found out from them by those who are ignorant of tradition." The same complaint is made by other fathers.

The thing to be proved is, that certain doctrines are derived from the oral teaching of the apostles. The proof is, that the fathers say so. We answer, their saying so is no sufficient proof. They are too few, too far removed from the apostles; their testimony is hard to get at, since so many writings are attributed to them which they never wrote, and since their genuine writings are so much corrupted; besides, their testimony when obtained is not decisive, because they testify to what cannot be true. They say they received doctrines from the apostles, which everybody must admit to be false; and they make the claim for conflicting statements. No court, civil or ecclesiastical, would decide any cause involving the value of a straw on such testimony.

To all this it may be said, that admitting all that has been urged, still, where the fathers do all concur, there we have ground to believe they are right, often as they are individually wrong. To this we answer, that the consent of the few writers of the first three centuries is as nothing compared with the whole church which they are assumed to represent. But further, their consent can be fairly pleaded for nothing which is now a matter of dispute. They agree in nothing but the plainest and simplest biblical facts and doctrines. Hear what even Bishop Taylor, one of the witnesses quoted by Mr. Keble in his Catena Patrum in favor of tradition, says on this subject. "Catholic consent," he says, "cannot be proved in anything but in the canon of scripture itself; and, as it is now received, even in that there is some variety." Again: "There is no question this day in contestation in the explication of which all the old writers did consent. In the assignation of the canon of scripture, they never did consent for six hundred years together; and when by that time the bishops had agreed indifferently, and but indifferently upon that, they fell out in twenty more; and except it be the apostles' creed and articles of that nature, there is nothing which may, with any colour, be called a consent, much less tradition universal."* This want of consent of the fathers of the first three centuries; their silence or their conflicting statements on all questions having any bearing on present controversies, is so obvious and notorious, that it is virtually conceded even by traditionists themselves. The author of Tract 85 says, in reference both to the canon of scripture and to "catholic doctrines, "We believe mainly because the church of the fourth and fifth unanimously believed." "We depend for the canon and creed upon the fourth and fifth centuries. . . . . Viewing the matter as one of moral evidence, we seem to see in the testimony of the fifth, the very testimony which every preceding century gave, ACCIDENTS EXCEPTED, such as the present loss of documents once extant, or the then existing misconceptions which the want of intercourse

See his Liberty of Prophesying, sec. v., 8.

among the churches occasioned. The fifth century acts as a comment on the obscure text of the centuries before it, and brings out a meaning which, with the help of the comment, any candid person sees to belong to them. And in the same way as regards the catholic creed, though there is not much to account for. Not so much, for no one, I suppose, will deny that in the fathers of the fourth century, it is as fully developed and as unanimously adopted as it can be in the fifth." This is the precise doctrine of the Romanists. The obscurities and deficiencies of scripture are to be explained or supplied by the writings of the first three centuries; the obscurities and deficiencies of those centuries are to be made good by the writings of the fourth and fifth; those of the fourth and fifth, by the tenth and twelfth, those of the tenth and twelfth, by the fifteenth and sixteenth. Thus we have the whole accumulated mass of superstition and error sanctioned by apostolic authority, and imposed upon the church. It is as plain as it can be that we have here the concession of the failure of the whole theory. The theory is, that the oral teachings of the apostles are a part of our present rule of faith; that catholic consent is our warrant for believing certain doctrines to be part of that oral teaching; catholic consent is the consent and testimony of the whole church at all times. But it is admitted that the first three centuries do not testify to what are called catholic doctrines. This fact is accounted for by loss of documents and misconceptions of the churches. To account for a fact is to admit it. It is admitted, therefore, that the first three centuries do not consent to or testify catholic doctrines. To say that the first three do, because the fourth and fifth do, is so unreasonable as to give the whole matter the air of insincerity and imposture. Is the rationalism of the present German churches an exponent of the faith of those churches during the preceding century? Is the Socinianism of the modern clergy of Geneva a proof that Calvin and Beza were Socinians? Or are the Pelagianism and infidelity of the English church, during a large part of the 18th century, when, according to Bishop Butler, Christianity itself seemed to be regarded as a fable "among all persons of discernment," to be considered as proving the faith of that church in the preceding centuries? Here is a church, a true church, an episcopal church, an apostolic church, to which all the promises ever made to an external church belong in all their plenitude, sunk so low as scarcely to retain the semblance of belief; and even now, according to Mr. Newman, you cannot find any ten or twenty of its neighbouring clergy who agree even in the elementary and necessary doctrines of the gospel. With what colour, then, of reason, or even honesty, can it be maintained that all the superstitions and false doctrines of the fifth century are to be taken as part of the faith of the first three centuries, and of the apostles themselves? Of all rules by which to determine what men must believe in order to be saved, this would seem to be the most absurd. We believe, say the Tractarians, not because the apostles believed, not even be

cause the early church believed, but because the fifth century believed.

This, however, is not the only way in which traditionists abandon their own theory. They believe many doctrines for which catholic consent cannot be pleaded, and they reject many in which the early church were to a very great degree unanimous. With regard to the first class, we of course do not believe that the consent of the three centuries can be fairly claimed for prelatical episcopacy. We might, without undue confidence, say we know that it cannot be so claimed; not only because such consent, according to Bishop Taylor, can be claimed for nothing except such principles of the faith as are contained in the apostles' creed, but because it is notorious that the identity of the office of bishop and presbyter was maintained by many in the early church, and that presbyters had the right of ordaining bishops even after the introduction of prelacy. Mr. Goode himself, while he holds episcopacy to be of apostolical origin, admits that its necessity cannot be proved. "If," he says, in any church, a presbyter be appointed by his co-presbyters to be bishop, or superintendent, or president of that church, and perform the usual duties of the episcopal function, we cannot prove either by scripture, or by the consent of the apostolically-primitive church, that his acts are by apostolic ordinance invalid." Again: "Supposing the apostles to have appointed the first bishops in twelve churches, I want to know 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."* As for the popish doctrine of orders, episcopal grace, the sacrificial character of the eucharist, &c., it is, as we have already seen, virtually admitted, that they cannot be sustained by the consent of the first centuries. They rest upon the fifth, even in the creed of their advocates.

But besides these false doctrines, which are not only not in the scriptures, but anti-scriptural, there are important and even fundamental scriptural doctrines for which not even the general consent of fathers can be produced. The early fathers were accustomed to use the language of the Bible in their religious discourses, and unless driven to explanations by the errors of opposers, they seldom so defined as to render their testimony available against the subtle heretics of later time. They spoke of Christ as God, they prayed to him, they worshipped him; but the Arians were willing to do all this. And if the doctrine of the essential equality of the Father and Son in the adorable Trinity is to depend upon tradition, it cannot be proved at all. It is also a notorious fact that the divinity of the Holy Spirit, plainly as it is taught in scripture, is not a doctrine for which catholic consent can be claimed. Jerome

Vol. ii., pp. 58, 59.

name."

SOCIETY

says, "Many, through ignorance of the scriptures, assert that the Father and Son are often called Holy Spirit. And while we ought clearly to believe in a Trinity, they, taking away the third LIBRARY person, imagine it not to be a hypostasis of the Trinity, but a Basil says, the question concerning the Holy Spirit was "passed over in silence by the ancients, and owing to its not being opposed, was left unexplained." And he therefore proceeded to discuss it "according to the mind of scripture." A doctrine which the ancients passed over in silence, they cannot be cited to prove. If, therefore, tradition is our rule of faith; if we are to believe nothing for which catholic consent cannot be produced, we shall have to give up even the essential doctrines of the gospel.

The traditionists moreover depart from their own theory, or rather, show that they proceed in a perfectly arbitrary manner, by rejecting many doctrines for which a much greater degree of unanimity among the fathers can be produced than for those which they adopt. Mr. Keble says, "We know with certainty that Melchisedec's feast was a type of the blessed eucharist," "from the constant agreement of the early church." In proof, he refers to Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, and the Roman liturgy, as "representing the sense of the western church," and to Chrysostom for the Greek. This is proof of the constant agreement of the early church! One man in the first three hundred years of the church, and one for the whole Greek church, and this is taken as fulfilling the condition, quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus! Why, twice the amount of evidence of antiquity and catholicity may be produced for the grossest heresies or the greatest absurdities. This is only an illustration of the coolness with which catholicity is claimed for any doctrine which suits the feelings of the writer. It cannot be denied that three times as much evidence can be produced of a general belief in the early church of the unlawfulness. of oaths, of the necessity of infant communion, of the establishment of a glorious visible kingdom at Jerusalem, of the re-appearance of Enoch and Elias to wage war with antichrist, and for other doctrines and usages which modern traditionists unhesitatingly reject. It is true, therefore, what Bishop Taylor says, that "it is not honest" to press the authority of the fathers, unless we " are willing to submit in all things to the testimony of an equal number of them, which I am certain neither side will do." It is a sheer impossibility to prove anything by the rule of the traditionists as they state it, because catholic consent is absolutely unattainable. The rule is worthless as it stands; and if they choose to assume catholic consent in one instance on a certain amount of testimony, let them assume it in others, on the same degree of evidence, before they attempt to urge it upon others as "the unwritten word of God."

The advocates of tradition as a part of the rule of faith are therefore chargeable with great fallacy and unfairness. They lay down a rule which, according to its obvious meaning, commands. the assent of all men. They say what all true Christians, in all

ages and everywhere, have believed, must, as far as the essential doctrines of the gospel are concerned, be regarded as part of the faith once delivered to the saints. This is undoubtedly true; but they immediately and artfully substitute for true Christians, the external visible church, with regard to which it is not true that it cannot err even in fundamental doctrines. And further, though the consent of all visible churches, at all times and places, would not be conclusive proof of the truth of any doctrine, it would be a very strong proof, they assume such consent on the most insufficient evidence; evidence which they themselves reject in its application to the church at the present time, and, in many cases, in its application to the ancient church. If an ancient church had a creed, that creed expressed the faith of all its members. The Church of England has a creed, which is no index, according to these same writers, to the faith of its clergy. If a delegate attended an ancient council from Africa or Gaul, he fairly represented his province, and committed his brethren to the decisions of the council. The delegate of the Church of England sanctions Calvinism at the Synod of Dort, and he is a mere individual, misrepresenting and dishonouring the church to which he belonged. Some half-dozen fathers in the course of as many centuries testify to one doctrine, and it is "catholic consent;" twenty or thirty testify to another doctrine, and it is set down to the "misconceptions of the churches." Antiquity is said to be necessary to prove a tradition apostolical; but if the first of these three centuries is silent on the subject or opposed to the tradition, we may suppose loss of documents or misinformation. We must believe what the fifth century believed, and take for granted that the preceding centuries agreed with it. This boasted rule therefore turns out to be no rule at all. It cannot from its nature be applied, and therefore we must take the opinion of one age, as evidence of antiquity, universality and catholicity.

One of the most natural and uniform effects of making tradition a part of the rule of faith, is to destroy the authority of the Bible. Our Saviour charged the Pharisees with making the word of God of none effect by their traditions. The Talmud has superseded the Law of Moses among the modern Jews; and the whole system of popery is sustained on the authority of the church teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Chillingworth well says, "He that would usurp an absolute lordship and tyranny over any people, need not put himself to the trouble and difficulty of abrogating and disannulling the laws, made to maintain the common liberty; for he may frustrate their intent and gain his own design as well, if he can get the power and authority to interpret them as he pleases, and add to them what he pleases, and to have his interpretations and additions stand for laws; if he can rule his people by his laws, and his law by his lawyers." This is the avowed

* Chillingworth's Works, American edition, p. 105.