2

Epiphanius as 1 "the evangelical witness ;" by Theodoret as "the evangelical declarations;" by Gregory Nyssen as "the evangelical sayings;" "the evangelical teaching," "the teaching of the gospel," 5 just as in the passage of Athanasius already referred to they are called "the evangelical tradition." 6 And, in like manner, the Apostolical Epistles are referred to by Gregory of Neocæsarea, under the title of "the Apostolical teaching."

And hence we may see the meaning of a passage in Epiphanius, (which the Romanists have as usual misrepresented) and add another example to the foregoing as to the use of the word "tradition." Epiphanius at the close of his work against heresies, having noticed many usages that were received in the Church, adds, "But as it respects the other mysteries, namely concerning baptism and the more sacred mysteries, they are observed according as the tradition of the Gospel and the Apostles directs;"3 where the reference is clearly to the New Testament, and an important testimony is afforded us as to the source whence Epiphanius considered our instructions for the celebration of the sacraments should be derived.

8

These passages may serve to put us on our guard against the representations of the Romanists and our opponents, as they clearly show us that the Fathers have been grievously misquoted, and their meaning often altogether perverted. When the Fathers speak of "the Apostolical tradition," or "the tradition of the Apostles," they are almost always referring to the Scriptures of the Apostles.

1 Ευαγγελική μαρτυρία. EPIPHAN, adv. hær. tom. i. p. 935.

2 Evayyeλikwv knpvyμatwv. THEODOR. Hær. Fab. lib. v. c. 22. tom. iv. p. 452.

3 Evayyeλikwv pwvwv. GREG. Nyss. Procem. in Cant. vol. i. p. 471.

ed. 1615.

4 Της ευαγγελικης διδασκαλίας. Ib. p. 473.

Tns tov evarɣeλiou didaσkaλias. ID. De anim. et resurr. tom. ii. p. 639.

6 See vol. i. pp. 74, 5.

7 Η αποστολικη διδασκαλια. In Annunc. Serm. ii. p. 19.

8 Τα δε αλλα μυστηρια περι λουτρου και των ενδοθεν μυστηρίων, ὡς ἔχει ἡ παραδοσις του τε Ευαγγελίου και των Αποστόλων, οὕτως επιτελειται. adv. hær. Expos. fid. cath. § 22. tom. i. pp. 1105, 6.

EPITH.

And to this we may add that when they speak of “the tradition of the Fathers," they are sometimes referring to something which those Fathers gathered from Scripture. For thus speaks Basil; "That therefore which our fathers said, that also we say But it is not sufficient for us, that this is the tradition of the Fathers; for they also followed the mind of Scripture, taking their first principles from those testimonies which we just now placed before you from the Scripture." And to this other instances might be added.

In short the word tradition is often used, not to denote anything which has come down by successional delivery from the Apostles, but merely as equivalent to the teaching or doctrine of the persons referred to. Thus Polycrates speaks of having observed Easter "according to the tradition of my relations," where the word "tradition" is translated by Jerome by the word teaching or doctrine.3 There are, indeed, few passages of the Fathers in which, considering the sense usually affixed by the moderns to the word "traditions," the meaning of rapadoreis would not be more accurately conveyed by translating it doctrines or instructions.

I shall now, then, endeavour to show more particularly that on all the five points in which we have summed up the views of our opponents, the weight of patristical tes

Αλλ' ου τουτο

1 Όπερ έλεγον τοινυν οἱ πατερες ἡμων, και ἡμεῖς λεγομεν . ἡμιν εξαρκεί, ὅτι των πατέρων ἡ παράδοσις· κακείνοι γαρ τω βουληματι της Γραφης ηκολούθησαν, εκ των μαρτυρίων ἃς μικρω προσθεν ύμιν εκ της Γραφης παρεОeμela тas aрxas λaßovтes. BASIL. De Sp. S. c. 7. tom. iii. p. 13. ed. Ben. POLYCR. in EUSEB. Hist. Eccl. v. 24,

2 Κατα παραδοσιν των συγγενων μου. or, Routh. Reliq. S. vol. i. p. 371.

3 Secundum doctrinam propinquorum meorum. vol. i. p. 371.

Which are as follows (as given vol. i. pp. 37, 8) ;—

See Routh. Reliq. S.

1. That consentient patristical tradition or "catholic consent" is an unwritten Word of God, a divine informant in religion, and consequently entitled as to its substance to equal respect with the Holy Scriptures.

2. That such tradition is consequently a part of the divinely-revealed rule of faith and practice.

3. That it is a necessary part of the divine rule of faith and practice on account of the defectiveness of Scripture, for that

timony is incomparably in our favour. I say, the weight of patristical testimony, as I make no pretensions to the consent of all the Fathers on these or any other points, still less to so clear and consistent a testimony from all of them in our favour as would alone entitle us to claim that consent. And should there even be found, in some of those from whom we shall hereafter quote, observations in other parts of their works which appear not altogether consistent with what they have clearly expressed in the passages we have cited, still if our views are evidently maintained by them in those passages, and the principle there contended for, shall appear, upon that examination which we challenge, consistent with the general tone of their remarks and mode of arguing, then such apparent inconsistency, however it may be accounted for, is not sufficient to make such authors our opponents; or even to deprive us of the evidence in our favour afforded by the passages we shall quote; especially when we consider that the testimony given in our favour is in general expressed in a direct recognition of the claims of Scripture. It is but what we might expect from human nature that voluminous authors, especially those engaged in various controversies, may appear sometimes to have spoken somewhat inconsistently with that which they have plainly expressed elsewhere. And we must ever recollect how their works have been exposed to corruption, and the op

(1) Though it does not reveal to us any fundamental articles of faith or practice not noticed in Scripture, Holy Scripture containing, that is giving hints or notices of, all the fundamental articles of faith and practice, it is yet a necessary part of the divine rule of faith and practice as the interpreter of Scripture, and as giving the full development of many points, some of which are fundamental, which are but imperfectly developed in Scripture, and

(2) It is an important part of that rule as conveying to us various important divinely-revealed doctrines and rules not contained in Scripture.

4. That it is a necessary part of the divine rule of faith and practice, because of the obscurity of Scripture even in some of the fundamental articles, which makes Scripture insufficient to teach us even the fundamentals of faith and practice.

5. That it is only by the testimony of patristical tradition that we are assured of the inspiration of Scripture, what books are canonical, and the genuineness of what we receive as such.

portunity afforded to heretics and pseudo-catholics of all kinds to palm upon the world spurious and corrupted works in their name.

And as it respects the general character of their views. on the subject, it is admitted by Mr. Newman himself that while upon the supposition of their holding the views he advocates (which he takes it for granted they did), it is difficult to see why they should not have made "tradition" a sufficient informant in matters of necessary faith, independent of Scripture, yet they did not do so;1 a tolerably clear proof that he has altogether misapprehended the mind of the Fathers.

Nor, indeed, is it easy to see why the early Church, if it held the views of our opponents, should have been so careful and diligent as we find it to have been in multiplying the copies of the Scriptures, translating them into all languages, and circulating them as the gospel of our salvation. The Divine Scripture, Augustine tells us, was diffused far and wide by the various translations made of it that it might become known to the nations to their salvation. 2

SECT. II. ON THE TRACTATORS' DOCTRINE OF CATHOLIC CONSENT BEING A DIVINE IN FORMANT SUPPLEMENTARY TO AND INTERPRETATIVE OF SCRIPTURE.

It is obvious that where so important a doctrine is held as that Scripture is but an obscure and imperfect informant even on the highest points of faith, and that our interpretation of it must be gathered from the consentient testimony of the whole primitive Church as a practically infallible witness of the oral teaching of the Apostles, we may expect it to be brought forward in a very direct way, and to occupy a prominent place in the instructions of

Lect. pp. 342, 3. See vol. i. pp. 558, 9.

2 Innotesceret gentibus ad salutem. AUG. De doctr. Christ. lib. ii. c. 5. Op. tom. iii. col. 21.

those who maintain it. If, then, the Fathers generally had held this doctrine, we should surely not have been left to gather it by inferences from passages only indirectly bearing upon it, but have had it distinctly placed before us as a necessary direction for our guidance. But it is undeniable that the Fathers generally have given us no such direction. If they had, we should not have been sent to Vincent, a monk of Lerins, as the great authority for this doctrine, but to some earlier and more estimable writer; though, by the way, even Vincent himself (as we shall show presently) is not answerable for all that our opponents have stretched his rule to mean.

There are, indeed, (as we have already had occasion to observe) appeals made by Irenæus, Tertullian and Origen, to the consent of the Apostolical Churches in favour of certain doctrines; and that consent they urge as a sufficient testimony to show that such doctrines were preached by the Apostles. How far these appeals support our opponents' cause we shall consider when we come to review the statements of those authors under our next head, and hope to show that they are altogether inadequate for that purpose.

Moreover, it is evident that some of those who lived. near the times of the Apostles received the reports of individuals as sufficient testimony of the oral tradition of the Apostles on various points. Thus, for instance, we are referred by Irenæus to such reports in proof of the apostolicity of the doctrine he advocated on the subject of the millennium. And statements are made by others on other points respecting the oral teaching of the Apostles, grounded upon similar testimony. But it was soon found even at that early period that a ready entrance was thus afforded into the Church to errors of all kinds.

We have already shown that even the catholic Fathers were led into error by such reports. And the heretics frequently made them the foundation of their extravagances. It was on this account, indeed, chiefly, namely from the heretics pleading a private tradition of