particular is so utterly irreconcileable with such a notion, that no impartial reader could entertain it for a moment.

Again, in his Treatise "On præscription against the heretics," he says, speaking of the Church of Rome, " She joins the Law and the Prophets with the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, and THENCE she draws the faith;" In those writings, then, "the faith" is to be found; and in another part of the same Treatise is a passage strongly, though indirectly, showing his mind in this matter. "The heretics," he says, "to show the ignorance of the Apostles bring forward the fact that Peter and they that were with him were blamed by Paul . . . . But we might here say to those who reject the Acts of the Apostles, you have first to show who that Paul was, both what before he was an Apostle, and how he was an Apostle . . . But they may believe forsooth without the Scriptures, that they may believe contrary to the Scriptures.""

Having thus given Tertullian's general view of the subject before us, I now proceed to consider what objections may be urged against it.

It may be urged, then, that the greater part of the works of Tertullian, and almost all those quoted above, were written after he had embraced Montanism, and believed that the effusions of Prisca and others were divinely-inspired, and therefore that he could not have looked upon the Scripture as the only divine informant.

This objection is so far, valid that it must be admitted that Tertullian's reference to Scripture as the authoritative rule of faith must be supposed not to exclude the interpretations of Scripture given by Montanus and his prophetesses, which were received by Tertullian as proceeding from the Divine Spirit. But the admission must not be extended to any new points of doctrine, for such he did not believe to have been introduced by the "New Prophecy," but only improvements in the discipline of the Church. His view of the benefits accruing to the Church from the supposed inspiration of Montanus and his prophetesses is summarily expressed in the following sentence in his Treatise on veiling

66

1 Legem et prophetas cum Evangelicis et Apostolicis litteris miscet et inde potat fidem. In. De Præscr. c. 36. p. 215. A passage implying the same occurs, according to the text of Pamelius, in c. 44 of this Treatise, Si vero memores Dominicarum et Apostolicarum Scripturarum et denuntiationum in fide integra stetrint, &c." The words " Scripturarum et" are omitted in the subsequent editions of Rigaltius and Priorius, and I think without notice.

2 Proponunt ergo ad suggillandam ignorantiam aliquam Apostolorum, quod Petrus et qui cum eo reprehensi sint a Paulo . . . Possumus et hic Acta Apostolorum repudiantibus dicere, Prius est uti ostendatis quis iste Paulus, et quid ante. Apostolum et quomodo Apostolus . . . Sed credant sine Scripturis ut credant adversus Scripturas. ID. De Præscr. c. 23. p. 210. See also c. 8. p. 205.

U*

virgins, "What, therefore, is the administration of the Paraclete but this, that discipline is directed, that the Scriptures are unfolded, that the understanding is improved, that an advance is made to better things."

But, nevertheless, this did not prevent him, when reasoning with those who did not receive the "New Prophecy," from making Scripture the authoritative rule of faith; and as far as regards any exception made by him in favour of Montanus and his prophetesses, as authoritative guides for the interpretation of that rule, so far, I suppose, it is needless here to offer any remark. Our opponents are not in this prepared to follow him. And, therefore, as far as this exception is concerned, his language is to us equivalent to the making Scripture the sole authoritative rule of faith.

But there remains certainly a limitation to be made to the general view of his sentiments given above as it respects certain prime points of the Christian faith which, like Irenæus, he speaks of as proveable at that time even independently of Scripture by the united testimony of all the Apostolical Churches. He thinks, and perhaps justly, considering the period at which he wrote, when the facts upon which he rested his view might be verified, that such a testimony established the apostolical origin of the truths to which it bore witness."

These truths he has enumerated with some little variation in three of his Treatises, where he has given them under the title of "the rule of faith," and in one of those Treatises, viz. that "Concerning præscription against the heretics," he has distinctly stated that these truths may be proved to be of Apostolical origin by the unanimous consent of the Apostolical Churches, independently of Scripture, and that consequently any interpretation of Scripture contrary to these must be false; and that since the heretics had corrupted the Scriptures, and that by allegation of the Scriptures the door was opened to much argumentation, foreign to the immediate subject, about the true text of Scripture and such points, it was better not to argue with them on these points from Scripture, but to allege at once against them the "rule of faith" supported by the unanimous consent of all the apostolical Churches.*.

But for more than the truths so enumerated, and which we

I Quæ est ergo Paracleti administratio nisi hæc, quod disciplina dirigitur, quod Scripturæ revelantur, quod intellectus reformatur, quod ad meliora proficitur. ID. De virg. vel. c. i. p. 173, and see De resurr. c. ult. ad fin. p. 365.

2 In. De Præscript. c. 21. p. 209.

De virg. vel. c. 1. p. 173. De Præscr. c. 13. pp. 206, 7. Adv. Prax. c. 2. p. 501. See these formula above, vol. i. pp. 99-100.

4 De Præscr. cc. 15-21. pp. 207—9.

have given in a preceding page,' he does not challenge the consent of the Apostolical Churches. Nay, he as much as intimates that more could not be so established, for he says, "while this form of faith remains in its proper place in your regard, however much you may seek and discuss matters, and pour out the whole excess of your curiosity, if anything appears to you either to be doubtful or overshadowed with obscurity, there is some brother, a doctor, gifted with the grace of knowledge, or some one conversant with those exercised in such matters, some one alike curious with yourself [who can advise you]; but while seeking alone, it is better for you to be ignorant to the last, lest you know what you ought not, because what is necessary you already know. Thy faith, saith he, hath saved thee;' not exercitation in the Scriptures." He does not, then, refer the inquirer on other points to the consentient testimony of the Churches, but advises the ordinary inquirer, if he be over curious in his researches into all the points treated of in the Scriptures, and finds something which appears to him doubtful or obscure, to have recourse to some skilful teacher as a preservative against error; advice, of the prudence and propriety of which there can, I suppose, be no question, while it is equally unquestionable that such a teacher is not, nor is proposed by Tertullian as, an infallible guide.

6

Among other objections to this mode of arguing, the heretics urged that possibly the Churches might have put an erroneous sense upon the teaching of the Apostles, to which he justly replies, "Is it likely that such Churches and so many should have corrupted the faith precisely in the same way? No event where many individuals are concerned turns out precisely the same in the case of all. There would have been some difference in their doctrine had it been corrupted; that which is found the same among many is not a corruption, but what was delivered to them."s

Let the reader observe that we meet with nothing here about episcopal grace preserving the pure deposit of the faith; nor

1 See vol. i. pp. 99, 100.

2 Manente forma ejus in suo ordine, quantumlibet quæras et tractes, et omnem libidinem curiositatis effundas, si quid tibi videtur vel ambiguitate pendere vel obscuritate obumbrari, est utique frater aliqui doctor gratia scientiæ donatus, est aliqui inter exercitatos conversatus, aliqui tecum curiosus. Tecum tamen quærens, novissime ignorare melius est, ne quod non debeas noris, quia quod debeas nosti. Fides, inquit, tua te salvum feci; non exercitatio Scripturarum. ID. De Præscr. c. 14. p. 207.

3 Ecquid verisimile est, ut tot ac tantæ in unam fidem erraverint? Nullus inter multos eventus unus est. Exitus variasse debuerat error doctrinæ Ecclesiarum. Ceterum quod apud multos unum invenitur non est erratum sed traditum. In. ib. c. 28. See cc. 27, 8. pp. 211, 12.

even the more sober argument of Irenæus, that all the bishops might be enumerated from the times of the Apostles, and none accused of corrupting the faith.

And, further, he maintained that it was easy to show the novelty of the heresies he was combating, and consequently their error; and he calls upon the heretics, if they pretended to deduce their origin from the Apostles, to point out the succession through which their doctrine had come down to them, which was a very just challenge at that time.1

And, lastly, he, like Irenæus, uses this mode of argument against the heretics, on account apparently of the way in which they dealt with Scripture, corrupting it, and cavilling with the correctness of the text, and raising questions and arguments that prevented a fair appeal to Scripture.

2

This Treatise, viz. "Concerning præscription against the heretics," is, as far as Tertullian is concerned, the supposed stronghold of our opponents, for though he has spoken favourably of tradition in two other places, namely, in his Treatise "On the Crown," and that "Against Marcion," yet his notice of it in the former is only with respect to matters of discipline, and in the latter consists of two passing allusions to it in a Treatise of five books, of which the whole argumentation is derived from Scripture, and these referring only to a point contained in the creed he has given as established by the consent of the Apostolical Churches, viz. a refutation of Marcion's idea that the God of the Old Testament was different to the God of the New.3

His argumentation elsewhere is derived wholly from the Scriptures, nor does he attempt to press his interpretations of Scripture upon the authority of tradition, except in the case already noticed, i. e. in the points contained in the creed he has given.

Now in all this it is difficult to see what support Tertullian gives to the views of our opponents. At the time he wrote he held that the agreement of all the Apostolical Churches in certain doctrines, to which agreement he appeals as a fact that might be verified, proved that those doctrines came from the Apostles; and, therefore, that the shortest way of dealing with the heretics of that day, (for he tells us himself that he used the argument for the sake of brevity,") was by adducing this evidence against them. What then? Does it follow that Tertullian would pursue the same course now? Nay, this is not a question apparently, for we are not sent to learn the truth thus, but from

1 ID. ib. cc. 29-32. pp. 212, 13.

2 ID. De Corona, cc. 3, 4. pp. 101, 102,

3 ID. Adv. Marc. lib. i. c. 21 and lib. iii. c. i.

4 Solemus hæreticis compendii gratia de posteritate præscribere. In. Adv. Her mog. c. 1. p. 233.

i

a few antient fallible authors. So, then, what is assumed must be, that, because Tertullian made such an appeal to the Apostolical Churches of his day, therefore he would now have appealed to a few fallible antient authors, as affording infallible proof of what was the universal opinion of all the Apostolical Churches sixteen centuries ago.

And after all, as we have already observed, how limited is the creed he gives as established by the consent of the Apostolical Churches. If our opponents were as moderate as he is in this respect, we should feel little inclined to disturb their position. But when in the nineteenth century they pretend to a knowledge of antient catholic consent, more extensive and minute than Tertullian pretended to in the second century, let them beware how they claim him as a supporter of their pretensions.

And as to any notion that the Creed of the Apostolical Churches, as given by Tertullian, adds anything to Scripture, it is directly opposed to Tertullian's views, for he is most careful to maintain its identity with the declarations of Scripture.1

As Dr. Pusey, in the Tract to which we have referred in a former page, has referred to the work of a learned living prelate of our Church, on Tertullian, I willingly join him in the appeal; and the reader will find it distinctly stated by that learned author that Tertullian held that "the Scriptures contained the whole rule of faith," and that he agrees with Dr. Neander that, "though on some occasions the Christians of those days. might appeal solely to the authority of tradition, they uniformly maintained that the doctrine of Christianity IN ALL ITS PARTS might be deduced from Holy Writ," and that "though interpretations which had received the sanction of the Church were not to be lightly rejected, yet the practice of Tertullian himself proves that he believed every Christian to be at liberty to exercise his own judgment upon them.'

195

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. (fl. a. 192.)

We come to Clement of Alexandria, one of the most learned of the early Fathers whose remains are extant, but one whose works, valuable as they are, exhibit strong traces of feelings and habits of thought derived more from human philosophy than from divine revelation."

1ID. De Præscr. cc. 33, 34, and 38. pp. 214 and 216.

2 See vol. i. p. 30 and 41.

3 The ecclesiastical history of the second and third centuries illustrated from the writings of Tertullian, by John, Bishop of Bristol. 2nd edit. 1826. p. 296.

4 Ib. Pref. pp. xvi., xvii.

5 Ib. pp. 396, 7.

6 See especially the first book of his "Stromata."