volume, all things that edify, all things that instruct, are contained in writing." Again, commenting on the passage," They dwell by the abundant rivers," he says, "While they adhere altogether to the directions of Scripture, so as to do nothing but what the Scriptures exhort, they as it were evade the enemy, by throwing themselves into the water. And they [i. e. the Scriptures] are called abundant rivers, because on whatsoever points of difficulty counsel is sought in the Scriptures, it is found there fully on all points, without any deficiency."a "Elihu, forseeing that God would form the Holy Scripture, that in it he might reply to both public and private questions of all, says, 'Do you contend with him for not having answered all your words? God will speak once, and will not a second time repeat the same thing.' As if he should say, God answers not the hearts of each individual by secret words, but constructs such a speech as that by it he may satisfy the questions of all. To wit in the declarations of his Scripture we each, if we seek, find what we are inquiring for." "What, indeed, is the Holy Scripture, but a Letter of the omnipotent God to his creature? . . . . Study, therefore, I beseech you, and daily meditate upon the words of your Creator; learn the mind of God in the words of God."* SECT. IV.-WHETHER SCRIPTURE IS THE SOLE DIVINE RULE OF I Now proceed to consider the testimony of the Fathers on the question, Whether Scripture is the sole divine Rule of practice. 1 In hoc volumine cuncta quæ ædificant omnia quæ erudiunt scripta continentur. ID. In Ezech. lib. i. hom. 9. ad fin. Tom. i. col. 1264. 2. Resident juxta fluenta plenissima'. . . . . Dum se consiliis Scripturæ ex toto addicunt, ut videlicet nihil agant nisi quod ex responso Scripturarum audiunt, quasi in aquam se projicientes hosti illudunt. Quæ fluenta plenissima dicuntur, quia de quibuscumque scrupulis in Scripturis consilium quæritur sine mino. ratione de omnibus ad plenum invenitur. ID. In Cant. c. 5. v. 12. Tom. iii. P. 2. col. 440. 3 Eliu autem prævidens quod Scripturam sacram Dominus conderet, ut in ea vel publicis vel occultis cunctorum quæstionibus responderet, ait, Adversus eum contendis, quod non ad omnia verba responderit tibi. Semel loquetur Deus et se cundo id ipsum non repetet.' Ac si diceret,-Deus singulorum cordibus privatis vocibus non respondet, sed tale eloquium construit per quod cunctorum quæstionibus satisfaciat. In Scripturæ quippe ejus eloquio causas nostras singuli, si requirimus, invenimus. ID. Moral. sive Expos. in Job. Lib. xxiii. c. 19. Təm, i; col. 747. * Quid est autem Scriptura sacra nisi quædam Epistola omnipotentis Dei ad creaturam suam? . . . . . . . Stude ergo, quæso, et quotidie Creatoris tui verba meditare; disce cor Dei in verbis Dei. ID. Epist. lib. iv. Ep. 31. ad Theodorum Medicum. Tom. ii. col. 712. That it is so on all matters necessary to salvation, the passages we have already quoted in the last section, are, I hope, amply sufficient to prove to have been the general opinion of the Fathers, and one which they very earnestly insisted upon. But, as it respects the question whether there are any rites or practices among non-essentials, not mentioned in Scripture, which have an indubitable right to be considered as of Apostolical institution, and a proportionate claim upon our regard, I admit that some of the Fathers appear occasionally inclined to support the affirmative. Nevertheless, even here we maintain that some of them have distinctly advocated the view for which we contend; and that others who appear in some parts of their writings to take the opposite view, have elsewhere so modified those statements, as to leave their testimony, upon the whole, but little different, to all practical purposes, to that of the former; and further that, even were it not so, our opponents, both Romanists and Tractators, could not consistently maintain that such (supposed) Apostolical traditions are obligatory on us, because they do not themselves adopt them all. First, then, we maintain that some of the Fathers distinctly advocate the view that in all points Holy Scripture is the sole divine Rule of practice. For instance the testimony of CYPRIAN (fl. a. 248.) to this is plain and distinct; as appears by the extracts already given from his writings in a preceding part of this volume.1 So clear, indeed, is his testimony, that a learned Roman Catholic writer finds fault, as we have seen, with some of his own communion for quoting him as favourable to the Romish view of the question; confessing that " Cyprian acknowledged no other tradition than what is contained in the Scriptures.”” And to Cyprian we may, I think without hesitation add, FIRMILIAN OF CESAREA (fl. a. 233.) 3 who, in his Letter to Cyprian, very strongly expresses his approval of what Cyprian had written to Stephen, Bishop of Rome, on the question of rebaptization, as quoted above; and ridicules the plea of Stephen that their customs at Rome were derived See p. 239-44 above. 2 See p. 223 above. • Inter Cypriani Epist. ep. 75, init. 4 See pp. 239, 40 above. from Apostolical tradition, as one evidently contradicted by fact; and having, as he thinks, proved from Scripture, that the practice he followed was the right one, he says, "Who is so vain as to prefer custom to truth?"" adding, " But we to truth join also custom, and to the custom of the Romans oppose custom; but the custom of truth; holding this to have been from the beginning which was delivered by Christ and the Apostle;" i. e. in the Scriptures, to which he had been referring. "Nor do we recollect," he says, "that this had any beginning with us, since it was always observed here." Putting these passages together (and we have only this one Epistle to judge from), it seems tolerably clear that Firmilian's view on the point now in question, was the same as that of Cyprian; especially when we observe that while he claimed immemorial usage in favour of the custom in his own parts, he did not place its observance on that ground, but on the directions of Scripture. That the name of Apostolical tradition was mistakenly pleaded for practices in use in the primitive church, others of the Fathers will tell us, as we have already had occasion to notice, in the case of the controversy as to the observance of Easter; and Irenæus admits that this might arise from some bishops being negligent, and allowing that to go down to posterity as a custom which was introduced through simplicity and ignorance. And hence men of experience and judgment among them saw the necessity of Scripture proof in such matters, before anything could be confidently affirmed to have sprung from Apostolical tradition, as we see in the testimony of another witness in our favour among the Fathers, whose "peculiar judgment and diligence" are praised, both by the Romanist Valesius, and our own Cave, namely, Speaking of the difference in the Church as to the time of 1 See the passage quoted vol. 1. pp. 264 and 337. 2 Quis tam vanus sit, ut veritati consuetudinem præferat. Ib. 3 See vol. i. p 263. 4 See ib. 5 See vol. i. pp. 255 et seq. and RouтH Reliq. S. vol. i. pp. 391 &s. See, also, DIONYS. ALEX. Ep. Canon. in Routh. Reliq. S. vol. ii. pp. 385 &s. To the cases already mentioned, we may add the practice of praying towards the East, for which ORIGEN (In Num. hom. 5. ii. 284) the author of the "Quæst. et Resp. ad Orthod." (Inter Just. op. resp. 118.) and the author of the Apostolical Constitutions (lib. ii. c. 57.) contend as an Apostolical tradition; but which Leo, so far from considering such, absolutely disapproves of. (LEON. Serm. 7. de Christi nativ. c. 4.) This is noticed by the Benedictines themselves in a note on Origen, us quoted above. See vol. i. pp. 257 and 337. observing Easter, some saying that their custom was derived from John, others theirs from Peter and Paul, Socrates adds,-" But none of these can show a Scriptural demonstration concerning these things. I thence conjecture, therefore, that the feast of Easter is observed in each place rather from some custom." And a little further on, he says,—" And since no one can show a Scriptural command concerning this, it is manifest that, even with respect to this matter, the Apostles committed it to the opinion and choice of each individual." We have here, then, sufficient testimony to show us that the view for which we contend, has good and able witnesses in its behalf among the early Fathers. Nor can I pass on without reminding the reader of the remarkable passage already quoted from GREGORY OF NYSSA (fl. a. 370.) in which he puts forward the Rule of Scripture as our guide in matters of practice, in a way which is totally inconsistent with the views of our opponents." Still further we may observě, secondly, that of 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. Such is the case, certainly, with JEROME (fl. a. 378.) "As to your inquiry," he says, "respecting the Sabbath, whether we ought to fast on it; and respecting the Eucharist, whether it is to be received daily, a practice the Church of Rome and that of Spain are reported to observe, Hippolytus, a most eloquent man, has also written . . . . . But I think that you should be briefly admonished that ecclesiastical tradition, especially those which do not affect the faith, are so to be observed as they are delivered by our ancestors; and that the custom of some is not to be overthrown by the contrary custom of ... 1 Αλλ' ουδεις μεν τουτων εγγράφον έχει παρασχειν την περί τούτων αποδειξιν· ὅτι μεντοι εκ συνηθείας τινος μαλλον κατά χώρας επιτελείται του Πασχα έορτη, εκείθεν τεκμαίρομαι . Και επειδή ουδείς περί του του εγγράφων έχει δείξει παραγγελμα, δήλον ως και περι τούτου τη εκάστου γνώμη και προαιρέσει επέτρεψαν οι Αποστολοι. SOCRAT. Hist. Eccles. lib. v. c. 22 (Ed Reading. vol. ii. pp. 294. 5.) See the whole passage more fully quoted, vol. i. pp -257-9. 2 See. p. 304 above. others but let every province abound in its own views, and esteem the precepts of its ancestors to be Apostolical laws." This passage, I suspect, furnishes us with a key to the whole matter. In points of ecclesiastical order which did not affect the faith, it was on many accounts desirable that the scruples or perverseness of individuals, should not interfere with matters that had been sanctioned by long usage in the Church, the peace of the Church being thereby greatly endangered. Therefore, says Jerome, let each province follow the customs which have long obtained in it, even though they may be contrary to what are observed in other provinces; and let each look upon such customs as Apostolical laws. Where the apostolicity of such matters is evidently not insisted upon as what could be strictly proved, but which, for the sake of the peace of the Church, might, in a general sense, be allowed, where no evil could arise to the faith from the admission. To the sentiments of Jerome, as here expressed, we are far from being desirous of offering any objection; but, on the contrary, believe that there was much good sense in the advice. And I suspect that many of the Fathers, when they spoke of Apostolical traditions in such matters, took the same view of the subject. That such, or very similar, was also the view of AUGUSTIN (f. a. 396.) is, I think, evident on a review and comparison of various passages in his works. For though, when writing on the question of the rebaptization of those baptized by heretics, he says, "Many things which are not found in the writings of the Apostles, nor in the Councils of those who came after them; yet, inasmuch as they are observed throughout the Universal Church, are believed to have been delivered and commended to observation, by no others than by them;" and that "that which the Universal Church holds, and was not instituted by Councils, but always preserved, is most rightly believed to have been delivered by no De Sabbatho quod quæris, utrum jejunandum sit; et de Eucharistia, an accipienda quotidie, quod Romana Ecclesia et Hispaniæ observare perhibentur, scripsit quidem et Hippolytus vir disertissimus, et carptim diversi Scriptores e variis auctoribus edidere. Sed ego illud breviter te admonendum puto, traditiones ecclesi. asticas (præsertim quæ fidei non officiant) ita observandas, ut a majoribus traditæ sunt; nec aliorum consuetudinem aliorum contrario more subverti....... sed unaquæque provincia abundet in sensu suo, et præcepta majorum leges Apostolicas arbitretur, HIERON. Epist ad Lucin. ep. 71, ad fin. Op tom. i. col, 434, 5. 2 Multa quæ non inveniuntur in litteris eorum [i. e. Apostolorum], neque in conciliis posteriorum, et tamen quia per universam custodiuntur Ecclesiam, non nisi ab ipsis tradita et commendata creduntur. De bapt. contra Donat. lib. ii. c. 7. ix col. 102. |