Page images
PDF
EPUB

all nor half the popish errors can be found in the councils and fathers of these centuries, yet some of them were crept very early into the church. Thus superstition of the cross and chrysm were in use in the second century; the millenary error got footing about that time; the necessity of infants receiving the blessed sacrament of the Lord's supper came in soon after. About the fourth century, there were some touches in oratory sermons, by way of theoretical ejaculations, like praying to saints, but long after came to be formally used as now in churches; and so superstitions came in, some at one time and some at another. The papists themselves do not receive all these errors, but reject some, as that of the millenaries and the necessity of infants receiving the Lord's supper. Now I ask, first, the papists, by what rule they retain some of these things and reject others? Secondly, I ask the evangelical by what rule they submit to the authority of some centuries and refuse others? Both will answer me, because they believe some to be erroneous, some to be orthodox. Whereby it is evident, that neither submit to the fathers' authority as commanding their judgment, but receive their opinions as agreeing with their judgments.'

"And will you," says Bishop Croft,* "be bound up to all the decrees of councils, without scripture or any reason for them? If once we leave scripture, and hearken to the doctrine of men, ever so holy, ever so learned, ever so primitive, we shall soon be wheedled into the papist's religion, and many other errors which the papists themselves now reject, as I have declared at large before."

By the way," says the ever-memorable Hales, in his Tract on Schism, "by this you may plainly see the danger of our appeal to antiquity for resolution in controversial points of faith (he was speaking of the dispute about Easter,) and how small relief we are to expect from thence; for if the discretion of the chieftest guides and directors of the church did, in a point so trivial, so inconsiderable, so mainly fail them, as not to see the truth in a subject wherein it is the greatest marvel how they could avoid the sight of it, can we, without imputation of extreme grossness and folly, think so poorspirited persons competent judges of the questions now on foot betwixt the churches?"

That in this controversy we must not be tempted to give any heed to primitive teachers, further than as sanctioned by the word of God, see also London Christian Observer, 1837, p. 145. De Moor, in his Commentary on Marckii Medulla, volume vi. p. 54, thus succinctly gives the reasons then deemed sufficient for rejecting this authority of the fathers: "Patres omnes fuere fallibiles, nævis et erroribus pluribus laborarunt, sæpe dissident, dubia non raro est genuinitas scriptorum quæ sub nomine eorum venditantur, monumenta ipsorum plurima perierunt, controversias recentiores ignorarunt, de argumentis variis ante ortam de illis controversiam securius locuti sunt.' Vide supra Cap. ii. § 46, 47, et Turretine in loc. cit. § 32-33. Derhard Confess. Cathol. lib. i. part ii. cap. xiii. Tom. i. p. 549-730.

"The writing of the fathers," says the Rev. Mr. Pratt,† "may contain many opinions which have no reference to apostolical doctrine or fellowship; but such opinions are held to have no more weight than the opinions of individuals; they are not the voice of the church, declaring the everlasting truths of the gospel; or, it may be, that the writings of some of the fathers contain opinions calculated rather to abrogate than to establish the doctrines of our Lord and his apostles, and to encourage new and strange practices rather than to guard the primitive ordinances and institutions of the gospel. In such cases, the episcopalian rejects the authority of the fathers, and looks on their opinions as vain or heretical. Independent of the scriptures of the Old and New Testament, the writings of the fathers can have neither weight nor authority in matters of faith."

That the Church of England herself has not perfect confidence in the fathers, see Calamy's Def. of Nonconf. vol. i. p. 134. London, 1703. See a good disquisition on this subject. in the "History of Popery." by the authors of the Universal History. London, 1735, 4to, vol. i. Packet, xxxi. p. 128, &c.

No human authority can ever settle this question.

"You shelter yourself,"

*Naked Truth, in Scott's Coll. of Tr. vol. vii. p. 311. †The Old Paths, p. 160.

says Dr. Bowden to Dr. Miller,* "under Bishop Taylor, who, from the quotations you give, seems to think that they have been corrupted. If Taylor really thought so, he is certainly very inconsistent, for he quotes them as freely as any man, in his Tract on Episcopacy, and without uttering the least expression of disapprobation. If, then, you can quote him as condemning them in his Liberty of Prophesying, I can quote him as approving them in his Tract on Episcopacy, and thus his testimony either way becomes perfectly nugatory."

The testiniony of Jerome is treated in exactly the same manner at p. 49 of ibid. So also of Bishop Forbes and others, he says, (p. 73,) "Let this be exactly as you say, to what does it amount? Just this much: they thought So. But I might oppose to them full as eminent episcopal divines. And what would the conclusion be? Precisely nothing."

"There are so many passages in their (the reformers, Luther, Calvin, and some others) writings, which stand in direct opposition to one another, that I am totally at a loss what to think.† Hence it is, that they sometimes appear to be perfect equality men; at other times, to assert as strongly as possible inequality. But this is easily explained. They did not hold an inequality of order, but an inequality of degree. This opinion, the offspring of the 'dregs of popery,' preserves them from self-contradiction, and in no other way can it be done."

"Neither your testimonies nor mine, have the weight of a feather in the scale of evidence; for, on both sides, they are nothing but opinion, and our opinion can never determine a matter of fact."

NOTE B.

The following additional testimonies are given in a German review of Mr. Manning's work on the Rule of Faith.

"A mind which is sound," says Irenaus, "and trustworthy and God-fearing, and truth-loving, will, with a ready devotion, occupy itself in such things as God has put in our power, and subjected to our knowledge. These are the things that strike our very eyes, and are set down in so many words in scripture, plainly and without any ambiguity."—(Lib. ii. c. 46, ed. Ferard.)

Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho, proves the greatest mysteries of our faith, by scripture testimonies, which, as he says, are so plain as to need no explanation.

Clement of Alexandria-"The supreme demonstration produces a scientific faith from the citation and opening up of scriptures."-(Strom. ii. p. 381.)

The canon of interpretation according to him is "the harmony and concord of the law and the prophets with the New Testament."-(Strom. vi.) Origen thinks that even "the difficult scriptures are ONLY to be explained by a comparison with other scriptures."-(Philocal. c. ii. p. 22.)

Athanasius assures Jovian that "The true faith is manifest to all, being known and read in the sacred scriptures."-(Ep. ad. Jov. t. i. p. 246.)

Chrysostom tells us that "all things are plain and straight in scripture; yea, all necessary things manifest. (In 2 Ep. and Thessal.) And again, "The apostles, taking quite a different method from the philosophers, made their doctrine clear and plain to all, that such by merely reading their writings, might understand their meaning."-(Hom. 3, in Lazar.)

And S. Cyril of Jerusalem, in a passage quoted by Dr. Manning himself, tells the catechumens not to receive the creed itself, unless he could prove it to them by scripture. Is the scripture then to be explained by the creed, and yet the creed proved by scripture?

As collated by Dr. Barrow, Augustine and Lactantius, thus clearly affirm our position:§ "I do believe," says Augustine, "that also on this side there would be most clear authority of the divine oracles, if a man could not be

*Letters, Second Series, vol. ii. Works on Episcopacy, p. 56. †Works on Episcopacy, vol. ii. pp. 173, and 178, and 179.

Lond. Chr. Obs. 1841.

p. 173.

See Wks. vol. i. p. 562. Fol. and p. 769.

ignorant of it, without damage of his salvation;" and Lactantius thus, "Those things can have no foundation, or firmness, which are not sustained by any oracle of God's word." Again, "I will not that the holy church be demonstrated from human reasonings, but the divine oracles.'

See the quotation from Eleutherius, bishop of Tyana, A. D. 431, "against those who declare that we ought neither to search into, nor speak from scripture, being content with the faith they possess," in Clarke's Succ. of Sacr. Lit. vol. ii. p. 197. See similar sentiments from Theodoret, Cyril and Basil, in Usher's Answ. to the Jesuit, p. 35. See also Cyprian, Epist. 63 and 64, Tertullian, lib. de Veland. Virg. cap. 1. And lib. de Amma. cap. 28.

NOTE C.

We will here add some additional testimonies and remarks.

Mr. Keble, in his Primitive Tradition, says, "he does not see how without its aid" ("the chain of primitive tradition") "the very outward face of God's church and kingdom among us could now be retained," and he enumerates as among "the points of catholic consent known by tradition," and which "constitute the ties and knots of the whole system," "the apostolical succession."†

So on p. 76 he expects from this tradition "the proving the existing church system divine in many points where they ignorantly supposed it human."‡

Nevertheless, this same writer has this declaration: "It is among the privileges reserved for serious inquiring piety, to discern an express will of God, as well in these ecclesiastical laws, as in others more immediately."§

The following is the confession of bishop Croft in his Naked Truth or the True State of the Primitive Church :|| "And I hope my readers will see what weak proofs are brought for this distinction and superiority of orderno scripture, no primitive general council, no general consent of primitive doctors and fathers, no, not one primitive father of note speaking particularly and home to our purpose; only a touch of Epiphanius and St. Austin upon Aerius, the Arian heretic, but not declared, no, not by them, an heretic in this particular of episcopacy."

Professor Powell, of Oxford, in his Tradition Unveiled, says of the highchurch party, that "the traditions readily allow (which must appear to a strict inquirer) that all such appeal to written evidence alone is utterly insufficient to establish the point. No such institution, complete and distinct, is to be found in the New Testament, positively delivered, or strictly deducible; no code of its constitution laid down like the Levitical in the Old. Tradition, however, supplies the deficiency."

This silence of scripture is admitted by bishop Skinner, who offers some solution of the fact. See his Vindication, p. 134, and Dr. Mitchell's Letters, p. 59, &c.

The same thing is admitted by Dr. Cooke. "How," he asks,** "can the scripture assert beforehand that a thing is done? (that they succeed, in the present tense.) What Episcopalians, therefore, would be simple enough to expect to find a passage in scripture, asserting that the bishops do succeed the apostles in their apostolic office?" However this be, it might reasonably have been expected that the scriptures would have made it plain that it was the purpose of God that prelates alone should succeed the apostles. That the claims of prelacy rest, after all, upon patristic tradition, is evident from the whole tenor of Dr. Bowden's Letters. See Wks. on Episcop. vol. i. pp. 106, 115, 116.

It is here, therefore, to be observed, that even were this doctrine embodied in the present standards of the English church,*** "she did not take her direction from the scriptures only, but also from the councils and examples of the four or five first centuries, to which she labored to conform her

*4th edn. p. 38.

See also p. 78.

See do. pp. 39, 40.

Scott's Coll. of Tr. vol. vii. p. 306.

See p. 19. See also pp. 22, 23. 59. **Wks. on Episc. Vol. ii. p. 211. ***Dr. Owen, vol. 17, p. 235.

reformation. Let the question now be, whether there be no corruptions in this Church of England, supposing such a natural state to be instituted. What I beseech you, shall bind my conscience to acquiesce in what is pleaded from the four or five first centuries, consisting of men that could and did err, more than that did her's, which was pleaded from the nine or ten centuries following."

Now if this doctrine of succession is by tradition, then it cannot-as prelatists make it-be of the substance of doctrine, or among things necessary to salvation; for this kind of tradition is that which the church rejects, which Taylor repudiates, and in whose disparagement Mr. Keble himself inconsistently joins. "In practical matters," it is said, "tradition may be received, but in doctrinal (with the exception of the creed) it cannot." (Keble, on Prim. Trad. p. 71.) Again "all necessary credenda, all truths essential to salvation, are contained in scripture itself."—(Keble, p. 74.)

It follows, therefore, that either this whole doctrine is not fundamental, or necessary, and therefore prelacy is self-condemned; or if it is fundamental, it cannot be proved, or verified by tradition, but must be contained in scripture. But this, it is granted it is not, in any certain and palpable form; and therefore, to affirm, as do these writers, that its rejection unchurches and unchristianizes other communions, is as grossly absurd in reason, as it is heretical in doctrine, and uncharitable in spirit.

LECTURE V.

THE TESTS BY WHICH THIS PRELATICAL DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLI

CAL SUCCESSION MUST BE TRIED.

That we may once more illustrate the nature of the doctrine of apostolical succession, we ask a candid examination of the following passages, which are all extracted from "The Churchman," published in New York, under the sanction of Bishop Onderdonk: the first is from Dodwell, an English writer, quoted in the Oxford tracts-the second from Dr. Hook, an English divine of the Oxford tract stamp-the third from an Address on Unity by Dr. Onderdonk, Bishop of New York-the fourth from a correspondent.

1. "None but the bishops can unite us to the Father and the Son. Whence it will follow, that whosoever is disunited from the visible communion of the church on earth, and particularly from the visible communion of the bishops, must consequently be disunited from the whole visible catholic church on earth; and not only so, but from the invisible communion of the holy angels and saints in heaven, and what is yet more, from Christ and God himself. It is one of the most dreadful aggravations of the condition of the damned, that they are banished from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power. The SAME is their condition, also, who are disunited from Christ by being disunited from his visible representative."

2. "Unless Christ be spiritually present with the ministers of religion in their services, those services will be vain; but the only ministrations to which he has promised his presence, are those of bishops, who are successors to the first commissioned apostles, and to the other clergy acting under their sanction and by their authority."

3. "None but bishops can unite us to the Father, in the

« PreviousContinue »