PART IV.

THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH.

1. No argument adduced against the principle: history of the subject in the writer's mind.

THE writer made every inquiry of friends before the late Tract on this subject was published, to ascertain to what objections it was liable; and since the publication, he has looked out with great interest for every thing that has issued against it, with the expectation of finding either arguments adduced, which would militate against the principle itself, or such as would be calculated to show that, allowing the principle to be true, it was not capable of bearing out the conclusions to which it has been applied for, by means of such objections, the writer had hoped. either, by answering and explaining them, to draw out and establish more clearly his main principle; or else to be assisted in seeing that the case could not be proved; under which circumstance he trusts he should be ready to acknowledge it. But to his great disappointment he has found nothing of this kind; he is not aware of one single argument adduced that touches the question; but much vague declamation, and strong alarms expressed, because the view interferes with certain peculiar religious opinions, or on account of some motives attributed to the writer's friends, or on other similar grounds, which in fact (even were they true) in no way affect the matter in discussion. That those who will not afford the subject a patient consideration should not agree with him, does in truth only confirm the argument which the writer wishes to maintain; which is mainly this, that religious truth cannot be known without serious attention. If there is something sacred and divine in this rule of reverential forbearance, it cannot be thus controverted; nor has it in any way been put forth with any party feeling, nor will any one say it

has been treated by us in a spirit of controversy: the sole object being to know, by what means we may best arrive at truth, and promote religion in the world.

But independently of these objections, the writer has himself felt that there was much in the subject that needed explanation, and which was liable to misconstruction. He felt it at the time of publishing the former treatise, and has done so ever since. And some friendly notices, which have mentioned this, have not expressed it more strongly than he has been himself impressed with it partly from not fully seeing how far the inferences might lead him which were deducible from a principle that he considered as true; and partly from some of his original observations on the subject having been mislaid and lost at the time of the publication, comprising the whole of the proof from antiquity which is here given; and as the inquiry has from its very nature occasioned some unavoidable misapprehensions, perhaps he could not better explain his sentiments than by recording the history of them in his own mind.

The opinion was not at first formed from a knowledge of any system of the kind in sacred antiquity, nor from observing that the principle was so fully maintained throughout the whole of the Holy Scriptures as he has since found it to be, much less from any speculative theory adopted in the study; but from his own dealings with mankind in the care of a parish, and his observation of the conduct of others who, he thought, had most experience and good sense and singleness of heart in winning men to the truth. Much pain was occasioned him, and much injury he thought was done to the cause of the Gospel, in those who, from habit or want of consideration, acted otherwise. It appeared to him that, though his mode of proceeding was contrary to that which such persons require, yet it was according to the maxims of Scripture and often oppressed, as we cannot but feel, while thus acting, at being considered by some almost without the pale of the Christian covenant, yet his own natural sense of right, delicacy, and even Christian expediency, and much more his notion of the Gospel itself, could never allow him to act differently; considering that in the care of himself he had more to guard against

insincere profession, and unreal systems of thought and feeling in religion, than any thing else; and that in others also he had nothing so much to seek for as true honesty and seriousness of mind, respecting a state so awful as that which Christianity represents ours to be. It appeared to him that there was no subject upon which we were so much and so earnestly cautioned throughout the Gospels as this, (especially through all the Sermon on the Mount, and in our LORD's last discourses in St. John,) and that in the world at present the standard of things was so external, that there was more than ever danger of false pretension,—of an unreality, a want of thorough simplicity and seriousness, a secret looking to the world, such as would eat out the very heart of religion. Thoughts of this kind were constantly in his mind: not that he had any notion whatever of a system, or indeed of any great and extensive principle, nor even did his feelings assume any definite shape, so as to support themselves by arguments and decisive reasons why his sentiments and practice were unlike those of certain others; but he only felt that in acting otherwise in occasional instances of various kinds, he was doing violence to something sacred and to natural modesty; and that the obloquy he was subject to he shared with those of whose fidelity he could not doubt, such as bishop Butler and bishop Wilson. And indeed when continually engaged in these and the like thoughts, he had felt inexpressibly relieved and comforted at finding those whom he could most value not only quite free from all this, but watchful against it in themselves and others. Perfectly one and of a piece with this appeared to him the uniform tendency of Holy Scripture, when viewed with a reference to this subject, as has been shown in the previous part of this treatise. And in reading the ancient writers with this view he found throughout, if they did not fully explain the whole of our LORD's conduct on this principle, yet they incidentally allowed it, and bore the fullest evidence to the opinions he has stated. So much so indeed that the doctrine, which appears new and strange to many of us in the present day, would have been one with which they were quite familiar. The inferences implied, and the practices recommended, would have been considered by the Ancient

Church as a matter of course, and this it is our present object to show.

2. Testimony of the early Church full and extensive.

But before entering on this part of the subject, which was before accidentally omitted, let us be understood in our appeal to antiquity. The principle has not been founded, as some have stated, on the primitive practice, but on Scripture alone. And our appeal to Catholic antiquity would be sufficient, were it only to prove that it is not opposed to our opinion; but so far is this from being the case, that, on the contrary, we shall find that it fully supports it in a variety of ways. We shall find scattered intimations of this kind pervade all primitive writings: but that more particularly there were two customs which embody and strongly put forth the principle. The first an external system of discipline, designated by the Latins the Discipline of the Secret, according to which they kept back in reserve the higher doctrines of our Faith, until persons were rendered fit to receive them by a long previous preparation. The other an universal rule in the explanations of God's Word, which is founded on the supposition that it contains mystical meanings disclosed only unto the faithful.

To these two points therefore we would especially draw attention in our appeal to Catholic Antiquity; first of all, that not only what we have supposed respecting our LORD's concealing His Divine presence is confirmed both by the express allusions of the Fathers, but also by their adopting into the Church a mode of acting, which appears to us extraordinary, and which either took its rise from this circumstance (i. e. of Scriptural example), or was founded upon a great religious principle. Secondly, that they universally seem to suppose that there is in Holy Scripture something which is throughout analogous to what we have traced out in the history of our LORD's life, so that there is an unity of action and manner of a very remarkable kind in the two cases. They suppose that our blessed LORD is, as it were, throughout the inspired writings, hiding and concealing Himself, and going about (if I may so speak reverently)

seeking to whom He may disclose Himself: that there are many things in Scripture which might appear common and ordinary accounts, relating to passing events, or words which appear to speak only of temporal wisdom; that our LORD is walking therein and concealing His divinity in the same manner that we have supposed that in our LORD's ordinary walk and mode of life among men He very studiously and remarkably concealed His ineffable majesty under the appearance of common humanity, accompanied with great goodness. Though these two points are different, yet they involve one common principle.

But when we come to produce the proof from the ancient Church that we are putting forth no new doctrine, we find it a task really very difficult, from the very abundance of the matter; the principle is thoroughly and entirely infused into their whole system; their words, their notions, their practices, thoroughly breathe of it, so as to indicate a state of thought and feeling perfectly at variance with those modern systems, whether that (improperly) called Evangelical, or the cold and barren (equally miscalled) orthodoxy of the last age; so as to show an entire and essential difference in tone and spirit. The proof is difficult, for one hardly knows how to produce it; if we were to bring forward, generally, sentiments from the Fathers which imply it, it would occupy volumes; and besides this, the testimony is so varied in its nature that it makes an attempt appear desultory. It is like attempting to describe some strong impression of the mind, which is shown in the body in every part; every limb, and every gesture may be indicative of it, and yet it may be rather expressed by the whole than by any part, and to select one would not adequately serve the purpose. So does the principle pervade the body of the Church, appearing now in one part, and then in another; now in action, now in demeanour, now in expression, and often in all together, and yet in so subtle a manner as to defy description. The Fathers speak of it as our LORD's mode of conduct; they speak of it still more, as St. Paul's in all his teaching; they speak of it as a rule of Scripture, as a principle in morals; their practice with regard to others, and their studies, both alike imply it. There is, perhaps, not one among the Fathers with whom