points of ecclesiastical right, have ruffled, at least, the spirits, or soured the temper of the suffering party. But the first perse

cutions were the manifested rage of satan and of his ministers, against Christ and his people. Later persecutions have been, in some degree, struggles of parties, alternately ascendant, and both claiming to act for Christ. Nero, Domitian, Galerius, Diocletian, acted in their proper guise; but Ximenes, Ferdinand, Mary, Bonner, glozed their atrocities under colour of evangelic zeal, and perhaps even the arrogance of their pretensions, and their sophistry, abated the comfort and courage of many a martyr.

THE DEPENDENCE OF THE MODERN CHURCH UPON THE ANCIENT CHURCH.

THOSE who, in terror of Rome, and her lying traditions, may wish to lay the axe, as they think, to the root of the tree, and to disclaim in every sense, and to renounce dependence upon, and appeal to, those extra canonical documents of christianity which have come down to us from the early and apostolic churches, may make the attempt, if they please; but they must soon find themselves standing upon ground on which still greater difficulties than those they run from, are in their way. We cannot, if we would, cut ourselves off from the benefits which the singular providence of God has secured for later times, in the preservation of the various memorials of the early and intervening ages. It is clear that the sweeping measures which some would recommend, must, if adopted, leave us our work to do over again, not only in the present argument, but in our controversy with popery.

All mystification apart, as well as a superstitious and overweening deference to antiquity disclaimed, nothing can be more simple than the facts on which rests the legitimate use of the ancient documents of christianity, considered as the repositories of those practices and opinions which, obscurely or ambiguously

alluded to in the canonical writings, are found, drawn forth and illustrated, in the records of the times immediately succeeding. These records contain at once a testimony in behalf of the capital articles of our faith, and an exposition of minor sentiments and ecclesiastical usages, neither of which can be surrendered without some serious loss and damage.

How plain is the case before us (putting now aside the momentous testimony of the martyr church in behalf of fundamental truths.) It must be admitted that all things are not so amply and indubitably laid down in the apostolic writings as to exclude every doubt; and in a few instances this indeterminateness of the canonical books, affects particulars in which we fain must make a choice, and must adopt, either one course, or its opposite. Now, what had in fact been done, or recommended, or allowed, by the apostles, in the churches they personally founded, or governed, could not but be known in those churches during the lapse of a generation or two; say, at the least, forty years. But we possess writings of the men of the approximate generation, and therein find, as is natural, incidental statements, and innumerable allusions to practices and to opinions universally admitted, as of apostolic origin. Let us sift this evidence as we may, and in truth it demands, as we shall see, to be severely sifted, and let it be reduced to the smallest possible amount, yet there remains, what no man in his senses can deny to be a mass of good historical evidence, touching such or such points of apostolic christianity. Are we then to listen to this evidence; or, at the impulse of some inexplicable qualm, do we resolve not to hear a word of it? Or, are we in fact so destitute of historical acumen, as to render it a hopeless task to discern between the genuine and the spurious, in this body of materials? And so, in matters of exposition, how lightly soever we may esteem the judgment of the ancient commentators, they possessed, at the least (or many of them) a vernacular familiarity with the canonical phraseology, to which it were absurd not to pay a respectful attention. Shall the men of eighteen hundred years hence the critics and professors of the universities of Australia and New Zealand, pretend to understand the language and idioms of the divines of the seventeenth century better than we do, of the nineteenth ?

We may, and undoubtedly do, possess a critical apparatus such as gives us, in certain respects, an advantage over even Origen, Jerome, Basil, Theodoret, and Chrysostom; nevertheless they, as actually speaking and writing, or as being familiar with, the language of the New Testament, possessed prerogatives that can neither be reasonably denied, nor snatched from them. Origen may have been wrong in a hundred instances, but he read the gospels and epistles so as we can never do, with the fresh familiarity, and the idomatic contact proper to the perusal of writings in one's own language, and less than two hundred years old; that is to say, precisely as we are now reading Tillotson, Jeremy Taylor, Barrow, and Baxter. The modern spirit of self-sufficiency seems to reach its climax in the contempt thrown by some upon those who, endowed with as much learning and acumen as ourselves, read the scriptures while the ink of the apostolic autographs had hardly faded.

To the early church also belongs the unalienable advantage of having expressed its sense of christian principles, previously to those perturbations of the spiritual atmosphere that arose from the great controversies of the fourth century, and which left nothing altogether in its unsophisticated condition. Whatever of precision or of explicitness in doctrine, might be the fruit of those controversies, there still attaches, as their characteristic, to the pristine writers, a straight-forwardness, which has its peculiar charm, as well as value. Less logical, we grant, and less theological, and less acute, and less subtle, and sometimes, involved in worse errors, the earlier writers are more calm, and more refreshing, than the later, and sooner win our affection, if they do not, which is certain, secure our confidence.

There is however a still closer dealing with the uses and claims of the early christian literature, to which the controversies moved by the Oxford Tract writers, make it necessary accurately to attend; and in fact it has already become, or must soon become, a duty, in no way to be evaded by the leaders of opinion, so to apply their minds to this subject as to attain a well defined and permanent conviction, and such as may guide their decisions on trying occasions, not very unlikely to arise.

Let us then first state the case of those who, taking up the

(modern) protestant pass-word, in its utmost extent of meaning - The bible and the bible alone,' would fain cut themselves off from all connexion with every intermediate record, as well as with every remote community of christians. If I have the word of God itself in my hands, which is able to make me, and all, wise unto salvation, what is antiquity to me?'-thus speak many; but with how much reason, remains to be inquired.

If it did not frequently happen that vague impressions, the grounds of which have never been examined, are allowed to exert an influence, not only over the unthinking and the uninformed, but over the educated and the intelligent, there could be no need to dwell for a moment upon a point which, like the one now before us, barely admits of what deserves to be called argument. And yet, as every thing turns upon the clearness and soundness of the rule which is to be established in regard to the extent of the deference due, by the modern church, to the ancient church; it would be fatal to the principle we hope to substantiate, to underrate that deference, in any such way as might leave our position liable to just and important exceptions.

With all the brevity possible I will propound the case, in the convenient form of question and rejoinder, the interrogatories being put by a supposed protestant advocate of antiquity, to one whose protestantism appears to be somewhat extreme, or inconsiderate: -as thus

-'We possess, by the divine favour, the word of God, able, as we both allow, and able by itself, that is to say, apart from, and independently of, any other writings or traditions, to make men wise unto salvation: but I have two questions to put, and first, whence, proximately, did you receive this inestimable gift?'

'From those who, before me, by the same divine goodness had possessed and loved it: and of course they, in like manner, from their predecessors in the faith and hope of the gospel; and so from the first.'

'The bible then is not sent from heaven to us, individually; but has been consigned, like all other books, nay, on the very same conditions as profane literature, to the hands of successive generations that is to say, it has been transmitted, from fathers

to sons, and is itself, in this sense, A TRADITION; and, fully agreed, as doubtless we are, concerning the mere facts of the mode and circumstances of this continuous delivery of the scriptures, we may well unite, first, in gratitude to God whose providence has so watched over his written word, as that it has not merely been conserved, through long periods of confusion and ignorance; but has come down to us purer, and more copiously verified, than any other collection of ancient writings; but we may also, as I presume, unite, in a grateful and affectionate sentiment toward those to whose industry, from age to age, and to whose constancy and courage, at particular seasons, we are immediately indebted for the preservation of the inspired volume. Thus far, you will admit with me the obligation of the modern church, to the ancient church? '

6

Assuredly our feeling towards those who, from age to age, have thus kept and handed down the precious deposit, is precisely analogous to that of a poor believer upon whom a more opulent brother in Christ bestows a bible: he thanks the charitable donor; but he does not so misunderstand his, obligation as to surrender a particle of his christian liberty and conscience to his benefactor. Come to us whence it may, the word of God is absolutely independent of the medium of its transmission from age to age. The pearl of great price may have traversed stormy seas; but it has actually reached our shores, and we have acquitted our obligation towards those who, at the peril of their lives, have brought it to us, when we just thank them.'

'Thus far then there appears no ground of disagreement between us. But I have now to put my second question; and, well informed as you are on all points of biblical criticism, and of literary history, I shall be in no danger of shaking your religious convictions, by propounding my difficulty. On what ground then do you receive the bible, collectively, or its prophecies, histories, gospels, and epistles severally, as indeed the word of God? The inspired pages do not shine out with any supernatural splendour, nor do the writers affirm their own canonicity; or even if they do, there are spurious writings that contain equivalent asseverations of divine authority, to wit, the Clementine Constitutions, and many others, as you need not be told. Or if we think of the