been satisfied with what was known of it in the first centuries of the church,) and "had, in their interpretations of it, kept close to apostolic teaching, as witnessed to by a long train of saints and martyrs, and embodied in the creeds and formularies of the ancient church. But this was not done. Pride of intellect, evil passions, and worldly influence and other causes led men to leave the old paths, the good way, and led them to mark out new ones; and so false doctrine, heresy, and schism were brought into the Christian fold. The unity of the church was rent. The one faith gave way to a thousand new systems of man's invention, and all the evils were introduced under which Christendom now groans, as it has for at least nine centuries."

This we regard as a most extraordinary piece of ecclesiastical history. The idea intended to be conveyed by it is, that for centuries Christians were all agreed as to the meaning of the Bible, that the whole surface of Christendom was unbroken by any differences of opinion-undisturbed even by a breath of false doctrine, heresy, or schism; and this too when the very passage, which he quotes from Irenæus to prove it, is taken from an elaborate work written against such evils then existing in the bosom of the church. The quotation from Irenæus does not prove the point for which it is adduced. The unanimity of which he speaks consisted in a belief of those doctrines and forms that had been handed down from the times of the apostles, through the churches founded by them. But this was a mere shell-a bare outline of the more prominent doctrines. Under this there was, and had been, even from the days of the apostles, a difference of opinion. The Epistles of the New Testament show beyond all question that the surface of Christendom was far from being unbroken by differences of opinion in matters of religion. In churches planted by the apostles, and almost contemporary with their establishment, men began to improve upon the simplicity of apostolic teaching-to mould its forms and its doctrines according to the patterns of a human philosophy-to combine with the religion of Jesus the commandments of men. Even from the inspired page we hear the strange sounds of division-of I am of Paul and I of Apollosyes, even of seducing spirits and damnable heresies. Differences, which began in Paul's day, continued, like the streams of the earth, to widen and deepen, and disturb the peace of the church.

Irenæus Adversus Haereses.

In the second century we find these bitter waters increased in volume, and in many instances maddened into greater rapidity. The simple religion of Jesus was more and more corrupted by the infusions of a heathen philosophy, and the peace of the church disturbed by the collision of opposite views of divine truth. It is not true that men were then perfectly agreed in doctrinal views, or in their interpretations of the Bible. And still less true is it, that men "kept close to the teaching of the apostles." There were loud complaints of departures from it. Was there a perfect harmony of feeling and sentiment between the Jewish and Gentile Christians? Were all agreed as to the condition of the soul after death? Was there no difference of faith or tradition in the practice of the Jewish and the Gentile churches? Was there no difference of opinion as to the meaning of the Scriptures, for example, between Irenæus and Tertullian? between the school of allegorizing theologians, and that of the austere and gloomy Montanists? In the second and third centuries were there no divisions-no false doctrine-no schism-in the church? No war between faith and reason-between religion and philosophy? No contests about the nature of Christ? Let any tyro in history answer.

The Rector's explanation is like his fact. We might discard it at once, since what it is adduced to eclaircise never did exist. But we have a word to say in reference to it, which, in justice to truth, ought not to be suppressed here. The unbroken harmony of sentiment in regard to the meaning of the Bible, which existed in those days of "virgin purity," as the Rector is pleased to call the first centuries of the church, was secured, it seems, by confining the minds of men "to points upon which they had been instructed by apostles, or apostolic men, and which had been summed up in the creed they had been taught, and incorporated into the liturgy they had constantly used." Here we have both a creed and a liturgy formed by the apostles, or by apostolical men, i. e., by men instructed by the apostles! But what proof have we of the existence of any such creed? And where is that liturgy? What has become of it? Who has seen it in modern days? Who ever saw it? Is there any allusion to such a thing in the New Testament? The author has drawn largely here upon his imagination. We commend to him the remark of Coleridge, He, who dreams of flying, flies only in his dreams.

Our author comes back from his delightful excursion with an

answer to the question, Who is to guide us in interpreting the Bible? It is to be interpreted by "PRIMITIVE ANTIQUITY!”— by tradition, as witnessed to by a long train of saints, and embodied in the creed, and incorporated into the liturgy formed by the apostles, or by apostolic men! We are not of those who cast aside "the Fathers," or "the long line of witnessing saints," as wholly useless. For a time the primitive church had to be guided by tradition. Until the books of the New Testament were compiled, they had to be directed by what was handed down from one to another. When this was donewhen they once had the words of Christ and his apostles, they had all that they needed to become wise unto salvation-they had what was to settle every question-to determine the reception of tradition. In the mean time, however, serious evils had entered the church through tradition. In passing from mind to mind, and from one generation to another, it had not proved an exception to the "Mobilitate viget, viresque acquirit eundo" of transmitted intelligence. Thus it had converted hints into certainties, possible allusions into facts, and fixed what the laws of interpretation absolutely forbid. Hence, in the second and third centuries, doctrines and practices were introduced which were unknown in the days of the apostles. Many appealed to what they called apostolic tradition in defence of that which was not only contrary to other traditions, but opposed to the writings of the apostles which they had in their hands. Hence we find it laid down by Irenæus and others as a rule, that “ no tradition is to be received as apostolic, unless founded on the Holy Scriptures and conformable to them." Tradition, therefore, was not to be the determiner of Scripture, but Scripture of tradition. Its voice was not to be heard, unless it coincided in its testimony with the New Testament. Every student of history knows the reason. Besides what is contained in this book, we have very little credible information respecting the Christian church in the first, and the succeeding half of the next century; while that which follows this period is often still more objectionable. Hence the Reformers wisely took the position that tradition is not to determine the meaning of the Bible -they had too much good sense, and had seen too much of the consequences of following that ignis fatuus, to do so. They planted themselves on the ground that the Bible is the only rule of faith-the only "principium cognoscendi" in theology. Hence the wonders which they wrought.

Now before we are sent back to April* in this matter by the Rector, and his Romish friends of the Oxford school, let us try the rule here laid down, and see how it will work-or what light we shall get. The rule is, that "Primitive Antiquity" is to determine the meaning of Scripture. We come to this tribunal then with the question which meets us at the very outset, namely, upon what principle are we to interpret the Bible? We call upon the fathers of the Nicene theology for an answer. What do they say? This, that "the language of the Bible has two meanings, one of which is obvious and corresponds. with the direct meaning of the words, the other is recondite, and concealed under the words, like a nut in its shell, and that we are to neglect the former as of little value, and to seek the latter," i. e., to leave the plain import of the Bible, and engage in the work of allegorizing-in putting fiction for fact-the vagaries of a fervid and undisciplined imagination in the place of the plain and eternal verities of the truth as it is in Jesus. In order to illustrate the meaning of this answer, we will give our readers an example or two of their mode of explaining the Bible. Clement, an apostolic father, in his second Epistle to the Corinthians, thus comments on the remark of the apostle in Gal., that there is neither male nor female.' "He calls our anger the male, and our concupiscence the female. When, therefore, a man is subject neither to the one nor the other of these, but having dispelled the mist arising from them, and being full of shame, shall by repentance have united both his soul and spirit in the obedience of reason, then, as Paul says, there is in us neither male nor female." See Abp. Wake's Genuine Epistles of the Apostolic Fathers. Hear Father Barnabas expound the spiritual import of the passage in Gen. 17: 27. "Abraham," he says, " circumcised three hundred and eighteen. men of his house. But what, therefore, was the mystery that was made known to him? Mark first the eighteen, and next the three hundred. For the numeral letters of ten and eight are I. H. And these denote Jesus (being the first and second letters of that name in Greek). And because the cross was that by which we were to find grace, therefore he adds three hundred; the note of which is T (the figure of the cross). Wherefore, by two letters he signified Jesus, and by the third

* In plain language, ere we are made fools of.

Το

his cross."-General Epistle of Barnabas, ch. VIII. 11—13. In such exegesis many of the ancient fathers abound. any one at all acquainted with history, we need not say that this is a fair specimen of the mystical allegorizing method of interpreting the Bible by "Primitive Antiquity."

We go to the fathers of the Nicene council, who lived in the period of the church's "virgin purity," with the question, What saith the Bible on the subject of celibacy? Is the Rector ready for their answer? Is he ready and willing to interpret the Scriptures here in accordance with their decision? Is he prepared to place celibacy above holiness?--to make it the highest preparation for heaven ?—the greatest possible approach in man while on earth to the divine purity, to the incorruptible God? If not, then he is not prepared to act in accordance with his rule. We go to "Primitive Antiquity" to learn what the Bible teaches about the soul after death, and learn from that interpreter that the spirits of only the more eminent saints are happy after they leave the body, and that only the grossest sinners sink to perdition-that all others go to a place, where they are detained till the second coming of Christ, or at least till they are freed from all their impurities. In the second century, in the days even of "the virgin purity of the church," we find this germ of purgatory generally believed. Let any one go to "Primitive Antiquity"—to the days of Justin Martyr, Irenæus, and Tertullian-to the times of Theophilus of Antioch, of Tatian and Origen, and make the views then held about the nature of Christ, the meaning of the Bible, and what will be his creed? The Son is of the same essence with the Father, and inferior to him. Let this same determiner of the meaning of the Bible explain the nature of Christ's death, and what is the result? a faith which is emphatically a "rudis indigestaque moles." We cannot enter the " Parish School of All Saints," and learn from "Primitive Antiquity," as there enthroned, what the Bible means. The idea to us is monstrous. In their opinions of the import of the Scriptures, the Fathers are truly what Milton affirms, "sea-weed, shells, and rubbish," which, for the most part, have long been thrown into the same lumberroom, where, as crudities, we have put our ghosts, witches, and alchemists. We are glad, therefore, to find better teaching in some parts of the Episcopal Church. The language of the gifted Prelate, in the sermon before us, is truly refreshing to us after listening to such popish nonsense about "Primitive Anti