tained from them. But if anything shall remain which the Divine Scripture does not determine, no other third scripture must be taken as an authority for our information, because this is called the third day, but we must put into the fire what remains, that is, we must leave it with God. For God does not intend that in the present life we should know all things. . . . . Lest, therefore, our sacrifice should not be accepted, and this very thing, namely, that we desire to inform ourselves from the divine Scriptures, become to us a cause of sin, let us keep ourselves within those limits which the spiritual law announces to us by the legislator."1 Absurdly fanciful as this interpretation is, it shows most forcibly Origen's views upon the point now in question.

Again;-"Therefore in proof of all the words we utter when teaching, we ought to produce the doctrine of Scripture as confirming the doctrine we utter. For as all the gold that is without the temple is not sanctified, so every doctrine that is not in the divine Scripture, although it may seem admirable to some, is not sacred, because it is not contained by the doctrine of Scripture, which sanctifies that doctrine alone which it contains within itself as the temple [renders sacred] the gold that is in it. We ought not, therefore, for the confirmation of our instructions, to swear by and take as evidence our own notions, which we individually hold, and think to be agreeable to truth, unless we are able to show that they are sacred, as being contained in the divine Scriptures as in some temples of God." 2

In hoc biduo puto duo Testamenta posse intelligi in quibus liceat omne verbum quod ad Deum pertinet, (hoc enim est sacrificium,) requiri et discuti atque ex ipsis omnem rerum scientiam capi. Si quid autem superfuerit, quod non divina Scriptura decernat, nullam aliam tertiam scripturam debere ad auctoritatem scientiæ suscipi, quia hæc dies tertia nominatur, sed igni tradamus quod superest, id est Deo reservemus. Neque enim in præsenti vita Deus scire nos omnia voluit. . . Ne forte ergo non fiat acceptum sacrificium nostrum, et hoc ipsum, quod ex divinis scripturis cupimus scientiam capere, vertatur nobis in peccatum, servemus eas mensuras quas nobis per legislatorem lex spiritalis enunciat. In Levit. hom. v. § 9. Tom. ii. p. 212.

2 Debemus ergo ad testimonium omnium verborum quæ proferimus in doc

And hence, when discussing the question concerning the guardian angels of children, when they were appointed to them, at their birth or baptism, he says, (if the antient Latin version may be trusted,)-" You see that he who would discuss both of them with caution, it is his duty to show which of them is true, and to adduce in proof Scripture-testimony agreeing with one of the two." 1

To the strong testimony given in favour of our position in the above passages, I know of no drawback except what may be supposed to arise from his language when delivering the creed of the Church already quoted from him in a previous page. Of this creed he speaks as having been delivered by the Apostles, and "remaining up to that time in the Churches;" and says that "that alone was to be held as the truth which in no respect disagreed with the ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition." And elsewhere, arguing against the heresies of Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, and others, he says,"But we ought not to believe them, nor to depart from the original and ecclesiastical tradition, nor to believe otherwise than according to what the Churches of God have by succession delivered to us." 4

3

trina proferre sensum scripturæ quasi confirmantem quem exponimus sensum. Sicut enim omne aurum quod fuerit extra templum non est sanctificatum, sic omnis sensus qui fuerit extra divinam scripturam, quamvis admirabilis videatur quibusdam, non est sanctus, quia non continetur a sensu scripturæ, quæ solet eum solum sensum sanctificare quem habet in se sicut templum proprium aurum. Non ergo debemus ad confirmandam doctrinam nostram nostros proprios intellectus jurare et quasi testimonia assumere, quos unusquisque nostrum intelligit, et secundum veritatem existimat esse, ni ostenderit eos sanctos esse, ex eo quod in scripturis continentur divinis quasi in templis quibusdam Dei. In Matt. Comment. Series, § 18. (al. Tract. 23.) Tom. iii. p. 842.

I Vides quoniam qui caute utrumque discusserit, illius cst affirmare utrum eorum sit verum, et ad testimonium proferre Scripturam uni ex duobus consentientem. In Matth. Tom. xiii. § 27. sec. vet. interpret. Tom. iii. p. 607. 2 See vol. i. pp. 226-30.

3 Cum multi sint qui se putant sentire quæ Christi sunt et nonnulli eorum diversa a prioribus sentiant, servetur vero ecclesiastica prædicatio per succes. sionis ordinem ab Apostolis tradita, et usque ad præsens in ecclesiis perma: illa sola credenda est veritas, quæ in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione. De princip. lib. i. Præf. § 2. Tom. i. p. 47.

nens:

Sed nos illis credere non debemus, nec exire a prima et ecclesiastica tra

Now from these words it no doubt follows, that for the truth of the doctrines contained in that creed he considered that there was proof, independent of Scripture, in the consentient teaching of the Apostolical Churches.

But first let us consider, to what points this creed, for which the consent of the Apostolical Churches is challenged by Origen, extends. Hardly to one of the points in controversy in the present day. How, then, can the authority of Origen be now pleaded for a reference to "tradition" in proof of points for which he does not challenge the evidence of tradition in his own day? He professes to give in this creed the whole of that for which the consent of the Apostolical Churches could be claimed. We cannot, then, quote him as sanctioning an appeal to "tradition" on other points.

Moreover, he gives no intimation that these points are not all fully and clearly delivered in Scripture, but, on the contrary, his language in other places shows that he was altogether opposed to any such notion.

Further; his appeal is of a totally different nature to any that can be made now. His comparative proximity to the times of the Apostles, made his reference to the testimony then borne by the Apostolical Churches altogether different to a reference in the present day to the witness of the works accidentally remaining to us of a few antient authors. His statements, therefore, fall far short of affording any countenance to the theory of the Romanists or the Tractators. On the contrary, when taken as a whole, and viewed with reference to the present day, they will, I think, be considered by an impartial reader clearly to support the opposite view.

I cannot help adding, also, that whatever might be thought of such passages, an appeal to Origen in support of the views which we are here opposing, seems to me altogether a mistake. For, as we have already seen, he

ditione, nec aliter credere, nisi quemadmodum per successionem ecclesiæ Dei tradiderunt nobis. In Matth. Comment. Series, § 46. (al. Tract. 29.) Tom. iii. p. 864,

makes this "tradition" to which he refers responsible for some of his own errors.1 He is a clear instance, then, how easy it is for men to make great mistakes, and embrace serious errors, and at the same time claim " Churchtradition" in their favour.

DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA. (fl. a. 247.)

There is also a remarkable testimony to Scripture as the Rule of faith, in an extract given us by Eusebius, from the writings of Dionysius of Alexandria. Dionysius there gives us an account of his going into the province of the Arsinoita, and convening a meeting of the presbyters and others of those parts, to discuss the doctrines of the millenarians, to which many in those parts were attached. What, then, was the rule of judgment to this meeting? At that early period one might not have been surprised if some reference had been made to tradition. But we find nothing of the kind. On the contrary, we are told by Dionysius, in praise of the spirit and mode of proceeding of the assembly, that while they attempted to maintain, as far as they could, their own notions, they were not ashamed, when the argument went against them, to confess their error; "but, on the contrary, acting most conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open to God's view, fully received those things that were established by proofs and testimonies of the Holy Scriptures." 2

CYPRIAN. (fl. a. 248.)

I proceed to the venerable Cyprian, whose testimony is beyond exception in our favour, and remarkably strong. In the celebrated contest between him and Stephen, bishop of Rome, respecting the rebaptization of those

1 See vol. i. pp. 228, note, and 232. Also Hieron. Ep. ad Avit. ep. 124. ed. Vallars. Venet.

* Αλλ' ευσυνειδητως και ανυποκρίτως και ταις καρδίαις προς τον Θεον ἁπλωμεναις, τα ταις αποδείξεσι και διδασκαλίαις των ἁγιων γραφων συνιστανόμενα κατα SexoμEVOL. DIONYS. ALEX. in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. vii. c. 24,

baptized by heretics, it was pleaded by Stephen that "tradition" was against it. To this Cyprian replies, "Let nothing new be introduced,' says Stephen, but what is delivered [tradited] to us.' Whence is that tradition? Does it descend from Dominical and Evangelical testimony, or does it come from the commands and epistles of the Apostles? For God declares that those things are to be done that are written . . . . If, therefore, it is either commanded in the Gospel, or contained in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any heresy should not be baptized, but only hands be placed upon them for repentance, let that divine and holy tradition be observed . . . . . But if there is but one baptism, which is among us, and is internal, and of the divine favour has been granted to the Church alone, what obstinacy and presumption is it to prefer a human tradition to the divine appointment, and not to perceive that God is indignant and angry as often as human tradition annuls and neglects the divine precepts . . . . Custom without truth is merely old error; wherefore, leaving the error, let us follow truth . . . . But it is reckoned a gain by pious and simple minds both to lay aside the error, and to find and search out the truth. For if we return to the head and original of the divine tradition, human error ceases. . . . If an aqueduct, which before flowed largely and in abundance, suddenly fails, do we not go to the fountain, that the reason of the failure may there be ascertained, whether the water is dried up through the exhaustion of the supply at the fountainhead, or whether flowing thence freely and fully it has failed in the middle of its course; that if it has been caused through the pipe being broken or porous, so that the water could not flow on in a continuous stream, the pipe may be repaired and made good, and the water collected may be supplied for the use and drink of the city, with the same fulness and perfection with which it rises from the fountain-head? And this it now becomes the priests of God to do, observing the divine precepts, so that