will allow "tradition" to tell him what they mean, then, taking them in that meaning, and no other, they will be proofs to him that the doctrine delivered by tradition is the one maintained in Scripture. I am constrained to say, that it is difficult to conceive how such self-deception can be admitted.

To reply to this example, by pointing out those passages of Scripture by which this doctrine is manifested, would, I fear, be useless, because it is to be supposed that our opponents have already considered them, and are prepared to deny that they do fully set forth the doctrine in question. I will, therefore, meet them on their own ground, and show them that they are at issue in this matter with those whom they acknowledge as their great and (as a body) authoritative teachers, the Fathers.

What account does Athanasius give us of the way in which this doctrine, when called in question, was made out by the Nicene Fathers? They "collected together out of the Scriptures these words, the brightness, the fountain, and the river, and the image of 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 foregoing expressions have this meaning." And again still more clearly; "The bishops having observed their hypocrisy in this . . . . were compelled again to collect the sense of the matter from the Scriptures, and to repeat in plainer words what they had said before, and write that the Son was consubstantial with the Father."

What says Dionysius of Alexandria on this point?" Although,” he says, "I have not found this very word [i. e. consubstantial] in the Scriptures, yet collecting their meaning from the Scriptures themselves, I was conscious that the Son, being also the Word, could not be of a different substance to the Father."3 Hear, also, Epiphanius.

66

But," he says, "if the word [i. e. consubstantial] were not in the Divine Scriptures, though it is, and plainly occurs in the Law and in the Apostles and Prophets. . . . yet nevertheless it would be lawful for us to use, for the interests of true religion, a convenient word," &c. And again, still more plainly; "The word substance does not occur in the letter in the Old and New Testament, but the sense is to be found everywhere."s

Athanas. Ad. Afr. Episc. Epist. § 6. See the passage, c. 10, below.

2 See c. 10. below.

3 Ει και με την λέξιν ταύτην εύρον εν ταις γραφαις, αλλ' εξ αυτών των γραφων τον νουν συναγαγών, έγνων ότι υἱος ων και λόγος ου ξένος αν είη της ουσίας του Πατρός. Dionys. Alex. in Athan. Epist. De sent. Dionys. § 20. Op. ed. Ben. tom. i. p. 257. 4 See c. 10. below.

So Ambrose refers entirely to the Scriptures for this doctrine, and says, "I would not, O sacred Emperor, that you should put your faith in my argument and disputation. Let us interrogate the Scriptures, let us interrogate the Apostles, let us interrogate the Prophets, let us interrogate Christ." And again,-" When I consider, O august Emperor, how it is that the human race has so erred, that the majority, alas, follow different opinions concerning the Son of God, the wonder to me is not by any means that human learning has erred concerning heavenly things, but that it has not been obedient to the Scriptures.""

And Augustine says,-"Against the impiety of the Arian heretics the Fathers made a new word consubstantial; but they did not by this word express a new thing; for the name consubstantial is the same in meaning as, 'I and my Father are one,' namely, of one and the same substance."

It would be easy to add to these passages from other Fathers, but I suppose these will be considered sufficient.*

And as it respects the divines of our own Church, the reader will see in the extracts given hereafter from the works of Jewell, Jeremy Taylor, &c., that the same view is stoutly maintained by them against the opposite doctrine of the Church of Rome.

Nay, let us hear Bellarmine himself on this point. When pressed in the controversy on tradition by that passage of Augustine, in which he tells the Arian Maximinus, that for an authoritative decision of the point in dispute, they must not go either to the Council of Nice or that of Ariminum, but at once to Scripture, he says, that the cause was twofold, First, that he might argue more expeditiously, and, secondly, "because in the questions then at issue, there were in Scripture the very clearest testimonies, which beyond doubt are to be preferred to all the testimonies of Councils."

I hope, then, that I may conclude, not only from the language of Scripture itself, but upon the testimony of those to whom our opponents look as their guides in such matters, that we want

' Adversus impietatem quoque Arianorum hæreticorum novum nomen patris [patres] Homousion condiderunt; sed non rem novam tali nomine signaverunt ; hoc enim vocatur Homousion quod est, Ego et Pater unum sumus, unius videlicet ejusdemque substantiæ. Aug. In Joh. Ev. c. 16. Tract. 97. § 4. Op. tom. iii. p. 2. col. 738; and see Contr. Maximin, lib. ii. c. 14. § 3. tom. viii. col. 704. For others, see the extracts from Cyril. Alex. &c. in c. 10. below.

6 See chap. 11. below.

6 Quia in illis quæstionibus quæ tunc erant exstabant in Scriptura clarissima testimonia, quæ sine dubio anteponenda sunt omnibus Conciliorum testimoniis. Bell. De Verb. Dei, lib. iv. c. 11.

nothing but Scripture for the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father.

It is still more painful to have to add, that even the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ against the Socinians, has been brought forward in this controversy as one upon which Scripture is not sufficiently explicit, and which therefore must be defended from tradition. Nay, we are told that if we were good logicians we should be Socinians.1

On this point I shall only refer the reader to the extract already given in a former page from Dr. Hawardine, which will show him that even some Romanists have opposed such a notion, and maintained that this is a point in which Scripture is clear, and which "may be decided by the Holy Scripture alone," and have ridiculed the notion upon which Dr. Hook relies, that because men contest the matter, therefore it is not decided in Scripture.9

3

To what other points Mr. Keble may allude when he tells us that we are indebted to "tradition" for the full doctrine of the Trinity, I know not, but fear that upon the same grounds on which he has attributed to it our knowledge of the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, he would join with the Romanists in tracing to it our knowledge of various other points, namely, the doctrine that the Father is unbegotten, that of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and that also of his procession from the Father and the Son, our knowledge of all which is traced by the Romanists to tradition. Not that they would deny, any more than our opponents, that there are some notices of these doctrines in Scripture, and some testimonies which, when explained and developed by tradition, speak these doctrines. But they assert that they are not fully delivered in Scripture.

As it respects the first of these, viz., that the Father is unbegotten, they defend themselves by a passage of Augustine, which we need only connect with the context, to show that Augustine was of a completely opposite opinion. He says, in a letter to Pascentius, that when the latter presented to him his creed with the word "unbegotten" (ingenitum) in it applied to the Father, he asked him where this word was to be found in the Scriptures; with the meaning, I fully admit, that though not in

1 See extracts from Dr. Hook, in vol. i. P. 489.

2 See vol. i. p. 467-8.

8 Serm. pp. 32, 41.

4 Thus speaks the 85th of the Tracts for the Times; "A person who denies the Apostolical succession of the ministry, because it is not clearly taught in Scripture, ought, I conceive, if consistent, to deny the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, which is nowhere literally stated [he means if consistent” “not clearly taught"] in Scripture." (p. 4.)

the Scriptures, it was to be received. But why did he do this? His own words tell us. "But this," he says, "I did, because, in the beginning of our discourse, when Arius and Eunomius were mentioned. . . you anathematized both Arius and Eunomius, and then immediately demanded that we also should anathematize the Homousion . . . You then vehemently demanded that we should show this word to you in the Scriptures, and you would immediately join in communion with us. We replied that, since we spoke in Latin, and that was a Greek word, it was first to be inquired what Homousin was; and then the demand to be made that it should be shown in the Sacred Books. You, on the contrary, often repeating the word itself. . . . vehemently urged that we should show the very word which is, [or signifies] Homousin, in the Sacred Books; we at the same time over and over again recalling to you that, inasmuch as our language was not Greek, it was first to be interpreted and explained what Homousin meant, and then it was to be inquired for in the Divine Writings; because although, perchance, the word itself could not be found, yet the thing itself might be found. For what is more litigious, than when the thing itself is clear, to contend about a name? Inasmuch, therefore, as this conversation had passed between us, after the matter proceeded to your writing your creed, as I have mentioned, although I saw nothing in the words contrary to my creed, and therefore I said that I was ready to subscribe; I inquired, as I said, whether the Divine Scripture contained this word, that the Father was unbegotten. And when you replied that it was written, I immediately asked you to show me where. Then one who was present, a companion, as far as I understand, of your faith, says to me, What! then, do you say that the Father is begotten?' I replied, I do not say so.' Then he said, 'If, therefore, he is not begotten, he must be unbegotten.' To whom I said, You see that it may happen that even respecting a word which is not in the Divine Scripture, a reason may be given, showing that it may be rightly used. So, therefore, as to Homousion, which we were required to show in the authority of the Divine books, although we may not find there the word itself, it may hap pen that we may find that to which this word may be judged to be rightly applied.'

6

This passage, therefore, taken with its context, shows that Augustine was, in fact, contending both that this doctrine and that of the consubstantiality were fully set forth in Scripture,

1 Quia etsi fortasse nomen ipsum non inveniretur, res tamen ipsa inveniretur. Quid est enim contentiosius, quam ubi de re constat certare de nomine ? 2 Aug. Epist. 238. Ad Pasc. c. I. Tom. 2. col. 854..

although these two particular words, " consubstantial” and “ unbegotten" were not there; and that the thing only, and not the name, was worth contending about. And further on he clearly attributes the errors of men repecting Christ, to their not studying the Scriptures.1

And such passages as this clearly, though indirectly, show, what was Augustine's sole rule of faith in such points; for had he held the views of our opponents, he would have argued on these points as they do. But this by the way, as we shall advert to this more fully hereafter.

Further, as to the doctrine of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, what says Augustine, in the very letter to which we have just referred? "Now, for a short space," he says, "contemplate the passages of Scripture which compel us to confess one Lord God, whether we are interrogated respecting the Father only, or the Son only, or the Holy Spirit only, or of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together."

Still more strongly speaks the great Athanasius, in his Epistle to Serapion, against those who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. "To all created beings," he says, "and especially to us men, it is impossible to speak worthily of things which are beyond our power of expression; and it is still more audacious for those who cannot express them, to excogitate new words beyond those of the Scriptures." And, again, still more clearly; "Such an attempt, therefore, being full of madness, and worse, let not any one any longer ask such questions, but learn only what is in the Scriptures: for the illustrations we have of this matter in them, are sufficient in themselves, and need no addition." To which I will only add the words of Bishop Pearson, (one of our opponents' witnesses,) "The Scriptures do clear

1 Homines autem minus intelligentes quid propter quid dicatur patentes volunt habere sententias; et, Scripturis non diligenter scrutatis, cum arripiunt defensionem cujusque opinionis, et ab ea vel nunquam vel difficile deflectuntur, dum docti atque sapientes magis putari quam esse concupiscunt, ea quæ propter formam servi dicta sunt volunt transferre ad formam Dei, et rursus quæ dicta sunt ut ad se invicem persons referantur, volunt nomina esse naturæ atque substantiæ. c. 2. col. 857.

2 Jam nunc paululum intuere quæ Scripturarum eloquia nos cogant unum Dominum Deum confiteri, sive tantum de Patre, sive tantum de Filio, sive tantum de Spiritu Sancto, sive simul de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto interrogemur. Aug. Ep. 238. Ad. Pasc. c. 3. Tom. 2. col. 858, 9.

8 Εστι μεν γαρ πασι τοις γένηταις, μάλιστα δε ήμιν τοις ανθρωποις, αδυνατον, επαξίως ειπείν περί των απορρήτων. Τολμηρότερον δε παλιν μη δυναμένοις λέγειν, επινοείν επί τούτων NANOTEPAS LES πapa Tas Tev jрapav. Athanas. Ep. 1. Ad. Serap. § 17. Tom. 1. p. 2. p. 666.

4 Περιττης τοιγαρουν και πλέον μανίας ούσης της τοιαύτης επιχειρησεως, μηκετι τοιαυτα τις ερωτάτα, η μόνον τα εν ταις γραφαις μανθανετα. Αυτάρκη γαρ και έκανα τα εν ταύταις nava Tapi TOUTOU TаpadByμara. Athanas. Ep. 1. Ad Serap. § 19. Op. tom. 1. p. 2. · p.