would ascribe to them. If I were to publish a Book maintaining the Doctrine of the Trinity, a Socinian would of course oppose it: but then he would oppose it, as being in his belief unscriptural; he would not say that such a Doctrine had never been heard of before, either within or without the Church of England. Yet a precisely parallel assertion was made by the Christians of Marseilles, when Augustine first started his own novel interpretation of Scriptural Election and this assertion is not recorded to have been at all contradicted by the experience of their contemporaries; which it must have been, were it unfounded; just as we should immediately contradict the monstrous assertion, that the Doctrine of the Trinity had never been heard of, until it was put forth, for the first time, in the year 1846.

:

Unless you or Mr. M'Neile can account for this astounding fact, it is not, I think, very convincing to say that his interpretation must be correct BECAUSE it sets forth the plain unambiguous sense of Scripture; when, in truth, this is the very matter which I deny, quite abstractedly from the whole weight of evidential Antiquity.

III. What you mean by saying, that "It is a private opinion "of Mr. Faber, on a private opinion of Augustine concerning the "private opinions of Clement and Ignatius and Hermas:" I confess I do not understand; and am, thence, unable to answer you.

When Augustine was challenged to produce any writer, who, previously to himself, had maintained bis interpretation: all the witnesses that he even attempted to produce, were Cyprian, Gregory-Nazianzen, and Ambrose; not one of whom was to his purpose; and, even if all had been to his purpose, they would have been evidentially useless, because the very earliest of them did not flourish earlier than the middle of the third century. Meanwhile, the assertion, at least, of Augustine's contemporaries still remains : the assertion, to wit, that no such gloss upon Scriptural Election, as that which he propounded at the beginning of the fifth century, had, to the best of their knowledge and experience, been ever so much as heard of in the Church before. Now, that this assertion was perfectly correct, is distinctly shewn by historical testimony: for, if there be any certain intelligibility in language, the Early Church understood Scriptural Election in a sense altogether different from that newly put upon it by Augustine, in the exercise, as he himself confesses, of his own insulated private judgment upon Scripture. He had not been taught it by his Catechist, as the universally-received Doctrine of the Church from the beginning: but he had discovered it for himself, just as Mr. M'Neile seems to have done; confessing the while, as he does confess, that he had

once held an entirely different opinion; the opinion, I suppose, which had been delivered to him, as the universal and unbroken interpretation of the Church.

The excellent Joseph Milner, like Mr. M'Neile, would fain discover Calvinistic Election in Ignatius: whence he contends, that it was the really primitive apostolic Doctrine. But he is obliged to allow, that it had totally disappeared in the time of Justin, and was never heard of again till Augustine revived it. How an universally-received apostolic doctrine could universally die and make no sign only about forty years after the death of St. John, he does not very satisfactorily explain: but, at all events, he acknowledges it to have been never heard of from the days of Justin to the days of Augustine. I must correct myself. He thinks it must have existed among the truly pious, because Origen, about the middle of the third century, expressly wrote against it as then in existence. This testimony would have been most important, had not the case unluckily been, that Origen was writing, not against primeval Calvinism, but against the fatalistic reveries of Manichèism.

IV. If, on such grounds, Mr. M'Neile can receive the Calvinistic Interpretation, I have no wish to break christian charity with him on that account; but I must confess my own inability to receive it on such very defective or worse than defective evidence. Sherburn-House, Aug. 5, 1846. G. S. FABER.

TO THE REV. GEORGE STANLEY FABER, M.A.

REV. SIR,-My attention has been called to a letter of yours, addressed to the Editor of the Churchman's Monthly Review, and printed in the June number (for July 1,) of that publication. I am sorry that any thing written by the Reviewer in a former number should have induced you to prejudge and condemn, unread, the work of a brother clergyman. Your name is widely and most deservedly respected, by few more than by your present correspondent; and with the whole weight of the authority in such questions inseparable from your name, you have damaged my recent attempt to be of use to our Church and nation in these troublous times.

The Reviewer, it appears, had called my argument "clear, forcible, and conclusive." You suppose that the argument so commended "rests altogether on my own exposition of Scripture, which I assume to be the true exposition." And then you say

"I have carefully studied scripture as well as Mr. M'Neile : but, "I own, I do not perceive, how either my interpretation of scrip"ture, or Mr. M'Neile's interpretation of Scripture, can afford

any legitimate proof, that either my view or his view is correct. "In arguing thus, we should severally, in each case alike, produce "a mere paralogism. We, both of us, hold Scripture to be the "sole binding Rule of Faith: but if either of us maintains, that "his own interpretation of Scripture MUST inevitably exhibit the "true sense of Scripture, we do not argue; we merely dogmatize. "In other words, the question between us respects, not the authority, but the meaning of Scripture and how Mr. M'Neile's argument, from his own gratuitous interpretation of Scripture, "can be so clear and forcible, and conclusive, as to bring out a complete refutation of my strictly evidential Treatise, I must "confess I do not understand."

66

All the italics in this citation are your's. The evidence you refer to is documentary, collected from ecclesiastical writers between the Apostolic age and Augustine, but excluding Augustine himself. I venture to ask, how can Scripture be a rule of faith to us, if we may not, without evidence from some other quarter, affix any meaning to Scripture? How can Scripture be a Rule at all, if it must wait to be ruled by something else, before it can become legitimately available in argument? if to use it, in itself, and as we find it, be not to argue, but merely to dogmatize? In that case, does it not follow that Scripture is only the corroboration of a Rule found elsewhere; and that the documentary evidence, which alone can affix an authoritative interpretation upon Scripture, is indeed the Rule? Are you prepared to concede this? And if not, how can you consistently maintain the statement as above quoted from your letter?

But further; what is this boasted documentary evidence, and is its meaning more unequivocally transparent than the meaning of Scripture? Have inspired writers written so obscurely, that their meaning cannot be truly known, till uninspired writers have explained them? And have uninspired writers written so clearly, that their meaning is self-evident and cannot be mistaken?

Allow me for a moment to submit Antiquity to the test of your own crucible, and for this purpose to re-write your paragraph, mutatis mutandis.

I have carefully studied Antiquity as well as Mr. Faber, but I own I do not perceive, how either my interpretation of Antiquity, or Mr. Faber's interpretation of Antiquity, can afford any legitimate proof, that either my view or his view is correct. In arguing thus, we should severally, in each case alike, produce a mere paralogism. We, both of us, hold Antiquity to be documentary evidence; but if either of us maintains, that his own interpretation of Antiquity MUST inevitably exhibit the true sense of Antiquity, we

do not argue; we merely dogmatize. In other words, the question between us respects, not the authority, but the meaning of Antiquity, and how Mr. Faber's Treatise grounded upon his own gratuitous interpretation of Antiquity, can be strictly evidential, and beyond dispute the correct interpretation of Antiquity, I must confess I do not understand.

Now what is the fact? The fact is that I have referred to documentary evidence between the Apostolic age and Augustine; and instead of attempting to search out what had escaped your notice, I have confined myself to your own witnesses, and to the passages from those witnesses of your own selection; and I think I have reasonably and argumentatively, without dogmatizing, shown that the conclusion legitimately to be drawn from that evidence, is not the conclusion you have drawn from it. For example, Ignatius describes the Church of God as " always predestinated before the worlds, to glory "--προωρισμένη πρὸ αἰώνων διὰ παντὸς εἰς δόξαν. According to your view of Antiquity, Ignatius bears witness that the Church was predestinated to ecclesiastical privileges, with a possibility through their own perverseness, of falling short of glory (pp. 222, 223 of your Treatise). According to my view of Antiquity, Ignatius bears witness that the Church was predestinated to glory. But neither your interpretation of antiquity nor my interpretation of antiquity can afford any legitimate proof, that either your view or my view is correct! Then antiquity is practically useless to us. I am not disposed to treat it so badly. I think in the matter now before us, it is sufficiently plain, and that the question between us respects, not interpretation generally, but translation. Ignatius is our witness. He wrote Greek. He wrote that the Church was predestinated eiç dokav. Your translation of eiç doğar is, to ecclesiastical privileges, &c. My translation of eiç doğar is, to glory. We are not here dealing with Ignatius as with a theologian, but as with a witness. The question is not, Is what he said true? but the question is, What did he say? And the answer is, He described the Christian Church as predestinated eiç doav.

I hope you will be able to spare time to read that portion at least of my book which refers to this subject. You will there see that I do not attempt to dispute what you assert positively as your view of the doctrine in question. I think it a part of the truth. I venture however to think that a portion of what you condemn, is also a part of the truth.

I have the honor to be, Rev. Sir,

With sincere respect, your faithful Servant, Liverpool, Aug. 26, 1846. HUGH MCNEILE.

THE

CHURCHMAN'S MONTHLY REVIEW

AND CHRONICLE.

SEPTEMBER, 1846.

RECOLLECTIONS OF A TOUR.-A Summer Ramble in Belgium. Germany, and Switzerland. By J. W. MASSIE, D.D., M.R.I.A. London: Snow. 1846.

RESULTS OF AN ECCLESIASTICAL TOUR IN HOLLAND AND NORTHERN GERMANY. By the Hon. and Rev. A. P. PERCEVAL, B.C.L. London: Leslie. 1846.

"IT is a strange thing," says Lord Bacon, "that, in sea-voyages, where there is nothing to be seen but sky and sea, men should make diaries; but in land-travel, wherein so much is to be observed, for the most part they omit it: as if chance were fitter to be registered than observation: let diaries, therefore, be brought in use."-"The things to be seen and observed," adds this sagacious counsellor, "are-the courts of princes, especially when they give audience to ambassadors; the courts of justice, when they sit and hear causes: and so of consistories ecclesiastic; the churches and monasteries, with the monuments that are therein extant; the works and fortifications of cities and towns: and so the havens and harbours, antiquities and ruins, libraries, colleges, disputations, and lectures, where any are; shipping and navies; houses and gardens of state and pleasure, near great cities; armories, arsenals, magazines, exchanges, burses, warehouses, exercises of horsemanship, fencing, training of soldiers, and the like: comedies, such whereunto the better sort of persons do resort; treasuries of jewels and robes: cabinets and varieties: and, to conclude, whatsoever is memorable in the places where they go."