versal Church as one, and as more ancient than heresies'. And Origen of the third century testifies the same of the Church in his time, and argues in the same manner from itu. Irenæus and Tertullian were both of them so strongly persuaded of the certainty, first, of the fact, and next of the inference from it, that they scrupled not to urge it as a very full and convincing proof of the apostolical faith, singly considered, and abstracting from Scripture proof. An argument which there is no need to be jealous of, if it be but rightly understood, and limited to such circumstances as it was grounded upon. For the meaning was not, that apostolical churches could never err, nor that tradition would be always a safe rule to go by: but such tradition as that was, which might easily be traced up to the Apostles, by the help of writings then extant, (as easily as we may now trace up the doctrine of our Church to the reign of Charles, or of James the First,) such a tradition might be depended upon. Besides that the unanimity of the churches all the world over (which could not be rationally accounted for on any other supposition but that they had been so taught from the beginning) confirmed the same thing. The argument in this light, and in those circumstances, was a very good one. But when those circumstances came to be altered, and Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. p. 898, 899. Conf. Strom. i. p. 322. Cum multi sint qui se putant scire quæ Christi sunt, et nonnulli eorum diversa prioribus sentiant, servetur vero ecclesiastica prædicatio per successionis ordinem ab Apostolis tradita, et usque ad præsens in Ecclesiis permunens illa sola credenda est veritas quæ in nullo ab ecclesiastica traditione discordat. Origen. in Apolog. Pamph. inter Opp. Hieron. tom. v. p. 223. : * Tantæ igitur ostensiones cum sint, non oportet adhuc quærere apud alios veritatem, quam facile est ab Ecclesia sumere, &c.——Quid enim, et si de aliqua modica quæstione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere Ecclesias, in quibus Apostoli conversati sunt, et ab eis de præsenti quæstione sumere quod certum et re liquidum est? Quid autem si neque Apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis quam tradiderunt iis quibus committebant Ecclesias? Cui ordinationi assentiunt multæ gentes barbarorum eorum qui in Christum credunt, sine charta et atramento scriptam habentes per Spiritum in cordibus suis salutem, et veterem traditionem diligenter custodientes, &c. Iren. 1. iii. сар. 4. there had been several breaks in the succession of doctrine, and that too even in the apostolical churches, then there could be no arguing in the same precise way as before only thus far they might argue, in after times, (upon a supposition that their faith could be proved to be the same as in the former ages,) that since their doctrine was still that very doctrine which the churches held while they were unanimous and had admitted no breaks, therefore it is such as was from the beginning in the Church of Christ. In this manner we can reason even at this day, and can thereby make Irenæus's or Tertullian's argument our own; provided we have first proved that the faith we contend for is the very same that obtained in the churches of that age. But before I leave this head, I would observe something more particularly of Tertullian's manner of expressing himself in this case: he did not only conceive that an argument might be drawn from tradition alone, abstracting from Scripture, but he preferred that way of arguing, in disputes with heretics, as a shorter, easier, nay, and surer method of confuting them, than engaging with them upon the foot of Scripture. This may ap Ad hanc itaque formam probabuntur ab illis Ecclesiis quæ, licet nullum ex Apostolis, vel apostolicis, auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posteriores, quæ denique quotidie instituuntur, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes, non minus apostolice deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinæ. Tertull. Præscript. c. 32. z Quid promovebis exercitatissime Scripturarum, cum si quid defenderis, negatur; ex diverso, si quid negaveris defendatur: et tu quidem nihil perdes, nisi vocem in contentione; nihil consequeris nisi bilem de blasphematione. Ille vero, si quis est, cujus causa in congressum descendis Scripturarum, ut eum dubitantem confirmes, ad veritatem, an magis ad hæreses deverget? Hoc ipso motus, quod te videat nihil promovisse, æquo gradu negandi et defendendi adversa parte, statu certe pari, altercatione incertior discedet, nesciens quam hæresin judicet: hæc utique et ipsi habent in nos retorquere. Necesse est enim et illos dicere, a nobis potius adulteria Scripturarum, et expositionum mendacia inferri, qui proinde sibi defendant veritatem. Ergo non ad Scripturas provocandum, nec in his constituendum certamen, in quibus aut nulla, aut incerta victoria est, aut par incerta.—Ordo rerum desiderabat illud prius proponi, quod nunc solum disputandum est, quibus competat fides ipsa, cujus sunt Scripturæ; a quo, et per quos, et quando, et quibus sit tra pear to us now an odd way of talking: but if it be taken as he meant it, and with a view only to the then present circumstances, I believe, it will be found to turn out right. He could not mean that the tradition of the sense of Scripture was more certain than the tradition of the words or books of Scripture: neither could he design to intimate that Scripture texts did not themselves afford as certain, or more certain proofs of a doctrine than tradition could do, among persons qualified to judge in a critical way: neither could he imagine, that Scripture should not be made use of, or should not be looked upon as the principal thing, in written debates against heretics; for no man makes more or better use of Scripture in that way than himself does. All he seems to have meant was, that in verbal conferences with heretics, in the presence of weak and infirm Christians, the wisest way would be, not to engage the adversaries on the foot of Scripture, (to bring on a debate about the Canon of Scripture, and the strict meaning of words or phrases, and so to discuss the whole in a logical and critical way, tiresome to ordinary Christians, and commonly fruitless a,) but to put the issue of the cause upon a few plain and short questions, such as common Christians could better judge of. It was easy to discern, what party of men had been successors to the Apostles, and had in constant succession made up the body of the Church, preserving the same faith with great unanimity. This argument from tradition was an argument drawn from sensible fact, and was much more affecting, obvious, and popular, than dry altercations about dita disciplina qua fiunt Christiani. Ubi enim apparuerit esse veritatem et disciplinæ et fidei Christianæ, illic erit veritas Scripturarum, et expositionum, et omnium traditionum Christianarum. Tertull. Præscript. c. 17, 18. a Scripturas obtendunt, et hac sua audacia statim quosdam movent: in ipso vero congressu firmos quidem fatigant, infirmos capiunt, medios cum scrupulo dimittunt. Hunc igitur potissimum gradum obstruimus, non admittendos eos ad ullam de Scripturis disputationem. Si hæ sint illæ vires eorum uti eas habere possint, dispici debet cui competat possessio Scripturarum, ne is admittatur ad eam cui nullo modo competit. Ibid. cap. 15. Conf. сар. 37. the authenticity of the books of Scripture, or the precise meaning of words; and it was certain enough, at that time, to be depended upon: and therefore Tertullian recommended that method of debate, in such verbal conferences, rather than any other. Wherein to me he seems to have judged very well upon the prudential case, and like a wise and a sagacious man b. Nevertheless, as often as he employed his pen in controversy with heretics, and drew up polemical tracts, though he would not omit to mention the additional advantage he had in point of prescription or tradition, yet he chose to pass it off in short hints, and not to dwell upon it, but rather to rest the issue of the main cause upon Scripture and reason. A learned foreign divine has indeed blamed Tertullian for his conduct in this affair, as derogating from the authority of Scripture, by laying such stress upon tradition: which appears not to be a just censure; but that learned writer runs into the other extreme, while he avers, that it is by Scripture only that the verity or antiquity of a doctrine may be proved. There are two ways of proving the antiquity, and consequently the verity of a doctrine; namely, Scripture and Church history: and these two differ only in the manner of proof, or in the degree of moral certainty. Can we prove, for instance, what were the tenets of the ancient heretics, by the help of Church history and records; and cannot we as well prove what were the tenets of ancient Christians in the same way? It is true, we might more certainly prove what those heretics held, from their own books, if we had them; and so we may more certainly prove what was the faith of the first Christians, from Scripture, than from any Church records : b See Stillingfleet's Answer to several Treatises, Works, vol. v. p. 79, 80. Dodwell. Dissertat. in Iren. iii. sect. 30. p. 282, 283. Vid. Tertullian. contr. Marc. lib. i. cap. 1. 20. lib. iii. cap. 1. contr. Prax. cap. ii. d Huc illa referenda sunt effata, quibus Scripturæ sacræ derogare auctoritati videtur, cum tamen ea sola sit, ex qua et veritas et antiquitas dogmatis cujusdam probari queat. Buddæi Isagog. vol. i. p. 997. but still the same thing is proved both ways, and by two kinds of evidences, differing only, as I said, in degree of probability, or moral certainty. And therefore the learned Mosheim, as I before took notice, scruples not to assert in broad terms, that the antiquity of the Christian faith is proved from the writings of Ignatius and Polycarpf: and he allows the same thing with respect to Clemens Romanus, and Hegesippuss, and Caius h, and Irenæus i, and, by parity of reason, to all other Church-writers whose accounts may be depended uponk. The admitting such a secondary proof, in this case, is not derogating from Scripture authority, but is confirming and strengthening it in more views than one: as it is accepting the same kind of proof here, which we accept, in another case, with respect to the Canon of Scripture; and as it is corroborating the Scripture account of the Christian faith with collateral evidences, both to illustrate and enforce it. Not that one would, at this time of day, presume to rest an article of faith upon Church records alone, or upon any thing besides Scripture: but while the superior proof from sacred Writ is the ground of our faith', the subordinate proof from an • See above, p. 262. f Mosheim. Vindic. adv. Toland. cap. viii. p. 221, 222, 223. Ibid. p. 218. h Ibid. p. 224. i Ibid. p. 238. * It is observable of Polycarp, in particular, that he convinced and converted great numbers to the true faith, by the strength of tradition, being a sensible argument, and more affecting at that time, than any dispute from the bare letter of Scripture could be. [See Irenæus, lib. iii. cap. 3. p. 177.] It was under Anicetus, about the year 145. See Pearson, Opp. Posth. cap. xiv. &c. Dodwell, cap. xiii. 1 Scripture is the ground of our faith, considered as the infallible word of God: but then that it is really the word of God, and that such is the sense of this or that text, ordinarily stands only upon morul proof; so that our faith at length resolves into moral evidence, as it is a known rule, that the conclusion follows the weaker of the premises, and can be no stronger than that is. But then again, it is to be considered, that the strength of moral evidence, in the general, resolves at last into divine veracity and faithfulness; since God has so made us as to lay us under an inevitable necessity of submitting commonly to such evidence, and he cannot be supposed (without manifest absurdity or blasphemy) to have thus exposed the wisest, and most pious, and most |