Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

delity was encouraged on the one hand, Popery, with its rule of faith, was encouraged and strengthened on the other. And now Romish chapels and convents, and colleges, sprang up with increased rapidity over England. Conversions became frequent. The press gave its powerful aid to the cause. Roman Catholic reviews, magazines, and newspapers,—many characterized by exceeding subtlety of argument, and not a little display of learning, as well as cheap religious controversial works and tracts fitted for the multitude, obtained, and have ever since continued to obtain wide circulation among Protestants; and romances, and novels, and works on poetry, history, music, architecture, all of the same character, helped forward the movement; meanwhile, in Ireland, Popery was rampant. And as the unclean spirit, speaking from the altars of the Popish chapels, swayed and infuriated the blind multitude that worshipped before them; the Protestant clergy, in respect of their property, and sometimes even of their lives, were almost treated as without the pale of the law; their institutions for educating the poor in Gospel truth, forced too often to give place to the corrupt teaching of Popery; and the death's head and cross bones held out in terrorem against all who might attempt to withstand its political projects. Yet, again, to the vast English Foreign colonies, the same spirit had now the opportunity of speeding forth in power; to India, Australia, New Zealand, the Cape, Canada, Newfoundland; everywhere Romish bishops and priests, salaried by government, though with instructions from the Pope, on their settlement, organizing the Romish interests; seizing, if possible, on the education, influencing newspapers; and, in case of popular institutions, agitating for political power, in conjunction (witness the late histories of Canada and Newfoundland) with the democratic element. Such has been our English experience of the actings and energy of this unclean spirit

during the last ten years.

Nor has France less prominently in her sphere helped forward the unclean

spirit from the Papal antichrist; rather perhaps more so. The English government, under the Reform Bill, having only forwarded its interests in conjunction, and on the same footing with those of the Protestant Church and Protestant sects of this kingdom; but France furthering them distinctively and alone. I refer not so much to what it has done in more distant parts of the world,-as, for example, in its Indian factories, in China, in the Sandwich Islands, and just lately in the Marquesas; sending out Romish missionaries, and establishing and forcibly protecting Romish missions; but more especially in the manner in which it has supported the Papal interest, and professed itself its protectress, in the countries nearer home, bordering on the Mediterranean. Alike in Algeria, now a new Papal episcopate, and Abyssinia, in Syria and in Egypt, indeed throughout the territories of the Turkish empire generally, the unclean spirit from the mouth of the beast has, under these auspices, made its voice to be heard with long unwonted power. The French flag waves over the Roman Catholic churches and convents of Syria. Democratic France boasts to be the protectress of Catholicism.

It does not need that I speak of the activity and progress of Popery in other countries during this same period. Suffice it to say, that other European Roman Catholic states have not been wanting in giving their support and aid to the movement; and that the United States of North Ame rica may be mentioned as very prominently, one of the foreign local scenes on which it has been exhibited. Let me only further add, that to mar the work of Evangelic Protestant missions, and stop the progress of the everlasting Gospel, has been proved in every case, one primary object of this spirit from the beast's mouth issuing forth. And on the whole, such has been its support,-funds to the amount of near £1,000,000 sterling a year, being now it is said, the Papal revenue in aid of Propaganda objects, and such in different foreign countries its prospects of success, that

[blocks in formation]

AS AN INTERPRETER OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

By the REV. C. H. DAVIS, M.A., of Wadham College, Oxford.

Ir is one of the prevalent errors of the age to make void the Word of God by the traditions of men, and practically to exalt the uninspired writings of the ancient "Fathers " above the inspired Scriptures on certain disputed points. It may therefore be not inopportune-without any desire unduly to depreciate the writings of "the Fathers" when rightly usedto invite attention to certain fallacies in the favourite theories of "Catholic antiquity," "Catholic consent," &c.&c. which are often so plausibly concealed that they are not readily detected. We find, for example, that because "the Fathers" lived nearer to the Apostles' times by some 1,400, or 1,500, or even 1,600 years, than we ourselves, it is therefore frequently assumed that they lived so near as to be of necessity, not only better interpreters of Holy Scripture than modern commentators, but almost infallible

guides in all disputed points-such as that of baptismal regeneration. But is it not the fact, that the relative nearness of these ancient writers to the Apostles' times, in comparison with this our age and generation, when used as an argument that we should defer implicitly to their teaching, conceals a fallacy, and disguises the simple truth that, in this ever-changing world, the space of a single century, or even of a single generation, is practically found in very many cases to be quite sufficient to introduce, by slow and almost imperceptible degrees, the most important changes in public opinion and public sentiment,-and that in religious societies no less than in states and kingdoms? Now while we find but few, if any, of those points which now so seriously disturb the peace of the Christian Church (such as the exact effects of the Sacrament of Baptism) to be discussed, or even alluded to, in the genuine writings of "the Fathers" of the first centuryClement, Polycarp, and Ignatius-it is to writers who flourished no earlier than the middle or the end of the second century, that we are referred as infallible guides in those disputed which nothing but the invention of printing points-such as baptismal regenera

*

This we by no means admit. "The fathers of olden time had some advantages which moderns have not; and more recent authors have in their turn some advantages over the fathers. ..We have the whole of the Scriptures, in a volume accessible to all; an advantage which they could not possess previously to the collection of the Gospels and scattered Epistles into one book, and the decision of the canon of Scripture; and

could have made available to the extent to which we possess it. We have their research to guide us, and the experience of their wisdom in great things, and weakness oftentimes in little, to admonish and to warn us. We have the help of the combined wisdom and study of eighteen centuries, with the results and reasonings of a thousand minds thus contributing all together to our stock of information.

We are

free from many prejudices, to which their heathen birth and education, and the superstition and credulity of the ages in which they lived, exposed them." (Truth on Both Sides, by Rev. S. Brown, pp. 173-175. Hatchard, 1842.) At pp. 176-178 of the same Work, are some excellent remarks on the differences of those who alike pray for Divine teaching. Mr. Brown also remarks, "Has not the Church the advantages of old age now, if it would use the experience derived from its younger state? (p. 172, note.) AUGUST-1851.

tion; to writers, that is, such as Justin Martyr, who flourished about A.D. 150, and Irenæus, who flourished about A.D. 180,-i. e. the former about 117 years after the crucifixion of our Lord, and 84 years after the martyrdom of St. Paul, and the latter about 147 years after the crucifixion, and 114 years after the martyrdom of St. Paul. But surely we may ask, Were Justin and Irenæus infallible expositors of all christian doctrine? If we cannot be sure that we rightly understand and rightly interpret the language of

inspired Scripture, on such important points as the new birth, &c., what security can we have that we rightly understand and rightly interpret the language of uninspired and fallible men, like Justin and Irenæus ?* Are uninspired writers less likely to mislead us than the inspired writers? Or, if both classes of writers-inspired and uninspired-alike speak plainly, if both are to be interpreted by similar rules of grammatical construction, sound criticism, and common sense, (the only difference being that the one class is inspired, and therefore infallible, while the other is unin

It has been well remarked, "The scheme for interpreting Scripture by consent of fathers is beset with a practical difficulty in limine, which its abettors of the present day have done no more to remove than Bishop Cheney: viz.this consent of fathers is far harder to be obtained than the sense of Scripture," &c. (Osburn's "Hidden Works of Darkness," c. iv. p.108.) Bishop M'Ilvaine truly observes, "It is not because the Scriptures are not plain enough that divisions in doctrine abound; but because the hearts of men are not honest enough. The same cause would darken any counsel and pervert any rule, and the easier in proportion as the rule were strict and the counsel holy." (Consecration Sermon, p. 9. Compare the Preface to Rev. W. Jones', of Nayland, "Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity.") It is a singular fact, that Bishop Pearson appeals to the "Catholic consent" of the fathers, to prove that the word "hell" in the Creed, means the place of departed souls; while Bishop Beveridge likewise appeals to the "catholic consent" of the fathers, to prove that it means the place of torment. (See Pearson on the Creed, Art. v. p. 355; and Beveridge on the Articles, Art. iii. p. 134.) Again, the Rev. G. Stanley Faber, in his "Primitive Doctrine of Regeneration," Preface, pp. xI.-XXII.; "Primitive Doctrine of Justification," Preface, pp. XLIV., XLV., and XLVI., and p. 378, (2nd Edit.); and "Apostolicity of Trinitarianism," Introduc

spired, and therefore fallible,) surely there can be no reason whatsoever why we should pin our faith to the fallible guidance of "the Fathers,"such as Irenæus and Justin, Ignatius and Clement,-in preference to the infallible guidance of the "Grand-Fathers," -such as St. Matthew and St. John, St. Peter and St. Paul,-which has been providentially placed within our reach? In support of these remarks may be adduced the testimony of a learned prelate now deceased:-"It is a fallacious argument which would urge their nearness in time to the age of the Apostles, as a proof that no mistakes of importance could be fallen into by the early Christians. Traditional truth, among imperfectly educated persons, does not pass from mouth to mouth, with that accuracy and certainty, even during a very limited period of time, which we are inclined to imagine. On the contrary, in an age when knowledge circulates slowly, and the collisions of wellinformed minds with each other are comparatively rare, (and such was the period now alluded to,) it is surprising how many erroneous opinions, well-intentioned perhaps, but not therefore the less dangerous, may grow up within the space of a very few years. When the short season

of actual contact is gone by, mere proximity or indefinite remoteness of time make, in fact, little or no difference in the degrees of evidence, which historical events are capable of re

tion, p. xxvII., &c., insists on the evidence of ceiving from the labours of literary

the fathers as essential to a true interpretation of Scripture, no less strongly than the Tractarian divines, from whom he yet entirely differs in his actual interpretations of Scripture! For example, if any one will compare Mr. Faber's remarks (and especially those at p. 378, of his work on Justification,) with the Preface," to Rev. W. A. Hammond's translation of "the Canons of the Church," (J. H. Parker, 1843,) pp. ii., iii., v.-vii., and with Dr. Hook's "Novelties of Romanism," pp. 5-7, &c., he will almost think that these passages are the production of the same author,-so strikingly similar is their line of argument in favour of tradition. And yet Mr. Faber differs entirely from Mr. Hammond (Preface, p. xii.) and from Dr. Hook, as to the effects of Baptism. Well does Dr. M'Neil speak of "that nondescript something to be found nowhere,-catholic consent, as a primary rule of faith," (The Church and the Churches, c. iv. p. 136.)! See also an interesting Correspondence on the subject between Rev. G. S. Faber, and Dr. M'Neil, and others, in "The Churchman's Monthly Review," of 1816, pp. 481, 559, 637, 711, 714, 716, 883, 949, 952.

men. A manuscript, for instance, of the Gospels, of the date of the fourth or fifth centuries, is as complete a record at this moment, as it was on the day in which it was written; and, if preserved two thousand years longer, will be as completely so to future generations as it is to the present. A well-informed historian at this moment has a far more accurate knowledge of the events connected with the Norman conquest, than was possessed by nine-tenths of the villagers of this country, who lived at the period. And yet it is this upon fallacious, very though plausible assumption, that knowledge must necessarily grow clearer and more certain in exact pro

THE UNSATISFACTORY NATURE OF ORAL TRADITION.

portion as we approach to the fountain, that the argument in favour of tradition almost exclusively rests. Why, one is naturally impelled to ask, should the primitive ages have possessed a privilege which our own times have not, of escaping one of the most besetting infirmities of human nature, and of transmitting unmixed truth orally from one generation to another, without any taint or superaddition of mere human speculation? If, with the preservative restraint of a written revelation, our own age has launched forth into extreme notions with scarcely any common centre in which to agree, why are we to measure the simple and unsuspecting Fathers of the primitive Church by a different rule, and argue that, because they meant well, therefore divine truth orally transmitted, must necessarily have passed from them pure and unaltered?" (Not Tradition, but Scripture, by the late Dr. P. N. Shuttleworth, Bishop of Chichester, pp. 44-47, Rivingtons, 1839.*)

Again, the same writer further observes, "Justin and Irenæus, we are told, flourished within the space of about 150 years from the close of our Lord's ministry, and therefore their authority on points of doctrine, must be far superior to that of the best informed theologians of the present day. Without wishing to assert anything bordering upon paradox, I must again repeat, I doubt the justice of the inference. In their time truth made its way slowly, and with difficulty, through comparatively isolated districts, unaided by that general spread of knowledge, that enlightened criticism, and that corrective good sense, resulting from an almost universal education, which is in our own day the great security against the growth of unsound and eccentric opinions. And yet, even under all these advantages possessed by ourselves, what has been the succession of sect upon sect, which has marked a period of the same duration, namely, the

Some able remarks on tradition, not altogether dissimilar to Bp. Shuttleworth's, may be seen in Rev. J. B. Marsden's "Discourses for the Festivals," pp. 58, 59; and in his "Churchmanship of the New Testament," pp. 92, 93, (Hamilton and Adams.)

355

last 150 years in this country, from the Nonjurors of the Revolution in 1688 to the Irvingites and United Brethren of the reign of William the Fourth! In both periods men have existed anxious only for the truth, but who have been misled by the warmth of their imaginations, or their want of the powers of due discrimination. We may accordingly respect their piety, and be desirous of imitating their virtues; but we are plainly outraging common sense, when on the strength of these qualities, we proceed to assert, either in the one case or the other, their emancipation from error." (pp. 48-50)*

It will not be difficult to illustrate these remarks by circumstances which have occurred much nearer to our own times. The glorious Reformation, towards the middle of the sixteenth century, was an event inferior in importance to the first promulgation of the Gospel in the Apostolic age alone. We now stand in the middle of the nineteenth century, much in the same relation, as regards distance of time and the means of rightly interpreting the writings of former ages, with respect to our own Reformers-such as Archbishop Cranmer, Archbishop Parker, and Bishop Jewell, &c.—as the Christians of the fourth century stood with respect to the Evangelists and Apostles. And is it not a fact, that such questions as, "What was the real doctrine of our Reformers?" and, "What is the true meaning of the for

Bishop Shuttleworth illustrates these remarks by some absurd extracts from the works of Papius, and adds, that yet "scarcely a longer interval elapsed than that of a single human life, between the period of the earthly ministry of Him who spake as never man spake, and the time when Papius was treasuring up this wretched specimen of tradition," &c. (p. 57.) Clement of Rome too, in his celebrated epistle, gravely argues from the supposed existence of a fabulous bird, the Phoenix, (see c. 25.)

+ It has been well remarked that "Some would have the same absolute weight attributed to the Fathers' interpretations of the books in the sacred canon, which we give to their testi. mony, as fixing the authenticity and genuineness of the canon itself. But surely, no. If the world should last much longer, succeeding generations would do well to accept the witness of the present age to the authenticity and genuineness of Cranmer's remains; but they could not so wisely accept our varying, and often prejudiced views of what his real teaching was," (Brown's Truth on Both Sides, pp. 172-4, note.)

mularies and private writings which they have bequeathed to us?" are now warmly debated? Are we in this nineteenth century in any respect better qualified to get at the true meaning of our Reformers than our successors in succeeding centuries will be? Were our predecessors of the last century better qualified than ourselves-if so well qualified, considering that the works of the Reformers are now by means of "the Parker Society" more accessible than they were then? If, then, the period of three, nay of even two, centuriesand that in an age when by means of printing there have been peculiar facilities for the spread of knowledge and the preservation of documentary evidence has not enabled men to interpret with infallible accuracy the formularies and other writings of the Reformation-era, is it not preposterous to suppose that the Christian Fathers of the fourth, or even of the third century, clogged as many of them were, with prejudices incident to their heathen education, and possessing far less opportunity than we now have of obtaining copies of the sacred Scriptures, and other books, is it not preposterous to suppose that they can furnish any infallible clue to orthodox doctrine? For example, are we required to regard it as an Apostolic doctrine, that the gift of the Holy Ghost, together with remission of original guilt, is, by baptism, conferred on infants, because it was so agreed by an African synod of sixtysix bishops, in A. D. 254?* (See Sir

• Hence it is to be regretted that Dr. M'Neil lays so much stress upon the decision of this council as regards the question of Infant Baptism, (Church and Churches. c. viii. pp. 374376.) The like may be said of one of Sir Peter King's arguments in favour of infant baptism, viz., that in Cyprian's time (A.D. 250) infants received the holy communion, and that "therefore it naturally follows, that children were baptized; for if they received that ordinance, which always succeeded baptism, then of necessity they must have received baptism itself," (Sir P. King's Constitution and Worship of the Primitive Church, Pt, ii. c. iii. s. 2. p. 186.) Arguments of this kind only damage the cause they are designed to defend, inasmuch as a clever adversary might not unreasonably call upon us to admit the whole testimony of such authorities, if we admit any part of it. The fact is, a great deal has been too rashly affirmed respecting the value and the existence of primitive tradition respecting infant baptism. in

Peter King, Pt. ii. c. iii. s. 2. pp. 188— 191.) We have only to reflect whether the bishops of our own Church of the year 1754, or even of the year 1700, could be fairly regarded as safe expositors of the theology of our own Reformers. And if we find, what indeed was the case, that a remarkable change in theological opinion had by that time come over our Church, what reason have we for concluding that, in less favoured times for the transmission of written evidence, "the Fathers" of the third and fourth centuries were infallible exponents of Apostolic doctrine? Surely their writings, no less than those of our Reformers, must be subjected to the test of the written Word?

But it will be easy to shew how that within the space of even one single century, there was gradually effected an almost entire change of theological opinion in our own Church; certainly so, among her bishops and chief dignitaries. The Thirty-nine Articles were first approved in convocation in 1562, and finally settled in 1571. Our Prayer-Book was finally revised and settled in its present form in 1661-2, just after the Savoy Conference. The bishops and episcopal divines who attended that conference, were therefore removed from Archbishop Parker, and Bishop Jewell, by a period of time about equal to that which separated Justin Martyr from St. Peter and St. Paul. And yet it is on all hands acknowledged that the prevailing tone of theology had in that short time been completely

"A Sermon on John iii. 5, in reference to the recent legislative decision in the case of Gorham v. the Bishop of Exeter," by Rev. E. A. Litton, (Hatchard, 1850,) at pp. 28-31, the learned writer ably and candidly shews that on this point we gain little or nothing "in point of evidence, by transferring the inquiry to the pages of uninspired history," (p. 28.) See also an able work entitled, "Scriptural Revision of the Liturgy, a Remedy for Anglican Assumption and Papal Aggression," by "A Member of the Middle Temple," pp. 112-13, and 137, (Groombridge, 1851.) If then the Baptist cannot be convinced of the propriety of infant baptism by such Scriptural arguments, as we find advanced in Rev. E. H. Hoare's "Baptism according to Scripture," pp. 65, 66, (Seeleys, 1850,) it will be vain to argue with him on tradition, which, in truth, throws no more light upon the subject than does the Scripture, at least in the earlier ages, and which at a later period would prove too much, if capable of proving anything.

« VorigeDoorgaan »