any one is still held by this error, he may, by seeing the light of truth, return to the root and original of the Dominical tradition . . . Taking the cup on the day of his passion, he blessed it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, 'Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I shall drink new wine with you in the kingdom of my Father.' Where we find that the cup which our Lord offered was mixed, and that it was wine which he called his blood. Whence it is evident that the blood of Christ is not offered, if there is no wine in the cup; nor is the Dominical sacrifice duly celebrated, unless our oblation and sacrifice correspond with the Passion. But how shall we drink new wine of the fruit of the vine with Christ in the kingdom of the Father, if, in the sacrifice of God the Father, and Christ, we do not offer wine, and do not mix the cup of the Lord according to the Dominical tradition? Also the blessed Apostle Paul, chosen and sent by the Lord, and appointed a preacher of the evangelical truth, delivers the same things in his Epistle, saying, "The Lord Jesus, in the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread," &c. [quoting 1 Cor. xi. 23, 24.] But if it is ordered by the Lord, and the same thing is confirmed and delivered by his Apostle, that as often as we drink in commemoration of the Lord, we ought to do that which the Lord also did, we find that that which is commanded is not observed by us, unless we do the very same things which the Lord did, and depart not from the divine precept, mixing the cup of the Lord in the same way as he did .. If, in the sacrifice which Christ offered, Christ only is to be followed, it becomes us to follow, and do that which Christ did, and which he commanded to be done. Wherefore if Christ only is to be attended to, we ought not to regard what any of our predecessors thought was to be done, but what he who preceded all, namely Christ, first did. For we must not follow the

VOL. II.

Y

custom of man, but the truth of God . . . And concerning this, also, let us send letters to our colleagues, that the Evangelical law and the Dominical tradition may be everywhere observed, and a departure not be made from that which Christ both taught and did."1

Here, again, in a very similar case to the former, Cyprian refers to Scripture as the only authoritative guide in the matter. And there is nothing, perhaps, which more shows how much the Fathers have often been mis

1 Quanquam sciam, frater carissime, episcopos plurimos ecclesiis Dominicis in toto mundo divina dignatione præpositos Evangelicæ veritatis ac Dominicæ traditionis tenere rationem, nec ab eo quod Christus magister et præcepit et gessit, humana et novella institutione decedere; tamen quoniam quidam vel ignoranter vel simpliciter in calice Dominico sanctificando et plebi ministrando non hoc faciunt, quod Jesus Christus, Dominus et Deus noster, sacrificii hujus auctor et doctor, fecit et docuit; religiosum pariter ac necessarium duxi has ad vos literas facere, ut si quis in isto errore adhuc teneatur, veritatis luce perspecta ad radicem atque originem traditionis Dominica revertatur Calicem sub die passionis accipiens, benedixit, et dedit discipulis suis, dicens; Bibite ex hoc omnes; hic est enim sanguis Novi Testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Dico vobis, non bibam à modo ex ista creatura vitis usque in diem illum quo vobiscum bibam novum vinum in regno Patris mei.' Qua in parte invenimus calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit, et vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit. Unde apparet sanguinem Christi non offerri, si desit vinum calici; nec sacrificium Dominicum legitima sanctificatione celebrari, nisi oblatio et sacrificium nostrum responderit passioni. Quomodo autem de creatura vitis novum vinum cum Christo in regno Patris bibemus, si in sacrificio Dei Patris et Christi vinum non offerimus, nec calicem Domini Dominica traditione miscemus? Beatus quoque Apostolus Paulus a Domino electus et missus, et prædicator veritatis Evangelicæ constitutus, hæc eadem in Epistola sua ponit, dicens ; Dominus Jesus, in qua nocte tradebatur, accepit panem,' &c. [1 Cor. xi. 23, 24.] Quod si et a Domino præcipitur, et ab Apostolo ejus hoc idem confirmatur et traditur, ut quotiescumque biberimus in commemorationem Domini hoc faciamus, quod fecit et Dominus, invenimus non observari a nobis quod mandatum est, nisi eadem quæ Dominus fecit nos quoque faciamus, et calicem Domini pari ratione miscentes a divino magisterio non recedamus . . . . . . Si in sacrificio quod Christus obtulerit, non nisi Christus sequendus est, utique id nos obaudire et facere oportet, quod Christus fecit, et quod faciendum esse mandavit . . . Quare si solus Christus audiendus est, non debemus attendere, quid alius ante nos faciendum putaverit, sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prior fecerit. Neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed Dei veritatem . . . Et de hoc quoque ad collegas nostros literas dirigamus, ut ubique lex Evangelica et traditio Dominica servetur, et ab eo quod Christus et docuit et fecit non recedatur. CYPRIANI Epist. ad Cæcilium. (Op. Ed. Fell. Oxon. 1682. Ep. 63. P. 2. pp. 148-57.)

represented by the Romanists, than the fact, that they have constantly availed themselves of the word "tradition" in this, and the preceding passage, to make men believe that Cyprian was a supporter of their views of patristical tradition. That it is a misrepresentation, and that the Romanists are in the habit of making it, is admitted by Lumper himself, who says,-"When catholic theologians endeavour to prove the existence of divine traditions from the holy Fathers, they quote, in proof of them, the following passages from St. Cyprian." And he instances the learned Ceillier (Hist. gener. des Auteurs. Tom. 2. p. 165 &s.) "But," he adds, "by the leave of that most learned man and others, I must say that neither in this, nor the preceding passages, do St. Cyprian's words refer to divine traditions, distinct from holy Scripture. Any one will easily be convinced of the truth of this my assertion, if he will only at his leisure read the whole of the letters quoted CYPRIAN

ACKNOWLedged no OTHER TRADITION THAN WHAT IS CONTAINED IN THE SCRIPTURES And the illustrious Ceillier is both mistaken, and leads others into error, when he asserts that St. Cyprian defends infant baptism, by the authority of tradition; since the contrary is obvious, from the letter of the holy bishop to Fidus, where he defends the baptism of infants by the clearest reasons, derived from holy Scripture, without making any mention of tradition."1

'Quando Theologi Catholici existentiam traditionum divinarum ex SS. Patribus probare conantur, sequentia ex S. Cypriano loca pro iisdem comprobandis adducunt. . . . Sed pace hujus doctissimi viri aliorumque dixerim, neque in hoc neque in præcedentibus locis S. Cyprianum de traditionibus divinis a Scriptura sacra distinctis sermonem habere. De hujus asserti mei veritate quilibet facile convincetur, si laudatas Epistolas per otium integre evolvere voluerit. . . . Nullam aliam traditionem agnoscebat Cyprianus quam quæ in Scripturis continetur. Fallitur autem et fallit Cl. Ceillierius dum asserit S. Cyprianum Pædobaptismum per traditionis auctoritatem defendisse; siquidem contrarium ad oculum patet ex Epistola sancti antistitis ad Fidum in ordine Baluziano 59, ubi baptisma infantium præclarissimis rationum momentis e Scriptura sacra depromtis nulla traditionis facta mentione defendit. LUMPER Hist. Theol.-Crit. de vita, &c. Patrum. Aug. Vind. 1785 &s. vol. xi. pp. 521-3.

Such is the testimony of one who was himself a Romanist, after which I think there can be no doubt what are the views supported by Cyprian.

As connected, however, with our present subject, I would commend the following passages to the attention of the reader.

"That they may understand from you, and be instructed, and learn what ecclesiastical discipline demands, according to the dictates of the Scriptures." 1

"This happens, dear brethren, in consequence of a return not being made to the source of the truth, and the fountain-head not being sought, nor the doctrine of our heavenly master being adhered to. Which if any one considers and examines, there will be no need of a long discussion and arguments." 2

"Wherefore we also holding a middle course, and contemplating the Lord's balance, and meditating on the mercy and compassion of God the Father, after much and long discussion with each other, held a steady course between extremes in determining what was to be done.” 3

"We came together, and after the Scriptures had been cited for a long time on both sides, we, with a happy moderation, determined upon a middle course.'

"I have received your letters, dear brother, which are truly sensible and full of integrity and faith. Nor am I

1 Ut sciant ex vobis et instruantur et discant, quid secundum Scripturarum magisterium ecclesiastica disciplina deposcat. Ep. ad clerum de cura paup. &c. (Op. ed. Fell. Ep. 14. p. 32.)

2 Hoc eo fit, fratres dilectissimi, dum ad veritatis originem non reditur, nec caput quæritur, nec magistri cælestis doctrina servatur. Quæ si quis consideret et examinet, tractatu longo atque argumentis opus non est. De unit. Eccles. (Op. ed. Fell. Oxon. 1682. P. 1. p. 105.) On the fraudulent corruption of this Treatise by the Romanists see James's Corruption of Scripture and Fathers. Part 2. init.

3 Propter quod et nos temperamentum tenentes, et libram Domini contemplantes, et Dei Patris pietatem ac misericordiam cogitantes, diu multumque tractatu inter nos habito, justa moderamine agenda libravimus. Ep. ad Max. Presb. &c. (Op. ed. Fell. Ep. 54. P. 2. p. 100.)

In unum convenimus, et Scripturis diu ex utraque parte prolatis temPeramentum salubri moderatione libravimus. Ep. ad Antonian. (Op. ed. Fell. Ep. 55. P. 2. p. 102.)

surprised that being well versed and skilful in the Dominical Scriptures, you do all things prudently and advisedly."

LACTANTIUS (fl. a. 303.)

1

Proceeding to Lactantius, we are told that "the faith is contained in the divine Scriptures." 2

EUSEBIUS OF CÆSAREA (fl. a. 315.)

Our next witness is the learned Eusebius Pamphilus; who, though not apparently in all respects orthodox,3 may, I suppose, be considered a witness not to be despised on the question before us.

In his Letter to the people of his own Diocese concerning the Council of Nice, he thus speaks of the Anathema which that Council annexed to the Creed which it published;" Moreover we considered the anathematism published by them at the end of the Creed to be unobjectionable, inasmuch as it prohibits the use of expressions not found in the Scriptures, through which has come nearly all the confusion and disturbance that has arisen in the Church. No part, therefore, of holy Scripture having used the phrase, 'out of nothing,' or 'there was a time when he was not,' or those which follow, it appeared improper to say or teach these things; to which, as appearing reasonable, we assented." 4 Can anything

1 Accepimus literas tuas, frater carissime, satis sobrias et integritatis ac fidei plenas. Nec miramur si exercitatus et in Scripturis Dominicis peritus caute omnia et consulte geras. Ep. ad. Caldon. (Op. ed. Fell. Ox. 1682. Ep. 25. P. 2. p. 50.)

" Quod quia ille [i. e. Cyprianus] non fecit, raptus eximia eruditione divinarum literarum, ut iis solis contentus esset quibus fides constat, accessi Deo inspirante ut ego facerem, &c. LACTANT. Div. Instit. lib. v. c. 4. (Cant. 1685. p. 243. Paris. 1748. vol. i. p. 372.)

3 Many of the antients, and some of the moderns, speak of him as a ringleader among the Arians. This, however, is evidently unfair, as he expressly repudiated the statements of Arius as to the Son, though his notions on the subject do not appear to have been strictly orthodox. Du Pin and Cave, the latter particularly, will give full information on the point.

4 Και τον αναθεματισμόν δε τον μετα την πίστιν προς αυτων εκτεθέντα αλύπον είναι ἡγησάμεθα, δια το απείργειν αγραφοις χρησασθαι φωναις· διο σχεδον ἡ πασα γεγονε συγχυσις τε και ακαταστασια των εκκλησιων μηδεμιας γουν θεοπνευστου