may be used without danger, as describing the author to whom what is delivered is attributed, to distinguish it from ecclesiastical or patristical tradition, where no higher author of the doctrine delivered is claimed than the church or the Fathers, and thus in fact the phrase is often used; but any argument derived from this use of the name, as if the apostolicity of the doctrine was thereby necessarily conceded by those who use this phrase, is manifestly absurd. To avoid mistake, however, we shall adhere to the phrase patristical tradition.

Though our opponents, therefore, intimate their claim to the high-sounding title of " the Apostolicals," we cannot but think that it seems more justly to belong to those who are satisfied with the undoubted remains of the apostles, than to those who wish to add to them from the writings of the Fathers, who (as we all profess to follow the apostles) might rather be called "the Patristicals." However, the name need not alarm us, when we recollect that it was the name assumed by one of the early heresies; and one, by the way, which among other (supposed apostolical) notions was particularly severe against marriage, and those who lapsed after baptism.

Another remark which I would here offer is, that we draw a wide distinction between the value of the testimony of the Fathers as to doctrines and the oral teaching of the apostles, and their testimony as to those matters of fact that came under their immediate cognizance. It is important to keep this in view, because the value of human testimony is very different in one of those cases to what it is in the other. The value of a man's testimony to a fact that takes place under his own eye, or to a matter that is the object of the senses, is very different to that of his report of an oral statement, especially with respect to matters of doctrine. And this is a truth so obvious and generally acknowledged, that the report of a communication from another, relating even to a matter of fact, would not be received in a court of justice, so conscious are men of the uncertainties attending such evi

dence. How much more uncertainty, then, attends the reports of communications of this nature when relating to such matters as the abstruse and controverted points of Christian doctrine! However infallible those may be who make the communication, the imperfection and fallibility of the reporters necessarily throw a degree of uncertainty over the report, especially where it has passed through many hands, and where a slight misapprehension on the part of the hearer, or the change of a word, might alter the complexion of the whole. Hence the sole reason why we receive the apostolical accounts of our Lord's doctrine as entitled to our faith, is because we hold the apostles to have delivered those accounts under divine. guidance. Should we have received them as entitled to our implicit faith had they been delivered by uninspired men?

Hence the attempt has been made by our opponents to confound doctrines and facts together, and to make it appear that evidence which is valid with respect to the latter must be equally valid with respect to the former, by urging that it is a mere fact whether the apostles or the primitive church did or did not teach certain doctrines, and therefore that human testimony to such a fact is as valid as the same testimony to any other fact. But the inference is evidently most unwarranted; for it is a similar fact whether the Scriptures do or do not teach certain doctrines, but men misunderstanding the Scriptures give different accounts of this fact, which is an evident proof that their testimony in such a case is not wholly to be relied upon. Again, it is a fact that there is a Christian Episcopal Church in England, and it is a fact that that church proposes certain doctrines to her members in the thirty-nine Articles, and the testimony of our opponents to the existence of that church might be a very sufficient proof of such fact to those in other countries, while their testimony as to what doctrines were maintained by her might be considered a very insufficient proof. Indeed this argument is altogether founded upon a misuse of terms, because what is meant by a matter of fact here is

a matter that originally falls under the cognizance of the senses, as distinguished from that which is merely an object of mental contemplation.

We draw, therefore, a wide distinction between the value of patristical testimony as to ritual matters and such points, and its value in certifying us as to the oral teaching of the apostles, or the whole primitive church; not to dwell here upon the fact that we have but little direct testimony as to what that teaching was. Thus the testimony of a few reputable authors may be sufficient to prove the fact of the practice of infant baptism in the primitive church, (and we shall show hereafter the use of such testimony with respect to doctrines immediately connected with the rites and usages of the church,) but not to prove what the doctrine of the apostles or the whole primitive church was, as to the nature and effects of that

sacrament.

Moreover even as to matters of fact, we must observe that a distinction is to be drawn between those for which we have the testimony of an eye-witness, and those for which we have only testimony derived from the report of others. We shall find hereafter, that even in such points as the duration of our Lord's public ministry, and the period of life at which he suffered, statements directly opposed to the truth might pass under the name of apostolical tradition, with the sanction of such respectable names as Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria; and therefore even as to these matters, where the report comes through several hands, we must not wholly rely upon the testimony of one or two authors, of whatever repute.

It is true our opponents endeavour to make up for the obvious uncertainty attendant upon such testimony, by limiting it to that which is universal or established by what they call catholic consent; but, as we shall hereafter see, their alleged universality and catholic consent are mere words and not realities, for errors and heresies existed in the church from the very first, and (to name no other objection) the testimony we have for the first few centuries is derived

TOL. I.

C

from documents wholly insufficient to prove catholic consent. On this point, however, we shall have occasion to speak more at large in another place.

Another point which I would request the reader to observe is, that when speaking of the Holy Scripture as the only certain depository or teacher of divine revelation, and the sole Rule of faith, we apply the words in the strict sense of the terms, as implying that which binds the conscience to the reception of whatever it may deliver, not as signifying that it is the only guide to the truth. There are many useful guides to the truth besides the Scriptures, of which the writings of the early Fathers form one, and an important one.

It is very necessary to keep this distinction in view, because the advocates for "tradition" often catch an unwary reader by speaking as if their opponents had no regard, no respect for the writings of the primitive church; whereas they may be, and have been, held in high estimation as guides in our search after the truths of religion, by many who reject them as forming part of the rule of faith, or giving an authoritative testimony respecting the doctrines of Christianity.

There has been much very extraordinary misrepresentation upon this point in the writings of our opponents, against which I would here at the outset caution the reader. Language has been used implying that all those who do not take their views hold the Fathers in utter contempt, and look upon the great lights of the primitive church only with scorn, and they are held up to public derision under the name of "ultra-protestants." Such language is wholly unjustifiable, and reflects discredit only upon those who use it. The hasty and ignorant remarks of individuals who know nothing of the Fathers are not to be charged upon a whole body of men for the purpose of bringing their sentiments into disrepute. It may be convenient in controversy to impute to your adversary extreme views, and is often an argument very effectual with the popular mind, which generally inclines to extremes.

But it is merely throwing dust into the eyes of the reader to blind him to the real question. Our opponents must be quite aware that there are multitudes of those who differ from them, who have no sympathy with men who talk contemptuously of antiquity and the early Fathers.

We believe that our Lord has had a church upon earth ever since his first advent, and that we have among the records of antiquity many valuable works penned by his true followers; and that the writings and records of the primitive church may be, on various grounds and in many ways, useful in guiding us to a knowledge of the truth and more especially in guarding us against error. Nay, we are ready to admit that a notion put forward as an important article of faith which finds no support in any of those writings, is thereby convicted of error, and thus that in the refutation of heresy and error those writings are of great value.

We hold also that the consent of many of the most able and pious ecclesiastical writers of antiquity (and what is called catholic consent is nothing more than this) in favour of any particular view of divine truth, is an argument of great force in defence of that view, not from the improbable possibility of such consent having been derived from the oral teaching of the apostles, but rather from the probable evidence afforded by such consent, (as one of themselves, Theodoret, will tell us,) that they were all under the guidance of one and the same omniscient Spirit, whose teaching renders all those to whom it is vouchsafed valuable guides to the church at large in all ages. "Immense mountains and seas," says Theodoret, after showing the identity of the testimony of several of the earliest Fathers upon certain important points, "separate them one from another, but the distance has not injured their harmony. For they were all taught by the same spiritual grace." 1

Further, we do not deny that any man who differs from the true catholic church of Christ in fundamental points See testimony of Theodoret in ch. 10, below.