Page images

Dr. Scholz, with whom Tischendorf agrees, in the eighth century. This manuscript contains the entire text of the four gospels, with the exception of Matt. iv. 22, to v. 14; and xxviü. 17–28; Mark I. 16—30: and xv. 2—20; and John xxi. 15—25. Dr. Tischerdorf states that it agrees with the celebrated Codex Vaticants, 1209. His account of this precious manuscript is very copious, and enters into a variety of critical minutiæ, which do not admit of abridgment. He has printed the entire text of this manuscript, the identity of which with the Codex Vaticanus may now be tested by a critical collation of it with E. de Muralto's - Novum Testamentum Græce ad fidem Codicis principis Vaticani,” recently published at Hamburgh.

(8.) The Codex Coislinianus 1. in the Royal Library at Paris, contains the Octateuch, or first eight of the historical books of the Old Testament in the Septuagint version, in the margin of whict, but in the same uncial writing as the rest of the manuscript, Dr. Tischendorf has found and printed Matt. v. 48; xii. 48; and xxvii. 25; Luke i. 42; ii. 24; and xxiii. 21; John v. 35; and vi. 53, 55; Acts iv. 33, 34; ix. 23, 24; X. 13, 15 ; and xxii. 22; 1 Cor. vii. 39; and xi. 29; 2 Cor. iii. 13; ix. 7; and xi. 33; Gal. iv. 21, 22; Col. ii. 16, 17; and Heb. x. 26. Of these pas sages, Wetstein discovered and collated only Acts ix. 23, 24. He referred it to the seventh century, Montfaucon to the sixth or seventh century. Tischendorf assigns it to the seventh century..

(9.) The Codex Vaticanus, 2066, formerly the Codex Basilianus, No. 105, is a manuscript of the Apocalypse, which originally belonged to the monks of the order of St. Basil at Rome. It was collated, under the auspices of Cardinal Quirini, for Wetstein. Dr. Tischendorf, who has printed the whole of this manuscript, refers it to the beginning of the eighth century. It written in uncial letters, holding a medium between the round and oblong forms, with accents and spirits. Besides the Apocalypse, this manuscript contains various homilies of Basil, and also homilies, orations, and epistles of Gregory bishop of Nyssa, and some extracts on the six days' creation. All these pieces are written in the same hand as the Apocalypse.

We cannot terminate this necessarily brief notice of Professor Tischendorf's biblical publications, without adverting to the sid. gular beauty of their typographical execution, which reflects! highest honour on the press and (we may add) the public spirit, Mr. Bernhard Tauchnitz, jun. the publisher. As few private in viduals comparatively can possess these works, we hope they wil ere long, find a place in our national and university libraries; and that they will be accurately and diligently collated by future editor of the Greek Testament and of the Septuagint.


TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHURCHMAN'S MONTHLY REVIEW. DEAR SIR,-I fear you will think me troublesomely pertinacious, though not, I trust, in error. My apology must be, partly the real value which I set upon your good opinion, and partly my honest conviction both of the truth and of the vital importance of my principle.

You quote me against myself (Review for Nov. 881): but I must own I do not perceive the cogency of your two quotations, as in the slightest degree militating against the plain statement which I have repeatedly propounded in answer to the various misrepresentations which it has been my lot to encounter. In each of those two quotations, I merely pointed out what I deemed, and what I still deem, the most rational and satisfactory mode of ascertaining the true sense of doctrinal Scripture, whenever (as in the case of Justification, from my Work on which subject your two quotations are taken) there is a dispute as to the import of Scripture. Purely as a matter of fact, such disputes are not uncommon. Thus, in the matter of Justification, all the Reformed Churches unanimously teach one doctrine, while the Church of Rome, speaking through the Council of Trent, teaches another; repeatedly avowing, both as to the statement of this doctrine, and as to all the other doctrinal statements of the Council, that “ This Faith was always in the Church of God.” Under such circumstances, when we had an alleged HISTORICAL FACT to meet, what was to be done? If we allowed the alleged FACT to stand uncontradicted, while we argued simply from our own interpretation of Scripture, the Romanist would naturally enough reply : Why should I bend to your upstart interpretation, and reject the universal interpreta. tion of the Church from the very beginning, which, as a FACT, you do not pretend to deny ? Clearly, we must adopt a different plan, if we would convince either the Romanist or any wavering Protestant who was staggered by the boldness of the Popish assertion. Hence, I should suppose, the most natural and logical process must be, to meet the alleged FACT, by an appeal, not merely to the recorded sense of strict Antiquity, but also the unvarying testimony of the ecclesiastical writers from Clermont down to Bernard.

With respect to the general question, we must, I conceive “decide (this word of mine you print in Italics) what are really the 1846.

6 G

doctrines taught in the Bible :” for, without such decision, we can have no fixed creed. The sole point, therefore, is this:

On what tangible and intelligible principle are we to arrive at such plainly necessary decision, whenever a sturdy difference of opinion arises touching the import of doctrinal texts ?

Some may advocate this principle; and others may advocate that principle: but a principle of some description we must have; otherwise we can reach no decision : and, if we can reach no decision, we can have no fixed creed ; and, if we have no fixed creed, we must anchor our faith upon a mere shifting quicksand.

Your principle seems to be an appeal to Scripture as interpreted by yourself and other concurring moderns : my principle is an appeal to Scripture as understood by the consent of the primitive Church.

Which principle is the best, may be a matter of dispute: but I cannot discern, why my principle, any more than your principle, should be charged with ERROR, on the specific ground of its adding a supplementary rule of faith to what we alike (be it remembered) deem the sole binding rule of faith.

Let me instance what I mean by a case very recently before us.

I understand the Scriptural doctrine of election, as it was understood and interpreted by the universal Church prior to the time of Augustine.

You understand the Scriptural doctrine of election, as it is understood and interpreted by Mr. McNeile.

For this, I blame you not. But, since we must put some interpretation upon the language of Scripture ; for, without this process, it plainly cannot be used as a rule of faith: if I be in error, because I adopt the PRINCIPLE of interpreting Scripture as the early Church is testified to have done ; you, I should think, must be equally in error, because you adopt the PRINCIPLE of interpreting Scripture as Mr. McNeile interprets it.

I speak purely of the PRINCIPLE, wherein I understand you to pronounce me in error. Yet your PRINCIPLE is exactly the same as my own.

We agree, that Scripture must be interpreted : we differ only, as to who shall be the interpreter. You patronise Mr. McNeile, as an irrefragable interpreter of Scripture touching the true sense of election : I bow to the judgment of the Church of the four first centuries, as ascertained from the credible testimony of the ecclesiastical writers.

In regard to Clement, Ignatius and Hermas (for, after all, Mr. McNeile can appeal to the Fathers as well as myself), these writers, no doubt, use the word election, just as I scruple not to use it in my sermons: but, without an explanation, which they do not give,

have adopted in to Popershes of the 1

their mere use of a word proves nothing. However, in all fairness, long before Mr. McNeile wrote, I duly cited all the passages in Clement, Ignatius, and Hermas, where the word election is used: being nine, in Clement; two, in Ignatius; and seven, in Hermes. They will be found, rendered into English, while the originals are carefully given in the margin, in my Primitive Doctrine of Election, book ii. chap. ii : and your readers may judge for themselves whether they afford any proof that the Augustinian or Calvinistic doctrine of election was the doctrine of the primitive Church.

In my various Works written on the sound and tangible principle which I have adopted, my object has been to shew on historical testimony, in opposition to Popery, Socinianism, and all other unscriptural systems, that the Churches of the Reformation, more especially our own Reformed Church, were no venders of what the Romanists were wont to call new learning ; but, on the contrary, that their doctrines were the doctrines of the primitive Church, being, in truth, a republication of the long smothered or strangely perverted gospel of Jesus Christ. My Protestant brethren, whether cleric or laic, will, I hope, forgive me this wrong. If my alleged error be past forgiveness; and if it be thought that the greater the doctrinal discrepance, between the Primitive Church and the Reformed Church of England, the better and the more satisfactory: then, I submit, we should lose no time in burning the works of Pearson, Bull, Barrow, Taylor, Beveridge, to say nothing of Cranmer aud Ridley; for their principle of resorting to historical testimony is precisely the same as my own. Nevertheless, when this principle shall be given up, we assuredly shall present a latus apertum both to Papists and to Socinians.

G. S. FABER. Sherburn House, Dec. 5, 1846.

[We shall not ourselves renew this discussion ; being content to give, on the next page, a letter on the other part. But we must protest against being supposed to admit, for a single moment, that the Book given to us by God himself, as the guide of our steps, must, to be of any use, be interpreted by some other books, written by erring men.- Edit. C. M. R.]

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHURCHMAN'S MONTHLY REVIEW, Sir,– Will you allow me a place in your columns to make a fer remarks on Mr. Faber's principle that “pure consenting primitive antiquity" constitutes "The interpreter of doctrinal Scripture," — a principle which appears to me to be almost the only fault of this į excellent writer.

First, I will state how far I agree with him. In one place he says that without some principles of interpretation or other, the words of Scripture would only be so many sentences without any meaning at all. This may at once be conceded, not only as a truth, but as a truism.—But I go further. I quite admit with him that the man who expects that by the mere reading of the Bible he shall be able to come to a saving knowledge of its contents, will be disappointed ; and I am as much an enemy as be is to that self-sufficient and presumptuous frame of mind which thinks it enough to do this, and that having so done, the Spirit will supply every thing else. No,-God's will is that we shall attain the objects of our search by the diligent use of means, and consequently he expects that we shall make this diligent use of all the aids and helps which he has placed within our reaca, and without this we have no right to expect his blessing upon our studies. The real fault and fallacy of Mr. Faber's principle is this, that instead of making antiquity one (among others) of the aids and helps which God has afforded us, he erects it into the interpreter of doctrinal Scripture, from whose tribunal there is to be no appeal. That some deference is due to the mind and sentiment of the early Church, so far as we can collect it from the documents that remain to us, no sober Protestant will deny: this is fully allowed and maintained by the author of " Anciens Christianity," who cannot certainly be accused of any leo Church predilections; but such an application for help from out of those sources of knowledge which God has afforded us, is a res different thing from bowing to the dictates of an umpire I whose tribunal there is in no case to be any appeal. " bound to use all the materials placed within our power, and to exercise our private judgment—in other words, that reason faculty which God has bestowed upon us, in pronouncing a per on the subject; and this is in the very nature of the case und able, for it is only by the use of that private judgment, or reas ing faculty, that we can obtain the conviction of the first principa of all religion, the being of a God. Having said thus mucu trust I have laid down a broad line of separation from the my."

« PreviousContinue »