LECT. VI.]

TO DAILLE AND OTHERS.

125 bath which cleanses away the filth of the soul'; that, by which the likeness of him who was first formed after the image of God is restored 2; that by which sin, whether original or actual, is removed; and who describe it in numberless other phrases, which I may produce hereafter when the question of Baptism comes before us, all calculated to enhance the importance of this great mystery? Or how shall those who regard the Eucharist as no more than a commemorative supper, be content to give currency to the opinions of those who speak of it as an ordinance consisting of two parts, an earthly and a heavenly*; as in some sense or other an oblation, perhaps such in the unconsecrated elements, perhaps such in the representation of the Passion, or perhaps such in both; or again, who love to enlarge upon it as the Communion of the Body of the Lord, the Communion of his Blood; as that which having received the Logos of God' imparts it to the soul, and, through it, immortalizes the body, with more to a like effect, which may be examined on a future occasion? How can those whose theology inclines them to depress the virtue of the Sacraments as the appointed means of grace, look with favour upon authors who exalt those Sacraments so emphati cally? Or how, again, can those, who either reject our Book of Common Prayer, or partially assert it, or consent to bracket it, regard with any other feelings than those of distaste primitive writers, who bear witness both to the general style of it, as well as to the early observance of Saints' Days; of Daily Prayers in the Congregation; of Fasts10; of an Offertory"; and much more? How very few of our newspapers, by which our theology is now a good deal regulated, would approve of any part of this evidence; or have any opinion of men who had left such matters on record!

10

I have drawn your attention to this feature in the writings of the early Fathers, in order that you may give them fair play. They are to be read with caution, no doubt; and there are not many books of which you may not say the same with

truth. But do not take for granted, that all who accuse them of ministering to Popery, are set against them for that reason; for they may be set against them for ministering to many other things far better than Popery. And whilst you use all diligence to detect any interpolations, corruptions, or omissions, by which they have been abused, and express natural indignation against the instruments of such frauds, be they who they may, do not conclude simply because Daillé may tell you so, or anybody else, that there is nothing left in them which can be received with confidence; but use your own sense, and be honest enough, and industrious enough, to discriminate.

LECT. VII.] THE FATHERS OBJECTED TO BY DAILLE

127

LECTURE VII.

The Fathers objected to by Daillé on account of their obscurity. Value of incidental evidence. Clear testimony of Justin and of Tertullian on the Arian question, and on the Eucharist. Charge of wilful obscurity. Occasional reserve accounted for. Frank exposition of the Christian Ritual in the Apologies. Reserve of Clemens Alexandrinus. Plan of his writings; and motive of it. Difficulty of Tertullian. Method of studying him recommended. Testimony of the Fathers to principles distasteful to Daillé. Further objection to their style on account of the change which has taken place in the meaning of words. Corresponding changes in things to be tested by comparison with the Primitive Church. Result of that comparison.

IN

N the last three Lectures we have seen Daillé contending against the value of the Fathers on the ground of the corruption of their writings. He now opens another battery against them, and argues, that even supposing you have satisfied yourself as to which of these writings are genuine, a further difficulty awaits you in their obscurity. So obscure are they, from various causes, that it is next to impossible to extract from them any meaning which shall suffice to affect or settle modern controversies.1 And before he proceeds to enumerate the causes of their obscurity, he furnishes us with another instance similar to those I have already produced, of the determined spirit of exaggeration which animates him whilst engaged in this anti-patristic warfare. For fetching a compass he actually sets out with impressing on the minds of his readers the necessity of an accurate knowledge of Greek and Latin in order to understand the Fathers, and gives needlessly, one might think, several examples in the Latin versions of some of those written in the former language, which we possess, both ancient and modern, of the mistakes which have been made from the want of that kind of learning. But this is not all, for he then goes on to enlarge upon the difficulty of mastering those languages. "Who does not know," says he, "what pains it takes to acquire an intimate acquaintance with those two tongues? not only what assiduity, but what powers

¦ Daillé, pp. 120, 121.

of mind are necessary to get possession of them? a tenacious memory, a clear head, unwearied study, ready apprehension, daily and diligent reading, and other qualifications of the same kind, which are but rarely met with ?" And all this to prove the obscurity of the Fathers! As if it did not tell equally against all authors whatever, who have written in Greek or Latin ! But here, as elsewhere, Daillé likes to launch his subject, as he thinks, to advantage; and holds it politic not to proceed to his arguments till he has created a gentle prejudice against the quarter he is about to assail. The real effect, however, of his tactics surely ought to be, to put us on our guard against the man who adopts them, and who discloses at the very outset the animus, not of a truth-seeker, but of a partisan.

2

The first of the causes of this obscurity in the Fathers of which he complains is, that they wrote before the controversies with which we are concerned had any existence, and consequently that they could not have written with any reference to them; nay, that the controversies, in which they were themselves actively engaged, would rather have the effect of leading their minds away from ours. Thus, that all that can be gathered from the Fathers who lived before the Arian question was agitated, on that subject, is incidental, and accordingly beset with darkness—a darkness similar to that which involves their testimony, when applied to the religious disputations of our times. But it is this very circumstance, the incidental nature of their evidence, that gives it the value it possesses. Suppose, for illustration's sake, a boundary cause I was brought into court, and an ancient witness, who knew nothing whatever of the litigation, or the parties to it, deposed to facts within his own knowledge, which were found incidentally to bear on the case, would not such testimony, however incomplete it might be, weigh with the jury infinitely more than the most perfect tale that could be told by any man that was behind the scenes, who was mixed up with the parties and the proceedings, and had taken a side? Daillé's allusion to the Arian question seems unfortunate: for though expressions which might now be considered incautious with respect to the nature of the Son, are certainly to be met with in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, one or two of which he produces from Justin and Tertullian, yet it seems to me impossible for per

LECT. VII.] USE OF THE WRITINGS OF JUSTIN,

129

sons of plain understanding to read these Fathers, and not be satisfied that the whole stream of evidence which they present goes to establish the fact, that they had no doubt about the Godhead of the Son; and that though they might not use the very term ovvaidios, they did believe Him to be co-eternal with the Father; and though they did not use the very term oμoovσios, they did believe Him to be consubstantial with the Father; and that when such incorrect expressions as those I have referred to happen to drop from them, they may be accounted for most satisfactorily, by the inartificial state of theological controversy at that time; the want of those technical terms in which the polemics of later days learned to express themselves, after Councils had tutored them, and successive heresies had rendered the use of an exact nomenclature in dealing with them necessary.

It is inconvenient to enter into many details in proof of this at present, but I state the fixed impression on my own mind; and take which of the Ante-Nicene Fathers you will, the result, I am persuaded, will be what I say. Daillé, for instance, happens to refer to Justin and Tertullian. What if Justin does press the Jew with the argument that "the God who appeared to Moses and the Patriarchs was the Son and not the Father, inasmuch as the Father did not change place, or ascend, or descend." Or, again, that "No one ever saw the Father and ineffable Lord of all things and of Christ himself; but only saw Him, who according to his will is God, his Son and Angel from ministering to his purposes," which are the passages Daillé adduces, and to which I could easily add a few others of the same character. They are the unguarded expressions, I repeat, of a man who wrote before the Arian controversy arose: for, with respect to the co-eternity of the Son, I find Justin speaking of his being "inseparable from God in power," as though the connection was of a kind that was necessary, and must, therefore, have subsisted from everlasting: of his being his only Son idiws,* kupiws, peculiarly, properly : of his being co-existent with Him, and begotten of Him before all creatures; of his being Wisdom, mentioned in the 8th

1 Daillé, p. 134. He refers to Justin Martyr. Dial. § 60. § 127.

2 Justin Martyr, Dial. § 127.

Apolog. I. § 23.

5 II. § 6.

2

6

Πρὸ τῶν ποιημάτων καὶ συνὼν καὶ

3'Axúρioτos dvváμei. —Cohort. § 38. | yevvójevos.—Apolog. II. § 6.

K