any Orthodox Bishop was not only authorized, but obliged, as opportunity served, and the needs of the Church required, to ordain Catholic teachers in such a Diocese, to oppose the malignant designs of the enemy, and stop the growth of Heresy, which might otherwise take deep root, and spread and overrun the Church. Thus Athanasius and the famous Eusebius of Samosata went about the world in the prevalency of the Arian heresy, ordaining in every Church where they came, such clergy as were necessary to support the Orthodox cause in such a time of distress and desolation; and this was so far from being reckoned a breach of the Church's unity, though against the letter of a Canon in ordinary cases, that it was necessary to be done, in such a state of affairs, to maintain the unity of the Catholic Faith, which every Bishop was obliged to defend, not only in his own Diocese, but in all parts of the world, by virtue of that rule which obliges Bishops in weighty affairs to take care of the Catholic Church, and requires all Churches in time of danger to give mutual aid and assistance to one another.-Vol. ii. pp. 2, 14.

JEBB, BISHOP.

But you will feel with me, that it is something in favour of Vincentius's rule, that it has been received, extolled, and acted upon, by such men as Ridley, Jewel, Grotius, Overall, Hammond, Beveridge, Bull, Hickes, Bramhall, Grabe, Cave, and our own Archbishop King; that it has been admitted expressly even by Chillingworth; and that it has been unreservedly acknowledged as a just and true guide by Bishop Taylor, in one of his latest works, his Visitation Sermon at Connor; a tribute, this last, the more remarkable, because, in his 'Liberty of prophesying,' and in his ' Ductor Dubitantium,' he had spoken less respectfully of the principle; and his remarkable change of language can be accounted for only by his having undergone a correspondent change of sentiment. He had seen, felt, and weighed every difficulty; the result of all was, a deliberate persuasion, that Vincentius was right, and that he himself had been wrong. But, to say no

more of mere authorities, however strong, I own I cannot at present feel any difficulty in applying Vincentius's rule. If a doctrine is propounded to me, as virtually essential, that is, to speak technically, as matter of Faith, before I can receive it as such, I must go to the Catholic succession, and ascertain whether that doctrine has been held semper, ubique, ab omnibus; convinced, if it has not been so held, my assent is not due to it as a matter of Faith. If, again, a doctrine which I hold, is impugned as Heretical, next the Scripture, and as interpretative of Scripture, I must go to the Catholic succession; and if I find this doctrine universally asserted, I cannot believe that it is any other than the sincere truth of the Gospel. The universa

lity here mentioned, is not, of course, a mathematical, but a moral universality: the universality, to use Vincentius's own words, of those "Qui in fide et communione Catholica, sancte, sapienter, et constanter viventes, vel mori in Christo fideliter, vel occidi pro Christo feliciter meruerint." And here, I may observe, that Vincentius himself has anticipated your great objection; a very fair one, no doubt, and which requires, and deserves an answer; namely, that true Christianity, far from being diffused ubique, or received ab omnibus, was sometimes confined to a very narrow channel: when the great majority of the Bishops were Arians, what becomes of the rule?' Let Vincentius answer, Quid si novella aliqua contagio, non jam portiunculam tantum, sed totam pariter Ecclesiam commaculare conetur? Tunc item providebit ut Antiquitati inhæreat. Nor be it thought, that by this means, the quod ubique, and quod ab omnibus, are idly absorbed in the quod semper: they are, as above hinted, to be taken, not mathematically, but morally; an effectual guard to the quod semper. at least, from very remote antiquity, frequently held, some one or more, looking to individuals merely, the quod semper might be alleged, as it has been alleged, in favour of every opinion: it is to be rectified, however, by looking to universality and consent: not universality without exception-for such is not to be found but the concurrent, and consistent sentiments, of the VOL. IV. No. 78.

and, so taken, they are From the beginning, or worthy individuals have unsound opinions; and

I

most, and greatest, doctors, in the whole body of the Church; not at any given period, but throughout the whole succession. Nor will such a research be so laborious as might be imagined; for, in the first place, the Catholic verities, those to be believed for necessity of salvation, are but few; and in the next place, the concurrent sense of Catholic Christians, on those few, but important points, has been amply elicited by controversy; insomuch that, from the works of Bishop Bull, and a very few more, any candid and intelligent student might obtain competent and intelligent satisfaction, respecting the sense of the universal Church, on any and every of the Catholic verities. As to all other verities, and as to the interpretation of particular texts of Scripture, they are left at large, provided always that no Catholic truth be impugned, and that the analogy of the Faith be maintained inviolable.-Life, vol. ii. pp. 249–252.

VAN MILDERT, BISHOP.-Bampton Lectures.

Much discussion has from time to time arisen respecting the deference due to the writings of the Primitive Fathers of the Church, and the use and value of ecclesiastical antiquity; points of considerable moment, and deserving of attentive examination.

It seems to be indisputable, that the Primitive Fathers are not to be regarded as Divinely inspired, since otherwise their writings would necessarily have formed a part of the Sacred Canon. The question, therefore, is, whether, admitting them to have no more than human authority, they have any special claim to our reverential regard, which places them on higher ground than that of their ecclesiastical successors. And this question is to be determined by a fair consideration of any peculiar advantages they might possess, and of their ability and disposition to turn them to good account.

Against any such deference being had to these our spiritual forefathers, it has been sometimes contended, that their writings now extant are few in number; that several of them, if not spurious, are adulterated, through the pious frauds, the sinister designs, or the ignorance of after ages; that their style and reasoning are

12

obscure; that in their zeal to defeat opponents, they occasionally suppress or disguise the truth; that they are on certain points inconsistent with each other, and with themselves; and that it is often difficult to ascertain whether the opinions they advance are meant to be declaratory of the judgment of the Church, or delivered only as their own private interpretations. For these and similar reasons it has been alleged, that their testimony, as genuine witnesses of the Faith, may deservedly be impeached; and that neither Protestants nor Papists have hesitated occasionally to depart from their authority.

But of these charges it has repeatedly been shown, that many are greatly exaggerated; some wholly unfounded; while others affect not their writings, more than the writings of almost all controversial authors of ancient date, adverting (as they must necessarily do) to times and persons, and local circumstances, now but imperfectly known, and which cast a shade of obscurity over some of their narratives and their reasonings. These afford no good argument for laying their productions under a general interdict. Against an implicit submission to their authority, they are, doubtless, important considerations: but against the use and application of them as documents of more than ordinary value, they merit but little attention.

In answer, therefore, to such objections, it may suffice to observe, that supposing the Primitive Fathers to have been men of only common discernment and integrity, their testimony respecting the doctrines then actually received by the Church, and maintained against the heresies then prevailing, must have peculiar weight. Those among them who had been personally conversant with the Apostles, and who derived their knowledge of the Christian Faith from what they continually heard of their preaching and discourse, as well as from their writings, seem to have claim to a regard only short of that which was due to their inspired preceptors. To place such men as Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, no higher in the scale of authority, with respect to the value of their testimony on these points, than Bishops and Pastors in later times, betrays an error of judgment which on any other subject of investigation analogous to this, would be

deemed preposterous. On the part of their immediate successors, somewhat of the same extraordinary claim to acceptance still presents itself, though with a certain diminution of its force. Descending still lower in the scale of history, this authority rapidly diminishes, and our judgment in their favour will be chiefly, if not solely, influenced by the internal evidence their writings afford of some superior qualifications in the authors themselves. Yet, until the great schism between the Eastern and Western Churches, and the full establishment of the Papal usurpation, the Fathers of the Church appear to have been deeply sensible of the obligation laid upon them to "contend for the Faith once delivered to the saints," and to guard the sacred deposit committed to their charge, against every vain imagination which the Heretic or Schismatic might labour to introduce.

Disclaiming, therefore, any superstitious reverence towards these venerable men, it may reasonably be urged, that their peculiarly advantageous circumstances demand especial consideration; and that unless their characters, both moral and intellectual, could be so successfully impeached as to prove them wholly unworthy of credit, their testimony is of the very first importance in ascertaining the Primitive Faith. In matters requisite to the formation of the Church; in framing Confessions of Faith, more or less explicit according to the errors it was necessary to discountenance; and in adopting means for the perpetuation of these benefits to the latest ages; they appear as having been at first deputed by the Apostles for purposes the most important, and as acting under impressions of a most awful responsibility. To them were also confided those Sacred Oracles on which our faith now most essentially depends. Through their ministry we have received these invaluable treasures; to their zeal and fidelity, under Providence, we owe the transmission of the pure word of God to these present times: and the charge thus consigned to our care, we are bound to deliver unimpaired to succeeding generations.

If, in addition to these special grounds of confidence in the early Fathers, we admit what has been contended for by learned and judicious Divines, that the extraordinary gifts of the SPIRIT,