THE

CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER.

FEBRUARY, 1840.

REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS.

ART. I.-The Constitution of the Visible Church of Christ considered, under the Heads of Authority and Inspiration of Scripture; Creeds (Tradition); Articles of Religion; Heresy and Schism; StateAlliance, Preaching, and National Education; in Eight Discourses, preached before the University of Cambridge, in the year 1838, at the Lecture founded by the Rev. JOHN HULSE. By the Rev. RICHARD PARKINSON, B.D. of St. John's College, Cambridge, and Fellow of Christ's College, in Manchester. London: Parker. Cambridge: Deighton. Oxford: Parker. Manchester: Bancks & Co.

8vo. Pp. xxxvi. 260.

(Continued from Vol. XXI. page 646.)

1839.

In our former notices of these Lectures, we have established the plenary sufficiency of Scripture as an authoritative and inspired rule of faith, and are therefore fully prepared to give our assent to the Sixth Article of our Church. But no sooner have we done this, than it at once occurs to us that there are some symbols of faith or creeds of which we have as yet made no mention; for our Church does not content herself with asserting the fact, that holy Scripture contains all that it is necessary for man to know and practise; but she speaks of some particular faith, of which no opinions may form part unless they have the sanction of inspiration. Now, in this article on the Sufficiency of holy Scripture, we find an explicit authority for our assertion, that the Church of England defers to catholic consent. Had she taken no holier and more reverential view of the word of life than those modern opinionists, who treat a revelation of God as if it were a mere fund of speculation, a collection of amusing bubbles, whose beauty is derived from the varying brilliancy of the sun of their own imagination,-had our Church treated Scripture as do the sectaries, then we should have had no allusion to articles of THE faith. But since she has alluded to some collection of truths,

VOL. XXII. NO. II.

as

"the faith," it is the clear duty of her sons to seek out her meaning in this matter, in order that their opinions may be founded on the same model as the decisions of their holy mother. If, then, we go to the Eighth of our Thirty-nine Articles, we shall find that we are called upon to accept the three creeds, the Apostles', the Nicene, and that commonly known as that of St. Athanasius, as compendiums to be thoroughly believed. And the reason of our receiving them is alleged to be, that they can be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture. Here, then, we have at once a clue to the faith alluded to in the Sixth Article. It is clear that our Church considers catholic truth to be embodied, in all essential particulars, in these three creeds, which have the sanction of universal Christendom. We are hence led, as it were, to inquire wherefore creeds should have such paramount authority in determining the sense of Scripture, and whence they arose.

66

Here let us consider the early history of Christianity. In its beginning, its heralds had to set forth on a journey of opposition, of uncompromising opposition to all existing modes of religion. The difference between the teachers of Christianity and the professors of all the systems already in vogue, was one entirely fundamental. The principles on which each proceeded were essentially different: they had no point of contact, if we may so speak; but, at their very starting-place, diverged as to the paths by which they sought to engage the attention of mankind. Belief in the Godhead and infallibility, the exclusive divinity, moreover, of the Founder of Christianity, was the point for which its early teachers stipulated. Consequently, the one word that embodied all their message was, BELIEVE ;" and it was, therefore, to a faith that they were converted-into a belief that they were baptized. A faith of what description ?---a belief in whom? A faith in a supreme Leader, a belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. But then, a belief in him of a peculiar kind,—a belief in him as the Son of God, as the Son, moreover, coequal with the Father, and a third Person; the three in office, being but ONE in Godhead. And all this was embodied in the form of baptism, the words used to signify the initiation of the new convert into the privileges of the religious system he had embraced; for the convert was baptized into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost; into the name, acknowledging by such fact the separate divinity of each of the persons enumerated; still into the name, not names, showing that the three were but one. In the earliest age of Christianity, this one and simple form was creed enough; but by degrees deceivers crept in. Not only was this simple creed insufficient to fence from rude assault the sacred doctrine of the Trinity, but what had hitherto been admitted as a necessary fact in the history of the religion, came to be regarded as false, or at best problematically true.

As long as the first apostles sojourned upon earth, their exclusive authority to disciple christians would be unquestioned; but when they were gathered to their rest, the presumption of man was impatient of the restraint supposed to be involved in the notion that their ministerial powers were to be preserved for ever by an uninterrupted succession of faithful and duly commissioned men; and thus, to prevent cavil, and provide for the converts possessing a clear understanding of the faith into which they were to be baptized, it became necessary that the manner, no less than the matter of their belief should be inquired into; not only that they should give their consent to certain facts, but that they should believe those revealed facts in a particular way. Hence the necessity of creeds-hence the necessity for those creeds assuming in each successive promulgation greater fulness and increased clearness of expression. That creeds merely declare facts, and are not judicial decrees, should be constantly borne in mind; for if this were done, we should not have our understandings so often insulted with the insane trash of creeds being uncharitable, and the like. People who talk after this fashion, seem altogether to forget that it belongs not to man to judge; that it is his province merely to act on what God reveals, and

not to

"Snatch from His hand the balance and the rod,
Rejudge His justice, be the god of God."

For instance, nothing used to be more hacknied and common-place than the objections, which were wont to be made with such flippancy, against the Athanasian Creed as uncharitable. If the persons who prefer this complaint could and would think, they would see, that though man were to assert the damnation of thousands with the unblushing effrontery of Rome, such assertion could not constitute the rule of punishment. All that is contained in the Creed is simple declaration of fact. A fact may be true or false; but, whichever it be, its declaration cannot be uncharitable: for, if the fact be untrue, even then its declaration is merely an error in judgment, not a want of charity; while if it be true, and true it must be conceded to be, since it is a mere echo of Scripture, then surely the charity, which declares it, is just that charity, which provides for an escape from ruin.

But to return to our immediate purpose, the notice of Mr. Parkinson's invaluable lecture on Creeds. We had intended to consider, at the same time, the lecture on Articles of Religion; but there is so much worthy of transferring to our pages in that on Creeds, that we must not hope to compress a notice of unquestionably the two ablest of the set into one number. We shall add little more of our own now, as we have under review a pamphlet, purporting to be an essay by a Dr. Byrth, on the worthlessness of the fathers, as authority in

determining matters of faith, which will necessarily involve much of the same argument as we should pursue here. We shall, however, quote largely, for which we hope we shall be forgiven by Mr. Parkinson, as we are sure we shall by such of our readers as are not in possession of the work. The Appendix, which we transfer entire, is well worthy most serious attention, and would alone earn for the Hulsean lecturer the deserved tribute of respect paid to him by Dr. Hook, in his recently published sermon on The Novelties of Romanism; or, Popery refuted by Tradition."

The following passage on tradition is very able, and the note excellent:

"There is an ambiguity in the use of the term Tradition, which may of itself have led to some of those confused and often extravagant notions which are sometimes entertained with regard to its office. Tradition, then, merely signifies a mode of evidence; and therefore, of itself, can be no rule or law whatever. It is a term used to express the manner by which we become certified of particular truths. Tradition, in this sense of the word, is perhaps the most general of all the channels through which knowledge is conveyed to us. Many things we learn through the senses-many by reason and reflection-but most (and indeed every thing not contemporaneous with ourselves) by tradition. In this sense, the Scriptures themselves are a tradition, and it is only on the unbroken and universal testimony of this tradition to their inspiration and authority, that we yield to them that obedience and respect which all investigation proves that they have a right to claim; and could the same weight of evidence be produced for other facts and doctrines not contained in Scripture, we should readily accord to them the same implicit credit. It is not simply as being contained in certain books that we accept them, but because the books themselves are shewn to be inspired and authentic by a strength of testimony which is sought for, in other cases, in vain.+ TRADITION ITSELF IS THE VERY EVIDENCE ON WHICH WE CONVICT WHAT ARE CALLED TRADITIONS OF DEFECTIVE AUTHORITY. When we find the early fathers themselves pointing out these books, and these alone, as being the word of God-when we find them enforcing no doctrines or duties except what are contained in, or may be fairly deduced from these

*"I grant, at the first preaching and publishing of the Gospel, certain barbarous nations that received the faith of Christ had neither books nor letters; yet were they not therefore ignorant, or left at large to believe they knew not what. They had then certain officers in the Church, which were called Catechista, whose duty was, continually and at all times, to teach the principles of the faith, not by book, but by mouth. Of these mention is made in the Acts of the Apostles, in the Council of Nice, and elsewhere. This office bare Origen, that ancient learned Father. This doctrine Dionysius calleth, 'Oracles, or instructions given from GOD;' and saith, they passed from one to another, not by writing but by mouth, from mind to mind." Neither did these traditions contain any secret or privy instructions, or inventions of men, as it is imagined by some, but the very self-same doctrine that was contained written in the Scriptures of God. And, in this sort, the Gospel itself and the whole religion of Christ was called a tradition. So Tertullian (De præs. adv. Hæret.) calleth the articles of the faith, an old tradition.' So the faith of the Holy Trinity in the Council of Constantinople (Concil. Const. 6) is called 'a tradition." "JEWEL, Reply to Harding's "Answer to the Defence." Art. XV.

After this was written, I was struck with the following confirmatory passage in Hooker: "We do not reject them (Traditions) only because they are not in Scripture, but because they are neither in Scripture, nor can otherwise sufficiently by any reason be proved to be of God. That which is of God, and may evidently be proved to be so, we deny not that it hath, in his kind, although unwritten, yet the self-same force and authority with the written laws of God."—Hooker, B. 1, 14.

books,-why should we ascribe to these writers an authority which they disclaim, and reject that their evidence against themselves which we accept, and on which alone we rest, in favour of Scripture?"-Pp. 82–84.

The fact dwelt upon in the following passage is important:

"The Scriptures were not the instruments by which the gospel was at first disseminated. They are rather an account of the way in which those instruments operated. They were not originally written for the purpose of making converts to the truth, but to confirm or correct those who had been converted already. They are an inspired comment upon a previously-delivered rule;that rule is now lost, and we are driven to collect it from the infallible comment that remains."-P. 87.

The following statement of the necessary contents of a creed is admirable :

It should contain just so many and no more points of doctrine than are

To this sufficiency of Scripture, as a rule of faith, all the Fathers, without a single exception, bear witness. It would be the extremity of folly, therefore, to set the evidence of the Fathers against the Scriptures, because it is on their evidence that we acknowledge the sufficiency of Scripture, and are enabled to distinguish the authentic from the spurious. It would waste the reader's time to quote their testimony seriatim. He may consult Tertullian, or Bishop Kaye's admirable abstract of his works; Origen, in Jerem. Hom. i. 7; St. Cyprian, Testimonia, passim; St. Optatus; Cyril of Jerusalem; who all concur in the language of Athanasius: "What inconceivable abandonment of mind is this, which leads you to speak what is not in Scripture, and to entertain thoughts foreign to godliness!" But though we thus deny that any traditions are of tantamount authority with Scripture, yet, using the term in that its legitimate sense which we have before ascribed to it, as a mode of evidence, some of the most important doctrines of Christianity are traditional. What is the testimony for Episcopacy but tradition? What for Infant Baptism but tradition? What is our evidence as to which books are, and which are not, canonical Scripture, but tradition? All these essential questions depend, for their irrefragable evidence, on the transmissive testimony regarding them, which one generation has handed down to another, from the days of the Apostles to our own times. It is evidence stronger, if it be possible, than a distinct command of scripture; "circumstances," like these, "cannot lie." "It is said," says Jeremy Taylor, "that the Scripture itself is wholly derived to us by tradition, and therefore, besides Scripture, tradition is necessary to the Church. And, indeed, no man who understands this question denies it. This tradition, that these books were written by the Apostles, and were delivered by the Apostles to the Churches as the Word of God, relies principally upon tradition universal, that is, it was witnessed to be true by all the Christian world at their first being so consigned. Now, then, this is no part of the word of God, but the notification, or manner of conveying the word of God-the instrument of its delivery. So that the tradition concerning the Scriptures, being extrinsical to Scripture, is also extrinsical to the question. This tradition cannot be an objection against the sufficiency of Scripture to salvation, but must go before the question; for no man inquires whether the Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation?' unless he believe that there are Scriptures; that these are they, and that they are the word of God. All this comes to us by tradition, that is, by universal, undeniable testimony. After the Scriptures are thus received, there has risen another question, viz. 'whether or no these Scriptures, so delivered to us, do contain all the word of God?" or, whether or no, besides the tradition which goes before Scripture, (which is an instrumental tradition only of Scripture,) there be not also something else that is necessary to salvation consigned by Tradition as well as the Scripture; and of things as necessary or useful as what is contained in Scripture, and that is equally the word of God as Scripture is? The tradition of Scripture we receive, but of nothing else but what is in Scripture. And if it be asked, why we receive one, and not the rest? we answer, because we have but one tradition of things necessary; that is, there is a universal tradition of Scripture, and what concerns it, but none of other things which are not in Scripture. And there is no necessity we should have any, all things necessary and profitable to the salvation of all men being plainly contained in the Scriptures."-Dissuasive from Popery.