These charges, being reciprocal, prove nothing on either side. And when we come to investigate the actual evidence producible from the writings that remain to us, we find the true state of the case to be, that the Fathers often wrote hotly and hastily, and consequently incorrectly and therefore may be quoted in almost all the great questions of doctrine that have agitated the church since the very earliest period, on both sides. This is the case even with those writings that have been preserved to us; and these, it must be recollected, form but a few of those that were published, especially of the earlier ages.

And hence it was that so many heresies (as an antient writer tells us) brought forward passages of the Fathers in their defence; and that Eusebius, in his defence of Origen, was able to give very many testimonies of preceding Fathers in favour of some of his errors. 1

Let me not, however, be misunderstood in the above. remarks. I am very far from meaning to convey the idea by them, that the heretics had such support in the writings of the primitive Fathers as they often boasted of. My conviction is that they had not. And I maintain that an accurate examination of the writings of the primitive Fathers will prove to any impartial enquirer, that the weight of patristical testimony is beyond comparison in

writings of the Fathers. Having given a long extract from Socrates, showing the nature of the proposal made, he stops precisely at the point where the reception given to the proposal is narrated, and contents himself with giving the following account of it. "Whereupon the heads of the different sects were at first much confounded and divided among themselves, some commending what the Emperor had proposed, and others not; but, in conclusion, they ALL chose rather to rest the cause solely on logical disputation, than upon the testimonies of the ancients." (pp. 13, 14.) And in his chapter" on the use and value of ecclesiastical antiquity," in his "Importance of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity," he alludes to it again as a proof that the heretics, when practically brought to the test, declined the appeal to patristical tradition. (Works, vol. 5. pp. 324, 5.) This is clearly a misrepresentation of the matter; because the heretics in question asserted that they "highly honoured the Fathers as their masters ;" and when put to the test, a portion of them (large or small, we know not) were still willing and desirous to be judged by the tradition of the Fathers. Such statements are to be regretted. In the end they prejudice the cause of truth.

Auctor Synod. Adv. Trag. Iren. c. 198, in Routh, Reliq. S. vol. iii. p. 267.

favour of the orthodox faith. But my object is to show to those who are claiming antiquity, as if it were obviously and exclusively in their favour, and putting forth pretensions to such a catholic consent as can never be proved, and, in fact, never existed; and asserting that the heretics could find nothing favourable to their views in the writings of the preceding Fathers, and even (as some do) declaring that they rejected all appeals to antiquity ; and resting the claims of the orthodox faith to our belief upon such a foundation, to beware how they take such ground, and especially how they make that supposed consent the sole authorized interpreter of Scripture, and tell us that Scripture cannot be understood without it. The preceding extracts (and many more to the same purpose might easily be added) abundantly show that the Arians, Nestorians, and others, claimed patristical tradition in their favour, as much as their opponents; and inveighed against the novelties and heresies of their opponents, and their opposition to the sentiments of the "catholic church," as strongly as the orthodox.

Will it be said that they all made this claim without any foundation for it? It may, by men wedded to a hypothesis, or by hot and injudicious controversialists. But I suspect that men of cooler judgment, when they come to view the whole case, will take different ground; and content themselves with maintaining that, taking the writings of the early Fathers as a whole, there is very strong testimony to be found in them in favour of the orthodox faith, and that passages which appear favourable to views which did not come into discussion till a period subsequent to the date of those passages cannot always be taken as proofs that the writer supported those views, because, not having those views in his mind, he might easily have expressed himself incautiously, especially if he was writing in opposition to a contrary prevailing error. So far we are on safe and immovable ground. And such, as it appears to me, is all the aid we could naturally and reasonably expect from the writings of the Fathers. But

beyond this our claims are mere assertions; assertions which if true could not be proved, and which are in reality contrary to the plain facts of the case.

SECT. VIII.—WHAT THE TRACTATORS CALL CATHOLIC CONSENT" IS NOT TREATED BY THEMSELVES IN MANY CASES SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE DOC

AS

AFFORDING ANY

TRINES SO SUPPORted.

To illustrate this subject still further, I will now proceed to point out some cases where there appears to be what our opponents would call "catholic consent;" and which may lead them and others to reflect how far their system is characterized by consistency.

(1.) The doctrine taught by the Fathers of the first three centuries as to the Divine appearances to man under the Old Testament dispensation.

These Fathers seem universally to ascribe all these appearances to the Son. And as the principal passages have been carefully collected by Dr. Burton, I shall present the reader with his statement of them, which probably may have more weight with my opponents than any catena of my own.

"It was Christ who talked with Adam, Gen. iii. 8, 9, where the person is said to be the Lord God. v. Theophil, in Autol. ii. 22. Tertull. adv. Prax. c. 16. p. 509. Irenæus iv. 10. p. 239.

"It was Christ who spoke to Noah, Gen. vi. 13. Irenæus iv. 10.

"It was Christ who went down to confound the tongues at Babel, Gen. xi. 5, where it is said that it was the Lord. Justin M. Dial. cum Tryph. c. 127. p. 220. Tertull. adv. Prax. c. 16. p. 509. Novatian. c. 25. p. 723.

"It was Christ who appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God, Gen. xvii. i. Justin. M.

Dial. cum Tryph. c. 127. p. 220. Clem. Alex. Pæd. i. 7. p. 131.

"It was Christ who appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, Gen. xviii. 1, where he is called the Lord, and the Judge of all the earth, ver. 25. Justin. M. Dial. cum Tryph. c. 56, p. 152. Clem. Alex. Pæd. i. 7. p. 131. Tertull. Adv. Marc. iii. 9. p. 402. Origen. in Gen. Hom. iv. 3.

"It was Christ who rained fire upon Sodom, Gen. xix. 24. The Fathers particularly mention the expression, 'then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord.' Justin. M. Dial. cum Tryph. c. 56. p. 152: c. 127, p. 221. Irenæus, iii. 6. p. 180. Tertull. Adv. Prax. 13, 16, p. 507, 509.

"It was Christ who tempted Abraham, Gen. xxii. Origen. in Gen. Hom. viii. 8. Cyp. Test. ii. 5. p. 286.

"It was Christ who appeared to Jacob, Gen. xxviii. 13, where the person calls himself the Lord God of Abraham and the God of Isaac.' Justin. M. Dial. cum Tryph. c. 58. p. 156. Clem. Alex. Pæd. i. 7. p. 131.

"It was Christ who spoke to Jacob in a dream, Gen. xxxi. 11, 13, where he calls himself the God of Bethel, (see Gen. xxviii. 13, 19.) Justin. M. Dial. cum Tryph. c. 58. p. 155. Cyp. Test. ii. 5. Novatian. c. 27. p. 725.

"It was Christ who wrestled with Jacob, Gen. xxxii. 24, where it is expressly said that he was God, ver. 28, 30. Justin. M. Dial. cum Tryph. c. 58. p. 155, 156. c. 125. p. 218. Irenæus p. 239. Clem. Alex. Pæd. i. 7. p. 132. Concil. Antioch. (Reliq. Sacr. ii. p. 470.)

"It was Christ who appeared to Jacob, Gen. xxxv. 1, 9. Justin M. Dial. cum Tryph. c. 58. p. 155, where he says, 'he is called God, and is God, and will be.' Cyp. Test. ii. 6.

"It was Christ who appeared to Moses in the Bush, Exod. iii. 2, where the person calls himself the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;' and at ver. 14, 'I am that I am.' Justin. M. Apol. i. 62. p. 80. Dial. cum Tryph. c. 60, p. 157. Irenæus iv. 10, 12.

Clem. Alex. Cohort. ad Gent. p. 7. Tertull. Adv. Jud. c. 9. p. 194.

"It was Christ who said to Moses, (Exod. xx. 2,) "I am the Lord thy God which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt.' Clem. Alex. Pæd. i. 7. p. 131.

"It was Christ who spoke to Moses, Levit. vi. 1, and consequently who delivered the whole of the Law. Origen. in Levit. Hom. iv. init.

"It was Christ who appeared to Joshua near Jericho, Josh. v. 13. Justin. M. Dial. cum Tryph. c. 62. p. 159-60.

"These instances might be multiplied so as to make a volume; but enough perhaps has been said to show that all the Fathers agreed in entertaining the same opinion." 1

But notwithstanding this "catholic consent," Dr. Burton adds, "I again repeat that I am not concerned to inquire into the soundness of this opinion," which shows that he at least did not consider such consent as a sufficient proof of the truth of a doctrine, or interpretation of Scripture, at any rate, on such a point. He remarks, however, very justly, that "the Fathers who held it could not have believed that Christ was a mere man, nor even an angel; they assert over and over again that the person who appeared to the patriarchs could not be an angel, because he is called God and Jehovah; and they as expressly assert that he who revealed himself as God and Jehovah was not the Father, but the Son." "I may add," he observes, "that the Arians openly professed their belief that it was Christ' to whom the Father said, Let us make man, &c. who was seen by the patriarchs face to face, who gave the law and spake by the prophets, &c.' (Athanas. De Synodis, vol. i. p. 740. see also p. 743.) Eusebius, who has been suspected of Arianism, devotes the fifth book of his Demonstratio Evangelica to establishing this point. See also this same work, i. 5. p. 11."

'Testim. of Ante-Nicene Fathers to divinity of Christ. 2nd. edit. Ox. 1829. pp. 38-40.