other than Apostolical authority;" yet, nevertheless, as Bishop Taylor says, "It seems himself was not sure that so little a foundation could carry so big a weight; he therefore plainly hath recourse to Scripture in this question; Whether is more pernicious, not to be baptized, or to be re-baptized, is hard to judge; nevertheless, having recourse to the standard of our Lord, where the monuments of this are not estimated by human sense, but by divine authority, I find concerning each of them the sentence of our Lord,' (Contr. Don. lib. iv. c. 14, &c. 17 and 24), to wit, in the Scriptures." And so, still more strongly in another passage, Augustine says, "Lest I should seem to treat the matter with human arguments, since the obscurity of this question drove great men, in former times of the Church, before the schism of Donatus, and men endued with much Christian charity, episcopal Fathers, to differ from one another, &c. . . . I produce from the Gospel certain proofs, by which, the Lord helping me, I prove how rightly and truly, according to the Divine will, it has been ordained," &c. And so far is he from disapproving of Cyprian's reference to Scripture in the question, that he says,"But what Cyprian advises, namely, that we must go back to the fountain head, that is, to Apostolical tradition, and thence direct the stream to our own times, is the best, and without doubt to be done. It is, therefore, delivered to us, as he himself relates, by the Apostles, that there is one God, and one Christ, and one hope, &c. [Eph. iv. 4.]" And he says, "That which the custom of the Church hath ever held, that which this disputation cannot disincline us to, and that which a General Council has confirmed, that we follow. Add to this, that the reasons and testimonies of Scripture adduced on both sides having been well weighed, it may also be said, That which truth has declared, that we follow." It seems, then, that after all, the burthen of proof, as to the Apostolicity of the custom, was thrown by him upon Scrip

1 Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi auctoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur. Ib. lib. iv. c. 24. ix. 140.

2 Works, vol. x. p. 433, 434.

s De bapt. contra Donat. lib. i. c. 7. tom. ix. col. 84. See vol. i. p. 267.

4 Quod autem nos admonet, ut ad fontem recurramus, id est, ad Apostolicam traditionem, et inde canalem in nostra tempora dirigamus, optimum est, et sine dubitatione faciendum. Traditum est ergo nobis, sicut ipse commemorat, ab Apostolis, quod sit unus Deus et Christus unus, &c. [Eph. iv. 4.] De bapt. contra Don. lib. v. c. 26. ix. 158.

5 Quod Ecclesiæ consuetudo semper tenuit, quod hæc disputatio dissuadere non potuit, et quod plenarium concilium confirmavit, hoc sequimur. Huc accedit, quod bene perspectis ex utroque latere disputationis rationibus et Scripturarum testimoniis, potest etiam dici, Quod veritas declaravit, hoc sequimur. De bapt contra Don. lib. iv. c. 6. ix. 126.

VOL. II.

HH

ture; which shows the misgivings of his mind as to the sufficiency of the other evidence.

And this view of his sentiments seems to me strongly confirmed by a remark he makes in his Letter to Casulanus, where, on the question of fasting on the Sabbath, he says, "In these things in which the divine Scripture has determined nothing certain, the custom of the people of God, or the institutes of our ancestors, are to be considered as a law."1 Here it is evident that, for matters of this kind not determined in Scripture; he claims no other sanction than that which long ecclesiastical usage gives them; and such usage he justly thinks that individuals should reckon equivalent to a law. Upon the whole, then, his view seems to differ but little, if at all, practically from that which we maintain. There are no references to be found in Augustine to " precious Apostolical relics," demanding "the same reverence" from us as the written Word.

Finally, we must remark that, even were the testimony of these Fathers different to what it is, our opponents, 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.

I have already given some proofs of this; and more might easily be added, as will hardly, I suppose, be denied. I will not, therefore, detain the reader by enumerating other instances. But it clearly follows from hence, either that they do not consider patristical testimony sufficient to prove the Apostolical origin of these practices, which is in direct contradiction to their professed theory, or that they hold that, even if they were of Apostolical origin, the Church, or any independent portion of it, has power to deviate from them; which practically leaves the matter much in the same state as the view for which we contend. We do not deny the possibility that some of the rites now in use in the Church, of those not mentioned in Scripture, may have had Apostolical sanction for their introduction, as for instance the use of the sign of the cross in baptism, though we believe that we have no sufficient evidence to prove the Apostolicity of any of them; and we hold that the Church, or each independent Church, has the power of ordering such matters according to its own discretion, and that individuals ought, for the sake of the peace of the Church, to acquiesce in its decisions. The advice, therefore, of

1 In his enim rebus de quibus nihil certi statuit Scriptura divina, mos populi Dei vel instituta majorum pro lege tenenda sunt. Epist. ad Casulan. ep. 36 (al. 86.) § 2. ii. 68.

2 See vol. i. pp. 328, 9.

Jerome, that individuals should, in such matters, look upon the customs of their Church that have come down to them from of old as equivalent to Apostolical usages, and the similar advice of Augustine, appear to us to have in their due place, and within their due limits, much practical wisdom. And it would, perhaps, have been well for the Church, if the remark of Gregory the Great had been more borne in mind by all parties, that "while the faith is one and the same, a difference of customs is no injury to the Church." If, then, any man chooses to contend for the Apostolicity of any particular practice or practices sanctioned by very early and general ecclesiastical usage, but at the same time allows that these things are left to the discretion of each independent Church, the practical result is much the same as in the former view of the matter. But if we are bound, as our opponents seem to think, to observe all those practices that had Apostolical sanction for their observance in the primitive Church, and the testimony of a few of the early Fathers is held sufficient to prove that sanction; or even if we are only required to observe those that are said to have been delivered by the Apostles as of permanent obligation, and the testimony of a few Fathers is held sufficient to show such a delivery; then if we receive one that pleases us upon a certain amount of testimony, we must not reject another which has equally good testimony in its favour, because we are disinclined to it; and if we do, we are self-condemned; which we humbly submit is the case with the Tracta

tors.

SECTION V.—WHETHER SCRIPTURE IS SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR TO TEACH THE FAITH; AND HOW ITS MEANING IS BEST ASCERTAINED.

WE proceed to the question of the alleged obscurity of Scripture; and the reader will probably have already observed, that many of the passages cited in a former section in proof of Scripture being our sole and complete Rule of faith, equally show that the writers held that it was a Rule perspicuous enough for the guidance and instruction of mankind at large.

But we have testimonies in abundance of a more direct kind, to some of which (as the question is of primary importance in the present controversy) I shall now call the reader's attention. I begin with,

In una fide nihil officit sanctæ Ecclesiæ consuetudo diversa. GREGOR. M. Ep. ad Leandr. Epist. lib. i. 43.; ii. 532. ed. Ben.

66

JUSTIN MARTYR. (fl. a. 140.)

Who says, in his Conference with Trypho and his companions, Attend, therefore, to what I am about to call to your remembrance from the Holy Scriptures, which [Scriptures] do not need to be interpreted, but only to be heard." And this is spoken with respect to those passages which prove the divinity of our Saviour; and in the context the true reason is given why, though they were so plain that no one could reasonably say anything against them, the Jews did not understand them, viz. that because of their wickedness God had withheld from them the power to understand what was revealed in his word; which, and not any obscurity in them, is still the true reason for their being misunderstood; and he who charges God's word with obscurity, because men of perverse minds misinterpret it, dishonours God, and deceives mankind.

...

Again; "For it is ridiculous for any one to see the sun and the moon, and the other heavenly bodies, following always the same course, and yet to make a change in his mode of reckoning the seasons; and that an arithmetician, if asked how many twice two make, because he had often said that they make four, should no longer reply that they make four, &c. . . . or, in like manner, that one who is discoursing from the prophetical Scriptures should pass over those Scriptures, and not always bring forward the same Scriptures, but think that he himself can produce something better than the Scripture." From which we see that he considered no language so fitted to teach the truth as that of Scripture.

These passages, though we shall meet with many still more direct and full in many other Fathers, are such as clearly indicate the bearing of Justin's views upon these points.

Further, it is not tradition, but the gift of spiritual discernment, to which, according to Justin, we must look, to enable us to understand the mind of the Scriptures. "If, therefore," he says, any one should not, by the great grace which comes from God, have received power to understand what has been spoken

66

1 Προσέχετε τοιγαρουν οίσπερ μέλλω αναμιμνήσκειν απο των αγιων γράφων ουδε εξηγηθήναι. Seqμerior, anna movov anourOnval. JUST. MART. Dial. cum Tryph. 55. p. 150. ed. Ben. (Ed. Col. P. 274.)

2 Γελοίον μεν γαρ πραγμα εστιν όραν τον ήλιον και την σεληνην και τα άλλα άστρα την αυτην οδον αεί, και τας τροπάς των ωρων ποιεσθαι, και τον ψηφιστικον άνδρα, οι εξετάζετο τα δις δυο πισα εστι. δια το πολλακις είρηκεναι ότι τεσσαρα. παύσεσθαι του παλιν λέγειν ότι τέσσαρα και τα άλλα όμοιως όσα παγίως ομολογείται, αει ωσαυτως λεγέσθαι και ομολογείσθαι τον δε από των γραφών των προφητικών ομιλιας ποιουμένον εαν και μη τας αυτάς αεί λέγειν γράφας. αλλ' ήγεσθαι ἑαυτον βελτίον της γραφης γεννήσαντα ειπείν. ib. ib. § 85. p. 189. (Ed. Col. p. 311, 12)

and done by the prophets, it will avail him nothing to seem to speak of their words or acts, if he cannot give any account of them." And again, still more clearly," Do you think, therefore, O men, that we could ever have understood these things in the Scriptures, unless, through the will of him who willed them, we had received grace to understand them ?""

It is not, then, to tradition, but to Divine grace, the influence of the Spirit received individually, to which Justin Martyr would lead us as the interpreter of the Scriptures.

I pass on to,

IRENEUS. (fl. a. 167.)

"A sound mind," says Irenæus," and one that is not rash, but cautious, and a lover of truth, will earnestly search out whatever things God has placed within the power of man, and subjected to our comprehension, and will advance in the knowledge of them, making the knowledge of them easy to itself by daily study. But these things are those that fall under our sight, and as many things as are declared clearly and unambiguously in express terms in the divine Scriptures. And therefore the parables [i. e. those things that are mystically expressed] ought to be explained suitably to those parts that are unambiguous, for thus both he who explains, explains without danger, and the parables receive a like explanation from all.... But it is foolish to apply those things which are spoken obscurely, and not placed before our eyes, to explanations of the parables, which each one makes out to mean what he pleases; for thus no one will possess the rule of truth, but there will appear to be as many truths opposed to each other, and establishing contrary doctrines, as there are interpreters of the parables, as is the case with the questions of the Gentile Philosophers. So that, according to this method of proceeding, a man may be always seeking and never find the truth, because he has rejected the proper method for discovering it. . . . . Since, therefore, all the Scriptures, both Prophetic and Evangelic, may be heard by all, (though all do not believe,) openly and unambiguously and alike proclaiming that the one and only God, to the exclusion of others, made all things by his Word, whether they be visible or invisible, or heavenly or earthly, or marine or subterranean, as we have demonstrated from the very words of Scripture; that very

1 Εξ ουν τις μη μετά μεγάλης χάριτος της παρα Θεου λαβοι νοησαι τα ειρημένα και γεγενη μενα ύπο των προφητών, ουδεν αυτον ονήσει το τας όησεις δοκεῖν λέγειν, ή τα γεγενημένον, ει μη λογον έχει και περί αυτών απεδίδεναι. Ib. ib. § 92. p. 189. (Ed. Col. p. 319.)

2 Οίσθε ουν ήμας ποτέ, ω άνδρες, veyoηκεναι δυνηθήναι εν ταις γραφαις ταυτά, ει μη θεληματι TOU HANJAVTOS Auтa exaBouer xapir TOU vonσas; ID. ib. § 119. p. 211. (Ed. Col. p. 346.)

*

HH