such an Appeal, on the peculiarly modest score: that The most ancient of the ecclesiastical writers were ignorant and illinformed men; being in the faculty of extracting doctrines from the Bible by the instrumentality of acute criticism, far inferior to many Divines of this present age.

(1.) Now, whatever may have been the critical or scientific attainments of the primitive writers, the present question is one, not of CRITICAL SKILL, but simply of HONEST TESTIMONY : for the ancients are appealed to, not as CRITICAL EXPOSITORS of Scripture, but simply as FAITHFUL WITNESSES in regard to what doctrines the early Church, under the teaching of the Apostles had learned to deduce from Scripture.

Here those individuals are obviously placed in a situation, which even the profoundest critical Divine of our lauded nineteenth century is physically precluded from occupying. Such a Divine may, as long as he pleases, draw upon the resources of his own insulated private judgment for the purpose of ingeniously speculating upon the true sense of the Bible: but, let his acumen be what it may, he can never, in the very nature of things, be a WITNESS, capable of attesting, from his own personal knowledge, the actual interpretation of Doctrinal Scripture, unanimously received by that Church, which, either immediately, or through the intervention of a single link, had conversed with the apostles themselves.

In order to the bearing of such TESTIMONY to a NAKED FACT, nothing more, I submit, is wanted, than Plain Common Sense associated with Thorough Honesty.

(2.) For the exemplification of this matter, let us take, for instance, the first of the Fathers, Clement of Rome: who died about the year 100; and who, consequently survived the composition of all the Canonical Books of the New Testament.

This holy man was the friend and associate of St. Paul: and he is honourably described by the Apostle himself, as his fellowlabourer in the Gospel. Now, very possibly (though, in truth we know nothing about the matter), Clement might not have been so profound a critic or so accomplished a general scholar as some theological luminary of the present day. But what then? Can we suppose either that he himself could have been ignorant of the true sense of that Gospel in which he laboured

conjointly with St. Paul, or that he could not have assuredly known how the Canonical Books were understood and expounded in the Catholic Church? The supposition is too preposterous to be admitted for a moment. And, indeed, if we admit it, we directly cast a slur upon the inspiration of St. Paul himself: for, if Clement, by reason of his inferiority to modern luminaries, were ignorant of the real sense of the Gospel and disqualified to decide what were and what were not its genuine doctrines; the Apostle must have grievously erred in recording him as a faithful and efficient fellow-labourer in the predication of that identical Gospel.

(3.) Exactly the same remark applies to the two other Apostolical Fathers, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. These were alike disciples of St. John: and they alike survived the composition of the entire New Testament. Under such circumstances, let their critical acumen and literary advantages have been what they may, it is morally impossible, as honest men of plain common sense, for them to have been ignorant of the several bare FACTS: that The Apostles taught so and so; that The Canonical Books of the New Testament ought, in matters of doctrine, to be understood thus and thus ; and that accordingly, Both they themselves ministerially inculcated, and the Catholic Church universally received, the Scheme of Doctrine, thus delivered by the Apostles, and thus committed to the safeguard of imperishable writing. To ATTEST these FACTS, nothing was wanted, save in the capacity of faithful EYE-WITNESSES and EAR-WITNESSES, their full knowledge of the FACTS THEMSELVES: and, to scoff at the asserted illiterateness, or incompetence of men circumstanced as Ignatius and Polycarp were circumstanced, is, practically, neither more nor less, than to charge the inspired Apostles, with having committed, to a couple of men deplorably ignorant of the doctrines of the Gospel, the episcopal superintendance and government of the two great Churches of Antioch and Smyrna. Ingenious criticism and literary illumination are here quite beside the mark. Hence the very unskilful person, who would undervalue these early Fathers, on the alleged ground (I write, as one who has actually seen the portent with his own bodily eyes), that modern Private-Judgment Divines are better critics, and,

under that aspect, are better qualified to determine the true import of Doctrinal Scripture: hence, I say, this person can only excuse his fatuity by a decent confession of his complete ignorance as to the real points and bearings of the question.

(4.) In truth, when we resort to the record of History for the purpose of evidentially ascertaining what doctrines the Primitive Church Catholic universally received from the beginning, as preached by the Apostles, and as through them or under them finally committed to the Written Word: what we want, are, not the VERBAL CRITICISM of Insulated Private Judgment, in the nineteenth century, but COMPETENT WITNESSES to bare facts in the first and thence onward to the second and succeeding centuries; such WITNESSES, from the very beginning, being always unanimous in their testimony; and later writers, when they contradict earlier writers, being rejected as not affording admissable evidence.

Nothing, therefore is more stangely childish, than to value the mere insulated and totally unevidential SPECULATION of any modern, respecting the sense of Doctrinal Scripture, more highly than the direct ATTESTATION of men placed in the situation of Clement and Ignatius and Polycarp, and, I will add, the concurrent and corroborative ATTESTATION of Justin and Athenagoras and Irenèus in the immediately following ecclesiastical succession. No man, in the present day, can be circumstanced as the Apostolical Fathers and their next successors were circumstanced: because no man, in the present day, however great, whether in reality or in imagination, may be his critical or scientific attainments, can be an EYE-WITNESS or an EAR-WITNESS to the FACTS; that The Apostles thus and thus taught, and that The Primitive Church, under their guidance thus and thus interpreted the doctrinal parts of Scripture. The whole principle of the Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, rests upon the basis of AN UNVARIED TESTIMONY FROM THE VERY BEGINNING: whereas the present egregious blunder, palpably as the very groundwork of its objection, strangely places the Old Apostolic Fathers and some reputedly clever Modern Divines in the same condition of painful COMMENTATORS, labouring alike, by dint of study and of criticism, to elicit the true import of the Sacred Volume; and then,

just as if SOLITARY COMMENT were the matter in hand, gravely determines, that the Modern Divine is likely to prove the better COMMENTATOR of the two.

Most excellent, and most apposite to the present point is the remark of the learned Dodwell: that, as interpreters, not as rivals or adversaries, of the Apostles, the early Fathers, who stood chronologically so close to the Apostles, are much preferable to a whole host of Daillés and Salmases and Blondels and any other moderns, however respectable such moderns may be in regard to literature.

Patres hic obtendimus, Apostolorum non adversarios, sed duntaxat interpretes. Proinde dicimus, interpretes Apostolorum magis idoneos habendos, esse proximæ ab Apostolis memoriæ Patres, quam Dallæos, quam Salmasios, quam Blondellos, quam alios quoscunque hodiernorum sæculorum etiam literatissimos. Dodwell. Diss. in Iren. Præf. § III.

The reason is obvious. An unsupported modern can never, in the way of doctrine, propound more, than his own mere private insulated OPINION. He is not, and cannot be, a

WITNESS.

(5.) Under this aspect, the question of my clerical friends, as mentioned in my Preface, was not a little important. For, if, without any variation and from the very beginning, the doctrine of Justification, as maintained by Mr. Knox, had, always and everywhere, been taught as the true sense of Scripture: I certainly perceive not, how, upon any intelligible grounds of evidence, it could be rejected, in favour of what, according to such a supposition, would plainly be a mere modern unauthorised SPECULATION of some individual's insulated private judgment.

Hence, Mr. Knox shewed his wisdom and exhibited his perfectly clear understanding of the genuine principle of scriptural interpretation, when, in favour of the Doctrinal Scheme which he patronised, he claimed, from the very beginning (for he would fain make even the Roman Clement his own) down to the age of the Reformation, the unanimous suffrage of the Catholic Church. Touching the doctrine of Justification, he has boldly vindicated to himself the Quod semper; quod ubique, quod ab omnibus. Thus he has, at once, brought the question

to a tangible point: and thus, whatever fadditional discussion may, in the present Work, have been conveniently introduced; our only real task has been to enquire, Whether his claim can be substantiated by HISTORICAL TESTIMONY.

(6.) It may be useful to subjoin the recorded qualifications of the three most ignorantly vilipended individuals, Clement and Polycarp and Ignatius, as COMPETENT WITNESSES to the apostolically received sense of Doctrinal Scripture.

Post Anacletum, tertio loco ab Apostolis (scil. Paulo et Petro, Romanæ Ecclesiæ fundatoribus), episcopatum sortitur Clemens qui et vidit ipsos Apostolos et contulit cum eis, cum adhuc insonantem prædicationem Apostolorum et traditionem ante oculos haberet; non solus, adhuc enim multi supererant tunc, ab Apostolis docti. Iren. adv. har. lib. iii. c. 3. p. 171.

Et Polycarpus autem, non solum ab Apostolis edoctus, et conversatus cum multis ex eis qui Dominum nostrum viderunt, sed etiam, ab Apostolis in Asia, in ea quæ est Smyrnis Ecclesia constitutus Episcopus; quem et nos vidimus in prima nostra ætate, multum enim perseveraverat, et valde senex gloriosissimè et nobilissimè martyrium faciens exivit de hac vita : hic docuit semper, quæ ab Apostolis didicerat, quæ et Ecclesiæ tradidit, et quæ sola sunt vera. Et testimonium his perhibent, quæ sunt in Asia Ecclesiæ omnes, et qui usque adhuc successerunt Polycarpo. Iren. adv. hær. lib. iii. c.3. p. 171.

Διέπρεπε γε μὴν κατὰ τούτους, ἐπὶ τῆς ̓Ασίας, τῶν ἀποστόλων ὁμιλητὴς Πολύκαρπος, τῆς κατὰ Σμύρναν ἐκκλησίας, πρὸς τῶν αὐτοπτῶν καὶ ὑπηρετῶν τοῦ Κυρίου, τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν ἐγκεχειρίσμενος. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. c. 36. p. 85.

Ὅ, τε παρὰ πλείστοις εἰσέτι νῦν διαβόητος Ἰγνάτιος, τῆς κατ ̓ ̓Αντιοχείαν Πέτρου διαδοχῆς, δεύτερος, τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν κεκληρώμενος. - Καὶ δὴ τὴν δι ̓ Ασίας ἀνακομιδὴν μετ' ἐπιμελεστάτης φρουρῶν φυλακής ποιούμενος, τὰς κατὰ πόλιν αἷς ἐπεδήμει παροικίας, ταῖς διὰ λόγων ὁμιλίαις τε καί προτροπαῖς, ἐπιῤῥωννὺς, ἐν πρώτοις μάλιστα προφυλάττεσθαι τὰς αἱρέσεις, ἄρτι τότε πρῶτον ἀναφυείσας καὶ ἐπιπολαζούσας, παρήνει. Προτρεπε τε ἀπρὶξ ἔχεσθαι τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων παραδόσεως, ἣν, ὑπὲρ ἀσφαλείας, καὶ ἐγγράφως ἤδη μαρτυρόμενος, διατυποῦσθαι αναγκαιον ἡγειτο. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. c. 36. p. 85, 86. 2. Another not uncommon ground of repudiating an appeal