Scripture contains all such
points, it is necessary to allow that in such points there must be
some Scripture warrant, while it is at the same time maintained
that tradition delivers them to us much better ; for, as Mr. Keble
tells us, for the full doctrines of the Trinity, incarnation, &c.,
we are indebted to tradition.
And this is called, differing from the Romanists, a mistake
which we have already pointed out. And the evident contra
diction in these statements is attempted to be got over, by saying
that tradition is " not a rule distinct and co-ordinate, but sub
ordinate and ministrative," a mere juggle of words; for if tradi
tion is an unwritten word of God, and conveys to us with cer
tainty the full revelation of the truths which are but indistinctly
revealed in Scripture, (as both Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble
contend,) it is a rule " distinct and co-ordinate," whether they
choose to call it so or not; and it is a mere mystification of the
subject to draw these verbal but unreal distinctions, and one
calculated only to deceive and mislead the reader. Nay more,
upon this hypothesis, viz., that tradition conveys to us the full
doctrines of the faith, and that the Scripture " notices" of them
are only to be understood as explained and ampUfied by tradi-

430 scripture the sole infallible
tion, it is Scripture that is "subordinate and ministrative" to
tradition, and not tradition to Scripture.
The same sort of explanation is often offered by the Roman
ists in defence of their statements on this subject, as for instance
was done by Gother. But what says Dean Sherlock to it ? " We
do not," he says, "charge them with denying in express
words the authority of the Scripture to be a rule, but with say
ing that which is equivalent io it. That the sense of it is so
various and uncertain, that no man can be sure of the true
meaning of it, in the most necessary and fundamental arti
cles of the faith, but by the interpretation and authority qf
the Church, which does effectually divest it of the authority
of a rule, for that is my rule which can and must direct me,
which, it seems, is not the Scripture considered in itself, but
as interpreted by the authority of the Church, which makes
the faith AND INTERPRETATION OF THE CHURCH, NOT THE SCRIP
TURES, MY IMMEDIATE RULE."*
But these terms serve to hide (I use the words in no offensive
sense) the confusion, inconsistency, and self-contradiction which
pervade the works of our opponents on this point. Indeed, Mr.
Newman candidly confesses that he can give no reason why the
Fathers, taking his view of tradition, as he takes it for granted
they did, did not make it an independent informant in matters of
necessary faith, but he ingenuously confesses that they did not,
and therefore that we must not, (pp. 342, 3,) but must be " con
tent to accept the canonicity of Scripture [a phrase most strange
ly used by him to mean that Scripture is the canon of the faith]
on faith," (p. 343,) i. e. faith in patristical tradition ; and so he
cuts the knot by calling it " subordinate and ministrative,"
while he can give no reason why it should not be called, accord
ing to his view of it, " distinct and co-ordinate," except that the
Fathers did not do so, a tolerably good proof that he and the
Fathers did not take the same view of it.
Such is the labyrinth of confusion into which Mr. Newman
has thrown himself that he contradicts himself over and over
again within a few pages. Thus, speaking of the " consent of
the Fathers" on this point, he says, " If any but the Scripture
had pretensions to be an oracle of faith, would not the first suc
cessors of the Apostles be that oracle ? must not they, if any,
have possessed the authoritative traditions of the Apostles?"
(p. 340,) and that "the tradition of the Fathers" " witnesses not
only that Scripture is the record, but that it is the sole record of
saving truth," (p. 342); and then in the very next page he says,
" It may be asked, if Scripture be, as has been above represent-
1 A Papist not misrepresented, &c. p. 19.

RULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 431
ed, but the document of appeal, and catholic tradition the au
thoritative teacher of Christians, how is it, &c. (p. 343.) So
that from an intimation that Scripture is the alone oracle of
faith, that the early Fathers did not possess the authoritative
traditions of the Apostles, and that Scripture is the sole record
of saving truth — confessions wrung from him by the testimony
of the Fathers, — we jump directly to the observation that Scrip
ture is but the document of appeal, and catholic tradition the
authoritative teacher of Christians.
All this inconsistency arises from Mr. Newman having adopted
the principles of Romanism on this point, while he wishes never
theless to make it appear (even perhaps to himself) that there
is some difierence between him and the Romanists, and therefore
he takes refuge in the labyrinth of words, through which, having
led his readers backwards and forwards, he brings them out at
last, (many of them quite unconsciously,) to the very standard of
Romanism from which they started.
The same remark applies to Mr. Keble and Dr. Pusey. Thus
the former, while he tells us distinctly in one part that Scripture
and tradition make up together the rule of faith, (p. 82,) in
another speaks of " reversing the claim of Scripture to be sole
and paramount as a rule of faith." (p. 31.) With respect to the
latter, notwithstanding the distinctions he has attempted to
draw in his " Letter" between his views and those of the Roman
ists, it is only necessary to compare the remarks he has there
made with the extract given from him above,* to see that the
distinctions are but verbal and not real, being precisely the same
as those of Mr. Newman just noticed.
I should also remark here, that another means adopted by our
opponents to get over their difficulties on this ppint, is by tacitly
limiting the meaning of the word " faith" to the necessary faith,
or that which is necessary to be believed in order to salva
tion. Thus Dr. Pusey tells us that "the doctrines of the creeds
only are articles of faith, or, ' necessary to be believed in order
to salvation ;' " and consequently, when Scripture is called the
rule of faith, or " the sole authoritative source of the faith," it
means of" things to be believed in order to salvation;"* and con
sequently there is left a very goodly portion of things which are
not " articles of faith," but, nevertheless, are (as by a very nice
distinction he afterwards calls them) " subjects of belief," to
fall to the lot of tradition only ; nay, it would appear from the
above language, that all but the articles in the creeds belong to
tradition ; and, with respect to those articles, the creeds are the
1 See p. 41 — 43 above.
2 Dr. Pusey's Lett, to Bp. of Oxford, pp. 27—30,

433 scripture the sole infallible
authoritative interpreter of Scripture; so that how much is left
to Scripture the reader may easily judge.
What may be the opinion of the reader as to this attempt to
mystify him, by this use of words in a peculiar sense, I know
not ; but to me it appears to savour very much of disingenuous
ness. Does Dr. Pusey mean to say that all the doctrines which God
has in any manner revealed to us, are not " articles of faith ?"
What, then, does he mean by faith, or who authorized him to
limit the word faith to the fundamentals of the faith or to say
that the whole faith is comprised in " the creed V' Not, certain
ly, the Word of God. It is quite true that the phrases " the
faith," " the rule of faith," are sometimes used by the Fathers to
signify the principal articles of faith; and that modern theologians
have used the phrase " the faith" in the same technical sense,
But Dr. Pusey knows well that this is no defence for one who
denies that any but these articles are articles of faith ; which
can only be true, on the supposition either that God has spoken
nothing but these, or that the other parts of God's word are not
objects of faith.' Whatever religious truth God has delivered to
us, is an article of faith ; and whenever Dr. Pusey shall prove
that we have, in patristical traditions, that which is in substance
the Word of God, it will follow that the religious truths so de
livered are articles of faith, as much as any truths of a similar
kind delivered in Scripture. But here is the advantage to his
cause, in using such phraseology, that by thus limiting the mean
ing of the word faith he can make use of orthodox language, and
call the Scriptures, in some sense, the rule of faith ; while he
retains views utterly opposed to what he seems to admit.
As long as our opponents contend that tradition is in substance
an unwritten Word of God, a divine informant, and must be
joined with Scripture to make up the rule of faith, as giving the
full revelation of truths but obscurely revealed in Scripture, and
delivers with certainty Apostolical doctrines not in Scripture, it
is utterly useless for them to pretend to draw any real distinc
tion between their views and those of the Romanists ; and the
attempt will only involve them in inconsistencies and self-contra
dictions ; though, of course, on account of these self-contradic
tions, they may be as much disowned by the Romanists as by
Protestants. Upon the whole, then, the view taken by our opponents seems
to be this ; that though the rule of faith is made up of Scrip
ture and tradition taken together, yet that as Scripture contains
the necessary points of faith, that is to say, obscure and imper
fect notices of them, (for this is all which they, in fact, allow,)

RULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 433
therefore, taking the word faith to mean the necessary faiih.
Scripture may be called, in some sense, the rule of faith.
It is quite evident, however, that in all this management
and straining of the sense of words there is some object to be
gained in showing how the phrase, rule of faith, may somehow
or other, consistently with their views, be applied to Scripture ;
and that object is an appearance of agreement with the Fathers,
who do so call it. And Mr. Newman candidly confesses that they
so apply this phrase, not on any grounds of ^ea^O'i, (for according
to their views it is not so applicable,) but because there is
a " consent of (Fathers" that such is the case,* (as no doubt
there is ;) and the reason why they object to the representations
of the Romanists as to the imperfect structure of the New Tes
tament for a rule of faith is not from their thinking the obser
vations inapplicable in the abstract, but because they think it
undesirable to do more than just receive the representations of
the Fathers on the point, and rest satisfied with them without
going further, though indeed they themselves do this only as to
the letter and not as fo the spirit. And they seem to be as fear
ful here as they were with respect to the evidences for the inspi
ration of the New Testament, that if you do but exercise your
reason to judge of any part of the foundation upon which your
faith is resting, you will immediately relinquish it, as unworthy
your confidence. And, according to their view of things, these
fears are not without foundation ; for, if all appearances are
against Scripture being an adequate rule of faith, and it is to be
believed, nevertheless that it is so, on the testimony of a few Fa
thers, then the less said about it the better. I shall only say,
however, that having no such fears, I am not at all alarmed at
seeing reason inquire into the matter.
I shall now, therefore, venture to call the attention of reason
to this matter, and beg it to view very narrowly the structure of
the New Testament, and see the stability of the foundation upon
which is built the truth that Holy Scripture is fitted by its
structure to be the rule of faith and practice in at least all vital
points. Let me ask, then, first. For what were the gospels composed ?
Were they not written to give men a complete account of the
Christian religion ; and are we to suppose that such accounts,
written by Apostles, or published under the authority of Apos
tles, would fail to deliver all the vital points at least of that re
ligion ?
Of the Gospel of St. Matthew, Eusebius tells us that " Mat
thew having preached first to the Hebrews, and being about to
> See pp. 339, 340.
VOL. I. ° O

434 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
go to other nations, wrote the Gospel according fo him in his
own language, supplying by writing the want of his presence and
converse among those whom he was about to leave."*
Did he leave, then, any vital doctrine unnoticed in this book
so written for such a purpose?
Or does the Gospel of St. Mark, penned by him as the Gospel
preached by St. Peter, and sanctioned by Peter,^ leave out any
vital part of the Gospel preached by Peter ? The especial ob
ject of St. Peter in having this Gospel written was, if we believe
the common patristical interpretation of 2 Pet. i. 15, (and which
carries upon it an air of great probability), to ensure to his fol
lowers a knowledge qi the great truths of Christianity, which
shows how little he was willing to trust thetti to oral tradition.
Besides these, we have the Gospel of St. Luke, professing to
give Theophilus " a declaration of those things which were most
surely believed" among Christians, that he might " know the cer
tainty of those things wherein he had been instructed."
Still further, — These three Gospels were reviewed by St.
John, and published with his sanction, and he himself added
a fourth, to supply what he considered desirable to make up
a complete account of our Lord's life and doctrine.* And,
connected with this fact, those words towards the close of his
Gospel are more especially observable, as favourable to our view,
in which he says, " And many other signs truly ditl Jesus in the
presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the
Christ the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life
through his name." (John xx. 30, 31.)
And these accounts of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, let us ob
serve, were written for the information of mankind at large, not
as documents for the private use Of the pastors of tbe Church ;
and were diligently distributed for that purpose by the earliest
teachers of Christianity;* which is an important consideration
in judging of their fitness to be the rule of faith to mankind.
if, then, these four Gospels do not fully and clearly deliver all
the important doctrines of Christianity, I know not where we
are to look for them.
But we are not left with these only; we have, besides them,
above twenty Epistles, written by several of the Apostles to
various Churches and individuals, in order to explain still more
> Lib. iii. c. 24. See, also, Chrys. in Matth. hom. 1. ; and Op. Imp. in Matth.
Prffifat. 2 See p. 382 above.
3 See Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 24. See, also, Epiph. adv. Her. in hsr. 51.
§§4—8. 4 See Euseb. H. E. lib. iii. >;. 37.

RULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 435
fully and clearly the Christian faith. Now these, I admit, were
written as occasion offered ; and if the whole of the New Tes
tament had consisted of such writings, the objections of the Ro
manists on this head might have had some foundation ; but, as
it is, these Epistles are merely the additional explanations vouch
safed us for our guidance and comfort, beyond the more summary
accounts given us by the Evangelists; explanations in the ab
sence of which, much ceftainly of the light now enjoyed would
have been wanting, and which, on account of the inspiration of
their authors, form part of the divine rule of faith and practice.
But had we been without these Epistles and the book of Revela
tion, the divine rule of faith and practice would have been limit
ed to the four Gospels, for the very same reason that it is now
limited to the Scriptures we possess, namely, that they only would
have possessed any certain title to be considered as the word of
God. To all which we may add, that one of the earliest Christian
writers, Irenaeus, expressly tells us, that what the Apostles first
preached that they afterwards wrote in the Scriptures.*
The argument here urged is so clear and evident, that even
Mr. Newman himself, when professing to oppose the Romanists,
and show that Scripture is the canon of the faith, (and ortho
doxy preserved, as we have already seen, in name and words
only, for his real meaning is in substance precisely the same as
that of the Romanists,) actually adopts it. After quoting with
approbation a remark of Bishop Taylor's that " our Lord's
teaching contains all things necessary to salvation," (p. 357,) of
which teaching he holds Scripture to be the sole record, he re
marks, " The doctrines of our faith are really promulgated by
Christ himself. There is no truth which St. Paul or St. John de
clare, which he does not anticipate . . . . If we had only the
Gospels, we should have in them all the great doctrines of the
Epistles, all the articles of the Creed .... And this is one
raain reason, it would seem, why the Epistles are vouchsafed to
us ; not so much to increase the Gospel, as to serve as a com
ment upon it, as taught by our Lord, to bring out and fix His
sacred sense, lest we should by any means miss it ;" (pp. 360,
1.) And yet, after all, we must go (Mr. Newman says) to tra
dition for the full development of those truths, for they are
neither yM^/,y nor clearly revealed in Scripture, and the chances
are seriously against any one being able to learn them from
Scripture. And in order to oblige us, if possible, to receive " tra
dition" as a part of the rule of faith, the Scriptural foundation
of some of the most important doctrines of the faith is cavilled
1 Iren. adv. Her. iii. 1. ~

436 SCRIPTURE the SOLE INFALLIBLE
at as quite insufficient. Now these two statements can only be
reconciled on one of these two suppositions, either that the Apos
tles purposely kept back something, when they professed to give
mankind an account of our Lord's teaching, and explain in their
Epistles his doctrine, or that, though they were inspired, they
were unable to give a clear account of the matter ; on which
latter supposition, by the way, the tradition of their oral teach
ing will not give us much additional help.
This is another rather curious specimen, as it appears to me,
of the windings of Mr. Newman's labyrinth.
I proceed to notice,
(3) The arguments and objections which may be derived from
other general considerations.
And here let us observe.
First. — The committal of the Gospel to writing at all, is a
strong argument in favour of the whole revealed faith, that is,
in all important points at least, having been committed to writing.
For why was it written at all, and not left to be communica
ted to mankind by the oral teaching of the disciples of the Apos
tles and their successors to the end of the world ; but that its
perpetuation would thus have been endangered, that is in other
words, but for the uncertainty of " tj-adition ?" And if they
committed to writing one part of the doctrines they delivered
on this account, did not the same reason operate equally strongly
for committing the whole to writing ; that is, all that was of vital
importance to Christians ? Why should any important part be left
out in all the four accounts, when they were written for the pur
pose of giving the Christian world the best information on the
doctrines of Christianity ? Is it reasonable to suppose that this
should be the case ? especially when we recollect that the first
three were reviewed by the author of the last, and that last
written to make their account rnore complete ? Can we venture
to think them guilty of such an inconsistency, guided as they
were by the Divine Spirit in all such matters ?
And the same argument operates with equal force in favour
of their having delivered those doctrines clearly and fully. For
the great object to be attained by committing them to writing,
was to prevent their being corrupted through the imperfections
or corrupt prejudices of human nature;, but if they were not
clearly and fully delivered, and it was left to " tradition" to hand
down the " full doctrine," they would be almost as much exposed
to such corruption as they would have been had they not been
written ; and there cannot be charged upon the writers any in-
capabifity of delivering those doctrines clearly and fully.
Secondly. — Patristical tradition cannot be, practically, any
part of the rule of faith or practice to men in general, for it has

RULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 437
to be evolved from a multitude of volumes, by a process which
renders it practically inaccessible to the great bulk of mankind.
For how are men, generally, to obtain a knowledge of what is
called primitive catholic consent ? Supposing it to be deducible
from the records of antiquity which remain to us (which it is not,)
how are men generally to find ont that which is derived from a
careful comparison and survey of a whole library of volumes ?
But it may be said, it is delivered to them by others whom
they may safely trust. But what assurance have they of this ?
Is it so very easy a task to determine infalfibly the opinion of the
whole primitive church respecting any contested doctrine ? Oh !
yes, saith Mr. Newman, " the doctrine of the Apostles" is "an
historical fact, and ascertainable as other facts, and obvious tb
the intelligence of inquirers as other facts;" *' the church enforces
a fact — Apostolical tradition." (pp. 224, 5)
Now we have already so fully entered upon this point in a
former-chapter, that I need not, I hope, add one word here for
the overthrow of such a notion. It is only surprising how any
one at all acquainted with the matter, could risk such an asser
tion. And, in truth, Mr. Newman himself seems aware that this
obvious fact may be anything but obvious to many ; and hence
he is forced, at last, to take refuge, like the Romanists, in the in
fallibility of the Church, and, " that doctrine which is true con
sidered as an historical fact, is true also because she [the Church]
teaches it" (p. 226.) ; and therefore, if any one ventures to think
for hiinself as to what this " fact" is by a survey of the writings
of the Fathers, if he concludes contrary to what "the Church"
teaches, his mouth is stopped at once by the plea of the infalli
bility of the Church, so that he might as well spare himself the
labour of inquiring, and take all at once from the hands of the
Church, which, indeed, is the happy state to which our oppo
nents seem to wish to reduce us. Thus, all questions are, at last,
swallowfed up in the quicksand of church-infallibility.
And the curious part of this matter is, that Mr. Newman, in
stead of boldly telling us, like the Piomanists, what and who " the
Church" is, fairly intimates that he is at a loss to do so ; but asks
with great simplicify whether we, cannot consider our own
church as able to answer the purpose ; so that after all the high-
sounding words about the teaching of " the Church," — " the ca
tholic Church," it turns out that, practically, this means the
teaching of a company of men, occupying a section of a little
island at one corner of the worid. Surely, says Mr. N, she
"transmits the antient catholic faith simply and intelligibly;"
" to follow the Church, then, in this day, is to follow the
prayer-book." (p. 313.) No doubt we who belong to her think
so. But how did we find out that she " transmits the antient
0 0*

438 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
catholic faith ?" Are all men bound to take her word for it ?
So, then, after all this vapouring about the infallibility of the
Church's teaching, there is no teaching to be found to which
such a high-sounding name belongs. To talk, indeed, of the
teaching of the Church catholic, either as consisting of the whole
body of professing Christians, or of the true children of God; or
even of the pastors of the Church, is a manifest absurdity ; for
the suffrages of either body never were and never could be col
lected, and to such a consent only could the idea of freedom from
error be attached.
Patristical tradition, then, cannot be practically any part of
the infallible rule of faith to mankind ; because, to the majority,
it is not accessible. The doubt and uncertainty hanging over it
in all cases, are to the great majority of mankind doubled ; and
it comes to them, at least, with such a probability of alloy and
corruption, that it absolutely needs to be tried and tested by
some touchstone which can be depended upon, to show them
what in it may be agreeable to truth, and what otherwise. In
other words, instead of being any part of the rule, it must be
itself judged by the rule.
Thirdly. — So clearly is Scripture set forth by the Fathers as
the rule of faith, that our opponents are forced to admit that in
necessary points, (to which, for their own purposes, they would
fain limit the use of the word faith,) that title cannot be denied
to Scripture. This forced admission, then, is, as it respects these
points at least, fatal to their cause ; for if in these it is, as they in
words admit, the canon or rule of faith, then tradition is not in
these points any part of the rule.
For that which is the rule of faith to men in necessary points,
is that by which necessary faith is to be regulated and measured;
and it is contrary to the nature of a rule, to receive either addi
tion or diminution in those respects for which it is a rule. And
so the Fathers say. Thus Chrysostom, who calls the Scriptures
"the rule ofall things,"* that is, all religious truth, says, "A rule
receives neither addition or diminution, otherwise it ceases to be
a rule.'"" And Basil, reproving Eunomius for saying that the
creed, while he called it a standard and rule, needed an addition
to make it more accurate,^ observes that this is the iextreme of
folly, for that " a standard and rule, as long as nothing is want
ing to them to make them a standard and rule, admit no addition
for greater accuracy. For an addition is wanting only to sup-
1 See under Chrysostom in ch. 10 below.
2 'O Karaii OUTi TrpotrBio-tv ouTi xpAipuriy SiXtTXi, trru to xavuv uvxt attoxxuti. In Ep.
ad PhU. c. 3. hom. 12. (Ed. Bened. tom. xi. p. 293.)
3 npotrBHiois axpigirTifAs SitirBAi. Adv. Eunom. lib. i. § 5, Ed. Bened. tom. i. p.
S13

EULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 439
ply a defect ; but if they were imperfect, they could not properly
be called by these names."*
True it is that the Fathers often apply the phrase "the rule of
faith" to a brief summary of the leading articles of the faith ; but
then we must consider the purpose for which it was intended.
It was an elementary summary of the chief articles of the faith,
intended to serve as the Church's Confession ; and thus was in that
sense the Church's Rule of Faith. It had its origin, as we have
seen in a former chapter, in the words of our Lord ; and proba
bly consisted originally of nothing more than the confession of the
Trinity, including the identification of the Son with Jesus Christ ;
and the reason for this selection may clearly be traced to the
words in which our Lord instituted the rite of baptism.'' The
creed, then, was strictly " the rule of faith,"ybr the purpose for
which it was a rule; that is, as the Church's elementary con
fession. As long as it remained the Church's Confession, it admit- '
ted neither addition nor diminution, but by the same authority
that made it.
When, therefore, the Fathers appUed the term rule of faith to
Scripture, they meant that in those respects in which it was a
rule, it was complete and perfect ; it admitted neither addition
nor diminution. In what respects, then, did they so receive it?
Not with regard merely to the Church's Confession. No ; but
wifh reference to the whole faith, or at least the whole necessary
faith, by which necessary belief was to be regulated and mea
sured; admitting neither addition nor diminution, for the purpose
for which it was a rule. So that at least in all the points of faith
required for salvation, if it is the rule, it is the whole of the
rule, containing a revelation of all doctrines necessary to be
known, and a revelation going to the full extent of what is re
quired to be known respecting them : otherwise it would not be
the rule for necessary faith. To say, then, tiiat Scripture is the
rule of faith in necessaries, but that, nevertheless, the full doc
trines of Christianity in some fundamental points are only to be
found in Scripture and tradition taken together as a joint rule,
is of all inconsistencies the most absurd.'
1 T«1/T0 Si <tUTO xxt THS itrXO-THS A/AxBlAS tTH/AUOV UTTU, U TU XAt TOt/TO HIXOV TTApi^iTA-
iity 'o yAP TOl XAVUV, u !r(ipa>T«T!, xai i yvu/Auv, ius av /ahSiv ivSiu tou xarav inxi xxt yvu-
um, ouSuAiAv iTpo»-ew»v its AxpiBuAy -iTTiSiXiTAi. _ Kara yAp to iXXUTroy » ^potrBicrts. Ats-
'xus Si uTTApxovTt!, ouSi TUV TTfonyoptm TOUTUV uyius av m TuyxAvoia. In. lb. pp. -il.5,
314. afn'theTboVe^'reasoning.Ihave supposed that when the Fathers called the
Scripture the rule of faith, they might mean only in P°'"'\"^"''f^%;"V.hev
tion ; because this cannot be denied, I shall show hereafter, however that they,
or at least many of them, meant the phrase to mean ™»'>\7".»°'L '^/^' ^^f,
regarded Scripture as measuring and bounding the -whole faith, inasmuch as it
bounded what could be known to be divine revelation.

440 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
Fourthly. — Our opponents allow that, in all fundamental points.
Scripture is the document of proof; and that Scripture proof of
all such doctrines is absolutely necessary ; a concession which, if
they did not make, might be forced from them, upon their own
principles, by the testimony of the Fathers.* Now this conces'
sion is absolutely summarily fatal to their cause, as far as the
fundamentals of the faith are concerned.
For if Scripture proof is required in all such doctrines, then
whether it be required for the satisfaction of " the Church" or an
individual, such proof exists in Scripture for all ; and such
proof can exist only as far. as the doctrine is there revealed.
Any amphfication or fuller statement of the doctrine derived from
any other source, cannot, as far as concerns the additional ideas
conveyed, receive any proof from Scripture. He who states the
doctrine more clearly or fully (as he may think) than Scripture,
cannot have Scripture warrant for his statements. If, therefore.
Scripture proof is required for the fundamentals of the faith, then,
in such points, Scripture is the sole rule of faith ; for, by the de
clarations of Scriplure, our faith, as it respects such points, must
be measured and bounded. Not only are we not required to
believe more, but it is at our peril to add to what is there re
vealed ; for our faith has then no proper foundation to rest
upon. It is true that patristical tradition may be very useful as a
teacher, in pointing out to us what Scripture does contain and
prove, by , drawing out and illustrating its sense ; and is, on many
accounts, if we will but remember to use it with proper caution,
a valuable interpreter of Scripture. But the doctrines which it
teaches us have authority over our faith, only so far as they ap
pear to us to be authorized by, and proveable from Scripturei I
say as far as they appear to us to be so, because we are respon
sible to God individually ; and having what all aUow to be his
Word in the Scriptures, we are responsible to him for believing
what in our consciences we believe to be the meaning of his
Word. It is useless to reply that we may possibly in such a case
have an immense majority of the professing Christian Church
against usi or that possibly we may interpret the Scriptures
wrongly. For not to say that majorities are no proof of truth,
and that we hold with the Fathers that all the fundamentals of
faith and practice are, to the humble inquirer, plain in Scripture,
and that the promises of God insure success to the inquiries of
the sincere and humble-minded, we hold it to be a truth alto-
' I hope to show fully hereafter, when quoting the testimonies of the Fathers,
that they, or at least many of them, not only held that the fundamental doctrines
of the faith must be proved from Scripture, but that all the doctrines of the Chris
tian religion must be so proved.

EULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 441
gether undeniable, that if we are certain that God has spoken to
us, and are convinced in our consciences that what he has said
means this or that, nothing ought to be allowed to move us from
a faith so taken up ; and if we err, the fault is with us, and our
judgment not with fallible man, but with God.
But this subordination of patristical tradition to Scripture, our
opponents cannot think of allowing ; for though in words they
admit Scripture to be the document of proof, and will talk of the
necessity of Scripture proof for the fundamental doctrines, there
is nothing whith they less admit in reality, either as it respects
the Church, or individuals.
Their favourite phrase on this subject is, that " tradition
teaches. Scripture proves :* by which they mean to intimate that
Scripture is insufficient to teach, but sufficient to prove, (a tole
rably' strange contradiction to begin with ;) and the reason is,
that Scripture contains only obscure " notices" of the necessary
doctrines, but tradition has handed down these doctrines /w/Zy
and clearly. We must, therefore, learn these doctrines from tra
dition ; and regard th6 obscure notices of these doctrines in
Scripture, as proving all that tradition has delivered to us re
specting them. Our opponents, it would seem, are easily satis
fied as to proofs, when it suits their hypothesis to be so. But
certainly with their view of the nature of faith, we cannot be
surprised at this. For the less the evidence the better. Its
doubtfulness is a recommendation, Mr. Newman tells us, and
gives an opportunity for faith to be " generous." On any other
hyothesis, however, it is difficult to see how that which contains
only obscure notices of a doctrine, notices only to be understood
by the aid of tradition, can be said to prove that doctrine. The
inconsistency is so glaring, that to quote authorities to show it,
seems almost superfluous; but there are some remarks of our ex
cellent Archbishop Tension, so much to the purpose on this point,
that I cannot refrain from quoting them. "The Romanists,'r
says the Archbishop, " declare that the Scriptures are so obscure,
even in matters of faith, that ihe people, without an infallible
^'aide, cannot find out the true sense of them. If this doc
trine OF THEIRS BE TRUE, IT IS MOST ABSURD FOR THEM TO GO
•VBOUT TO PROVE THEIR ARTICLES TO THE PEOPLE OUT OF THE SCRIP
TURES, seeing that supposeth the Scriptures clearer than those
articles ; for that by which any thing is proved, is to be more
known and certain, than that which is proved by it. This way,
likewise, sets up the people as judges of the sense of these Scrip
tures which they offer to them in the main points in difference ;
that is, they now confess the people can judge of that of which
¦Keble, p. 114.

442 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
they yet say they cannot judge, by reason of their Weakness,
and the obscureness of the Holy Writings. But when men
HAVE A MIND TO PROCEED IN A CAUSE, IT IS NOT A CONTRADICTION
THAT CAN STOP THEM. Therefore, notwithstanding this, and very
much more of the like nature, which might be alleged against
this way of proceeding, as plainly inconsistent ; still amongst
the weak, who discern not the absurdity, and have not skill to set
their methods one against another, they make their boast of
Scripture proofs for their religion, and against ours."' Thus
Mr. Husenbeth tells us, " Let it be further remarked, thatwhen
the Catholic Church has declared the sense of Scripture, and de
duced certain doctrines from it, we may then, as Scotus has also
remarked, confidently assert that they can be manifestly pbovkd
from Scripture."^ So that if " the Catholic Church" was to de
clare that Scripture said that black was white, we raight then
"confidently assert" that it might be "manifestly proved" from
Scripture. No matter what Scripture says, but if the Cathohc
Church declares that it says this or that, then this or that may be
" manifestly proved" out of it.
Moreover, it would be worth knowing how it is that since tra
dition is an unwritten Word of God, we have any need of Scrip
ture proof, after tradition has taught us the faith, and that more
clearly and fully than Scripture can. It seems, at any rate,
needless trouble to go any further. For if tradition is in sub
stance the Word of God, it proves the truth of what it delivers,
as well as Scripture could ; for one word of God is worthy of
equal reverence, and is of equal authority, with any other. " If
we will be impartial, says Mr. Keble, " we cannot hide it from
ourselves that God's unwritten word, if it can be any bow authen
ticated, [and the position contended for is that it can be authen
ticated, and is to be found in the Fathers,] must necessarily de
mand the same reverence from us [i. e.^as his written word,] and
for exactly the same reason, because it is his word.'" Certainly ;
and therefore to send us to the obscure notices of Scripture for
proofs of a doctrine which the " unwritten word" has delivered
to us clearly and fully, is most unreasonable. So that at best
this observation as to " tradition teaching and Scripture proving,"
is, in the sense in which they mean it, full of absurdity and in
consistency. .
There is a sense, indeed, in which this phrase, "tradition
teaches, Scripture proves," is true enough ; and states a fact
which occurs in the case of most individuals, who are first taught
> Popery not founded on Scripture. Lond. 1688. 4to. Introduction, p. 12.
2 Reply to Faber, 2d. ed. p. 247.
' p. 26.

RULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 443
principally by creeds and catechisms, which have been handed
down from generation to generation, for a longer or shorter time ;
but then tradition is not bere taken as meaning anything derived
from the oral teaching of the Apostles, as if we had anything
which could be considered as coming to us with Apostolical au
thority, — and the learner is also taught that the truths so de
livered to him rest altogether upon the authority of Scripture ;
and are obligatory upon him only so far as they are authorized
by Scripture ; and to Scripture he is exhorted to go, as soon as
he is able to examine fqr himself, and make Scripture testimony
the sole ground of his faith.
It is no proof that those who have come to' years of discretion
do not learn the doctrines of the faith from Scripture as the sole
ground of their faith, that they have first been made ac
quainted with thertt through the medium of a creed, or cate
chism, or elementary work. A child or uneducated person may
thus take the doctrines of Christianity upon the word of the
parent or teacher, this being all the satisfaction they may be
capable of as fo the truth of those doctrines. But even this is
not, strictly speaking, traditionary teaching, for he who teaches,
if he knows his duty, will [whatever formula he may make use
of in the way of creed or catechism, &c.) teach those doctrines
only for which he has Scripture proof. And the child, when he
comes to years of responsibiUty to God, is bound to examine the
book of God ior himself, as far as he is able, to see whether
what he has been taught is agreeable to what is there delivered,
and thus to learn his faith, as a being responsible to God, from
Scripture as the sole ground of it. Nor is there any inconsis
tency, as our opponents insinuate, in giving what is called " the
Apostles' creed," as the summary of our belief, and yet assert
ing that the Scripture is the sole ground of our faith, and that
we have learned the faith from Scripture, inasmuch as the rea
son why we receive that creed is, as our church expresses it,
because? it may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy
Scripture. (Art. 8.) And as the language of the early church
may have greater weight with our opponents in proof of this, I
will give them an unexceptionable instance of a very early date,
viz., in the language used by the Fathers assembled at tbe Synod
against Noetus, who after repeating the creed in the usual form
of that period, immediately add, " We maintain these doctrines,
HAVING LEARNED THEM FROM THE DIVINE SCRIPTURES."*
And hence we may observe the confusion and inconsequential
reasoning that mark the following observation of one of the Tract
1 -Tauta xiyo/Aty, /Ai/AaSi/xoTtt atto t«p 9i m ^-pajuiir. Epiphan. hter. Noet. 57. Ed,
Petav. vol. i. p. 480.

444 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
writers, who says, — " It is to be observed, that where separatists
hold the catholic truth, they hold it not from Scripture only,
FOR others, on the plea of Scriptural authority, deny the same,
[mark the logic of this, that because some plead Scripture in
defence of error, therefore nobody can find the truth in it,] but
from tradition supplied by the Church, which has been to them
the key to the Scriptures."^ As if men could not hold the truth
from Scripture only, where tradition supplied by the Church
may have been, in the first instance, the key to the Scriptures.
Why this very thing, which they tell us " it is to be observed"
cannot be, is precisely what is contended for by their supposed
friends. Hooker and Archbishop Laud. Speaking of the tradi
tion supplied by the Church, the Archbishop says, " It serves to
work upon the minds of unbelievers to move them to read and to
consider the Scripture. . . And secondly, it serves^ among novices,
weaklings, and doubters in the faith, to instruct and confirm them
till they may, acquaint themselves with and understand the
Scripture, which the Church delivers as the Word of God. .
. . . No man can set a better state of the question between
Scripture and tradition than Hooker doth : his words are these :
— ' The Scripture is the ground of our belief: the authority
of man (that is the name he gives to tradition*) is the key
which opens the door of entrance into the knowledge of the
Scripture.' "^ ,
The tradition supplied by the Church may be* and perhaps
generally is, the means of first introducing men to a knowledge
of the truths of Scripture ; buf tbe ground of faith to one who
has Scripture in his hands, and is sufficiently capable of judging
to be responsible to God for forming a right judgment, and the
sole infallible ground of faith to all, is Scripture.
Further, when we come to inquire what our opponents mean
when they say that Scripture is to be referred to for proof, we
shall find that, practically, it amounts to nothing. They are
forced to admit it in words because they see plainly that the
Fathers admitted it, while (as in other cases) they in effect alto
gether deny it. For neither " the Church," nor any individual,
may understand Scripture as meaning anything else than what
" tradition" teaches as its meaning. So that though they talk of
the necessity of going to Scripture for proof, and believing only
what Scripture proves, they, in fact, mean not Scripture, but the
interpretation given to Scripture by " tradition," that is, in other
words, " tradition." Their appeal, therefore, is not to Scripture
proof, but to " tradition" saying that Scripture proves it. When
1 Tract 80. p. 65. 2 These are the Archbishop's words.
3 Reply to Fiaher, § 16. n. 21 & 25.

EULE AND JUDGE IN EELIGION. 445
talking of Scripture proof, then, they are merely trifling with us
and throwing dust into the eyes of men to blind them to the real
state of the case, just as the Papists do when they send us to the
Scriptures for a proof of the infallibility of their church, which if
we cannot find in the texts they quote for it as proof, we are
rated as infidels for presuming to suppose that texts quoted by
infallibility as meaning this or that, can possibly mean anything
else. The Church herself, when proving the truth from Scripture, is
" a witness of catholic truth delivered to her in the first ages,
whether by Councils, or by Fathers, or in whatever other way,"
and " does not claim any gift of interpretation for herself, in the
high points in question," but " hands over the office to catholic
antiquity." " Much less does she allow individuals to pretend to
it."* In them it would be a high crime and misdemeanour to go
to Scripture to judge for themselves, whether there was any suffi
cient proof of what the Fathers have delivered on these points,
for " the popular view," " that every Christian has the right of
making up his mind for himself what he is to believe, from per
sonal and private study of the Scriptures," is " so very prepos
terous" — "something so very strange and wild," that Mr. New
man is " unable either to discuss or even to impute such an opin
ion to another.'"^ " In what our articles say of Holy Scripture as
the document of proof, exclusive reference is had to teaching. It
is not said that individuals are to infer the faith, but that the
Church is to prove it from Scripture  The sole question
in the articles is, how Me Church is to teach."^ And it is "in
matters of inferior moment" only that either the Church or the
individual " have room to exercise their own powers."* So that
both the Church and all individuals are bound hand and foot to
the Fathers, and dare not thinkof inquiring for themselves what
Scripture means, and what it proves, but only what " tradition"
says that it ..means and proves. And the way in which indivi
duals are to use the Scriptures, is thus described : — " We think
NO HARMCAfT COME from putting the Scripture into the hands of
the laity, [a very gracious concession to God's word, certainly]
allowing them, if they will, to verify by.it, as far as it extends,
the doctrines they have been already taught."^
Of what use, then, is it to go to the Scriptures at all, for what
difference is there between believing a doctrine because " tradi
tion" declares it, and believing it, because " tradition" says that
Scripture declares it ? And moreover, by not going to Scripture,
we avoid the danger of being obliged to believe that Scripture
1 Newman's Lect. p. 323. 2 Ib. pp. 173, 4. ' Ib. pp. 323, 4.
4 Ib. p. 325. s Ib. p. 167.
VOL. I. P P

446 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
means something different to what it seems to us to say, which
undeniably is a trying dose to swallow, however easy it may be
for Mr. Newman to write the prescription, which he thus does
without any apparent hesitation — " When the sense of Scrip
ture, as interpreted by reason, is contrary to the sense given
to if by catholic antiquity, we ought to side with the latter,"
which is part of " the theory of private judgment," "as," he
conceives, " the English Church maintains it."'-
We are obliged to him for thus speaking out, because after
all this there can be no mistake ; and we thus clearly see what
their favourite saying, fhat " tradition teaches and Scripture
proves," really means, viz., that " tradition teaches and tradition
proves," and that practically from end to end " tradition" is all
in all ; and that if any one goes to Scripture, it must be not to
ascertain what appears to him to be its meaning, but only to try
to find in it a confirmation of those doctrines which " tradition"
has delivered to him, and thus, instead of " tradition" being used
for the confirmation of the doctrines derived by us from Scripture,
Scripture is put down into the subordinate office of affording a
confirmation to what " tradition" has delivered.
Patristical tradition may be, and no doubt is, useful in leading
men to a right interpretation of Scripture, and has a moral per
suasive power in inducing them to embrace the truth. But to
assert that we must beheve only in accordance with what tradi
tion tells us is the meaning of Scripture, is, in fact, to bring us to
tradition as the rule of faith. For the very assertion supposes
that Scripture bears another sense besides that given to it by
tradition. Now a man may believe that other sense to be the
true sense, and that the sense given by tradition in any particular
point is as far from the true meaning as others think his to be.
If, then, he is bound to believe the traditional interpretation, and
so to believe a doctrine which he cannot find in Scripture, and
the truth of which appears to him only to rest upon tradition, his
faith in that doctrine, whatever it be, rests upon tradition, and
tradition is his rule of faith. It is an old Roman Catholic cavil
against us, that to interpret Scripture by fancy is the same thing
as to follow fancy, which is very true, though a very futile argu
ment against us. By the same argument, then, to interpret
Scripture by tradition is to follow tradition.
And if the views of the Tractators are correct, the loss ofScrip
ture altogether would be of no importance. For it contains only
brief and obscure notices of the truth, while "tradition" delivers
it clearly and fully. And when they speak of tradition as the in-
> pp. 160, 161.

EULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 447
terpreter of Scripture, this cannot be understood as if it had less
intrinsic authority than Scripture, because they hold it to be, in
substance, equally the word of God with Scripture. It has an
authority independent of Scripture, as flowing from the same
source. Scripture and tradition are not like a law and a judge's
interpretation of it, but like two authoritative publications of a
law, of which one is brief and obscure, and the other full and
clear, of which, therefore, the latter supersedes the former.
All this arises, of course, from the supposition that " tradition"
is the word of God, in which case I should quite agree with our
opponents, that our reason was not to be put in competition with
it. But first let it be proved to be so ;* and, at any rate, let us
be spared these contradictory statements, that serve only to catch
the unwary, and perplex the uninitiated reader, and are so little
to the credit of our common Christianity.
All these self-contradictions spring from our opponents being
committed to two opposite systems. Belonging to the Church of
England, and striving to make their views appear comformable to
her articles, while at the same time they have embraced and
are endeavouring to inculcate doctrines entirely opposed to them,
and which they were, in fact, intended to repress, their stjite-
ments are often entirely opposed to one another. Thus, the con
cession here made about Scripture being the document of proof,
is evidently forced from them by the 6lh Article of our Church,
while it is one altogether opposed to their whole system, and is
elsewhere almost in terms contradicted.
I now proceed to notice the objections which have been
brought against the notion that Scripture is the sole authorita
tive rule of faith.
Some of these have been already noticed in connexion with
the subjects of previous chapters. Others I shall consider when
pointing out Scripture as the Judge of controversies, and the two
principal, viz., the alleged imperfection and obscurity of the
Scriptures will form the subjects of the two following chapters.
But there are three which I shall notice here.
First, it is objected that Scripture cannot be the sole authori-
I The reader may hence estimate the value of the observation of Dr. Hook,
that they' who imply that "the advocates of the English Reformation," as he is
pleased to term them, " elevate tradition above the Bible, oi that they place tra
dition on an equality with it," insinuate "a gross and uncharitable falsehood."
(Visit. Serm. t). 64.) I shall not imitate Dr. Hook in the use of such language,
but shall very willingly leave the matter to the common sense of raankind to de
termine ; and that common sense will often give as true a verdict as a hasty
reasoner, though a divine, wedded to a favourite hypothesis, and involved m a
labyrinth of high-sounding words and phrases which serve him in the place of
truths and realities.

448 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
tative rule of faith to men, because a great number of men are
not.quaHfied to deduce the faith from it.*
To this objection we have already replied in a measure, but
we shall here endeavour to show more fully how idle is this cavil
against it. Suppose that a great number of persons were in such
a situation, (which, however, we altogether deny, as far as re
gards the fundamentals of the faith,) will that prove that God
has given us any other infallible guide ? Will it make patristical
tradition. Councils, or Pope, a sure and divine informant? It is
useless to reply, that if one of them is not so, God has not pro
vided us with the means of salvation. For the question then
would be, what is necessary to salvation ? Is it necessary for any
man to believe more than what Scripture plainly teaches ? It is
not for us to argue from what we may think it would have been
desirable for God to do, but to accept with thankfulness what he
has done for us, and act according to the circumstances -in
which we find ourselves placed. The question, then, as to
whether Scripture is or is not the sole rule of faith, must be de
termined independently of any such considerations as that which
is here urged as an objection to its being so considered.
Moreover, such cases could not prove that, to men of but com
mon education. Scripture was not well able to answer the pur
pose of a rule ; and so, after all, would be but cases of a pecu
liar kind, not affecting our position as it regarded persons of any
education. Mr. Newman, indeed, tells us, thait " the great proportion even
of educated persons have not the accuracy of mind requisite for
determining" the faith from Scripture, (p. 175) ; and that
" Scripture is not so clear as to hinder ordinary persons who
read it for themselves from being Sabellians," &c. (p. 178,) which
is as much as to say, that the inspired writers of the Gospels
have so imperfectly fulfilled their professed task of delivering the
Gospel to the world, that even educated persons cannot tell what
they mean ; and to lay the blame of any misunderstanding, not
upon the corrupt prejudices or carelessness of mankind, but upon
inherent obscurity in the inspired Scriptures.
But, further, take the case of even an illiterate man. You
want to instruct him in the truths of Christianity. Can you
teach him what they are, better than our Lord and his Apostles,
who wrote the books they have left us for the instruction of man
kind at large in the doctrines of the faith ? He will find difficul
ties in his way (it may be said) in acquiring a knowledge of these
s
' See Mr. Newman, Lect. 6, and "A rational account of the doctrine of Roman
Catholics concerning the Ecclesiastical Guide in Controversies of Keligion, by
R. H., 2nd ed, 1673. Disc. ii. c. 5. § 41. p. 139.

RULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 449
truths from them. Will he find none, then, in your teaching ?
Will he find Mr. Newman's Treatise on Justification, for instance,
an easier way of arriving at the truth than St. Paul's account of
the doctrine ?
Still further, suppose this illiterate man, wishing to arrive at
the knowledge of the truth, goes first, (lured by the high-sound
ing terms " Vicar of Christ," " Church," " infallibility," &c.) to a
Romanist for an explanation of this doctrine, and being not quite
satisfied, (as I hope, without offence to our opponents, may be
supposed to be the case,) turns to Mr. Newman, and being so
unfortunate as still not to have found what speaks peace to his
conscience, turns to other interpreters of the doctrine of our
Church for aid, and finds, upon comparison, that all three speak
different language, and all three stoutly aver that patristical tra
dition is on their side. What is the poor man to do under such
circumstances ? May he not, without offence to our opponents,
justly say, I must betake myself to that which all of you agree*
to be the word of God, and believe that which seems to me to be
authorized by that word ? • Nay, I beg to ask, what else can he
reasonably do?
Once more, let us .suppose such a man to fall unhappily into
the hands of Arians? All the three parties he formerly consult
ed will certainly agree here, but the Arians will tell him that
they are altogether wrong. And here, again, both sides will ap
peal to patristical tradition ; and the latter will tell him, that
some even of their opponents were obliged to allow that the
Ante-Nicene Fathers were against them, and that Arius appeal
ed to tradition as in his favour. What, then, is he to do here ? Is
it very unreasonable for him to doubt whether anything brought
to him under the name of patristical tradition can be considered
an unwritten word of God ? Is it very unreasonable for him to
go to what both sides consider the word of God, and to think that
such passages as declare that "the Word was God," (John i. 1.)
that" Christ is over all, God blessed for ever," (Rom. ix. 5.) that
say of him, " Thy throne, 0 God, is forever and ever," (Heb. i.
8,) and that call him " Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the
ending, which is and which was and which is to come, the Al
mighty," (Rev. i. 8,) go as near to settle the question as all which
both sides have ever offered him? Is it very unreasonable for
the poor illiterate man to say, I can understand this, and I know
it to he God's word, and am content ; but nine-tenths of the ar
guments which patristical tradition and controversialists have sup
plied me with, are no doubt very learned and forcible, but quite
beyond my reach, for I know nothing of Greek, or the princi
ples of criticism, or anything of the kind, but still I do think that
nothing can be plainer than these texts, and therefore I must let
p p*

450

SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE

those who will, and can, wrangle on, while I rest herel At any
rate, this is my safest course, with whatever difficulties it may
be beset; for though you agree in hardly anything else, you all
tell me that the Bible is the Word of God, and therefore, if I
humbly endeavour to follow that, I am surely in the safest path ;
and when you learned men have settled your difference, I shall
be happy to hear from you again.
But if our opponents say, all this may be very true, but then
this poor man is bound to follow " the Church," I beg to ask upon
whom he is to depend to point out " the Church" to him.
Christians are as much at variance about this (as far as it can be
a guide) as about any thing else ; and if it be added, that the
marks of the true Church are such as to carry conviction to the
mind of any one who can reason properly on such a matter, then
you have turned your poor iUiterate man into one able to judge
where even able and learned men disagree, and therefore surely
able to understand the plain statements of Scripture respecting
the fundamentals of the faith. And if the Catholic church is so
easily discerned, will our opponents have the goodness to point it
out with a fittle more precision than they have yet done, and
then still further tell us (the most important point of all) how the
voice of that Church can be so heard by this illiterate man as to
be to him an infallible guide. Is he to rejad, or get others to
read to him, all that the Fathers have written, and thus deter
mine what is the meaning of Scripture ? The very notion is ab
surd. The question, then, is, whether he is to take as his guide
the word of God itself in the Scriptures, or the opinion of men
as to the meaning affixed to that word by patristical tradition.
In one way, God speaks to him immediately, and that voice can
never be heard by man without rendering him responsible
for obeying it; in the other, he is left at the mercy of fallible
men. Our opponents, then, may conjure up as many difficulties as
they please in the way of this poor man's arriving at a correct
knowledge of the faith, and difficulties no doubt there are,
(though, blessed be God, if he be a sincere and humble-minded
inquirer, he has a heavenly guide who will not fail him,) but I
beg to ask, what can be the standard of truth to such a man,
amidst all the diversity of sentiment around him, but his Bible ?
If you take away that as his rule of faith, you leave him either
at the mercy of the party among whom he happens to be born,
or to be tossed about without any guide, on a sea of opinions
upon which the wind is blowing from all quarters of the compass
simultaneously.* I Another objection brought by Mr. Newman, but which it really seems unne-
aessary to notice more prominently than in this note, is actually derived from the

EULE AND JUDGE IN EELIGION. 451
The second objection which I would here notice is this. That
heretics, and men advancing erroneous views, have always ap
pealed to Scripture in proof of their errors, and therefore that
Scripture cannot be the sole rule of faith.*
Now, first, this is not true ; for, as we have already seen, many
of the heretics appealed to the interpretation of Scripture given
by tradition ; others appealed to the Scriptures in a corrupt and
mutilated state, adulterated to serve their purposes, (an appeal
which is no evidence against the assertion that the Scriptures are
competent to be the sole rule of faith, and moreover to determine
controversies of faith) ; others tried to deter men altogether from
the study of the Scriptures ; and the appeal, where made, was
made to a few isolated passages, not to a connected view of the
whole testimony of Scripture upon the subject.^ And much the
same may be said of modern heretics.
But suppose it were otherwise, will that prove that Scripture
is not our sole rule ? Because heretics, conscious of the claims
of Scripture upon us, have endeavoured to make it speak their
views, are we to libel the word of God, by accusing it of insuffi
ciency to teach men the truth, and be their rule of faith ? When
the devil tried to deceive our Saviour by quoting Scripture, did
our Lord send him to tradition for the truth ? Did he not, on that
as on every other occasion, go to the written word as the rule ?
Nay, more, when heretics appeal to Scripture, does it not tend
to show how clearly the common sense of mankind points out
Scripture as the rule of faith, when those who are condemned
by it feel themselves obliged to refer to it, and make it appear, if
possible, in their favour ? They indeed, who do not fear to ac
cuse the Scripture of indistinctness and obscurity, may answer
this in the negative ; but they who have some remaining reve
rence for God's word,will, I think, hesitate to do so. For surely,
if men can thus distort the meaning of God's word, they can do
the same to the writings of the Fathers, if they think it worth
their while ; and this, indeed, is what has been done in some
cases by those who cared to obtain the support of the Fathers.
" prejudices" of men, (p. 175,) from the "force prepossessions have in rf/sguoft-
/yinj- «« from searching Scripture dispassionately for ourselves." (p. 180.) So
that Scripture cannot be the soler authoritative rule of faith, Jecouse men will
read it under the influence of prejudices and prepossessions ! To state such an
argument is to demolish it. That imperfect education, and the prevalence of
prejudices and prepossessionu, render such teaching as will instruct the reason of
men, and tend to remove their prejudices and prepossessions, most valuable, from
whatever quarter it may come, is most true, but the argument derived from them
by Mr, Newman is utterly untenable.
1 See Mr. Newm. Lect. 7., and Bellarm. De Verb. Dei, lib. iv. c. 8.
2 See ch. 5. pp. 305 et seq. above.

452 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
Of all arguments, then, against the view for which we con
tend, this surely is one of the worst.
And what says our opponents' witness, Bishop Stillingfleet, to
it ? His Romish antagonist had urged, " that our rule of faith
is common to all the heresies in the world, which pretend Scrip
ture as well as we ;" to which the bishop replies, " This is just
the old sceptical argument against certainty ; if there be any
such thing as certainty, you must assign such a criterion which
is not common to truth and falsehood ; but if you cannot assign
any such mark of truth which may not as well agree to what is
false, then there is no such thing as certainty to be had. In mat
ters of this nature the proof must not lie in generals, but we must
come to particulars, to show the grounds of our certainty, viz.
as to the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ ; and then, if we
cannot show why we believe those points, and reject the opposite
heresies, as Arianism, Sabellianism, Eutychianism, &c., then we
are to be blamed for want of certainty in the points^ but not
before."* Thirdly, it is objected that men are taught in Scripture to
look to the pastors of the Church for instruction, and therefore
that Scripture was not intended to be the sole authoritative rule
of faith.
But, I ask, Is the Church to be heard in preference to God ?
If not. Scripture is our guide in all things there delivered ; and
he who beUeves that Scripture says one thing and the Church
another, and follows the Church, is following man in preference
to God. God has nowhere told us to go to the Church for the
meaning of his own word. In the Scriptures he has spoken to
us plainly, and the great duty of the minister of Christ is to bring
before those who may be too ignorant or too careless to read, or
too prejudiced to see, the truths which those Scriptures contain.
" If any man speak," says the Apostle, " let him speak as the
oracles of God."
But the ministerial duty of the pastor interferes not with the
claim of the Holy Scriptures to be the alone supreme and divine
rule of faith. We may give their full value to the instructions
of the pastors of the Church, without supposing them to be any
part of the rule of faith.
There are some observations on this matter in a treatise pub
lished by Dr. Clagett (the friend of Archbishop Sharp,) and
another in the great Popish controversy in the time of James II.,
so judicious and pertinent to our present subject, that I shall
here present the reader with an extract from thepa..
> Discourse concerning the nature and grounds of the certainty of faith, 1688,
p. 60.

RULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 453
"Although it be not only every man's right but duty also to
inquire into the truth, and it be impossible but that he must
judge for himself at last, yet this does by no means void the
authority of spiritual guides and governors to lead the people
committed to their charge into the knowledge of the truth. For
instance, as in a matter of so great concern as the true interpre
tation of Scripture, I am bound to use my own judgment as well
as I can, so for the same reason I am hound to use all the helps
I can procure, but especially to hearken to the governors of that
Church whereof I am a member, which I may certainly do with
out being obliged to follow them, right or wrong, unless a man
must of necessity put out his own eyes because he hopes that he
has a good guide. That all confusion must needs follow the
Uberty of private inquiry and judgment, is a thing that no decla
mations will persuade me to believe, when I know the contrary
by my own experience. I was baptized and educated in this
Church of England to the profession of Christianity; the Church
laid before me, as it does before all, her doctrine and worship,
and has given me means and liberty to examine all by the
Scriptures, and by common principles of religion. I have done
this as well as I can, and am mightily confirmed in that faith
and profession which I took up first upon her authority. Now I
will not presume to say that the Church is obliged to me for
taking this pains, but I must confess that I am not a little obliged
to the Church for two things ; both for instructing me in the sin
cere truth of religion, and for allowing me the liberty and the
means to satisfy myself that she has done so ; for whether she
had taught me a doctrine that would bear examination, it had
been impossible for me to know if I had not examined it. And
I am so sure that I am not the less but the more fast in the com
munion of this Church, and in subir' jiJn to her authority, for
having used this liberty, that a man may harangue all day long
about the mischiefs of this liberty, and when he has done, I shall
need to do no more but to oppose my own experience to his
flofirishes ; and it shall remain true, that a Church which teaches
the truth sincerely, can do herself no greater right than to afford
all manner of means and opportunities to her members to ex
amine what she teaches. This, indeed, as well as other good
things, may be abused, but they that do abuse it shall have the
worst on it, but the Church is clear of all blame. And what our
Lord said of Wisdom, will be true of the Church, that she shall
be justified of her children. I do not deny that this liberty is
very much for the disadvantage of a Church in one case, i. e. if
she teaches errors instead of truths, and for doctrines the com
mandments of men ; for when this comes once to be fully dis
covered, the discovery makes such a wound in her as cannot be

454 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
healed without a reformation, but otherwise she shall linger of it
till she dies. And therefore this liberty of private judgment
and inquiring into the truth by the Scriptures, lays a mighty
obligation upon all Churches to be honest, I mean upon their
spiritual guides; especially since whether they give this lib
erty or not it will be taken more or, less; not all the terrors
of the world, nor fraud joined to force, can totally suppress it.
Upon the whole matter, I can neither see that the free use of
the Scriptures must needs cause schisms, nor that the setting up of
an infallible guide must needs prevent them. But I am abun
dantly convinced that God has left us no infallible judge to de
termine for us, and that he has left us ihe Holy Scripturis to
be the Rule of our faith. I make not the least doubt that God,
for infinitely wise and good reasons, has given us these means of
coming to the knowledge of the truth, and not the other. I
plainly discern this to be one, that the means of instruction and
the evidence of truth which God has afforded us, might be a
touchstone to distinguish between the sincere and the teachable^
between the good and the honest heart on the one side, and the
insincere and dishonest on the other. And sure I am that God
has appointed a day of judgment, in which he will proceed ac
cording to that difference, and distinguish between these two, by
rewarding the one and punishing the other .... The Holy
Scriptures .... are the only rule, and will at last prove the
only means of ending those controversies that disturb the peace
of the Church."*
We shall now proceed to show, in like manner, that Holy
Scripture is the sole infalfible Judge of controversies respecting
the truths of revelation.
And here we shall pursue the same course as before in con
sidering. I. The true meaning and extent of what is here asserted.
II. The arguments and objections which may be advanced re
specting it.
I. As to the true meaning and extent of the assertion that
Holy Scripture is the sole infallible Judge of controversies re
specting the truths of revelation.
By this position, then, we mean that it is in Holy Scripture
only that we can meet with any infallible determinations respect
ing the points in dispute. When controversies arise, Scripture only
can terminate them ; and if Scripture does not terminate them, it
is either because they concern things which are not there delivered,
and which, therefore, do not come to us with the authority ot
I On the authority of General Councils and the Rule of faith, by Dr. Clagett
and Mr. Hutchinson, in Bishop Gibson's Preserv. Tit. iv. c. 2. pp. 166—73.

EULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 455
divine revelation, or because Scripture is misinterpreted ; and in
either case there is no further infallible authority on earth to ap
peal to for judgment.
When, however, we call Scripture a judge, we of course
mean so far as any written document of the kind can be a judge ;
and this may be a sufficient answer to all the objections that the
Romanists are accustomed to allege on this point ; who, reckoning
up all things that a living judge can do, and showing that some
of those things Scripture cannot do, draw the conclusion that
therefore Scripture cannot perform the office of a judge of con
troversies. But it does not follow that, because a written law
cannot perform all that a living judge can do, that therefore such
a law cannot be called, and be to a certain extent, a judge, and,
if there be no other, the sole judge.
It is quite true that the pastors of every Church have a sub
ordinate and ministerial authority to judge even in controversies
of faith ; but they do so, not as infallible teachers, but as falli
ble witnesses to what they deem to be the truth. Every Church
is justified, and more than justified, in laying down a confession of
faith which may separate her from unorthodox communions, and
keep her own clear of vital error. But if she knows her duty,
she does not do it in the presumptuous spirit of one who chal
lenges infallibility, either from her own character, or as a witness
of " tradition." .
I see no reason, therefore, why we should not with the Fathers
(as I shall hereafter show) give this appellation to Scripture ;
though, if it be made a question of words, we should be quite
willing to substitute " standard of judgment," or any similar
phrase that might be thought mof-e appropriate to a written
document ; or to say with Chillingworth, that it is " the rule to
judge controversies by ; only protesting against anything else
being Ufted into the chair thus vacated.
We are here speaking, of course, of what exists upon earth ;
for otherwise, and speaking generally, Christ alone, as he is the
Head of the Church, so is he the Supreme Judge of controver
sies in it : and indeed it is on this ground that we give to Scrip
ture, as alone infallibly conveying to us his word, the place of
supreme judge on earth ; while we allow to the ministers of his
Church the privilege of being subordinate and ministerial judges.
Let us consider,
II. The arguments and objections which may be advanced
respecting this truth.
(1.) From Scripture.
The foundation upon which this truth rests is, as we have seen,
briefly this; That as God is the only infallible Judge of contro
versies in religion, and as his voice can be recognized with cer-

456 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
tainty only in the Holy Scriptures, those Scriptures are conse
quently our only infallible Judge of controversies on earth.
What we have here to show, then, is, that they are referred
to in Scripture as bearing that character, or as being of a nature
suitable for that purpose.
Thus, then, are they referred to even in the Old Testament ;
— " When they shall say unto you, seek unto them that have
familiar spirits . . . should not a people seek unto their God ?"
And how are they to seek unto their God, to know his will in the
matter? By going " to the law and to the testimony" for direc
tion and judgment, for this is the rule by which all other inform
ants are to be tried ; and " if they speak not according to this
word, it is because there is no light in them." (Is. xx. 19, 20.)
Our Lord himself not unfrequently appeals to them as perform
ing the office of a judge. " He that believeth not," he says, " is
condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of
the only begotten Son of God." (John iii. 18.) How has God
thus already condemned such ? By the sentence recorded in his
Scriptures; as the Apostle says, " The Scripture hath concluded
all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be
given to them that believe." (Gal. in. 22.) The Scripture is so
formed as to act as a judge upon earth in such a case, and pub
lish God's sentence.
Again, he sends the Sadducees to the Scripture as determining
the doctrine of the resurrection. "As touching the dead, that
th ey rise, have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush
God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ? He is not the God of the
dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err."
(Mark xii. 26, 27.) And in like manner he sends the Jews to the
Scripture for judgment respecting himself, and his claims upon
their belief " Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye
have eternal life, and they are they that testify of me." John
V. 39.) And he tells them that the judgment given by the wri
tings of Moses so clearly condemned them for their unbelief, that
they might be said to accuse them before tbe Father. " Do not
think that I will accuse you to the Father ; there is one that ac
cuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed
Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if
ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words ?"
(John v. 45 — 7.) The judgment given in the writings of Moses,
then, was sufficiently clear in favour of our Lord, in the judgment
of God, to make the Jews guilty, if they did not so understand
them ; and receive him, of whom they testified. There is no im
possibility, then, that Scripture may be variously interpreted by
tnen, and yet give in the sight of God an amply sufficient and

EULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 457
clear judgment, to bring those in guilty before him who do not
interpret it aright. And the reason is plain ; because, in all im
portant points, men are prevented only by their own prejudices,
corruption, or carelessness, from rightly understanding it.
On another occasion he speaks, if possible, still rnore clearly of
his own word, that Word which is recorded in the Gospels, as
bearing that character. « He that rejecteth me, and receiveth
not my words, hath one that judgeth him : the word that I
have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John
xii. 48.) That word we possess in the Scriptures.
Shall we say, then, that the Scriptures containing that word
are insufficient, and ill calculated to act as a judge now to us on
earth, when we are told expressly that that word will be our
judge at the future day of account? Is it not equally calculated
to act as a judge now to us on earth, as it wijl be at the future
day of account at the bar of Christ ? And if by that word we
are to be then judged, then the statements of that word are clear
and determinate, and sufficient of themselves to determine all
controversies on the essentials of the gospel at least ; and it will
be our wisdom to use it now for the same purpose, and "judge
ourselves" by it ; making that our rule of judgment here, by which
we are to be judged hereafter. And if this is done with simpli
city and sincerity, and prayer to God for his blessing, we know,
from the promises of a faithful God, that such an inquirer shall
not err fundamentally.
To these passages we might add those which speak of the effi
cacy and power of God's word in enlightening and influencing the
mind, all tending to show the suitableness of Scripture to act in
this character.
Thus the Apostle Paul speaks of the word of God as " effectu
ally working in those that believe," (1 Thess. ii. 13,) and as
"quick and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword,
piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of
the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and in
tents of the heart." (Heb. iv. 12.)
I proceed to notice,
(2.) The arguments and objections which may be derived from
general considerations.
First, then, I al"gue thus : — God alone can infallibly determine
controversies in religion, but men in general have no sufficient
certainty of hearing his voice anywhere but in the Scriptures ;
and therefore, the sole infallible judge of such controversies in
the present state is Scripture. Taking into consideration only
the system of the Tractators, it undeniably follows, that if "tra
dition" is not the word of God, and that God's word alone is in
fallible, (which, I suppose, will not be disputed) whatever cavil
VOL. I. ft «

458 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
may be urged against Scripture as unable to pronounce judg
ment so as to end controversy, it alone can act the part of an in
fallible judge in such matters. For all that we have to consider
in finding such a judge is, first, where the supreme authority for
pronouncing a decision rests, and then, how we are to obtain that
decision ; and if we are forced to allow that such authority is in
God alone, and that we have no assurance of hearing his voice
anywhere but in the Scriptures, it necessarily follows that Scrip
ture only can give any infallible determination respecting the
point in dispute. If there is no decision on the matter recorded
there, there is no certainly-divine testimony concerning it, and if
the matter is not plainly delivered there, it is not plainly revealed
to us, and no man can be required to believe more than is there
said respecting it.
Man may be the medium through whom a knowledge of the
determinations of Scripture may be conveyed, i. e. he may deUver
them to me from Scripture, and point out to me those passages
npon which his views chiefly rest, and I may be brought to the
belief of a doctrine upon that testimony ; but the proof of the doc
trine rests entirely upon the authority of Scripture, and not in
the testimony of the bearer that such and such is the meaning of
Scripture, from whatever source that interpretation may be
derived. Secondly,' — That Scripture is the sole authoritative judge in
controversies of faith that respect fundamental points, follows from
the fact that there is no other judge whose orthodoxy can be as
sumed without proof, and consequently without our ascertaining,
in the first instance, that for which we want a judge.
The catholic consent of the primitive church to which our op
ponents send us, is, as we have shown, a mere dream of the imagi
nation. The faith of the catholic Church cannot be so adequate
ly witnessed to us as to make any producible representation of it
an infallible guide. Freedom from fundamental error could only
be assumed of the catholic consent of the Church, either as the
whole body of professing Christians, or as the body of true believ
ers — " the blessed company of all faithful people." Taking the
word " Church" in either of these senses, we may justly say, that
the catholic consent of the Church would be (if we could ascertain
it) an infallible guide. But in neither of these senses is it attain
able. And hence, it is absurd to talk of the Church, of any age, or
any number of ages, being an infailiible guide to the truth, even
as a witness, because, taking the word Church in that sense in
which alone infallibility could be predicated of it, its witness is
unattainable, and so cannot be a guide at all to us.
Nay, even in the highest points, not only is catholic consent

RULE AND JUDGE IN EELIGION. 459
incapable of proof, but the partial consent adduced is met by
counter-statements, pleading an opposing witness of equal au
thority. For instance, take the case of .'^rian, Nestorian, or Pelagian
errors. Arius, as we have seen, appealed to antiquity as in his fa
vour, and not only were there several dissentients to the decision
come to at Nice, but not long after, at another Council, composed
of nearly twice as many bisliops, the opposite doctrine was
maintained. Can we appeal, then, to the decision of the
Nicene Council as infallible, as binding the conscience to be
lief, as authoritative ? Augustine knew better than to do so.
When disputing with Maximinus the Arian, what is his language ?
" But now" he says, \i. e. while arguing this question] "neither
ought I to bring forward the Nicene Council, nor you
that of Ariminum, as if we could thus settle the question.
Neither may I be held by the authority of the one, nor you
by the authority of the other. We must argue the matter
point with point, cause with cause, reason with reason, by
AUTHORITIES OF ScRiPTDRE, witncsscs uot belonging to any
party, but common to both."^ Was not this, then, to make
Scripture the Judge of the controversy ?
Now this decision of the Council of Nice is, perhaps, the best
entitled of any thing that has come down to us from the primi
tive Church to be considered as speaking the language of the
catholic Church. If, then, this must be given up, as not in itself
binding the conscience to belief, is there anything else that can
be said to do so ?
The case is precisely similar as it respects the Nestorian and
Pelagian errors. Nestorius appealed to antiquity, and to this
day his party form a large episcopal communion, claiming descent
from the Apostles as much as any other. With respect to Pela
gian errors, we have already seen that patristical testimony was
appealed to as in their favour, and that the appeal was not des
titute of: foundation, to sav the least.
We must take heed not fo be deceived by names and words,
nor to take it for granted that this or that body forms " the
Church," from our having been accustomed to attach that title
toil. The Apostolic admonition to every man is, " Prove all
things, hold fast that which is good." It is easy to claim a high-
sounding name, and then, on the strength of it, condemn others.
But we must recollect that the name "Church" has been
I Sed nunc nec ego Nicffinum nec tu debes Ariminense tanquam prsjudicaturus
proferre concilium. Nec ego hujus auctoritate nec tu illius detineris ; ="=;'?'""¦
rum auctoritatibus, non quorumque propriis sed utrisque communibus test.bus,
res cum re, caussa cum caussa, ratio cum ratione concertet. Aug. contra raaii-
minum Arian. lib. ii. .;. 14. § 3. Ed. Bened. tom. vm. col. 704.

460 SCRIPTUEE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
claimed by all parties, and all have professed to be attached to
and defenders of the doctrines of the Church of Christ, and almost
all parties have more or less claimed patristical tradition as in
their favour. When, then, we attach the name Church to this or
that body, if we mean it to apply to one deserving of being fol
lowed as a guide, we must have some sufficient reason to give in
proof of its being entitled to that name, and what sufficient reason
can there be which does not include orthodoxy in the fundamen
tals of the faith, and orthodoxy that is not overlaid by the ad
dition of fundamental errors ?
All that we can obtain for any age, as the testimony of the
Church, is the witness of a certain number of individuals or
representative bodies, and this witness may, in some cases, be en
titled to considerable respect, as doubtless it is in the case of the
primitive Church ; but in no case can be authoritative over the
conscience. The orthodoxy of such witnesses must be proved be
fore we can accept their testirriony as authoritative, and then,
their office oi judge has been forestalled.
Do we, then, maintain that we cannot speak of the Univer
sal Church having held or ordained this or that ? nor that this is
an argument in favour of what is so supported ? By no means,
taking the words in a general sense. But let us understand what
meaning must be affixed to the words, and how far the argument
is tenable. When we speak thus, we speak of that which we
hold to be the Universal Church, and moreover, of decisions which
can only, in a general and popular sense, be reckoned decisions
of the Universal Church, for the proof of their being such is
wholly lacking.
And in matters of discipline and non-essential points of faith,
much is to be allowed to the authority, not merely of the Uni
versal Church as far as it can be ascertained, but of any pure
portion of it. The God of peace and order requires this of us.
We are not to divide and throw into confusion a Scriptural
Church for the indulgence of our own humours in such points.
But in fundamental points the case is different. When arguing
with an Arian, or abstractedly on the subject of Arian, or other
fundamental errors, it is a mere deception to talk of the Univer
sal Church being of a contrary mind. We must decide these
points before we can know who constitute the Universal Church,
that is, the orthodox Universal Church, which alone could be a
guide. Before we can admit a claim made for any individuals or any
body of men, to be a summary Judge of controversies of faith,
we must ascertain that they are orthodox in the faith, and there
fore ascertain from an independent source, what the orthodox
faith is ; after which we need not their decision.

EULE AJ^D JUDGE IN EELIGION. 461
And still further, if we are looking for a safe guide, we must
also ascertain that the fundamentals are not overlaid, as in the
Church of Rome, with fundamental error, endangering the sal
vation of all who are in her communion ; for, as Bishop Sander
son says, " The doctrinal errors of the Church of Rome do not
directly and immediately overthrow the foundation of faith, as
the heresy of the Arian Churches did, but mediately and by
NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE they do, as in the points of merits, mass,
transubstantiation," &c.* And so Archbishop Laud, " A church
m£i,y hold the fundamental poiiif literally, and as long as it stays
there, be without control, and yet err grossly, dangerously ,
nay damnably, in the exposition of it. And this is the
CHURCH OF Rome's case."^ And therefore he tells us, "There's
peril, great peril of damnable, both schism and heresy, and other
sin, by living and dying in the Roman faith, tainted with so many
superstitions, as at this day il is, and their tyranny to boot." " I
do, indeed, for my part, leaving other men free to their own
judgment, acknowledge a possibility of salvation in the Roman
Church; but so as that which I grant to Romanists is not as they
are Romanists, but as they are Christians, fhat is, as they believe
the Creed, and hold the foundation, Christ himself, not as they asso
ciate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the gross supersti
tions of the Romish Church." " All Protestants unanimously
agree in this, that there is great peril of damnation for any
man to live anS, die in the Roman persuasion ; and you are
notable to produce any one Protestant that ever said the con
trary. And therefore, that is a most notorious slander, where
you say, that they which affirm this peril of damnation are con
tradicted by their own more learned brethren."^ Such is the
church of which our opponents say, " We are at peace with
Rome,"" and call this sentiment Anglicanism.
Where, then, I ask, amidst all this diversity of sentiment, this
clashing of Fathers and Councils and rival " Churches," where
is there any secure resting-place for the sole of the foot but in the
ark of God's written word, which, amidst the angry waves of
controversy, floats calm and uninjured above all, bearing over
them, in perfect safety, all those who have, in reliance upon
the divine promises, humbly taken refuge in it, and as the
waters of confusion swell around it, is only exalted by them to a
higher elevation, and more distinctly pointed out as the only
place of safety and peace. .
Thirdly,— The claims of Scripture to be the sole infallible
Judge of controversies of faith, are strongly supported by the

1 Disc, concerning the Church, 1688, p. 17.
2 Answer to Fisher, § 37, No. 5.
' Ib. § 35, No. 6. ¦* Mr. Newm. p. 253.

2

463 scripture thi; sole infallible
fact, allowed by all, that the words of Scripture only are in
spired. This concession (which cannot be withheld) is most important.
For in the delivery of doctrines, especially those of a more mys
terious nature, accuracy in the expressions used is essential to
the conveying accurate ideas to the mind of the reader. And
when any one who has himself only a certain portion of light
wifh respect to them, attempts to convey a notion of them to
others, even though he may have been correctly instructed in
them, he is continually liable to be using expressions open to mis
construction and capable of an unorthodox sense. It is more
than probable that he may have in his eye some error opposed
to the truth which he is delivering, and to avoid the error he
uses language open to error of an opposite kind. This is a de
fect which we continually meet with in tbe Fathers, and in the
points which were the chief objects of dispute in the early
Church, viz., those connected with the person of Christ. Tbe
consequence is, that it is impossible to prove their consent in
them, even where they may have consented. In the doctrines
of religion, therefore, we want the expressions dictated by the
Divine mind, because in them only we have a representation of
those doctrines which we can be sure is free from error, and
which needs only a strictly fair interpretation to lead us to a
knowledge of the truth. Hence St. Paul reminds us, that when
the Apostles delivered the mysteries of God, they spoke " not in
the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy
Ghost teacheth." (1 Cor. ii. 13.) These expressions we can find
in Scripture only. It is not pretended that patristical tradition
can furnish us with the expressions of the oral teaching of the
Apostles. And hence Scripture has peculiar claims on this ground
to be considered the final and sole infallible Judge of controver
sies of faith.
But our opponents have various objections to urge on this
head. First, — The Scripture cannot be the sole judge of controver
sies, because it does not carry with it its own interpretation ;
which, in other words, is saying that, even in the fundamental
points of faith, it is not intelligible.
" The Bible," says Mr. Newman, " is not so written as to force
its meaning upon the reader;" and therefore the notion of "the
Bible without note or comment being the sole authoritative judge
in controversies of faith, is a self-destructive principle." (Lect. pp.
34, 5.) " They must either give up their maxim about the Bible
and the Bible only, or they must give up the Nicene formulary.
The Bible does not carry with it its own interpretation." (Ib. p.
292.) " That Scripture," says Bellarmine, " is not the judge, is

eule and judge in EELIGION. 463
evident; because it admits different meanings, and cannot tell us
which is the right one." (Bellarm. De V. D. iii. c. 9.)
Now here Mr. Newman has almost saved me the trouble of
naaking any reply, for he has supplied something very like one
hiniself; for, as he justly remarks elsewhere, — " It surely may be
maintained, not only that the Scriptures have but one direct and
unchangeable sense, but that it is such as in all greater matters
to make a forcible appeal to the mind, when fairiy put before
it, and to impress it with a conviction of its being the true
one." (p. 166.) Truly so; and I think it might be considered a
sufficient answer to the objection ; for though there is the saving
clause " when fairly put before the mind," yet surely this " forci
ble appeal" and " impression conveying conviction," can only be
supposed in the case ofScripture distinctly and clearly pointing
out its own sense; for if I say that such a book teaches this or
that doctrine, and when the book is perused its teaching is so in
favour of that doctrine, as to make a " forcible appeal to the
mind" of men, "and impress it with a conviction" of its being
there taught, that doctrine must be clearly pointed out there;
and consequently, in the case of any man of sufficient education
to know the meaning of its words, there can be no need of any
authoritative interpreter, or of my insisting upon being heard
first, lest he should attach a different meaning to them.
But further ; upon what is this objection grounded ? It stands
upon the tacit supposition that the fundamental doctrines of the
faith are so doubtfully stated in Scripture, that men may with
reason attach different meanings to the statements there made
respecting them. Now, this, we maintain, is utterly at variance
with the objects which the Evangelists had in view in penning
the gospels, and therefore contradicted by the fact of their being
the subjects of divine inspiration for the purpose of enabling them
to communicate the faith clearly and faithfully to mankind. The
diversity of sentiment prevailing among men on points of faith,
as it respects the fundamentals, arises, we contend, not from the
language of Scripture bejng dubious, — for in all such points (as
the Fathers witness) it is clear and plain — but from the precon
ceived notions and prejudices of men, who come not to the Scrip
tures with humility and simplicity of mind, seeking the truth in
sincerity. These truths are stated in Scripture, so as to convince
all who are willing to receive them ; and such only are in a con
dition to receive them, from whatever quarter they may be pro
posed to them. They are placed before men, as our Lord's
teaching and miracles were before the Jews. There is sufficient
evidence for the copviction of all who are open to the reception
of the truth. The word of God makes a "forcible appeal" to
the conscience in behalf of the truth. And this is all the force

464 SCRIPTUEE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
which comes from a Divine source. And the truth having thus
been clearly placad before men, they are responsible to God for
their conduct with respect to it. Nor does their rejection of it,
and misinterpretation of the Scriptures to meet their own views,
any more prove that the Scriptures are insufficient to convey the
truth to the minds of impartial men, than the rejection of our
Lord by the Jews, and the different opinions entertained respect
ing him, prove that he gave insufficient evidence of the truth of
his divine mission.
And when Mr. Newman says that " we must give up our
maxim about the Bible and the Bible only, or we must give up
the Nicene formulary," he, in fact, says that the Bible does not
speak the language of the Nicene formulary so as to give any
proof of its truth ; which leaves to that formulary nothing but
an uncertain tradition to rest upon, and thereby overthrows the
only sure foundation upon which the orthodox faith is founded.
And still further, they who will persist in perverting Scripture
to speak their own views, will as readily make antiquity speak
them too, when it is worth their while to do so. And of this
we have, as has been already observed, divers pregnant instances.
Let us hear our opponents' witness. Bishop Stillingfleet. " They
[i. e. the Romanists] grant," he says, " that there is a great differ
ence in the points contained in Scripture, of which some are
allowed to be simply necessary to salvation, as those which are
required to baptism ; and Bellarmine yields, ' That all these
points are certainly contained in Scripture, and were the things
which the Apostles constantly preached to all people ;' who can
not be denied to have been capable of understanding these things,
when they heard them preached ; and how could they lose the
capacity of understanding them, when they were written ?
And if they might still understand them, then the Scripture bath
no such mysterious knots ; but all points necessary to salvation
may be understood by the people. So that as to these points
of greatest importance, the Scripture must be left as a lega
cy to all Christians, and not only to the guides of the
Church. But J. S. craves leave to explain himself; and it is
great pity to deny it him. ' Mistake me not,' saith he, ' I do not
mean Scripture's letter is not clear in such passages as concern
morality .... but in dogmatical points or tenets which are
spiritual and oftentimes profound mysteries, asa Trinity, Christ's
Godhead, the real presence of his body in the sacrament, and such
like, and in such as these, our rule is not intelligible enough to
keep the followers of it from erring.' [Precisely the argument
of our opponents.] I answer. Either the Apostles preached these
points to all persons as necessary to their salvation, or they did
not. If not, bow come they to be necessary to be believed now ?

EULE AND JUDGE IN EELIGION. 465
If they did, then the people were capable of understanding
them when they heard them ; and therefore may as well un
derstand them when they read them. [Manifestly taking
it for granted that they are as fully and clearly delivered in
the Scriptures, as in the oral preaching of the Apostles.] I
do not mean the manner as to the Trinity and Incarnation,
(as to Transubstantiation, I know nothing in Scripture about it,
either as to thing or manner,) but the revelation of such a doc
trine. So that if these points be owned to be necessary to salva
tion, they must be so plain, that men may understand their duty
to believe them. For that is the bound I keep myself within,
that all things necessary to salvation are so plain, that we may
be certain of our duty to believe them ; but if not, we may err
without prejudice to our salvation."*
Secondly, it is objected that Scripture cannot be the sole au
thoritative Judge of controversies, because in all the principal
controversies of faith, the meaning of Scripture is the great point
in controversy, and both sides claim Scripture as in their favour;
and thus no controversy can be decided.
" The Bible," says i\ir. Newman, " is not so written as to force
its meaning upon the reader ; no two Protestant sects can agree
together whose interpretation of the Bible is to be received."
 " Accordingly" " the notion of the Bible, without note
or comment, being the sole authoritative judge in controversies
of faith, is a self-destructive principle." (pp. 34, 5.) And so
among Bellarmine's reasons why Scripture cannot be the judge,
is this, that " the question is concerning the interpretation of
Scripture, and it cannot interpret itself." (De Verb. Dei. lib. iii.
c. 9.)
But this objection proves nothing more than that there are
persons who misinterpret Scripture. It is no proof that it is not
a very sufficient judge of such controversies; and still less any
proof that it is not the sole infallible judge that God has given
us. Nay, when we consider how many feelings there are in the
natural mind, tending to alienate it from the love of the truth as
revealed in the gospel, and how many impediments there are to
a reception of it, can it be a matter of surprise to us that a re
velation, the true meaning of which has so much opposition to
contend with, should be variously interpreted? its mysteries ex
plained away, and its truths lowered to the standard of men's
corrupt imagination ? And is it to be argued, that because of
this, that is, because men cannot be brought to see and confess
the truths there revealed, the revelation is insufficient to show
men the truth ? The question is not whether men interpret the
1 Disc, concerning nature and grounds of certainty of faith, pp. 81 — 83.

466 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
Bible variously, but whether, that being the case, the fault is
not in man, and not in the Bible being fairly open to different in
terpretations in tbe essentials of the faith.
Mark the consequence of such reasoning as our opponents here
adopt. It follows from it, that on none of all the various points
that heretics have ever controverted, is Scripture clear enough
to decide the dispute. For instance. Scripture tells us that " the
Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us ;" from which impar
tial men would, we suppose, be ready to think that the Scrip
ture plainly declared thereby, at least as much as this, fhat
Christ appeared in human nature. But no, we must not draw
any such conclusion; for the Valentinians and others did not re
ceive this truth, and gave another interpretation to such Scrip
tures ; and therefore we must not appeal to Scripture as deter
mining this point. And so we might run through almost every
truth in the Christian system ; and because it has been denied
by some who have professed to receive the Scriptures, say that
the Scriptures do not distinctly determine the matter.
Thus again, for instance. Scripture says that " The Word was
God," &.C. The Catholics, therefore, conclude from this passage,
that Christ must be, in some sense at least, God. But the So
cinians explain such texts so as to comport with a denial of the
divinity of the Son in any sense. Hence, say our opponents, we
can draw no certain conclusions from such texts. That is, if a
man chooses to assert that two and two make five, we must ob
tain some infallible mathematician to decide between us, before
it can be determined satisfactorily that two and two make four.
And mark the triumphant reply of the Socinian: He will say,
Vou grant, then, that the Scriptures may not unreasonably or
absurdly be considered to have the meaning which I have at
tributed to them. I am content, therefore ; for I leave tradition
to those who like it, and abide by what I have good reason to be
lieve to be the word of God. Give me the Bible, and I will will
ingly give you tradition.
Nay, further, as we have so often had occasion to observe, if
we go to tradition, so do others. The Arians, the Nestorians were
loud in their appeal lo tradition; and some of the orthodox have
admitted that their appeal was not without reason.
"In the Samosatenian, Arian, Pelagian, Nestorian, and Euty
chian controversies," says Bishop Stillingfleet, " neither of the
parties disowned Scripture or tradition ; and those who were
justly condemned, pretended still to adhere to both. And if such
flames could not be prevented so much nearer the Apostles' times
by the help of tradition, what reason can there be to expect it
so long after ?''

?IU

Stiliingfleet's Discourse on nature and grounds of tbe cerlaintif of faith, p. 1 1 1.

EULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 467
Mr. Newman himself allows that the judgment of the Fathers
may be most easily evaded or perverted, if there be the inclina
tion to do so ; being forced thereto by the use made of the Fathers
by the Romanists. " Romanists," he says, " are obliged by their
professions to appeal to antiquity, and they therefore do so. But
enough has been said already to suggest, that where men are in
disposed towards such an appeal, where they determine to be
captious, and take exceptions, and act the disputant and sophist
rather than the earnest inquirer, it admits of easy evasion,
and may be made to conclude anything or nothing." (Lee. p.
68.) In other words, where men are so inclined, the Fathers
may be alleged in support of opposite views as well as tbe Scrip
tures. How is it, then, that they are able to end controversies
any more than the Scriptures ? The Nicene Creed itself has re
ceived an unorthodox interpretation.* The fact is, that to at
tempt to bind heresy by words, is as useless as to try to bind it
with chains.
The Romanists, seeing all this, urge the necessity of some in
fallible judge being ever present with the Church to decide what
Scripture and " tradition" do really deliver ; and upon the princi
ple of our opponents, that nothing is clear, nor can be a rule of
faith or judge of controversies, about the meaning of which men
disagree, there is no doubt wanting some court of appeal of that
kind. And our opponents, though they would hardly admit that
they have embraced this doctrine, yet often practically come
very near it. I say often, because their language, and especi
ally that of Mr. Newman, is so contradictory, and assumes such
opposite forms, as to be perfectly Protean. But to avoid the
necessity of a direct assertion of the infallibility of the present
Church in delivering tradition, they ingeniously fry to get over
the difficulty by declaring that "tradition" is perfectly clear and
indisputable, " a fact obvious to the intelligence of inquirers,"
when the only fact certain is, that people are all at variance
about it.
Most justly, however, has an able Roman Catholic writer,
quoted in a former page,' observed, when defending the position,
that "some controversies of religion may be decided by the
Holy Scripture alone," (instancing, among others, that " against
the Socinians, that Christ had a being before he was conceived of
the Blessed Virgin.")—" If controversies were not decided but
only when they are ended, few would be decided by the Scrip
ture alone. For it seldom happens that clamours and debates
1 See Dupia (Dublin ed.) vol. i. p. 655. col. 3. sub, fin., and the works of
Whiston. 2 Dr. Hawardine. See pp. 93, S, above.

468 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
are silenced by being condemned. Much less can this be ex
pected from the word of God alone. For whilst men have their
passions about them, they will either pronounce the Scripture
itself apocryphal, or put it upon the rack that it may not bring
them in guilty. A dispute is decided when the case is fairly
and peremtorily judged by due authority., But it ends not
commonly till the disputants please. And it seldom or never
comes to this till those that are in the wrong be either divested
of their passions or directed by fear." [Which is true enough,
and so the Romanists take the latter course for ending contro
versies.]  " The Socinians, (if sincere,) without seeing
their error, give a forced interpretation to all the texts of Scrip
ture which prove the immortality of human souls, and that the
Word had a being before it was made flesh. But in rigour, a
controversy is then decided when nothing but a strong prejudice
can hinder a man from seeing that it is really determined. For
a trifling reply is no reply at all." To which he adds, —
" Hence Dr. Stiliingfleet's exceptions against all Scripture proofs,
for the unerring authority of the Catholic Church in necessaries,
are no demonstration that this point is not decided by the Scrip
ture."* The last paragraph will, perhaps, explain how it happened
that he came to make remarks so adapted for the confutation of
one of the favourite arguments of his own party ; but they are
perfectly just, and doubly forcible from the mouth of a Romanist.
And we find here a very sufficient reply to the whole of R.
H.'s elaborate ironical " Plea of the Socinian," in his "Guide
in Controversies ;" for the whole of it amounts to this, that upon
the Protestant principles the Socinian will always have something
to say for himself; he will aver that he has read the Scriptures,
and they appear to him to favour his view, &c. &c., and that the
Romish mode of settling the dispute will alone silence him. I
answer, What then ? Our object is not to silence but to convince;
and does it show that the controversy is not decided, because the
Socinian declares that he is not convinced ? And I notice this
the rather, because our opponents often use the same argument.
That the Scripture, therefore, cannot be expected to end con
troversies, that is, to put a stop to them, is most true ; nor will
anything else of the kind, as the declaration of the Apostle,
" 'There must be heresies," (1 Cor. xi. 19,) may teach us. There
is but one way oi ending controversies, and that itis to be hoped
will evermore be left in the hands of Rome. To end them by
persuading all men of the truth, is a work which One only can
perform, even that omnipotent Spirit who alone can give the
' The rule of faith truly stated, 1731. 12mo. Pt. iii. pp. 290—295.

rule and judge in religion. 469 '
spiritual discernment necessary to enable men rightly to discern
spiritual things. (1 Cor. ii. 14.)
Still further ; we find that the very hearers themselves of our
Lord and his Apostles, who possessed the reality of this tradition
to which we are referred in all its fulness and purity, propaga
ted divers errors as part of the Christian faith. If, then, a refe
rence to the Bible in support of error proves that the Bible does
not plainly state the truth, it follows, by the same reasoning, from
the above fact, that the truth was never plainly delivered at all ;
for the argument is, that when truth is plainly delivered, every
man who hears must receive and embrace it, and cannot, through
prejudice or any other cause, distort what is delivered to a dif
ferent meaning than the one intended ; which is just the old
Romish argument, that "men never question things that are
evident ;"* to which Bishop Stillingfleet very justly replies, that
" there may be sufficient evidence where all men are not per
suaded by it."'
Nay, more; this very objection appears to me to support the
view for which we contend. For the fact that Christians are so
divided as to the meaning of the Scriptures, while they all agree
as to the inspiration of the Scriptures, seems at once to point out
the Scriptures as the sole infallible guide. For they who are
so divided in opinion among themselves cannot be our guide ; and
if we are compelled to make a selection from among them, how
Can we do it but by the guidanceof the inspired volume? There
is no note, independent of doctrine, by which we can ascertain
who are the genuine followers of Christ. With one of our op
ponents' own most learned witnesses (Bishop Morton), then, we
say, that this is precisely the reason why we must have recourse
to the Scriptures; "we cast our eye unto Scriplure the pole-
star, especially in so tempestuous a night of opposite con
tentions."^ The Holy Scriptures have evidences sufficient to convince the
reason of every man that they come from God. Moreover, all
the different sects of Christians agree in this. They disagree as
to the meaning of the Scriptures, and as to the oral teaching of
the Apostles, but they agree in referring to the Scriptures as the
word of God. Here, then, we are on sure ground ; and every
man, conscious that he will have to answer before God as an in
dividual, has to inquire what the Scriptures reveal to him as the
way of salvation.
Even in civil matters we are bound to a certain extent to ex
ercise our private judgment as to what is the law of the land.
' Labyrinth. Cantuar. p. 51.
^ Rational Account, &c, p. 105.
3 Cath. Appeal, ii. 7. § 10 pp. 175, 176.
VOL. I. R R

470 scripture the sole iijfallible
Suppose, for instance, a case of disputed succession or such-like
in which the Acts of Parliament relating to the question received
from the judges and men learned in the law different interpreta
tions. Whatever our qualifications for judging of their meaning
might be, we should be driven to the necessity of exercising our
private judgment upon the meaning of those Acts, unless we
chose to be driven like sheep by one party or another, because
they declared that they were the most numerous, or chose to
assert they were infallible. Now this is a very similar case to
that before us. Our opponents tell us that we must go to a cer
tain body among professing Christians to tell us what is the mean
ing of the word of God, and receive their interpretation as in
falfible, because that word is interpreted in various ways. It
appears to us that this is the very reason why we should not
take the interpretation of any set of men as infallible, but are
of necessity compelled, as reasonable creatures responsible to,
God, to exercise our private judgment in the matter.
' The very objection, then, made against the Scripture as our
rule and judge, because men differ in their interpretation of it, is
the best argument that can be adduced in favour of its being so.
Let us again hear our opponents' witness. Bishop Stillingfleet,
on this point. " If Christ be the eternal Son of God in oppo
sition to heathen deifies, and we can know him by Scripture to
be so, then we may as well know him to be the eternal Son of
God in opposition to Arians and Socinians. If against the
heathens we can prove from Scripture that the Word was made
flesh, why will not this as well hold against Nestorians and Euty
chians? And so the Scripture becomes a very sufficient Rule
to distinguish light and darkness in such points among
Christians too. For is it ever the less fit to be a rule because
both parties own it? ' But they differ about the sense of it, and
therefore controversies can never be ended by it.' If Church-
history deceive us not, the greatest controversies were ended by it
before General Councils were heard of, and more than have been
since. Many of those we read of in the first ages were quite laid
asleep, as Theodoret observes (Haeret. Fab. 1. 2. 3.); but since
Church authority interposed in the most reasonable manner, some
differences have been perpetuated, as appears by the Nestorian
and Eutychian controversies. I do not blame the authority of
Councils, proceeding as they then did by the Rule of Scriptures,
but the event showed that the most probable means are some
times very ineffectual for enc?m^ con^TOwrMe*  It is pos
sible to stop men's mouths by force and power, but nothing brings
men to a true satisfaction but inward conviction as to the true
sense of Scripture, and there can be no rational certainty as to
these points without it. If controversies be not ended, let us not

EULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 471
blame the wisdom of Providence, for God does not always ap
point the means most effectual in our judgment, but such as are
tnost suitable to his own design. And we see reason enough to
blame the folly and weakness, the prejudice and partiality, the
wilfulness and obstinacy of mankind, and till human nature be
brought to a better temper, we may despair of seeing any end
to controversies  He saith, ' Scripture is not our distin
guishing rule of faith, but our own particular judgments about
Scripture ; for that which distinguishes my rule from that of the
most abominable heresies, can only be my own judgment upon
the letter of Scripture, and wriggle which way I will, there it
will and must end at last.' I wish Mr. S. had been a little bet
ter conversant in the old disputes about certainly, for it would
have saved me the trouble of answering some impertinent objec
tions, such as this before us. For they would have been thought
mean logicians who could not put a difference between the rule
of judgment and the judgment which a man made according
to the rule. Suppose the question were about sense, whether
that were a certain rule or not to j udge by ; and Epicurus should
affirm it, and say he so firmly believed it that he judged the Sun
to be no bigger than he seemed fo his senses ; would not he have
been thought ridiculous who should have said this fancy of Epi
curus was his rule ? The rule he went by was in itself certain,
but he made a wrong judgment upon it; but that was not his
rule. So it is here. We declare the Scripture to be our only
certain and standing rule whereby we are to judge in mat
ters of faith ; and we understand it as well as we can, and
form our judgments by it ; but doth it hence follow that our judg
ment is our rule? .... He objects, ' That our people do not
make Scripture the rule of their faith, not one in a million rely
ing upon it.' .... Have they, then, any other rule of faith which
they rely upon ? What is if, I pray ? Is it the Church's in
fallibility ? No. Is it Pius the Fourth's creed? No, frtily;
' while they are children they believe tradition.' Now, I think,
J. S. hath hit it. Tradition is, indeed, a rule of faith for
children, who are very apt simply to believe their fathers and
teachers. But suppose they come to years of discretion, what
rule of faith hive they then ? Have they a judgment of discre
tion then ? . . . . Whatever he insinuates as to our people, I
have reason to believe far better of them ; and that all those
who mind their salvation do seriously read and consider the
Holy Scriptures as the rule of their faith. But if in mat
ters of opinion or in doubtful or obscure places they make use
of the skill and assistance of their teachers, wherein are they to
blame? The Scripture is still their rule; but the help of
their teachers is for the better understanding it. And cannot

472 SCEIFrUBE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
our logician distinguish between the rule of faith and the helps
to understand it ? Suppose, now, a mother or a nurse should
quit 'honest tradition,' as J. S. here calls if, and be so ill inclined
as to teach children to spell and read in the New Testament,
and by that means they come by degrees fo understand the doctrine
which Christ preached, and the miracles which he wrought, and
from thence to believe in Christ and to obey his commands, I desire
to know into what these persons do resolve their faith. Is it indeed
into those who taught them to read, or into the New Testament as
the ground of their faith, when they have been all along told that
THE Scripture alone is the word of God, and whatever
they are to believe, it is because it is contained therein ?
And so by whatever means they come to understand the Scrip
ture, it is that alone they take for the rule and foundation of
their faith  We never require them to trust wholly to
our judgments, but we give them our best assistance, and
call in the old interpreters of the Church, and we desire them
to use their own REASOrf AND JUDGMENT WITH DIVINE ASSISTANCE
for settling their minds  ' But suppose,' saith Mr, S.,
' that one of my own flock should tell me that I have erred in in
terpreting Scripture, he desires to know what I would say fo
him.' This is a very easy question, and soon answered. I would
endeavour to convince him as well as I could. 'And is fhat all ?'
And what would J. S. do more ? Would he tell him he was in
fallible? I think not ; but only as '¦honest tradition' makes
him so, and how far that goes towards it I shall examine
afterwards. Well ; but suppose ' John Biddle, against the Min
ister of his parish and the whole Church of England to boot, un
derstand Scripture to be plainly against a Trinity and Christ's
divinity. And it is but fair for me to suppose him maintaining
his heresy against J. S., and let any one judge whether of us be
more likely to convince him. He owns tbe Scripture, and con
fesses if we can prove our doctrine from thence, he will yield ;
but he laughs at oral tradition, and thinks it a jest for any one to
prove such a doctrine by it. And truly, if it, were not for the
proofs from Scripture, I do much question whether any argument
from mere tradition could ever confute such a one as John Biddle.
But when we ofier such proofs as are acknowledged to be suffi
cient in themselves, we take the only proper way to give him
reasonable satisfaction. ' Suppose he will not be convinced V
Who can help that? Christ himself met with wilful and obsti
nate unbelievers. • And was this any disparagement to his doc
trine? God himself hath never promised to cure those -who shut
their eyes against the light  I had said many years ago,
'That the Scriptures being owned as containing in them the
whole will of God so plainly revealed that no sober inquirer

EULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 473
can miss of what is necessary for salvation, there can be no
necessity supposed of an infalUble society of men, either to attest
or explain these writings among Christians, any more than there
was for some ages before Christ, of such a body of men among
the Jews to attest or explain to them the writings of Moses and
the Prophets.' And where lies the heresy or danger of this doc
trine ? If I said that no sober inquirer can miss of things neces
sary to salvation in Scripture, il is no more than St. Chrysostom,
St. Augustine, Aquinas, and other schoolmen had said before me.
.... I shall now sum up my answer in these particulars. I.
Every Christian as such is bound to inquire after the true way to
salvation, and hath a capacity of judging concerning it. II. Every
Christian, proceeding according to the best rules of judging, hath
reason to receive the Scripture as the Rule of his faith. III.
The Scripture is so plain in all necessaries, and God hath
promised such assistance to them that sincerely seek it, that
none who do so shall want the knowledge of such things as
are necessary to their salvation. IV. When anything is
offered as necessary to be believed in order to salvation, every
Christian hath a right and liberty of judging whether it can
be proved by the Scripture to be so necessary or not. V. We do
not allow to particular persons the same faculty of judging in doubt
ful points of controversy which we do as to matters that immediate
ly concern their salvation. VI. No pretence of infallibility or au-
thority can take away that right of judging which was al
lowed them by the Apostles V)hose authority was infallible.
VII. This right of judging doth not exclude the Church's due
authority as to matters of faith and controversies of religion (as
it is declared Art. 20 of our Church); but all that we now plead
foris not any authority as to others, but a right of judging as
to themselves in matters that concern their salvation. VIII.
The CERTAINTY OF FAITH AS TO THEM DEPENDS UPON TWO
THINGS ; 1. THE CLEARNESS OF SCRIPTURE ABOUT THEM WHICH IM
PLIES THE CERTAINTY OF REASON. 2. THE PROMISE OF DIVINE AS
SISTANCE WHICH MAKES THBIK FAITH DIVINE, BOTH AS TO ITS PRINCI
PLE, ITS GROUND, AND ITS EFFECT  The most Certain
way we now have to know what doctrine the Apostles taught
is by their writings, since they taught and wrote the same
doctrine, and we are certain we have the doctrine they wrote;
but we have no other way to be certain what doctrine they
TAUGHT . . , . The Scripture being our sole and entire rule
of faith, all matters necessary to salvation must be supposed to
be contained therein  The point, then, between us
is, whether the Scripture were left only to the Church to inter
pret it to the people in all points, or whether it were intended
for the general good of the whole Church, so as thereby to di-

474 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
RECT themselves in their way to Heaven, and, consequently, whe
ther it may not be opened and understood by all per^ins in mat
ters that are necessary to their salvation  They cannot
deny that the Scripture was designed to be a certain and infal
lible rule of faith to all  If a rule be in itself certain,
and be certainly received for a rule, that is surely enough to
make it a rule to a man ; but it is not necessary to the being of
a rule that a man can never deviate from it by his own fault. —
For there is no intellectual rule can be assigned, but it is pos
sible for a free agent to deviate from, although he do at the
same time profess it to be his rule. Do not all Christians agree
the commands of Christ to be an infallible rule of life? And
J. S., by his admirable logic, will either prove this not to be a
rule, or that il is impossible for men lo sin  Persons may
own the Scripture to be a most certain and infallible rule as to
truth and falsehood, and they are sure, while they effectually
regulate themselves by it, they can never err ; but while they
profess to do it they may. So that all Mr. S.'s subtilty vanishes
into nothing by so plain and easy a distinction. Therefore, 1 am
still of the mind that a rule of faith is that whereby we are
TO JUDGE WHAT WE ARE BOUND TO BELIEVE AS TO DIVINE REVELA
TIONS."* Thirdly, It is objected that from the variety of opinions main
tained as to the meaning of Scripture, it follows that if Scrip
ture is the sole infallible judge, having authority over the con
sciences of men, the Church would be thrown info confusion and
disorder.^ Here, again, the objection does not reach the question ; it
shows, at most, only the inconveniences that might result from
Scripture being the sole judge.
But further, we deny that such inconveniences do result from
it. The objection rests upon the tacit supposition that the Church
cannot justly excommunicate those who deny the fundamentals
of the faith, or maintain fundamental errors, unless it possess in
one way or another some infallible and authoritative judge be
sides the Scripture to determine with authority the meaning of
Scripture. This sentiment is in terms avowed by Mr. Newman;
yes, and even professedly deduced from an article of our Church,
which, as his own favourite witness Leslie has already informed
him, means nothing of the kind. " In the 20th article," he says,
" we are told that the Church has ' authoriiy in controversies of
faith.' . . . But how can she have this authority, unless she be
certainly true in her declarations ? . . To say the Church has
1 Disc. cone, nature and grounds of certainty of faith, pp. 51 — 80.
2 See Mr. Newm. Lect. 1. p. 34, &c. ; and Bellarm. De V. D. iii. 9.

RULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 475
authority, and yet is not true [i. e. certainly or infallibly true,]
as far as it has authority, were to destroy liberty of conscience ;
which Protestantism, in all its forms, holds especially sacred ; it
were to substitute something besides truth as the sovereign
LORD OF CONSCIENCE, which would be tyranny. If this Protestant
principle is not surrendered in the article, which no one suppo
ses it to be, the Church is, to a certain point, there set forth as
the organ or representative of truth; and its teaching is iden
tified with it." (pp. 226, 7.) So that the Protestant principle
oi private judgment assumes that " the Church" is " certainly
true" in her declarations; and therefore, as " the organ of truth,"
is " THE sovereign lord of CONSCIENCE ;" and " the Church" must
be infallible in her declarations, because otherwise she would
have no right to be (as it is here assumed she is) " the sovereign
lord of conscience."
Now did it never strike Mr. Newman, that the pastors of the
Church may have a ministerial authority over men, though
they do not thrust themselves into the throne of God, as " the
sovereign lord of conscience ;" and that, by that ministerial au
thority, the Church may be preserved pure, and heretics and
offenders cut otf from its communion, quite as well as if they
claimed higher authority, and boasted of themselves as being an
infallible guide ?
And this ministerial authority is possessed, not only by the
pastors of the universal Church, but by those of each distinct por
tion of it. They to whom the government of any Church is en
trusted, are bound to preserve it from the infection of fundamen
tal error, by the administration of discipline; to cut off obstinate
heretics from its communion ; and, above all things, not to per
mit those who hold what it deems to be fundamental errors to
minister in it. Hence our Lord says to the Church of Thyatira,
" I have a few things against thee ; because thou sufferest that
woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, fo teach and
to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things
sacrificed unto idols." (Rev. u. 20.)
But for this there is no need, either that it should be infallible,
or that it should possess in patristical tradition an infallible guide.
It acts as an assembly of fallible beings, responsible to God for the
support and maintenance of his truth, as far as the moral influ
ence of its verdict can extend ; and responsible also for that ver
dict being such as is authorized by the revelation God has given
us. Every faithful Church is a witness for God, and can bear
witness as well and as successfully to the truth, by a plain and
modest assertion of it, as by any presumptuous claim to infalli
bility. But it must be remembered that every individual is also
responsible to God for what he believes ; and that God haa not

476 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
left him altogether to the teaching of man, but has given him
certain inspired writings containing a revelation of the truth ; and
that while men are at variance respecting the meaning of those
writings, they all agree that those writings are inspired, and con
tain that doctrine according to which he isto be judged by Christ
hereafter. Our opponents argue as if Scripture was addressed merely to
the pastors of the Church to tell them how they are to leach ;
whereas it is addressed to mankind at large ; and is a universal
gift, for the use of which all are accountable. Consequently,
however right it may be for a man to use all the helps he can
obtain for ascertaining the meaning of those Scriptures, he is re
sponsible to God, as one who has possessed in them an infallible
declaration of God's will, and therefore as one bound not to de
part from their apparent meaning in vital points ; and to follow
this or that body in such points only as far as they appear to him
to follow the Scriptures. Men have not been left to the pastors
of the Church to teach them the faith ; otherwise the case would
be, in some respects, different. God has given them another guide,
and one which all parties allow to be infallible, viz., the Scrip
tures ; and one, therefore, which they are responsible for using,
in preference to everything which may be proposed to them
through the medium of fallible men.
Nor is this exercise of the right of private judgment at all
chargeable with presumption. On the contrary, it is a duty
necessarily imposed upon us by our individual responsibility to
God, and which every man must perform to the best of his
ability ; and for such a performance of it, and such only, is he
responsible. " To expound Scripture," says Dean Sherlock, " is
to make us understand it, not to impose upon our faith without
understanding ; and therefore this is not so much an act of au
thority, as of skill and judgment ; any man who can so explain
Scripture to me as to make me understand it, shall gain my as
sent ; but no authority is sufficient to make me assent without
understanding. And yet such a catholic expositor, our author
would set up, whose authority shall make me grant that to be
the sense of Scripture, which his reasons and arguments can
not persuade me of. But all reasonable creatures must under
stand for themselves; and Christ nowhere commands us to believe
that to be the sense of Scripture, which we cannot understand to
be so. I know no necessity that all Christians should agree in
the interpretation of all difficult texts of Scripture : there is
enough in Scripture plain to carry men to heaven ; and as for
more difficult and obscure texts, they are for the improvement
of those who can understand them, and need no such catholic

RULE AND JUDGE IN EELIGION. 477
expositor ; because it is not necessary that all men should under
stand them."*
But such an exercise of the right of private judgment is, ac
cording to Mr. Newman, an assumption of infallibility. " The
multitude of Protestants," he says, " consider every man his own
judge ; they hold that every man may and must read Scriplure
for himself, and judge about its meaning, and make up his mind
for himself; nay is, as regards himself and practically, an m/aZ/j-
ble judge of its meanm^— infallible certainly ; for, were the
whole new creation against him. Bishops, Doctors, Martyrs, Saints,
the Holy Church Universal, the very companions of the Apostles,
the unanimous suffrage of the most distinct times and places, and
the most gifted and holiest men, yet, according to the popular
doctrine, though he was aware of this, he ought ultimately to
rest in his own interpretations of Scripture, and to follow his pri
vate judgment, however sorry he might be to differ from such au
thorities." (pp. 319, 20.)
jNow here are a vast number of very big words heaped up,
but to very little purpose. Here are " the whole new creation,"
" the Holy Church Universal," " the unanimous suffrage of the
most distinct times and places, and the most gifted and holiest
men," all shaking their heads at us, and warning us that it is at
our peril to attach any meaning to what God has said to us in
the Scriptures, other than what they tell us is to be affixed toil.
Such an apparition is, no doubt, very alarming; and some peo
ple vvho are frightened by big words, begin lo think that it really
would be very presumptuous to differ from such authorities.
And so do I too. But when we come to close quarters with
these spectres, we find them vanish into thin air ; and " the
whole new creation" leave nothing behind them to tell us what
meaning they did affix to Scriptures, but the mutilated works of
a iew fallible authors of the primitive Church. The right of
private judgment, then, involves no such presumption as Mr.
Newman would here lead us to suppose. And however much
men may misinterpret the Bible, they have in it at least an in
fallible guide; and as long as they adhere closely to it, in the
sincere desire to understand it, and wifh prayer to God to enable
them to do so, will not be suffered by a faithful God to err fun
damentally; while, as it respects the Fathers, they are at every
step almost liable to be led astray ; for they are met at the very
threshold of their inquiry by a multitude of difficulties, all of
which must be cleared up, before they can proceed satisfactorily.
They must determine the meaning of doubtful passages; they
1 W. Sherlock's Vindication of some Protestant Principles, &c. Lond. 1688.
4to. p. 99.

478 SCRIPTURE TUE SOLE INFALLIBLE
must know how many Fathers are sufficient to constitute a safe
guide; they must ascertain that these are not contradicted by
others, and determine various other points in which they are ex
posed to innumerable errors, through inexperience and predju
dice; while after all, at the best, they get nothing more than a
fallible guide, which cannot relieve them from the duty of ascer
taining for themselves what God has delivered in the Scriptures.
Moreover, the rights of the Church and the right of private
judgment are by no means incompatible with each other ; nor
need any confusion or disorder arise in the Church from the doc
trine for which we contend. It is necessary for the well-being
of the Church to lay down what it holds to be the doctrines of
Scripture as a protest against the misinterpretations of heretics,
and to expand that confession of faith from time to time accord
ing as heresies arise, in order to keep her communion as far as
possible pure. And this holds good of a particular Church as
well as of the whole universal Church. And in both cases it is
done on the responsibility of those who do it, and done not as if
the determination was infallible, but as a protest against sup
posed error, and a safeguard to protect the communion of those
who make it. The validity of their sentence against the sup
posed heretic depends upon whether they are right or not, and
this God alone can infallibly decide; while nevertheless they
must act as if they were right.
It is from taking this course, I conceive, that our Church has
sometimes been most unjustly accused by her enemies as one that
always disowned infallibility, but always acted as if she were
infallible. Here, as it often happens in such cases, truth has
been sacrificed for the sake of an antithesis, but ii the word right
had been inserted in the latter clause instead of infallible, the
remark would have been perfectly true, and have imputed
nothing blameworthy. For if men were not to act, and act with
energy and vigour, according lo what they believed to be true and
right, because they were not infallible, they must cease to act at
all. But there is a vast deal of difference between acting with
energy, according to that which we believe to be right and true,
and claiming infallibiUty. There is a limit to what we do in the
first case, as the annals of our Church will testify. There is no
limit in the other, as the annals of the Church of Rome will
prove. " As for that objection against our Church," says Dr. Clagget
and Mr. Hutchinson, " which is of late so much insisted upon by
some, that notwithstanding the liberty she gives to private Chris
tians to examine her doctrines by the Scriptures, she yet per
emptorily requires the profession of that faith which she teaches,
and conformity to her rules of worship, there is nothing in it to

RULE AND JUDGE IN EELIGION. 479
surprise any man but the intolerable vanity of the objections.
For this is so far from being unreasonable, that for the same rea
son that she does the one she may and ought to do the other;
that is, because she is certain that the conditions of her commu
nion are justifiable to* the whole world, therefore she should
neither fear to insist upon them, nor to provoke all persons to the
examination of them by any proper methods whatsoever. This
objection, however, runs a little cross to the other, that the lib
erty our Church gives must needs cause disorder and confusion.
For why there must needs be disorder where a Church's faith is
fixed, and a form of worship established, and conformity required,
and no just cause of offence given, I cannot understand, unless it
be because it must needs be that some men will be very unrea
sonable, and others will be very wicked, after the best care is
taken to direct them in their duty, and oblige them fo it. If
they of the Roman Church can tell how to prevent this infallibly,
it is a secret which they have as yet kept to themselves. For
our own parts, we are altogether ignorant of any way, fhat shall
make it impossible for men that are endued with freewill to'abuse
it, whether by making wrong judgment or a wrong choice. Our
Church hath fixed terms of communion which are truly catho
lic, and leaves every one to judge for himself whether they be so
or not, affording to every one the liberty of using all means that
they can in order to the making a right judgment, and there
fore of using the Scriptures, which are not only the best in
themselves, but which also come within the compass of the
abilities and leisure of all, more or less. We are to use the
liberty of judging for ourselves by these means, under this con
sideration, that we are to be accountable for it at the day of
judgment .... This is the provision that God hath made for
the maintaining of truth and peace in his Church ; that go
vernors cannot abuse their authority in commanding, nor the peo
ple their liberty of judging whether the command can be obeyed
with a good conscience, but at the peril of their souls 
As for those that impute the disorders and schisms of the Church
to the liberty of judging by the Scriptures which we allow, I
would be glad to know what means they are provided with to
ascertain the unity of communion."*
When the pastors of any Church separate one who obstinate
ly maintains what they deem to be fundamental error from their
communion, they do so not as persons possessing any infallible
guide besides the Scriptures, but in the exercise of the ministe
rial authority given to them by the Church, and each party is re-
I On the Authoriiy of Councils and tbe Rule of Faitli. In Bp. Gibson's Pre
serv. vol. i. tit. 4. c. 2. pp. 170, 171.

480 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
sponsible to the great Head of the Church alone for their con
duct. There is no infallible tribunal on earth before which he
can be arraigned, and therefore nothing can be justly done be
yond such an act of separation. None have authority over his
conscience. The whole matter must be referred to Christ's tribunal at the
day of judgment, and if the pastors of the Church have been
in error, they will be the persons to suffer punishment, and not he
who knowing from the Scriptures, what the real doctrines of the
faith are, and seeing that those pastors were leading him astray,
determined to obey God rather than man.
But with this ministerial authority, and the concession of the
right of private judgment to individuals as to the meaning of
God's word in points upon which their salvation depends, our op
ponents are altogether dissatisfied. No ; they must either wield
the sceptre of infallibility, or they can do nothing, and every
thing must take its own course, and go to confusion.
The real fact is, that our opponents are carried away, like
many Papists, by the notion that there must be some infallible
guide to be found somewhere to " force" upon men the true
meaning of the Scriptures, because otherwise they see clearly
that professing Christians will always be divided as to its mean
ing, and that the true Church, whatever it may be, can no more
claim to be considered an infallible witness than those who are
supporters of error. If, then, this staggers any one, let me put
it to him, whether this is at all dissonant wifh God's ordinary
dealings with mankind. Here is a revelation given of the Chris
tian faith in a fourfold account of our Lord's life and teaching.
Here are above twenty Epistles written by inspired authors fo
various Churches, amplifying and explaining that revelation.
Here are various Churches and individuals among Christians,
holding forth in their public acts and confessions the light of
truth, and bearing witness to the true meaning of Scripture and
the orthodox faith. Is this sufficient or not for the conviction of
men ? Is not such a state of things precisely in accordance with
the ordinary course of God's dealings with mankind ?
But with this state of things the lovers of Church authority
will not be satisfied. They must wield a power over the con
sciences of men to bind them to belief in what they deliver, other
wise they tell us there will be no end of controversies and here
tical sects. Now is not this the very source of their errors, that
they expect that there should be in this world an end of contro
versies and heretical sects? The Apostles had no such expecta
tion. They tell us that there must be heresies, that they which
are approved may be made manifest. (1 Cor. xi. 19.) We en
tertain, therefore, no such expectation ; and, consequenly, when

EULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 481
we are told that if the Bible is the sole authoritative judge of
controversies in religion, there will be no end of controversies
and heretical sects, for that the Bible cannot force people to be
lieve the truth, we reply that this is perfectly true, but no rea
sonable ground of objection against the view for which we con
tend, for this is a trial which the Church of Christ ought to ex
pect and look for, as the natural consequence of the present
state of things. While human nature remains what it is, there
will be dissenlions among men on such points. But this does not
bring confusion into any Church that is watchful in maintaining
her orthodoxy, though it be a trial to which, as a Church mili
tant, she is necessarily exposed. And though it would carry me
too far from our present subject fo enlarge upon the remark I
am about to make, I would suggest to the reader the inquiry how
far a claim to be considered an infallible guide wpuld be likely
to tend to. the purity or the peace of any Church that made it.
Our opponents seem ready to think, that if " the Church," i.
e. according to their use of the phrase, the collective body of the
pastors of the Church, has not authority over the consciences of
men, the ministerial office is useless ; that if an ultimate appeal
to the Scriptures lies open to all men, and men may judge for
themselves from them what is the truth, we may as well leave
them, at least in adult age, to the Scriptures as their alone
teacher. What ! Have we not abundant room for our ministra
tions, in endeavouring to remove prejudices, to lead the mind lo
trains of thought suited to bring it into a state of willingness to
receive the truth, to obviate the effects of man's carelessness and
indiflerence to religion, by laying before him the truths of God's
word, and pointing out to him their true meaning, (which he is
often too indifferent about them lo search out,) to study the word
of truth for him, and show him, by the collation of passages,
what the mind of God is; to remove the objections which his hu
mour or prejudices may start ; to point out to him the number,
the qualifications, and the piety of those who in past times have
maintained such views of divine truth, (I say their piety, for
" by the\r fruits ye shall know them," not by their Apostolical
succession, which may be very good, while their doctrine is very
bad;) and lastly, to press all home to the heart by earnest and
affectionate exhortations and warnings; and then, as fallible men,
leave it to the conscience to do its work, and to the final decision
of the Supreme Judge to pronounce an infallible judgment?
But no ; all this is insufficient, because there are some who will
not thus embrace the truth, and we must have, in one way or
another, some infallible judge upon earth, in order to make
people believe, and wield a power over their consciences which
belongs to the Supreme Judge alone. And to create a judge that
VOL. I. 5 s

482 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
has some appearance of infallibility, a certain number of big
words and high-sounding phrases, such as " the Church," " Catho
lic consent," " the consent of all Christians from the beginning,"
(which either have no meaning at all, or else cannot be defined
until we have determined the very thing for which this infallible
judge is wanted, viz. the fundamental faith,) are thrown toge
ther, and there arises from the compound an idol, fo which men
are taught to bow down as the infallible expOunder of God's will,
the authoritative judge of controversies in religion.
Lastly, it is objected that if Scripture is the sole infallible
judge of controversies of faith, it follows that men may interpret
it as they please, and cannot be blamed whatever errors they
may maintain: and that the only fundamental doctrine is the in
spiration of the Bible.
Astounding as such an objection is, and obvious as is its iUogical
nature it is put forth as something wholly undeniable, and boast
ed of as a difficulty which nothing can remove. They who main
tain the view for which we contend, "seem to allow," says Mr.
Newman, " or fo be in tbe way to allow, that truth is but mat
ter of opinion, that ihat is truth to each which each thinks to
be truth, provided he sincerely and really thinks it, that the di
vinity of the Bible itself is the only thing that need be be
lieved, and that its meaning varies with the individuals who
receive zY, that it has" no one meaning fo be ascertained as a mat
ter of fact, but (hat it may mean anything, because it is said to
mean so many things;" and they have adopted " the latitudina
rian notion that one creed is as good as another." (pp. 35, 6.)
And this " principle of popular Protestantism" " tends by no very
intricate process to the recognition of Socinians and Pelagians as
Christians." (p. 291.) I need hardly add, that the objection is
only an echo of a Romish one ;* and a Romish one (be it observ
ed) urged, like the rest, against that very Church and those
very men whom our opponents profess to follow in this matter.
I feel bound to say, that this appears to me just like the last
refuge of a disputant driven into a corner, and vexed at finding
fhat he had not a single loophole of escape left, for any argu
ment more groundless, any conclusion more unwarranted by the
premises, any statement containing a more complete libel against
God's word, never was devised as the last shift of a controver
sialist. Mr. Newman's statements go even beyond the objection, aSwe
have worded it, and altogether pass the bounds of reasonable
and temperate discussion ; for his words (as quoted aboVe) cleariy
charge us with maintaining that the Scripture really has as
1 Account, &c. of Guide in Controversies, by R. H. (as above quoted.)

EULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 483
many meanings as are given to it ; sp that in the hands of one
person it really teaches Trinitarianism, and in the hands of ano
ther it really teaches Socinianism. / here challenge Mr. New
man, as a man of truth, fo point out any authority for this
statement, such as will justify him in so making it, or to
acknowledge his inability to do so.
But to take the objection in its best form. What does it
amount to? That if every man is to beUeve only as his private
judgment of the meaning of Scripture directs him, he who fol
lows his private judgment is not blameworthy, however errone
ous his faith may be.
Now here, obviously, the conclusion is wholly unwarranted
by the premises, for there are many causes fending to mislead
the judgment for which a man is responsible, and blameworthy
if they lead him into error. Such are, in this case, want of at
tention to the subject, indifference, worldly-mindedness, preju
dices, aversion to the truth, negligence of the means of informa
tion, and of those helps which are suited to aid him in his inqui
ries into the meaning of God's word. And the true question is
this, whether he who comes to the Scriptures wifh a sincere de
sire to know the truth, doing the will of God as far as he knows
it, carefully, earnestly, and impartially endeavouring to ascer
tain the sense of Scripture, with prayer to God for his blessing
upon the perusal of it, shall ever fail of obtaining a knowledge
of its meaning in all fundamental points. All these things are
within the power of every man, and he is blameworthy if he
neglects any of them. We contend that this question can only
be answered in the negative. No man thus coming to the Scrip
tures shall fail of obtaining a knowledge of the fundamental
truths revealed in them ; and for the proof of this position we
have their sufficiency (to be proved more fully hereafter) to
teach the faith, the character and promises of God, and the tes
timony of antiquity to the plainness with which all such points
are delivered therein.
It follows then that every man is responsible to God for dedu
cing the right faith from Scripture, and blameworthy if he does
not. The primary false principle in the objection of our opponents
is, as throughout, the assumption, that Scripture is so ambigu
ous in its delivery of the fundamentals of the faith, fhat if God
has not given us an authoritative interpreter whom we are
bound in conscience to follow, we are not responsible to him
for deducing, the right faith, even in essentials, from Scripture,
and not blameworthy ii we maintain that it teaches Socinian
ism, Pelagianism, or anything else. Such is the character which
our opponents affix to God's word in the Scriptures !

484 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
Nay more, it is broadly intimated (however inconsistently with
other parts) that if we were left to Scripture alone, Socinians
would have a very good defence to make. For, says Mr. New
man, " It is urged against them [i. e. by Socinians against those
who hold our views], that, though the texts referred to may
imply the catholic doctrine, yet they weeof not ; that they are con-
sistent with any one out of several theories.'" (p. 292.) Now
if this is justly urged, and in that case only is it worth referring
to, what becomes of Mr. Newman's remarks about Scripture
proof ior doctrine ? And in what does his view differ from those
which he professes to repudiate, viz., that Scripture is Uke a nose
of wax, that can be turned any way ? In fact, he has here
countenanced the very notion which we have just seen him
charging upon his opponents as an absurdity ; viz., that Scripture
" may mean any thing, because it is said fo mean so many things."
"Or, at any rate," it is added, "that other persons think so:"
What then ? Is everything ambiguous that people dispute about?
Let us take a case for an illustration of this point. What is the
opinion entertained by a great number of professing Christians,
as fo the best means of obtaining happiness in this world? Is it
not that it is to be derived almost solely from earthly sources?
And if you press them with texts of Scripture bearing upon this
point, have they not their reply ready, explaining away the pas
sage so as to suit theirown notions, and adducing others in defence
of them ? According, then, to Mr. Newman's mode of reasoning,
the New Testament is altogether ambiguous upon this point, and
we need some authoritative interpreter to tell us what it means ;
and he who chooses to think that it authorizes his earthly-minded
career, is blameless before God, if there is no such interpreter.
Mr. Newman proceeds, — " It is urged against them . . . that
these others have as much right to their opinion as the party
called orthodox to theirs ; fhat human interpreters have no
warrant to force upon them one view in particular ; that pri
vate judgment must be left unmolested," &.c. No; this cannot
be justly urged against us, for this is what we hold. We do not
force upon men one view; we do leave private judgment un
molested ; but these objections are fairly urged against our oppo
nents, because, when they claim infallibility, they do force upon
men one view, and grievously molest private judgment. We hold,
indeed, that Scripture has a clear and definite meaning in all
necessary points ; and that he who does not hold its meaning in
such points, is fundamentally wrong ; and therefore that every
Church is bound to keep its communion pure, by separating from
itself, and passing a sentence of condemnation upon those who, in
its view, are obstinate heretics; but wp hold, 'also, that there is
no such authoritative infallible judge of controversies of faith on

EULE AND JUDGE IN EELIGION. 485
earth, as can bind the conscience to the belief of any meaning it
may affix to the Wordof God; even though that meaning be
taken from what is called the " consent of the Fathers."
And having thus libelled the Word of God, and accused it of
being altogether of doubtful meaning, because some persons mis
represent its meaning, and attacked the Protestant doctrine of
the right of private judgment, he triumphantly concludes, "This
reasoning, granting the first step, is resistless," and tells us that,
"though certain individuals are not injured by the principle in
question, [i. e. of the Bible being the sole authoritative rule of
faith,] the body of men who profess it are, and ever must be, in
jured. For the mass of men, having no moral convictions, are
led by reasoning, and by mere consistency of argument; and
legitimately evolve heresy from principles which, to the better
sort of men, may be harmless." (pp. 293, 4.) That is, men who
are led by reasoning, and by mere consistency of argument,
LEGITIMATELY EVOLVE HERESY from adhering to Scripture as the
sole authoritative rule of faith.
May God in his mercy pity and forgive such libels against the
sacred boon he has bestowed upon us in his Holy Scriptures, and
uot visit the sin upon our Church, in withdrawing from us alto
gether the light of that book so little prized, and leaving us again
to grope our way in the darkness to, which some among us would
fain reduce us.
Nor let it be forgotten, that this objection is just as tenable
against the views of our opponents, as against those for which we
contend. For, as we have already shown, patristical tradition
may be, and is, quoted on all sides. And, as Bishop Stillingfleet
says, — " Why may not men mistake the sense of tradition, as well
as the sense of Scripture? Is tradition more infallible in itself?
Is it delivered by persons more infallible? Doth it make those to
whom il is delivered infallible? Why, then, may not those who
deliver it, and those who receive it, both be mistaken about it?"
In the tradition of " Christ's being the Son of God," " the tradi
tionary words may be kept; and yet an heretical sense may be
contained under them. Mr. S. answers, ' That the sense of the
words, and all the rest of Christ's doctrine, is conveyed down by
tradition.' This is bravely said, if it could be made out; and
would presently put an end to all disputes. For if all the doc
trine of Christ be derived down fo us in such a manner that we
cannot mistake the sense of it, we must be all agreed whether we
will or not  But let us see how he proves that men can
not mistake the sense of tradition in particular points. The force
of what he saith is, ' That men were always men, and Christians
were always Christians; and Mr. S. is always Mr. S., pretending
demonstration, when there is nothing like it. If men were always
ss*

486 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
men, they were always apt to be deceived ; and unless Christians,
by being such, are infallible, they are liable to mistakes. ' But
the highest means to convey the sense of words, are to be found
in tradition.' I am quite of another opinion ; / think it the
most uncertain way in the world ; and the corruptions of the
first ages af the world are an evident proof of it, when there
were all possible advantages of tradition; and yet the principles
of natural religion were strangely corrupted, although they were
plain, easy, few, of the highest importance, and men lived so long
to inculcate them info the minds of their children." And he then
proceeds to show the vanity of the argument adduced by J. S.,
as by our opponents, that there were actions in the rites and
ordinances of the Church, as well as words, fo show the true doc
trines of Christianity.*
Our opponents, then, may take back their argument, and
answer it as it applies to their own system, and the snme answer
will do for us. If it follows from our regarding the Bible as the
sole infallible rule of faith, that we thereby make the doctrine of
the inspiration of the Bible the only fundamental, and that men
are not blameable, whatever doctrine they deduce from the Bible,
so our opponents' hypothesis makes the doctrineof the inspiration
of the Bible and patristical tradition the only fundamental ; and
men are not blameable, whatever doctrines they may derive
from them ; and so half the heretics, ancient and modern, are at
once absolved.
I cannot conclude this chapter, however, without again calling
the attention of the reader to the extraordinary fact that such
doctrines as we have been considering, should be represented as
the doctrines of the Church of England. Most painful, indeed, is
it to observe the way in which the name of the Church of Eng
land has been used in this matter, and her authority quoted as
supporting doctrines and statements against which, both in her
authorized formularies and by her most celebrated divines, she
has been for three centuries protesting, and still more painful to
see how readily, nay eagerly, those representations are credited
by many, and a few quotations of uncertain meaning received
from the Tract writers in proof of their allegations, when other
parts of the works of the same individuals show how completely
opposed they were to the doctrines which they are quoted as
supporting. But our opponents are wise in supposing that such
names do them far more service than their own arguments on the
subject ; and they have, indeed, as far as my experience goes,
been the chief causes of the impression produced in many quar
ters in their favour.
1 Disc. cone, nature and grounds of certainty of faith, pp. 42. et seq.

EULE AND JUDGE IN EELIGION. 487
I have noticed above only the observations of Mr. Newman
on this subject, Iiut I need hardly observe, that his remarks are
echoed in substance by tbe rest, and equally so by that corps of
volunteers, who, though they disclaim any express and direct
union with the writers of the Tracts, are almost always found
on important points fighting side by side with them. One of
these is Dr. Hook, who in the notes to his Visitation Sermon (p.
100) tells us, that they who hold the notion of the Bible being
the sole infallible rule of faith, have no right to " refuse to regard
as a Christian," a Socinian, i. e. in other Words, to pronounce him
to be involved in fundamental error nor fo blame him for his
error. No, doubtless, how can he be to blame when he has only
got such an obscure book as the Bible to direct him ? Wifh such
a guide how can he be expected to find the way? Nay, more,
*' I believe it," says Dr. Hook, " to be only on account of their
being bad logicians, that they are not Socinians : I believe
that they ought to be, if consistent, both Dissenters and Socinians.
If they accuse Church principles of tending fo Popery, we think
that their opinions must lead logical and unprejudiced minds
to Socinianism." (p. 59.) So fhat the Bible when alone, directly
leads logical minds to Socinianism ? There is much comfort,
however, in the reflection that it is the logic of our opponents
that does so. But the Socinians, I am sure, must feel greatly
obliged to Dr. Hook fOr the remark, for if hundreds and thou
sands do noi after this join them, it will be no fault of Dr. Hook.
But then " we of the Church of England," have got " an
arbiter to decide" for us what the meaning of Scripture is, in
" the Church" and " General Councils," the old high-sounding
phrases and big words by which so many have been frightened
into errors of all kinds. " But for this," adds Dr. H. " ultra-
Protestants denounce us as papistical, and call our Church the
Church of the Traditioners." (p. 101.) Now if Dr. Hook
would but have given himself time to make himself acquaint
ed with the facts of the case, he would have found that this name
was given for no reason of the kind. When the Puritans called
the Church of England the Church of the Traditoners (See Dr.
H.'s Serni. p. 56), they did so not with reference to her going to
tradition for doctrine, but because she considered that in mat
ters of discipline the tradition of the early Church was a suffi
cient justification for her continuing some usages which had
been observed in the Church in the time of Popery, and which
the Puritans, who demanded Scriptural authority for every
usage, wished to abolish ; and if Dr. Hook will consult only his
Hooker a little more attentively, he will easily find the truth of
this. But this is just a specimen of the haste and carelessness of
the party, and but one of a thousknd. They are in such haste

488 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
and eagerness to establish their position, that they catch at every
straw and broken reed that lies in their way, and when any
famous divine of our Church has uttered a few words in commen
dation of the Fathers and the primitive Church, down they go
as evidence for the truth of their positions, and his name figures
in their next Catena; utterly unable, or rather unwiUing, to
draw the distinction between making the testimony of the Fa
thers an argument in confirmation of orthodoxy and claiming
their testimony in one's favour, which our reformers most justly
did, and putting it forward under big names and high-sounding
phrases, as the arbiter of the meaning of Scripture, authorita
tively declaring the truth and binding the conscience to belief
without any appeal, a notion against which our Church has for
three centuries been all but unanimous.
Dr. Hook's work contains a long extract (pp. 64 &s.) from the
" Treatise on the Church," by the Rev. W. Palmer, another
supporter of the Tractators, who, beginning with the complaint
of " systematic misrepresentation," himself misrepresents most
grievously. " The various methods which these raen employ,"
he says, " in endeavouring to prevent any appeal to the tradi
tion of the Church," &c., as if it was denied that " any appeal"
might be made to it in the way of argument, when dissenters
themselves have often made it. So again under the head of
"statements directly untrue," it is he himself who is guilty.
" Under this head," he says, " may be included the palmary ar
gument employed by all sects against any appeal to the tradition
of the Church Universal, namely, that it was the principle of the
Reformation to reject arty such appeal  Nothing can be
more untrue than this assertion : the Reformation as a whole
acknowledged and appealed to the authority of catholic tradi
tion, though it denied the infallibility oi particular fathers
and Councils." Now, in the first place, " nothing can be more
untrue" than that this assertion is so made, and on the other hand,
nothing more untrue than that the Reformers appealed to the
authority of catholic tradition in that sense of the word autho
rity in which the last part of the sentence and the general ar
gument show that it is here used, viz., as absolute and binding,
and as if such tradition was infallible. There is a middle path,
the true path of our Church, which Mr. Palmer, Uke the Tract
writers, refuses to see, an appeal to the tradition of the Fathers
as a good argument as far as it goes, but not as one in itself bind
ing upon the conscience. He proceeds to tell us, that " in as
serting this Uberty to all men, \i. e. the liberty of judging after
the due use of means what is the meaning of Scripture, for as
to the words " in opposition to the belief of all Christians from
the beginning," they are mere moonshine, because no one can

EULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 489
tell US what that belief has teen, nor for one in ten thousand, as
Mr. P. very well knows,] it follows inevitably that no parti
cular interpretation of Scripture is necessary to salvation ;
that Scripture has no divine meaning, that it is not a revela
tion." Most logically argued! God has commissioned various
persons to write several accounts of the Gospel, and he has
given me reason sufficient to understand it. But if I say that I
am at liberty to judge what those accounts mean, "it follows in
evitably" that those accounts have no divine meaning," that they
are " not a revelation," and that I may understand them to mean
anything that my humour leads me to fancy. Such superficial
and illogical views destroy the value of any learning with which
they may be connected. For learning is then only valuable when
United with correct and impartial reasoning.
The fact is, that this whole argument, with its invidious refe
rence to Socinianism in order to raise a prejudice in the mind, is
only another weapon drawn from the Romish armoury. It was
long ago urged by the celebrated R. H., (?'. e. Abraham Wood-
head,) in the 4th Discourse of his "Guide in Controversies,'
where he represents the Socinian's Plea as being precisely that
of the Protestant ; and which was fully and ably answered by
Dr. Tenison, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, in his "Dif
ference betwixt the Protestant and Socinian methods," a tract
which I would strongly recommend to the serious perusal of our
opponents, as one which very clearly lays down the principles of
the Church of England in this point, and gives to the Fathers as
well as to Scripture their proper place and respect. To quote
from this work what is relevant to our present subject, would be
to give the whole, but I cannot refrain from offering one or two
extracts, "If men," says the Archbishop, " who plead 'Scrip
ture as their rule of faith, make apology by so doing for all others
who pretend to the same rule, then catholic Councils themselves
plead for Socinians. For to give an example, the General Coun
cil of Chalcedon, and after it Evagrius, testifies, that the intent
of the Second Council was to make it appear by scripture tes
timony, that such as Macedonius erred in fhat opinion which they
had advanced against the lordship of the Holy Ghost." (p. 35.)
" I conclude that notwithstanding the Protestants and Socinians
do both of them plead Scripture as the rule of faith, yet because
Protestants plead the rule rightly in the point of the divinity of
the Son of God, and the Socinians very falsely, even in the opi
nion of the Arians and Romanists themselves, the plea of the for
mer does not justify the plea of the latter  For the trial
of the plea, we must come to the dint of argument, and
truth is great and will in time prevail." (p. 37.)
He then proceeds to give the main argument of his antagonist

490 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
in order to its refutation, and he thus states it: — "Both Protes
tants and Socinians plead Scripture as the sole rule of faith.
Both say the Scripture is sufficiently clear. Both say it is clear
in the doctrine of the nature of the Son of God. The Socin
ian professeth himself fo be as industrious in finding out the sense
of the Scripture as the Protestant and he is as well assured in his
persuasion; therefore the Protestant in this plea justifies the So
cinian, the latter saying the same thing for himself that the for
mer does." (p. 38.) Words could not have been chosen more
accurately representing the argument of our opponents. This,
be it remembered, is a Romanist's charge against the Church of
England. How does the Archbishop meet it? Does he tell him
that this is not the ground taken by the Church of England?
Precisely the contrary. He fells him, " Though they pretend to
the same rule, they walk not alike by it. One follows it, the
other wrests it. And this ought not to be turned to ihe pre
judice of him who is true to his rule. Let both opinions be
BROUGHT TO IT, AND THEN IX WILL APPEAR WHICH IS STRAIGHT AND
WHICH IS CROOKED. . . Though the Socinians do pretend that the
writings of St. John are to them as clear as to any Protestant,
and that they cannot discern in them the divinity of Christ, yet
confidence in saying a thing is not clear, is not an argument that
it is not  Men will say doctrines are obscure even when
they are secretly convinced of their evidence  My adver
sary here (says a learned knd good man) 'seems to object as else
where, that some who seem fo follow the letter of the Scriptures
deny this [that is, the divinity of Jesus Christ,] as do the Soci
nians. What then ? This is not for want of evidence in Scrip
ture, but from making or devising ways to avoid this evidence.
Will, this author say, that there was no evidence of there being
angels and spirits amongst the Jews, because the Sadducees, who
had opportunity of observing all such evidence, believed neither
angel nor spirit? And will he say, that there was no clear evi
dence from the word of Christ and his miracles that they were
from God, because the Pharisees and otherunbelieving Jews who
conversed with him, and saw his miracles, and heard his word,
did not acknowledge him for God ?' I suppose not." (pp. 38 — 40.)
" Let a Romanist consider of the qualifications of a Protestant
and a Socinian by the effect of their labours, in matters of
Christian faith, and if he be not blinded with very gross parti
ality he will acknowledge a difference. The Vrotestant finds in
the Scripture the divinity of Christ and the Holy Ghost, and the
merit of Christ's sacrifice ; the Socinian pretends the contrary. If
the Protestant and Socinian were equally disposed, how comes
the one to interpret as a catholic, the other as a heretic ? And
how can a Romanist believe that God gives an equal blessing

EULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 491
to the industry of the Protestants and Socinians, whilst the
latter do not so much as pray for grace to the Spirit of Gpd,
nor qpply themselves to God the Father through the meri
torious sacrifice of his blessed Son, nor to Christ himself
as God, but as to the highest of creatures ?" (p. 43,) " We
have no need of confuting Arians and Socinians by Church-au
thority, seeing we can do it more effectually out of the scrip-
turks; and if they say that the Scriptures are on their side,
their saying so does not alter the nature of truth. And the Ro
manists allow that they say not true, and they may be confuted
when they are not silenced. Protestants decline not a disputa
tion wifh Socinians by the rule of primitive Church-authority.
But if they undervalue this rule, it is discretion in Protestants to
debate the matter with them in a way which they themselves
best like of, seeing that is also a more certain as well as a
MORE SPEEDY WAY TO VICTORY." (p. 47.) " Though the Church
of England does not make the Councils her rule of faith, or make
her last appeal to them ; yet she believes that in times of con
troversy, when the heads of men are apt to be disturbed even in
matters otherwise plain enough, by the heats and distempers of
the age they live in, they are of special use. The authority of
them lends fo the quelling of the party; and then when the fac
tion cools, it tends to the fixing and further strengthening of the
weak and interrupted faith of many. For as in a balance, one
scale may descend more or less below the level, so there may be
faith and assent without adding the weight of Fathers and
Councils; and yet in unquiet times especially, and disputing
ages, such testimonies may give some further strength to minds
made feeble, either by public distractions, or the private attacks
of crafty seducers. Thus our Church gives to the Scripture the
things that belong to the Scripture, and to tradition the dues
of tradition. And it gives more even to the former than gene
rally Socinians do, and more also to the latter though with just
caution and subordination." (p. 33.)
The same argument was urged by the Romanists against our
opponents' own witness. Bishop Stillingfleet, and is treated by him
with ridicule. The Church of England and the Socinians, objec
ted J. S., " both take the same way of Scripture's letter interpre-
table by private judgment, and yet differ in these fundamental
points." "And what follows?" replies the Bishop. "Thatthe
Scripture is no certain rule ? By no means. But that the So
cinians may err, and certainly do in misinterpreting this rule.
' But'how can it be a certain rule, if men that use it may err in
using it ?" How can reason be certain in anything if men follow
ing reason may mistake 1 How can arithmetic be a certain way
of computation if htien following the rules of arithmetic may

492 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE
mistake in casting up a sum ? Doth any man question the cer
tainty of the rule for men's blundering in their accounts ? Yet
this is his way of reasoning. And I will put it just with his propo
sitions, i. Arithmetic prescribes a certain way by addition and
subtraction for us to find out any sum. ii. Therefore it must be
such that they who take it shall arrive by it at the exact sum.
iii. But two men who have made use of the same way differ at
least a hundred in casting up the sum. iv. Therefore, arithmetic
doth not prescribe a certain way to attain at a certain sum.
v. Therefore, they who take only that way cannot by it arrive
at the certain sum. Is not this clear and evident demonstration ?
But those who consider a little better than Mr. S. hath done, will
distinguish between the rule and the application of it. The rule
of arithmetic may be nevertheless certain, although those who
want skill or care and diligence may mistake in casting up a
particular account. The same we say here. Scripture is a
certain Ruleia ail fundamental points to such as have capaci
ty and use due care and diligence in finding them. But we do
not deny but men through prejudice, weakness, want of attention,
authority of false teachers, impatience of thoroughly examining
things, and not using proper helps, may run into gross errors, sucb
as these about the Trinity and Incarnation ; but still the Rule
is certain to those who use it aright, although it be very possible
for men through their own faults to mistake about it. And this
is no way disagreeing to the infinite wisdom of God, who deals
with us as with rational creatures, and hath put faculties into us
that we might use them in order to the certainty of our faith.
And such moral qualifications are required in the New Testa
ment in order to the discerning the doctrine of it, as humility of
mind, purity of heart, prayer to God, sincere endeavour to do
the will of God ; that it would be very repugnant to the design
of it to suppose that the letter of Scripture alone would give a
man immediate and certain directions in all matters of doctrine
being applied to it."'
Such is the testimony of one who is continually put forward
by our opponents as an advocate of their views.
And as they are fond of the authority of great names, and of
boasting that their system is the true doctrine of the English
Church, I shall conclude this chapter with an extract from a work
of our learned Henry Wharton, {one of the divines of the
" Anglo Catholic Library,") quoted in a preceding page.
" If in any part of the Christian religion an undoubted certain
ty and most firm assurance may justly be required : if a
scrupulous examination and curious inquiry may ever be allowed
¦ Disc. cone, nature and grounds of certainty of faith, pp. 39, 40.

RULE AND JUDGE IN RELIGION. 493
in matters of religion ; certainly, an exact knowledge of the Rule
of faith will deserve, as our first, so our chief consideration. For
since the articles of Christianity are not in themselves self-evident,
nor can be found out by the sole principles of reason ; since all
revealed religions are no further credible than as they can demon
strate their revelation to have been true and real, some rule was
necessary which might propose to mankind those articles of faith
which reason could not suggest, and propose them also with such
evidence as that the denial of assent should in all become irration
al. What this determinate rule is, hath been the great contro
versy of this and all preceding ages. However, all parties agree
in affixing some certain properties fo if, whereby it may be dis
tinguished ; and, indeed, without which it can never supply the
office or serve the ends of a true rule. These may be reduced
to four heads, that it be able safely and inviolably to convey
down all revealed necessary truths ; that it be fitted to pro
pose them CLEARLY and invariably to all mankind ; that it be
independent on all other revealed articles ; and lastly, that
it be assigned as a rule by God, the author of all revealed
religion. If either of the two first conditions be deficient, the
rule will be unuseful ; if either of the latter, uncertain and with
out authority.
The SCRIPTURE enjoys all these properties in so EMINENT A
manner, that no REASONABLE DOUBT CAN BE MADE OF THE TRUTH
OF IT. For if we consider that whatsoever is revealed may be
pronounced ; whatsoever is pronounced may be written down ;
and whatsoever is committed to writing may be preserved safe,
while those writings are preserved unaltered ; we must conclude
that any revealed religion may be entirely and without danger
oi mistake proposed from written books to the tiniversal belief
of mankind, since these will afford a standing rule, both to
pastors of teaching their people, and to the people of examin
ing the doctrine of their pastors in case of dissidence. The
independence of Scripture from all other revealed articles, is no
less evident. For that these books were indeed written by those
persons whose names they bear, and these persons highly credi
ble, is known by the same evidences whereby the authors and
credibility of any other books are known; I mean by the con
current testimony and consent oi all succeeding ages, considered
not as a collection of men professing the Christian faith, hnt
as persons devoid neither of common sense nor integrity, as they
must have been, if they had mistaken themselves, or deluded us,
in believing and then testifying a matter of fact so easy fo be
known, and more easy to be remembered. Being thus assured
of the credibility of Scripture, that it was written by such his
torians, who really either performed or saw those miracles which
VOL. I. T T

494 SCRIPTURE THE SOLE INFALLIBLE RULE, &C.
they do atttest, we cannot but believe these miracles ; and, con
sequently, that the authors and founders of the Christian religion
acted by a divine commission, and may reasonably command our
assent to their revelations. Being thus assured of the divine
authority of the Scriptures, we may probably conclude from the
nature and end of them, but most certainly from their own
TESTIMONY, fhat they contain all things necessary to salvation,
and are the only rule of faith ; and all this although we did
not yet believe any other article of the Christian religion."^
1 Preface to " A Treatise proving Scripture to be the Rule of faith, &c. Lond.
1688." 4to.

THE END OF VOL. I.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 03720 3875

UhnfiH^lUilliiin!

liltltr

fl.'ii JijMi'