¦>- -r-*',* - *-*J^ "T^ YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THE DIVIDE RULE OP FAITH AND PRACTICE; or, A DEFENCE OF THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE THAT HOLY SCRIPTURE HAB BEEN SINCE THE TIMES OF THE APOSTLES THE SOLE DIVINE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE TO TIIE CHURCH, AOAINSr THE DANGEROUS SRRORS OP THE AUTHORS OF THE TRACTS FOR THE TIMES, AND THE ROMANISTS, AS, PARTICULARLV, THAT THK RULE OF FAITH TS "MADE UP OP SCRIPTUUR AND TRADITION together;" &C. IN WHICH ALSO THE DOCTRINES OP €f)ii Apostolical 5ucc«00ion, tjc iEucJan^tk Sacrifice. Src. ARE FULLY DISCUSSED. By WILLIAM GOODE, M.A. OP TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE; RECTOR OF ST. ANTHOLIN, LONDON. Haeretici quum ex Scripturis arguuntur, in aceusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scrip- turarum, . . . quia varie sint dictro, et quia non possit ex his inveniri Veritas ab his qui ne- Bciant Traditionem. Non enim per litteras traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem.— Iren.eiis. ^avepa efC7rrw(Tts iriffrecos Kat vTvepTj^avtas Karr}yopia, tj adeT^iv ri twv yeypafin^i/coy, 7} cTT^icrayeiv Ttav {mtj yeypafifievuv. — Basil. AvTapK€is eiffw at aytat Kat BeoTrvevavot ypa 478 Ot those who appear in some parts of their writings to take the opposite view, some have elsewhere so modified their testimony as to leave it upon the whole but little different to all practical purposes to that of the former, as — Jerome (fl. a. 378.) 478, 479 Augustine (fl. a. 396.) . . 479—482 Were the testimony of these Fathers different to what it is, our oppo nents, both Romanists and Tractators, could not consistently maintain that such (supposed) Apostolical traditions are obligatory on the Church, because they do not themselves adopt them all . . 482, 483 Section V. Whether Scripture is sufficiently clear to teach the faith, and how its meaning is best ascertained ..... 483 — Testimony of Justin Martyr (fl. a. 140.) . . 484 561 TABLE OP CONTENTS. Vll Irenfeus (fl. a. 167.) Theophilua of Antioch (fl. a. 168.) Tertullian (fl. a. 192.) . Clement of Alexandria (fl. a. 192.) Origen (fl. a. 230.) . Cyprian (fl. a. 248.) Novatian (fl. a. 251.) Gregory of Neocseaarca (fl. a. 254.) LactantiuBav. Athanas. Ep. 1. Ad Scrap. § 17. Tom. 1. p. 2. p. 666. ^ Xleptrri]S rotyapovv Kat -ir\eov fiavtas ovo-Tis r-r^s roiavr-tjs e-irtxetprjo-eas, [j.-rjKeri rotavra rts eparara, -rj fiOvov ra ev rats ypacpats fiavdavera. AvrapKTj yap Kat iKova Ta ev ravrats Ketfieva -irepi rovrov -irapaSetyptaTu. Athanas. Ep. 1 . Ad Scrap. § 19. Op. tom. 1. p. 2. p. 667. 14 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION term him plainly and expressly so." (On the Creed, Art. 8.) And, lastly, as it respects the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, as well as the Father, it is said by Augustine, after he has adduced various pas sages of Scripture in which it is contained, " And there are many other passages by which this is clearly shown, that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit both of the Father and the Son." 1 Nay, we may quote several of the Romanists themselves in behalf of its being fully set forth in Scrip ture. " Although," saith Thomas Aquinas, " it may not be found in so many words in Holy Scripture, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, yet it is found, as far as concerns the sense ; and particularly where the Son says, John xvi. speaking of the Holy Spirit, ' He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine.'" And he pro ceeds to adduce other passages. ^ So Eustathius a S. Paulo ; — " It is proved, first, by the authority of the Holy Scriptures, from which it is clearly enough ga thered."' So also Becanus ; — " Although it may not be in express terms in the Scriptures, yet, nevertheless, it may be clearly deduced from thence." * Nor need we be at all surprised at this ; for there is much contradiction among the Romanists themselves on such points. For though they are agreed that tradition is necessary, even for the fundamental points, yet as to the points for which it is necessary, they seem far from agreed. And I believe that for all these points, we could easily prove upon the testimony of Romanists, both that 2 Et multa alia sunt testimonia quibus hoc evidenter ostenditur, et Patris- et Filii esse Spiritum, qui in Trinitate dicitur Spiritus Sanctus. In Joh. Ev. u. 16. Tract. 99. § 6. Op. Tom. 3. p. 2. col. 747. = Licet per verba non inveniatur in Sacra Scriptura quod Spiritus Sanctus procedit a Filio, invenitur tamen quantum ad sensum, et prajcipue ubi dicit Filius, Joh. 16. de Spiritu S. loquens, Ille me clarificabit, quia de meo acci- piet. Summ. Theol. 1. q. 36. Art. 2. ' Probatur imprimis autoritate sacrarum Scripturarum ex quibus id aperte satis coUigitur. Summ. Theolog. P. I. Tract. 2. disp. 8. q. 2. • Licet expresae non habeatur in Scripturis, potest tamen evidenter inde deduci. Becan. Summ. Theolog. P. 1. Tract. 2. c. 6. q. 2. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 15 they were fully set forth in Scripture, and also that they were not. And the fact is, that in general, if they are writing expressly upon a particular doctrine, then they can see and admit that Scripture is full and clear on the point ; but if they are advocating the necessity of tra dition against the Protestants, then there is hardly a doc trine which is fully and clearly set forth in the Scriptures. Lastly, thus speaks our opponents' own witness. Bishop Pearson. " As, therefore, the Scriptures declare expressly that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, so do they also virtually teach that he proceedeth from the Son. From whence it came to pass, in the primitive times, that the Latin Fathers taught expressly the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son ; because, by good con sequence, they did collect so much from those passages of the Scripture which we have used to prove that truth" (On the Creed. Art. 8.) Further, if it be not fully and clearly set forth in the Scriptures, how can we be certain of it at all, even if we were to admit our opponents' system ? For neither they nor the Romanists can, upon their own principles, say that this doctrine is clearly delivered by the unanimous con sent of the Fathers, when the whole Greek Church have for centuries denied that the primitive Fathers of their Church maintained it. Nor could this doctrine, as it ap pears to me, be clearly proved to have had the witness ofthe early Greek Fathers in its favour. Mr. Keble adds, that we are indebted to tradition for the full doctrine of the Incarnation ;i which means, I sup pose, that, like the Romanists, he maintains that, because the Nestorians, Eutychians, and others, attempted to de fend an unorthodox doctrine on this point from the Scrip tures, therefore the Scriptures cannot fully set forth the orthodox doctrine respecting it. On this point, I shall merely refer the reader to the ad mirable Encyclical Letter of Leo I., in which he thus speaks. ' Serm. p. 41. 16 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION " But what," he says, " can be worse than to hold im pious notions, and uot to believe the wise and learned ? But into this folly do those fall who, when they are hin dered in arriving at a knowledge of the truth by some obscurity, do not go to the words of the Prophets, nor to the Epistles of the Apostles, nor to the testimonies of the Evangelists, but to themselves. And on that account are teachers of error, because they have not become disciples of the truth. For what learning has he acquired from the sacred pages of the New Testament, who does not even know the elementary points of the Creed itself? And that which is uttered by the voice of all the regene rate throughout the world, is not yet received in the heart of that old man [viz. Eutyches.] When ignorant, therefore, what he ought to think concerning the incarnation of the Word of God, and not willing to labour in the wide field of the Holy Scriptures, to gain the light of understanding, he should at least have attended with an earnestly-attentive ear to that common and universally-received confession, by which the whole body of the faithful professes its belief in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary, by the Holy Spirit, by which three sentences the devices of almost all heretics are destroyed .... But if he could not draw a correct knowledge of the truth from this most pure fountain of the Christian faith, because, by his own blindness, he had obscured the splendour of the truth, when shining clearly before him, he should have sub mitted himself to the teaching of the Gospel, Matthew say ing, ' The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham ;' and should have sought the instruction of the Apostolical preaching , and reading in the ppistle to the Romans,^ ' Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle, separated unto the gospel ' The reader wiU observe here the phrases " doctrina Evangelica"and " Apo- stolica praedicatio" used for the Scriptures, the former for the gospels, the latter for the Epistles, as is common with the Fathers, and most important to note in this controversy. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 17 of God, which he had promised before by his Prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh,' [Rom. i. 1 — 3] should have betaken himself with pious solicitude to the pages of the Prophets, and would have found the promise of God to Abraham, saying, ' In thy seed shall all nations be blessed.' [Gen. xxii. 18.] And that he might have no doubt respecting the reality of this seed, should have followed the Apostle, saying, 'To Abraham were the promises made.' [Gal. 3.]" And so he proceeds to show how clearly and fully the doctrine is set forth in Scripture. ^ Here, then, I suppose it is undeniable that, for a know ledge of the truth, men are sent to the Holy Scriptures ; and that Leo supposed that it was impossible for a man to have made himself at all acquainted with the Holy Scriptures, who did not receive the " initio!' ofthe creed, ' Quid autem iniquius quam impia sapere, et sapientioribus doctioribusque non credere ? Sed in hanc insipientiam cadunt, qui, cum ad cognoscendam veritatem aliquo impediuntur obscure, non ad Propheticas voces, non ad Apostolicas literas, nee ad Evangelicas Autoritates, sed ad semetipsos recurrunt. Et ideo magistri erroris exsistunt quia veritatis discipuli non fuere. Quam enim eruditionem de sacris Novi et Veteris Testamenti paginis acquisivit, qui nee ipsius quidem Symboli initia comprehendit ? Et quod per totum mundum omnium regeneratorum voce depromitur, istius adhuc senis corde non capitur. Nesciens igitur, quid deberet de Verbi Dei incarnatione sentire, nee volens ad promerendum intelligentiae lumen in Sanctarum Scripturarum latitudine labo- rare, illam saltem communem et indiscretam confessionem solicito apprehen- disset auditu, qua fidelium universitas profitetur credere se in Deum Patrem Omnipotentem, et in Jesum Christum Filium ejus unicum Dominum nostrum, qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine. Quibus sententiis tribus omnium fere haereticorum machinae destruuntur Sed si de hoc fidei Christianae fonte purissimo sincerum intellectum haurire non poterat, quia splendorem perspicuae veritatis obcaecatione sibi propria tenebrarat, doc- trinae se E-vangelicae subdidisset, dicente Matthaeo : Liber generationis Jesu Christi filii David filii Abraham : Apostolicae quoque praedicationis expetisset instructum, et Icgens in Epistola ad Romanos ; Paulus servus Jesu Ch-risli, &c ad propheticas paginas piam solicitudinem contulisset, et invenisset promissionem Dei ad Abraham dicentis. In semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes. Et ne de hujus seminis proprietate dubitaret, secutus fuisaet apostolum dicentem, Abrahte dictce sunt promissiones, &c. [Gal. 3.]" Leonis I. Epist. ad Flavianum Ep. Constant, lecta et approb. in Concil. Chalced. Vid. Acta Concil. Chalced. Act. 2. Concil. ed. 1671. Tom. 4. col. 345. VOL. II. C 18 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION including the true doctrine of the Incarnation. And he urges attention to the creed for learning the doctrine of the Incarnation, only on the supposition that a man is " not willing to labour in the wide field of the Holy Scriptures, to gain the light of understanding ;" and still further, so far from supposing that the creed was clearer or fuller than the Scriptures on the point, he urges that if a man should not be able to obtain a correct knowledge of the faith from the creed, he is bound to search the Scriptures with pious solicitude, and submit to the declarations which he finds there ; which Leo evidently considers to convey a clear and full declaration of the orthodox doctrine. Can there, then, be a more direct contradiction given to the notion that the full doctrine of the Incarnation is not in Scripture, than is contained in this celebrated letter of Leo, which was publicly read and approved in the Council of Chalcedon, and is inserted in its acts? Our opponents, indeed, will find that the early Fathers, far from taking the tradition of earlier Fathers as part of their rule of faith, or supposing that the full doctrine was only to be found there, in this as in other points, made the Scriptures their rule. " We," says Theophilus of Alexandria, when opposing the notion ofthe Origenists as to the preexistence of the human soul of Christ, — " We, following the rule of the Scriptures, will preach with our whole heart and soul, that neither his flesh nor soul existed before he was born of Mary."^ Secondly, — It is maintained that Scripture is the only au thoritative source of all religious truth , " tradition " having no authority over the conscience, either as the interpreter or supplement of Scripture, and moreover of all those rites that are to be considered as of divine institution. This, as we have already observed, is most fully proved by the fact that we have no divine informant but Scrip- ¦ Nos Scripturarum normam sequentes tota cordis audacia praedicemus, quod nee caro illms nee anima fuerint priusquam de Maria nasceretur. Thboph Albx. Ep. Pasch. II. § 8. See the whole passage in c. 10, below. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 19 ture, and, therefore, that we have no divine or certain tes timony for any point of religion not to be found there. And as regards all really important points, we might also refer to the arguments adduced on the last head, as alone going far to show that Scripture must fully set them forth. But here, as in the last case, our opponents, with the Romanists, attempt to show that we receive doctrines and practices as divinely revealed, some of which are not contained at all, and others but imperfectly noticed, in Scripture, and take advantage of the appeals sometimes made by us to the practice of the primitive Church on some points, as if they proved that we were compelled sometimes to go to tradition for the proof of doctrines and rites which we receive as divine, though we refuse to abide by it in other points. We shall therefore proceed to consider the examples they bring upon this head, and show that there are no doctrines received by us as certain truths, i. e. as revelations from God, and consequently articles of faith, of which, or any part of which, our belief rests upon the testimony of tradition, but that our belief, in all such cases, is founded wholly upon Scripture ; and that we receive no rites as of divine institution but such as are delivered to us in the Scriptures. The principal passages in which our opponents have spoken of these points, are the following, in some of which the points of which we are now speaking are mixed up with those which we have already considered under the former head, but we quote the passages as they stand. "The matter of fact," says Mr. Newman, "is not at all made out, that there are no traditions of a trust worthy nature. For instance, it is proved by traditionary information only (for there is no other way), that the text of Scripture is not to be taken literally concerning our washing one another's feet, while the command to cele brate the Lord's Supper is to be obeyed in the letter. Again, it is only by tradition that we have any safe and clear rule for changing the weekly feast from the seventh c 2 20 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION to the first day. Again, our divines, such as Bramhall Bull, Pearson, and Patrick, believe that the Blessed Mary was ' Ever Virgin,' as the Church has called her, but tradition was their only informant on the subject." (Leet. pp. 334, .5.) " We consider the eucharist is of perpetual obligation, because the ages immediately suc ceeding the Apostles thought so; we consider the in spired Canon was cut short in the Apostles, whose works are contained in the New Testament, and that their suc cessors had no gift of expounding the Law of Christ, such as they had, because the same ages so accounted it." (Ib. p. 371.) " It may be proved," says Mr. Keble, " to the satisfac tion of any reasonable mind, that not a few fragments yet remain — very precious and sacred fragments of the unwritten teaching- of the first age of the Church. The paramount authority, for example, of the successors of the Apostles in Church Government ; the threefold order established from the beginning ; the virtue of the blessed eucharist as a commemorative sacrifice ; infant baptism ; and above all, the catholic doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity, as contained in the Nicene creed. All these, however surely confirmed from Scripture, are yet ascer tainable parts of the primitive unwritten system of which we yet enjoy the benefit. If any one ask, how we ascer tain them, we answer, by the application of the well- known rule. Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omni bus." (Keble's Serm. p. 32.) " Without its aid [i. e. ' pri mitive tradition'] humanly speaking, I do not see how we could now retain either real inward communion with our Lord through his Apostles, or the very outward face of God's Church and kingdom among us. Not to dwell on disputable cases, how but by the tradition and practice of the early Church can we demonstrate the observance of Sunday as the holiest day, or the permanent separation of the clergy from the people as a distinct order? Or where, except in the primitive liturgies, a main branch of that tradition, can we find assurance, that in the Holy FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 21 Eucharist, we consecrate as the Apostles did, and conse quently, that the cup of blessing which we bless is the communion of the blood of Christ, and the bread which we break the communion ofthe body of Christ." (Ib. p. 38.) " The points of Catholic consent, known by tradition, con stitute the knots and ties of the whole system ; being such as these : the canon of Scripture, the full doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, the oblation and consecra tion of the Eucharist, the Apostolical succession." (Ib. pp. 41,2.) " To whicli, perhaps, it might have been well to add the doctrine of baptismal regeneration." (Ib. p. 75.) " How else could we know, with tolerable certainty, that Melchizedek's feast is a type of the blessed eucharist? or that the book of Canticles is an allegory, representing the mystical union betwixt Christ and his Church? or that Wisdom, in the Book of Proverbs, is a name of the Second Person in the Most Holy Trinity ? All which interpretations, the moment they are heard, approve themselves to an unprejudiced mind." (Ib. p. 36.) To which he adds (p. 78) the doctrine " that consecration by Apostolical authority is essential to the participation of the Eucharist," which he thinks was " universally re ceived in the primitive Church," and may be accepted by us on the evidence of a passage in Ignatius, even if it could not be " at all proved from Scripture,'' which, how ever, he thinks it may, " in a great measure, to the satis faction of unprejudiced minds." To these may be added the following, from the 85th of the " Tracts for the Times." " Even though Scrip ture be considered to be altogether silent as to the inter mediate state, and to pass from the mention of death to that of the judgment, there is nothing in this circum stance to disprove the Church's doctrine (if there be other grounds for it), that there is an intermediate state, and that it is important, that in it the souls of the faithful are purified, and grow in grace, that they pray for us, and that our prayers benefit them." (p. 48.) This doctrine, there fore, the author of the tract would evidently class among 22 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION those which we are now considering, either as one about which Scripture spoke indistinctly and obscurely, or might be considered by some as altogether silent. And we may observe from this passage, that there are, in the view of our opponents, important Church doctrines, about which, if Scripture " be considered to be altogether silent" it matters not. There are " other grounds" of proof in patristical tradition. And if patristical tradition be what our opponents represent it to be, it is sufficient for the proof of such doctrines. And so speaks the author of Tract 79, entitled, " On Purgatory." " It can only," he says, " be an article of faith, supposing it is held by anti quity, 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 of independent witnesses in the early Church. We must have the unani mous consent of Doctors as an assurance that the Apostles have spohen." (p. 25.) And they are only consistent in making these statements, that is, consistent as far as their system is concerned, not with themselves, because out of regard, I suppose, to the prejudices of Protestants, they every now and then introduce statements of a very differ ent complexion. I do not, of course, mean with any in tention to mislead, but their position involuntarily leads them to do so.' They are committed to two opposite sys tems. Having embraced the great principles upon which ' In the same tract, pp. 9 & seq., the author enumerates various ordinances and doctrines about which " little is said in Scripture," in order to meet a sup posed argument that little is said there as to some of their favourite notions and he accordingly mentions various points as either not taught in so many words in Scripture, or having only so many texts relating to them. This list I do not notice here, because it is beside the question as far as our arguments are concemed. "We do not ask whether every doctrine is taught in so many words in Scripture, but whether virtually it is clearly there, nor how many texts support a doctrine, but whether the doctrine is clearly in those texts. And when he asks us, " what doctrines would be left to us if we demanded the' clearest and fullest evidence," (p. 12.) we reply, all those which either follow immediately by just and necessary inference from Scripture, or are supported by even one clear passage of Scripture. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 23 Popery is founded, though perhaps not quite satisfied with the whole superstructure which Rome has built upon them, while, partly from personal attachment, and partly from dislike of some parts of Romanism, they remain members ofthe Church of England, and are con sequently obliged to explain their tenets so as to make them appear consistent with the authorized documents of our Church, they are continually uttering contradictory statements. The cases here enumerated (which I need hardly say are precisely the examples adduced by the Romanists) are of various kinds, and not all to be met in the same way. Some of them rest, or are supposed to rest, on Scripture and tradition together, others on tradition alone ; though there is by no means a universal agree ment in the classification of them in this respect, some writers referring to Scripture and tradition together what others make to rest on tradition alone. Moreover, some of these doctrines we reject, others, as dependent on tra dition only, we look upon as uncertain, and not to be authoritatively propounded as of divine revelation or obligation. For others we want nothing but Scripture, though we may appeal to the writings of the Fathers in confirmation of the correctness of our deductions, and in matters relating to the practice of the Church with respect to facts and practices of which the senses of the writers were cognizant, we may use those writings as conclusive evidence that they took place in the Church in their times. And further, as to the subject matter of these examples, they are of diverse kinds, referring partly and principally to points relating to the practice of the Church, that is, ecclesiastical ordinances, ritps, and usages, partly also to points purely doctrinal, and partly to points which concern matters of fact and things some what different to both the former. In our consideration of them we shall classify them according to this last arrangement. 24 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION Of points relating to the practice of the Church, then, we find the following. Relating to rites disused, — (1) The non-literal acceptation of our Lord's words respecting washing one another's feet. (2) The non-observance of the seventh day as a day of religious rest. Relating to ordinances and observances in use among us, — (1) Infant baptism. (2) The sanctification of the first day of the week. (3) The perpetual obligation of the Eucharist. (4) The identity of our mode of consecration in tbe Eucharist with the Apostolical. (5) That consecration by Apostolical authority is essen tial to the participation of the Eucharist. (6) The separation of the clergy from the people as a distinct order. (7) The threefold order of the priesthood. (8) The Government of the Church by Bishops. (9) The Apostolical succession. Of points purely doctrinal, — (1) Baptismal regeneration. (2) The virtue of the Eucharist as a commemorative sacrifice. (3) That there is an intermediate state, in which the souls of the faithful are purified, and grow in grace ; that they pray for us, and that our prayers benefit them. Of points concerning matters of fact, and things that do not immediately belong either to the doctrines or rites of Christianity, — (1) The Canon of Scripture. (2) That Melchizedek's feast is a type ofthe Eucharist. (3) That the Book of Canticles represents the union between Christ and his Church. (4) That Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs refers to the Second Person of the Trinity. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 25 (5) The alleged perpetual virginity of the Mother of our Lord. To the doctrines above mentioned Romanists add, among others, the doctrine of Christ's descent into hell, and that of the validity of baptism administered by heretics. It is impossible not to see that, among all these points, the stress is laid upon those that concern the government and the sacraments of the Church; and our opponents, being persuaded that patristical tradition delivers their system on these points, (and it would be wonderful if in all the volumes of the Fathers they could not find some passages in favour of a system so zealously patronized by those in whose hands these works were for centuries de posited, and through whom they have come down to us, though we deny that it is to be found there upon any full and consentient testimony,) are very anxious that this tradition should be recognized as a divine informant; and in the zealous prosecution of this enterprize, are desirous further of impressing it upon our minds, that almost all the other points relating either to doctrine or practice, yea even the fundamentals ofthe faith, must stand or fall according as this recognition takes place or not. Let us first consider the points relating to the practice of the Church ; and before we proceed to consider them individually, we would premise a few general remarks as to the principles which guide us in the consideration of such cases. In the first place it must be remembered, that we are far from maintaining here, with the early Puritans, tha^ all the rites and usages of tbe Church must have Scrip ture authority, so that no Church can appoint and require from her inembers an observance of any rites or ceremo nies but what are ordained in Scripture ; but we assert this only of points for which is claimed the authority of divine revelation, or the obligation of a divine or aposto lical precept, binding Churches as well as individuals. In the second place, though we deny that the testi- 26 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION mony of a few Fathers can be taken as such sufficient evidence of the doctrine orally taught by the Apostles, or the universal Church, in matters of faith or practice, as to be considered a divine informant supplementary to Scripture, we do not deny, but on the contrary maintain, that the testimony ofthe early Fathers respecting facts and practices of which their senses were cognizant, is sufficient to assure us that such facts and practices took place in their time in the primitive Church, just as we might receive the testimony of our opponents as quite sufficient respecting facts and practices of our Church, of which their senses had been cognizant, while we took leave altogether to deny its sufficiency as a witness ofthe doctrines of our Church. And, thirdly, we maintain that the usage of the primi tive orthodox Church from Apostolical times (as far as it can be ascertained) may justly be taken as a guide to show us how rites and practices enjoined in Scripture are to be carried into effect ; and also as a guide to a certain extent in its general rites and practices, that is, so far as to re commend them to our attention, and perhaps to justify modern Churches in following them, inasmuch as it is not probable that, from the very first, the orthodox Church should have adopted a superstitious or improper usage. It is on this ground that our Church defends her use of the sign ofthe cross, as — not necessary, but — justifiable.' And, consequently, we receive with respect the traditions of the primitive Church on such points, " meaning by tra ditions," as Hooker says, " ordinances made in the prime of Christian religion, established with that authority which Christ hath left to his Church for matters indifferent, and in that consideration requisite to be observed till like authority see just and reasonable cause to alter them. So that traditions ecclesiastical are not rudely and in gross to be shaken off, because the inventors of them were men. •* And thus, as it respects rites and usages, the practice of the primitive Church, ascertained to us by the testi- ' See Canon 30. 2 Book v. c. 65. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 27 mony of its writings, may be a useful guide to us, both where Scripture is silent, and where it does not enter so fully into particulars as to show how the rites and ceremonies mentioned in it are to be carried out in all cases. But we maintain, with our Church, that those rites and ordinances only are essentially binding upon all Churches and individuals that are required by Scripture authority ; because no others can be proved to have been established by the Apostles ; and we shall show hereafter, that all the moderns who profess to hold a contrary opinion are con victed by their own conduct of inconsistency ; for they who maintain, that a few patristical assertions, that this or that rite was established by the Apostles, or observed by the primitive Church, are to be taken as sufficient evidence of its Apostolical origin and binding nature, ought to contend for all those that are so supported. And if even the testimony of antiquity on one or two points enjoined in Scripture should be considered suffi cient to have proved their apostolicity in the absence of Scripture testimony for them, this would make no practi cal difference in our argument. For the great question is, whether Scripture does not fully and clearly reveal all the fundamental points of faith and practice, and whether there is any point of faith or practice not revealed in Scripture for which a traditional testimony can be adduced sufficient to show its Apostolical origin. Our Church has wisely taken in this matter the middle course between that of the Romanists and that of our early Nonconformists, the former professing to take the statements of the remaining Fathers as an unerring guide, and the latter holding " that Scripture is the only rule of all things which in this life may be done by men," ' and both of them in their practice acting very inconsistently with their professed principles. When, therefore, the latter demanded that nothing should be re- ' See Hooker, Eccl. Pol. bk. ii. 23 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION quired by the Church but what was laid down in Scrip ture, because those precepts only can be proved to be Apostolical, and therefore essentially binding, that are found in Scripture, our Church, while fully admitting the truth of the latter proposition, denied the justice of the demand, claiming a power to ordain rites and ceremonies such as might be necessary for the preservation of order and decency, and require their observance of her mem bers ; and to cut off as much as possible all occasion for cavilling, as well as from the inherent propriety of such a course, adhered as closely as possible to the primitive model. The reader will observe, then, that when admitting the non-necessity of any ecclesiastical ordinances, rites, or observances, I am speaking with reference either to the Church at large, or some distinct and independent por tion of it; and, with respect to such bodies, certainly maintain, that they are not bound by any injunctions but those of Scripture. With individuals, however, the case is different.! We hold with our Articles, that every Church has power to appoint its rites and ceremonies, and that its members are bound (within reasonable limits) to submit to such appointment. The conduct of the early Nonconformists, therefore, in objecting to the ob servance of days that had been set apart by our Church with the sanction of the Universal Church in all ages, as far as we can find, for religious uses, appears to me pecu liarly schismatical. And further we maintain, that every such body has authority in controversies of faith, so far as concerns its own members, and may justly make a re- ' It might also probably be fairly maintained, that when such a Council as that which met at Nice (the only one by the way having any pretensions to be called General) gave directions such aa were there given respecting the day on which Easter waa to be observed, it was expedient and befitting the Chris tian character, that all the different Churches should acquiesce in such an ap pointment until a similar authority had authorized an alteration ; though nevertheless optional, because different Churches might have different cus toms in such raatters, without any detriment to the peace of the Church, if there had been no ecclesiastical tyrants to make it a cause of dissension. See Socr. Hist. Eccl. lib. v. u. 22. Sozom. Hist. Eccl. lib. vii. 1. 19. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 29 ception of what it considers the fundamentals ofthe faith essential to communion, nay, rather, is bound to do so ; and while it allows a latitude of opinion on all other points, may, if it seem necessary for the good of the body at large, silence public disputations even on non-essential points. But this power should not only be cautiously exercised, but by the clear and well-ascertained voice of the whole body, for the obtaining of which (I feel con strained to add) due care has seldom been taken. We allow, then, that the Church has power to enjoin upon her members the observance of certain decent rites and ceremonies, and that such a power has been given her by God ; but we draw a distinction between that which God has enjoined on this head, and that which the Church has enjoined. The latter is not to be put forward as necessary to salvation, nor therefore to membership in the Church Catholic, though he who breaks the unity of the Church on account of such things only, is certainly guilty of the sin of making a needless schism in the body. With respect, therefore, to the examples here adduced by our opponents, in which the practice of the Church is concerned, we may say generally that our appeal to the records of the primitive Church respecting them (where we do so appeal) is not an appeal to the doctrine there delivered, as if the few testimonies we can bring from the antient Fathers were sufficient evidence of the oral teach ing of the Apostles, or of the doctrinal teaching of the Universal Church ; but an appeal to them, as showing what was the practice ofthe Church in those times. And this precisely agrees with what Mr. Keble himself has admitted to be Bishop Taylor's view, viz. that " in practi cal matters, it [i. e. tradition] may be verified, but in doc trinal, with the exception of the creed, it cannot,"^ which entirely overthrows Mr. Keble's system. We refer to those records, as showing what was the practice of the primitive Church ; which, on the one hand, may show us what rites or usages mentioned ' App. to Serm. p. 71. 30 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION in the Scriptures were not then considered to be of general obligation, and, on the other, what were, under ordinary circumstances, considered to be so, and how these latter were carried out ; and further, what rites and usages appeared to the Church, at that early period, to be decent and useful, from which last we may at least infer that such rites and usages are at any rate allowable at all times, and useful where our circumstances appear to be the same with those of the Apostolical Church, and thus obtain from those records, information which, when used with discretion, may be of rauch service to the Church, and to the various independent local communities of which it is composed, in guiding them in decreeing the rites and ceremonies to be observed by their members. To proceed to the examples adduced, let us take first the case of rites abrogated, or usages mentioned in Scrip ture not observed by us. We are required to show why we do not wash one another's feet in obedience to what our Lord says, John xiii. 12 — 15; a favourite example with the Romanists, as may be seen in Dr. Milner's " End of religious contro versy ;" but our opponents should have been a little more careful than to borrow it, for, little as it avails the former, the latter have clearly made a mistake in adducing it, for their doctrine is, that such matters must be grounded upon the consent of the primitive Church, and it is notori ous that the primitive Churches differed in this matter. Let us suppose, then, (what we do not admit) that the language of Scripture appeared doubtful as to the nature of this command, that is, doubtful whether instead of be ing an exhortation to acts of condescension and kindness towards our Christian brethren, to be fulfilled to the let ter where the circumstances were the same, as in the case spoken of by the Apostle, (1 Tim. v. 10.) and in the spirit under all circumstances, it was to be taken as a command to be fulfilled in the letter as a religious rite, in all times and places, however unsuitable to the customs and habits of the country. Our inquiries, then, are to be directed to FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 31 the records of the primitive Church. But first, of what nature is our inquiry ? Not what doctrine the primitive Church delivered on the subject, but what was its prac tice; and if we had found the practice generally esta blished as a religious rite in the primitive Church, or, on the contrary, generally neglected, this testimony of ecclesiastical practice might, in perfect accordance with our views, fairly have determined the matter either way, so that even thus the instance is of no force in the present controversy. But the fact is, that the reference is altoge ther a mistake, for the practice of the primitive Churches differed in this respect, and, consequently, we are com pelled to exercise our own discretion in the matter. Thus in the Church of Milan, the bishop washed the feet of the baptized, in supposed obedience to this text, which the Roman Church did not do, on the ground that it was merely an example of humility, and not a religious rite, that was here commended.^ And Augustine tells us, that many followed the latter course, and that some abro gated the custom altogether where it had been observed ; but that others, in order to show that they did not connect it at all with baptism [and so make it a religious rite, having some mystical signification], and yet not altogether give it up, observed it a few days after baptism ; and he adds in ' Adscendisti de fonte ; quid secutum est ? . . . summus saoerdos pedes tibi lavit. Quid est istud mysterium I Audisti utique quia Dominus, cum lavisset discipulis aliis pedes, venit ad Petrum. . . . Nisi lavero, inquit, tibi pedes, non habebis mecum partem. Non ignoramus quod Ecclesia Romana hanc consuetudinem non habeat, cujus typum in omnibus sequimur et formam ; hanc tamen consuetudinem non habet, ut pedes lavet. Vide ergo, forte prop ter multitudinem decHnavit. Sunt tamen qui dicant et excusare conentur, quia hoc non in mysterio faciendum est, non in baptismate, non in regenera- tione ; sed quasi hospiti pedes lavandi sint. Aliud est humilitatis, aliud sanc- tificationis. Denique audi quia mysterium est et sanctificatio ; nisi lavero tibi pedes, non habebis mecum partem. Hoc ideo dico, non quod alios repre- hendam, sed mea officia ipse commendem. In omnibus cupio sequi Ecclesiam Romanam, sed taxaen et nos homines sensum habemus ; ideo quod alibi rec- tius servatur et nos rectius custodimus. Ipsum sequimur Apostolum Petrum, ipsius inhaeremua devotioni. Ad hoc Eccleaia Romana quid respondet ? Am bros. De Sacram. lib. 3. c. 1. ed. Ben. vol. 2. col. 362,3. 32 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION the context some remarks which show how little impor tance he attached to such matters, and how completely he considered them to be left to the discretion of each Church.! It appears, then, that there was much differ ence of opinion on this subject in the early Church, which, therefore, can be no sure guide to us in the matter. And Augustine, be it observed, evidently thinks that our Lord's own words show that he merely meant to recommend mutual condescension to his followers. So that, I think, our Church may fairly say, with Ambrose, to her Romish or any other adversaries, " nos homines sensum habemus," we have got our wits about us, and may surely be allowed to judge for ourselves in such a matter. The next case is that of the abrogation of the seventh day Sabbath. We should feel no difficulty in this case, even if we were left to determine it by the records of the. primitive Church, because here again is a point of external obser vance, respecting which we have only to inquire as to the practice of the Church. But it is passing strange that we should be told that tradition is necessary to certify us of this, when the Apostle says to the Colossians, " Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." {<7a.j3l3arwv) (Col. ii. 16.) And ihe practice ofthe Church, in the age immediately succeeding the Apostles, confirms what this and other passages of Scripture clearly intimate to us, viz., that the ¦ De lavandis vero pedibus, cum Dominus hoc propter formam humilitatis, propter quam docendam venerat, commendaverit, sicut ipse conseguenter esc- posuit, quffisitum est quonam tempore potissimum rea tanta etiam facto doce- retur, et illud tempus occurrit quo ipsa commendatio reUgiosius inhaereret Sed ne ad ipsum sacramentum baptismi videretur pertinere, multi hoc in con suetudinem recipere noluerunt. Nonnulli etiam de consuetudine auferre non dubitaverunt. Aliqui autem ut hoc et sacratiore tempore commendarent, et a baptismi Sacramento distinguerent, vel diem tertium octavarum quia et temanus numerus in multis sacramentis maxime excellit, vel etiam ipsum octavumuthocfacerentelegerunt. August. Ep. 55. c. 18. Ad Januarium. Tom. 2. col. 141. On such points see Hooker, iii. 10. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 33 Jewish sabbath was not to be observed by Christians. Thus Ignatius tells us, that even the converted Jews " no longer observed sabbaths ;"^ and Tertullian, that the Jew ish sabbath was abrogated by the Christian dispensation. ^ The same thing is intimated to us by Justin Martyr,'' whose words seem clearly to show that the day was not at all observed in his time ; and although in the third and fourth centuries, the day appears to have been celebrated by the performance of public worship, which was probably an innovation, and the prelude to that Judaical observance ofthe day against which the Church found it necessary to protest,* still the practice of the Church was not to abstain from labour on that day, or regard it as in itself a holy day, as we learn among other testimonies from one of the Laodicean canons, in the code of the primitive Church, which directs " that Christians must not Judaize and rest on the sabbath, but work on that day."^ If, then, we were destitute of the testimony we have quoted from Scripture on the subject, the clear evidence we have of the practice of the Apostolical Church might suffice ; and our argument would in no respect suffer from the admission of that evidence as conclusive. For though the observance of a rite in the primitive Church would not prove it to be of Apostolical ordinance, the general non-observance of a rite in it may certainly be * Oi ev -iraXatots Trpay/jtairiv avatrrpa(j>eVTes, ets Katvor-rira eK-irtSos -rj\9ov, IM-riKeri aafifiari^ovres, aXKa k. r. A. Ignat. Ep. ad Magnes. § 9. ed. Jacob- son. " Tebtull. Adv. Jud. cc. 2, 3, & 4. ^ Just. Mart. Dial.cumTryph. § 18. p. 118. ed. Ben. The same conclu sion appears to flow from what Pliny says of the Christians of hia time, that they were accustomed to meet " stato die,'" on a set day (Ep. ad Traj.), which seema hardly reconcilable with the idea that both the seventh and first daya of the week were so applied. And so when Paul stayed at Troas se-oen days, there appears to have been a public asaembly for worahip on one day only, and that " the first day of the week." (Acts xx. 7.) * See the Laodicean canon quoted below. '' Ou Set xp^'^^n^ovs lovSa'i^etv Kat ev ra tra^^ara (Txo\a^eiv, aWa epya- ieaBat avrovs ev rri avr-ii Ttiiepa. Can. Laod. 29. Cod. Univ. Eccl. can. 133. Voelli et Just. Bibl. J. C. Vet. vol. i. p. 52. VOL. II. 34 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION taken as a proof that such rite was not prescribed for its observance by the Apostles. Let us pass on to the case of rites and ordinances ob served by us. The First is the doctrine of infant baptism. It will not be denied that we have at least the doctrine of baptism clearly enough laid down in the Scriptures. What we have to inquire, then, is, whether we can also clearly and plainly gather from the Scriptures that infants are proper subjects of that rite. It must be observed, however, that the question does not respect all infants indiscriminately, but those only that are born of believing parents, and so in a state different to those ofthe heathen, (1 Cor. vii. 14,) and are also presented to the Church by sureties, who undertake that they shall be educated in her communion.^ The question, then, is, whether the Church is right in adminis tering to an infant brought to her under such circum stances, and that cannot, like an adult, offer any obstacle to its reception of spiritual blessings by unbelief, that rite which is a necessary introduction to its admission into the Christian Church, and consequently to its being placed in a position to receive the blessings promised by God exclusively to the members of the Church, and looking to God for his blessing upon it, the Church on her part undertaking to God (on the promise of the child's sure ties) that the child shall be taught the terms of his co venant, and be brought up in obedience to it, and be called upon at the age of discretion personally to accept and promise obedience to it. (1) Then we observe, that the command to baptize, and the instances we have in Scripture of the practice, are given in the most general and comprehensive terms. " Go and teach all nations," saith our Lord, " baptiz- ' Caaes may be supposed different from that mentioned above, where we might not be prepared to deny that baptism might be administered, as, for instance, the possible case of an infant losing ita unbelieving parents, and cormng thereby under the guardianship of Christian relations or friends ; but such are extraordinary cases, upon which no argument can be built. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 35 ing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt, xxviii. 19.) And we find Lydia and " her household," the Philippian gaoler and " all his," and " the household " of Stephanas, baptized by the Apostles. (Acts xvi. 15, 33 ; 1 Cor. i. 16.) (2) The language of our Lord on one occasion seems clearly to show that baptism is, in an ordinary way, (as was the case with circumcision,) necessary to salvation, for he says, " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John iii. 5.) I will not say, with some of the Romanists, (who, when the subject of tradition is out of sight, can clearly enough see the reference of this and other texts to infants as well as others,') that this text shows that bap tism is absolutely a sine qua non to the salvation of in fants, because, as Archbishop Laud intimates, we are not to " bind God to the use and means of that sacrament to which he hath bound us ;" ^ yet surely it follows from it that it would be unjustifiable to exclude all infants from that rite without which ordinarily men " cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Nor can it be said that their tender age must at any rate prevent their suffering from the neglect of this rite, for the case of circumcision shows the contrary. " The uncircumcised man-child . . . shall be cut off from his people ? he hath broken my covenant." (Gen. xvii. 14.) If, then, it be the case that baptism has been made ordi narily necessary for an entrance into the kingdom of God, then age, however tender, does not remove that necessity. (3) Has not Christ himself testified his willingness to receive such among the number of his people? for we read that he was " much displeased" with his disciples for rebuking those that brought infants to him for his blessing, and said to them, " Suffer the little children to ' Bellarmine himself, after giving three arguments for paedobaptism from Scripture, adds, " satis aperte colligatur ex Scripturis.'''' De bapt. c. 9. ' Conference with Fisher, p. 36. D 2 36 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God and he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them." (Mark x. 14, 16. See, also. Matt. xix. 14 ; Luke xviii. 16.) With this example, then, before us, we ask with confidence. Would the Church be justifiable in refusing to receive into her communion as subjects for Christ's mercy, by the rite appointed for that purpose, infants brought to her under the circumstances supposed, or rather is she not bound to require of her members that their infants should be thus brought to her to be received by her into her communion, as those whom Christ's example when he was upon earth shows that he is ready to accept and bless ? (4) If infants are susceptible of the enjoyment of any Christian privileges, as of the remission of sins, spiritual grace, &c., and baptism is appointed by our Lord to be observed as a rite introductory to admission into the Christian Church, and the enjoyment of such privileges, then the Church is not only justified in admitting infant baptism, but bound to enjoin the practice upon her members. Now, for the proof of the first of these points, I refer to the following passages : Jer. i. 5 ; Ezek. xvi. 20, 21 ; Luke i. 15. ; and also to the admission of Jewish infants, by the rite of circumcision, to the privileges of the Old Testament Covenant, which clearly shows that the tender age of infants does not render them insusceptible of the enjoyment of such privileges. For the proof of the second of these points, viz. that baptism is a rite ap pointed to be observed as introductory to admission into the Christian Church, and the enjoyment of Christian privileges, I refer to the following passages : Acts ii. 41 • Rom. vi. 3, 4; 1 Cor. xii. 13 ; Col. ii. 12 ; and especially to the text already quoted, that " except a man be born of water and ofthe Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John iii. 5.) ^ These two points, then, being clearly decided by Scrip- FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 37 ture in the affirmative, the consequence which follows from them is equally clearly established.' Such, then, are the clear, and, as it appears to many, de cisive arguments which Scripture affords us in favour of infant baptism. And I will only add, that Hooker con sidered this doctrine to be a necessary deduction out of Scripture,'' and that Bishop Taylor, in his last work, ex pressly rebukes his Romish antagonist for taking the ground which our opponents here maintain on this question.' - And when this doctrine is denied, we, in order to con firm the correctness of our deductions from Scripture, re fer to the practice of the primitive Church, as showing how they understood the matter. We do not make our appeal here to any doctrinal statements of the Fathers, as conclusive evidence of what doctrinal statements were de livered orally by the Apostles on the subject. But we refer to their statements of what passed under their own eyes, the daily practice of the Church, and hence obtain an argument for the correctness of our interpretation of Scripture on this point. And in all matters that concern the practice of the Church, we obtain from the statements of the early Fathers conclusive evidence as to the observance or non-observance of this or that rite or usage at that time, and therefore evidence sufficient in such a case to justify us when following them. And even a justification of the usage is sufficient in infant baptism ; for, be it observed, that, as Bishop Stillingfieet says, — " The main question between us and the Antipaedobaptists, is not concern ing an absolute and express command for baptizing ' We might, I think, add to these an argument derived from the rite of circumcision being administered to infants ; but as our opponents deny almost any correspondence between the rites of circumcision and baptism, I content myself with noticing it here. ' See his Eccl. Pol. bk. i. c. 14. ' Diss, from Popery, Pt. ii. bk. i. § 3. Works, vol. -'i.. pp. 430, &s., where the bishop has also vindicated the Protestant grounds of faith in various other points. 38 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION infants; but whether our blessed Saviour hath not, by a positive precept, so determined the subject of bap tism, viz., adult persons professing the faith, that the alteration ofthe subject, viz., in baptizing infants, be not a deviation from, and perversion of the institution of Christ, in a substantial part of it ; or, in short, thus. Whether our Saviour hath so determined the subject of baptism, as to exclude infants. And although the ques tion being thus stated, the proof ought to lie on those who affirm it, yet, taking in only the help of Scripture AND REASON, it Were no difficult matter to prove directly and evidently, that infants are so far from being excluded baptism by the institution of Christ, that there are as many grounds as are necessary to a matter of that nature, to prove that the baptizing them is suitable to the institution of Christ, and agreeable to the state of the Church, under the Gospel. For, if there were any ground to exclude them, it must be either the incapacity of the subject, or some express precept and institution of our Saviour. But neither of these can be supposed to do it." This he pro ceeds to show at some length, and then adding some evi dences to " show how suitable the baptism of infants is to the administration of things under the gospel," he men tions, as one of them, " Had it been contrary to Christ's institution, we should not have had such evidence of its early practice in the Church, as we have. And here I acknowledge the use of Apostolical tradition to manifest this to us ... We grant that the practice of the Church, from Apostolical times, is a great confirmation that it was never Christ's intention to have infants ex cluded from baptism."! Where we may see that the view we have taken above of the use of patristical tradition in this matter, is precisely that of Bishop Stillingfleet. The second case is the doctrine of the observance of the Lord's Day. In this there are three distinct points for consideration. First, that which relates to our assembling on the Lord's ' Rational Account, &c. Part 1. c. 4. pp. 106—8. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 39 Day for public worship ; Secondly, that which relates to the necessity of such an appropriation of the day by all Churches, as a divine institution ; and thirdly, that which relates to abstinence from our usual worldly occupations on that day. In all these. Scripture will be found a sufficient guide. In the second, indeed, it alone can be an authoritative guide ; and in the third, it will be found practically our only definite guide. First, then, the custom of assembling on the first day of the week for public worship, is clearly mentioned in Scripture as one followed by the Apostles and primitive Christians. Thus, on its first occurrence after our Lord's resurrection, we find the disciples assembled together^ with the doors shut, for fear of the Jews, (John xx. 19,) at which time our Lord first appeared to them, and gave the Apostles their commission (vv. 19 — 23); and "after eight days again his disciples were within," and Jesus again vouchsafed his presence to them (v. 26) ;- that is, in other words, the next time oftheir assembling together, was on the recurrence of the first day of the week. Of this custom mention is again clearly made in the Book of the Acts, where the sacred historian writes, we " came unto them to Troas . . . where we abode seven days. And upon the first day of the week, when the dis ciples came together to break bread, [literally, the disciples being met together to break bread], Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow."' ' Ova-7]S ovv o^tas rrj Tjfiepa eKetv-ri ryj fita rav cra^^arav n.. -i . \. (John xx. 19.) Of the meaning of the phrase, tt) /uio rav oafifiarav, there can be no doubt, as it is used by all the four Evangelists to represent the day on which our Saviour rose from the dead ; sometimes with, and sometimes without, the article ; as, for instance, utav aafi^arav, Matt, xxviii. 1 . r-r\s fitas aa^Parav, Mark xvi. 2. r-i) jua rav cttfifiarav, Luke xxiv. 1. ttj fita toji' aafi^arav, John xx. 1. ^ Me9' T^jiepas oitra, " after eight days ;" i. e. (according to the Jewish mode of reckoning, including the day from which the reckoning was made,) the same day in the following week. ^ HKBojiev Trpos avrovs ets rijV TpoaSa, . . . oi S ter pfpa/iev ij/iepas eirra. Ev Se rrj fiia rav ffajSjSarwr, o-vv7]yiJ,evav rav ptadTjrav rov K\atTat aprov, 6 IlavAos dteXeyero avrois, fieWav e^teiat r-rj e-navptov. Acts xx. 6, 7. 40 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION Here, then, we find that St. Paul stayed with these Christians seven days ; and that during these seven days there was one, " the first day ofthe week," on which "the disciples being met together to break bread," Paul preached unto them. We hear nothing of any assembly on any other day ; and on this the assembly was not, it appears, called together by St. Paul ; but being met on that day, he took the opportunity of addressing them, and the object for which they were assembled was " to break bread ;" that is, confessedly, to celebrate the eu charist, the reception of which was one great object for which the early Christians " came together in the Church;" (See 1 Cor. xi. 17 — 20) whence the Apostle calls it " coraing together to eat." (1 Cor. xi. 33.) Again, the day is mentioned in Scripture as one on which the alms of the Christians were to be laid by for their poorer brethren. " Concerning the collection for the saints," says St. Paul, " as I have given order to the Churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him; that there be no gatherings when I come."! This shows that the day which the former passages prove to have been used as a day for their assembling together for public worship, was also appointed for the act of charity here mentioned ; a further proof of its ap propriation to religious purposes generally. Lastly, we find in the Book of Revelation a day dis tinguished by the title " the Lord's Day ;"2 which shows ' Kara ixtav (ra0$arav eKaffros iflav Trap' eavra TlBera, e-qa-avpt^av A ti av evoSarai, iva fi-ri 6rav eXBa, rare \oytat ytvavrat. 1 Cor. xvi. 2. Perhaps a better translation of theae worda than that in our authorized version would be, " Let every man lay by him /or (or, against) the first day of the week," &c. ; that is, forthe collection which waa then made at the time oftheir being assembled together for pubUc worship, as we learn from the eariiest Christian writers, as we shall see presently. For otherwise, if each man's store was laid by him, there must have been a collection when the Apostle came, as much as if this had not been done. 2 ^yevoii-qv ev Uvevfiart ev r-q KvptoK-Q i^epa. Rev. i. 10. We may add here that the Codex Wechel. reads the passage in 1 Cor. xvi. 2. just referred to, Kora fjttav ffafi^arav r7]v KvptaK-rjv. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 4] that at the time when the Apocalypse was written, " the Lord's Day" was a day generally known among Chris tians ; and the name itself shows on whose account it was observed, and to whom it was considered sacred. Now this name is invariably applied by the earliest Christian ¦writers to signify the first day of the week, as consecrated to the Lord's service as the day on which he rose from the dead. Thus, for instance, Ignatius is, I believe, uni versally interpreted as speaking ofthe Lord's Day in his Epistle to the Magnesians.i Melito, Bishop of Sardis, composed a book entitled, " Concerning the Lord's Day."^ Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, in his Epistle to the Romans, says, "This day, being the Lord's Day, we have kept holy ."3 It is also very evidently spoken of under this title, by Clement of Alexandria.* And by Tertul lian expressly ; " On the Lord's Day," he says, " we con sider it a sin to fast, or to pray kneeling.''^ The name is also to be found in Cyprian and Origen ; but it is un necessary to trace it further. From these passages of Scripture, then, it is very clear that on the first day of the week the Apostles and primi tive Christians were in the habit of assembling together ' Mtjk€ti (TaP^art^ovres aWa Kara KvptoKriv JVdtjj' ^avres, ev tj Kat rj {(ot) rifjtav averet\ev St' avrov. Ignat. Ep. ad. Magnes. § 9. " nept KvpiaKTis. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iv. c. 26. Where Eusebius also mentions his having written a work Uepi rav Troirxo, which sliows that the former work did not apply to that subject. ^ T-qv a-ri/iepov KvptaKriv aytav rjiiepav Strjyayofiev. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iv. u. 23. * The Gnostic, he says, Kvpimcriv eKetv-r\v r-r)v fj/iepav irotet, Sr' dv a-woPaWri ^av\ov vor\)Jta Kat yvaariKov -irpoaKa^, r-i\v ev avra rov Kvpiov avaarraaiv Soja- ^av. Strom, lib. vii. p. 877. ed. Potter. (Sylb. 744.) We may note also the following passage in the " Excerpta Theodoti " usually printed with the works of Clement, — 'H fiev ovv -irvev/iariKav uva-irava-ts ev KvptaK-rj ev oydoaSt rj KvptaKri ovofia^erai. § 63. p. 984. ed. Potter. (Sylb. p. 798. n.) The paaaage is evi dently somewhat corrupt, but sufficiently clear for our present purpose. ' Die Dominico jejunium nefas ducimus_vel de geniculis adorare. Tertull. De cor. mil. c. 3. p. 1 02. ed. 1664. The name is also to be found in the " Quaestiones et respons. ad orthod." (q. 115.) attributed to Justin Martyr, in which it is stated that the custom of standing at prayer on Sunday, is said by Irena;us, in his work, Tlepi rov no^xa, to have been a custom of the Church from the times of the Apostles. 42 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION for religious purposes, and of considering the day more or less sacred to Christ, calling it the Lord's Day. And with respect to this matter of fact, if the testimony in Scripture had been less, the records of the primitive Church would have been sufficient to show us its practice in this respect, (though not to trace it quite so far back,) and thus to recommend the practice to us. The testimonies we have already adduced, when speak ing of the name by which this day was known, show its observance by the Church at that period. I will, there fore, here only add one more from Justin Martyr. " Upon the day called Sunday, all, both of those that live in cities, and those that live in the country, meet together in one place ; and the gospels of the Apostles,^ or the writings of the Prophets, are read as time will permit. Then when the reader has ceased, the president^ addresses them, by way of admonition and exhortation to the imi tation ofthe excellent things they have heard. Then we all rise up together and pray ; and, as I have already said, when we have finished praying, bread is brought, and wine and water ; and the president offers, to the best of his ability,^ prayers and thanksgivings ; and the people add their voice in consent, saying. Amen ; and there is a distribution and communication of the Eucharist to each one, and it is sent to those who are not present, through the deacons. But the wealthy, who please, give accord ing to their pleasure, each one what he pleases, of that which belongs to him ; and the collection is deposited with the president, and he assists the orphans and widows, and those who, from sickness, or any other cause, are in > Ta^ a-iTOfivriftoveviiara -mv K-jroaroKav, which he elsewhere explains by the words a KoKeirat evayyeXia. ^ 'O -Kpoearas. ' 'Oan Swafits avra. These words have been sometimes considered a proof that the prayers and thanksgivings were extempore ; but in the fonner part of the Apology (§ 13. p. 51 .) the same words are used with reference to Christians generally, (Ao-tj Svvaiits atvovvres,) and therefore seem rather to refer to the conduct and dispositions of the worshipper, than the words uttered. See further proof in L'Estrange's Alliance of Divine Offices, pp. 207, 8. ed. 1690. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 43 want, and those who are in prison, and foreigners dwell ing among us ; and, in a word, bestows his care upon all that are in need. But we all meet together on Sunday, because it is the first day ; that in which God, having pro duced a change in darkness and matter, made the world ; and that Jesus Christ our Saviour rose from the dead on that day." i Other testimonies might easily be added ; and if any one is inclined to dispute whether this was the practice of the Church at that time, we refer to these testimonies, without any injury to our argument, as conclusive evi dence that it was, and hence draw an important argu ment for its observance by all Churches to the end of time. But this is a point on which we must take higher ground, and therefore proceed to — The second question relating to this subject, namely, that which respects the necessity of such an appropriation ofthe day by all Churches as a divine institution. That it is necessary, we are agreed ; and the proof, as it appears to me, rests upon two grounds, first the prac tice of the Apostolical Church, and, secondly, the sanctifi cation of one day in each seven by God himself, which day the practice of the Apostolical Church appears to show was tranisferred under the Christian dispensation from the seventh to the first, in honour of our Saviour's resurrection. Both these, then, may be derived from Scripture ; nor could the necessity of the practice be established, as it appears to us, but upon Scripture tes timony. First, the practice of the Apostolical Church. This, as we have seen, is manifested by Scripture. And the practice ofthe primitive Church shows that they regarded it as of perpetual observance. And I suppose it hardly needs to be argued, that in such a matter the fact that a ' Justin. Mart. Apol. 1. § 67. ed. Bened. pp. 83, 4. See also the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas, § IS, and the well-known letter of Pliny to Trajan. 44 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION day was set apart for public worship by the Church when it included the Apostles, is quite sufficient of itself to ren der it incumbent upon all Churches to follow their ex ample. And we thus place it upon the ground of Apostolical and primitive practice (in the absence of an express Apostolical command) in contradistinction to the founda tion upon which our opponents would place it, namely, certain patristical statements of what our Lord or his Apostles orally delivered, in which we cannot place the same reliance as in those which concern the practice ofthe Church to which they were eye-witnesses. I may observe, also, that I have yet been unable to find one testimony during the whole of the first three centuries, in which it is stated that any such command was delivered by our Lord or his Apostles ; nor, as it appears to me, do we need any. I am quite ready to admit, however, that as the tes timonies of several Fathers in favour of a doctrine is to a certain extent an argument in favour of it, so may we de rive a confirmation of our views respecting the Lord's day, from the statements of several of the Fathers in the fourth and fifth centuries, as Eusebius, Athanasius, Am brose, &c., that this day was specially commanded to be observed by our Lord and his Apostles. I will only ob serve, that a more stringent proof with me would be that passage in Clement of Rome, a contemporary of the Apostles, where he says that " we ought to do all things in order whatsoever the Lord commanded us to perform, at the times appointed, and to be careful that our offerings and public services are performed; and he has com manded these to be done, not at chance times and without order, but at certain fixed times and seasons," &c.! Which passage, when coupled with the practice of the Aposto lical Church, and coming from a contemporary of the Apostles, has great weight. ¦ nai/ra Ta|fi -roietv o^etXoiiev, 6 See Tracts 1, 4, 7, 10, 17, 24, 33, 52, 54, 57, 60, 74, and Keble's Serm. App. pp. 95, et seq., and Pref. to Hooker, pp. li, et seq. ' See, among other passages, Keble's Pref. to Hooker, p. Ixxvii, where he speaks of " the necessity of the Apostolical commission to the derivation of sacramental grace, and to our mystical communion with Christ." ' Keble's Pref. to Hooker, p. Ixxxiv. * Keble's Serm. App. p. 105. 74 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION doctrine of ministerial grace derived by succession from the Apostles,"! or, as elsewhere, the doctrine of" episcopal "17 grace. ^ The consequence of all which is, that a Christian com munity in which there is no regular episcopal apostolical succession is no part ofthe Church of Christ, has no valid sacraments (for though they may exist in name they are not recognized by God, and no grace is given in them) ; and as the virtue of the sacraments is in ordinary cases held to be the exclusive means to their respective graces, and through them only communion with Christ can be maintained, such communities are destitute of any ordi nary means of attaining the graces attached to a faithful reception of the sacraments, and of maintaining commu nion with Christ. A sufficiently hard case this, certainly, and not to be assigned to any, without very cogent reasons ; more espe cially to a large number of Christian communities, irre proachable in the fundamentals ofthe faith. Truly our opponents have well learned the lesson which they have been taught by the monk of Lerins; thinking, I suppose, that one who always guided himself by what " everybody always everywhere'' had said must be right, and he certainly felt no hesitation in hurling still more clearly-expressed anathemas. Witness his beautiful and charitable language about the Donatists. " Who," saith he, " is so wicked as to deny, that the Donatists, and such other pests, shall burn for ever with the devil ?"^ Alas, that such language should ever have been used respecting any who were sound in the fundamentals of the faith, however erroneous they might be in their views of Church polity. Our opponents will, perhaps, say that such language cannot be attributed to them. Per haps not; but let them well consider the position in which they place themselves, by asserting that there are those living in the midst of the Church of Christ on earth, ' lb. p. 100. = Keble's Serm. pp. 43, 44. Vincent. Lirinens. Commonit. c. 6. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 75 who, though they are orthodox in the fundamentals of the faith, and may be in a state of salvation, (for this they seera to allow,) are not within the pale of the visible Church ; and thus denying the name of Christians to those whom they believe in their hearts that Christ will accept hereafter. But, in fact, this notion arises from their doctrine (which we shall notice presently) that the ministers of the gospel are sacrificing priests, like the priests of the Old Testa ment, through whose offering of sacrifice in the Eucha rist, the merits of Christ's death are applied to the Church ; and that as the tribe of Levi only was selected to offer sacrifice, under the Old Testament, so that such offering, when presented by any other, was an act of pro fanation, in defiance of God's appointment, so there is a peculiar mode of appointment for the priests of the New Testament, which, if it be transgressed in the least, there no acceptable sacrifice can be presented ; and conse quently those who are not in communion with priests so appointed, have none to present the sacrifice for them, and no appointed or ordinary way of obtaining an interest in the sacrifice of Christ. A notion more completely subversive of the doctrine of the gospel of Christ, could hardly be conceived ; but I will not here enlarge upon it, because it will shortly come under our notice in a more appropriate place.! Reverting, then, to our statement of what we conceive to be the doctrine of the Church of England upon the point now under consideration, I would observe that, as far as that statement goes, I have as little doubt ofthe ortho doxy of the doctrine there delivered, as my opponents can have, but, as it respects the Scriptural proof of it, I must draw a distinction between the two points of which it con- ' I cannot, therefore, understand how Dr. Pusey can give the extracts he has quoted in his Letter to the Bishop of Oxford (pp. 163 — 8.) from Abp. Bramhall, as coinciding with the views of the authors of the Tracts for the Times. Those passages are written upon very diflferent principles to those which tho " Tracts" inculcate, as any reader who will take the trouble to as certain the system on both sides, will at once see. 76 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION sists. The former appears to me to have been fully proved by the Scriptures already adduced on the two last articles, to which, therefore, I refer the reader ; and this embraces the doctrine of a ministerial apostolical succession ; that is, that our Lord intended that there should be a succes sion of pastors in his Church, to the end of time; (Eph. iv. 10, 11, &c.) that he appointed the first, and intended that, under all ordinary circumstances, all who followed them should receive their commission from them or their successors ;! for we find the Apostles not only ordaining others for the work of the ministry, but directing those who had charge of a Church to " commit" what they had learned of the Apostles " to faithful men, who should be able to teach others ,also." (2 Tim. ii. 2.) But I admit that, for the latter point, there is not any Scripture proof; and we shall find here, as in other cases, that as the proof is not to be found in Scripture, so antiquity, also, is divided with respect to it ; and moreover, that though it is the doctrine of our Church, yet that it is held by her with an allowance for those who may differ from her on the point, and not as if the observance of it was requisite by divine command, and essential to the validity of all ordinations ; though, for the preservation of the full eccle siastical regularity of her own orders, she has made it essential to the ministers of her own communion. I do not mean, by this, that Scripture will enable us only to prove the apostolicity of a mere ministerial succes sion ; because, as I have already shown, it proves that the office of a bishop or president in each Church, for the pur pose of ordination and general Church government, was of Apostolical institution ; but that it does not show that episcopal consecration is a sine qua non to the valid exer cise of the duties of the presidential or episcopal office. In other words, if in any Church a presbyter be appointed by his co-presbyters to be the bishop, or superintendent, or president of that Church, and perform the usual duties of ' In such observations, therefore, as occur in Tract 4. p. 7. and in Tract 17, I fully concur. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 77 the episcopal function, we cannot prove either by Scripture, or by the consent ofthe Apostolically-primitive Church, that his acts are by Apostolical ordinance invalid. That they are invalid by early ecclesiastical ordinance, I readily admit ; just as by the Canons of Nice, and other Councils, the acts of bishops consecrated without the consent of the Metropolitan, or under other circumstances of what was then considered irregularity, might be invalid ; and, more over, that nothing but an extreme case is a sufficient jus tification for a departure from those rules of Church go vernment which have been received for centuries in the Universal Church. But there is a wide distinction be tween the two cases. That the Apostles appointed the first bishops in most of the principal Churches of the primitive Church, there can be little doubt ; but the question here is, was it a sine qua non to the successors of such bishops, that they should receive episcopal consecration ; or was it sufficient that a presbyter should be appointed by consent in each Church, out of their own body, to the vacant office ? although, as the Church became more settled, it was held to be convenient and befitting that the person so appointed should always receive episcopal consecra tion ; and therefore it was ordained, that such episcopal consecration should be held to be necessary to the valid performance of the duties of the office.! In a word, supposing the Apostles to have appointed the first bishops in twelve Churches, I want to know ' And for the sake of greater solemnity, it was ordered that such conse cration should be performed by three bishops. But this is certainly a mere ecclesiastical ordinance, and not necessary. See Jewel's Def. of Apol. Pt. 2. i;. 5. div. 1. and Mason's Vind. &c.,'and Bingham's Christian Antiq. ii. 11. § 5, 6., and Cave's Life of Gregory Thaumat. § 6., and Bishop Lucy's Treatise on the nature of a minister, pp. 246, et seq. And Eusebius says, KXv/Jt-ns T,vapiara irapdSovs rr)V Xeirovpyiav avaXvei rov fitov. Eccl. H. iii. 34. And here I would advise our opponents to take heed how they make the observ ance of such ecclesiastical ordinances essential, for they will thus leave no suc cession in existence in any Church iu the present day. - 78 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION where we are informed that when the bishop of one of them died, the Church of the deceased bishop depended upon the will and pleasure of the remaining eleven bishops for a president, and could not appoint and create, to all intents and purposes, its own president, out of its own body of presbyters. It may be said, that none of the presbyters had re ceived, in his ordination, the power to confer orders ; which, to a certain extent, is true ; because his ordination did not give him that office in the Church, to which the power of giving orders was reserved ; but that it did not give him power to do all such acts, when appointed to an office in which he might lawfully perform them, does not appear. A presbyter curate did not receive, in his ordi nation, power to act as the rector of the Church where he is curate ; but it does not follow that when he is law fully appointed rector, he needs another ordination to per form the duties of that office. The question is not whether e'rery presbyter may ordain, but whether a presbyter, placed in a particular situation in the Church of which he is a presbyter, may ordain. But now, putting aside for a moment the question of ordination, should we not grant that, as it respects the supervision of the clergy and the Church, the Council of Presbyters would have power to appoint one of their number to such an office ? The case seems only analo gous to that of bishops and archbishops ; where, by human ordinance, for the benefit of the Church, a superiority is granted to archbishops over bishops. But no such power was given to a presbyter at his ordination. Consequently there is a power which can be legitimately conferred by the presbytery of a Church ; and then there remains only the question, whether the power of ordination may be in cluded in the grant so made. And it must be remem bered that, in such a case, a bishop so appointed, under takes to confer nothing but what he has himself received, i. e. the full sacerdotal character and office. And if it be FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 79 further objected, that he ought not only to have received this from the Apostles, but also the power to confer it, I reply that this seems to prove too much ; for if presbyters cannot, on this account, under any circumstances ordain pres byters, neither can bishops ordain bishops ; for though in their consecration power is given them to ordain, there is no notice of any power to confer upon others the power of ordination. And Jerome, speaking on~a similar sub ject, that is, as to the power of baptizing, observes, that the reason why neither the presbyter nor deacon may baptize, without the bishop's leave, is only the preserva tion of ecclesiastical order ; for that, as to baptizing, it was frequently, if necessity required it, lawful for laymen to baptize ; for what any one has received, that he can also give.^ The question, then, recurs whether originally and essen tially the Church ofthe deceased bishop had not as much right to confer the power of ordination for its own body, upon one of its presbyters, as the remaining eleven bishops had to interfere in the concerns of another Church, and consecrate whom they pleased (for it would come to that) as its president, and give to him the power of ordination. And before we can assert this, we must first prove that the Apostles not only appointed bishops in these Churches, but that these bishops had power in other Churches also ; and further, not only that the Apostles gave them the power of conferring ordination, but also the power of giving to others the power of con ferring it, and limited it to them ; which, I suspect, will be a hard task. Our opponents have forgotten this, when they point us so triumphantly to the lists in Irenaeus and elsewhere, of the succession of bishops in various Apo stolical Churches, from the time of the Apostles. This is less than half of what they have got to prove ; and shows ' Quod [i". e. jus baptizandi] frequenter, si tamen necessitas cogit, scimus etiam licere laicis. Ut enim accipit quis, ita et dare potest. Hieron. adv. Lu cifer. § 9. Tom. 2. col. 182. ed. Vail. Venet. See also Tertull. De bapt. c. 18. 80 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION how little they have acquainted themselves with the real difficulties of the subject. This is a question which, if it had never been mooted, and had no important practical bearings, I would not have brought under discussion ; but, in the present state of the Church, it is one which is forced upon our atten tion. When we find many important ecclesiastical com munities answering it in the negative, we are bound se riously to consider it. That episcopal consecration was generally appointed in very early times to be, as it were, the seal to the episcopal appointment, can hardly, I think, be questioned by any one who is at all versed in the records of the primitive Church ; but, nevertheless, there are testimonies oc curring which seem to show, not merely that it was not absolutely essential, but that it was not universally prac tised. For instance, the testimony of Eutychius of Alexandria is plain that such was not the case originally at Alexan dria. His words are these. After mentioning that Mark the Evangelist went and preached at Alexandria, and ap pointed Hananias the first patriarch there, he adds, " Moreover he appointed twelve presbyters with Hananias, who were to remain with the Patriarch, so that when the Patriarchate was vacant they might elect one of the twelve presbyters upon whose head the other eleven raight place their hands and bless him [or, invoke a bless ing upon him] and create him Patriarch, and then choose ,some excellent man and appoint him presbyter with themselves in the place of him who was thus made Pa triarch, that thus there might always be twelve. Nor did this custom respecting the presbyters, namely, that they should create their Patriarchs from the twelve presbyters, cease at Alexandria until the times of Alexander, Pa triarch of Alexandria, who was of the number ofthe 318 [bishops at Nice.] But he forbade the presbyters to create the Patriarch for the future, and decreed that when the Patriarch was dead, the bishops should meet together - FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 81 and ordain the Patriarch. Moreover he decreed that on a vacancy of the Patriarchate they should elect, either from any part ofthe country, or from those twelve pres byters, or others, as circumstances inight prescribe, some excellent man and create him Patriarch. And thus that antient custom by which the Patriarch used to be created by the presbyters disappeared, and in its place succeeded the ordinance for the creation of the Patriarch by the bishops." ! I have given this passage in full, because it has been sometimes replied that it referred only to the election of the Patriarch, and that we must suppose that he was afterwards consecrated to his office by bishops. But it is evident to any one who takes the whole passage together, that such an explanation is altogether inadmissible ; and moreover, the very same word (which, following Selden, we have translated crmiecZ) is used with respect to the act of the presbyters, as is afterwards used with respect to the act ofthe bishops in the appointment.^ I am quite aware that very considerable learning has been employed in the attempt to explain away this pas sage, and the reader who wishes to see how a plain state- ' 1'he following is Selden's translation of the paasage from the Arabic : — Constituit item Marcus Evangelista duodecim Presbyteroa cum Hanania, qui nempe manerent cum Patriarcha, adeo ut cum vacaret Patriarchatua, eli- gerent unum e duodecim Presbyteris cujus capiti reliqui undecim manus im- ponerent eumque benedicerent et Patriarcham eum crearent, et dein virum aliquem insignem eligerent eumque Presbyterum secum constituerent loco ejus qui sic factus est Patriarcha, ut ita semper extarent duodecim. Neque desiit Alexandriae institutum hoc de Presbyteris, ut scilicet Patriarchas crea rent ex Presbyteris duodecim, usque ad tempera Alexandri Patriarchae Alexan- drini qui fuit ex numero illo cccxviii. Is autem vetuit ne deinceps Patriarcham Presbyteri crearent. Et decrevit ut mortuo Patriarcha convenirent Episcopi qui Patriarcham ordinarent. Decrevit item ut, vacante Patriarchatu, eligerent sive ex quacunque regione, sive ex duodecim illis Presbyteris, sive aliis, ut res ferebat, virum aliquem eximium, eumque Patriarcham crearent. Atque ita evanuit institutum illud antiquius, quo creari solitus a Presbyteris Patriarcha, et successit in locum ejusdecretum de Patriarcha ab Episcopis creando." Eutych. Patr. Alex. Ecclesiae suae orig. Ed. J, Selden. Lond. 1642. 4to. pp. 29 — 31. ^ See Selden's note in his Commentary on Eutych. p. 63. VOL. II. G 82 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION ment may thus be darkened may refer to the works men tioned below.! On one of those works, however, written by the learned Renaudot, I must offer a remark. Renau- dot admits that George Elmacinus in the first part of his Annals gives the same account of the matter as Euty- chius.2 And though he quarrels with both of them for making such a statement, which shows what he thought was the plain meaning of it, he endeavours to show that Eutychius was only speaking ofthe election, not of the ordination, of the Patriarch, and accordingly (following Echellensis) states that the Arabic word which Selden has translated laid hands on, refers only to the holding up of the hand at the election, and that had Selden understood Arabic he could not have thus translated it. This is in p. 10. At p. 55, stumbling upon a passage from Severus, where the former translation suited his views, or was so evidently the sense of the passage that he could not otherwise translate it, he blames Echellensis and Morinus for translating it in the latter way, and affirms it to mean ordination by imposition of hands. This surely betrays rather a bad cause ; and in fact the meaning of the pas sage does not wholly depend upon that one word. The word created is still more decisive. Moreover, this passage of Severus is worth noticing as giving a very similar ac count of the election of one of the Patriarchs to that of Eutychius. He says, according to Renaudot himself, that after the death of Theonas, " the priests and people were collected together at Alexandria, and laid their hands upon Peter, his son in the faith and disciple, a priest, and placed him in the Patriarchal throne of Alexandria, ac cording to the command of Theonas, in the tenth year of the Emperor Diocletian." s Here Renaudot contends that > See Abr. Echell. Eutychius Vindicatus, Morinus De ordinat., Renaudot. Hist. Patriarch. Alex. = Hiat. Patr. Alex. p. 10. Thia portion of Elmacinus is yet, I believe, un published. ^ Congregates fuisse Alexandriae sacerdotes et plebem, manusqueimposuisse super Petrum, filium ejus spiritualem et discipulum, sacerdotem, eumque col- FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 83 the word refers to imposition of hands, but that because the people are mentioned with the priests, who never shared in such an office, therefore the words, they laid their hands on him, must mean, hands were laid upon him,^ and the presence of bishops to do this is most conveniently taken for granted, thongh no notice is taken of their pre sence. I leave this to the common sense of the reader. But, what is of more importance, this statement of Eutychius is supported by the testimony of Jerome, in a passage where he plainly maintains the doctrine that such an appointment is sufficient to constitute a presbyter a bishop, and adduces this example in proof of it. After having quoted several passages of Scripture to show that a presbyter and a bishop are, as to their sacerdotal cha racter, the same,^ he adds, " But that afterwards one was chosen to be over the rest ; this was done to prevent schism, lest each one drawing the Church of Christ after him should break it up. For at Alexandria, also, from Mark the Evangelist to the bishops Heraclas and Diony sius, the presbyters always called one elected from among themselves, and placed in a higher rank, their bishop ; just as an army may constitute its general, or deacons may elect one of themselves, whom they know to be dili gent, and call him archdeacon. For what does a bishop do, with the exception of ordination, which a presbyter may not do?"' This passage, be it observed, does not take away from locasse in solio Patriarchali Alexandrine juxta Theonae mandatum, anno decimo Diocietiani Imperatoris. Renaud. Hist. Patr. Alex. p. 54. The ex tract is from a MS. work of Severus, De vit. et reb. gest. Paitr^ Alex. ' Imposuerunt illi manus, idem esse ac, impositae sunt illi manus. p. 65. " Eundem esse episcopum atque presbyterum. ' . . ' Quod autem postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur, in schisma- tis remedium factum est; ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi ecclesiam rumperet. Nam et Alexandriae a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam et Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum episcopum nominabant : quomodo si exercitus imperatorem faciat, aut Diaconi eligant de ae quem induatrium noverint et archidiaconum vocent. Quid enim facit excepta ordinatione episcopus quod presbyter non faciat? Hieron. Ep. ad Evang. Ep. 146. Op. ed. 1766. tom. 1. col. 1082.- G 2 •84 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION the episcopate its peculiar rights, but distinctly admits that ordination belongs to that office, and that its pos sessor has a higher rank than the presbyter ; but at the same time it clearly maintains that, as it respects the sacerdotal character, there is no difference between a presbyter and a bishop, the difference being only to be found in the ecclesiastical distribution of the duties to be performed by them, and what is still more to our purpose, that appointment to the episcopal office by the presbyters of a Church is sufficient (as far as essentials are concerned) to entitle a presbyter to perform the duties of the episcopal function. Now these two positions are perfectly consistent with each other. We may maintain fully even the apostolicity of the Episcopal form of Church government, and yet deny that episcopal consecration is a sine qua non to the performance ofthe duties of the bishop or president of a Church. And if we bear this in mind, we shall find that Jerome, notwithstanding the charges of selfcontradiction that have been brought against him, is perfectly con sistent in what he has written on this subject. The great point with Jerome manifestly is, that such a president of the Church should be appointed, and such powers con ceded to him, and, in his view, when that is done the essentials are safe.! I will add one more testimony on this matter. The author ofthe Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles, attri buted to Ambrose, and by others to Hilary the Deacon, says, — " The Apostle calls Timothy, created by him a presbyter,^ a bishop, (for the first presbyters were called ' See his tract. Adv. Lucifer. § 9. tom. ii. col. 1 82. ' Timothy is here said, we may observe, to have been ordained a presbyter. And I cannot but think that the passage, 1 Tim. iv. 14, is favourable to thia view. For without adopting the translation which some have given of the passage, viz. " with the laying on of hands for the ofifice of a presbyter," if we retain our own version, which appears to me more natural, who or what is " the presbytery'''' ? Certainly not consisting altogether of Apostles, though it appears, from 2 Tim. i. 6, that ordination was received by Timothy partly from St. Paul. But if presbyters joined in that ordination, it could not be to FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 85 bishops,) that when he departed the one that came next might succeed him. Moreover, in Egypt the presbyters confirm, if a bishop is not present.! But because the presbyters that followed began to be found unworthy to hold the primacy, the custom was altered, the Council foreseeing that not order but merit ought to make a bishop, and that he should be appointed by the judgment of raany priests, lest an unworthy person should rashly usurp the office, and be a scandal to many.^ These passages, then, clearly contradict the notion of our opponents as to the essential necessity by Apostolical ordinance of the successional episcopal consecration of all bishops.3 Before we pass on, it may be well to offer a remark on a point which the passage we have just quoted from Jerome has brought under our notice, the consideration a higher sacerdotal giaie or order than that ofthe presbyterhood. Nor is this inconsistent with his being called elsewhere an Apostle, which name might be given him as one appointed to be a superintendent of a Church. ' The author of the " Quaeationea in Vet. et Nov. Teat." which have been ascribed to Augustine, but are probably not his, says, " In Alexandria, and through the whole of Egypt, if there ia no bishop, a presbyter consecrates." (In Alexandria et per totam .^gyptum si desit episcopus consecrat presbyter.) Where, however, one MS. reads, confirms (consignat.) See Aug. Op. tom. iii. App. col. 93. On this subject the 13th canon of the Council of Ancyra (in the Code of the Universal Church) is also worth notice. ^ Timotheum presbyterum a se creatum episcopum Tocat, quia primi pres byteri episcopi appellabantur, ut reeedente eo sequens ei succederet. Denique apud ^gyptum presbyteri consignant ei praesens non sit episcopus. Sed quia coeperunt sequentes presbyteri indigni inveniri ad primatus tenendos, imrau- tata est ratio, prospiciente Concilio, ut non ordo sed meritum crearet episco pum multorum sacerdotum judicio constitutum ne iudignus temere usurparet et esset multis scandalum. Comment, in Eph. iv. 1 1, 12. Inter Op. Ambros. ed. Ben. tom. ii. app. col. 241, 2. The " Council" may, I suppose, be what Tertullian calls " consessus ordinis." " There are, also, indirect confirmatory proofs. Such, I think, is afforded by the account we have in Eusebius (vi. 29,) of the appointment of Eabianus to the bishopric of Rome, for the assembly that met to elect a bishop having fixed upon him, placed him ai once on the episcopal throne (^afieXX-ifras e-iri Tor Bpovov TTJS e-irKTKO-irTjs Xafiovras avrov eiriBeivat,) which seems to me irrecon cilable with the notion of the essential necessity of episcopal consecration to have entitled him to the episcopal seat, for he was installed in it without any such consecration. ""~ 86 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION of which may tend to remove a difficulty that raight arise on this subject, namely, the parity of the sacerdotal cha racter in presbyters and bishops. We have a stream of testimonies coming down to us from very early times, that the full sacerdotal power is possessed by every presbyter, and that a presbyter and bishop differ only as to the works of service to be per formed, the mere presbyter not being permitted to pass to others that which he has received in ordination, be cause such promiscuous ordination would be injurious to the Church, and consequently, that where that difficulty is removed by an appointment to the episcopal office by his Church, there all difficulty is removed from a pres byter so appointed freely passing to others what he has received. But I will here notice one or two testimonies on this point, in addition to that already observed in Jerome. ! Thus, then, speaks Chrysostom, on 1 Tim. c. iii. : " Hav ing spoken concerning bishops . . . and passed over the order of presbyters, he went at once to the deacons. Why ? Because there is not much difference between them and bishops. For they also themselves have re ceived the office of teachers and rulers of the Church. And what he has said respecting bishops, that is suitable also to presbyters. For bishops are superior in ordina tion only, and in this respect alone seem to excel pres byters." - To the same effect Augustine, — " As it re spects names of honour, which the custom of the Church has caused to be observed, the episcopate is greater than the presbyterate." ^ The author of the " Questions on ' Another similar passage occurs in Jerome, in his Comment, in Ep. ad Tit. c. 1. 2 AtaXeyo/ievos nepi e-wtaKo-nav . . .Kat to tmj' irpea^vrepav raypta atpets, ets rovs SiaKovovs /lere-irriSTjoe. Ti SrjTroTf ; &ri ov -rroXv fieaov avrav Kat rav e-n-iiTKOTrav. Kat yap Kat avrot StSaa-KuXtav eitrtv avaSeSeyptevoi Kat -irpoaratriav TTJS eKKXriatas- Kat a wept e-irtoKO-irav ei-ire, ravra Kat -irpea^vrepots apptorrei. Ttj yap x^tpoTOVta fiov-r) vTrep0e0-riKaai, Kat rovra fiovov SoKovai -irXeoveKreiv rovs -irpetrPvrepovs. Chrysost. In 1 Tim. ui. hom. 1 1. tom. xi. p. 604. 3 Secmidum honorum vocabula quaj jam ecclesiae usus obtinuit episcopatus presbyterio major. Aug. Ep. ad Hieron. Ep. 82. (al. 19.) § 33. Op. tom. ii. col. 202. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 87 the Old and New Testament," also, says, — " What is a bishop but the chief presbyter, or highest priest ? " ! And lastly, the author of the Commentary on 1 Tim., attri buted to Ambrose, — "After the bishop the Apostle has sub joined the ordination [order] of the deaconship. Why, but that the ordination [order] of a bishop and presbyter is one and the same. For each is a priest, but the bishop is chief; so that every bishop is a presbyter, but not every presbyter a bishop ; for he is bishop who is chief among the pres byters. Moreover, he notices that Timothy was ordained a presbyter, but inasmuch as he had no other above him, he was a bishop." ^ There is also a passage of Irenaeus, which, though speaking less directly on the point in question, bears an indirect testimony remarkably strong. " We ought," he says, " to obey those presbyters who are in the Church, those, I mean, who have succession from the Apostles, as we have shown, who, with the succession of the episcopate, have received, according to the good pleasure of the Father, the sure gift of truth But they who are looked upon by many as presbyters, but serve their own pleasures . , . and are elated with pride at their exaltation to the chief seat . . shall be reproved by the Word . . . From all such it behoves us to stand aloof, and to cleave to those who, as I have said before, both retain the doctrine ofthe Apostles, and, with the order OF the presbytership, [or, as Fevardentius reads, of a presbyter] exhibit soundness in word, and a blameless conversation." ^ Quid est episcopus nisi primus presbyter, hoc est, summus sacerdos ? QuiEst. in V. et N. Test. q. 101. Inter Aug. Op. tom. iii. app. col. 93. Post episcopum diaconatus ordinationem subjecit. Quare nisi quia epis copi et presbyteri una ordinatio est ? Uterque enim sacerdos est, sed episcopus primus est; ut omnis episcopus presbyter sit, non tamen omnis presbyter epis copus; hie enim episcopus est qui inter presbyteros primus est. Denique Timotheum presbyterum ordinatum significat, sed quia ante se alteram non habebat episcopus erat. Comraent. in 1 Tim. iii. 8. Inter Ambros. Op. tom. ii. app. col, 295. " See the original of this passage, in pp. 125, 6, below. 88 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION This passage appears to me decisive as to Irenaeus's view of the matter. And we may observe, that elsewhere he calls bishops presbyters.! Hence, then, we may observe, that it is not a mere dis pute about words, whether bishops are, properly speaking, of a different order to presbyters, because, however much the words order, degree, &c. may often be promiscuously applied, without distinction, to bishops, priests, and dea cons, so that we may find them called three orders, three degrees, three offices, &c. ; yet this is no proof that there is not a sense ofthe word order, in which it may be justly niaintained that presbyters and bishops are of the same order, and that the maintenance of such a position is of importance, and has practical consequences connected with it. We do not contend for the word, but for what that word implies ; and we understand such language to imply precisely what Jerome means, when he says, that a presbyter and a bishop are the same, which he would not have said of a presbyter and a deacon ; and the use of such language shows that there is supposed to be no supe riority of sacerdotal character in the bishop above the presbyter. He, then, who holds the two to be of the same order, can hardly hold that by episcopal consecration any new or higher sacerdotal power is conferred. It is a solemn setting apart of a presbyter to the fulfilment of certain duties, which as a mere presbyter he was not allowed by the Church to perform, but which his appointment to the presidency of his Church gives him a right to perform. And that it is not necessary to suppose that imposition of hands in the consecration necessarily implies the im pression of any new character, or the donation of a higher sacerdotal grade, is evident from the case of Paul and Barnabas, when certain prophets and teachers of An- ' As in his Epistle to Victor, Bishop of Rome. -O, ,rpo ^ar-npos npeirfiv. repot 01 -npoaravres ttjs eKKXnaias -fjs vvv a,p-nm, AvtK7,rov Xeyo/iev, Kai Tltov, T71WV re K. T. \. Op . ed. Grab. pp. 465, 6, or Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 24. fully revealed in scripture. 89 tioch, by the direction of the Holy Ghost, " laid their hands on them," as a mode of appointment to the office of fulfilling a particular mission, but not surely as giving them any sacerdotal character or ministerial capacity which they did not possess before.! And if bishops had been so completely a different order to presbyters as some would have us suppose, surely the name given to them would not have been one which had before been given to mere presbyters. Hence, a bishop has not improperly been called jores- byter cum additamento superioritatis quoad regimen ecclesice, a presbyter with an addition of superiority with regard to the government ofthe Church. The question, therefore, is, whether, when the sacerdotal character has been derived from the Apostles, this addi tion of superiority with respect to the government of a Church may not be conferred by the consessus ordinis of that Church. Granting, then, or rather maintaining, the superiority of the episcopal office in several respects, and that the episcopal office is an Apostolical ordinance, and that the bishops of the Churches are the successors of the Apostles in the highest parts of the ordinary ecclesiastical functions of the Apostles, that is, ordination and super vision of the inferior clergy and the Church,^ and there fore widely dissenting from the statements of Aerius, (the question being rather concerning the source of their superior power than concerning the superiority itself;) ' See Acts xiii. 1—3 ; and xiv. 26, 27. ° To succeed them ia, after them, to have that episcopal kind of power which was first given to them ... In some things every presbyter, in some things only bishops, in some things neither the one nor the other, are the Apostles' successors .... the Apostles have now their successors upon earth, their true successors, if not in the largeness, surely in the kind of that episcopal function whereby they had power to sit as spiritual ordinary judges, both over laity and over clergy, where Churches Christian were established. Hooker's Eccl. Pol. vii. 4. '- ,. 90 the christian religion yet nevertheless, if we are forced to admit (as the pas sages above quoted seem to me to oblige us to do) that the appointment of a presbyter to that office by his co- presbyters, is an appointment sufficiently valid to give validity to his acts, or that episcopal consecration is not a sine qua non in the case, then we must admit that the platform of government in such ecclesiastical communi ties as the foreign reformed Churches, though not alto gether coming up to the Apostolical model, is yet not sufficiently dissimilar to raake their ministry invalid. And I confess that it appears to me that this is the only way in which we can fully vindicate the validity of the orders of those Churches. For if by Apostolical or dinance all ordinations performed by any but bishops consecrated by episcopal succession from the Apostles are invalid, then how can we reckon those as validly ordained who, under any circumstances, are not so ordained? I am not sure that even the case of necessity could be fully made out for those Churches in what they did, and cer tainly it did not last long. If, however, the view we have taken of the matter be correct, then the circum stances ofthe case rendered their conduct justifiable, and their orders valid. And such is the view which, in substance, was taken of the matter by many of our best divines, as the extracts which I shall give presently will show. Others of our divines seem to have relied more upon the necessity of the case as a justification, and therefore did in reality quite as much give up the absolute essentiality of episco pal succession to a Church. On whatever grounds, however, they might place it, certain it is that, as a body, they held the orders of the foreign reformed Churches to be valid, as I shall now proceed to show, aye, even in the case of those whom our opponents have, I am sorry to say, according to custom, recklessly set down in their list of witnesses for their doctrine on this point. Mr. Keble allows that " it is notorious " that Jewel, fully revealed in scripture. 91 Whitgift, Bishop Cooper, and others, to whora the ma nagement of the controversy with the Puritans was intrusted during the early part of Elizabeth's reign, did not take the line of argument which he and his party now do. " It is enough," he says, " with them to show that the government by archbishops and bishops is ancient and allowable ; they never venture to urge its exclusive claim, or to connect the succession with the validity of the holy sacraments" while he allows that " it must have occurred to the learned writers above mentioned." And he thus tries to account for the conduct he attributes to them ; — " One obvious reason, and probably the chief one, oftheir silence, was the relation in which they stood to the foreign protestant congregations. The question had been mixed up with considerations of personal friend ship." " The leading protestant divines" " had occa sionally committed themselves to statements and princi ples which would greatly stand in their way if ever they found it requisite .to assert the claims of Apostolical epis copacy." " Should it be asked how such accomplished divines, as Jewel and others of his class undoubtedly were, could permit themselves, for any present benefit to the Church, so to waver in so capital a point, with the full evidence of antiquity before their eyes, it may be replied, first of all, that in some sort they wanted that full evidence with which later generations have been fa voured." " The works of the Fathers had not yet been critically sifted, so that in regard of almost every one of them, men were more or less embarrassed, during the whole of that age, with vague suspicions of interpolation." " Further, it is obvious that those divines in particular who had been instrumental but a little before in the second change of the Liturgy in King Edward's time, must have felt themselves in some measure restrained from pressing with its entire force the ecclesiastical tra dition on Church government and orders, inasmuch as in the aforesaid revision they had given up altogether the same tradition regarding certain very material points in 92 the christian religion the celebration, if not in the doctrine, ofthe Holy Eucha rist ;" and he thinks " an indefinite fear of interpolation in the early Liturgies" may have told in justifying to their minds the omissions in question. But " it should seem that those who were responsible for those omissions must have felt themsehres precluded ever after from urging the necessity of episcopacy, or of anything else, on the ground of uniform Church tradition." " To all these causes of hesitation, we must add the direct influence of the court." ! Such is the account which Mr. Keble gives of the views and conduct of our Reformers. I leave it with the reader, as it would be equally painful as it is unnecessary to dissect it. The simple question is. Did these learned divines hold the orders of the foreign reformed Churches to be essentially invalid, or did they not ? The reader has seen the straits to which our opponents are reduced, to account for their language on the subject ; and that the utmost that is pretended respecting them is, that their language is a sort of negative and inconsistent testimony, which prevents their being adducible by either party in this question, for that though they take practically low ground on the subject, they very possibly held theo retically the high ground of the Apostolical succession. It is no doubt an ingenious way of eliminating negative quantities, and getting rid of awkward witnesses. But is it a fair one ? However, we shall find afterwards that authors are quoted in the Catena of witnesses for this doctrine who have expressly and in terms opposed it, and therefore we need not wonder at the force of pre judice displayed here. To accumulate extracts from the works of our re formers, to show that they acknowledged the foreign re formed Churches to be true Churches, and their ministers true ministers of Christ, would be, I suppose, a super- fiuous labour. " We are very sure," says Bishop Burnet, ' Keble's Pref. to Hooker, pp, lix— Ixii. fully revealed in scripture. 93 . " that not only those who penned the articles, but the body of this Church, for above half an age after, did, not withstanding those irregularities, acknowledge the foreign Churches, so constituted, to be true Churches, as to all the essentials of a Church." (On Art. 23.) And as it respects Jewel, I suspect our opponents will themselves allow that the following passage goes much beyond such an admission. He is a dangerous author for them to meddle with. Let them reraeraber what their advocate, Mr. Froude,has said of his works. "Therefore," he says, " we neither have bishops without Church, nor Church without bishops. Neither doth the Church of England this day depend of thera, whom you often call apostates, as if our Church were no Church without them. ... If there were not one, neither of them nor of us, left alive, yet would not, therefore, the whole Church of England flee to Lovaine. Tertullian saith, ' And we being laymen, are we not priests ? It is written, Christ hath made us both a kingdom and priests unto God his Father. The au thority of the Church, and the honour by the Assembly or Council of Order, sanctified of God, hath made a dif ference between the lay and the clergy. Where, as there is no assembly of ecclesiastical order, the priest being- there alone (without the company of other priests) doth both minister the oblation, and also baptize.! Yea, and be there but three together, and though they be laymen, yet is there a Church. For every man liveth of his own faith.' Whosoever is a member of Christ's body, whosoever is a child of the Church, whosoever is baptized in Christ and beareth his name, is fully in vested with this priesthood [i. e. as he explains it in the context, the " inward priesthood"], and therefore may justly be called a priest. And wheresoever there be three such together, as Tertullian saith, yea, though they be only ' Jewel quotes here from the coiTupt reading of the early Romish editions. We have given the true reading of this passage, p. 52 above ; which, it will be observed, raakes the passage still stronger in favour of the object for which Jewel quoted it. 94 the christian religion laymen, yet have they a Church .... All Christian men are priests, and offer up to God the daily sacrifice, that is, the sacrifice of Christ's passion."! This passage, I suspect, goes much beyond what we are here contending for. But passing over those about whose sentiments no impartial persons can entertain a doubt, let us proceed to those who came after them in the Church, who are more particularly claimed by our opponents as witnessing in their favour; and that the names chosen may be free from all objection, we will take some of those that are quoted by our opponents, in their " Catena" on this sub ject,'^ as express witnesses in favour of their doctrine. First, Hooker. The quotation given in the " Catena" is, as is not unusual in these " Catenas," one which is utterly in sufficient to show Hooker's opinion on the point in question, oneway or the other; and elsewhere he speaks thus, " Now whereashereupon some do infer that no ordination can stand, but onlysuch as is made by bishops which have had their or dination likewise by other bishops before them, till we come to the very Apostles of Christ themselves ; in which respect it was demanded of Beza at Poissie, ' By what authority he could administer the Holy Sacraments, &c.' [the reader will observe the instance cited] ... to this we answer, that there may be sometimes very just and sufficient reason to allow ordination made without a bishop. The whole Church visible being the true original subject of all power, it hath not ordinarily allowed any other than bishops alone to ordain ; howbeit, as the ordinary course is ordinarily in all things to be observed, so it may be, in some cases, not unnecessary that we decline from the or dinary ways. Men may be extraordinarily, yet allowably, two ways admitted unto spiritual functions in the Church. One is, when God himself doth of himself raise up any . . . . Another . . when the exigence of necessity doth constrain to leave the usual ways of the Church, which ' Def. of Apol. Pt. 2. c. 5. div. 1. Works, pp. 129, 30. = See Tract 74. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 95 otherwise we would willingly keep."! And, in a former passage of the same book, he distinctly admits the power of the Church at large to take away the episcopal form of government from the Church, and says, " Let them [i. e. bishops] continually bear in mind, that it is rather the force of custom, whereby the Church, having so long found it good to continue under the regiment of her virtuous bishops, doth still uphold, maintain, and honour them in that respect, than that any such true and heavenly law can be showed by the evidence whereof it may of a truth appear that the Lord himself hath appointed presbyters for ever to he under the regiment of bishops," adding that " their authority" is " a sword which the Church hath power to take from them." * And therefore, though he admits the office and superiority of bishops to be of Apostolical institution, yet all that he undertakes to prove on the subject is, that such supe riority is " a thing allowable, lawful, and good."^ This, I confess, appears to me rather low ground to take ; but certainly it shows the complete contrariety of Hooker's views to those of our opponents. What is Mr. Keble's explanation in his preface to Hooker? That Hooker " shrunk from the legitimate result of his own PREMISES ;" " he did not feel at liberty to press unreser vedly, and develope, in all its consequences, that part of the argument which they [i. e. Laud and others] re garded as the most vital and decisive: the necessity, namely, of the Apostolical commission to the derivation of sacramental grace, and to our mystical communion with Christ."* Such is the treatment awarded to one of our most learned and judicious divines. To offer any defence of Hooker against such charges, would be a waste of words indeed. But there is one question which I would seriously ask of the author of the Catena, namely, how he can reconcile it with fair dealing, when it is notorious, and ' Eccl. Pol. vii. 14. See also iii. 11. ' Eccl. Pol. vi. 8. See also i. 14, and iii. 1 0. = Eccl. Pol. vii. 3. . '' Pref. to Hooker, p. Ixxvii. 96 THE CHfilSTIAN RELIGION confessed by his oivn party, that Hooker did not follow out "his own premises" {to use their phrase) so as to maintain their doctrine, but expressly repudiates it, to select a passage so worded as to lead a cursory reader to think that Hooker held it, and put it as a proof of Hooker's advocacy of their doctrine in the " Catena'' of witnesses for it. In what po sition does such a fact leave their boasted " Catenas ?" This is one ofthe most painful parts of the whole subject, and one on which it is impossible not to feel strongly ; because the cause that, beyond all others, has tended to produce the partial and temporary success our opponents have gained, is the supposition derived frora their " Ca tenas," that they are only enforcing the doctrines which almost all our great divines have held before them. Another divine quoted in the " Catena," is Archbishop Bancroft, and on the same ground I suppose as Hooker, namely, that he held the episcopate to be an Apostolical institution. But they will find equally as in the last case, that neither did Archbishop Bancroft follow out " his own premises." For the Archbishop of St. Andrews, iu his History of Scotland, tells us, " that when the Scots bishops were to be consecrated by the bishops of London, Ely, and Bath, here at London house, anno 1609, a ques tion was moved by Dr. Andrews, bishop of Ely, touch ing the consecration of the Scottish bishops, who, as he said, must first be ordained presbyters as having received no ordination from a bishop. The Archbishop of Canter bury, Dr. Bancroft, who was by, niaintained, ' that thereof there was no necessity, seeing where bishops could not be had, the ordination given by the presbyters must be esteemed lawful, otherwise that it might be doubted if there were any lawful vocation in most of the reformed churches.' This applauded to by the other bishops, Ely acquiesced."! And this testimony is the more remarkable from Dr. Bancroft, as in his famous sermon at Paul's Cross, he was considered to have taken rather high ground as to the claims of episcopacy. ' See "The judgment of the kite Archbishop of Armagh, &c," edited by Dr. Bernard, 1657. Svo. pp. 135,6. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 97 Another of our opponents' witnesses in their " Catena" is Archdeacon Francis Mason. An extract is given from his celebrated " Vindiciae." Now will it be believed that the same author, in an appendix to this very work, ex pressly defends " the validity of the ordination of the minis ters of the reformed Churches beyond tke seas ;"! and Dr. Bernard, Archbishop Usher's chaplain, when noticing this work, says, " I have been assured it was not only the judgment of Bishop Overal, but that he had a principal hand in it."^ Let me direct their attention to one or two extracts from this appendix to the very work frora which they themselves quote. The Bishop " in his consecration,'' he says, " receiveth a sacred office, an eminency, a jurisdiction, a dignity, a degree of ecclesiastical pre-eminence." " He hath no higher degree in respect of intention or extension of the character; but he hath a higher degree, that is, a more excellent place in respect of authority and jurisdiction in spiritual regiment. Wherefore, seeing a presbyter is equal to a bishop in the power of order, he hath equally intrinsical power to give orders." (pp. 160, 161 .) Whereby he means, I conceive, that a presbyter, having received the full sacer dotal character, is intrinsically capable of passing that character to others, when an office or jurisdiction is given him by the Church in which such, power may regularly and canonically be exercised. The speaker for the Ro manists, making the precise objection of our opponents, observes, — " the pre-eminence of bishops is jure divino." To which Orthodox answers thus, — " First, if you mean by jure divino that which is according to the Scripture, then the pre-eminence of bishops is jure divino : for it hath been already proved to be according to the Scrip ture. Secondly, it hj jure divino you mean the ordinance of God, in this sense also it may be said to he jure divino. For it is an ordinance of the Apostles, whereunto they ' It was published under this title, Oxf. 1641. 4to. " See his "Judgment of the late Archbishop of Armagh, &c." 1657. p. 133. VOL. II. ^^ 98 the christian religion were directed by God's Spirit, even by the spirit of pro phecy, and consequently the ordinance of God. But if by jure divino you understand a law and commandment of God, binding all Christian Churches, universally, per petually, unchangeably, and with such absolute necessity that no other form of regiment may in any case be ad mitted ; in this sense neither may we grant it, nor yet can you prove it, to be jure divino." " The Apostles in their lifetime ordained many bishops, and left a fair pat tern to posterity. The Church, following the commodi- ousness thereof, imbraced it in all ages through the Chris tian world." (p. 163.) This passage may, I hope, dis abuse the minds of our opponents of the notion that every body that held the pre-erainence of bishops to be jure divino, or by Apostolical institution, is not to be imme diately put down as a supporter of their doctrine, nor to be charged with forsaking the legitimate consequences of " his own premises" if he does not hold it, and may teach them to be a little more circumspect, and I may add, fair, in the getting up oftheir " Catenas." The Archdeacon then proceeds to defend the validity of the ordinations in the foreign reformed Churches, first on the ground of necessity; to which the defender of the Church of Rome, after some discussion, ultimately replies, — " Suppose that ordination might be devolved to Presbyters in case of necessity, yet the necessity ceasing, such extraordinary courses should likewise cease. Why, then, do they continue their former practice? Why do they not now seek to receive their orders from Protestant bishops ?" To which Orthodox replies thus : — " The Churches of Germany need not to seek to foreign bishops, be cause they have superintendents or bishops among them selves. And as for other places which embrace the disci pline of Geneva, they also have bishops in effect, for two things of all other are most proper to bishops ; (1) singu larity in succeeding, because, though there be many pres byters in a Church, yet, above the rest, there is one star, one angel, of whose unity depends the unity of the Church ; FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 99 and therefore, when he dieth, another must succeed in the like singularity. (2) Superiority in ordaining, because ever since the Apostles' times, these stars and angels have been invested with the power of ordination, which they might perform without presbyters, but presbyters might not regularly perform without them. Now, in these re formed Churches, the president of each Presbytery is their star or angel, indued with both properties. Con cerning the first, Beza saith, ' Essentiale fuit, &c.' ' This was essential in the matter we have in hand, that by God's perpetual ordinance it hath been, is, and shall be, needful that some one in the presbytery, which is first both in place and dignity, should have the pre-eminence in ruling of every action with that right which is given him from God.' (Beza de div. gradib. minist. contr. Sarav. c. 23. § 25.) Therefore, concerning the second, whereas the presbytery consisteth partly of ministers, partly of laymen, their lay-presbyters are wholly excluded from ordination. For Calvin (in 2 Tim. i. 6, and Instit. lib. 4. c. 3. § 16,) teacheth, that in the Apostolic times, only pastors im posed hands, neither is it lawful for every pastor in the presbytery to execute this office ; but it is reserved to him who is first both in place and dignity, having pre-emi nence in every action, and consequently in ordination. Wherefore, though that he do it not by his sole authority, but with common consent, neither hath the name of a bishop or such ample titles annexed as godly princes have thought fit for the honor of the place, (because these things are not suitable with popular estates delighting in equality) yet he hath the substance of the office itself; which he exerciseth not in one only particular parish, but in the city, suburbs, and the territories thereof, contain ing sundry parishes, as for example, at Geneva, xxiv or thereabout. Wherefore, seeing a bishop and a presbyter do not differ in order, but only in pre-eminence and juris diction, as yourselves acknowledge, and seeing Calvin and Beza had the order of priesthood, which is the highest order in the Church of God, and were lawfully chosen, the H 2 100 TJIE CHRISTIAN RELIGION one after the other, to a place of eminency, and indued with jurisdiction derived unto them from the whole Church wherein they lived — you cannot with reason deny them the substance of the episcopal office. And whereinsoever their discipline is defective we wish them, even in the bowels of Christ Jesus, by all possible means, to redress and reform it, and to conform themselves to the antient custom of the Church of Christ, which hath continued from the Apos tles' time, that so they may remove all opinion of singu larity, and stop the mouth of malice itself. Thus much concerning the ministers of other reformed Churches, wherein, if you will not believe us disputing for the lawfulness of their calling, yet you must give us leave to believe God himself from heaven approving their ministry by pouring down a blessing upon their labours. Bless them still, O Lord, and bless us, and make all our ministry faithful, fruitful, and effectual, to the comfort of our own consciences, the advancing of thy kingdom, the joy of thy little flock, and to the recalling of those lost sheep which as yet wander in the wilderness of the Church of Rome, or elsewhere, that so it may be power ful by thy Spirit to the salvation of many thousand souls." (pp. 173 — 6.) To which prayer I most heartily respond, amen, and humbly pray that it may please God to impart more of the spirit breathed in these lines to his whole Church . To go through our opponents' whole Catena is, of course, impossible in this place, but I will venture to affirm that it would be easy to show, as to three-fourths at least of the authors there cited, that they are equally opposed to our opponents' views as the three we have just noticed. And indeed, if the reader will take the trouble of investigating the extracts they themselves have given, he will find very few that at all bear upon the dis puted points. I am sorry to say, however, that this seems to be the plan commonly adopted by the Tractators. Under a phrase which may be interpreted in various ways, they lay down a certain doctrine, and then quote as sup- FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 101 porters of their views, all those who have defended any doc trine that has borne the same name. To the divines already mentioned as opposing the views of the Tractators, we raay add, as ranking among the most learned and unexceptionable witnesses for the doc trine of our Church, the names of Archbishop Usher, Bishop Davenant, Dean Field, and Bishop Cosin, whom I mention, not because they were at all remarkable for their sentiments in the matter, but because their testimo nies happen to be at hand with me to refer to. ! " I have ever declared my opinion to be," says Arch bishop Usher at the close of his life, " that episcopus et presbyter gradu tantum differunt non ordine, and conse quently that in places where bishops cannot be had the ordination by presbyters standeth valid, yet on the other side, holding as I do that a bishop hath superiority in degree above a presbyter, you may easily judge that the ordination made by such presbyters as have severed them selves from those bishops unto whom they had sworn ca nonical obedience cannot possibly by me be excused from being schismatical. And howsoever I must needs think that the Churches which have no bishops are thereby be come very much defective in their government, and that the Churches in France who living under a Popish jiower cannot do what they would, are more excusable in this defect than the Low Countries that live under a free State, yet for the testifying my communion with those Churches, which I do love and honour as true members of^ the Church Universal, I do profess that with like affection I should receive the blessed sacrament at the hands of the Hutch ministers if I were in Holland, as I should do at the hands of the French ministers if I were in Charentone." ^ And who, I ask, of all our divines is more worthy to be listened to on such a point than Archbishop Usher ? ' It would be easy to add similar statements from the writings of Laud, Bramhall, Andrews, and many others. = Judgment of the late Archbishop of Armagh, &c. ed. by Dr. Bernard. 1657. pp. 125—7. 102 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION To the same effect speaks Bishop Davenant.! For the sentiments of Bishop Cosin respecting the foreign reformed Churches I refer to the following pas sages. In a work entitled " Dr. Cosin's opinion when Dean of Peterborough and in exile for communicating rather with Geneva than Rome" ^ we have a letter written to a friend here during his exile, in which he says, " It is far less safe to join with these men that alter the credenda, the vitals of religion [alluding to the Romanists], than with those that meddle only with the agenda and rules of religion, if they meddle no further. . . . They of Geneva are to blame in many things and defective in some ; they shall never have ray approbation of their doings, nor let them have yours, yet I do not see that they have set up any new articles of faith under pain of damnation to all the world that will not receive them for such articles, and you know whose case that is." (pp. 3, 4.) And in his last Will he says, — " Wherever in the whole world Churches reckoned as Christian Churches profess the true, antient, and ca tholic religion and faith, and with one mouth and mind adore and worship God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with such, though distance, or the disagreements of man kind, or any other obstacle, may ever prevent my actually holding communion (jungi) with them, in heart, mind, and affection, I shall always be united and form one (conjungor ac coalesco); which I wish especially to be understood ofthe Protestant and well-reformed Churches."^ Still more clearly and fully speaks the learned Dean Field, in his celebrated Work " Of the Church." " The next thing to be examined," he says, " is, whether the power of ordination be so essentially annexed to the order of bishops, that none but bishops may in any case ordain. For the clearing whereof we must observe, that the whole ecclesiastical power is aptly divided into the power of J Determ. 42. p. 191. = Published by Dr. R. Watson. Lond. 1684. Svo. = I quote from the Preface to his " Regni Angliae Religio et Gubern. Eccles." Lond. 1729. 4to. p. ii. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 103 order and jurisdiction .... The power of holy or eccle siastical order is nothing else but that power which is specially given to men sanctified and set apart from others to perform certain sacred supernatural and eminent actions, which others of another rank may not at all or not ordinarily meddle with : as to preach the word, administer the sacraments, and the like. The next kind of ecclesias tical power is that of jurisdiction. For the more distinct and full understanding whereof, we must note that three things are implied in the calling of ecclesiastical ministers. First, an election, choice or designment of persons fit for so high and excellent employment. Secondly, the con secrating of them and giving them power and authority to intermeddle with things pertaining to the service of Cod Thirdly, the assigning and dividing out to each man thus sanctified to so excellent a work, that por tion of God's people which he is to take care of, who must be directed by him in things that pertain to the hope of eternal salvation. This particular assignation giveth to them that had only the power of order before the power of jurisdiction also over the persons of men. Thus, then, it is necessary that the people of God be sorted into several portions, and the sheep of Christ divided into several flocks, for the more orderly guidino- of them. The Apostles of Christ and their successors, when they planted the Churches, so divided the people of God con verted by their ministry into particular Churches, that each city and the places near adjoining did make but one Church. Now, because the unity and peace of each par ticular Church of God, and flock of his sheep, dependeth on the unity ofthe pastor, and yet the necessities of the many duties that are to be performed in Churches of so large extent require more ecclesiastical ministers than one, therefore, though there be many presbyters, that is, many fatherly guides of one Church, yet there is one amongst the rest that is specially pastor ofthe place, who for distinction sake is named a bisfop; to whom an emi nent and peerless power is given for the avoiding of 104 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION schisms and factions ; and the rest are but his assistants and coadjutors, and named by the general name of pres byters. So that, in the performance of the acts of eccle siastical ministry, when he is present and will do them himself, they must give place, and in his absence, or when being present he needeth assistance, they may do nothing without his consent and liking. Yea, so far, for order's sake, is he preferred before the rest, that some things are specially reserved to him only, as the ordaining of such as should assist him in the work of his ministry, the reconciling of penitents, confirmation of such as were baptized by imposition of hands, dedication of Churches, and such like. These being the divers sorts and kinds of ecclesiastical power, it will easily appear to all them that enter into the due consideration thereof, that the power of ecclesiastical or sacred order, that is, the power and authority to intermeddle with things pertaining to the service of God, and to perform erainent acts of gracious efficacy, tending to the procuring of the eternal good of the sons of men, is equal and the same in all those whom we call presbyters, that is, fatherly guides of God's Church and people ; and that only for order's sake, and the pre servation of peace, there is a limitation of the use and exercise of the same. Hereunto agree all the best learned amongst the Romanists themselves, freely confessing that that wherein a bishop excelleth a presbyter is not a dis tinct and higher order or power of order, but a kind of dignity and office or imployment only. Which they prove because a presbyter ordained per saltum, that never was consecrated or ordained deacon, may notwithstanding do all those acts that pertain to the deacon's order, be cause the higher order doth always imply in it the lower and inferior in an eminent and excellent sort. But a bishop ordained per saltum, that never had the ordination of a presbyter, can neither consecrate and administer the sacrament of the Lord's body, nor ordain a presbyter, himself being none, nor do any act peculiarly pertaining to presbyters. WJiereby it is most evident, that that FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 105 wherein a bishop excelleth a presbyter is not a distinct power of order, but an eminency and dignity only, spe cially yielded to one above all the rest of the same rank for order sake, and to preserve the unity and peace of the Church. Hence it followeth, that many things, which in some cases presbyters may lawfully do, are peculiarly re served unto bishops, as Hierome noteth,rather for the honour of their 'ministry than the necessity of any law. And there fore we read, that presbyters in some places, and at some times, did impose hands and confirm such as were baptized, which when Gregory Bishop of Rome would wholly have forbidden, there was so great exception taken to him for it, that he left it free again. And who knoweth not that all presbyters, in cases of necessity, may absolve and reconcile penitents, a thing in ordinary course appropriated unto bishops ? And why not by the same reason ordain pres byters and deacons in cases of like necessity ? For seeing the cause why they are forbidden to do these acts, is, be cause to bishops ordinarily the care of all Churches is committed, and to them in all reason the ordination of such as must serve in the Church pertaineth that have the chief care of the Church, and have Churches wherein to imploy them ; which only "bishops have as long as they retain their standing, and not presbyters, being but assist ants to bishops in their Churches ; if they become enemies to God and true religion, in case of such necessity, as the care and government of the Church is devolved to the presbyters remaining catholic and being of a better spirit, so the duty of ordaining such as are to assist or succeed them in the work of the ministry pertains to them like wise. For if the power of order and authority to inter meddle in things pertaining to God's service be the same in all presbyters, and that they be limited in the execution of it only for order sake, so that in case of necessity every of them may baptize and confirm them whom they have baptized, absolve and reconcile penitents, and do all those other acts which regularly are appropriated unto the bishop alone, there is no reason to be given but that in 106 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION case of necessity, wherein all bishops were extinguished by death, or being fallen into heresy should refuse to ordain any to serve God in his true worship, but that presbyters, as they may do all other acts, whatsoever special challenge bishops in ordinary course make unto them, might do this also. Who, then, dare condemn all those worthy ministers of God that were ordained by presbyters in sundry Churches ofthe world, at such times as bishops in those parts where they lived opposed them selves against the truth of God, and persecuted such as professed it ? Surely the best learned in the Church of Rome in former times durst not pronounce all ordinations of this nature to be void. For not only Armachanus, a very learned and worthy bishop, but, as it appeareth by Alexander of Hales, many learned men in his time and before were of opinion that in some cases and at some times presbyters may give orders, and that their > ordina tions are of force, though to do so, not being urged by extreme necessity, cannot be excused from over great boldness and presumption . . . All that may be alleged out ofthe Fathers for proof of the contrary may be re duced to two heads. For, first, whereas they make all such ordinations void as are made by presbyters, it is to be understood according to the strictness of the canons in use in their time, and not absolutely in the nature of the thing, which appears in that they likewise make all ordi nations sine titulo to be void ; all ordinations of bishops ordained by fewer than three bishops with the metropo litan ; all ordinations of presbyters by bishops out of their own Churches without special leave ; whereas I am well assured the Romanists will not pronounce any of these to be void, though the parties so doing are not excusable from all fault. Secondly, their sayings are to be under stood regularly not without exception of some special cases that may fall out." ! And further on in the same work he quotes with approbation the following remarks of Durandus (in 4 Sent. Dist. 24, q. 5,) " Touching the ' Field, Ofthe Chiu-ch, bk. iii. c. 39. pp. 155—8. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 107 power of consecration or order," saith Durandus, "it is much doubted of among divines whether any be greater therein than an ordinary presbyter ; for Hierome seemeth to have been of opinion that the highest power of con secration or order is the power of a priest or elder, so that every priest in respect of his priestly power raay rainister all sacraraents, confirm the baptized, give all orders, all blessings and consecrations ; but that for the avoiding of the peril of schism it was ordained that one should be chosen who should be named a bishop, to whom the rest should obey, and to whom it was reserved to give orders, and to do some such other things as none but bishops do. And afterwards he saith that Hierome is clearly of this opinion ; not raaking the distinction of bishops frora presbyters a mere human invention or a thing not necessary, as Aerius did, but thinking that amongst them who are equal in the power of order, and equally enabled to do any sacred act, the Apostles, for the avoiding of schism and confusion, and the preservation of unity, peace, and order, ordained that in each Church one should be before and above the rest, without whom the rest should do nothing, and to whom some things should be peculiarly reserved, as the dedicating of churches, reconciling of penitents, confirm ing of the baptized, and the ordination of such as are to serve in the work of the ministry ; of which the three former were reserved to the bishop alone, potius ad ho- norem sacerdotii quam ad legis necessitatem, that is rather to honour his priestly and bishoply place than for that these things at all may not be done by any other." ! The reader will observe, then, that the ground here taken by Dean Field is, that a presbyter at his ordination receives full power to perform all the functions of the divine ministry and service, all sacred acts of whatever kind, the exercise of which power however is to be regu lated by the situation in which he may be placed in the Church. Hence it is said that a presbyter and a bishop > Ib.bk. ». I. 27, p. 500. 108 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION do not differ in order but only in office, which, notwith standing it has been cavilled at as an unmeaning and nugatory distinction, appears to me a very intelligible and useful one. By the consideration of these authorities, then, and espe cially from their own admissions as to our early reformers, I hope that our opponents will be more ready to draw a distinction between a rule being laid down by our Church in this matter, as most agreeable to ecclesiastical order, to serve for the guidance of her own members, and a solemn determination by her that all who differ from that stan dard are without any lawful ministry. " The 23d Article," says Mr. Keble, " affirms the principle of the succession." " The Article virtually enforces succession as the test of a lawful ministry." (pp. 97, 8.) True, as it respects our own Church, but not as it respects " a lawful ministry" in the abstract. Mr. Keble has himself admitted that our early reformers shrunk from any such avowal. Nay, Hooker's instance of valid unepiscopal orders is that of Beza, pre--. cisely the sort of case Mr. Keble has supposed (p. 98) and pronounced against. Now all Mr. Keble's argumenta tion refers only to the abstract case, for no one disputes what sort of ordination is alone admitted in the Church of England as a qualification for her own ministers, and therefore his application of the Article falls to the ground, and is clearly an oversight, for it was drawn up by those whom he blames for never having avowed such doc trine. " I do allow episcopacy," says Dean Sherlock, " to be an Apostolical institution, and the truly antient and catholic governmfent ofthe Church, of which more here after ; but yet in this very book I prove industriously and at large, that in case of necessity, when bishops cannot be had. a Church raay be a truly Catholic Church, and such as we may and ought to communicate with, without bishops, in vindication of some foreign reformed Churches who have none, and therefore I do not make episcopacy so ah- FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 109 solutely necessary to catholic communion as to unchurch all Churches which have it not." * " The Church of Eng land does not deny but that in case of necessity the ordi nation of presbyters may be valid." ^ And surely the practice ofthe Society for the Propaga tion ofthe Gospel for many years in their employment of missionaries who had received only Lutheran orders, shows what the general feeling among the prelates of our Church in later times has been as to the validity of such orders.' And as it respects that which is essential to the being of a Church, the excellent Dr. Claget (so highly com mended by Archbishop Sharp*), in his examination of Bellarmine's seventh note of the Church, viz. " the union of the members among themselves, and with thd Head," having pointed out seven " grounds and no tions of Church-unity," which " ought" all to be in the Church, adds, " But some of them are necessary - to the being of the Church ; and they are, the ac knowledgment of the one Lord, the profession of the one faith, and admission into the state of Christian duties and privileges by one baptism. And this is all that I can flnd absolutely necessary to the being of a Church; inas much as the Apostle says, ' That we are all baptized into one body.' And therefore, so far as unity in these things is spread and obtains in the world, so far and no farther is the body of the Church propagated, because it is one by this unity The Church of England . . doth not unchurch those parts of Christendom that hold the unity of the faith From hence, also, the folly of that conceit may be easily discerned 'that, in this di vided state of Christendom, there must be one Church, ' Vindication of some Protestant principles of Church unity and catholic communion in Bishop Gibson's Preservative, vol. iii. p. 410. » Ib. p. 432. ' See the Reports of the Society and Dean Pearson's Life of Schwartz. ¦• See Life of Archbishop Sharp. 110 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION which is the only Church of Christ, exclusively to all the rest that are not in communion with her ; which is as much as to say. That because there is not that unity amongst Christians which there ought to be, therefore there is none at all ; and because they are not united in one communion, therefore they are not united in one Lord, one faith, one baptism." ! There is a great difference between a body of men wanting some of those things that are requisite to the perfection of a Church, and not being a Church at all. These remarks of Dr. Claget naturally lead me to notice a case which our preceding observations have not touched. What we have hitherto said refers only to such cases as those of the foreign reformed Churches, and the Church of Scotland ; not to the schismatical ordi nations performed by presbyters or others in an episcopal Church professing the orthodox faith; and if our observa tions may be considered as showing that the orders of those Churches, though somewhat irregular, are not es sentially invalid, then it will, of course, be granted by all, that the sacraments are valid as administered by them. The doctrine of " episcopal grace" we shall consider pre sently. But there is also another class of ecclesiastical commu nities, whose case certainly differs from that of those we have just been considering, namely, the Protestant Dis senters. With respect to these, the language of our op ponents is, of course, still more severe (as, doubtless, they have laid themselves far more open to censure) than con cerning the former. The Dissenters appear to be left without hesitation to the uncovenanted mercies of God, that is, (whatever our opponents may say to the contrary,) to no mercies at all ; for, if a body of men living in the ' Brief discourse conceming the notes of the Church, pp. 166-9,or Bishop GibsonsPreaervative, vol. i. Tit. 3 c 2 rm loi q j t-v cii, i i > ,-. ,. .,..,,. • ¦^"- •'¦ c. z. pp. jji — 3. and see Dean Sherlock's Vindic. of his Disc. cone, the notes ofthe Church. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. HI midst of the Christian Church, and professing to belono- to it, have acted so as to put themselves beyond the pale of all God's covenanted mercies, it is a mere evasion, for the purpose of avoiding a charge of uncharitableness, to insinuate that they may find mercy in a way that has not been promised. Let those who say this, take heed by what rule they are measuring God's covenant. This is a painful subject to discuss, nor is it pertinent to our present subject to do more than briefly touch upon it ; but whatever censures may belong to those who cause needless divisions in a Church, whatever punishment we may think it probable that God will inflict upon those among them who are of a really schismatical spirit and temper, and surely such are no trifling sins, I feel bound to protest against the doctrine of our opponents on the subject. The Tractators seem to argue thus, that because Christ ordained pastors for his Church, therefore the ministry of the word and sacraments is so exclusively in their hands, that if, by any means, they are removed, the people must be altogether without those privileges. But the latter is by no means a consequence of the former. The institu tion of pastors for the Church, is a wise, and useful, and merciful provision for the wants of the Church. It does not show that no one can do what they may do. It only provides that there shall always be some in the Church to perform certain offices, and ¦ guide the people in spiritual things. True, indeed, it follows from this, that an unne cessary interference with the duties devolving upon them by laymen, is contrary to that good order which ought to reign in the Church. Nor can it be denied that, for in dividuals to break off communion with pastors so consti tuted, under whom the providence of God had placed them, and set up pastors for themselves, except on the ground of grievous error, is an act of schisra, such as would have met with unqualified condemnation from the Apostles. But it is quite another matter to say that a certain form of Church government and pastoral qualifi- 1 12 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION cation is essentially and per se necessary, so as to be a sine qua non to union with the Christian Church. What says Hooker on this point ? " Whereupon, be cause the only object which separateth ours from other religions is Jesus Christ, in whom none but the Church doth believe, and whom none but the Church doth worship, we find that accordingly the Apostles do every where distinguish hereby the Church from infidels and from Jews ; accounting ' them which call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to be his Church.' If ive go lower we shall but add unto this certain casual and variable ac cidents, which are not properly of the being ; but make only for the happier and better being of the Church of God, either in deed, or in men's opinions and conceits. This is the error of all Popish definitions that hitherto have been brought. They define not the Church by that which the Church essentially is, but by that wherein they ima gine their own more perfect than the rest are. Touching parts of eminency and perfection, parts likewise of imper fection and defect, in the Church of God, they are infinite ; their degrees and differences no way possible to be drawn unto any certaili account. There is not the least conten tion and variance, but it blernisheth somewhat the unity that ought to be in the Church of Christ, which notwith standing may have not only without offence or breach of concord her manifold varieties in rites and ceremonies of religion, but also her strifes and contentions many tiraes, and that about matters of no small importance, yea, her schisms, factions, and such other evils, whereunto the body of the Church is subject, sound and sick remaining both of the same body, as long as both parts retain, by outward pro fession, that vital substance of truth, which maketh Chris tian religion to differ from theirs, which acknowledge not our Lord Jesus Christ, the blessed Saviour of mankind; give no credit to his glorious Gospel, and have his Sacra ments, the seals of eternal life, in derision."^ And else where, speaking more fully on this subject, he says,— ' Bk. V. c. 6S. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 113 " The unity of which visible body and Church of Christ consisteth in that uniformity, which all several persons thereunto belonging have, by reason of that one Lord whose servants they all profess themselves, that one faith which they all acknowledge, that one baptism wherewith they are all initiated." " We speak now of the visible Church, whose children are signed with this mark, ' one Lord, one faith, one baptism.' " " All raen are, of neces sity, either Christians, or not Christians. If by external profession they be Christians, then are they of the visible Church of Christ ; and Christians by external profession they are all, whose mark of recognizance hath in it those things which we have mentioned."! With regard to their orders, I freely admit that I know not how, as it respects (to say the least) most of them, they can pretend to have any regularly-ordained clergy among them. If we find that in Apostolic times the duties of the ministry were, under ordinary circumstances, and in a regularly-formed Church, only discharged by those who had received a commission deriving its authority origi nally from Christ, through the Apostles, (and the very fact of such a ministry being formed, shows that such was the case,) then I know not how we can consider any as regularly commissioned to perform the duties of the mi nisterial office, but those who are similarly ordained to it. But that this necessarily and essentially vitiates and ren ders invalid the administration of the sacraments, and all the ministerial acts performed by their pastors, our oppo nents can never prove. I have already shown^ that the testimony of antiquity is opposed to such a notion. Nor does this concession at all tend to nullify the use and importance of the sacred ministry, nor to interfere with the preservation, under all ordinary circumstances, of ec clesiastical order. The same author, Tertullian, who per mits the layman, in the absence of the ordained minister, both to baptize and administer the Eucharist, says else- ' Bk. iii. c. 1. See ihe whole context. ^ See pp. 51 — 55 and pp. 58, 59 above. VOL. II. T 114 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION where,that even the presbyter raust not baptize without the leave of the bishop. And the passage is so appropriate in this place, that I will give the reader an extract from it. "The right of giving baptism is possessed by the chief priest, who is the bishop ; then by the presbyters and deacons, but not without the authority of the bishop for the sake of the honour [? order] of the Church, which being preserved, peace is preserved. Otherwise laymen have the right ; for that which is equally received, may equally be given .... but how much raore is the dis cipline of modesty and orderly behaviour the duty of lay men, since these things belong to those above them, that they should not assume to themselves the office of episco pacy assigned to bishops. Emulation is the raother of schisras. All things are lawful to me, said the most holy Apostle, but all things are not expedient. Let it suffice that you may use the liberty in cases of necessity, as where the circumstances of the place, tirae, or person re quire it. For then the boldness of the helper is allowed, when the circurastances of a person in danger force it. Since a man will be guilty of the destruction of another, if he shall have neglected to give what he might freely have given y^ Ministration in sacred things is confined to the clergy for the sake of ecclesiastical order ; which order as it was ordained by God, so a needless infraction of it will doubt less be visited, more or less, according to circumstances, with the marks of his displeasure ; and the clergy are set ' Dandi [i. c. baptismum] habet jus summus Sacerdos, qui est Episcopus ; dehinc presbyteri et diaconi, non tamen sine Episcopi auctoritate propter Ec clesise honorem [? ordinem], quo salvo, salva pax est. Alioquin etiam laicis jus est, quod enim ex aequo accipitur ex aequo dari potest sed quanto magis laicis disciplina verecundiae et modestiae incumbit, cum ea majoribua competant, ne sibi adsumant dicatum Episcopis oiEcium Episcopatus. jEmu- latio schismatum mater est. Omnia licere, dixit sanctissimua Apostolus, sed non omnia expedire. SutRciat scilicet in necessitatibus utaris, sicubi aut loci aut temporis aut persons conditio compellit. Tunc enim constantia succur- rentis excipitur cum urget circumstantia periclitantis. Quoniam reus erit per- diti hominis si supersederit prsstare quod libere potuit. Tertull. De bapt. c. 17. pp. 230, 231. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 115 apart for that ministry, somewhat as the tribe of Levi was set apart for the service of the Temple, under the Old Testament. But that there is the same distinction between the clergy and the laity, as there was between the priests and the laity under the Old Testament, is contradicted both by Scripture and antiquity. If there is a sufficient reason to justify the people in breaking that prescribed ecclesiastical order, and sepa rating themselves from their clergy, there is no essential impediment, where the necessity of the case requires it, to their appointing some from among themselves to fulfil the ministerial function. And a sufficient reason there is, if the faith has been corrupted, and the terms of comraunion rendered sinful ; and hence, we doubt not, a secession frora the Church of Rome, had it been made by laymen only, would have been justifiable ; and the seceders fully authorized to appoint a ministry from among themselves, (if they could obtain none Apostoli- cally commissioned to join with them in their secession,) and expect the Divine blessing upon their ministrations. Such a secession would certainly have raet with the ap probation of Cyprian ;! for although in the case raen tioned in the Epistle I have referred to below, nothing perhaps took place that was uncanonical, because there were bishops at hand to countenance what was done ; yet the statements and arguments of Cyprian are general, and would certainly not have had less force, if all the neighbouring bishops had been involved in the same errors as the bishops there inculpated. Hence the culpability of such separations depends en tirely upon the circumstances under which they are made ; and such bodies, though having none among them Apo- stolically commissioned, may yet be sound parts of the Church of Christ, and much raore parts of that Church partially only defective. The consequence is, that the question of union or sepa ration is a case of conscience, in which each raan raust ' Cypr. Ep. ad cler. et pleb. in Hisp. Ep, 68. Pamel. and Fell, i2 116 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION act according to the light which he possesses. And though a man may err in his decision, and thereby even disturb the peace of the Church, and bring much evil upon himself and others, and perhaps expose himself to punishment, I should be loath to maintain that if he has acted with sincerity, and holds the fundamentals of the faith, and regulates his life correspondently, he is not a member of Christ's visible Church ; and one, moreover, who is upon the whole in a state of salvation. " The true notion of a Church," says Dean Sherlock, " is the ccBtus fldelium, or the company of the faithful, of those who profess the true faith of Christ, and are united to him by baptism." — " No Christian can separate from the Catholic Church (in this sense of it, as it signifies the whole company and family of Christians, which is the true notion ofthe Catholic Church), while he continues a Christian ; for that is a contradiction, to be a Christian and not to belong to the whole number of Christians; that is, to be a Christian, and to be no Christian : for if he be a Christian, he belongs to the number of Christians, and then he is a raeraber of the Catholic Church, and con sequently not a separatist from it. Nothing can separate us from the Catholic Church, but what forfeits our Chris tianity, either a final apostasy or such heresies as are equi valent to apostasy Schism and separation is a breach of the external and visible communion of the Church, not of the essential unity of it ; the Church is one Church still, whatever breaches and schisms there are in its external communion ; for the unity of the Catholic Church consists in the union of the whole to Christ, which makes them one body in him ; not in the external communion of the several parts of it to each other. And therefore it is not a separation from one another, but only a separation from Christ, which is a separation from the Catholic Church."! There may be one Lord, one faith, one baptism, to those who are not in external communion ' Disc. cone, the nature, unity, and comm. ofthe Catholic Church, pp. 32, 52, 53. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 117 with one another. There raay be, therefore, a spiritual relationship where, through the infirmity ofthe flesh, that relationship is not recognized, and does not issue in com munion ; just as men may be members of one family, who do not live together in friendly communion as of one family. The doctrine of our Church, therefore, on the subject of Church government, may, I hope, be fully maintained, where it is not considered to involve any such anathemas as our opponents launch against those who have sepa rated from her comraunion, or to consign any to God's " uncovenanted mercies" who are sound in the funda mentals of the faith, and of a life correspondent to their professed faith, however erroneous may be their notions of ecclesiastical polity. There is a great difference between a Church laying down necessary articles of communion for her own mem bers, which may be required for the preservation of what she considers to be important in doctrine and polity in her own communion, and her making the maintenance of those articles necessary to every Christian community as a sine qua non to their being recognized as part of the orthodox Church of Christ. For the latter, I conceive, such only should be laid down as may be considered to be points simply and absolutely fundamental and neces sary to salvation. For otherwise we unchurch those whom we dare not deny that Christ raay own as his followers ; which seeras to me worse than absurd. Here, then, I leave the case which we are now consi dering, as I have no inclination to find apologies for those needless schisms and divisions by which our Church has been rent in pieces, and the cause of Christ both here, and if here, throughout the world, seriously in jured. Let it not be supposed that in the remarks we have just offered there was any wish to throw a shield over such irregularities, or to make light of unnecessary divisions in the Church. Far from it. We believe thera to be sinful. Nay more; the evils inherent in schism and forms of Church government devised by the fancy of man are such as generally bring their own punishment 118 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION with them in this world. There is not the same stability in such communions. They are the rendezvous for men of unquiet and turbulent spirits, whose influence upon their respective communities is anything but favourable to genuine piety, and even the peace of society. They are, many of them, for the sake, as it is admitted, of non-essentials, placing irapediments to the progress of that cause which they profess to have raost at heart. Nay, from an avowed feeling of jealousy, we have seen many of them in the last few years, with a spirit of uncompromising hostility, waging war against the pri vileges of our Apostolical National Church, from which they have separated, and banding together with Roman ists, heretics, and infidels, for the purpose of overthrowing her influence, robbing her of what the piety of preceding generations has placed in her hands to enable her to pur sue the objects of her high calling, and, in a word, razing berto the ground. Surely of such we must say, in the words of Irenaeus, " God will judge those who produce schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, contemplating their own profit, and not the unity of the Church, and for the sake of small and trifiing causes, dividing and splitting into parts the great and glorious body of Christ, and, as far as in them lies, slaying it ; who have peace in their mouth and war in their acts, who in very deed strain at a gnat and swallow a camel."^ We neither agree^ therefore, with those who leave them to the uncovenanted mercies of God, nor with those who are countenancing them in their mistaken course. And it is a matter for the serious consideration of all those members of our Church who believe that God is a God of peace and order, and that unnecessary schisms = Kvaxptvei Se rovs ra axKr/iaTa epyu^o/ievovs, Kevovs ovras rr,s rov ®eov aya- ^Tis, KotrotSiop Xv^treX's o-K07rovvras,aXXa fi-n t„v evao-iv r-ns eKKX-qfias- Kat Sta iltKpas Kat ras {^ovaas [rvxovaas] airtas to /leya Kai evSo^ov trafta tou Xp-o^Tou refivovras Kat Siaipovvras, Kat d^ov to err' avrots avatpovvras- rovs eipvvvvXaXovvras,, Answer to Fisher, § 39. n. 7, 8, pp. 249, 250. ed. 1686. 122 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION Apostolical succession, and pronounced the words. Re ceive the Holy Ghost ? Such a proposition is surely too monstrous to be entertained for a moment. It follows, then, that the Holy Spirit is not always thus given through ordinations performed strictly according to the Apostolical succession. And if not, then the question is thrown open. When is it given ? And we are not to con clude that whenever raen use the words, " Receive the Holy Ghost," though they may be, in external appoint ment, successors of the Apostles, there the gift of the Holy Ghost necessarily follows. That thus the ordained have authority given them to exercise the duties and functions of the ministry without any infraction of eccle siastical order, and that God will receive the services of his people rendered through their ministrations, may be quite true, but that they necessarily receive such a gift as Mr. Keble supposes, is affirmed without evidence and contradicted by facts. I know not, indeed, how we can have any right to ex pect raore than that the Holy Spirit should give to each raan severally " as he will ;" or that we can affirm that all the declarations of our Lord and his Apostles are not fully accomplished, if, amidst all those who are admitted to the office of the ministry, the Spirit is given, in the manner spoken of by Mr. Keble, there only where God vouchsafes to give so great a blessing. I know of no promise that, whatever may be the character or conduct of the parties concerned, such a blessing shall be conferred in all cases where ordination is canonically performed. And the argument that, because our Lord promised his Apostles to be with them even unto the end of'the world, there fore he is present with all those canonically ordained by outward succession from the Apostles, is not worth an swering. To assume that our Lord in these words spake to the Apostles only srs the representatives of the pastors ofthe Church, and not as the representatives of his disci ples generally, is, to say the least, unwarranted, and to rae appears much more. And thus thought Bishop Pearson, for he has expounded the promise as one applying to the FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 123 Church at large, following moreover in this the interpre tation given to the passage by Leo and Augustine. ! Equally untenable is the notion that the gift conferred upon Timothy by the imposition of St. Paul's hands must necessarily be equally conferred by any canonical ordina tion performed now. In fact, as to Scriptural arguments for such a doctrine, there can be no pretence made to them. And, therefore, its supporters wisely take refuge in the Fathers, where. from their number, variety of sentiment, ignorance of the various controversies by which the Church would be agi tated, rhetorical and inaccurate mode of expressing them selves, some semblance of defence may be found for almost any doctrine that can be started. But we need not fear to meet them even here. And I would ask our opponents, where are the passages by which they can show that the Fathers held their notion on this point, that is, that ordination, where given through the strict Apostolical succession, ensures in all cases the gift of the Holy Spirit to abide in the ordained person for the custody ofthe fundamentals of doctrine and practice. I am not aware that such a doctrine was ever thought of by the primitive Fathers, and therefore until they have given some respectable testimony on the subject it is sufficient to meet their assertion with a denial. But, aS it appears to me, what is included and implied in this doctrine is of more consequence than the doctrine itself, and therefore to meet what seems to be implied, though not clearly expressed, in the statements of Mr. Keble on this point, I would direct the reader's attention to the following passages from some of the best of the Fathers, showing that, in their view, (1) The Apostolical succession does not secure to a Church soundness in the fundamentals of the faith, and that those who have not the latter though they have the former are to be avoided. (2) That the only absolutely essential point is doctrinal ' Pearson's Exposition of the Creed, Article ix. ed. Dobson, p. 512. 124 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION succession, or the holding the same faith the Apostles did ; and that where that faith is held, there, though perhaps labouring under irregularities and imperfections in other respects, Christ's Church is to be found, and consequently the presence of his Spirit. 1. That Apostolical succession does not secure to a Church soundness in the fundamentals of the faith, and that those who have not the latter though they have the former are to be avoided. And all impartial readers will, I think, admit that if this is the case, then the notion, that the Apostolical suc cession secures in all ordinations the gift of the Holy Spirit to abide in a person for the preservation of the fundamentals, falls to the ground, whatever nice distinc tions may be drawn to bolster it up. I begin with Tertullian, whose great argument in his Treatise " De Praescript." is, that the doctrine of the Apo stolical Churches, to which he refers against the heretics, was in all likelihood the true one, because those Churches agreed together in it, the heretics having no such argu ment to produce ; but if Apostolical succession is a sure test of orthodoxy in fundamentals, he would not have troubled himself to point to their agreement, but at once have put it upon the ground of their succession. Nay more, in this treatise he asks, " Do we prove the faith by persons, or persons by the faith ?" ! Nay, he directly affirms what we maintain, when, having spoken of the suc cession in the Churches of Smyrna and Rome, &c., he says, " Let the heretics make out anything like this Nay, even if they should do so they will have done nothing. For their doctrine when compared with the Apostolical will show from its difference and contrariety that it has neither an Apostle nor a disciple of the Apostles for its author ; for as the Apostles would not have differed from one another in their teaching, so neither would the disciples of the Apostles have preached a different doctrine to that of the Apostles, unless those who were taught by the Apostles preached otherwise than they were taught. By this test, ' Ex personis probamus fidem, an ex fide personas ? c. 3. p. 203. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. ]25 therefore, they shall be tried by those Churches which, although they can produce no Apostle or disciple of the Apostles as their author, as being of much later origin, and such indeed are daily formed, yet agreeing in the same faith are considered as not less Apostolical on account of the consanguinity oftheir doctrine." ! Thus also speaks Irenaeus, in a passage the beginning of which, abstracted from the context, has been quoted in favour of opposite views, but how unfairly any one who peruses the whole passage will at once see. " Where fore," he says, " we ought to obey those presbyters who are in the Church, those I mean who have succession from the Apostles as we have shown, who with the suc cession of the episcopate have received according to the good pleasure of the Father the sure gift of truth .... But they who are looked upon by many as presbyters, but serve their own pleasures, and do not in their hearts make the fear of God their rule, but persecute others with reproaches, and are elated with pride at their exalta tion to the chief seat, and secretly do evil, and say, ' No one seeth us,' shall be reproved by the Word. . . . From all suck it behoves us to stand aloof, and to cleave to those who, as I have said before, both retain the doctrine of THE Apostles and with the order of the presbytership [or, as others read, of a presbyter] exhibit soundness in word and a blameless conversation for the edification and correc tion of the rest." ^ Here, then, are evidently two sorts of ' Confingant tale ahquid hffiretici . . . Sed etsi confinxerint, nihil promove- bunt. Ipsa enim doctrina eorum cum Apostolica comparata, ex diversitate et contrarietate sua pronuntiabit, neque Apostoli alicujus auctoris esse neque ApostoHci : quia sicut Apostoli non diversa inter se docuissent, ita et Apostolici non contraria Apostolis edidissent, nisi illi qui ab Apostolis didicerunt aliter praedicaverunt. Ad hanc itaque formam probabuntur ab illis Ecclesiia quae licet nullum ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posteriores, quae denique quotidie instituuntur, tamen in eadem fide conapi- rantes non minus Apostolicie deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinae. i;. 32. p. 213. So further on he says, Unde autem extranei et iniraici Apostolis haeretici, nisi ex diversitate doctrina;. c. 37. p. 216. ' Quapropter eis qui in Ecclesia sunt Presbyteris obaudire oportet, his qui Buccessionem habent ab Apostolis, sicut ostendimus -, qui cum episcopatus 126 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION successors of the Apostles, and from one of them we are directed to hold ourselves aloof. Next let us hear Ambrose. " Christ," saith he, " is the only one whora no one ought under any circumstances to forsake or exchange for another." And then having bid den us seek the faith in the Church first, he adds, " in which if Christ dwells, it is beyond doubt to be chosen by us ; but if an unfaithful people or an heretical teacher defiles the place, the coraraunion of heretics is to be avoided, their place of assembly to be shunned ... If there is any Church which rejects the faith and does not possess the fundamentals of the doctrine of the Apostles . . it is to be deserted." ^ Thus also speaks Augustine ; — " We ought to find the Church, as the Head of the Church, in the holy canonical Scriptures, not to inquire for it in the various reports, and opinions, and deeds, and words, and visions of men."^ " Whether they [i. e. the Donatists] hold the Church, they must show by the canonical books of the Divine Scriptures alone ; for we do not say that we must be successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum Patris acceperunt Qui vei;o crediti quidem sunt a multis esse presbyteri, serviunt autem suis voluptatibus, et non praeponunt timorem Dei in cordibus suis, sed contumeliis agunt reliquos, et principalis coiisessionis tumore elati sunt, et in absconsis agunt mala et dicunt. Nemo nos videt, redarguentur a Verbo .... Ab omnibus igitur talibus abaistere oportet ; adhaerere vero hia qui et Apo stolorum sicut praediximus doctrinam custodiunt, et cum presbyterii [presby teri] ordine sermonem sanum et conversationem sine offensa praestant ad informationem et correctionem reliquorum. Iren. adv. haer. Hb. iv. cc. 43, 44. pp. 343, 4. ed. Grabe. ' Hie [i. e. Christus] est igitur solus quem nemo debet deserere, nemo mutare Fides igitur imprimis Ecclesia; quaerenda mandatur, in qua si Christus habitator sit, hand dubie sit legenda ; sin vero perfidus populus aut praeceptor haereticus deformet habitaculum, vitanda haereticorum com- munio, fugienda Synagoga censetur .... Si qua est Ecclesia quae fidem respuat nee Apostolicie pra;dicationia fundamenta possideat, ne quam labem ]>erfidiffi possit adspergere deserenda est. Ambros. In Luc. lib. vi. § 68. (In c. 9, V. 4.) Tom. i. col. 1399. 2 Quam [i. e. Ecclesiam] sicut ipsum caput in Scripturis Sanctis canonicis debemus agnoscere, non in variis hominum rumoribus et opinionibus et factis et dictis et visis inquirere. Contr. Donat. Ep. (vulg. De unitate eccles.) c. 19. tom. ix. col. 372. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 127 believed because we are in the Church of Christ, because Optatus of Milevi, or Ambrose of Milan, or innuraerable other bishops of our communion, commended that Church to which we belong, or because it is extolled by the Coun cils of our colleagues, or because through the whole world in the holy places which those of our communion frequent such wonderful answers to prayer or cures happen . . . Whatever things of this kind take place in the Catholic Church are therefore to be approved of because they take place in the Catholic Church ; but it is not proved to be the Catholic Church because these things happen in it. The Lord Jesus himself when he had risen from the dead . . . judged that his disciples were to be convinced by the testimonies of the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms These are the proofs, these the founda tions, these the supports of our cause. We read in the Acts of the Apostles of some who believed, that they searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so. What Scriptures but the canonical Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets ? To these have been added the Gospels, the Apostolical Epistles, the Acts of the Apo stles, the Apocalypse of John." ! Lastly, the author of the fragment of an Exposition of St. Matthew, attributed to Chrysostom, and admitted by many of the Romanists themselves to be the work of no ' Sed utrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneaut, non nisi de divinarum Scripturarum canonicis libris ostendant ; quia nee nos propterea dicimua nobis credi oportere quod in Ecclesia Christi sumus, quia ipsam quam teneraus commendavit Milevitanus Optatus vel Mediolanensis Ambrosius, vel alii innumerabilea nostra? commimionia episcopi ; aut quia nostrorum coUegarum conciliis ipsa praedicata est ; aut quia per totum orbem in locis Sanctis quae frequentat nostra com- munio, tanta mirabilia vel exauditionura vel sanitatum fiunt . , . Qua;cunque talia in Catholica fiunt ideo sunt approbanda, quia in Catholica fiunt ; non ideo ipsa manifestatur Catholica quia haec in ea fiunt. Ipse Dominus Jesus cum resurrexisset a mortuis . . . eos [i. c. discipulos] testimoniis Legis et Prophetarum et Psalmorum confirmandos esse judicavit . . . Hsc sunt caussae nostrae docuraenta, haec fundamenta, haec firmamenta. Legimus in Actibus Apostolorum dictum de quibusdam credentibus, quod quotidie scrutarentur Scripturaa an haec ita se haberent ; quas utique Scripturas nisi canonicas Legis et Prophetarum ? PIuc accesserunt Evangelia, Apostolicaa Epistolae, Actus Apostolorum, Apocalypsis Johannis. Ib.col. 37S. 128 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION mean hand, speaks thus, aud a very reraarkable passage it is ;— It is on the words, " When ye shall see the abo mination of desolation standing in the holy place, then let them which are in Judea flee to, the mountains," which our author thus expounds ;— " That is, when ye shall see the impious heresy, which is the army of Antichrist, standing in the holy places of the Church, then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains ; that is, let Chris tians betake themselves to the Scriptures The raountains are the Scriptures of the Apostles or Prophets , . . And why does he bid all Christians at that time to betake theraselves to the Scriptures? Because, at that time, when heresy hath got possession of those Churches, there can be no proof of true Christianity, nor any other refuge for Christians wishing to know the true faith, but the divine Scriptures. For before, it was shown in many ways which was the Church of Christ, and which heathen ism ; but now, it is known in no way to those who wish to ascertain which is the true Church of Christ, but only through the Scriptures. Why ? Because all those things which are properly Christ's in the truth, those heresies have also in their schism ; Churches alike, the divine Scriptures themselves alike, bishops alike, and the other orders of the clergy, baptism alike, the Eucharist alike, and everything else ; nay, even Christ himself [i. e. the same in name]. Therefore, if any one wishes to ascer tain which is the true Church of Christ, whence can he as certain it, in the confusion arising from so great a simili tude, but only by the Scriptures ? Therefore the Lord, knowing that such a confusion of things would take place in the last days, commands, on that account, that th« Christians who are in Christianity, and desirous of availing themselves of the strength of the true faith, should betake themselves to nothing else but the Scrip tures. Otherwise, if they shall look to other things, they shall stumble and perish, not understanding which is the true Church. And through this thev shall falf upon the FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 129 abomination of desolation, which stands in the holy places of the Church."! Surely he who wrote this was a prophet indeed. Well might the Roman Inquisition put this work into their Index of prohibited books ;" and rase this passage, as far as they could, by Bellarmine's own confession, out of even the MSS. 3 (2) That the only absolutely essential point is, doc trinal succession ; that is, the holding the sarae faith the Apostles did; and that where that faith is held, there, though perhaps labouring under irregularities and im perfections in other respects, Christ's Church is to be found, and consequently the presence of his Spirit. ' Id est, cum videritis hseresira impiam quae est exercitus Antichristi stan- tem in locis Sanctis Ecclesiae, in illo tempore qui in Judaea sunt fugiant ad montes, id est, qui sunt in Christianitate conferant ae ad Scripturas .... Monies autem sunt Scripturae Apostolorum aut Prophetarum . . . . Et quare jubet in hoc tempore omnes Christianos conferre se ad Scripturas ? Quia in tempore hoc, ex quo obtinuit haeresis illas ecolesias, nulla probatio potest esse verae Christianitatis, neque reiugium potest esse Christianorum aliud, volen- tiura cognoscere fidei veritatem, nisi Scripturae divine. Antea enim multis modis ostendebatur qua esset Ecclesia Christi et quae Gentilitas ; nunc autem nuUo modo cognoscitur volentibus cognoscere quae sit vera Ecclesia Christi nisi tantummodo per Scripturas. Quare? Quia omnia haec quae sunt proprie Christi in veritate, habent et haereses illae in Schismate ; similiter ecclesias, similiter et ipsas Scripturas divinas, similiter episcopos, caeterosque ordines clericorum, similiter baptismum, aliter Isimiliter or atque is evidently required by the con text] eucharistiam et caetera omnia, denique ipsum Christum. Volens ergo quia cognoscere quas sit vera "Eccleaia Chriati, unde cognoacat, in tantae confu- sionesimilitudinisniai tantummodo per Scripturas? Sciens ergo Dominus tantam confusionem renim in novissimis diebus esse futuram, ideo mandat, ut Christian! qui sunt in Christianitate volentes firmitatem accipere fidei verae ad nullara rera fugiant nisi ad Scripturas. Alioqui si ad alia re- spexerint scandalizabuntur et peribunt, non intelligentes quae sit vera Ecclesia. Et per hoc incident in abominationem desolationis quae stat in Sanctis Eccle- siffi locis. Opus Imperf. in Matth. hom. 49. Inter Chrysost. Op. Tom. 6. App. p. 204. See also hom. 43. p. 183, where he says, " Cathedra non facit sacerdotem, sed sacerdos cathedram." ' See Index Auctorum et libr. qui ab Officio S. Kom. et Univ. Inquisit. caveri ab omnibua &c. mandantur. Rom. 1559. 4to. Under letter O. De Verb. Dei, lib. iv. c. 11. Thia pasaage, also, is omitted in one, if not more, of the Romish editions of the book, viz., that printed Paria, 1557. 8vo. See James's Corruption of SS. and Fathers. Part ii. n. 2. p. 168. ed. 1688. VOL. II. K 130 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION The passages wc have already quoted, clearly show that whatever regard the Fathers had for the Apostolical suc cession, they did not hold that its presence must be any sure indication of the presence of Apostolical doctrine ; and that the former was of no value without the latter. But it may be asked. Is the latter sufficient to make men raembers of the Church of Christ without the former? It is a point on which we can hardly expect to find a definite and express decision in the early Fathers, on account of the general prevalence of the episcopal form of government. But, nevertheless, there are many passages frora which we raay fairly infer their mind on the question. " The Church," says Jerome, " does not depend upon walls, but upon the truth of its doctrines. The Church is there, where the true faith is. But about fifteen or twenty years ago, heretics possessed all the walls of the Churches here. For, twenty years ago, heretics possessed all these Churches. But the true Church was there, WHERE the true FAITH WAS."! A good answcr this, by the way, to the common question ofthe Romanists to the Protestant Churches, where their Church was before Luther. Remarkable, also, is the testimony of Gregory Nazian- zen on this subject, in his Encomium on Athanasius. Speaking of him as the successor of Mark in the epis copal throne of Alexandria, he says ; — He was " not less the successor of Mark in his piety, than in his presiden tial seat ; in the latter, indeed, he was very far distant frora him ; but, in the former, he is found next after him ; which, in truth, is properly to be considered succession. For to hold the same doctrine, is to be of the same throne ; but to hold an opposite doctrine, is to be of an opposite throne. And the one has the name, but the other the reality of > Ecclesia non parietibus consistit, sed in dogmatum veritate. Ecclesia ibi est, ubi fides vera est. CiEterum ante annos quindecim aut viginti, parietes omnes hie ecclesiarum hajretici possidebant. Ante viginti enim annos omnes ecclesias has hajretici possidebant. Ecclesia autem vera illic erat, ubi vera fides erat. Hikron. in Psalm. 133. (Heb. num.) v. 1. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 131 succession. For not he who has come in by force, but he who has been forced in, is a successor ; nor he who has violated the laws, but he who has been advanced legally ; nor he who holds an opposite doctrine, but he who is of the same faith. Unless any one can thus call himself a successor, he succeeds as sickness to health, as darkness to light, as a storm to a calm, and as madness to intelli gence."! So the author of the commentary on Matthew above quoted says, — " Where the faith, there the Church is . . . but where the faith is not, there the Church is not." ^ And again ; — " He does not seem to go out of the Church who goes out bodily, but he who spiritually deserts the fundamentals of ecclesiastical truth. We have gone out from them [i. e. the heretics, whoever they were, who, he tells us, then possessed the Churches] in body, but they from us in mind. We have gone out from them in respect of place, they from us in respect of the faith. We have left with them the foundations of the walls, they have left with us the foundations of the Scriptures. We have gone out from them to human eyes, they from us in the judgment of God." ^ " Christ," saith Ambrose, " did not deny to his dis- ' Ouk TjTTOi/ ttjs evtrefieias -i] irpoeSptas SmSoxos' ttj nev yap -iroXXotrros a-ir' eKetvov, TT) Se evBvs fier' eKeivav evpuTKerat, riv 8t) koi Kvptas imoXrfTrreov SidSoxrjv. To fiev yap b/wyvafiov Kat bfioBpovov to Se avriSo^ov Kai avriBpavov. Koi t] fiev -irpoB-nyoptuv, Tl Se aX-iiBeiav exet SiaSoxns. Ov yap b ^laaafievos, aXX' i fitatrBeis StaSoxos, ovSe b -irapavofiniras, aXX' i -npoPXriSets evvofias- ovSe 6 ravavria So^a^av, aXX' 6 r-ris outtjs -iricrreas. Ei /ir; ovra rts Xeyoi SiaSoxov, as vamv vytetas, Kat (faiTos o-KoTos, KOI fa\r)i' yaXrivris, Kat avveaeas eKsraaiv. Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. in Athanas. I quote it from the Benedictine edition of the works of Athanasius, tom. i. p. xciii. = Ubi est fides, illic est ecclesia ubi autem fides non est, ibi nee ecclesia est. Opus Imp. in Matth. hom. 6. Inter Chrya. Op. tom. vi. App. p. 61. ' Non enim ille de Eccleaia exire videtur qui corporaliter exit, sed qui spi- ritualiter veritatis ecclesiasticae fundamenta relinquit. Nos enim ab illis exivimus coi-pore, illi autem a nobis animo. Nos ab illis exivimus loco, illi a nobis fide. Nos apud illos reliquimus fundamenta parietum, illi apud nos reliquerunt fundamenta Scripturarum. Nos ab illis egressi sumus secundum aapectum hominum, illi autem a nobis secundum judicium Dei. Ib. hom. 46- p. 195. k2 132 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION ciple the favour of this name, [i. e. rock,] that he also may be called Peter, having, like the rock, unshaken constancy, even a firm faith. Strive, therefore, that thou also mayest be a rock. Therefore, seek the rock, not out of thyself, but within thyself . . . Thy rock is faith, the foundation of the Church is faith. If thou shalt be a rock [i. e. have firm faith] thou shalt be in the Church, for the Church is on the rock." ! Before I pass on, I would here point out to the notice of the reader, that in the appeal we make, in our contro versies with the dissenters on some of the points we have been considering, to the records of the primitive Church, there is no inconsistency with our rejection of tradition as a certain witness of the oral teaching of the Apostles, however loudly we may have been accused of it. Our arguments against the dissenters in these matters do by no raeans, as they are charged with doing, " recoil and wound ourselves," nor " fall to the ground." ^ They are as consistent with our general views as they are in them selves valid and conclusive. The principle upon which our Church acts in this matter appears to me to be of the most simple and intelligible kind. In matters of pure doctrine she requires belief in nothing which is not, in her view, clearly testified in Scripture, while she appeals to the writings of the early Christian Fathers as affording a tes timony strongly confirmatory of her interpretation of Scripture. In matters relating to rites and usages, for all that she puts forward as intrinsically necessary, she refers to Scripture as the proof of their being divinely or Apostolically appointed ; and, as in the last case, points to the records of the early Church as affording confirma- ' Discipulo suo hujus vocabuli gratiam non negavit ; ut et ipse sit Petrus, quod de petra habeat soliditatem constantiae, fidei firmitatem. Enitere ergo ut et tu petra sia. Itaque non extra te sed intra te petram require . . . Petra tua fides est, fundamentum Ecclesia: fides est. Si petra fueris, in Ecclesia eris, quia Ecclesia supra petram est. Ambros. Expos. Luc. lib. vi. § 98- (In c. 9. V. 21.) Op. tom. i. col. 1407. Eyre's Reply to Churton, pp. 112, 116. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 133 tory evidence to the validity of the proof derived from Scripture; and in other points, where she refers to the practice of the orthodox primitive Church as a justification of her usage, she points to it only as a Justification of it, and not as if the fact of their observance in the primitive Church rendered them intrinsically necessary ; but a suffi cient justification and recommendation of those rites she does consider the usage of the Apostolically primitive Church to be, because it cannot fairly be supposed that they would have been generally observed at that very early period if they had been unaccordant with the spirit of true Christianity, and consequently, that not only was she justified in requiring their observance, but dissenters were not justified in making such matters a ground for ^ separation. But that our opponents and the Romanists are incon sistent with themselves, may be very easily shown. For they put forward the statements of a few Fathers as giving of themselves sufficient evidence ofthe Apostolical origin and authority of various doctrines and practices not re corded in Scripture. I ask, then, why they do not receive some which we have already proved! to have that evidence in their favour, as for instance, besides doctrines, the fol lowing practices, namely, standing at prayer on Sundays, and during the period between Easter and Whitsuntide, the threefold immersion in baptism, and infant com munion ? It would be easy to add others to the list, but these may suffice here.^ Our opponents will perhaps reply to these cases, that we cannot give sufficient evidence of antiquity, univer sality, and consent; and they may save themselves the trouble of proving it, for we grant it at once, not dream ing of being able to prove in any matter what everybody always everywhere said or did respecting it ; and all we ' See Vol. I. pp. 409, et seq., particularly pp. 421-4. " See Basil, or Pseudo- Basil, De Spir. Sancto, c. 27 i and Morton's Cath. App. ii. 26. § 10, pp. 324, 5. 134 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION ask in return is, that they shall strike off their list of " Apostolical relics " all that have no better evidence, and we shall then have very little left to dispute about. We now come to the points purely doctrinal for which it is said that we are indebted to tradition. Here, then, at the outset, we must remark, that if our reasoning hitherto has been correct, it follows, that if these doctrines depend upon patristical tradition, theyare not binding upon the conscience, inasmuch as they have no sufficient evidence that they are a part of revealed truth. But we must not pass them over without notice ; and to the two latter, as more peculiarly belonging to the con troversy raised by our opponents, I shall have to call the reader's especial attention. The first is the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. To discuss this doctrine fully, and show the precise meaning of the language of the Fathers respecting it, would require far more space than we can here allot to it. Nor is it at all necessary in this place, for, after the ob servations of Dr. Pusey respecting it, it is somewhat extraordinary to see it so adduced. For Dr. Pusey thinks that it is " the obvious meaning of Scripture," and says that " with one who loved his Saviour he should be content to rest the question upon one passage,'' namely, John iii. 5. (Preface to Tract on Baptism, p. vii.) If, then, it is so clear in Scripture, it does not rest upon " tradition," and therefore certainly can bene proof of the necessity of tradition, or the imperfection in any sense of Scripture. Upon Dr. Pusey 's own showing, then, it has no place in the question we are now discussing. I shall only add, that by those who think that it is not clearly provable by Scripture, it is at least not maintainable as a certain truth, a truth of which we have sufficient evidence that it was divinely revealed. In the case of infant baptism, which was a point re ferring to ecclesiastical ^Jracitice, we might, perhaps, infer FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 136 with safety, from the statements of the early records of the Church, that infant-baptism was practised in the Apostolically-primitive Church, and hence that the Scrip tural doctrine of baptism included infants as its subjects; but the point in question is one of pure doctrine, referring to the spiritual and unseen effects of baptism, and there fore differently circumstanced. The difference between the two cases is apparent ; for, to give an instance, our opponents on the one hand, and those who take the Calvinistic view of the subject on the other, would both be equally trustworthy witnesses of the fact, that the Church of England prac tised infant baptism, while nevertheless, on this doctrine of baptismal regeneration, they are altogether disagreed as to what is the doctrine of that Church, which shows how different is the validity of such testimony, where the practice of the Church is concerned, and where doctrines are concerned. The next instance given is, — The virtue of the eucharist as a commemorative sa crifice. These words, however, require further explanation to show the meaning in which they are used ; for though from the connexion here maintained between " the virtue of the eucharist," and its being a sacrifice, one might perhaps infer the doctrine intended, yet the word sacri fice is used so variously, and may in some sense be so pro perly applied to the eucharist, that it is necessary to ascer tain more fully what is meant by the words used. In the 81st ofthe " Tracts for the times," then, (which IS on this subject, and professes to give a Catena of English divines favourable to the views of the Tractators,) the doctrine is thus stated. Admitting that there are in our Church-services but " slight indications" of the doc trine, which the writer ingeniously attributes to " the ' disciplina arcani ' of the Anglican Church " (!), though he thinks that the placing it so out of sight was to " tam per ' with " the Apostolic deposit of sound words," he avers that " our Church retains" " the doctrine of a 136 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION sacrifice in the Blessed Eucharist," (p. 2.) which, in a sense, nobody disputes, and then adds this description of it. " It may be well, however, in these days, before going further, to state briefly what that doctrine is ... . The doctrine, then, of the early Church was this; that ' in the Eucharist an oblation or sacrifice was made by the Church to God, under the form of his creatures of bread and wine, according to our blessed Lord's holy institu tion, in memory of his cross and passion;' and this they believed to be the ' pure offering ' or sacrifice which the prophet Malachi foretold that the Gentiles should offer ; and that it was enjoined by our Lord in the words, ' Do this for a memorial of rae ' ; that it was alluded to when our Lord or St. Paul speak of a Christian ' altar,' (St. Matt. V. 23 ; Heb. xiii. 1 0,) and was typified by the Passover, which was both a sacrifice, and a feast upon a sacrifice.! This coramemorative oblation or sa crifice they doubted not to be acceptable to God who had appointed it; and so to be also a means of bringing down God's favour upon the whole Church. And if we were to analyze their feelings in our way, how should it be other wise, when they presented to the Almighty Father the sym bols and memorials of the meritorious death and passion of his only begotten and well beloved Son, and besought him by that precious sacrifice to look graciously upon the Church which he had purchased with his own blood — offering the memorials of that same sacrifice which he, our great high priest, made once for all, and now being entered within the veil, unceasingly presents before the Father ; and the representation of which he has commanded us to make? It is, then, to use our technical phraseology, ' a comme morative impetratory sacrifice' The Eucharist, then, according to them, consisted of two parts, a • com memorative sacrifice,' and a ' communion,' or communi cation; THE FORMER OBTAINING REMISSION OF SINS FOR THE Church ; the communion, ' the strengthening and I This is a mere repetition ofthe arguments of Dr. Hickes, in his " Chris tian Priesthood asserted," and Johnson, in his " Unbloody Sacrifice." FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 137 refreshing of the soul,' although, inasmuch as it united the believer with Christ, it indirectly conveyed remission of sins too. The communion was (to use a modern phrase) the feast upon the sacrifice thus offered .... As being, moreover, appointed by their Lord, they believed that the continual oblation of this sacrifice {like the daily sacrifice appointed in the elder Church) was a benefit to the whole Church, independently and over and above the benefit to the individual communicants — that the sacri fices in each branch of the Christian Church were mutu ally of benefit to every other branch, each to all and all to each .... Lastly , . . they felt assured that this sacrifice offered hy the Church on earth for the whole Church, conveyed to that portion of the Church which had passed into the unseen world such benefits of Christ's death as {their conflicts over, and they in rest) were still applica ble to them;" such benefits being supposed to be, among others, " additional joys and satisfactions." (pp. 4 — 7.) And the time when this sacrifice is offered up is, after the consecration of the bread and wine, when they may be considered more peculiarly to represent the body and blood of Christ, the act of placing the bread and loine upon the Table being distinguished as an oblation of these elements to God, for the purpose of their being afterwards used for the sacrifice, (pp. 35, 36.) And the sacrifice is madevby the priest in a strictly sacerdotal capacity, for the follow ing language is quoted with approbation,—" the Church of England .... considering the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to be a feast upon a sacrifice, to constitute it such, makes that which is feasted upon first a sacrifice, by having it offered up by a priest." (p. 53.) These extracts (it will, I suppose, be allowed) give a fair representation of the doctrine of our opponents ; and while it is admitted that some portions of them may be understood in a good sense, from the different way in which the terms employed have been applied, (which has enabled the author of this tract to make a parade of authors as maintaining it who would have abhorred his & 138 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION doctrine,) the doctrine here taught is clearly this,— That besides an oblation of the elements, as bread and wine, to serve the purpose of making a memorial of Christ's sacrifice, there is in the eucharist, properly celebrated, a second oblation, or solemn offering up to God of the elements, to be made after the act of consecration has given them the character of symbols of Christ's body and blood ; ! and this second oblation is a true and proper sacrifice to be raade by the rainister in a strictly sacer dotal character; and by this sacrifice is obtained (not, indeed, by its intrinsic merits, but the raerits of that sa crifice which it represents) reraission of sins for the whole Church, and some additional refreshment to the souls ofthe dead in the intermediate state. Remission of sins is thus obtained for the Church through the priest offering up to God as a mediator and intercessor between God and the people, a sacrifice com memorative of the sacrifice of the cross, just as was the case in the expiatory sacrifices under the Old Testament.^ And the " communion " is no part of the sacrifice, but only a feast upon the sacrifice, and remission of sins is obtained for the whole Church without it, although, " in asmuch as it unites the believer with Christ, it indirectly conveys remission of sins too." Such is the doctrine which our opponents maintain to be the doctrine of the Church of England derived to us from " tradition," or the unanimous consent of antiquity ; and I most willingly admit that we should look for it in vain in ' Thus Collier, the Nonjuror, says, — " The word oblations in this prayer [the prayer for the Church militant] means no more than the offering ofthe unconsecrated bread and wine ;"' but " the eucharistic oblation," he says, " is the offering of the consecrated elements, the sacramental body and blood of our Saviour, in memory of his sacrifice and passion." See Shepherd on the Common Prayer, vol. ii. p. 193. 2 Hence it is here represented as a true and proper propitiatory sacrifice, (as it was called by Johnson, the Nonjuror,) that is, as much so as any of the sacrifices of the Old Testament ; though, from its being only instrumentally and not intrinsically propitiatory, aa an instrument for applying the merits of that sacrifice of Christ of which it is commemorative, the word is sometimes objected to ; and it is called only an impetratory sacrifice, that is, one which obtains for man mstrumentally the benefits of that sacrifice which it represents. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 139 Scripture. And when the Tractator comes to speak of the Romish doctrine as distinct from the Anglican, he makes the difference to consist merely ^ in the doctrine that in the mass Christ is as truly and really sacrificed as he was upon the cross, " that Christ himself is again offered." So that by his own statements his doctrine on this subject would appear to be, what indeed it is, the Romish doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass, that is, as far as concerns the offerer, the mode of offering, and the effects produced. To prove his doctrine to be that of the Anglican Church, he has introduced in this Tract a long Catena of extracts from English divines, claimed by him as main- tainers of this doctrine. To notice this Catena in full does not fall within our present limits, but it is impossible to dismiss it without a remark, and by the fidelity and trust worthiness of this Catena we may judge of the value of our opponents' statements respecting the Fathers. The Tractators are quite aware how little ecclesiastical studies have prevailed until very lately among the great majority, and they have largely availed theraselves of the supposed superficial knowledge of the generality on such subjects, and their want of acquaintance with the works of our great divines, and would fain lead us to suppose that the views of such men as Brett, Johnson, and Hickes, were the views of all our best theologians, though, in the subject before us more especially, they have, I suspect, gone beyond what some even of these authors would have been inclined to maintain, for it is a vastly different thing to maintain the propriety of the elements being solemnly offered up to God after their consecration as a sacrifice commemorative of the sacrifice of the cross, and to con nect with such oblation the doctrine which our opponents connect with it. Such an attempt will, I trust, meet only vvith the success it deserves. But alas' ! such views are so gratifying to the pride of human nature in the clergy, ' He adds, that they have corrupted the true doctrine by the error of pur gatory, but that is a distinct question. 140 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION that it is not to be wondered at if they should find many supporters. We have already observed that there are senses in which the word sacrifice may very properly be applied to the eucharist. The whole action of the eucharist is a sa crifice of thanksgiving, and such " sacrifice of praise," (Heb. xiii. 15,) as being a sacrifice of the heart, is one more acceptable to God than any material or external oflering. Moreover, the elements themselves may be called a sacrifice to God, not as things offered up as a propitiatory sacrifice to God, but as things given and set apart for the service of God.! Thus Cyprian rebukes the wealthy for coming to Church " without a sacrifice," and "taking part of the sacrifice which the poor offered ;" " it being customary then for the bread and wine to be brought by the communicants. So also the consecrated elements raight be called a sacr'Ace figuratively, as they represent and symbolically set forth the sacrifice of Christ ; although it is evident, from the deductions of our opponents from such language, that it is inconvenient and dangerous phraseology, however harmless in its original use and signification. Hence the doctrine maintained by any writer must be gathered, not frora the bare use of certain terms, but from the meaning attached to them in his writings. In this Tract, however, we have a vast heap of names and extracts strung together without the slightest notice ' Waterland seems to object to the word sacrifice being at all applied to the elements, and hence opposes the notion of any material sacrifice in the eucharist, but if sacrifice be understood in the larger sense of the word, so as to include even the oiferings of prayer and praise, as Waterland himself uses it, I see not why we should not allow the bread and wine used in God's ser vice to be so called. The reader will observe, that in that sense of the word sacrifice, in which alone it is applicable under the Christian dispensation, it is only equivalent to the word oblation ; and the two, therefore, are used indis criminately by the Fathers. ° Locuples et dives es, et dominicum celebrare te credis, quae corbonam omnino non reapicis, quae in dominicum sine sacrificio venis, quae partem de sa- crificio quod pauper obtulit sumis ? Cypr. De op. et eleemos. circ. med. Ed. Pamel. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 141 of the different senses in which the word sacrifice has been used by them, or ofthe difference of doctrine in those who have used alike certain words and names, and find Hooker and Johnson the Nonjuror placed side by side so as to lead the unsuspecting reader to suppose that the " sacrifice" of the one was precisely the same as the " sacrifice" of the other ; and in fact, whatever divines have used the word sacrifice in connexion with the eucharist seem to have been forthwith set down (with few exceptions) as sup porters of the Tractators' view of " the Eucharistic sa crifice." Now the writer of this Tract (if at least he is as learned as the professions ofthe Tractators would lead us to sup pose) must have been perfectly aware that many of the authors whora he has here quoted would have utterly re pudiated and reprobated the views of which he here quotes them as supporters. I will just give one instance by which the reader may judge of the fidelity and value of this Tract. The third author quoted in this Catena, as supporting the views of our opponents on this question, is Hooker, and the proof is, that in one place he has said that the cup serveth for a sacrifice of thanksgiving. Now so far is Hooker from supporting the views of our op ponents, that he distinctly says, not far from the passage quoted, — " Seeing then that sacrifice is now no part of the Church ministry, how should the name of priesthood be thereunto rightly applied ? Surely even as St. Paul ap- plieth the name of flesh unto that very substance of fishes which hath a proportionable correspondence to fiesh, although it be in nature another thing The Fathers of the Church of Christ with like security of speech call usually the ministry of the gospel priesthood, in regard of that which the gospel hath proportionable to antient sacrifices, namely the communion of the blessed body and blood of Christ, although it have properly now no sacrifice ... in truth the word presbyter doth seem more fit and in propriety of speech more agreeable than 142 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION priest with the drift of the whole gospel of Jesus Christ." (v. 78.) With this passage before him the author of this Tract has placed Hooker upon his Catena for their doc trine of the sacrifice of the Eucharist ; a passage which Waterland, who is accused by the Tract writer (p. 51) of taking too low a view of this doctrine, (he, in fact, denied in toto that for which our opponents are contending, viz. a material sacrifice in the bread and wine) charges with going too far, and wishes to understand in a limited sense, as Mr. Keble is aware, as he has quoted it in his edition of Hooker, in a note on the passage, (vol. ii. p. 601.) And after Hooker, and others equally opposed with him to the 'views of our opponents, come such men as Brett and Johnson and Hickes, whose views are so notoriously op posed to those ofthe great majority of our divines, and even of those quoted in this Catena, and whose meaning, therefore, when speaking of the sacrifice in the Eucharist is so different to that of others who raay have used the same term on the subject, (a terra used and insisted on by Beza himself, * and to which in some sense not a creature objects^ that one can only say that if the writer of the Tract in question is as learned as we are taught to sup pose, he raust be a bold man. In so speaking, indeed, I am suppressing nine-tenths of the feeling with which every candid mind must view the matter. But, as the author of this Tract is well aware, the matter is so entangled by the different meanings affixed to the terms used, and by the controversial writings of most of our divines on the subject having been replies to Romanists, and consequently mixed up with the question of transub- stantiation, that it is difficult to show, by a few brief ex tracts, what the doctrine of our divines on this subject was ; clearly as it may be seen in their works, taken as a whole. To those works, therefore, I must, for want of space, be content here to refer the reader ; and the case ' See Waterland's Christian Sacrifice explained. Works, vol. viii. p. 161. FULLY revealed IN SCRIPTURE. 143 of Hooker, already given, may show him the need of such a reference.! That our Church, in her public services, gives any countenance to the doctrine here maintained, is, as we have seen, all but given up. And it is curious to observe the way in which the Tractator attempts to get over this difficulty. In the first prayer-book of Edward VI., there was inserted in the prayer of consecration, after that which now remains, an address to God, in which our opponents hold thatthe consecrated elements were offered up to him in that sacrificial way for which they plead ; which, in the revised prayer-book, was omitted ; and a part which followed it was ordered, as now, to be used as a distinct prayer after the communion. For this alteration, which, if the views of our opponents are correct, involves a vital departure frora the instituted mode of celebrating the ordinance, (for, by this sacrifice so omitted, remission of sins is obtained for the Church,) our opponents are, of course, driven to their wits' end to find a reason consis tent with the supposition that our Church, in her services, and our Reformers who drew thera up as they now stand, maintain their views. And accordingly all is attributed to the weakness of Cranmer in listening to foreign advisers, and, at their instigation, half suppressing (for, of course, it would not do to allow that it was wholly suppressed,) the doctrine of the sacrifice, and leaving the commu nion service in this vitally defective state ; in which state, be it remernbered, our divines for three centuries have been content to leave it. But the Tractator thinks that " the restoration of the communion table [on the accession • It is through the variety of senses attached to the words used, that the Tractator gets over that passage in our Homilies, in which we are exhorted to " take heed lest of the memory it be made a sacrifice." The meaning of this paaaage, to an ordinary reader, and especially one acquainted with the language of our services, would seem plain enough. But the Tractator, by aaauming that the ivriter ofthe homily meant by aacrifice, the real sacrifice supposed in transubstantiation, interprets this paasage to mean that we must take heed lest of a commemorative sacrifice it be made a real sacrifice, such as transubstan tiation would make it. See Tract 81. pp. 43, 4. 144 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION of Queen Elizabeth] to the place which the altar had formerly occupied, showed that the Church recognized the doctrine which some of her heads had before shrunk from avowing in the presence of the foreign Reformers, and their disciples," (p. 19,) though this was, he admits, but a half avowal, (p. 20.) And hence Edward VI.'s first book is called " the genuine English service book." (p. 23.) And we are told that the revisers of our Liturgy " con fined the verbal act of the sacrifice to the single prayer which followed after the consecration," (p. 12,) that is, the prayer after the communion ; so that the act of sa crifice now takes place after the sacrifice has been con sumed. If this is the half that reraains of the doctrine of the sacrifice in our service, the reader will not, probably, be disposed to think it the better half. And our Trac tator seems sometiraes of the sarae opinion ; unless it is by a slip of the pen that he has written, (speaking of the alterations raade in the revision of the Prayer-book,) " All the beginning of the forra of oblation was omitted . . . The remainder ' entirely desiring,' &c. was placed (mu tatis mutandis) after the delivery of the elements, and consequently when their presence could no longer sanction in any mind the idea of the actual offering up of Christ" and therefore, I suppose, not of any emblematical offering up of Christ; for the transposition affected one as rauch as the other, (p. 31.) But our Tractator will have it, that " that portion of the prayer of consecration, which has been transposed and placed after the ¦ actual communion," is an " indication of the doctrine of the sacrifice ;" for " the sense must remain the same, although its meaning is less visible, on account of its being disconnected from the actual visible elements, except so far as a portion of THE consecrated ELEMENTS STILL REMAINS UPON THE ALTAR, whence it is recorded that Bishop Overall used it before the participation, as it was at first." (pp. 35, 36.) ! So that although the eleraents raay be all consumed when the prayer is uttered, this only makes the reference of ' See also Tract 90. p. 60. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 145 the prayer to a solemn offering up of thera to God, " less visible ;' and perchance, adds the Tractator, there raay be " a portion of the consecrated elements still remaining upon the altar," so that it may be considered as an offer ing up of these unconsumed fragments ; and so much does the service indicate this view, that Bishop Overall was obliged to break the rubric, and alter the service, to make it do so. Such is the plain English of this passage. Alas Ifor the shifts to which the love of a theory will drive men ! The reader will observe, also, that all this is maintained in the face of an acknowledged omission of the only part in the first prayer-book that had any direct reference to the oblation or sacrifice contended for ; and the retention of that part only that refers to the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, which is directed to be said, as if to put the meaning out of all question, after the communion is over. The only other argument that I can find adduced in proof of the retention of the doctrine of the sacrifice in our present service, (taken, that is, frora the service itself,) is that " the prearable in the prayer of consecration" " im plies the sacrifice," because it speaks of our continuing '' a perpetual memory" of Christ's precious death, (p. 35) ; which we are to understand as signifying, contrary to the obvious meaning of the words, and contrary to the very significant omission of the sacrificial part of the service, that commemorative sacrifice for which our opponents con tend. This arguraent I leave with the reader. Our Church countenances no such sacrifice of the con secrated elements to God ; but in the place of it, the offering up, by faith, of the true sacrifice of the cross upon the altar of the heart, in our prayers and praises, while we receive outwardly and corporally the emblems of that sacrifice ; emblems which, in the case of every faithful worshipper, are accompanied with a direct spiri tual infiuence and blessing, uniting the believer with Christ the Head. It would have been much more to the credit of the Tractator, if he had fairly allowed, with his own witness, VOL. II. L 146 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION Mede, that there was no such sacrifice countenanced in our Church service. Mede, indeed, fairly adraits, not only that there is no such sacrifice (for he does not seem to plead for such a sacrifice,) but that our Church did not, at that tirae, distinctly recognize any sacrifice at all ; and the character of the oblation or sacrifice, for which he contends, is clearly shown, when he says that, " in deed and effect we do it, so often as we set the bread and wine upon the holy table ; for, whatsoever we set upon God's table, is, ipso facto, dedicated and offered unto him ;"! and so much, perhaps, the word " oblations," afterwards in troduced,^ in the prayer for the Church militant, may appear to sanction ; but this would be far from counte nancing the doctrine of our opponents, which can be satisfied with nothing less than an oblation ofthe elements after consecration, when they have been set apart as sa- cfaraentally the body and blood of Christ ; and thus are considered to be available, when offered by a priest, for the remission of the sins of the whole Church.""°~And so again, he says elsewhere, " There is nothing wanting to make this sacred epulum, of which we speak, full out a sacrifice, but that we show. That the viands thereof were first offered unto God; that so being his, he raight be the Convivator, Man the conviva, or the guest. And this the antient Church was wont to do ; this they believed our blessed Saviour himself did, when, at the institution of this holy rite, he took the bread and the cup into his sacred hands, and looking up to heaven, gave thanks and blessed. And, after his example, they first offered the bread and wine unto God to agnize him the Lord of the creature, and then received thera frora him again in a banquet, as the symbols of the body and blood of his Son."3 But this sacrifice is one of a very different kind to that which our opponents would introduce. And when he afterwards speaks of Christ being offered in the Eucharist commeraoratively, he explains himself to mean ' Tr.ict. p. 122. Works, p. 376. 2 At the review in 1661. ^ Works, pp. 372, 3. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 147 that, " by this sacred rite of bread and wine, we repre sent and inculcate his blessed passion to his Father ;" ! by which words, and his language elsewhere, it is evident that he means that, by the whole Eucharistical act, we represent Christ's passion to the Father ; not that the mi nister offers up, as a priest, the consecrated bread and wine as a propitiatory sacrifice to the Father. And this clearly follows from the laudatory way in which he has quoted the following passage from Perkins. " The ancient Fathers used to call the supper of the Lord, or the whole action of the supper, a sacrifice ; and that for divers reasons . . . Because it is a commemoration and also a repre sentation unto God the Father of the sacrifice of Christ offered upon the cross .... In this sense the faithful, in their prayers, do offer Christ as a sacrifice unto God the Father for their sins, in being wholly carried away in their minds and afiections unto that only and true sa crifice, thereby to procure and obtain God's favour to them ;" to which Mede adds, " That which every Chris tian doth -mentally and vocally, when he coraraends his prayers to God the Father, through Jesus Christ, making mention of his death and satisfaction ; that in the public service of the Church was done by that rite, which our Saviour comraanded to be used in coramemoration of him."2 By which he evidently means that it is done in the public service, not by the priest merely, but by all present ; not as if this sacrifice was a propitiatory sacrifice to be offered only by the priest, to obtain remission of sins for the people, distinct from the communion to be parti cipated in by the people. The doctrine of Mede, there fore, is at least very different to that of the Tractators on the subject. Accordingly we find that our opponents' friend and chosen witness. Dr. Brett, very distinctly charges the Church of England with a vital omission in her eucharistic service. I will transcribe some of his observations on ' Chap. 9, p. 376. ' Mede's Works, pp. 365, 366. 148 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION this matter, and commend his fair and open dealing to the attention and imitation of the Tractators. " I wish," says Dr. Brett, " where he [i. e. Johnson] could have shewed us where theChurchof England has appointed such an oblation of the sacramental body and blood of Christ, as he speaks of, .... or that she has not wilfully and designedly omitted it. That it is omitted in the com raunion office of the Church of England, is evident to all that are acquainted with that Liturgy ; and that it was not casually, but wilfully, left out there, is no less evident, be cause not only in the Roman Canon . . but also in the first reformed Liturgy of King Edward VI. there was such an oblation immediately following the words of insti tution .... but in the second Liturgy of King Edward, and ever since, this prayer (that is, what the second re formers thought fit to leave of it) has been removed to the post-communion, that it might not be used till after the elements were distributed and consumed .... The words ' to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving' . . as they are now placed in the post-coraraunion can by no means be applied to the material elements. For it is absurd to pretend that we may offer to God that which is not, or present to him that which we have eaten and con sumed This omission and transposition could not be made otherwise than with design. Consequently, the Church of England has wilfully and designedly omitted to make the oblation of the sacramental body and blood of Christ ; and therefore, according to what Mr. Johnson says, she is without excuse as to this matter If it be but a very great defect, it ought to be corrected ; and if it is an essential one, it is of fatal consequence. And surely it is essential if it be what our Saviour did and commanded us to do, as Mr. Johnson has proved it is, and the very words of institution teach us, and the practice of the whole Church, from the Apostles' days to the Reformation, has been agreeable thereto."! ' Brett's Collection of ancient Liturgies. Dissert, pp. 119 22. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 149 How far our opponents agree in reality in these views, may be seen in Mr. Fronde's Remains, Mr. Newman's Letter to Dr. Fausset, and Mr. Keble's Preface to Hooker. By Mr. Froude it is said that our present com munion service is " a judgment on the Church," and that there would be gain in " replacing it by a good transla tion of the Liturgy of St. Peter" (a euphemism for the mass book); by Mr. Newman, that our reformers, in not adopting "the Canon of the mass," which is called a " sacred and most precious monuraent of the Apostles," " mutilated the tradition of 1500 years," and that " our pre sent condition is a judgment on us for what they did ;"! and by Mr. Keble, that our reformers, in their revision of the Prayer Book, have " given up altogether the ecclesiasti cal tradition regarding certain very material points in the celebration, if not in the doctrine, of the Holy Eucharist."^ And yet, notwithstanding this, they publish a Tract, in which they endeavour to prove that our Communion ser vice raay be explained so as to be consistent with their views, and claim all the best of our English divines as supporters of them ! I now proceed to the question whether the doctrine of our opponents on this point, is that of the Scriptures or the priraitive Church. In this doctrine are contained the four following pro positions : — 1st. That, the bread and wine, after consecration, are to be offered up to God by the minister, as a sacrifice com memorative of the sacrifice of the cross. 2dly. That the minister performs this act in a strictly sacerdotal character. 3dly. That by this sacrifice so offered by a priest, remis sion of sins is obtained for the whole Church. 4thly. That by this sacrifice so offered an additional ' Newman's Lett, to Dr. Fausset, 2nd ed. pp. 46, 7. » Pref. to Hooker, p. 62. 150 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION refreshment is obtained for the souls of the dead in the intermediate state. All these four propositions, then, we maintain to be contrary to the testimony of Scripture and the earliest Fathers. 1st. That the bread and wine, after consecration, are to be offered up to God by the minister, as a sacrifice cora memorative of the sacrifice of the cross. Whether there is any intrinsic evil in such an oblation of the elements, is not here the question. That the bread and wine, after that they have obtained by conse cration a peculiar character, as things set apart as em blems of Christ's body and blood, should be solemnly offered up to God as a memorial, as it were, to God of the sacrifice of the cross, may not be in itself an improper act. And by this act, the body and blood of Christ might be said to be offered up, that is figuratively and symboli cally, which is the only way in which they could be offered up by elements which, as the Fathers testify, are still bread and wine. And this was perhaps done by some in the fourth century, but was done simultaneously and cor respondently, as far as the succession of tirae would admit, with that act of the heart by which the true body and blood of Christ — the true sacrifice ofthe cross — were spiri tually offered up to the Father in prayers and praises, as the only propitiation for our sins ; which spiritual sacri fice is that which at all times is, as it were, the soul of the service, and that upon which its value altogether de pends. But though the offering up of the consecrated symbols may not be in itself improper, yet there are ob jections to it, and our Church has thus judged. We have not either the testimony of Scripture, or of the primitive Church, in its favour. And there is no inconsiderable danger, as I think facts teach us, that this external offer ing made through the hands of the rainister, may be sub stituted for that spiritual offering up of the sacrifice of the cross upon the altar of the heart of each individual, upon FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 151 which the value of the service to the individual commu nicant wholly depends. Nay more ; as we have no autho rity for so doing, it is an act which appears to savour strongly of presumption. First, as it respects Scripture. The Tractator tells us that the Fathers declare " that it [the sacrifice] was enjoined by our Lord in the words ' Do this for a memorial of me.' " I suppose he means Father Bellarmine and such like, for he will find, I sus pect, no others ; nor is it necessary to do more than place before him the observations of his own witness. Bishop Morton, not far from the passage he has quoted on this point. " To this purpose, he [i. e. Bellarmine], as others, insisteth upon the same words, hoc facite, saying, that ' Christ offered a sacrifice, and commanded it to be offered certainly in these words, hoc facite, do this, where the word hoc, this, doth demonstrate that which Christ did in the supper, viz., to sacrifice himself.' Which is so empty and pithless a proof that their own Jansenius, as it were, despairing of the issue, doth say that ' notwithstanding this sacrifice cannot be effectually proved by this text of hoc facite, yet may it be proved by tradition.' Which causeth us to admire our adversaries' vain pretences who profess to expound Scriptures according to the consent of antient Fathers, and yet now their greatest doctor. Car dinal Bellarmine, when he contendeth for their great Diana, the Roraish sacrifice of the Mass, and would prove it out ofthe words hoc facite, doth not out of all the cata logue of antient Fathers, cite any one that we find who interpreteth facite to be sacrificate. JVeither indeed can it be so enforced: for as their Cardinal Jansenius truly noteth, the pronoun hoc, this, ' is to be referred not only to the taking of the eucharist, but unto all those particu lars which Christ is said forthwith to have done; as namely, the taking bread, giving of thanks, blessing, and breaking, &c.' "! ' Morton's Catholic Appeal, ii. 7. §§ 10,11. pp. 177,8. I would oomraend the whole of this chapter to the attention of the reader, and also his Treatise 152 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION "The plea from hoc facite," says Dr. Waterland, "when first set up, was abundantly answered by a very learned Romanist; I raean the excellent Picherell, who wrote about 1562, and died in 1590. Protestants also' have often confuted it, and the Papists themselves, several of them, have long ago given it up. The other boasted plea drawn from the use of the present tense, in the words of the institution, has been so often refuted and exposed, ^ that I cannot think it needful to call that matter over again in an age of so much light and learning."^ So that in these words at lea.st we have no intimation of any such sacrifice. " Ofthe Institution ofthe Sacrament ofthe body and blood of Christ," or aa it was styled in the second and enlarged edition of 1652, "Of the Lord's Supper ;" for though, from his controversy being with those who held the doctrine of Tran substantiation, his observations are not all strictly applicable to our present sub- ¦ ject, yet they evidently include a defence of the view for which we are here con tending. "¦ As for the Protestants," he says, " they, in their divine and public service, do profess Christ the Son of God to be the only tr-ue priest of the New Testament ; who, being God and man, was only able to work in himself pro pitiation with God for man ; and hia sacrifice once offered upon the crosa to be the all and only sufficient sacrifice for the remission of sins ; which [i. e. -which sacrifice of the cross'] by an eucharistical and thankful commemoration (according unto the acknowledged tenour of antient Liturgies, 'for all the faithful, whether martyrs, patriarchs, prophets, or Apostles,' and all saints) they present unto God as an effectual propitiation, both for the quick and the dead ; by the which prayers [so that the prayers offered by the heart are the commemoration outwardly betokened by the bread and wine] they apply the same propitiatory sacrifice unto the good of all that are capable.'" (Cath. App. ii. 7. § 18. p. 188.) Here, then, we clearly see that the true altar recognized by Bishop Morton, is the altar of the heart, from which, in the sacrifices of prayer and praise, Christ is oflfered up to the Father as an eff'ectual propitia tion, and his effectual i^ropitiation is off'ered up by the communicants not only for themselves, but for the whole Church, including also even the dead, so far as to intercede for their future happy resurrection and possession of the pro- raised inheritance, the only prayers for them which, as Bishop Morton himself tells -us, in the following chapter, (§ 2. p. 190,) pure antiquity sanctions. ' J. Forbes, p. 616. Morn. p. 212. Salinas, contr. Grot. p. 444. Alber- tin. p. 498, 509. Morton, b. vi. c. 1. p. 390. Townson, p. 276. Brevint, Depth and myst. p. 128. Payne, p. 9 &s. Pfaff. p. 186, 220, 259, 269. 2 Picherell, p. 62, 1 38. Spalatens. p. 278. Mason, p. 614. Morton, b. vi. c. 1. p. 394. Albertin. p. 74, 76, 78, 119. J. Forbes, p. 617. Brevint, p. 128. Kidder & Payne. Pfaff. p. 232, 233. " Appendix to Christian Sacrifice, Works, vol. 8. pp. 194 5. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 153 That " the early Church" held that the Eucharist was " alluded to when our Lord or St. Paul speak of a Chris tian altar (St. Matt. v. 23: Heb. xiii. 10)", cannot be proved by anything bearing the appearance of patristical consent, so that even Bellarmine hiraself admits that it cannot be so urged,! ^mj affirms that the Apostles and writers of the New Testaraent, by the special guidance of the Holy Ghost, purposely forbore to insert in their writ ings the name of an altar -^ and the passage in the He brews is generally interpreted as referring to the altar of the cross, a phrase which Waterland has shown to have been in coramon use with the Fathers.^ But even if it could, (and some of the Fathers have given that interpre tation,) we reply with their own witness on this subject. Bishop Morton, " Grant that altar doth as naturally and necessarily infer a sacrifice as a shrine doth a saint, a father a son ; yet so, as to distinguish when these things are properly and when improperly so called ; knowing that the table of the Lord being called improperly an altar can no more conclude a sacrifice properly understood, than when as St. Paul calleth Titus, his son according to the faith, (which is improperly,) a man may contend that St. Paul was his proper and natural father, which is, accord ing to the fiesh."4 Now, we grant that the Lord's table may be called im properly an altar, on several accounts, and therefore, the raere use of the word proves nothing in favour of the doctrine of our opponents. For though it may be quite true that according to their notion the altar is only im properly an altar, yet it is also true in our view ofthe sub ject, and therefore, the mere name proves no more for their view than for ours. And we readily admit that these words, altar, priest,- sacrifice, were used in the Church at a very early period, though not perhaps at the earliest. Bellarmine himself states that the first Chris tians abstained from the use of such words up to the time ' De raisa. lib. 1. c. 14. = Ib. c. 17. ^ Works, vol. 8. p. 211, 12. " Cath. App.ii. 6. § 1. p. 162. 154 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION of Tertullian ;! and hence Bishop Morton justly observes, " If, therefore, some Protestants, calling to mind the tem perance of the primitive age, which, as is confessed, ab stained from the names of priesthood and temples,— we add that which we have proved, and from altars,— have raisliked the liberty of succeeding Fathers for alteration of the phrase, they are not herein to be judged adversaries, but rather zealous eraulators and favourers of true anti quity ."^ But it appears to me, I confess, both difficult to deter mine any precise period at which the use of the woi'd altar to express the communion table arose, for it certainly appears to have been used by Ignatius, and also a matter of indifference. For all that we are concerned with is, whether the name was used properly or improperly.^ And that it was used only metaphorically, seems to me capable of easy proof, from this simple and undeniable fact, that when Celsus and others accused the Christians of not having any altars, they admitted that they had none, and justified the fact, as we learn from Origen, Minutius Felix, and Arnobius.* But our opponents will perhaps say. True they denied that they had altars, but then they meant only such altars as received bloody sacrifices, and not such altars as we contend for. Let us observe, then, in what words Origen makes this denial. To the charge of Celsus on this head, Origen replies, " He sees not that our altars are the mind ' De cult, sanct. lib. 3. c. 4. = Cath. App. ii. 6. § 2. p. 164. '¦> " Howbeit," says Bishop Jewell, " the old learned Fathers, ais they often- tiraes delighted themselves with these words, Sabbatum, Parasceve, Pascha, Peniecoste, and such other like terms of the Old Law, notwithstanding the ob servation and ceremony thereof were then abolished and out of use ; even so likewise they delighted themselves oftentimes with these words, sacerdos, altare, sacrificium, the sacrificer, the altar, the sacrifice, notwithstanding the use thereof were then clearly expired, only for that the ears of the people, as well of the Jews as of the Gentiles, had been long acquainted with the same." Jewell's Reply to Harding, art. 17. Works, p. 410. 1 Orig. c. Cels. viii. § 17. Op. ed. Ben. i. p. 755. Min. Felix in Octav. § 32. Arnob. adv. Gent. vi. & vii. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 155 of each of the righteous, from whence are sent up truly and spiritually incense offerings of sweet savour, even the prayers that proceed from a pure conscience."! This pas sage, then, completely concludes against such an answer as we have supposed, namely, that they denied that they had altars only because their sacrifices were not bloody, and therefore their altars only improperly called altars, because then this distinction would have been drawn by Origen ; but, on the contrary, he admits the charge fully, and replies that our hearts are our altars, showing that the true sacrifice in the eucharist was the offering up of Christ upon the altar of the heart, in our prayers and praises. And the same answer is made to Julian upon a similar occasion by Cyril of Alexandria.^ Further, so far from the Fathers believing that such a sacrifice was " the ' pure offering' which Malachi fore told that the Gentiles should offer," we have the clearest evidence that they understood the passage in a different sense, even when they made it refer directly to the eucharist. This may be seen in the passage already quoted above from Justin Martyr,^ where, after referring to this very passage, he describes the sacrifices in these words : — " That therefore both prayers and thanksgivings made by the worthy are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifices to God, I also affirm. For these alone Christians have been taught to perform, both for a memorial of their food, both as to meat and drink, and one in which a com- raeraoration is raade of the passion which God [the Son] of God suffered for thera." Here, then, it is distinctly stated, with reference to this passage of Malachi, that the only sacrifices ofiered to God in the eucharist were those of prayer and thanksgiving. * Ovx ^P^v, brt fiafioi fiev etotv rifiiv rov eKaffrov twj/ SiKatav ryyefioviKov, a-nfiei \€7W(/, afi-nv. To Se afa)v, tij EjSpaiSi ((laivi), to yevoiro a-t]ptaivet. Evxapiar-n- cravrns Se rov Tipoeoraros, Kat eTrev(jrfifuaavros -Kovros rov Xaov, oi KaXovfievoi Trap' Tjfitv SiaKovoi StSoaa-iv eKacrra tmj- Trapovrav jieraXa^etv airo rov evxapiarri- Bevros aprov Kat oivov Kat vSaros, Kat rots ov Trapovatv airotjiepova-i. Apol. 1. §65.pp. 82,3.ed. Bened. ' Ib. § 67. p. 83. ' See pp. 157, 158 above. m2 164 ¦ THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION place after their consecration. For had it been so, this would have been more especially and peculiarly that part of the office which had the sacrificial character, as our opponents (justly according to their view) represent it to be, whereas Irenseus expressly represents the sacrificial part of it, as far as concerns any sacrifice of the elements themselves, to consist in the oblation of the bread and wine AS the firstfruits of God's creatures, in order that they may be applied to the purposes of the eucharist, and speaks of this as the sacrifice of the New Testament re ferred to by Malachi ; while Justin Martyr and Tertullian overlooking generally any material sacrifice in the eucha rist, place the sacrifice wholly in the prayers and thanks givings that are offered up, even that offering up of the true sacrifice of the cross to God upon the altar of the heart, which is presented by every faithful worshipper when receiving the outward memorials of that sacrifice. The breaking of the bread and the pouring out of the wine that take place in the comraunion are a commemora tion of the sacrifice of the cross, and this act of commemo ration, in which every communicant partakes, when ac companied with faithful thanksgivings for the sacrifice it represents, is an acceptable sacrifice to God. We deny not, therefore, be it observed, that there is a sacrifice offered to God in this part of the service, but it is a sa crifice of personal service, not of the elements, and per formed by every communicant, and although that per sonal service consists partly in outward actions, its far more important and essential part is in the feelings of the heart towards God. A better statement of the whole question can hardly perhaps be found than is given by our opponents' own witness Bishop White. " Touching the name and title of sacrifice, our Church giveth the same to the holy eucharist ; and that not only in respect of certain pious actions annexed unto it, to wit, prayer, thanksgiving, alms, &c.— Rom. xii. 1. 1 Pet. ii. 5. — but in regard of the eucharist itself; wherein first the outward elements FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 165 of bread and wine receiving the calling of God (Iren. 1. 4. c. 34.) are made sacred and appointed to divine worship, 1 Cor. xi. 26, and become instruments of grace to men. Secondly, the body and blood of Christ, present to the SOUL, are, by the faith and devotion of the pastor and people which receive these mysteries, presented and tendered to God, with request that he will vouchsafe for the merit thereof to bestow grace and remission of sins, and other benefits upon them.'" ! That any argument should be derived by our opponents from the word sacrifice being used with reference to the eucharist is on the face of it absurd, because the word is constantly used by the Fathers in a sense wholly spiritual, and signifying only prayers or offerings of the heart. This we have already seen in several instances, which are the more pertinent to our present subject, as having an espe cial reference to the eucharist, but of general instances it would be easy to add many more. " We sacrifice" says Tertullian, " for the safety of the Emperor, but to our God and his, and in the manner in which God hath di rected, namely, with pure prayers." ^ "A good spirit, a pure mind, a sincere conscience . . . these," says Minu- cius Felix, " are our sacrifices, these are God's sacred offerings." ' And so indeed is the word frequently used by the Apostles in the New Testament. * And Bishop Morton has shown that this word is also used with respect to baptism, adding, " Wherefore by this analogy between these two sacraments of baptism and the eucharist, we may conclude out of the testimony of St. Augustine, recorded by their antient schoolman Aquinas, ' F. White's Orthodox Faith and Way to the true Church explained. With Works of John White, p. 158. ' SacrificarauB pro aalute Imperatoris, sed Deo nostro et ipaius, sed quo modo prfficepit Deus, pura prece. Ad. Scap. c. 2. p. 69. See also his Apologet. c. 30.' Bonus animus et pura mens et sincera conscientia .... haec nostra sa crificia, hac Dei sacra sunt. Min. Fei. De idol, vault, ed. Oxon. 1678. p. 9S. * See Eom. xii. 1. Phil. iv. 18. Heb. xiii, 15, 16. 1 Pet. ii. 5. 166 THE christian religion ' that signs are called by the names of those things which they do represent, as for example, of the painted image of Cicero we use to say, this is Cicero. And so the celebra tion of this sacrament which is a representation of Christ's passion, the true immolation or sacrificing, is called an immolation." ! The application, therefore, of this word sacrifice to the eucharist by the Fathers proves nothing in favour of our opponents. If, then, the testimony of Scripture, and of the earliest Fathers, is opposed to the notion of such a sacrifice as our opponents contend for in the eucharist, the other three propositions are answered in this. But we must not pass them over without notice, for in them lies the poison of the whole doctrine. That there should be such a sacrifice raade in the eucharist, is a raatter which, though far from unimportant, is comparatively of little moment. That such a doctrine as that of our oppo nents should be held respecting it, is a raatter of vast raoraent, embracing as it does sorae of the worst errors of the Romish system. It is maintained, then, secondly, that the minister per forms this act in a strictly sacerdotal character. This notion has been already completely overthrown by the testimonies of Tertullian and Justin Martyr, ad duced in a forraer page, to which I refer the reader.'* In these passages Tertullian and Justin Martyr assert, with particular respect to the sacrifice of the eucharist, that all Christians are priests to God. It thence clearly follows, that in the eucharist the minister is but the guide and leader of the devotions of the people. It is worthy of observation, that the word used to describe the Levitical priests, {kpevg,) is never used in the New Testament for the ministers of Christ, but wherever it is used it is ap- 1 Cath. App. ii. 7. § 8. pp. 173, 4, and see his Treatise of the Lord's Sup per, ed. 1652. ^ See pp. 52, 54, above. ' fully revealed in scripture. 167 plied generally to the whole body of believers.! Nor is the term so applied by the Apostolical Fathers or Justin Martyr. One passage only occurs in their genuine re mains that has ever been thought of as an instance, namely, in Ignatius,^ where Pearson, Smith, and Mark- land understand it of Levitical priests, and in Jacobson's view rightly. I know not, indeed, how any raan can read the Epistle to the Hebrews, and persevere in maintaining such a notion as that which we are here opposing. The Apostle in that Epistle seems with studied assi duity to impress upon our minds the fact, that with us there is but one sacrifice and one priest, a sacrifice all prevalent for the full remission of sins, and a priest who being eternal, for ever liveth to present it, and make intercession for us ; and that, consequently, every true Christian has, at all times, a sacrifice and a priest to pre sent it for him to God, without the intervention of any other person or thing whatever.^ And the service of the eucharist differs only {as far as tke act of worship in it is concerned) frora the private services of the Christian in his closet, from its being accompanied by certain external acts, indicative and expressive of our thankful remem brance of and faith in the sacrifice of the cross, in which the minister does nothing but as the hand and voice of the whole assembly, as all pure antiquity bears witness. And further, we may remark, that St. Paul, when speaking of the ministers of the Old and New Testament, describes the former as " they which wait at the altar," and the latter as " they which preach the gospel," * a distinction very different to what he would have drawn had he held the views of the Tractators. And so far is Hooker, whom our opponents have quoted as a maintainer of their views, from supporting ' Eev. i. 6 ; v. 10 ; and see 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9. ' KaXot Kai oi iepets. Ad Philad. § 9. ' See particularly Heb. vii. 23—28. viii. 1, 6. x. 19—22. * 1 Cor. ix. 13, 14. 168 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION thera in this, that he distinctly says, (as already quoted,) " In truth the word presbyter doth seera raore fit, and in propriety of speech more agreeable, than priest, with the drift of the whole gospel of Jesus Christ,"! which he never would have said had he held our opponents' views, but merely drawn the distinction which they draw be tween the Levitical priest and the Christian priest, as the one offering bloody and the other unbloody sacrifices, and not have given up the appellation altogether, and substi tuted presbyter for it. Not, indeed, as I have already intiraated, that the use of such a word is a raatter of any great raoraent, because we hold, with Hooker, that there is no reason why " the very name of altar, of priest, of sacrifice itself, should be banished out ofthe world." " For," adds that judicious writer, " though God do now hate sacrifice, whether it be heathenish or Jewish, so that we cannot have the same things which they had but with impiety ; yet unless there be some greater let than the only evacuation of the Law of Moses, the names themselves raay (I hope) be retained without sin, in respect of that proportion which things established by our Saviour have unto them which by him are abrogated ; and so throughout all the writings of the antient Fathers we see that the words which were do continue ; the only difference is, that whereas before they had a literal they now have a metaphorical use, and are as so many notes of remerabrance unto us, that what they did signify in the letter is accomplished in the truth. "^ And we say with Archbishop Whitgift, — " I am not greatly delighted with the narae, [i. e. priest,] nor so desirous to maintain it ; but yet a truth is to be defended. I read in the old Fathers, that these two names, Sacerdos and Presbyter, be confounded. I see, also, that the learned and the best of our English writers, such, I mean, as write in these our days, translate the word Presbyter ' See pp. 141, 2, above. = Eccl. Pol. bk.iv. cll. fully revealed in scripture. 169 so ; and the very word itself, as it is used in our English tongue, soundeth the word Presbyter. As heretofore use hath made it to be taken for a sacrificer, so will use now alter that signification, and make it to be taken for a mi nister of tke gospel. But it is mere vanity to contend for the name when we agree of the thing." ^ So that with respect to " the thing" the Archbishop agreed with his opponent, Cartwright. And in another place he says, — " I suppose it [the word priest] cometh of this word presbyter, not of sacerdos, and then the matter is not great." ^ The word priest, therefore, has been freely used by our divines, not merely as the English for presbyter, but in the same sense as iepevQ and sacerdos got into use among the Fathers, namely, as significative of that office under the New Testament, that corresponds (as far as the genius of the two Dispensations admits) to that which the priests held under the Old, just as the words altar and sacrifice may be used to denote those things which have a sort of correspondence with those that were so called under the Old Testament.' I will only add here, on this head, a passage of Cy prian, where the phraseology seeras to rae clearly to show that the people were considered as much sacrificers as the priest. " When," says Cyprian, " we corae together with the brethren and celebrate the divine sacrifices with Gods priest, we ought to be raindful of modesty and disci pline."* Would this language have been used, if the sa crifice was offered only by the priest ? Would it have been used under the Old Testament ? Moreover, I shall show, under the next head, that even at a subsequent pe riod, when the custom of the post-consecration sacrifice ' Whitgift's Def. of Answ. to Admon. p. 722. » Answ. to Adm. in Def. of Answ. p. 721. See, also, Davenant. Determ. q. 13. p. 62. ed. \K ' See Bishop Mant's Expos, ofthe Ordination services, in his Notes on the Common Prayer. ' Quando in unum cum fratribus convenimus, et sacrificia divina cum Dei sacerdote celtbramus, verecundiae et disciplinae memores esse debemus. Cypr. De orat. Dom. prope init. ed. Col. 1617. p. 156. 170 the christian religion appears to have prevailed, still the people were considered as much the sacrificers as the priest. It is raaintained, thirdly, that by this sacrifice, so offered by a priest, remission of sins is obtained for the whole Church.! So that faithful laymen have nothing to do but to pay a priest for offering the sacrifice, or, as the Romanists would speak, for saying mass, and they have remission of sins. That their hearts should, by prayer and thanks giving, offer up in that eucharist the true sacrifice of the cross to God for their pardon, is no instrument in the ira- petration of that pardon. No ; the priest is the mediator and intercessor between God and the people ; and by his act in sacrificing, and not through any act of theirs, re mission of sins is obtained for them. And thus the Christian minister set apart for the sake of the good order and well-being of the Church, to lead the devotions of ' If any of my readers have any doubt as to the correctness of the repre sentation I have here given of the doctrine of our opponents, I would advise them to refer to a little treatise lately re-published at Oxford, written by " J. Scaudret, Priest ofthe Church of England," entitled, "Sacrifice the divine service ;" in which the author tells us that " the true and proper sense" of " the word soAirifice," is " to signify and express araong ua the oblation of the Chriatian Church, which the priest makes at the altar, aa the great work of his high office and place, to render God propitious to man." (p. 43.) " So vain are some in their expressions of this kind, as to ascribe to prayer our com munion with God, which one would think that every Christian should know to be had mily'hj our partaking ofthe great Christian oblation." (pp. 50, 51.) " Does the Christian priest," he asks, as of an absurd notion, "at the Chris tian altar olfer the great oblation, as personating the Christian congregation ?" (p. 57.) " The sacrifice of the priesthood is prevalent, above all things in this world, to render God propitious to them." (p. 63.) " They [the Biahopa and priests] unite God to us, and us to God, by appearing between both with the sacrifice of peace." (p. 64.) " The pardon of sin is the work of God, and of Jesus Christ as our Priest and Sacrifice in the truth ; and of his substitute priests under him, by making ihe appointed demand thereof, even by bringing into God's presence the prevailing sacrifices of his Son in the commanded re presentations thereof." (pp. 126,7.) "The oiferings and remission of sin, which earthly priesta do make and procure to us . . . As it [i. e. remission of sins] was to be had under the Law, by the Law sacrifices, so under the Gospel, by the new oblation of the New Testament." (p. 194.) " The great Christian sacrifice does take away sin, as the Jewish sacrifices did under the Law." (p. 199.) FULLY revealed IN SCRIPTURE. 171 the people, and preside over their assemblies for public worship, and exhort them to their spiritual duties, is turned into a sacrificing priest, making an atonement for the sins of the people ; and the offering up of the conse crated elements by him to God, is a true propitiatory sa crifice, by which, instrumentally, remission of sins is ob tained for the Church. The Tractator has not even qualified his statements by the limitation which Harding himself admitted, in his controversy with Jewel, namely, by the words " where there is no stop nor let to the con trary, on the behalf of the receiver."! I will give him, however, the full credit of meaning what he says to be un derstood with such a limitation ; and we will suppose, fur ther, that it is not the mere sacrificing act performed by the priest, but the act, as accompanied by intercessory prayer ; (though I suspect that in this I am granting our oppo nents more than they would ask for;) and what does it amount to ? That the faithful obtain remission of their sins, mediately and instrumentally, through the sacrifice performed by the priest, aye, even ex opere operato. And hence it is that this part of the service is performed by some of those who have embraced these views in the true Romish style ; that is, as if the people bore no part in it. "Now, in this doctrine is contained the very essence of the Romish corruption of the true faith on this point. For it is here broadly maintained that remission of sins is obtained for men, by a priest celebrating the eucharist ; nay, as we shall see presently, that the dead, whose sins committed after baptism, we are told elsewhere, remain uncancelled till the day of judgment, and may, till then, he visited upon them in the intermediate state, may, by a priest celebrating the eucharist, obtain an increase of joy and refreshment ; amounting, in fact, to a remission of the punishment of sin. The consequence is, that the eucharist becomes a true propitiatory sacrifice, available even for those who do not partake of it ; and men obtain remission of sins, not through their own faith and repent- ' Jewel's Answ. to Harding, Art, 20. .Works, p. 437. 172 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION ance, and prayers, and conformity to the ordinances of Christ, but through the sacrifice commemorative of Christ's sacrifice, made by a priest in the eucharist. If this is the case, then are the private masses of the Church of Rome both useful and laudable ; while, never theless, I beg to ask, with Bishop Jewel, where we can find " any one sufficient sentence out of any old Catholic doctor or father, or out of any old General Council, or out of the Holy Scriptures of God, or any one exaraple of the primitive Church, whereby it may clearly and plainly be proved that there was any private mass in the whole world at that tirae, for the space of six hundred years after Christ?"! ^j^^ we further ask, with hira, where we can find any such testimony for the proposition, " that it was then lawful for the priest to pronounce the words of consecration closely, and in silence to himself;"^ which, though our opponents do not, perhaps, actually do, because they might, in the Church of England, be called to account for it, yet might be done upon their principles,^ (I leave others to ascertain whether it is not actually done sometimes, by the adoption of a manner which has the same effect,) or " that it was then thought a sound doctrine to teach the people that mass, ex opere operato, that is, even for that it is said and done, is able to remove any part of our sin.''* For a full reply to these three propositions, and over whelming evidence against them, both from Scripture and Fathers, I refer the reader to Bishop Jewel's inva luable " Reply to Harding."* Of these three propositions, we say with him ; — Ofthe first, that in rejecting it, " we rest upon the Scriptures of God, upon the authority of the ancient doctors and Coun- ' Eeply to Harding, Art. 1. Works, p. 1. » Eeply to Harding, Art. 16. Works, p. 402. 3 As Thomas Aquinas says, " The oblation and consecration belong only to the priest [which is the view of our opponents] and therefore the words be spoken in silence, as nothing pertaining to the people." P.S. q. 183, as cited by Jewel, in reply to Harding, Art. 16. p. 407. " Eeply to Harding. Art. 20. Works, p. 437. * See Art. 1,16 and 20. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 173 cils, and upon the universal practice of the most famous cities and Churches of the world ;"! of the second, that it " hath been only received in the Church of Rome, and no where else, and that only for a time, and not frora the beginning ; and therefore mere particular, and no way universal, and so not Catholic ;" that it is " utterly void of any show, either of the Scriptures, or of the old Coun cils, or antient Fathers, or of any manner antiquity ;" and is " against S. Ambrose, against S. Augustine, against S. Chrysostom, against Leo, against his own Clemens, against the whole primitive Church, both Greek and Latin, and against the decrees and traditions of the Apostles '"^ and of the third, that " to ascribe felicity or remission of sin, which is the inward work of the Holy Ghost, unto ANY MANNER OUTWARD ACTION WHATSOEVER, is a superstitious, a gross, and a Jewish error."^ Now, it is very possible that our opponents, like Hard ing himself, will strenuously deny that this last proposition exhibits their view. When their view is made to stand forth in its naked deformity, they will, like Harding, beg the reader to turn away his eyes from it, until they have clothed it in garments which shall conceal its real shape ; and, in the art of thus clothing their doctrines, it raust be admitted that they are adepts. " It is Christ only," saith Harding, indignantly, " and none other thing, that is able to remove our sins ; and that hath he done, by the sacri fice of his body once done upon tbe cross." What can be more orthodox ? Again, « Christ, in his flesh cruci fied, is our only sacrifice, our only price, our only redemp tion, whereby he hath merited to us upon the cross, and with the price of his blood hath bought the remission of our sins ; and St. John saith, ' he is the propitiation for our sins.' . . . And this, not for that it is offered of the priest in the mass specially ; but for that he offered it once himself, with shedding of his blood upon the cross, for the redemption of all. Which oblation, done upon ' Reply, Art. 1. p. 71. ^ Eeply to Harding, Art. 16. p. 409. 3 Ib. Art. 20. p. 442. 174 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION the cross, is become a perpetual and continual oblation ; not in the same manner of offering, but in the same virtue and power of the thing offered. For, since that time, the same body of Christ appearing always before the face of God in heaven, presenteth and exhibiteth itself for our reconciliation ; and likewise it is exhibited and offered by his own commandment, here in earth, in the mass, where he is both priest and sacrifice, offerer and oblation, verily and indeed, though in mystery, and by way of coramemo ration, that thereby we may be raade partakers of the re conciliation performed, applying the same unto us, (so far as in this hehdlf man may apply) through faith and devotion, no less than if we saw with our eyes presently his body hanging on the cross before us, and streams of blood is suing forth. And so it is a sacrifice in very deed propi tiatory, not for our act or work, but for kis own work already done and accepted. To this only we must ascribe rerais sion and reraoving of our sins." " If the term mass be taken for the act of the priest, in respect of any his only doing, it is not able to remove sin. For so we should make the priest God's peer, and his act equal with the passion of Christ, as our adversaries do unjustly slander us. Yet hath the mass virtue and effect in some degree ; and is ac ceptable to God, by reason of the oblation of the sacrifice, which, in the mass, is done by the offerer, without respect had to Christ's institution, even for the faithful prayer and devotion of the party that offereth, which the School- doctors term ex opere operantis. For then the oblation seemeth to be most acceptable to God, when it is offered by some that is acceptable. Now the party that offereth is of two sorts. The one offereth immediately and per sonally ; the other offereth mediately, or by mean of another and principally. The first is the priest that con- secrateth, offereth, and receiveth the sacrament, who so doth these things in his own person, yet by God's autho rity, as none other in so offering is concurrent with hira. The party that offereth mediately or by mean of another and principally, is the Church militant, in whose person FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 175 the priest offereth, and whose minister he is in offer ing. For this is the sacrifice of the whole Church. The first party that offereth, is not always acceptable to God, neither always pleaseth hira ; because oftentimes he is a sinner. The second party that offereth, is evermore acceptable to God, because the Church is always holy, beloved, and the only spouse of Christ. And in this respect, the mass is an acceptable service to God, ex opere operantis, — and is not without cause and reason called a sacrifice propitiatory; not for that it deserveth mercy at God's hand, of itself, as Christ doth, who only is, in that principal and special sort, a sacrifice propitiatory ; but for that it moveth God to give mercy and remission of sm, already deserved by Christ. In this degree of a sacrifice propitiatory, we may put prayer, a contrite heart, alms, forgiving of our neighbour, &c."! Now the only difference in this explanation, and that which our opponents could offer, is this, that Harding held the corporal presence of Christ in the sacrifice, while our opponents only admit a sacraraental presence in it, (as, indeed, they confess that this is their only difference with the Romanists,) but the effect ascribed to the per formance of the sacrifice by the priest is the same. Now of this effect only Jewel is here speaking ; and of this effect so ascribed to it he says, that it is " a superstitious, a gross, and a Jewish error." His was not a mind to be deceived by all these fine words of Harding. He looked to the latent tenet which was concealed under all these plausible and delusive phrases. It was held by the Romish Church, and it is held by our opponents, that by the sacrificial act of the priest in the eucharist, remission of sins is obtained (whether me diately, or indirectly, or in whatever particular way they choose to say, I stay not to inquire) for the whole Church ; and such a notion was, in Jewel's estimation, " a super stitious, a gross, and a Jewish error." But it will be said. Do you then deny that the service of the eucharist is, in any sense, propitiatory on behalf of ' See Jewel's Reply to Hard. Art. 20. Works, pp. 437 440. 176 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION the Church ? To such a question I must reply more at length than by a direct affirmative or negative, for neither would convey any precise meaning. I deny altogether that the mere offering up of the consecrated elements as a sacrifice to God is a propitiation for the sins of the Church, (which is what our opponents maintain.) I deny, also, that the mere celebration of the eucharist is necessarily thus propitiatory, because it might be cele brated without any intercessory prayers for the whole Church, and still be valid to the coraraunicants. Its pro pitiatory nature depends upon the prayers offered in it. And I am far from denying that the intercessory prayers offered upon such an occasion may have a propitiatory effect with God in behalf of those for whom they are offered. But it is very far from being a consequence of this that the celebration of the eucharist with intercessory prayers for the Church, and the remission of sins to the Church, are like cause (call it mediate, or instrumental, or what you will, but still cause) and effect, so that where one takes place the other follows as a necessary effect. The propitiatory effect to be expected in this case is of the same kind as that which may be expected from inter cessory prayer generally. And hence to attach remission of sins for the Church as a necessary effect and conse quent upon the celebration of the eucharist, (even though we substitute for the notion of the priest's sacerdotal prayers the prayers of the whole body of communicants,) is most unwarrantable, and directly leading men to a neglect of this sacred ordinance in their own persons, when they suppose that remission of sins is obtained for them by the acts or prayers of others. This is necessarily, and is proved by experience to be, the practical effect. But for the exaltation of the priest this no doubt is a most important doctrine. And in the Church of Rome no other doctrine has been so useful for filling the coffers of the Church ; and I fear that it would be far from un charitable to suspect, with Bishop Morton, that the earnestness of their cry in favour of this their great Diana, is not a little attributable to the " no small gain" FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 177 unto the craftsmen, especially when we find them main taining that it is " not so available for many as if it be applied to one alone," (a craft;y expedient for an almost infinite multiplication of them,) and that " when the -priest taketh a stipend of Peter, with a condition that he shall, by his intention, apply the mass unto him for the good of his soul ; and yet peradventure shall not intend it unto Peter's soul, but unto Paul's, or to his own ; yet, notwith standing his compact with Peter, the blessing of this sacrifice shall be extended according to the priest's inten tion." " This," says Bishop Morton, " might be thought to be no small happiness of their priesthood, (if yet in a perfidiousness or simony there could be any happiness,) wherein, by virtue of their sacrifice, the priest, even iu doing an injury, is notwithstanding made capable of a double benefit, as namely, a stipend from man, and a blessing from God."''- This doctrine respecting the priest's intention, I take it for granted that our opponents repudiate ; and I will only add my regret that they should make such old friends as these two doctrines part company, and not rather have let them travel on together till they both met their just reward. But to return. In what way, then, it may be asked, are the benefits of this service to be obtained by indivi duals ? We reply. Simply and solely by their own act, when, coming to this holy service in faith and repentance, they receive the bread and wine as the symbols of the body and blood of Christ, in thankful remembrance of his death; and, in the sacrifices of prayer and praise, offer up spiritually upon the altar of their hearts the true body and blood of Christ, the true sacrifice of the cross, as an atonement for their sins, and the foundation of all their hopes. And here lies tbe great and most important point of distinction between our views and those of the Tractators. ' Cath. App. ii. 7. § 15. pp. 185, 6. VOL. II. N 178 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION They hold that it is by the sacrificial offering up of the consecrated bread and wine to God, in the office of the eucharist, that the priest obtains instrumentally remission of sins for the communicants and the whole Church. We hold that it is the personal service of each individual in the wliole action of the eucharist, when, receiving the bread and wine as the memorials of Christ's passion, he offers up spiritually, in his prayers and thanksgivings, the true sacrifice of the cross to the Father, that ob tains for that individual the blessings promised in the eucharist. In the very same part of Bishop Jewel's works, from which our opponents have taken one of their extracts, that learned prelate thus speaks, clearly showing in what alone he considered the sacrifice in the eucharist to con sist; — " The holy learned Fathers apply that word [i. e. unbloody] sometime to prayer and other devotion of the raind, and sometime to the ministration of the holy communion In respect of these gross and fieshly and bloody sacrifices [i. e. of the Old Testament] our Christian sacrifices in the gospel, because they are mere spiritual, and proceed wholly from the heart, are called un bloody ... In like manner the ministration of the holy communion is sometimes of the ancient Fathers called an unbloody sacrifice, not in respect of any corporal or fleshly presence that is imagined to be there without blood- shedding, but for that it representcth unto our minds that one and everlasting sacrifice that Christ made in his body upon the cross .... This remembrance and oblation of praises, and rendering of thanks unto God for our re demption in the blood of Christ, is called of the old Fathers an unbloody sacrifice . . . This kind of sacrifice, because it is mere spiritual, and groweth only from the mind, therefore it needeth not any material altar of stone or timber to be made upon ... St. Augustine saith, ' Sacrificium Novi Testamenti est, quando altaria cordis nostri munda et pura in conspectu Divinse Majestatis offerimus.' 'The sacrifice of the New Testament is when we offer up the FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 179 altars of our hearts pure and clean in the sight of the Divine Majesty.' In these respects our prayers, our praises, our thanksgiving unto God for our salvation in the death of Christ, is called an unbloody sacrifice." ^ The people, then, are as much sacrificers as the priest, and should be taught to expect remission ,of sins, not from his sacrificing for them, but from their own sacrifice. Though the priest's may be the hand and voice more par ticularly engaged, the sacrifice must be made as much by them mentally, or they can expect no remission of sins through it. " It is," says Bishop Jewel, " no more the sacrifice of the priest than the sacrifice of any other of all the people."* And " it is not the priest but God only it is that applieth unto each man the remission of his sins in the blood of Christ ; not by means of the mass, but only by the mean offaith."^ To the same effect (as we have already seen)* speaks Perkins as quoted by Mede. And so still more plainly speaks another of our oppo nents' witnesses, and in their own extract, namely. Bishop Bilson, — " Christ is offered daily but mystically, not covered with qualities and quantities of bread and wine, for those be neither mysteries nor resemblances to the death of Christ, but by the bread which is broken, by the wine which is drunk ; in substance, creatures ; in signifi cation, sacraments ; the Lord's death is figured and pro posed to the communicants, and they, for their parts, no LESS PEOPLE THAN PRIESTS, do present Christ hanging on the cross to God the Father, with a lively faith, inward devotion, and humble prayer, as a most sufficient and ever lasting sacrifice for the full remission of their sins, and as sured fruition of his mercies. Other actual and propi tiatory SACRIFICE THAN THIS THE ChuRCH OF ChRIST never had, never taught."5 And again ; " Neither they ' Eeply to Harding, Art. 17. Works, pp. 427, 8. ' Eeply to Harding, Art. 18. Works, p. 433. . ' Ib. Art. 19, p. 436. " See p. 147 above. = See extract given in Catena, in Tiact 81, p. 67, or Blleon', Of subjection and rebellion, p. 693. N 2 180 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION nor I ever denied the eucharist to be a sacrifice. The very name enforceth it to be the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, which is the true and lively sacrifice of the New Testament. The Lord's table, in respect of his graces and mercies there proposed to us, is an heavenly banquet, which we must eat and not sacrifice ; but the duties which he requireth at our hands, when we approach his table, are sacrifices not sacraments ; as namely, to offer him thanks and praises, faith and obedience, yea, our bodies and souls to be living holy and acceptable sacrifices unto him, which is our reasonable service."^ The former part of this extract is given in the Catena. The latter, beginning " The Lord's table, &c.," is not noticed. Excepting, then, the value which raay be attached to in tercessory prayer, we maintain that the benefit accruing from the celebration of the eucharistic ordinance, is con fined to those who faithfully partake of it. I say, excepting the value which may be attached to intercessory prayer, because we have reason to hope that the prayers offered by the faithful in that ordinance forthe whole Church are ac ceptable to God. God has promised to hear our interces sions for others, and when in the eucharist we pray that spiritual blessings may be given to the whole Church for the sake of that sacrifice we are then commemorating, we may hurably hope that God will hear us, and in his own time and way answer our prayers. I have already endeavoured to show, under a former head, that for the first two centuries, at least, the testi mony of the Fathers is opposed to the practice of offering up the elements at all after consecration ; and therefore, though I admit that this practice may have prevailed at a subsequent period, it is unnecessary to add anything further to show that even patristical tradition fails our opponents in this matter. But the main point is not the mere question whether or not this practice prevailed, but with what doctrine it was associated; and I therefore ' Bilson, Of subjection and rebellion, p. 699. FULLY revealed IN SCRIPTURE. 181 think it important here to add, that in the case even of those Fathers of the earlier Church, who speak of the offering up of the elements after consecration as sacra- mentally the body and blood of Christ, this external offer ing up was not intended by them to usurp the place of, or at all interfere with, the internal offering up ofthe sacrifice of the cross in the hearts of the worshippers, as forming the very essence ofthe sacrifice, and without which the other was worthless. And as the external offering was performed by the officiating minister, only as the hand and voice of the worshippers, so the latter was performed, and could only be performed, by the worshippers themselves, and alone rendered them acceptable worshippers, and gave any value to the service, as far as they were concerned, ex clusive that is of that indefinite and general value which a service including intercessory prayer for the whole body of the faithful might be supposed to have. As Irenaeus, speaking on this very subject, i. e. with refe rence to the eucharist, says, " If any one shall have at tempted to offer purely, and rightly, and lawfully, as far as respects outward appearance only, but in his heart is not at peace with his neighbour, nor has the fear of God, he does not deceive God by that sacrifice which is rightly offered as to externals, while he has sin in his heart, nor will such an oblation profit him anything."! ..." Sacri fices do not sanctify a man, for God needs not sacrifice; but the conscience of him who offers, when pure, sanctifies the sacrifice."* No words can more clearly show that the offering or ' Si enim quis, solummodo secundum quod videtur, munde, et recte, et legir time offerre tentaverit, secundum autem suam animam non recte dividat earn qua est ad proximum communionem, neque timorem habeat Dei, non per id quod recte foris oblatum est sacrificium seducit Deum, intus habens pecca^ tum, nee oblatio talis proderit ei aliquid. Iren. adv. ha;r. iv. 34. p. 325. ed. Grab. Non sacrificia sanctificant hominem, non enim indiget sacrificio Deus ; sed conscientia ejus qui off'ert sanctificat sacrificium pura existens. Ib. p. 326, ed. Grabe. 182 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION sacrifice is one which must be made by each individual, and that its acceptability depends upon the state of mind of the offerer. And the puerile and evasive mode of ex plaining away this passage, by saying that the offering in the eucharist is always pure, because it is presented by the holy Catholic Church through the hands ofthe priest, is unworthy of any candid raind. In fact, it makes the ob servation of Irenseus useless and absurd, when applied, as he applies it, to the eucharist. And when Irenseus says after wards that therefore the offering (raunus) of the Church is an acceptable sacrifice, he is speaking (as the context shows) of the Christian Church, in opposition to the Jews, and contrasting the spiritual sacrifice offered in the former to the material sacrifice offered by the latter. But let us proceed to the Fathers of a somewhat later period, even when the eleraents may have been offered after consecration as a sacrifice to God. The doctrine maintained by these was in all essential points the same. I will endeavour to show this, by proving that notwith standing any importance they may have attached to the post-consecration sacrifice of the elements, they evidently held, (1) That the sacrifice in the eucharist was the offering of all that were present alike, and of those only. (2) That the chief part of the sacrifice was that mental sacrifice of prayer and praise, which it is impossible for one man to offer for another. And hence, (3) That the people are as much the sacrificers as the priest, with the mere exception of the external act of ministration. (4) That the direct benefit to be derived from the cele bration of the eucharist was to be expected only by the faithful communicants. To enter fully upon these points would occupy more space than can be spared here for the purpose, but I will give one or two extracts in proof of each. (1) The sacrifice of the eucharist was considered to be th^ offering of all that were present alike, and of those only. Thus Ambrose, or as the Benedictines would say. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 183 Pseud-Ambrose, writing on 1 Cor. xi. 33,4, says, " The Apostle says that we are to wait one for another, that the offering of many may be celebrated at the same time ;"! where it is evident that the offering was regarded as the offering of those only who were present. And hence it was ordered by the Council of Eliberis, that no oblations should be received but from those who were about to communicate.* (2). The chief part of the sacrifice was considered to be that mental sacrifice of prayer and praise which it is im possible for one man to offer for another. " Behold," says Chrysostom, " we have our victim above, our priest above, our sacrifice above. Therefore let us offer such sacrifices as can be presented upon that altar, no longer sheep and oxen, no longer blood and in cense ; all these things are abolished, and there is intro duced in the place of these rational worship. But what is rational worship? That which is offered by the soul ; that which is offered by the spirit." * Surely nothing can be plainer than this. Thus also Eusebius, after having said that Christ " di rected us to offer continually to God a remembrance in stead of a sacrifice," * and that this remembrance of Christ's sacrifice was to be celebrated at the table through symbols,^ immediately proceeds to remark that " the pro phetic oracles proclaim these immaterial and mental 'Ad invicem exspectandum dicit, ut multorum oblatio simul celebretur Comm. ini Ep.ad Cor. xi. 33, 4. Op. Ameros. Tom. 2. App. col. 150 ed. Bened. » Episcopos ab eo placuit qui non communicat munera accipere non de bere. Concil. Elib. can. 28. » -Opa 7ap w,a exo^v to iepetov, «.'» to,/ tepea. arco ti,v Bvmav ovkovv rotavra^ ava and thou shalt be blessed, for they cannot recompense thee ; for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just." (Luke xiv. 13, 14.) "Who will render to every man according to his deeds. To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and iraraortality, eternal life. But unto them that are contentious . . . indignation, &c. In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." (Rom. ii. 6 — 16.) " That the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1 Cor. V. 5.) " To you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed frora heaven with his mighty angels," &c. (See 2 Thess. i. 7, et seq.) " I have fought a good fight, I have finished ray course, I have kept the faith : Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing." (2 Tim. iv. 7, 8.) " When the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." (1 Pet. v. 4.) " The nations were angry, and thy wrath is corae, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name," &c. (Rev. xi. 18.) Now these passages, and many others of like import might be added to thera, seera clearly to show that the VOL. II, o 194 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION great promised reward is not to be expected by the ser vants of Christ until the day of judgment after the resur rection, and consequently that until that period they are in a different state to that in which they will be placed afterwards. That there is, however, a state of rest and peace into which the souls of believers are admitted at their death, is evident from our Lord's parable of the rich man and Lazarus, where he tells us that Lazarus when he died was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom, (Luke xvi. 23,) which is evidently a metaphorical expression, signifying a state of rest and happiness, and is used by many of the Fathers to express the intermediate state of the righteous, as indeed it was among the Jews in our Saviour's time. There is also a passage in the Book of Revelation, which, while it seems clearly to show that the martyrs themselves await the period of the resurrec tion for their full reward, also indicates that they are in a state of consciousness and of happiness. " When he had opened the fifth seal," it is said, " I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying. How long, 0 Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth ? And white robes were given unto every one of them ; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also, and their brethren that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled." (Rev. vi. 9 — 11.) In this state, then, they are to remain until the end, when they and all their brethren are to receive their reward together. And the existence of this intermediate state of rest is further confirmed by our Lord's promise to the dying pe nitent thief, "Verily I say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise," (Luke xxiii. 43,) the soul of Christ being about to descend to hades for the period between his death and resurrection. (Acts ii. 27, 31.) And in like manner the souls ofthe wicked, though in FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 195 a state of suffering, are not in that state in which they will be placed after the judgment, for they also await the decision of the great day of account to receive their full punishment, however much their present state may be, and no doubt is (like that of the righteous) an earnest of that which surely awaits them. "For " we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in the body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." (2 Cor. V. 10.) "And God reserves the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished." (2 Pet. ii. 9.) See also Rom. ii. 6 — 16. And when the rich sinner died, he lifted up his eyes in hades, and was in torments, (Luke xvi. 23 ;) but after the final judgment the wicked will be cast into " the lake of fire," {rrjv \ijjLvr]v TOV TTvpoq) (Rev. XX. 15,) that lake in which hades itself is to be swallowed up. (ver. 14.) And this word hades seems to be the name for the intermediate place of all departed spirits, for in the same place, though in a different division of it, was the soul of Lazarus in a state of rest and peace ; and to the same place went the soul of our Saviour between his death and resurrection, (Acts ii. 27, 31 ;) and at the final judgment death and hades deliver up the dead that are in them, who are judged every man according to their works, (Rev. XX. 13 ;) and hence St. Paul, when contemplating the resurrection of the saints, says, " 0 hades, where is thy victory?" (1 Cor. xv. 55.)! And of this place our Lord ' The word hell, soraetiraes used by our translators to express hades, is, in its proper signification (in which, perhaps, our translators also have used it in Acts ii. 27, 31, and Eev. xx. 13,) exactly expressive of the meaning given above to the word hades, though unfortunately it has become almoat exclu sively appropriated to a more liraited sense. In its primary and original signi fication, says Lord King, " It imports no more than an invisible and hidden place, being derived from the old Saxon word hil, which signifies to hide, or from the participle thereof, hilled, that is to say, hidden or covered ; as in the western parts of England at this very day, to hele over any thing signifies, amongst the common people, to cover it ... From whence it appears that the word hell, according to its primitive notion, exactly answers to the Greek word oSijs, hades, which signifies ihe common mansion of all separated souls, o 2 196 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION is said to have the keys, (Rev. i. 18,) doubtless with re ference to that power by which, at the last day, he will call out of it the souls of the departed, to reunite them to their bodies, when death and hades shall deliver up the dead that are in them, (Rev. xx. 13;) and thus the gates of hades shall not prevail over his Church, (Matt. xvi. 18;) for though for a time they shall detain it, yet at the period of the resurrection it shall be called thence by him who has the keys of those gates in his hands ; and then it shall be said, " O hades, where is thy victory?" If, then, these Scriptures show that there is such an intermediate state, in which the souls of the faithful reraain in a holy and happy condition till the period of the resurrection and judgment, then their progressive sanctification in such a state seems a necessary conse quence ; and, moreover, a prayer that they and we may ultimately attain a happy resurrection, and find mercy at the day of judgment, is only a prayer for blessings for which we are taught to pray. The purification which such a state is calculated to produce is no iraprobable mode of preparation to make us raeet for and capable of the full enjoyraent of the beatific vision of God in the state which will succeed the judgment. But the only purifi cation, be it observed, of which we here speak, is that which necessarily results from a residence in such a state as that in which the 'Scriptures assure us the souls of the faithful departed are placed, namely, a state of rest, peace, and holiness, frora which the wicked are excluded. And the only prayers of which we speak with commendation are such as the declarations of Scripture authorize. And the prayers of which we have here spoken were, as Arch- and was so called quasi i aiSris rorros, because it ia an unseen place, removed from the sight and view of the living, according to which the tranalator of Irenffiua rendera it by an invisible place (inviaibilem locum, lib. v. c. 26.) " King's History ofthe Apostles' Creed, c. iv. pp. 191, 2. ed. 1719 ; where see more. In the older version of the Psalms, in the Book of Common Prayer, there is a very clear instance of its use in this sense. " What raan is he that liveth, and shall not see death : and shall he deliver his soul from the hand of hell ? " (Ps. Ixxxix. 48.) FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 197 bishop Usher has shown, precisely those which were made in the antient Church in their commemorations for the dead. Having noticed some of these prayers, the Archbishop says, — " In these, and other prayers of the like kind, we may descry evident footsteps of the primary intentions of the Church in her supplications for the dead ; which was, that the whole man, not the soul sepa rated only, might receive public remission of sins, and a solemn acquittal in the judgraent of that great day, and so obtain both a full escape from all the consequences of sin, — the last enemy being now destroyed, and death swal lowed up in victory, — and a perfect consumraation of bliss and happiness." ! And again, — " The Church, in her commemorations and prayers, had relation .... unto those that led their lives in such a godly manner as gave pregnant hope unto the living that their souls were at rest with God ; and to such as these alone did it wish the accomplishment of that which remained of their redemp tion ; to wit, their public justification and solemn acquittal at the last day, and their perfect consummation of bliss, both in body and soul, in the kingdom of keaven for ever after. Not that the event of these things was conceived to be any ways doubtful, for we have been told that things may be prayed for, the event whereof is known to be most certain, but because the comraeraoration thereof was thought to serve for special use, not only in regard of the manifestation of the affection of the living toward the dead, (he that prayed, as Dionysius noteth, desiring other men's gifts as if they were his own graces,) but also in respect of the consolation and instruction which the living might receive thereby."* And so Bishop Morton, speaking of these prayers, says, — " What can all these prayers else signify, but thankful congratulations for their present joys, or else testimonies of their hope and desires of their future resurrection, and consummation of their bles- ' Answer to Jesuit, pp. 154, 6. ' Usher's Answer to the Jesuit's Challenge, p. 178. See the whole of his observations on " Prayer for the dead," in pp. 1 33 — 91 . 198 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION sedness, both in their bodies and souls." (Catholic Appeal, ii. 8. § 2. p. 190.) 1 And so far our Church seems to encourage the prac tice, when, in her service for the burial of the dead, she teaches us to pray that God would " shortly accomplish the number of his elect, and hasten his kingdom, that we, with all those that are departed in the true faith of his holy name, may have our perfect consummation and bliss, both in body and soul, in his eternal and everlasting glory." Here is a clear reference to that more perfect state of happiness in which the saints of God are to be placed after the union of body aud soul, in the resurrection, and a prayer that that period may shortly arrive, and that we, with those who have departed out of this life, may then be put in possession of that happiness. But the prayers which went further than this in the first Prayer- book of Edward VI., were on the revision cancelled. But our opponents, — though certainly differing from the Romanists in this matter, yet nevertheless — are not conr tented to leave the matter thus, but will presume to know more than Scripture has revealed respecting the nature of that state, and assert that those in the intermediate state may be benefited, that is, may gain an increase of happiness, by our prayers, and that they pray for us, lay ing this down moreover as the doctrine of " the Church," and thus, as demanding our belief, rashly intruding into things not revealed. What is the authority upon which it is asserted that it is the doctrine of " the Church," that the condition of souls in the intermediate state can be altered or benefited by our prayers, or that they pray for us ? To put it even upon the consentient testimony of the Fathers, is out of the question, for, as we have seen we have not their consent for an intermediate state at all. Nay, Archbishop Usher has shown that in the question, " Whether the dead did receive any peculiar profit" by ' I would here observe, that Bishop Morton is opposed even to what I have admitted above as to the doctrine of the intermediate state. See his Cath. App. ii. 8. § 5. p. 193. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 199 the prayers made for them, there was " great difference among the doctors ;"! and that so late as the eighth cen tury, even the lawfulness of offering oblations for the dead, was a question ;* and hence, the Archbishop reckons it " a private conceit entertained by divers, as well of the elder as of the middle times, in their devotions for the dead," that " an augmentation of glory might thereby be procured for the saints ;" quoting, as an example of this opinion, the words of Ivo Carnotensis, " It doth not seem idle if we make intercessions for those who already enjoy rest, that their rest may be increased;"^ where the notion, we may observe, though advocated, is not put forward with any confidence. Here, however, as in other cases, this " private conceit'' of divers antient doctors is solemnly laid down by our opponents as the doctrine of " the Church," and to it» they have added as part also of " the Church's" doc trine, that the departed saints pray for us, for which they have even less to offer in the way of testimony than in the former case. And this is not the less reraarkable frora the fact that Archbishop Usher's whole discussion of this subject, in his Answer to the Jesuit, has been reprinted in the 72d. of the " Tracts for the Times," which shows that these statements of our opponents have been made in the face of evidence placed before them, that there was no patristical consent for them ; an inconsistency which, however surprising, is in such cases by no means uncommon. But it is both surprising and uncommon that it should be said, in the face of the Archbishop's observa tions given above, " That the prayers of the living benefit the dead in Christ, is, to say the least, not inconsistent, as Usher shows us, with the primitive belief."* Such an observation I would rather content myself with pointing out, than venturing to comment upon.^ ' Answer to the Jesuit, pp. 186, &s. ' Ib. p. 190. = Ib. p. 168. * Tract 79, On Purgatory, p. S. ' There is a painful want both of accuracy and of ingenuousness in the writings of our opponents. On this very subject, the observations of Dr. 200 the christian religion Nor apparently is their doctrine, as to the nature of the intermediate state, so different to that of the Romanists as they would fain represent it to be. True, they blame the Romanists for making it a place of suffering, but they would have spoken raore consistently if they had only blamed them for making it a place of so much suffering as they do, for it is but a question of degree with them, as the observations they have made in their Tract on Purga tory (Tract 79) fully show. They there admit that they hold with the Romanists, " that the great raajority die in God's favour, yet raore or less under the bond of their sins," because " after baptism there is no plenary pardon of sins in this life to the sinner, however penitent, such as in baptism was once vouchsafed to him," adding, " If for sins committed after baptism we have not yet received •a simple and unconditional absolution, surely penitents from this time up to the day of judgment, may be consi dered in that double state of which the Romanists speak, their persons accepted, but certain sins uncancelled." And they then quote the case of David (2 Sam. xii. 13, 14,) as " a perspicuous instance of a penitent restored to God's favour at once, yet his sin afterwards visited^ from which, if the case has any pertinency to the point in question, we are of course left to conclude that the uncancelled sins of believers may be visited by punishraents in the in- terraediate state, and they raay therefore well add, " So far then we cannot be said materially to oppose the Ro- Pusey, in hia Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, (pp. 186 &3.) are wanting in candour, because they do not point out any distinction in the nature of the prayers offered for the dead except such as are " connected with the raodern doctrine of purgatory,'' and then make use of Archbishop Usher's name as if he had taken the same view with the writers of the Tracts, for whom this Letter was written as a defence. Again, " Both Romanist and ultra-Protestant " he complains, " dogmatize about the state of departed souls." But what is the meaning of this complaint in a defender of the statements we have quoted above ? Is it correct also to say that " the ultra-protestant .... decides peremptorily that the departed saints are already in full possession of the joys of heaven,'' when he must be perfectly aware of the freely conceded differ ence of opinion on this subject among those whom he calls ultra-protestants ? fully revealed in scripture. 201 manists." (pp. 6, 7.) Doubtless they cannot. And out of these notions have arisen all the abuses to which the Romish Purgatory has given rise. Nor is this doctrine of praying for the dead, that their happiness raay be increased, that is, that the limi tation placed to their happiness, in consequence of their sins, may be removed, or, that the punishment of their sins may be remitted, one of small moraent ; because it tends to encourage the living to hope that if only they are such as will escape the place of torment, they may obtain an increase of happiness in the intermediate state, by the prayers of the Church after their death ; which, not to say that it is a hope altogether without foundation, is not unlikely to have a very injurious effect upon the Christian walk and conversation. As Bishop Morton says, — "We are justly stayed from performing any such kindness, which, instead of showing love unto the dead, inight seduce the living with deceivable hopes of succour after their death."! To these "traditionary" doctrines Romanists add, among others, the doctrine of Christ's descent into hell, and that of the validity of baptism perforraed by heretics. The latter we have already considered,* and shown to have been a controverted point in the antient Chureh. Of the forraer, we say with Bishop Pearson, that when the Apostle, quoting Ps. xvi. 8—10, says that David there " spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption," (Acts ii. 25, 26, 27, 30, 31,) "from this place the Article is clearly and infallibly deduced thus : If the soul of Christ were not left in hell at his resurrection, then his soul was in hell before his resurrection ; but it was not there before his death ; therefore upon or after his death, and before his resurrection, the soul of Christ descended into hell." And he proceeds to quote Augustine (Ep. 99. al. 164. § 3.) as referring to this passage as a clear and undeniable proof of the doctrine. (On the Creed. Art. 5.) ' Cath. App. ii. 8. p. 194. ^ See vol. 1. pp. 330, &s. 202 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION There remain to be considered the cases that relate to certain matters of fact, and points that do not immediately belong either to the doctrines or rites of Christianity ; namely, (1) The Canon of Scripture. (2) That Melchizedek's feast is a type of the Eucha rist. (3) That the Book of Canticles represents the union between Christ and his Church. (4) That Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs, refers to the Second Person ofthe Trinity. (5) The alleged perpetual virginity of the Mother of our Lord. To the first of these we have already devoted a previous chapter. The second and fourth we have also considered in a former chapter, and shown that, so far from our being indebted to tradition for any certain testiraony respecting them, the Fathers themselves were not agreed on the sub ject ;! which shows how easily men may deceive theraselves in fancying consent of Fathers, where nevertheless it does not exist. As it respects the third, the sole question is. Has this book sufficient evidence for its being received as part of the Canon of Scripture ? If so, it refers to religion, and has a spiritual meaning ; which is all we " know with tolerable certainty about the matter," or need to know to show us what it is the allegory represents. One point remains, viz., the alleged perpetual virginity of the Mother of our Lord. It is with much unwillingness that I enter upon the discussion of this point, lest I should appear to any one to speak slightingly of one so highly honoured of God ; and to whora, if upon earth, we should be disposed to pay higher reverence and respect, than to the most potent empress that ever sat upon an earthly throne. Far be it from us to speak with any degree of levity with respect to one so " highly favoured" of God, and whom " all generations shall call blessed." ' See vol. i. pp. 360— 363. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 203 But, let me ask, what possible raeaning can they have who connect this raatter with religion ? What possible bearing can such a point have upon faith or piety ? How, moreover, was it ascertained ? Will our opponents ven ture to assert that it was divinely revealed to the Apostles, and by them delivered to the Church 1 If not, who could know anything about it ? for it is at least clear from Scrip ture, that Joseph took her to wife, and that they lived together as in that relationship ; though he " knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn Son;" (Matt. i. 25 ;) which words, by the way, notwithstanding the cri ticism which Basil proposes as a way of getting over the difficulty, are clearly rather favourable to the notion of union after that birth. But be that as it raay, all that we protest against, and what we do earnestly protest against, is, the laying down such a point, as one that has any con nexion with piety or religion in any way, when it has no more connexion with them than the colour of her dress. The blue hood with which she is generally depicted might as well be made an article of religious belief; unless, indeed, the authority of the primitive Father, Cleraent of Alex andria, shall prevail in favour of white, which he seems to think the only proper colour for Christians ; ! and so the blue (which, by the way, is one of those he particularly excepts against) be voted heretical. And this, forsooth, is one of the great recommendations of " tradition," that to it, as Mr. Newman reminds us, we are altogether in debted for this doctrine ! Whether " tradition" has deli vered it, we shall see presently. But wherein does the religion of it consist ? Is it in the supposed honour thus done to the Mother of our Lord ? I know not why the contrary supposition should be considered dishonourable to her, under the circumstances in which she was placed, as one living with Joseph as his wife. Or is it in the honour paid to certain Fathers, in our receiving whatever they deliver to us ? If this is religion, we must add many ' See his Psedag. lib. ii. c. Ip. pp. 234, 5, and lib. iii. c. 11. pp. 285, 6. ed. Potter. 204 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION more such notions to our articles of belief to be religious. Granting even that it is more honourable to the Mother of our Lord to suppose that she reraained separate from her husband to the end of her life, what we inquire is. Of what moment is the knowledge of such a fact to us ? No one, I suppose, will presume to say that it is a revealed fact ; in which case I admit that the fact of its being re vealed should be sufficient to prevent our asking such a question. But if it be not a revealed fact, then such a question may fairly be asked. Nor is it a matter of little moment that such points should be imposed upon Chris tians, as matters which they ought to believe; and of suf ficient importance even to recommend " tradition" to us as being the only medium by which such truths can be raade known to us. They are a snare and a burthen to the conscience, which men have no right to impose under the sacred name of" the Church ;" when they are in fact, or at least can only be traced to, the mere private fancies of individuals. Any one who will cast his eye over Gen- nadius's list of the doctrines of " the Church," will at once see how this name has been abused. Nay more ; how stand the testimonies of the Fathers on this point ? The only Father that can be quoted on the subject, for the first two centuries and a half, is Ter tullian ; and he, instead of defending the doctrine, uses words which confessedly show that he believed the con trary.! j^ij(j what reply does Jerome give to Helvidius, when quoting Tertullian in favour of this opinion ? This only ; — " That he did not belong to the Church."* But this is evidently no reply ; because the errors that Tertul lian had embraced, would have induced him to favour the doctrine of her perpetual virginity, if he had conceived himself to have had any ground for it. If there had been such a tradition, as Bishop Stillingfleet says, " one would 1 Christum quidem Virgo enixa est, semel nuptura post partum. De Mo- nogam. c. 8. p. 529. See also De vel. virg. c. 6. et De carne Christi. c. 23. 2 De TertuUiano quidem nihil amplius dico quam Ecclesia; hominem non fuisse. Adv. Helvid. § 17. Tom. 2. col. 225. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 205 think that one so near the Apostles as Tertullian was, might easily have learned such a tradition ; and so great a friend to virginity as he was, while a Montanist, should not have been apt to believe the contrary."! It is clear, then, that at that time there was at least no general agree ment in favour of the point. Origen, I admit, speaks as if he thought it probable, and more honourable to the Mother of our Lord than the con trary supposition ; but not as if it was any part of religion. " If,"- he says, " there was no son of Mary, according to those who think soundly respecting her, but Jesus ; and Jesus says, &c. . ."* This again shows that there was no consent in the Church at that time in favour of the opinion; though Origen, of course, thought that they took the right view who agreed with him. And this follows, also, from another passage, where Origen, having stated that some supposed that " the brethren" of Jesus were the children of Joseph, by a former wife, says, — "They who say this, are desirous of preserving the dignity of Mary in perpetual virginity and I think it is reasonable that of men, Jesus should be the first-fruits of the pureness of chastity, and of women, Mary."^ And again, when meeting the strange notion that some had maintained, that Jesus denied Mary because of her having married Joseph after his birth, (which shows, at least, their view of the matter,) all that he ventures to affirm is, " Moreover they have no proof of what they assert, that she married after his birth ;" '^ though, by the good Father's leave, it is plain enough from Scripture that ' Eational Account, &c. Pt. 1. c. 6. p. 165. ed. 1665. "^ Et yap ovSeis vios Mapias, Kara rovs vyias Trepi avr-rjs So^a^ovras, rj Ijjaovs (fijiri Se l-riaovs Trj firirepi, k. ¦, . X. Orig. Tom. i. In Joh. § 6. vol. iv. p. 6. ^ Ol Se ravra Xeyovjes, ro a^iafia rjjs Mapias ev TrapBevia rrjpetv fiexpt reXovs PovXovrat .... Kai oijuai Xoyov exeiv, avSpav fiev KadaporTyros r7}S ev ayveia a-napxTIv yeyovevai rov l7]a-ovv, yvvaiKav Se rrjv Mapiafi. Orig. Tom. x. In Matt. § 17. vol. iii. p. 463. ¦¦ Porro quod asserunt earn nupsiaae post partum unde approbent non habent. Orig. In Luc. hom. 7. vol. iii. p. 940. 206 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION Joseph and Mary lived together, as far as external ap pearances went, as raan and wife ; and possibly it raight have been better for all parties if they had been contented there to leave it, without indulging an idle and iraper- tinent curiosity about a matter which no way concerned them. And, to my raind, this appears to have been the feeling of Basil hiraself. For, commenting on the text, " He knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son," he says that this affords a ground for supposing that after the birth of Christ she did not remain a virgin, and adds, " But we, although it does not at all offend AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF PIETY, (foT the virginity was necessary until her ministry in the fulfilment of the dis pensation was performed, but what happened afterwards is not to be curiously inquired into, as if it had anything to do with the doctrine of the mystery,) jet, nevertheless, be cause the ears of the lovers of Christ do not like to enter. tain the idea that she who brought forth him who was God ever ceased to be a virgin, we think these testi monies sufficient." ! He then proceeds to reraark that the word until (ewe) does not always denote a definite tirae, that is, lirait what is spoken of to a certain time, * quoting in proof Matt, xxviii. 20. " Behold I am with you alway, even until the end of the world ;" and also to refer to the tradition that Zacharias was killed by the Jews because he placed the Virgin Mary among the vir gins in the temple after the birth of our Lord, which, however, as the Benedictine editors themselves adrait, does not show that she always remained a virgin, and * Touto Se tiStj inrovoiav Trapexet, bn fiera ro KaBapas vTn}per7iffaa-Bai rrj yev- V7}iTei rov Kvpiov rrj eTrireXeaBeiari Sia rov Uvevfiaros rov ayiov, ra vevofitofleva rov yafiov epya fiTi aTrapvyiffaptevvs rris Mapias* Tjfiets Se, ei Kat firjSev to) ttjs eva-efieias TrapaXvfiatverat Xoya, {ptexpt yap r-rjs Kara ttjv otKovofiiav vn-^peatas avwyKata T) TrapBevia, ro Se ecpe^i-js aTroXvTrpayflovT}rov ra Xoya rov fivaryipiov,) bfias Sta ro fi-ij KaraSexecrBat rav (piXoxptarav rrjv aKor)v, brt rrore eTravaaro eivai TrapBevos ri BeoroKos, eKeivas riyovfieBa ras fxaprvpias avrapKeis. Basil. Homil. in sanct. Christi generat. § 5. Op. ed. Ben. tom. ii. pp. 599, 600. ^ Epiphanius gives a diflTerent explanation of these words. See Adv. har. in hser. 78. Antidic. § 20. tom. i. p. 1051. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 207 which Origen himself does not quote as of any authority.! But the words with which Basil hiraself commences the subject (as quoted above) seem to indicate that he did not himself think his testimonies sufficient strictly tp prove it. They at least show that he believed religion or piety to have nothing to do with the subject ; and that he knew nothing of its being the tradition of the Church ; and hence the reader will not be surprised to learn that his Homily has been thrown by the Benedic tine Editors, without any good reason, into their Ap pendix as spurious, with a " caute legendum" in the margin. Further; they who tell us that weare indebted altogether to tradition for this doctrine, if it may so be called, should remember that its earliest known defenders prove it, or ra ther attempt to prove it, from Scripture, and pretend not to any definite successional delivery of it from the Apo stolical age. Such, for instance, is the case with Epipha nius,* who derives almost all his arguments on the subject from Scripture, and who, vehement as he is in some parts against the admission of the contrary supposition as dis honourable to the parties concerned, has evidently no notion of its being a matter affecting religion or piety, but was principally anxious that the contrary supposition should not be laid down as a point of belief. For thus he speaks, — " Of what use is it to us" saith he, " to inquire concerning it, even if she was united to Joseph, which we must not think? And which is preferable, to commit matters to God, or to force upon ourselves the worst ? That it is not written that if we do not believe that Mary was afterwards united to Joseph, we shall not have eternal life, but corae into judgment, is manifest . . . But men pass by necessary things, those that concern the truth of the faith, those that are connected with the glory of God, and ' This story is given by Origen as a tradition which had corae to his ears, (venit ad nos quaedam traditio talis,) but he does not quote it as of any autho rity. (Comment. Series in Matth. n. 25. Op. tom. iii. p. 845, 6.) '' Adv. hser., haer. 78. Antidicomarian. Tom. i. pp. 1033 — 57. 208 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION heap to themselves things that tend to their hurt, from wherever they can find them. Alas! that it should be thought of, particularly when the Scripture does not speak of it. For if the Scripture had mentioned it we should have embraced the truth without hesitation. For marriage is not impure, the bed is not polluted ; for is not ' the bed undefiled ?' [Heb. xiii. 4.] " i This is very different frora laying down the doctrine in question as one that has been handed down by " tradi tion," and that concerns religion, and ought to be believed. And frora this passage of Epiphanius we may see that the great object in view with those who wrote on this ques tion was to protest against the opposite doctrine being laid down as one that ought to be held ; and this per haps was the reason why such hard names as heretic, &c. should be applied to Helvidius and the Antidicoma- rianitae as they were called, viz. that they laid down their view of the matter as a doctrine of Scripture, and one that ought to be held, when in fact the point was not deter mined by adequate authority on either side ; though after the controversy had arisen, and the raajority of great naraes were enlisted in favour of the perpetual virginity, as that which was conceived to be most honourable to the mother of our Lord, then the name heretic began to be freely applied to those who did not positively main tain that doctrine.* ^ Ti Se ar^eXriaev rifias, ei Kat tTvvT](pBT], brrep firi yevoiro, Trept rov ^rjreiv ; TTOtov Se fiaXXov aiperarepov, ro TrapaSovval ra Trpayfiara Qea, tj ^la^eoBai Tjfiiv ra x^^pova ; 'Ort fiev ovk eypatjyri rifliv, brt eav jUtj Triarevaafiev, bn avV7i(pBri TraXiv 7] Mapia, ovk exofiev ^ariv aiaviov, aXXa ets Kpifia epxofieBa, SriXov .... ^taaav Se oi avBparrot ra avayKata, ra Trept Trtareas aX-qBetas, ra ev 6o|o- A07ia &eov, Kat dBev Se av evpaaiv eavrois TrpoaTTopi^ovrai Trpos ^Xa^TjV ^ev Kat Siavoeta-Bai, fidXiara rrjs ypatpris firi Xeyovoris. Ei fiev yap eXeyev 7} ypcupri, a-jreStSoafiev av rrjv aXriBeiav Kat ovSev StevoovfieBa- fxri yap b yafios aaefivos" firi PefinXos Tl Kotrrp fiT) OVK eanv il Koirri afiiavros ; [Heb. xiii. 4.] Adv. heer. 78. Antidic. §§ 15, 16. Tom. i. p. 1047. " Before we pass from the testimony of Epiphanius, I would direct the at tention of the reader to a remarkable passage in thia part of his book (aa connected with the controversy with the Eomanists) against a sect small at that time, that offered sacrifice to the Virgin, and paid her divine honours. " In them," .says Epiphanius, " is that fulfilled. Some shall depart from sound FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 209 Moreover, that Jerome's belief of this doctrine was founded not upon tradition but upon Scripture is evi dent, for in the beginning of his Treatise against Hel vidius, he says, " The very words of the Scriptures are to be adduced; he must be refuted by the very testimonies he has used against us."! And towards the end he says, "But as we do not deny these things which are written, so we reject those things which'are not written. We be lieve that God was born of a Virgin, because we read it ; that Mary married after the birth, we believe not, because we read it not."^ If, then, according to the Romanists and our opponents, this doctrine relies only on " tradition," we reply with Jerome, We believe it not, i. e. do not make it a point to be believed, because we read it not. And here it is worth observing how the ground for be lief in this doctrine has been shifted. The Fathers who defend it, place it upon the testimony of Scripture, and arguments drawn from the proprieties of the case. Our opponents, with the Romanists, seeing that nothing of the kind can be proved from Scripture, fall back upon " tradition," and quote the testimony of these very Fathers doctrine, giving heed to fables and doctrinea of devila ; [1 Tim. iv. 1.] for they shall be, saith he, [i. e. doubtless the Apostle] worshippers of ihe dead, as they [i. e. the dead] were worshipped bj the Israelites ; and the glory that resulted io God from the saints in iheir time hath become io others who see not the truth an occasion, of error," {TrXrjpovrai yap Kat eTrt rovrots ro, a-iroorr]- aovrai rives rris vyiovs StSaoKaXtas, Trpoaexovres fivBots Kat StSaaKaXiats Saifio- viav eaovTui yap, tj>ri(Ti, veKpois Xarpevovres, as Kat ev ra ItrparjA eae^aaBriaav. Kat 7] rav aytav Kara Katpov eis Qeov So|a aXXots yeyove rots fiy] bpaai rrjv aATj- 66101' ets TrXavr)v.) Epiphan. ib. § 23. p. 1055. I am quite aware ofthe nice distinctions drawn by the Eomanists on this subject, aud how they defend themselvea, but thia ia not the place to discuss them. I shall only eay. Let those who like be deceived by them. ' Ipsa Scripturarum verba ponenda sunt ; ipsis quibus adversum nos usus est testimoniis revincatur. Hieron. adv. Helvid. § 2. tom. ii. col. 206. See also Gennad. De vir. illustr. c. 32. ^ Sed ut hsec quae scripta aunt non negamus, ita ea quae non aunt scripta renuimus. Natum Deum esse de Virgine credimus, quia legimus ; Mariam nupsisse post partum non credimus, quia non legimus. Id. ib. § 19. col- 226, 227. VOL. II. P 210 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION who appeal to Scripture for the proof of it, as evidence of its being a doctrine established by an uninterrupted tradition of the Church ! Mr. Newman tells us that several of our divines have held the doctrine. Perhaps so ; but there are others who have not, as, for instance. Bishop Stillingfleet, as we have just seen. I believe it to be a point in which many, feel ing its utter insignificance, have been disposed rather at once to acquiesce than search out the evidence for it, and make it a matter of discussion. Besides, it must stand upon the evidence that can be brought for it, and not upon names. Our learned Bishop Taylor tells us that " the universal practice and doctrine of the Church of God in all ages and in all Churches primitive, is infinitely evident and notorious," for " the observation of the Lord's day solemnly once a year, i. e. the feast of Easter." ! Are we consequently obliged to believe this, contrary to the evidence we have of the learned prelate's mistake as to the day on which the feast was observed ? We shall perhaps be told that Councils have deter mined this point. I reply that this is the very best proof that could be given, though far from being the only one, that Councils have not always determined things by the consentient testimony of preceding ages, but according to their private views, or the views of the majority of the age in the matter. And whatever weight it may be ex pedient and right to give to a Council in a point affect ing the rites and ceremonies of the Church, the utmost that can be demanded for it in any point of belief not in Scripture is silence. It has no power to require belief in its dicta, except such as are founded upon direct Scrip ture authority, especially in a matter in which those who lived at an earlier period were evidently divided in opi nion. True it is, as we have admitted, that the name heretic has been applied by some of the Fathers, as Epiphanius ' See the quotation frora him in Keble's Sei-m. App. p. 70. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 211 and Augustine,! to those who held the opposite of the doctrine in question. But are we, therefore, bound to rank all such as here tics, or to make this doctrine an article of faith or reli gion? On the same ground, then, we must go a step further, and maintain as a matter of religious belief that even the birth of our Saviour left Mary as much a vir gin in structure as before, for Augustine expressly speaks of this as a point of Catholic belief,* and ranks Jovinian among the heretics for denying it.^ And there can be no doubt that, strictly speaking, this is a necessary part of the doctrine of her perpetual virginity,* though not per haps always included in it by those who profess to sup port it. And this point affords us so curious and useful an example ofthe way in which such raatters gradually ad vanced, until at last, being vouched for by some men of great name as part of the creed of " the Church," they took their place as important dograas, which it was heresy to call in question, that we will endeavour briefly to trace its progress. The testimony of Tertullian^ is, as before, clearly opposed ' See Epiphan. aa already quoted, and August, adv. hsr. haer. 84. Helvid. Op. tom. viii. col. 24. The work " De eccles. dograatibus," sometimes quoted on this subject, is not his, but probably, as the Benedictines think, Gennadius's. ^ Maria virgo ante conceptum, virgo post partum .... Cur qui potuit per clausa ostia magnus intrare non potuit etiara per incorrupta membra parvus exire.' Sed neque hoc neque illud volunt credere increduli. Ideo potius fides utrumque credit Si fides Deum natum credit in carne, Deo non dubitat utrumque posaibile ; ut et corpua majoris aetatis non reserato aditu domus intus positis praesentaret, et sponsus infans de thalarao suo, hoc est utero virginali, illsesa raatris virginitate procederet. Serm. 191. In Nat. Dom. 8. tom. V. col. 894. See also Serm. 186, ib. col. 884. ' Virginitatem Mariae destruebat, dicens eam pariendo fuisse corruptam. Lib. de hares, c. 82. tom. viii. col. 24. And see De Nupt. et Concup. lib. ii. c. 5. tom. x. col. 308, 9 ; and Cont. Julian. Pelag. lib. i. c. 2. tom. x. col. 499. * Ut aeiTrapBevos et esset et diceretur, necesse fuit virgo ut conciperet, virgo ut pareret, virgo ut semper permaneret. Montacut. Apparat. 9. § 59. ° Virgo quantum a viro, non virgo quantum a partu . , . si virgo concepit, in partu suo nupsit, ipsa patefacti corporis lege . . . Quis proprie vulvam adaperuit quam qui clausam patefecit ? casterum [caeteris ?J omnibus nuptiie p 2 212 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION to the notion. His words are too clear to be explained away. Next, comes Clement of Alexandria, who tells us that " most {oi -irvWoi) even to that time, as it appeared, thought that Mary was a woman such as women are after child- bearing on account of the birth of her son, though she was not such ; for some said that, being inspected by a midwife after she had brought forth, she was found a virgin." ! It is said by Petavius that this is derived frora a story given in the apocryphal book called the Protevan- gelium of Jaines, and he regrets that Cleraent should have given it any countenance.* If it was so, it is not raerely an apocryphal dream, but altogether a mistake in Cleraent, for the story in the apocryphal book mentioned is raerely that the midwife called in by Joseph at her delivery found her a virgin before the birth. ^ From this passage of Clement, then, it clearly appears that the notion then prevalent on the subject was entirely opposed to the doctrine in question. Proceed we to Origen. From his words which we have placed in a note below,* it is clear that he had not erabraced the doctrine in question. Nay, we may come down so low as the time of Epipha- patefaciunt. Itaque magis patefacta est quia magis erat clausa ... Et quid ultra de hoc retractandum est, cum hac ratione Apostolus non ex virgine sed ex muliere editum filium Dei pronuntiavit : agnovit adapertae vulvas nuptialem passionem. De came Christi, c. 23. p. 324. See also the same treatise, cc. 4 and 20, and Adv. Marc. lib. iii. c. 1 1. lib. iv. c. 21. and lib. 5. c. 19. ' AAA', as eomev, rotsTroXXots Kat fiexpi vvv SoKei t] Waptafi Xexa eivai 8ia tt;i' TOI' TraiSiov yevT\tTLV, ovk ovira Xexa' Kat yap fiera ro reKetv avrriv fiataBetaav, (paat nves TrapBevov evpeBrivai. Strom, lib. vii. pp. 889, 890. ed. Potter. ^ Petav. De incam. 1. 14. c. 6. § 1. ^ See Protevangel. Jacobi, §§ 19, 20. in Fabricii Cod. Apocr. N. T. vol. i. op. 107 &s. * Quemcunque de utero eflfusum marem dixeris, non sic aperit vulvam matris suae ut Dominua Jesus : quia omnium mulierum non partus infantissed viri coitus vulvam reserat. Matris vero Domini eo tempore vulva reserata est, quo et partus editus, quia sanctum uterura et omni dignatione venerationis venerandura ante nativitatem Christi masculus omnino non tetigit. Orig. In Luc. hom. 14. Op. Vol. iii. p. 948. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 213 nius, and find that it was not yet made a doctrine of the Church, for Epiphanius is against it. ! But proceeding a little lower, we all at once find the denial of it manufactured into a heresy, and hear Am brose* and Augustine 3 positively pronouncing it a part of the faith of the Church, and denouncing those who did not receive it as heretics, for this was the principal charge against Jovinian and his followers. But here, as in the former case, the attempt is made to defend the doctrine by Scripture, and by arguraents the feebleness of which is evidently acknowledged by those who tell us that it is only from " tradition " that we can obtain it. In the next century, however, it is fully installed by Gennadius araong " the doctrines of the Church," and as one about which not a doubt is to be admitted, and which it is " blasphemy " to call in question.* ' OuTos eanv aXriBas avotyav ptrjrpav fi-ifrpos. Ilai/Tey yap bffot eyevvTiB-qaav TrparoroKot, iva Kai aefivorepov et-irafiev, ovk rtSwriBriaav rovro TrXripovv, aAA' tj ptovos b fiovoyevTis firirpav TrapBevov avot^as, ev rovra yap fiova rereXeiarai, Kat ev aXXaovSevt. Adv. haer. haer. 78. Antidic. § 19. tom. i. p. 1051. Othershave quoted Ambrose, Jerorae, Athanasius, Basil, and others, as having taken the same view, from their having spoken of Christ as having opened his mother's womb, according to Luke ii. 23, but though we may possibly regard the pas sage in Luke in that light, it is very possible that these Fathers might (accord ing to the explanation given by Thomas Aquinas, Summ. Theol. P. 3. q. 28. a. 2.) only use the words with reference to his proceeding from the womb ; and I am the rather inclined to think this to be the case, because Ambrose, who speaks thus, ia, aa we ahall aee, clearly oppoaed to the idea of the virginity of Mary having at all suffered in parturition. ^ See his Letter to Pope Syricius, Epist. 42. ed. Bened. al. Ep. 7. Thus also he speaks elsewhere ; — " Porta igitur Maria, per quam Christus intravit in hune mundum, quando virginali fusus est partu, et genitalia virginitatis claustra non solvit. Mansit intemeratum septum pudoris, et inviolata integri- tatis duravere signacula cum exiret ex Virgine. Ambros. De instit. virg. c. 8. ed. Ben. ' See p. 21 1 above. ' Integra fide credendum eat, beatam Mariam Dei Christi matrem et vir- ginem concepisse, et virginem genuisse, et post partum virginem permansiase. Nee eat blaaphemiae Helvidii adquiescendum, qui dixit, Virgo ante partum, non virgo post partum. Gennad. De eccles. dogmat. c. 36. Inter Op. Augustini. Tom. viii. App. col. 79. 214 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION And to give the reader another speciraen of Genna dius's " doctrines of the Church," we raay add, that the doctrine which next precedes this in his list is as follows ; — " To equal the married state with virginity vowed to God, or to believe that no raerit accrues to those who abstain frora wine or flesh for the sake of mortifying the body, this is not the characteristic of a Christian, but of Jovinian." ! Thus, between the tiraes of Clement of Alexandria and Augustine, there was a complete revolution in opinion respecting this matter, for at the former period no one dreamed of making it a point of importance, and the majority did not receive it, while at the latter it was heresy to doubt it. Woe to the " blasphemer" who pre sumed not to believe it. Alas ! that they whose great names had such influence in the Church, instead of adding fuel to the fire of such an unprofitable controversy, imitating their opponents in making their own private views points of faith, should not rather have silenced it altogether, as a vain and idle dispute about a matter with which religion had no con cern. Yes, may we not regret with Epiphanius, that raen should " turn aside frora necessary points, those that concern the truth of the faith, and those that tend to the glory of God, to heap to themselves things that tend to their hurt, from wherever they can find them." " Alas," we say with him, " that the matter should be agitated, particularly when the Scripture [as our opponents admit] does not speak of it. For if the Scripture had mentioned it, we should have embraced the truth without hesitation ;" but we add, in the words of Jerome, " we make it not a point of belief, because we read it not." The reader may, I fear, think that we have dwelt upon this raatter too long. But as our opponents have put it forward as a point of importance, and as it is one re- ' Sacratffi Deo virginitati nuptias eoa;quare, aut pro amore castigandi cor poris abstinentibus a vino vel camibus nihil credere meriti accrescere nee hoc Christiani sed Joviniani est. Id. ib. c. 35. FULLY REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. 215 raarkably illustrative of our subject, we were desirous of placing its history clearly before him, heartily as we could have wished, for the honour of the Church of Christ, that such a matter had never been the subject of discussion among her members. Before I conclude this chapter, there are two objections, often urged by the Romanists, which I will anticipate. It is said (as we have already reraarked !) that, accord ing to our systera, our rule of faith is not the same as that of the primitive Christians, for that they raust have had information from the Apostles which we, by discarding " tradition," are rejecting. I reply, that in one sense our rule of faith is the same, viz. the whole of that which we have good reason for ac knowledging as divine revelation ; and that in the sense in which it is not the same, naraely, in actual extent, that of our opponents is also not the same ; for, to give an ex araple, St. Paul tells the Thessalonians, that he had in formed them what it was that withheld the appearance of the man of sin, but the Romanists themselves will not pretend to say that Church tradition has delivered this down to us. And there are many other things about which we are equally in the dark, respecting which, ne vertheless, we can have little doubt that the first Chris tians received some information from the Apostles. And a sirailar answer holds good with respect to another objection. It is sometiraes said that Scripture cannot be the entire rule of faith, because some inspired books have perished. To this, indeed, we reply, first, that we deny the fact, and challenge those who maintain it to give any proof that any books ever held to be part of the canon of Scrip ture have perished.* ' See vol. i. p. 533. ° This is an objection of Bellarmine, to whose remarks we may find a reply in one of his own communion, viz. Stapleton. See hia De Princip. lib. ix . c. 5 ; and De auct. Script, adv. Whitak. lib. ii. c. 1. § 7. 216 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. But even if it were so, this does not alter the state of the case. It does not prove that patristical tradition is a divine informant, or infallible record of Apostolical teaching. It in fact leaves us precisely where it found us ; even in possession of that Divine record of revealed truth which God has seen fit in his infinite mercy to pre serve to us. 217 CHAPTER IX. THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE TO TEACH MAN KIND THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. Among the various objections brought against the views for which we here contend, it- is urged that Scripture is too obscure to be able to sustain the character we attri bute to it; for that, even in the fundamental points of faith and practice, it needs an interpreter to point out its meaning, and that in " tradition " we have such an inter preter, and one " practically infallible," demanding our faith as a witness of the oral teaching of the Apostles.! Now that we have not in tradition any certain witness of the oral teaching of the Apostles, nor (in whatever light it be viewed) a divine or practically infallible inter preter of Scripture, has been, I hope, already proved; and consequently it follows, (as far as our opponents' views are concerned,) that Holy Scripture is our only divine and infallible Teacher. Whatever obscurity, then, there may be in the revelation there made to us of the Christian religion, it is the only revelation of it we pos sess. Whatever difficulties or obscurities raay have been left by God in the Scriptures, there is no authoritative interpretation of them demanding our benef. He who is plain beyond that which is written, goes beyond his authority, i. e. beyond that for which divine inspiration can be claimed. Hence, Scripture being our only inspired Teacher, and ' See vol. i. p. 38. 218 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION containing all which has any claim upon our belief as a divine revelation, it seems but reasonable to conclude that nothing can be a fundamental point of faith or practice which is not plainly revealed therein. For if Scripture is our sole divine informant, and was written for the instruc tion of men generally, it seems far from consistent with the gift of such a rule of faith that it should be so obscure in the very fundamental points as to oblige us to depend upon human teachers to know what it means. And if, through carelessness, indifference, prejudice, or any other cause, raen remain blind to what is there plainly de livered, such perverseness is easily accounted for, and forms no ground for accusing the word of God of ob scurity. On this argument, however, I shall not dwell further, because it is my purpose to proceed at once to more direct evidence of the sufficiency of Scripture to teach the faith, independently of what has preceded this chapter. In so doing, I shall first offer a few preliminary obser vations, to guard against misconception, and show what it is for which we here contend, and then proceed to prove the three following points. I. That all the fundamental and essential points of faith and practice are clearly and plainly delivered in the Scriptures. II. That all the doctrines of the Christian faith are as plainly delivered there as, to our knowledge, they are revealed. III. That the best and only infallible expositor of Scripture is Scripture. To guard against misconception, I shall offer, in the first place, a few preliminary observations, to make it more clear to the reader what it is for which we contend. And here I would observe first, that when we speak of all the essential doctrines of Christianity being clearly revealed to us in the Scriptures, we are not affirming that the truths themselves so revealed are cleared from all raysteriousness, and raade obvious to the understand- TAUGHT CLEARLY IN SCRIPTURE. 219 ings of men, for many of them are, and ever will be, to our finite understandings, mysterious and obscure ; but, that they are plainly, openly, and undeniably delivered there, that is, that the sacred writers have delivered, in the plainest terras, the revelations of divine truth vouch safed to them, and consequently, that all which God pur posed to reveal to the world by them is so expressed, that not even the Apostles themselves could declare it more clearly. I would instance this in the very case to which our opponents, following the Romanists, point us as supplying an argument in their favour, viz. the doctrine of the con substantiality of the Son with the Father. Not to insist here upon a point which will come under consideration more properly elsewhere, viz. that the Nicene Fathers deduced this doctrine altogether from Scripture, I would ask whether this doctrine is not much more plainly deli vered in Scripture than in that document to which our opponents refer us for it, viz. the Nicene Creed. The expression there used, though perhaps the best that could be found, so imperfectly expresses the doctrine, as to have been absolutely rejected by the orthodox at the Council of Antioch, against Paul of Samosata, as an un orthodox phrase ; and it is evidently open to an unortho dox interpretation, which Scripture, taken as a whole, and compared with itself, is not. It is an orthodox term, rightly understood ; convenient it may be for a compen dious statement of the truth in a confession of faith ; but it is not equivalent to the exposition of the doctrine con tained in Scripture. The true doctrine is not so clearly plainly, and unambiguously expressed by it as it is in Scripture, taken as a whole. We do not then here deny, but, on the contrary, affirm, that many of the truths delivered in the Scriptures are mysterious and obscure, and beyond the power of man fully to comprehend ; and this is the great reason why, with minds naturally disinclined to them, men are un willing to receive them as they are revealed, however plainly revealed. 220 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION Nor do we deny that there are many points among non-essentials, not so plainly delivered, but that men raay reasonably be divided in opinion as to the precise doctrine delivered ; and such points, perhaps, were not intended to be made known to all. Nor further do we deny that some particular passages may be very obscure. But all such obscurity is quite consistent with that for which we are here contending. Nay, it has been said,- not without reason, by sorae, that God has purposely or dered it thus, that while the fundamentals of the faith should be so clear that no sincere and earnest enquirer could mistake in thera, there should also be what might serve to exercise the industry and mental powers of man and carry out his raind to the contemplation of spiritual and heavenly objects. Moreover, we are not here asserting that it is sufficient to put the Scriptures into the hands of children and raen wholly illiterate, and leave thera to deduce the faith from them, any more than it would be sufficient to put the statutes of the realm, however plainly expressed they might be, into their hands, and tell them to deduce frora them a digest of the statute law. But this arises not frora the obscurity of one or the other ; nor does it show the necessity of an infallible interpreter, but only the need of literary assistance to inform such of the meaning of the expressions used, and point out to them what, through the imperfect development of their faculties, they might have misunderstood or passed unnoticed. It is not tradition which they want, but a knowledge of the meaning of the words used in Scripture. And such deficiency of infor raation on their part, cannot be justly urged in proof of Scripture being obscure ; and still less of the necessity of tradition or the Church; as the Church, to explain it. And the truth is, that so far as the mind is able to receive the faith, it needs but little education to enable a raan to learn from Scripture the fundamentals of the faith. Further, when we contend for the sufficiency of Scrip- TAUGHT CLEARLY IN SCRIPTURE. 221 ture to teach the faith, we must be understood as speak ing only with reference to the humble-minded and unpre judiced student of Scripture. To the proud and self- sufficient reasoner, to hira who coraes with all the preju dices of the natural mind clouding his perceptions, or with some preconceived views, derived from whatever source, to confirm, the declarations of Scripture may be anything but plain. But they may be obscure to such, raerely because the mind is unwilling to receive them in their obvious meaning ; and they raay, consequently, have divers meanings given to thera, merely because the pre judices of their readers are of divers kinds. We have heard of the Scriptures being quoted in support of sedi tion, rebellion, immorality. Are we to suppose that they are obscure on these points ? that it is doubtful whether they discountenance such practices or not? If men go to the Scriptures with minds in any way prejudiced, and not simply to be taught the truth, but only to confirm their own preconceived notions, derived from other sources, as our opponents openly profess and exhort others to do, they will, no doubt, find Scripture sufficiently obscure. A person going to the Scriptures to confirm some precon ceived notions about justification, gathered from what he calls " tradition," may find many passages very difficult to deal with. For if a man has made up his mind that two and two make five, a plain declaration that two and two make four, is the most difficult passage he could have to deal with. And if it be said that " tradition" is necessary, on ac count of the prejudices of men casting a veil over the meaning of Scripture, as Mr. Newman has strangely enough argued, then I would ask whether the same pre judices will not distort the testimony of " tradition" in the same way ? For if the ground for the supposed obscurity of Scripture be in the unwillingness of the raind to em brace the truth, then the same reason will cause tradition also to appear obscure. And this is borne out by the tes timony of facts ; for, as we have already seen, there has 222 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION hardly been a heresy in the Church in any age, but that the Fathers have been quoted in defence of it ; and Mr. Newman himself! (g-s we have seen*) adraits, that, with prejudiced rainds, antiquity " adraits of easy evasion, and may be made to conclude anything or nothing ;" thereby answering his own argument. And when we recollect in how great a variety of expression that tradition ap pears, and the imperfection of its mode of conveyance, surely the prejudices of man are still more likely to lead him astray in such a wide field of enquiry as the wil derness of the Fathers, than in the well-ordered garden of God's Holy Scriptures. The truth is, that there is but one way in which such prejudices can be reraoved ; and that is, by the operations of the Holy Spirit upon raen, enlightening the raind, so as to enable it to perceive the truth ; and influencing the heart to receive it in the love of it. As long as the raind is blinded, and the heart hardened by sin and Satan, the truths of God's word, however clear, are in vain clear, as far as such a one is concerned. The light shines upon blindness, and the blind comprehends it not. He gropes in the noonday, as at night. Lastly, we do not deny that there are different degrees of light and knowledge enjoyed by different individuals; and that a good use of the helps we have for the under standing of Scripture, may and will, with God's blessing, increase our insight into the plain truths of Scripture. There is a depth in them which will reward the most dili gent search ; and while Scripture is the best interpreter of itself, the labours of others in search of truth may here, as in other cases, shorten ours. But this does not affect our position, which is. That Holy Scripture is amply sufficient in itself to every diligent and humble-minded student of it, to teach all the fundamentals of faith and practice ; and consequently to refute all heretical notions respecting them. " That the Holy Scripture," says a Bishop of our Church, cited by Bishop Gibson, in his Preservative ' Leet. p. 68. 2 ggg .j,q| j_ pp_ gg-,^ g^ TAUGHT CLEARLY IN SCRIPTURE. 223 against Popery, " is so plain in all things necessary to salvation, that it raay be rightly understood or inter preted, by any man of sound judgment, is a proposition which one would imagine should not be questioned by any Christian .... If the Scripture be sufficient to bring every man to eternal happiness, then every man may un derstand it, so far as it is necessary for the attainment of that end. Op this there is no controversy among Protestants."! I now pass on to the consideration of the three points I have mentioned above. I. That all the fundamental and essential points of faith and practice are clearly and plainly delivered in the Scriptures ; and consequently that the Scriptures are well adapted and amply sufficient to teach men all such points. I am well aware that some ingenious controversialists, when hard pressed by the arguments of their opponents, have raaintained in words the former of these two propo sitions, while denying the truth of the latter, meaning, as they explain themselves, that such truths are clearly and plainly delivered in the Scriptures to those who know them before ; just (we may add) as the meaning of any myste rious heathen orgies is clear and plain to those to whom the priest has communicated the key ; but notwithstand ing this, I must venture to think that the latter of these two propositions is the necessary consequence of the former ; and that to adopt the forraer in words, and deny the latter, is but self-contradiction or equivocation. For if the truth is plain in Scripture, after "tradition" has pointed it out, was it not plain there before ? The testi mony of tradition may make a man more ready to receive it ; but it cannot affect the degree of plainness with whicli it is delivered in the Scriptures. No doubt, if a man has made up his mind that Scripture must mean whatever such and such interpreters of Scripture say that it raeans, ' The Protestant and Popish way of interpreting Scripture impartially compared, in answer to Pax vobis, 1689. 4to. pp. 34, 35. Thia ia sometimes attributed to Archbishop Tenison ; but, by Bishop Gibson, to Dr. Grove, Bishop of Chichester. 224 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION he is in the mood to think that Scripture plainly has that meaning. But with others the case is different. Now the truth of what we here affirm depends, princi pally, upon the style in which the Scriptures are written ; i. e. whether they deliver the truths which are intended for the instruction of mankind at large, under the veil of an obscure phraseology, or so as to be generally under stood ; for it is not denied that the Scriptures contain all the fundamental and essential doctrines of Christianity. We maintain, then, that what was intended to be under stood by all, is expressed in the Scriptures so as to be understood by all. The divine revelation vouchsafed to mankind, is conveyed to us in the Scriptures as clearly and plainly, as far as that revelation goes, as huraan lan guage will permit. This aptitude of Scripture to teach the doctrines of re ligion appears. First, from the testimony of Scripture. " Whatsoever things," saith the Apostle, " were written aforetime, were written for our learning, that we, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope." (Rom. XV. 4.) Here we are taught what is the great object for which the Scriptures were written, and the purpose they answer to the Christian. True; this applies only to the Old Testament Scriptures ; but if such was their ob ject, such the end they answered, then certainly the plainer records of the New Testament are much better cal culated to answer the same purpose. Are we, then, to suppose that the whole of the New Testament united with the Old, is insufficient to make us acquainted with the essentials of the Christian religion ? The point to which I particularly desire the attention of the reader in this passage is, that the Scriptures themselves, not any exposition of them, not any ecclesiastical teaching of any kind, are here referred to as the source of comfort and hope to the Christian ; the teacher, from whose instruc tions he derives his hopes ; while, on the contrary, our opponents tell us that it is only the teaching of " the Church" that can make us wise unto salvation. TAUGHT CLEARLY IN SCRIPTURE. 225 Still stronger evidence in our favour is to be found in our Lord's exhortation to the Jews, " Search the Scrip tures . . . they are they which testify of me." (John v. 39.) It is undeniable that these words were addressed to the people generally ; and they are here exhorted to ex amine for themselves the evidence afforded by the Old Testament Scriptures to our Lord's character and mis sion, as evidence amply sufficient to guide them to a knowledge of the truth. Frora which we raay observe two things, — both that the Scriptures are written so as to teach mankind in general, and also that unbelief and ig norance of the truths they reveal, and a perversion of their meaning, may arise from a very different cause to their being unintelligible without an interpreter. It is evident that our Lord only considered it to be necessary that the Scriptures should be " searched" should be dili gently read and investigated, in order to their reception of him in his true character as the Saviour of mankind ; while at the same time we find that the great majority of those who professed a familiar acquaintance with those Scriptures, perverted their meaning, and would not receive them in their true sense. And, let me ask, which to all appearance, at that time, was the sense affixed to those Scriptures by " the Church ?" What follower of " the Church," as his interpreter of Scripture, would have come to the conclusion that he was to leave the whole body of scribes and pharisees to follow Simeon and Anna ? No ; it was only the hurable student of " the Scriptures," under the guidance of that Holy Spirit who is ever present to the prayer of the faithful, who was likely to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. It is no reply to say, that this arguraent proves too much, for that it would prove that the Old Testament Scriptures are sufficient without the New. It proves only that the Old Testament Scriptures expressed with suffi cient plainness the truths they did reveal, to be under stood by all who studied them ; and this is all for which we adduce it ; except to remark that we have here the VOL. H. Q 226 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION highest sanction, whoever we be, to our placing the written word infinitely above every other guide, and walking according to what shall appear to us, after a di ligent investigation, to be its true meaning. I will cite but one passage more, which shall be the remarkable testimony of St. Paul to the value of the Old Testament Scriptures, in his Second Epistle to Timothy. " Frora a child," he says, " 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 profitable for doc trine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in right eousness, that the man of God raay be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Tim. iii. 15 — 17.) Is it possible that any man, with this passage before him, will venture to say that the Scriptures are not calculated, and were not intended, to teach mankind in general ; but are written so as that they need an interpreter before they can be understood ? I do not here quote this passage, be it observed, as showing how much, whether raore or less, is contained in the Scriptures, because it refers to the Scrip tures of the Old Testaraent ; but I refer to it, as showing the purposes of Scripture, " all Scripture," that it was intended to make the man of God perfect, and thoroughly to furnish him to all good works ; in other words, to be, what our opponents deny that it was intended to be, his great teacher and instructor. And hence, if Scripture contains all the fundaraental and essential doctrines of religion, all those truths which were intended to be understood by all, then it follows, frora the raode of writing adopted by the sacred penmen, that all those truths are delivered as clearly and plainly as they are intended to be understood. Against this line of argument is sometimes urged the case of the Ethiopian eunuch, — who, when reading the prophet Isaiah, and being questioned by Philip whether he understood what he read, replied, " How can I, ex cept some man should teach me ;"— but to no purpose. TAUGHT CLEARLY IN SCRIPTURE. 227 For we do not assert that the truths of Christianity can be learnt from the Old Testameut Scriptures alone. It is sufficient for our purpose that those Scriptures were a sufficiently clear revelation of what was necessary truth to those who lived under them. This is all which we assert or want for our argument. That they were written in a phraseology calculated to veil the truth to a certain extent before our Lord's appearance, is perfectly true. But I would ask. Was the Church able to remove that veil ? Did it see through that veil when our Lord appeared in strict accordance with the declarations of those Scriptures, yea in such strict accordance, that he sent the people to those Scriptures to learn from thera the truth which " the Church" was denying? The phraseology, then, was as plain as the revelation was intended to be, and this is all for which we contend for any part of Scripture. But thus much we maintain in behalf of all Scripture. The same remarks apply to another passage sometimes objected to us, viz. Luke xxiv. 45. " Then opened he their understandings, that they might understand the Scrip tures." The Scriptures here referred to are, as it appears by the context, those relating to Christ; and there was a degree of obscurity in the declarations of the Old Testa ment respecting the incarnation and sufferings of Christ which the event only could clear up. Our Lord, there fore, might well explain to his disciples the precise way in which they were to be accomplished, and show them how accurately they had been fulfilled in himself. And what our Lord did was to " open their understandings," which were blinded by prejudice and unbelief, that they might receive that which, in the prophecy connected with the accomplishment, was plainly set before them. In a word, he removed the prejudices by which " their minds were blinded," and the " veil " which was " upon their hearts." (2 Cor. iii. 14, 15.) And, in the writings ofthe Apostles, our Lord has given us similar explana tions, and will by his Spirit open in like manner the un- Q 2 228 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION derstandings of all sincere and penitent inquirers after the way of salvation, and remove the blindness and pre judices ofthe natural mind, and enable it to understand and receive those truths which are thus so plainly set before it. We are also met sometimes by the observation of St. Peter, that in the Epistles of St. Paul there are some things hard to be understood. (2 Pet. iii. 16.) But do we deny that such is the case ? Far from it. But we say that such things were intended by the Holy Spirit to be " hard to be understood," and that we must seek the meaning of them from that Holy Spirit himself; and with respect to them call no man or set of men master, i. e. authoritative teacher, upon earth. And lastly, the passage is sometimes urged, in which St. Peter tells us that " no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation," (2 Pet. i. 20;) but most incorrectly, for the context shows that the meaning is, that no prophecy of the Scripture proceeds from any pri vate interpretation or declaration of God's will, for it is added, " for the prophecy came not in old tirae by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." And so the Vulgate trans lates the passage, " The prophecy of Scripture is not made by private interpretation," (propria interpretatione non fit ;) and Menochius, in his comment on the pas sage, allows that this is its meaning; and so does Cor nelius a Lapide, though he attempts also to extract the other meaning from it, to make it support the Romish cause. This suitability of Scripture to teach the Christian reli gion may be inferred. Secondly, From the professed object of the sarred writers of the New Testament, which was to teach all tlie great truths of the Gospel, without concealment or re serve. This is fully proved by many passages of their writings. St. Luke wrote his Gospel in order, in the first instance, 6 TAUGHT CLEARLY IN SCRIPTURE. 229 that Theophilus raight " know the certainty of those things in which he had been instructed." (Luke i. 4.) And St. Paul, when speaking of hiraself as a minister ofthe New Testament, says, " Seeing, then, that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech, and not as Moses, who put a veil over his face," &c. (2 Cor. iii. 12.) And again, a little further on, he says, — " By manifesta tion of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God," (2 Cor. iv. 2.) a testimony remarkably forcible in proof of our position, that the Apostle always delivered the truths with which he was entrusted as clearly as language would permit, and so as to commend the instructor to every maris conscience, and thus teach every man the truth in the most forcible man ner, and therefore certainlj' so expressed hiraself, when delivering those truths in his Epistles to the Churches. And he exhorts the brethren to pray for him, that " ut terance might be given unto hira, that he might open his mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel." (Eph. vi. 19.) If, then, the writings of this Apostle and his brethren contain all the essential truths of the gospel, (as it is admitted they do,) surely men who felt thus would take care that in such documents more especially those truths should be clearly and fully expressed, to say nothing of that spiritual guidance under which those docuraents were penned. It is irapossible not to see how totally opposed such statements as those we have referred to are to the views of the Romanists and the Tractators, whose repre sentations would lead us to suppose that the Bible is a sort of cabalistical book, the knowledge of whose meaning is confined to a certain order of men, ordained by suc cession from the Apostles. Such a notion, however, is suitable only to the priests of superstition and idolatry. Would that we might live to see the day when such doc trines were left in their sole possession ! To them they 230 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION are suitable enough, for false religion dreads the light, and hence their so called sacred books are most consistently veiled in the language of concealment and raystery. But it is not so with the word of God. All that God sees fit to reveal is, as far as it was intended to be known, stated clearly and plainly on all occasions by those whom he uses as instruments to deliver his word. And therefore certainly the fundamentals of religion are never obscurely stated in any Divine declaration respecting them. The sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to teach the Christian religion to mankind generally, may be inferred. Thirdly, From the persons to whom the writings ofthe Apostles are addressed. These writings, with but few exceptions, are not ad dressed to the pastors of the Church in particular. The Gospels were written for the instruction of Christians ge nerally ; and, in fact, of mankind at large ; and were written in order to give them a full knowledge of the Christian faith. The Epistles are raost of them expressly directed to all the individuals of the body of Christians to whom they are addressed. The Epistle to the Romans is addressed to " all that are in Rome called to be saints." (Rom. i. 7.) And the First to the Corinthians is ad dressed to " the Church of God which is at Corinth, to thera that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, ivith all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord both theirs and ours ;" (1 Cor. i. 2 ;) and to these persons the Apostle uses this language, " I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say ;" (1 Cor. x. 15 ;) "Judge in yourselves, is it comely, &c." (1 Cor. xi. 13.)! And the Apostles were anxious that their writings should be read by all ; for St. Paul, writing to the Thessalonians, exhorts them to take care that his Epistle be " read to all the holy brethren," (1 Thess. v. 27,) and commands the Co lossians to cause his Epistle to them to be read also in the ' See also 1 Thess. v. 27. Phil. i. 1. &c. TAUGHT CLEARLY IN SCRIPTURE. 231 Church of the Laodiceans ; and that they should read the Epistle frora Laodicea. (Col. iv. 16.) Hence they are written so that all may learn the truths of which they speak, from them. They are written in a style adapted to the instruction of every, even the humblest, member of society. They address each indi vidual as one who is responsible to God for receiving and obeying that which they have thus delivered. True, the persons so addressed had some previous knowledge of the truths of Christianity ; but this, in no respect, diminishes the force of the argument. For if any truths were passed over on this account, they would only be the most plain and simple ; but these, it is con ceded, are contained in Scripture. And in whatever raatters the persons so addressed needed instruction, they needed it in the most plain and clear form, brought down to the comprehension of mankind in general. So that, in what ever point instruction is given by the Apostles, it seems evident, from the way in which they address themselves to all mankind, that such instruction must be given in the plainest and clearest form. If a raan was addressing a miscellaneous body of professing Christians, including the humblest of mankind, and instructing thera in the faith, he would use language suited to teach the faith, as far as it went, to all mankind. Just so was it with the Apostles. They had, for the most part, simple and ig norant men to deal with, and they wrote so as to be un derstood by them. The suitability of Scripture to teach the Christian reli gion, might also be inferred. Fourthly, From the evident simplicity of the language of the New Testament. This is a point in which our appeal lies to the comraon sense and observation of the reader. Can it be denied that the statements of the New Testament are couched in terms the most siraple, and phrases the most perspicuous, that the subject would admit of? Can it be denied that, instead of any air of raystery or concealment being adopted 232 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION with regard to all the great fundamental articles of the faith, there is, on the contrary, every appearance of an en deavour to state them in the most plain and intelligible manner? Nay, it is admitted by our adversaries, that such is the case ; but with a reservation that makes their tenet self-contradictory, viz., that they are thus plain in Scripture only to those who have been taught them be forehand ; that is, in fact, that Scripture does not plainly deliver thera to all. I ask, then, if Scripture contains all the fundaraental articles of the faith, couched in the most plain and intel ligible terms, how is it that it can be insufficient to teach those articles ? I must add, also, that the suitability of Scripture to teach the Christian religion, may be inferred. Fifthly, From its actual effects. Here, again, our appeal is to experience and fact ; and many, I have no doubt, will be disposed at once to deny that any argument can be deduced frora this source, in favour of our position. Here, then, we are in a situation that renders it next to impossible to press the argument home upon the reader. Narratives of facts, such as those to which I am here alluding, generally carry little con viction to the mind of one prepossessed in favour of an opposite view. Such facts must be witnessed, to convince the gainsayer. But I cannot omit a referenqe to them here, as bearing important witness in favour of our posi tion. It is an argument which it may not be easy to test ; because the cases are comparatively few where a man has been left to gather his religious knowledge altogether from the Bible. But no man can have perused the ac counts given frora time to time of the proceedings of our religious societies of late years, and not have been struck with the testimonies borne to the effects produced by the Scriptures alone. However, I shall content myself here with having di rected the attention of the reader to this argument, and would only request him not to form a hasty judgment TAUGHT CLEARLY IN SCRIPTURE. 233 from the effects produced by the careless and apathetic perusal given to the Scriptures by the generality, but from those produced by the earnest and sincere perusal of one who is really desirous of learning and following the truth, and is seriously asking the question, " What must I do to be saved ?" Lastly, I will not hesitate to add, fortified by the pre ceding evidences, that the suitability of Scripture to teach the Christian religion, may be inferred from the nature of its subject, compared with the revealed character of its Author. Its subject is the way and raeans of man's salvation ; the character of its Author, one who willeth that salvation. The very fact, then, of its being a revelation upon such a subject, from such a source, is of itself an evidence that whatever is delivered in it, so far as it was intended by God that the revelation should extend, is well calculated to impart the knowledge which it was God's purpose to give. He who charges the word of God with obscurity in such matters as were intended by him to be revealed to man, either charges its Author with incompetency, or takes away from him that character in which he delights, by representing him as putting unnecessary difficulties in the way of the salvation of man. And this would apply, doubtless, to whatever the Apostles delivered on the subject, whether orally or by writing ; but of the former, we have no satisfactory testi mony what it was ; and if we suppose that their teaching was uniformly thus clear and plain, the existence of the Scriptures leaves us but little cause to regret the absence of sufficient testimony as to what they did deliver orally, at least as far as the fundamentals of faith and practice are concerned. These writings are not all occasional productions, written to raeet particular errors, and inculcate particular points. The Gospels at least were intended to give us a full account of our Lord's teaching, and of all the great facts which form the Christian faith. And besides these. 234 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION we have more than twenty Epistles of the Apostles, giving an enlarged account of the same faith. But all are not sufficient, we are told, to teach us the faith. And we are sent to what? To the monuments accidentally remaining to us of antiquity, the works of a few antient authors, borne up by chance upon the surface of the stream of time; while thousands have perished equally or better entitled to our respect ; and these be longing only to what some raight call the prevailing party among Christians, and confessedly, in part, (to what extent we know not,) corrupted and interpolated, and suppositi tious; and from these volumes we are to obtain the mean ing of the Holy Scriptures ; seeing, forsooth, that these volumes are to be taken as containing within theui an in fallible representation ofthe oral teaching of the Apostles ; from which alone we can tell what they meant in their writings ; or rather what the Holy Spirit meant, when he was professing to teach it in them. It is at least evident, then, that such a rule of faith as Dr. Pusey and his party propose to us, can be made use of only by the learned. For, even were these volumes translated into all the languages spoken by Christians, I suppose it will be granted that such an investigation can only be carried on by learned raen. And it would be a rather curious inquiry, by the way, how raany there are even among the learned, who are really acquainted with their rule of faith, if patristical tradition forms part of it. What, then, is the unlearned man to do ? What is he to do ? He is to learn, from his " priest," the " tradition" delivered in these volumes ; and he is to put his faith in the interpretation of the Scriptures so given him, as a di vine interpretation, derived from the oral teaching of the Apostles. And if, perchance, he should think the inter pretation thus given him, not to be what appears to him the raeaning of the Scriptures, he is to put his faith in the interpretation, and not in what appears to him to be God's truth ; for such is Mr. Newman's express direction. TAUGHT CLEARLY IN SCRIPTURE. 235 I pass on to observe — II. That all the doctrines of the Christian faith are as plainly delivered in the Scriptures as, to our knowledge, they are revealed. Assuming that the arguraents adduced on our last head have been satisfactory, and that the reader is disposed to adrait that all the essential and fundamental points of faith are clearly and plainly delivered in the Scriptures, we have here only to consider the case of those which are not to be classed among the fundaraental points of faith. Now here even Vincent of Lerins seems to hesitate as to making a claim to any well-authenticated report of Apostolical tradition, anything which can be looked upon as delivering to us with certainty the oral teaching of the Apostles ; and our opponents themselves are somewhat self-contradictory in their statements; in some places .making a claim to the possession of testimony of a certain and indubitable kind,! and in others apparently admitting that we cannot be altogether certain of the correctness of the testimony we possess on these points,* though this admission is accompanied with the intimation that we must " either believe or silently acquiesce in the whole" of what the " prophetical tradition " of the Church (as Mr. Newman calls it)- delivers to us. That on these points much valuable information is to be obtained from the writings of the antient Church, is what I am far from prepared to deny, but, on the con trary, firmly raaintain. But what I ask is. How can you in any case verify a doctrine, or interpretation, or statement, as an Aposto lical tradition ? We have already shown the impossibility of doing so. We have shown that the tests proposed by our opponents are altogether fallible and nugatory. We have shown that there is no certain and indubitable report of any divine revelation but the Holy Scripture. ' See Newman's Leet. p. 299, and Keble's serm. pp. 36, 7. ^ See Newman's Leet. pp. 249 and 300. 236 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION However obscure, therefore, any of the less funda mental doctrines or statements of Scripture raay be con sidered to be, there is no plainer report of thera than what we find there, that can come to us with any autho rity to bind the conscience to belief. They are as plainly delivered in the Scriptures as, to our knowledge, they are revealed. I proceed to show — III. That the best and only infallible expositor of Scripture is Scripture ; or, in other words, that the best mode of judging of the sense of any passage is by a com parison of it with the testimony of Scripture in other parts ; first, by comparing it with the context, with pas sages similarly worded, with such plain places of Scrip ture as can illustrate its meaning, and with all that is stated in Scripture respecting the subject treated of; and secondly, by considering it in connexion with the whole scheme of doctrine clearly revealed in Scripture. We take it for granted, that we have sufficiently de monstrated that patristical tradition cannot be considered a divine informant. Whatever, then, may be its value as a help to us in obtaining a knowledge of Christian doctrine, it must be placed in a very different rank to an inspired guide. It partakes of the imperfection of human nature. It is mixed with the dross of human imagin ations. Moreover, " the things of God knoweth no one but the Spirit of God." It is not by any peculiar powers of mind or extent of huraan learning, that the mysteries of God's word are to be developed. They can be known only as far as they are revealed, nor can any powers of man fur nish us with a further insight into them than the Divine declarations afford us ; for all beyond that is the offspring of the human imagination. Nevertheless there is, as experience shows us, a strong inclination in men to be wise above what is written ; to attempt to fathom mys teries beyond their reach, and explain fully and without reserve even those raore hidden spiritual truths of which TAUGHT CLEARLY IN SCRIPTURE. 237 the word of God contains only some intimations, and thus bring out a systera which shall be complete in all its parts ; and in this attempt they are in danger at every step of being led astray by the prejudices of human nature, the bias of preconceived notions, the flights of an erratic iraagination. Look at Origen, for instance, who lived at a period when, according to our opponents, the savour of Apostolical oral tradition was yet fresh in the Church. With huraan commentators, therefore, we must be always on our guard. It seems obvious, then, that our first inquiry in the interpretation of Scripture should be. What has God said on this matter elsewhere in Scripture ? Is there any other passage in the word of God, that either in the sen timent conveyed, or in the expressions used, is similar to the one before us ? Whether the difficulty lies in the precise raeaning of the terras used, or in the doctrine intended to be conveyed, there is no raode of solving the difficulty equally efficacious or satisfactory with that of putting together the parallel passages of Scripture, and judging from thera as a whole what is the mind of God in the particular passage under consideration. For here alone we have the infallible records of divine teaching, the mind of the Spirit. And while we compare it with the parallel passages, we raust reraeraber not to take an insulated view of the doctrine which it seems to inculcate, but to conteraplate it in its position in the great scheme of Scripture doc trine, so as more clearly to see its true form and propor tions, and ascertain that our notions of it are such as to give it that harmony with the whole which beyond doubt it possesses. Such was the course pursued by the Fathers at the Council of Nice. When desirous of accurately describing the divine nature of the Son in opposition to the errors of the Arians, they, as we are told by Athanasius, " col lected together out of the Scriptures these words, the brightness, the fountain, and the river, and the image of 238 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION the substance, and that expression, ' In thy light shall we see light,' and that, ' I and my Father are one ;' and then at last they wrote more plainly and compendiously, that the Son was consubstantial with the Father, for all the previous expressions have this meaning." ! This is precisely an exemplification of that for which we are here contending. The views of the Nicene Fa thers were not derived (as those of the heretics were, and alraost always are,) frora one or two insulated passages of Scripture, still less frora patristical tradition, but from a general consideration of the whole testimony of Scripture upon the point; and frora this they deduced the faith, and interpreted each particular passage. This, indeed, is a common rule of interpretation in other works, especially those that have come down to us from a remote period. There are often particular trains of thought, and particular raodes of expression, charac teristic of particular authors ; and there is no raode of arriving at the sense of an author so efficient or satisfac tory, as that of judging (if possible) from the collation of similar passages. This rule, then, applies with tenfold force to Scripture, for both as to the author and the sub ject it is a work altogether sui generis. It alone claims to be inspired. It alone was written at the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It alone delivers with authority divine truth. The light, therefore, which we thus derive is altogether pure ; it is divine light. The interpretation, as far as it goes, is an inspired interpretation. There is no uncer tainty in it ; no allowance to be made for human imper fection ; no room for exceptions and limitations in our reception of it. We may embrace it with raore confi dence than we would a friend, whose love and faithful ness it was impossible to call in question ; while every thing else is to be received only as one towards whom we are bound to observe caution and reserve. Whatever mistakes raay be raade here, they are owing entirely to ' Athanas. ad Afr. Epiac. Epiat. § fi. See the passage, c. 10, below. TAUGHT CLEARLY IN SCRIPTURE. 239 our own imperfection and prejudices, while with any other guide we have not only our own imperfection and prejudices to contend with, but those of our guide too. Moreover, whatever weight may be attached by any to what the Fathers have delivered, it is allowed by all, (as we have already observed,) that as it respects the words Scripture only is inspired. This again very strongly tends to show that Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture. For other interpreters may raake use of words very open to an unorthodox raeaning, though well intended by the writer. While opposing one error, they raay use words leaning to the opposite, as we have already seen to have been continually the case with the Fathers. But by a coraparison of Scripture with itself, we may see the same doctrine expressed in different phrases, and illustrated by various allusions, all inspired, and therefore free from the least error, or inclination to error, if only fairly and honestly taken ; and in this variety of phrase and illustration we have an inspired comraentary upon the text whose raeaning we are seeking. Further, as it respects the efficiency of this mode of interpretation, we must observe, that all the great doc trines of Christianity (which are those with which we are here principally concerned) lie in a small compass, and were the great subjects of the Apostles' preaching. Hav ing, then, four different accounts of our Lord's life and doctrine, and so raany Epistles addressed on different occasions to various Churches, we have these doctrines placed (before us in the New Testaraent in so many various ways mid different phrases, yet all indited by the omni scient Spirit, that we have ample scope afforded us for using with success such a mode of interpretation. Not to mention that in the Old Testament also we have an adumbration of much that is of the highest moment in the Christian faith. Hence it is said by Clement of Alexandria, that the Scriptures are to be expounded according to " the ecclesiastical rule," and " the eccle- 240 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION siastical rule," he tells us, " is the consent and harraony of the Law and the Prophets with the covenant [or, tes tament] delivered by the advent of our Lord."! j^qJ any one who looks into the writings of the earliest Fathers, will see that this comparison of the statements of the two Testaments was one of their chief guides in the interpretation of Scripture. Nay, we have some remarkable testimonies on this head in the writings of some of the Romanists themselves, when, forgetting their controversies, they gave utterance to their unbiassed judgment. Thus Joseph a Costa, the Jesuit, says, — " Nothing ap pears to me to explain Scripture equally with Scripture itself. Therefore the diligent, attentive, and frequent reading and raeditation, and collation of the Scriptures, always appeared to rae the very best of all guides for un derstanding it. For passages of Scripture are best under stood frora each other . . . that which is clear explains that which is obscure, and that which is certain explains that which is doubtful." * And thus speaks Salraero on the Epistles of St. Paul, — " The best rule for understand ing and explaining the raore obscure passages of Paul is to compare the parallel passages that treat of the sarae subject with one another ; for one elucidates the other." ' Let us test this raethod of interpreting Scripture by Scripture by an example. Take the text, " This is my body .... this is my blood of the New Testament." (Matt. xxvi. 26, 28; Mark xiv. 22, 24.) Our opponents would here send us to the Fathers, ' See ch. 10 below. .'^ ,-. • ¦; " Nihil perinde Scripturam mihi'' videtur aperire atque ipsa Scriptura. Itaque diligens attenta frequensque lectio tura meditatio et collatio Scriptura rum, omnium summa regula ad intelligendum mihi semper est visa. Nam ex aliis Scripturis aliae uptime intelliguntur . . . obscuram aperta, dubiara certa interpretatur. Jos. a Costa. De Christo revel, lib. iii. c. 21. 3 Optima ilia regula est ad obacuriorea Pauli loeoa intelligendos et expli- candos, si loci similes qui de eadem re ediaserant inter se conferantur, nam unus solet alteram illustrare. Salm. sup. Ep. Paul. libr. i. disp. 10. TAUGHT CLEARLY IN SCRIPTURE. 241 painfully to track out in their works the language which they have used respecting the eucharist, and ascertain from this source whether the Romanists interpret these words rightly or not. Now it will not be denied that the Romanists pretend to make out a case from the Fathers in favour of their view. So that at once we are met with the difficulty of having to decide between the claims of the Romanists and Protestants to tradition, while raen in general are obliged to take the representations of both sides on trust, being unable to search through hundreds of voluraes to ascertain for themselves what is the real state ofthe case. And if we do make the search, most men would find themselves, through the obscurities, con tradictions, and exaggerated statements of the Fathers, involved in a coraplete labyrinth, needing a guide conti nually at their elbow. I would be understood, indeed, distinctly and firmly to maintain, that the argument from antiquity is, to those who are able rightly to estimate the evidence upon which it is founded, undeniably against the Romish doctrine in this matter. But at the sarae time, from the hyperbolical language and ambiguous terms which some ofthe Fathers have admitted, it is an inquiry which might considerably perplex and embarrass an ordi nary reader; nor can it be denied that their injudicious language on this subject is calculated to lead even more learned readers, predisposed in favour of the doctrine, to conclude that it has at least respectable patristical testi mony in its favour. But now let the weary inquirer, who perhaps has lost his way in this trackless desert, (and let him be an un learned one if you please,) turn to the pages of Scripture. His first question (staggered as he must naturally be with the notion that the bread and wine he receives at the eucharist are the natural and corporeal body and blood of Christ) will be. Must these words be thus understood? Are such expressions never used figuratively in Scrip ture ? He finds the following passages ; — " I am the door of the sheep." (John x. 7.) " I am the true vine." VOL. II. K 242 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION (John XV. 1.) " They drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ." (1 Cor. x. 4.) He sees, then, that such expressions are at least some times used in Scripture figuratively, and that the word " is," raay raean " bears the character of," or, " repre sents," or, " is figuratively." He looks to the context, and he finds that, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord said ;— " This is my blood of the New Testament, which is .slied for raany for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of THIS FRUIT OF THE VINE {tovtov tov yevvrfnaToq ttjq a/xrre'Kov) until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fa ther's kingdom." (Matt. xxvi. 28, 29.) And again, in Mark, — " This is ray blood I will drink no more of the fruit ofthe vine until," &c. (Mark xiv. 25.) Then, saith our unlearned inquirer, it is still " the fruit of the vine " after consecration, for our Lord himself calls it so after he had given his disciples the cup, and pronounced the words, " This is my blood." I know not why our unlearned inquirer should be com pelled to proceed any further in his investigation, but if he is desirous of doing so, he will next take the parallel passages, and he finds that the expressions used by Luke and St. Paul are, " This is my body," and, " This cup is the New Testament in my blood." (Luke xxii. 20 ; and 1 Cor. xi. 25.) Now either both of these expressions must be understood literally, or both figuratively ; and seeing that no one supposes that the cup or that which is in it is changed into a testament, neither is the bread changed into the body of Christ. In the latter words, indeed, there is evidently a double figure, the cup being put for that which it contains. And further, in the latter passage the bread and wine are three tiraes over said to be bread and wine after consecration. " As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, &c.;" « Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup, &e. ; " " Let a man examine himself, and so let hira eat of that bread and drink of that cup." (vv. 26— -28.) TAUGHT CLEARLY IN SCRIPTURE. 243 And the further he carries his search, the more will he find this view of the matter confirraed. For in stance, let him compare the text, " Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life." (John vi. 54.) Now if this does not refer to the eucharist, (as many think,) then it is evident that we may eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood by an act of the soul, unac companied by any corporal act ; but if it does refer to the eucharist, then that it is a spiritual eating and drinking, and not a corporal, is evident, because many partake of the bread and wine in the eucharist who have not eternal life. And so, on the same occasion on which our Lord inculcated the necessity of thus eating his flesh and drink ing his blood, he shows the figurative character of his words when he says, " He that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (ver. 35.) Lastly, let him view this passage as it stands con nected with the general scherae of Scripture doctrine upon the subject. The object for which we " eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood," is that we may pos sess that life which he came to bestow upon us. What, then, is the testiraony of Scripture as to the purpose of Christ's coraing, the nature of the life we derive from him, and the mode in which we become partakers of it? Scripture tells us that all raankind are in a state of spiritual death ; " dead in trespasses and sins ;" (Eph. ii. 1 ;) dead, as under God's wrath and condemnation ; dead, as living in the love and practice of sin ; for " she that liveth in pleasure," says the Apostle, " is dead while she liveth." (] Tim. v. 6,) Frora this spiritual death it tells us that Christ came to rescue us; and the life which he brings is spiritual life, consisting in (1) the pardon of our sins ; for " you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with Christ, having forgiven you all tre^asses," (Col. ii. 13 ;) and (2) a renewal of the soul, for we are " created in Christ Jesus unto good R 2 244 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION works," (Eph. ii. 10,) and " if any man be in Christ he is a new creature," . (2 Cor. v. 17,) " renewed in the spirit of his mind," and " created in righteousness and true holiness." (Eph. iv. 23, 24.) But this spiritual life, consisting of pardon and recon ciliation with God, and a renewal to a life of holiness, was obtained for us. Scripture tells us, by the offering of the flesh and blood of Christ upon the cross. For " we have redemption through his blood." (Eph. i. 7.) " When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God, by the death of his Son." (Rom. v. 10.) " He hath reconciled us in the body of his flesh, through death." (Col. i. 21, 22.) " He gave himself for us, that he might redeem us frora all in iquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." (Tit. ii. 14.) So that the flesh and blood of Christ, offered upon the cross, procured for men these blessings. Hence we have at once a strong confirmatory argu raent that, seeing it is spiritual life, the life of the soul, for which Christ came and was offered, his flesh and blood can be food only in a spiritual manner, being food for the nourishment of the soul. But let us further observe how Scripture itself tells us that we obtain these blessings, purchased by Christ's death. It is by faith in that sacrifice as the atonement for our sins. Jesus Christ " God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his. righteousness for the remission of sins, &c." (Rom. iii. 25.) And saith our Lord, " He that believeth on me, hath everlasting life." (John vi. 47.) Therefore the flesh and blood of Christ, offered upon the cross, becorae life to the soul, when we rest upon them by faith, as the foundation of our hopes before God. Hence the flesh and blood of Christ become, by faith, a restorative to the soul, giving it spiritual life and health. And to the faithful, taking the bread and wine in a be lieving and thankful remembrance of Christ's death, the flesh and blood of Christ, represented by the bread and TAUGHT CLEARLY IN SCRIPTURE. 245 wine, are verily and indeed food to their souls ; food truly received by thera in a spiritual manner, and effectual to the nourishment oftheir souls. For " he that eateth me, even he shall live by rae." (ver. 57.) " My flesh is raeat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." (ver. 55.) As our Church expresses it, " The body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's supper ;" (Catech.) and by " the faithful" only ; for " the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner ; and the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the supper, is faith." (Art. 28.) And he only who thus, i. e. by faith, eats the flesh, and drinks the blood of Christ, can possess spiritual life. For saith our Lord, " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." (John vi. 53.) And our Lord's observations in this chapter (John vi.) show us, as we have already observed, that there may be such an eating and drinking, by faith only, without the external symbols. And even Romanists themselves con fess that when our Lord speaks in this chapter of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, he raeans " faith in his death."! And this our Church teaches us, in her office for the communion of the sick, in these words ; — " If a man, either by reason of extremity of sickness, or &c., or any other just impediment, do not receive the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, the curate shall instruct hira that, if he do truly repent him of his sins, and stedfastly be lieve that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the cross for him, and shed his blood for his redemption, earnestly remenibering the benefits he hath thereby, and giving him hearty thanks therefore, he doth eat and drink the body and blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul's health, although he do not receive the sacrament with his mouth." But, doubtless, the effectual operation of this spiritual ' See Card, Caietan's Comment, on thia pasaage. 246 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION food upon the soul may be more especially looked for in the celebration of that sacramental rite which is an ordi nance of Christ's own appointment for the faithful and thankful comraeraoration of his death. Now there is nothing in all this beyond the power of any raan of good comraon understanding, who will make the Bible his study. And such is the clearness and ful ness of the Divine volume, on all important points, that it is soraetiraes found (I appeal to the experience of those who have had opportunities of raaking the observation) that a poor unlearned cottager, who has been a diligent student of his Bible, may have a firmer hold of truth, and a better insight into the genius and doctrines of Chris tianity, than those who have been labouring for years in the field of theological study. But the misfortune is, that raen will not generally thus study their Bibles. And no doubt it raust be added that there are sorae understandings that need guidance and in struction. Such, also, is the negligence and indifference of raen in spiritual things, that they need to have the truth urgently set before them ; to have even that infor mation which is accessible to thera, and placed within their reach, put, as it were, in their hands, with a call upon them to attend to it. Here, then, comes in the office of the minister of Christ ; and we are thus reminded of an objection sometiraes raade to the views we have been advocating, and the answer to it. It is objected, — If the Scriptures are perspicuous enough to teach the faith, then the rainisterial office, and all such helps, are useless ; but the latter is inconsistent with the declarations of Scripture and experience, and therefore the former. Here, though the preraises are raost true, the conclu sion is altogether inconsequent and absurd. The clear ness and fulness of the written word to those who can and will raake use of it, are far from affecting the value and importance of the labours of the minister of Christ. For, TAUGHT CLEARLY IN SCRIPTURE. 247 not to mention other duties of his office, such as the mi nistration of the sacraments, &c., there are, in the first place, children and illiterate persons, who cannot even read, and there are a large number, — raust I say the ma jority? — who ivill not read, to be instructed by him. Further, there is a large number, whose secular engage ments are allowed to stand in the way of an earnest and attentive perusal of Scripture, who therefore need to have things plain to the student of Scripture pointed out to them. Above all, he has to contend with the corruptions and prejudices of huraan nature, to induce it to receive the truths of Scripture as there delivered. The negli gence, the indifference, the prejudices, the voluntary ig norance of men, require all, and more than all, his ener gies. It is his to be the diligent prayerful student of the word of God, and point out to men what he finds there. It is his to direct and quicken the researches of his flock into that sacred volurae. It is his to point out what is, indeed, accessible to all, by a little attention and study ; but which, through indifference and worldly-mindedness, needs to be enforced on their attention. And in this raatter, as far as concerns the articles of faith contained in the creed, even Thoraas Aquinas will teach us better doctrine than our opponents. Speaking of the creed, he proposes this objection to be solved ; " It appears that the articles of the faith are placed iraproperly in a creed. For Holy Scripture is the rule of faith, which it is not lawful to add to, or take away from. For it is said, Deut. 4. ' Ye shall not add to the word which I speak unto you ; neither shall ye take away from it.' Therefore it was unlawful to constitute any creed a rule of faith, after the Holy Scripture was published." To this he re plies as follows ; — " To this it is to be answered, that the truth of the faith is contained in Holy Scripture diffusely, and in various ways, and in some obscurely ; so that, to extract the truth of the faith from the Holy Scripture, there is required long study and exercise ; to which all those to whom it is necessary to know the truth of the faith can- 248 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION not attain, most of whom, being occupied with other busi ness, have no time for study ; and therefore it was necessary that, from the declarations of the Holy Scripture, some thing clear should be collected in the way of summary, which might be proposed to all for their belief; which is not, indeed, added to the Holy Scripture, but rather taken from the Holy Scripture."! Here, then, no obscurity is supposed but what the study of the Scriptures is sufficient to remove ; and the use of the Church in raaking the creed is, not to lay down articles of faith as from the Scriptures, which men studying the Scriptures could not themselves find there, but to abridge the time and consideration required for a comprehensive view of and search into the Scriptures, in aid of those who are occupied in worldly business. And if we go beyond the prime articles of the faith, (which, however, be it observed, I do not limit to those in the Apostles' Creed,) who will deny that there are points, important points, revealed in Scripture, in which all may be much indebted to the labours of those who, at various periods of the Church, have, by extensive collation of Scripture with itself, by long and deep thought, study, and meditation, and doubtless, in many cases, by the guidance of the Spirit of God, elucidated the declarations of Scripture. It was well said by Gregory the Great, that there are in Scripture shallows which a Iamb might ford, and depths in which an elephant might swim. There ' Videtur quod inconvenienter articuli fidei in aymbolo ponantur. Sacra enim Scriptura est regula fidei cui nee addere nee subtrahere licet. Dicitur enim Deut. 4. Non addetis ad verbum quod vobis loquor neque auferetis ab eo. Ergo illicitum fuit aliquod symbolum conatituere quasi regulam fidei post sacram Scripturam editam Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod Veritas fidei in sacra Scriptura diffuse continetur et variis media et in quibusdam ob scure ; ita quod ad eliciendum fidei veritatem ex sacra Scriptura requiritur longum studium et exercitium, ad quod non possunt pervenire omnes illi quibus necessarium est cognoscere fidei veritatem, quorum plerique aliis ne- gotiis occupati studio vacare non possunt ; et ideo fuit necessarium ut ex sen tentiis sacrffi Scripturae aliquid manifestum summarie colligeretur, quod propo- neretur omnibua ad credendum, quod quidem non eat additum sacra: Scripturae, sed potius ex sacra Scriptura sumptura. Thom. Aq. Summ. Theolog. Sec. sec. q. 1, art. 9. ed. Paris. 1631. TAUGHT CLEARLY IN SCRIPTURE. 249 are raany passages in which we need all the helps we can obtain ; and after all, perhaps, notwithstanding " tradi tion," raust remain uncertain of their meaning. Nor is it one of the least uses of pastoral teaching, and commentaries upon the Scriptures, to rescue them from the misinterpretations to which, from various causes, and especially from the corrupt prejudices of the natural raind, they have been subjected ; and to the influence of which all are more or less exposed. The raind is often prepos sessed at an early age in favour of incorrect views ; and raost cornie to the Scriptures rather to confirra their pre conceived notions, than to learn the truth from the word of God ; and, alas ! with rainds in which, beyond the erro neous ideas that may have been instilled by others, there are sure to be, more or less, many innate prejudices to operate against the reception of the truth. It is of great importance, then, that the objections, difficulties, and mis interpretations that have been, or are likely to be, raised by the natural mind, should be cleared away, that the truth may be more easily seen. Hence, moreover, the importance of that confirmation of the truth, which we derive from the writings of the Fathers, the creeds, confessions, and Conciliar determina tions of the early Church. However clearly the truth raay be laid down in Scripture, the prejudices of the natural mind, as well as the various discordant inter pretations given to it, throw difficulties in the way of its reception. Both these causes will tend to create self-distrust ; and the latter to produce perplexity. A consciousness, then, of a liability to be deceived, will na turally and properly make the humble and sincere en quirer after truth anxious to know how others have un derstood it. He will be desirous of hearing the explana tions which may be offered by those whose opinion he respects ; or who, like the early Fathers, raight have had some facilities which he does not possess, for learning the right interpretation of Scripture. In a word, he will seek for a confirmation of his view of Scripture truth. 250 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION from the writings of the best and wisest of those who have, at various times, been received as teachers in the Church ; and if he can find no such confirmation in an iraportant article of faith, he will justly be led to question the correctness of his deductions from Scripture in the matter. Such writings, then, will be of essential service in coun teracting the tendencies of corrupt prejudices, in show ing the incorrectness of plausible misinterpretations, in pointing out the truth to those who care not to study the Scriptures in order to learn it ; and as a continual check upon the presumption and extravagance of the human iraagination. We are far indeed, then, frora depreciating the value and iraportance of ministerial labours, and the treasures of sound instruction to be found in the ecclesiastical writers of forraer times ; but we, at the same time, hold, that when God has spoken, man is responsible to God for believing and acting upon what God appears to him to have said. And we hold that the best expositor of the difficulties of Scripture, is Scripture. Nor is there any ground for the charge of presumption which our opponents are so fond of making against indi viduals who assume to theraselves the right of judging what is the raeaning of Scripture in the fundaraental articles of the faith ; for they forget that there is hardly a single point upon which the authority of doctors and councils raay not readily be quoted for views directly at variance with each other. The only other objection of any weight to the view for which we here contend, is the following. It is said, — Men differ about the raeaning of the Scriptures, or, as it is sometimes stated. The Scriptures do not teach the truth so as to prevent men from erring ; and therefore they are not clear, not perspicuous enough to teach the faith. On this plea I have already had occasion., to offer some TAUGHT CLEARLY IN SCRIPTURE. 251 remarks ; but as it is one of the great arguments of our opponents, I feel called upon to revert to it in this its most appropriate place. If this be a solid objection, then it follows that nothing can be clear about which men disagree. Are our oppo nents prepared to venture such an assertion ? Are they prepared to say that when St, John says, " The Word was made flesh," the denial of the incarnation by some here tics shows that Scripture is obscure on this point ; or that when he says, " The Word was God," the denial by some of the divinity of the Son in any sense, shows that Scrip ture is obscure on that point ? Are they prepared to say that our Lord did not give clear evidence of his divine mission, because men disagreed about it ? In fact, our opponents may be confuted in this raatter by their own adraissions. For they allow that the. sense of Scripture is clear when it is pointed out.! gyj jjjgjj diffej. about the meaning as much after it has been thus pointed out as before. Consequently, according to their own statements, the fact that men differ in such a raatter is no proof that the truth is not clearly delivered. Indeed, if nothing be plain about which men disagree, then it is not plain that Christianity itself came from God, for many do uot believe that it did. A man may shut his eyes at noon day, and declare that he cannot see the sun ; but this is no proof that it is doubtful whether the sun shines or not, nor does it show that further light is necessary to enable us to see the sun. And there are various ways in which the eyes of the mind may be shut to the truth, when it is shining upon us in its full strength. They may be shut by the natural cor ruption of our hearts ; by that worldly-minded spirit that leaves us a prey to the god of this world, who blinds the minds of those who believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ should shine unto them ; by pre judices against the truth ; by negligence in availing our- ' Newm. Leet. p. 165. 252 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION selves ofthe instruction given ; by apathy and indifference ; and, lastly, they are shut to any saving view of the truth by that self-confidence which makes us depend upon our own strength and imaginations, and neglect earnest prayer for that Divine aid and illumination which can alone enable us to receive the truth in the love of it. It is not " tradition," or any teaching of the Church, that can raake raen understand and receive the faith. The cause of their non -reception of it is not in the obscurity of the Scriptures, but in the state of their own rainds ; and as long as that reraains the same, they will warp the Scriptures, and the Fathers too if they think it wortk their while, to their own views and notions. Is it a remark bordering upon severity to say, that those who misinterpret the Scriptures on fundamental points, must be culpable in one or more of the ways above alluded to ? He must have a high idea of human nature who can find fault with the remark on that ground. The objections commonly made to the views advocated in this chapter may, I believe, be all summed up in the two we have just noticed. With these observations, then, I leave them with the reader. We shall see, in the following chapters, that in the re marks here made as to the clearness of Scripture in all vital points, and its being the best expositor of itself, I am only taking the ground which has been occupied before me by some of the best and wisest both of antient and modern divines. Before proceeding further, however, I will here add the testimonies of two learned divines of our Church on the subject. The first is from Dr. Chaloner, written in the time of James I. It is in reply to the Popish objection. How can we know the sense and meaning of Scripture but by the exposition of the Church? " I answer," he says, " that although all places of the Scripture are not alike perspicuous, as all are not alike necessary to salvation, yet for the opening of the sense thereof, so far as is be- TAUGHT CLEARLY IN SCRIPTURE. 253 hoofefuU for his Church, God is the best interpreter of his own meaning, expounding outwardly one place ofthe word by another, and inwardly both opening one's eyes to discern and inclining one's heart to assent unto the truth. As for those who cannot see but with the Pope's spectacles, and pretend the Scriptures to be everywhere throughout so overshadowed with a mist that nothing pre sents itself clearly to their view, I wonder the less at them, because their blindness is such that they cannot see to serve God without burning tapers and lighted candles at noon day." ! The second is from the pen of one of the most able of our modern prelates. Bishop Horsley, with which I shall conclude this chapter : " It should be a rule," he says, " with every one who would read the Holy Scriptures with advantage and iraprovement, to corapare every text which raay seem either important for the doctrine it may contain, or remarkable for the turn of the expression, with the parallel passages in other parts of Holy Writ ; that is, with the passages in which the subject raatter is the sarae, the sense equivalent, or the turn of the expres sion sirailar .... Particular diligence should be used in comparing the parallel texts of the Old and the New Testaments .... It is incredible to any one, who has not in sorae degree made the experiment, what a pro ficiency may be raade in that knowledge which maketh wise unto salvation, by studying the Scriptures in this manner, without any other commentary or exposition than what the different parts of the Sacred Volume mu tually furnish for each other. I will not scruple to assert, that the most illiterate Christian, if he can but read his English Bible, and will take the pains to read it in this manner, will not only attain all that practical knowledge which is necessary to his salvation, but, by Gods blessing, he will become learned in everything relating to his religion in such a degree, that he will not be liable to be misled ' Credo ecclesiam, &c. ed. 1638. pp. 105 — 7. 254 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION TAUGHT CLEARLY, &C. either by the refined arguments or by the false assertions of those who endeavour to engraft their own opinion upon the oracles of God. He may safely be ignorant of all philo sophy, except what is to be learned from the sacred books, which indeed contain the highest philosophy adapted to the lowest apprehensions. He may safely re main ignorant of all history, except so rauch of the history of the first ages of the Jewish and of the Christian Church as is to be gathered frora the canonical books of the Old and New Testament. Let him study these in the manner I recommend, and let him never cease to pray for the illumination of that Spirit by which these books were dic tated ; and the whole compass of abstruse philosophy and recondite history shall furnish no arguraent with which the perverse will of man shall be able to shake this learned Christians faith. The Bible thus studied will indeed prove to be what we Protestants esteem it, a CERTAIN AND SUFFICIENT RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE, a helmet of salvation, which alone may quench the fiery darts of the wicked." ! ' Horsley's Nine Sermons on the Resurrection and other subjects. Serm. 5. Serm. ed. 1829. vol. ii. pp. 373— S. 255 CHAPTER X. THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS ON THB SUBJECT OP THTS WORK. SECT. I.- — PRELIMINARY REMARKS. In proceeding to review the sentiments of the Fathers on the subject of this work, I would offer in the first place a few general reraarks, that may tend to assist the reader in forming a right judgment of them. It is always difficult to give, by a few brief extracts, any correct notion of the full spirit and force of a writer's testimony to a point like that before us, in which his views are very rauch shown by the general tone of his remarks, and the whole course of his arguraents. And it is still more difficult in the present case, frora the mis interpretation to which the works of the Fathers have been subjected frora the Romanists and our opponents. Before I proceed further, therefore, I would caution the reader against allowing hiraself to be misled by sen tences taken apart from their context, or phrases used in common by the Fathers and our opponents, but with a different raeaning. For instance, it is easy to find, in the works of the Fathers, as in the Catholic writers of later times, an appeal to the writers that preceded them, in confirmation of the orthodoxy of the doctrine they are inculcating. And these appeals are sometimes most incorrectly cited as proofs of their having maintained the pseudo-catholic notion that the Fathers are the authorized interpreters of Scripture, and patristical tradition a practically infallible 256 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS informant; whereas it will almost invariably be found, where such passages are examined, that the doctrine has been placed altogether upon the foundation of Scripture testimony, and the appeal to preceding writers in confir mation of it, made only with the view of showing that such an exposition of Scripture was no novelty, but not as if the testimony of a few ecclesiastical writers could be taken as an infallible expounder of God's word, or^er se necessary to the right interpretation of it, on account of its imperfection and obscurity. Another misinterpretation to which the writings of the Fathers have been subjected, (to which we have already alluded!,) and which has been raore useful than any other to the pseudo- catholic cause, is the perversion ofthe meaning of the word " tradition," as used by the Fathers. The writings of the Romanists in particular abound with citations from the Fathers in which the whole force of the passage depends upon the meaning of this word, and where an examination of the context shows that it is Scripture to which the writer is referring ; and thus, not unfrequently, the quotation which appears the raost forci ble to a superficial reader, turns out to be not only no evidence of what it is cited to prove, but precisely an evidence ofthe contrary. And, as we have already seen, our opponents have followed thera in this, so thai Mr. Newman has actually quoted a passage of Athanasius in defence of his views, which is diametrically opposed to them? In the former part of this work, I have given several passages in proof of what we are here maintaining, namely, that the word " tradition" is frequently used in the Fathers in reference to Scripture.^ But as the point is of considerable importance, I will here add some further proofs of it, in order to show its constant use by them in this sense. Thus Origen says, — " If any arrogant person chooses to slight or despise the declarations of the Apostles, let ' See vol. i. pp. 8, 69, 70, 74, 75. ' Vol. i. pp. 74, 5. ^ See vol. i. jjp, 8, 69, 70, 74—76. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 257 him look to it himself. I for my part think it right to cleave close, as to God aud our Lord Jesus Christ, so also to his Apostles, and to inform myself /rom tke Di vine Scriptures according to their own tradition." ! Thus, also, Pope Felix III. says, " Observe, disciples of Christ and my children, the traditions which ye have received from the Divine Scriptures." * So Gregory Nyssen (already quoted) says, " It is be lieved . . . from the tradition of the Scriptures." ^ So Cyril of Jerusalem says, " Hold the traditions which ye now receive," * where, as his learned editor, Milles, observes, the word traditions refers to what he had just set before his hearers /row the Scriptures. So Cyprian (already quoted) frequently speaks of our Lord's words recorded in the Gospels, under the name of " the Dominical tradition ;" ^ and elsewhere, on the ques tion of the rebaptization of heretics, exhorts (in similar language to the passage above quoted from him) a return to " the Evangelical testimony and the Apostolical tradi tion,"^ ineaning the Gospels of the Evangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles.' ' Si quis vero arrogantia tumidus Apostolica dicta contemnit aut apemit ipse viderit. Mihi autem, sicut Deo et Domino nostro Jesu Christo, ita et Apostolis ejus adhaerere bonum est, et ex Divinis Scripturis secundum ipso rum traditionem intelligentiam capere. In Levit. hom. 7. § 4. Tom. ii. p. 224. ^ 4»uAa|6T6, Xpiarov fia&rjrai, efiov Se vioi, ras TrapaSoaeis as rrapeXa^ere airo rav Beiavypaipav. Felix III. Papa (fl. 483) in Epist. ad Petrura FuUonem Ep. Antioch. sub fin. ; Concil. ed. Paris. 1671. Tom. iv. p. 1070. •^ UeTriarevrai e/c re ttjs koivtjs vrroXTj^eas, Kat eK ttjs rav ypa^uv TrapuSoaeas. Greg. Nyss. De anim. et resurr. Tom. ii. p. 644. Ed. 1615. * Kpareire ras TrapdSoa-eis as vvv TrapaXafi^avere. Catech. 5. § 8. Ed. Milles, p. 76. See the note of Milles in loe. ' Traditio Dominica. See hie Ep. ad Caecil. Ep. 63. Ed. Pamel. ' Quare si rejectis humanae contentionis erroribus, ad Evangelicam aucto- ritatem atque ad Apostolicam traditionem sincera et religiosa fide revertamur, intelligemus, &c. Ep. ad Jubaianum, circa raed. Ep. 73. Ed. Pamel. ' For the use of the word tradition by the Fathers, see also Iren. adv. haer. lib. iii. c. 25, p. 256, ed. Grab, (the word is also used, pp. 129, 131, 185 and 199); Clem. Alex. Strom, pp. 806 and 896. ed. Potter (al. pp. 679 and 762) ; Cyrill. Alex. De recta fide ad Theodos. Tom. v. P. 2. p. .15. ed. Aubert. ; Origen. In Matth. tom. *.. § 17. Op. vol. iii. p. 462. ed. Ben. VOL. II. S 268 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS The description of the New Testament, occurring in these words of Cyprian, was one in very common use with the Fathers. Thus we find the Bible frequently referred to under the title, " The Law, the Prophets, the Evange lists, and the Apostles," as by Hippolytus,! Gregory of Neocsesarea,* Cyril of Jerusalem,'' Epiphanius,* Salvian,^ and Hilary .6 So the New Testaraent is referred to by Origen,' and Ephraera Syrus,^ as " the Evangelical and Apostolical sayings," by Hilary as " the Evangelical and Apostolical institutes," 9 and sirailarly by Gregory of Neocsesarea ; !° just as in the passages forraerly referred to it is called " the evangelical and apostolical tradi tions." !! The Gospels are referred to by Theophilus of Antioch and Cornelius as " the evangelical voice ;" ^^ by ' Nofiov, TrpotpTiras, evayyeXiaras, aTroaroXovs. HippOL. De antichrist. § 58. Ed. Fabr. vol. i. p. 28. ^ Gregor. NeocjES. In Annunc. Serm. ii. p. 19. ed. Par. 1622. *' Ovx erepov fiev ev Kofia Kat TlpocpTirats, erepov Se ev EvayyeXiots Kat Airoa- roXois, aAA' ev ean Kai ro avro Uvevfia ayiov ro ev TlaXaia Kat Kaivri AiaflrjKTj Tas Betas XaXriaav yparirav. EPIPH. Adv. haer. h, 31. § 15. tom. i. pp. 181, 2. — 'Oti ©eos eis rifitv ev -i^ofia Kat ev Upocprirais Kat ev EvayyeXiois Kat Attoo'toAois, ev IloAata KUl KaiVTi AtaBrjKTi, KeKripvKrat. Id. ib. Exp. fid. Cath. § 18. tom. i. p. 1 101. ' Legem, Prophetas, Evangelium et Apostolicas lectiones. Salvian. De Gubern. Dei. lib. iii. p. 45. " Dilatis igitur . . . Evangelicis atque Apostolicis prseconiis, omnis in terim nobis de Lege et Prophetia adversus impios pugna sit. Hilar. De Trin. lib. v. § 6. col. 858. Ed. Ben. ^ Tcoi' evayyeXiav Kat rav aTroaroXiKav (ffuvav. Orig. contr. Cels. lib. iii. § 15. tom. i. p. 457. " Diem semper adventus Domini prsedictum Propheticis et Evangelicis atque Apostolicis vocibus contempleris. Ephr. Syr. De Pcenit. tom. iii. p. 599. ' Evangelicis atque Apostolicis institutis. Hilar. De Trin. lib. iv. § 1. col. 827. See also § 5, col. 829 and lib. vi. § 8. col. 882. Also Tract, in Psalm. § 23. col. 38. '" 'Orav avaytvaaKerat ro evayyeXtov, ri a-iroaroXiKov, flri TrpoaxV' ra j3l/8Aai, It. r. X. Greg. Neoc^s. In Annunc. Serm. ii. p. 19. ¦' See vol. i. pp. 74, 5. '^ H evayyeXios (pavTi. Theoph. Ad. Autol. lib. iii. § 13. ed. Ben. p. 388. ed. Col. 1686. p. 126. Sequentes evangelicam vocem dicentem, Beatos esse puros corde quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt. Cornel. Ep. ad Cypr. ap. Cypr. Epist. 49. ed. Fell. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 269 Epiphanius as " the evangelical witness ;" ' by Theo doret as "the evangelical declarations;"^ by Gregory Nyssen as " the evangelical sayings ;" ^ " the evangelical teaching,"* "the teaching of the gospel," ^ just as in the passage of Athanasius already referred to they are called " the evangelical tradition." ^ And, in like manner, the Apostolical Epistles are referred to by Gregory of Neo- cffisarea, under the title of " the Apostolical teaching." ' And hence we may see the meaning of a passage in Epiphanius, (which the Romanists have as usual misre presented) and add another example to the foregoing as to the use of the word " tradition." Epiphanius at the close of his work against heresies, having noticed raany usages that were received in the Church, adds, " But as it respects the other raysteries, namely concerning baptism and the more sacred mysteries, they are observed accord ing as the tradition of the Gospel and the Apostles di rects ;" ^ where the reference is clearly to the New Testa ment, and an important testimony is afforded us as to the source whence Epiphanius considered our instructions for the celebration of the sacraments should be derived. These passages may serve to put us on our guard against the representations of the Romanists and our op ponents, as they clearly show us that the Fathers have been grievously misquoted, and their meaning often alto gether perverted. When the Fathers speak of " the Apostolical tradition," or " the tradition ofthe Apostles," they are almost always referring to the Scriptures of the Apostles. ' Eoo776Ai)oj fiaprvpia. Epiphan. adv. hser. tom. i. p. 935. 2 Euo^yeAiKoji' Kripvyfiarav. Theodor. Heer. Fab. lib. v. c. 22. tom. iv. p. 452. ^ Eua77eAi/caii' i/)aca)i'. Greg. Nyss. Prooem. in Cant. vol. i. p. 471. ed. 1615. '' Ttjs eva-yyeXiKris SiSaoKaXias. Ib. p. 473. ' Ttjs tou evayyeXtov StSarrKaXias. Id. De anim. et resurr. tom. ii. p. 639. " See vol. i. pp. 74, 5. ' 'H airoiTToAiKTi SiSoiTKoAia. In Annunc. Serm. ii. p. 19. ^ Ta Se aAAa fivarjipta Trept Xovrpov Kai TWf evSoBev fivarripiav, as exet V TrapaSoais rav re EvayyeXtov Kai rav ATroaroXav, ovras eirtreXetrat. Epiph. adv. ha!r. Expos, fid. cath. § 22. tom. i. pp. 1105, 6. S 2 260 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS And to this we may add that when they speak of " the tradition ofthe Fathers," they are, sometimes referring to something which those Fathers gathered from Scripture. For thus speaks Basil ; " That therefore which our fathers said, that also we say But it is not sufficient for us, that this is the tradition of the Fathers ; for they also followed the mind of Scripture, taking their first princi ples from those testimonies which we just now placed before you frora the Scripture." ! And to this other in stances raight be added. In short the word tradition is often used, not to denote anything which has corae down by successional delivery from the Apostles, but merely as equivalent to the teaching or doctrine of the persons referred to. Thus Polycrates speaks of having observed Easter " according to the tra dition of my relations,''" where the word "tradition" is translated by Jerome by the word teaching or doctrine.^ There are, indeed, few passages of the Fathers in which, considering the sense usually affixed by the moderns to the word " traditions," the meaning of TrapaiurreiQ would not be more accurately conveyed by translating it doc trines or instructions. I shall now, then, endeavour to show more particularly that on all the five points in which we have sumraed up the views of our opponents,* the weight of patristical tes- ^ 'OTrep eXeyov roivvv ol -irarepes r)fiay, Kat Tifxets Xeyofiev . . . AAA' ov rovro 7ip.iv e^apKei, brt rav Trarepav 7] irapaSoais- KaKeivoi yap ra /iovXrjfiari ttjs Fpu- ip7fs 7iKoXovB7}a-av, eK twi' fxaprvpiav as fiiKpa TrpoaBev vfitv eK ttjs Tpa^Tfs rraue- BefieBa ras apxas Xa0ovres. Basil. De Sp. S. c. 7. tom. iii. p. 13. ed. Ben. ^ Kara TrapaSoaiv rav o-i'7761'aji' ptov. PoLYCR. in EusEB. Hist. Eccl. v. 24, or, Eouth. Reliq. S. vol. i. p. 371. ' Secundum doctrinam propinquorum meorum. See Eouth. Reliq. S. vol. i. p. 371. ' 'Which are aa follows (aa given vol. i. pp. 37, 8) ; — 1 . That consentient patristical tradition or " catholic consent" is an un written 'Word of God, a divine informant in religion, and consequently en titled as to its substance to equal respect with the Holy Scriptures. 2. That such tradition is consequently a part of the divinely-revealed rule of faith and practice. 3. That it is a necessary part ofthe divine rule of faith and practice on account of the defectiveness of Scripture, for that ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 261 timony is incomparably in our favour. I say, the weight of patristical testimony, as I make no pretensions to the consent of all the Fathers on these or any other points, still less to so clear and consistent a testimony from all of thera in our favour as would alone entitle us to claim that consent. And should there even be found, in some of those from whora we shall hereafter quote, observations in other parts of their works which appear not altogether consistent with what they have clearly expressed in the passages we have cited, still if our views are evidently maintained by thera in those passages, and the principle there contended for, shall appear, upon that examination which we challenge, consistent with the general tone of their remarks and mode of arguing, then such apparent inconsistency, however it may be accounted for, is uot sufficient to make such authors our opponents; or even to deprive us of the evidence in our favour afforded by the passages we shall quote ; especially when we consider that the testimony given in our favour is in general ex pressed in a direct recognition of the claims of Scripture. It is but what we might expect from human nature that voluminous authors, especially those engaged in various controversies, may appear sometimes to have spoken somewhat inconsistently with that which they have plainly expressed elsewhere. And we raust ever recollect how their works have been exposed to corruption, and the op- (1) Though it does not reveal to us any fundamental articles of faith or practice not noticed in Scripture, Holy Scripture containing, that is giving hints or notices of, all the fundamental articles of faith and practice, it is yet a ne cessary part of the divine rule of faith and practice as the interpreter of Scrip ture, and as giving the full development of many points, some of which are fundamental, which are but imiierfectly developed in Scripture, and (2) It is an iraportant part of that rule as conveying to us various im portant divinely-revealed doctrines and rules not contained in Scripture. 4. That itis a necessary part of the divine rule of faith and practice, be cause 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 as sured of the inspiration of Scripture, what boolo are canonical, and the genuineness of what we receive as such. 262 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS portunity afforded to heretics and pseudo-catholics of all kinds to palm upon the world spurious and corrupted works in their name. And as it respects the general character of their views on the subject, it is admitted by Mr. Newraan himself that while upon the supposition of their holding the views he advocates (which he takes it for granted they did), it is difficult to see why they should not have raade " tradi tion" a sufficient inforraant in matters of necessary faith, independent of Scripture, yet they did not do so ; ! a tolerably clear proof that he has altogether misappre hended the mind of the Fathers. Nor, indeed, is it easy to see why the early Church, if it held the views of our opponents, should have been so careful and diligent as we find it to have been in multi plying the copies of the Scriptures, translating them into all languages, and circulating them as the gospel of our salvation. The Divine Scripture, Augustine tells us, was diffused far and wide by the various translations made of it that it might become known to the nations to their salvatioji.'^ SECT. II. — ON THE tractators' DOCTRINE OF CATHOLIC CONSENT BEING A DIVINE INFORMANT SUPPLEMENTARY TO AND INTERPRETATIVE OF SCRIPTURE. It is obvious that where so important a doctrine is held as that Scripture is but an obscure and imperfect inform ant even on the highest points of faith, and that our inter pretation of it must be gathered from the consentient tes timony of the whole primitive Church as a practically infallible witness ofthe oral teaching ofthe Apostles, we may expect it to be brought forward in a very direct way, and to occupy a prominent place in the instructions of 1 Leet. pp. 342, 3. See vol. i. pp. 558, 9. 2 Innotesceret gentibus ad salutem. Aug. De doctr. Christ, lib. ii. u. 5. Op. tom. iii. col. 21. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 203 those who maintain it. If, then, the Fathers generally had held this doctrine, we should surely not have been left to gather it by inferences frora passages only in directly bearing upon Tt, but have had it distinctly placed before us as a necessary direction for our guid ance. But it is undeniable that the Fathers generally have given us no such direction. If they had, we should not have been sent to Vincent, a raonk of Lerins, as the great authority for this doctrine, but to some earlier and more estiraable writer ; though, by the way, even Vincent himself (as we shall show presently) is not answerable for all that our opponents have stretched his rule to mean. There are, indeed, (as we have already had occasion to observe) appeals raade by Irenseus, Tertullian and Origen, to the consent of the Apostolical Churches in favour of certain doctrines ; and that consent they urge as a suffi cient testimony to show that such doctrines were preached by the Apostles. How far these appeals support our opponents' cause we shall consider when we corae to re view the statements of those authors under our next head, and hope to show that they are altogether inadequate for that purpose. Moreover, it is evident that some of those who lived near the times of the Apostles received the reports of in dividuals as sufficient testimony ofthe oral tradition of the Apostles on various points. Thus, for instance, we are referred by Irenseus to such reports in proof of the apo stolicity of the doctrine he advocated on the subject of the millenniura. And statements are raade by others on other points respecting the oral teaching of the Apostles, grounded upon similar testimony. But it was soon found even at that early period that a ready en trance was thus afforded into the Church to errors of all kinds. We have already shown that even the catholic Fathers were led into error by such reports. And the heretics frequently raade thera the foundation of their extravagances. It was on this account, indeed, chiefly, namely from the heretics pleading a private tradition of 264 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS this kind in proof of the apostolicity of their errors, that the early Fathers appealed to the tradition of the aposto lical churches in support of the orthodox faith. The Fathers did not point to this tradition as anything supple mentary to Scripture, nor ever dreamed of saying that the Scripture needed such tradition as its interpreter, for, on the contrary, they always referred to Scripture as mani festly and clearly teaching their doctrine, but only as an additional proof in favour of the orthodox faith in a few of the most elementary points, to those who pretended a " tradition" from the Apostles coining to them through certain individuals in favour of their errors; and who said (as Irenseus tells us) that without a knowledge of that tradition Scripture could not be rightly interpreted. So thought our opponents' own witnesses Bishop Pa trick! and Bishop Taylor. The words of the latter are so well worth the consideration of our opponents that I will here subjoin them. " In the first ages of the Church, the Fathers disputing with heretics did oftentimes urge against them the con stant and universal tradition of the Church ; and it was for these reasons — 1 . Because the heretics denied the Scriptures ... 2. The heretics did rely upon this topic for advantage, and would be tried by tradition, as hoping because there were in several churches contrary customs there might be differing doctrines, or they might plau sibly be pretended ; and therefore the Fathers had reason to urge tradition and to wrest it from their hands who would fain have used it ill. ... To such as these there were but two ways of confutation ; one was, which they most insisted upon, that the Holy Scriptures were a per fect rule of faith and manners, and that there was no need OF ANY OTHER TRADITION ; the Other, that the traditions which they pretended were false ; and that the contrary was the doctrine which all the Churches of God did preach always. Now thus far tradition was useful to be pleaded ; that is, though the heretics would not adrait the doctrine ' See his Treatise on Tradition. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 265 of Christianity as it was consigned in Scripture, yet they miglit be convinced that this was the doctrine of Chris tianity, because it was also preached by all bishops and confessed by all churches." ! In the Catholic Church itself that doctrine, which in one age had been through such reports attributed to the Apostles, I raean the raillennial doctrine of Irenseus and others, was in another spoken of as the offspring of igno rance and folly. It is evident, then, that raany at least of the Fathers, even if they chose to avail theraselves of such reports where they were consonant with their own views, did not in the abstract regard such testiraony as of any authority. Nor, indeed, do the Tractators theraselves appear to con tend for the authority of " traditions" so derived. The only testimonies that could be adduced in support ofthe doctrine of our opponents would be such as de clared that in all important points there was a universal consent among all the teachers of the Catholic Church, and appealed to such consent as a " practically infallible" informant of the oral teaching of the Apostles. I shall now, then, proceed to point out some passages in various of the early Fathers showing that the doctrine of the Tractators was not recognized by them. A more stringent proof perhaps will be found in the positive state ments occurring under our next head as to the clairas of Scripture, but it may be desirable to show first, that the notion of catholic consent being a divine informant sup- pleraentary to and interpretative of Scripture, and forraing a necessary part of the rule of faith even in the highest points, was altogether unknown to thera. JUSTIN MARTYR, (fl. a. 140.) Can we suppose, for instance, that Justin Martyr held such a view, who says, " There are sorae I adraitted of our coraraunity (yevovt) who confess that he [Jesus] is Christ, but affirm that he is a man, born of men ; with ' Taylor's Rule of Conse. ii. 3. 14. Works, xiii. UO. 266 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS whom I do not agree, nor should I even if the great ma jority of those who are of my own religion should say so, since we are commanded by Christ himself to be ruled by, not the doctrines of men, but those preached by the blessed prophets and taught by hira." ! Origen (fl a. 230.) Let us proceed to Origen. We have already noticed the creed which he considered hiraself able to establish, by the consent of the Apostolical Churches at that tirae. ^ So much, then, we will leave for the pre sent undisputed. But does this embrace all the vital articles of the faith ? No ; for Origen himself was un orthodox as to some of the highest. This creed, as it respects any of the questions now at issue in the Church, is practically useless. And as to anything beyond this, Origen not only makes no claim for the consent of the various Churches, but expressly speaks of it as open ground. And in his reply to Celsus he says, " Celsus re marks that they [i. e. the earliest Christians] were all of one raind ; not observing in this, that from the very be ginning there were differences among believers respecting the meaning of the books that were believed to be divine."^ And further on, accounting for the variety of sects araong Christians, of which Celsus had coraplained, he says that this arose "from raany ofthe learned among the heathen being desirous of understanding the Christian faith ; from which it followed that, from their understanding differ ently 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 ' Eto'i nves, a tptXoi, eXeyov, airo rov Tjfierepov yevovs bftoXoyovvres avrov Xpiarov etvai, avBpairov Se e| avBpairav yevofievov aTrotpaivoptevor ois ov a-vvri- Befiat, ovS' av TrXeiarot ravra fioiSo^aoavres ei-troiev eTreiSij ovk avBpa-n-eiots Si- Sayfiaai KeKeXevofieBa inf avrov rov Xpiarov iretBeaBai, aXXa rots Sta rav fia- Kapiav Trpotpnrav KripvxBeta-t Kai St avrov S.SaxBetat. Just. Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. § 48. pp. 144, 5. ed. Ben. (ed. Col. p. 267.) = See vol. i. pp. 226 ais. Fragm. (ex Euseb. Hist. Eccl. V. 20.) p. 464. (Mass. p. 340.) ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 289 And he speaks of the Valentinians as persons who in relying upon traditions not delivered in the Scriptures were attempting to ihake ropes of sand. ! And hence he says, " If any one should ask, what God did before he made the world, we reply that the answer to that rests with God. For that this world was made per fect by God, receiving a beginning in time, the Scriptures teach us, but what God did before this no Scripture mani fests. Therefore the answer to this rests with God." ^¦ And again, — " We have learned from the Scriptures that God is supreme over all ; but whence or how he sent it [i. e. the substance of the Word] forth, neither hath any Scripture explained, nor does it become us to con jecture." 3 He raust have added, " nor tradition revealed" had he held the views of our opponents. And to conclude, he says, — " Read very diligently that Gospel which has been given us by the Apostles, and read very diligently the prophets, and you will find the whole course of action, and the whole doctrine, and the whole passion of our Lord proclaimed in them." * The passage was written against those who said that the prophets spoke under the influence of another God, and not the God who spoke by the Apostles, but (without straining the phrase " the whole doctrine of our Lord" to mean more than it necessarily implies) it bears strongly in favour of our present position. For it states that the whole doc- * E^ aypatpav avayivuaKovres, Kat ro Srf Xeyofievov, e| afifxov axo^^^a rrXeKeiv emrriSevovres. Adv. haer. i. 1. § 15. p. 35. (M. i. 8. p. 36.) ' Ut puta si quis interroget, antequam mundum faceret Deus, quid agebat ? dicimus quoniam lata reaponsio aubjacet Deo. Quoniam autem raundua hie factua est apotelestos a Deo, temporale initiura accipiens, Scripturae nos decent ; quid autera ante hoc Deus ait operatua nulla Scriptura manifeatat. Subjacet ergo hffic reaponsio Deo. Ib. ii. 47. p. 175. (M. ii. 28. p. 156.) ' Didicimus enim ex Scripturis principatum tenere super omnia Deum. Unde autem vel quemadmodum emisit eam, neque Scriptura aliqua exposuit, neque nos fantasmari oportet. Ib. ii. (9. p. 177. (M. ii. 28. p. 158.) * Legite diligentius id quod ab Apostolis est Evangelium nobis datum, et legite diligentius Prophetas, et invenietis universam actionem et omnem doc trinam, et omnem passionem Domini nostri praedicatam in ipsis. Ib. iv. 66. p. 364. (M. iv. 34. p. 274, where however against edd. and MSS. prcedicatam is turned into prcedictam.) VOL. II. U 290 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS trine of our Lord is in some sense proclaimed in the writings ofthe prophets, and that if Christians would read diligently both Testaments, and compare them, they would find this to be the case. But how, I beg to ask, could they do this unless the two Testaments fully and perfectly contained it, and moreover so contained it as that Christians might, by diligent reading, themselves ^?iaaeas rris avroaxeSiov Trtareas, Id. Strom, lib. v. p. 078, (or, 573.) = Id. Strom, lib. i. pp. 323, 4 (or, 275) ; and lib. vii. p. 901 (or, 766) ; and see lib. i. p. 326, (or, 278.) ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 303 some things which remained unnoted for some time, and which have now escaped me ; and some things are nearly obliterated from my raeraory, perishing in my own mind, since such a service is not easy to those who are not ex perienced. But reviving the recollection of these things in my writings, I purposely omit some things, raaking a prudent choice, fearing to write what I even speak with caution and reserve ; not in the spirit of envy, for that would be unjust, but fearing for ray readers, lest by any means they should otherwise be raade to fall, and we should be found putting, as those who speak in proverbs say, a sword into the hands of a child." ! Now certainly our opponents have here a patron not only of oral tradition, but also of " reserve in the com munication of religious knowledge," but unfortunately for their cause not the sort of tradition for which they are contending. The notion of this Gnostic tradition de livered only by our Lord to three or four of the Apostles, and disclosing certain hidden meanings of the truths and doctrines of Christianity not intended for Christians in general, is one of which Clement is, of those whose writings reraain to us, alraost the only supporter. Nay, his statements on this point are directly opposed to those of Irenaeus and Tertullian, who both inveigh strongly against any such notion. The former speaks of it as a tenet of the Carpocratian heretics, who, he tells us, " said that Jesus spoke some things privately in a mys terious manner to his disciples and Apostles, and cora- ' IIoAAo Se, ev oiSo, TropeppuTjKec ^^os xP'"'oo firiKet aypatpas Starreaovra. 'OBev ro aaBeves rris ptvriptTjs rris efirjs eTriKovtbt^av, KetpaXatav avarTjptariKriv eK&eatv, fiv-riptT}s vrrofiVTifia aarripiov TTopi^av eptavra, avayKaias Kexprifiat rrjSe ttj bnorinruaei. Ean ptev ovv nva jiiTjSe arrofiVTiftovevBevra Tipttv' ttoAAtj 7ap ti Trapa rots ptoKapiois Svvaptis riv avSpaaiv ean Se Kat avvTroaiipteiara fiefievrjKora tw Xpovu' a vvv aTreSpa' ra Se, baa ea^evvvro, ev outtj ptapaivopteva rri Stavota, eirei firi paSlos 7] TOioSe SioKovio tois /4tj SeSoKtptaapievois, ravra Se ovafwTrupci;!' urro- fLvripLoai, ra fiev eKav TraparreptTrofiai, eKXeyav eTrtarriptovas, (po^ovptevos yparpetv, a Kai Xeyeiv erpvXa^aptTjV ov n Trov (pBovav ov yap Beptis' SeSias Se apa Trept rav evrvyxavovrav, firi tttj eTepws o'<^aAeiei', koi iroiSt ptaxaipav, ti (paaiv oi rrapot- fita^op.evoi,opeyovres evpeBaptev. Id. Strom, lib. i. p. 324, (or, 276.) 304 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS manded them to deliver those things to those that were worthy and obedient." ! And he says, " That Paul taught plainly what he knew not only to his companions but to all wko heard him,he hiraself manifests. For in Miletus the bishops and presbyters being assembled, ... he says, ' I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.' Thus the Apostles plainly and willingly delivered to all those things which they had theraselves learned from the Lord."^ And again, he says, " The doctrine of the Apostles is manifest, and firra, and conceals nothing, and is not that of men who teach one thing in secret and another openly. For this is the contrivance of counter feits, and seducers, and hypocrites, as the Valentinians do." 3 And thus Tertullian ; — " All the sayings of the Lord are proposed to all."* And he accuses those of " mad ness" who "think that the Apostles did not reveal all things to all, but that they committed some things openly to all, ivithout exception, and some secretly to a few." * Most justly, therefore, is this notion of Clement, as to a secret tradition reserved for a few, pronounced by a learned ' Ev Se TOis avyypaptptafftv outoji' ovras avayeyparrrai, Kat avrot ovras €|tj- yovvrai, rov Iriaovv Xeyovres ev pivarripia rots fiaB7]rais avrov Kat ArroaroXots Kar tSiav AeAoATjKevoi, koi outous at.taaai, rots a^tots Kai rots rretBofievois ravra TrapaStSovai. Iren. adv. Haer. lib. i. c. 24. (ed. Grabe.) 2 Quoniam autem Paulua aimpliciter quae aciebat haec et docebat, non solum eos qui cum eo erant,'verum omnes audientea ae, ipae facit manifestum. In Mileto enim convocatis Episcopis et Presbyteris .... ' Non subtraxi, inquit, uti non annunciarem omnem sententiam Dei vobis.' Sic Apostoli simpliciter et uemini invidentes quae didicerant ipsi a Domino haec omnibus tradebant. Id. lib, iii. u. 14. ^ Doctrina Apostolorum manifesta et firma et nihil subtrahens, neque alia quidem in abscondito alia vero in manifesto docentium. Hoc enim fictorum et prave seducentium et hypocritarura est molimen, quemadmodum faciunt hi qui a Valentino sunt. Id. ib. c. 15. ¦• Omnia quidem dicta Domini omnibus posita sunt. Tektull. De Prae script. adv. haeret. c. 8. p. 205. 5 Eadem dementia est, cum confitentur quidem nihil Apostolos ignorasse nee diverea inter se praedicasse, non tamen omnia volunt illos omnibus revelasse quaedam enim palam et universis, quajdam secreto et paucis deraandaase.' Tertull. De Praescript. adv. haeret, c. 25. p. 210. ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. 3j05 prelate of our Church, who is referred to with approba tion by our opponents, to be " destitute of solid founda tion."! And the reserve recomraended, is a reserve only in coraraunicating this Gnostic tradition, not in preaching the great doctrines of Christianity ; and one which even to this limited extent is entirely opposed, as we have shown, to the views of Irenseus and Tertullian. At any rate, as this Gnostic tradition is confessedly de livered by Clement so that the uninitiated cannot avail theraselves of it, his writings will not serve to show us its true nature ; and unless our opponents can lay claim to the possession of the key which unlocks this treasure, his tradition, and his notions respecting it, are to us equally useless and inapplicable. The knowledge of the profundities of this raystic tradition is gone, and with it the applicability to any practical purpose of all that is said respecting it. But, with this exception, he speaks agreeably to the view we have been attempting to establish, as I shall now proceed to show. For, First, he acknowledges no divine informant but Scrip ture, and this supposed Gnostic tradition. Secondly, with respect to the claims of Scripture, as the rule of faith, he speaks thus. " He, therefore," he says, " who believes the divine Scriptures with a firm conviction, receives an incontro vertible demonstration, namely, the voice of God, who gave the Scriptures."^ Again ; " But the just shall live by faith ; that faith, namely, which is according to 'the Testament and the com mandments ; since these [Testaments], which are two as it respects name and time, having been given, by a wise ' Bishop of Lincoln's Account of the writinga and opinions of Cleraent of Alexandria, ch. 8. p. 368. ° 'O irio-Teufl-os roivvv rats Vpatpais rats Betais, ttjv Kptaiv 0e0aiav exav, OTroSei^iv avavnppTjTov, rriv rov ras Tpatpas SeSapTiftevov (pavriv Xafi^avei Qeov. Id. Strom, lib. ii. p. 433 (or, 362). VOL. II. X 306 THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS ceconomy, according to age and proficiency, are one in effect. Both the old and the new were given by one God, through the Son."! Again ; " But, since a happy life is set before us by the coramandraents, it behoves us all to follow it, not disobey ing anything that is said, nor lightly esteeraing what is becoraing, though of the raost trifling nature, but follow ing whithersoever the word may lead ; if we err from it, we must necessarily fall into endless evil. But they who follow the divine Scripture, by which believers walk, that they raay become, as far as they can, like the Lord, ought not to live carelessly, but, &c."* Again, he tells us, that for those who, " for the benefit of their neighbours, betake theraselves, sorae to writing, and others to the oral delivery of the word, while learning of another kind is useful, the perusal of the Dorainical Scriptures is necessary for tke proof of wkat they say." ^ And in the seventh book of his Stromata, replying to the objection of the heathen to Christianity, on the ground of its followers being divided into so many sects, he says, — " But when proof is being given, it is necessary to descend to the particular questions, and to learn de monstratively, from the Scriptures themselves, bow, on the one hand, the sects were deceived, and how, on the other, both the most perfect knowledge, and that which is in O Se SiKaios eK Triareas ^-riaerai, rris Kara rriv AtaBrjKriv Kai ras evroXas • STreiSTj Suo avrai ovofiart Kat -xpova, KaS" riXiKiav Kat TrpoKOTrrfv oiKovofimas SeSo- fievai, Svvafiei fita ovaaf rf ptev, TroAaio' Tf Se, Kaivrf, Sta viov Trap' evos Qeov Xopriyovvrat. Id. Strom, lib. ii. p. 444 (or, 372). ' Eirei Se $ios rts Tipttv fiaKaptos Si' evroXav errtSeSeiKrai, a XPV Travras erra- fievovs, fl-ij TrapaKovovras twv eiprnievav rivos, /iTjSe oXtyapovvras rav rrpoarfKovrav, Kav eXaxiarov ri, erreaBat n av b Aoyos rrynraf et arpaXeinptev avrov, aBavara Kaxa Trepnrea-eiv ovoyKTj- KaraKoXovBriaaat Se rri Beta Tpatpri, Si' ris bSevovatv oi TremarevKores, e^ofiotovaBat Kara Svvaptiv ra Kvpta, ovk aSiatpopas ^lareov, aXXa K. r. X. Id. Strom, lib. iii. p. 530 (or, 443). 3 Aia Se TTJV tov rreXas afeXetav, rav fiev em ro ypa^etv lefievav T«v Se, em TO TropoSiSovoi areXXofievav rov Xoyov ijre oAAtj TroiSeio xpvatpios, rp-e rav ypa