Page images
PDF
EPUB

Consequences of rejecting universal Tradition. 115

has prevailed, as in both points men felt themselves committed to a system which was condemned by Antiquity, so they have opposed universal tradition on some of many pleas; such as, that its testimony is needless, or uncertain, or contrary to Scripture, i. e. to their own sense of Scripture. They have, therefore, first shrunk from it, then misrepresented it, and, lastly, condemned it altogether; for, of the two, one must needs fall, either antiquity or their new interpretations. And thus, rejecting first the witness of universal tradition to the sense of Scripture, they went on to abandon the true sense itself. The consent of the Primitive Churches, expressed in the Catholic Creeds and in their traditive interpretations, being once forfeited, the full licence of individual judgment pleading the clearness of Holy Writ, or the especial guidance of the Spirit, soon reduced all doctrines to an equal uncertainty; so that as the elder Socinus was an early partaker of the doctrines of Zuingli, the Zuinglian and Calvinistic bodies have carried out, in their turn, the rule of their masters into the Socinian heresy.

But not only so; the infinite diversity, contradiction, and uncertainty of doctrinal interpretation, has brought about a supercilious scepticism as to the subject-matter itself. Indifference, which is next akin to contempt of truth, already prevails; and the end is not doubtful. For, as the Roman rule, by superseding universal tradition, has brought in particular and unwarranted tenets upon the Church, so the new rule, by rejecting universal tradition, has taken away many doctrines of the Gospel, has rendered all more or less uncertain, is, in fact, undermining the very canon of Scripture, and will, in due time, when that which letteth is taken out of the way, bring in the Antichrist of infidelity.

Having thus traced out the agreement of these fallacious rules, both in their kindred errors and in their common

116 The Church of England resists both Calvinism

results, we will go on to examine the true rule of faith, in its application to one or two particular doctrines, and then bring this subject to a close.

The Church of England, proceeding by Scripture and universal tradition, rejects the peculiar tenets of the Roman and the modern schools, for one and the same reason.

To use the argument refutatively, universal tradition is a preliminary objection, establishing a positive or negative prescription against new tenets; proving, by either that any given doctrine was held otherwise, or was not held at all, and, therefore, cannot be Apostolical.

Or again, if any thing should be propounded as matter of necessary faith, she puts it to the test of Scripture, and, if not proveable thereby, rejects it.

For these reasons she refuses the tenet of transubstantiation, and the Calvinistic doctrine of the sacraments, the Papal supremacy, the Presbyterian scheme, and the like.

Or, to use the same proof affirmatively, it is upon Scripture and universal tradition that she holds the mystery of the ever-blessed Trinity, the real Presence in the Eucharist, Baptismal regeneration, the perseverance of the saints, the defectibility of grace in the regenerate, and all other doctrines of the Gospel.

This, then, is the real state of the question. The Church of England, the Church of Rome, and the modern school, appeal to the written Scripture. It is a common term in

the argument of all three.

But they differ in their interpretation. What shall decide? The Church of Rome appeals to her own infallible definitions; the modern school, to personal conviction; the Church of England, to Antiquity. The two former shrink from the ordeal; but we abide it. They are unaccustomed to be subject to any rule, and have about them

and Romanism by appeal to universal Tradition. 117

too much that is at variance, too much that goes beyond or comes short of primitive doctrine; besides, the habit of submitting to an external superior is unusual and irk

some.

The Church of England submits herself to Antiquity, she professes, as her chief privilege, to be subject to it, to represent it, to speak in its very tones, to observe its very practices. This is her moral habit, and her rule.

It is equally false, therefore, for the Romanist, and for the ultra-Protestant, to plead that the Church of England opposes the truth of God or of Scripture, when she opposes their interpretations: for, to call interpretations of Scripture,

66

Scripture," until they are proved to be the right sense, is begging the question. The real struggle is between Church infallibility, individual judgment, and universal tradition. There is no other rule except immediate conscious inspiration.

118

Antiquity the Rule of Interpretation.

CHAPTER V.

We will now take one or two examples of the use of universal consent in fixing the right interpretation of Holy Scripture.

The following words are invariably quoted in the Socinian controversy. "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all God blessed for ever. Amen."

The first objection of the Socinians is, that the word "God" is not found in many manuscripts.

This is refuted by the agreement of "every known manuscript of this Epistle, and every ancient version extant 2." It is universally read as we receive it.

Next they would convert the last sentence into a doxology to the Father 3.

Thirdly, they would read ὧν ὁ Θεὸς for ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Oɛòs, and translate it, "of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, of whom (i. e. the fathers) is God over all 4"

Lastly, they break away from criticism, and assert that the Fathers did not cite it to prove the divinity of Christ.

1 Rom. ix. 5. 3 Ibid. p. 110.

2 Abp. Magee on Atonement, &c., vol. iii. p. 109, note. 4 Ibid. p. 115.

5 Burton's Ante-Nicene Testimonies to the Divinity of Christ, p. 87.

No other tribunal of appeal against Socinians. 119

The fact is as follows:

66

St. Irenæus, proving the divinity of Christ against the Gnostics, says, " And, again, writing to the Romans concerning Israel, he [Paul] says, 'whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all God blessed for ever 1.""

1

Tertullian writes, "Yet speaking singly of Christ I can call him God, as Paul did; of whom is Christ, who,' he says, is God over all blessed for ever

[ocr errors]

Cyprian, in his work called "Testimonies against the Jews," under the head, "that Christ is God," says, "Also Paul to the Romans, I could wish &c., . 6 whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all God blessed for ever ".""

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Novatian twice quotes the verse for the same pur

pose.

Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, twice calls Christ "God over all," which words occur in no other place in the New Testament.

It is also quoted by the council of Antioch against the heresy of Paul of Samosata, with other texts to prove that Christ is essentially and substantially God.

And lastly Hippolytus, who, having first quoted the text, writes, "He that is God over all is blessed; and becoming man, is God for ever." This is in a work written against heretics who, in support of the Patripassian heresy, i. e., that it was the Father who came and suffered, quoted this very text to show that the Christ was the supreme God.

And lastly, as some of these witnesses wrote in Greek and some in Latin, their respective quotations fix the

1 Lib. III. c. xvi. 2 Adv. Prax. c. 13, and again, c. 15. 3 Test. adv. Judæos.

« PreviousContinue »