subject, he is endeavouring to point out the unanimous consent of the Fathers for the first twelve centuries in support of a particular doctrine. In his book of ELECTION, he gives up the Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus: and sets up the opinions of the Fathers of the first centuries, against Augustine and many Fathers of subsequent centuries. Christ. Exam. Supplem. A. D. 1837. p. 931.

To discover the inconsistency, here charged upon me, I am altogether unable.

The famous Canon of Vincent, Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, must not, of course, be taken with mathematical strictness: because, probably, there is not a single Catholic doctrine, which by the heretics of one age and place or another, has not been corrupted or impugned; and because, in truth, the very object of the Canon is to enable the conscientious inquirer to distinguish between Orthodoxy and Actually Existing Heresy. Hence I have always supposed Vincent to mean that, When a Doctrine can EVIDENTIALLY be shewn to have been, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, unanimously taught as the mind of Scripture, by the Church Catholic; that doctrine, though individuals, at a SUBSEQUENT period, may pervert it or may innovate upon it or may reject it, cannot but be true.

Unless this be the import of Vincent's Canon, I do not discern either its truth, or its practical utility.

(1.) Now, under this aspect, where is the inconsistency, with which the Editor has charged me ?

I maintain the Anglican Account of JUSTIFICATION; because, through historical testimony, I learn; that, from the very beginning, it was unanimously held in the Catholic Church ; and that (so far, at least, as I know to the contrary) it was first, in the twelfth century, corrupted by the subtilising genius of the unscriptural Schoolmen.

I reject the Calvinistic Account of ELECTION; because, through the same historical testimony, I learn; that, from the very beginning, it was totally unknown, while an entirely different Account of the Doctrine was uniformly given in the Church Catholic; and that, in reality (I speak of a naked FACT), it was first introduced, in the fifth century by the mere private judgment of the single individual Augustine, to the RECORDED

amazement and regret even of those who heartily concurred with him in reprobating the impiety of Pelagianism.

(2.) The matter, then, wherein I am somewhat too rapidly charged with inconsistency, stands thus.

In the obvious and necessary sense of Vincent's Canon, the Anglican Account of JUSTIFICATION possesses the Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus. Therefore, as expressing the true mind of scripture, I accept it.

But, in the same obvious and necessary sense of the Canon, the Calvinistic Account of ELECTION does not possess the Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus. Therefore, as a palpable corruption of and innovation upon the Primitive Doctrine which was preached by the Apostles and which was more specially committed to writing by St. Paul, I reject it.

2. As the Editor advances, his criticism, so far as I can catch his meaning, is built upon that total misapprehension of the question which Logicians denominate Ignoratio Elenchi.

If, says he, any person of common understanding was asked, Who are the persons that first received the Revelation from Heaven would he not answer, The Apostles; and would not their writings be, as a matter of course, considered the FIRST in the series? Yet, when Mr. Faber comes to apply this Canon (The Canon, that is, of Tertullian) to the trial of Doctrines, he considers the earliest uninspired Fathers as the FIRST in the series. We would ask: Had Clement of Rome the first communication from Heaven? Could he say, as Paul: I neither received it of man; neither was I taught it, but by the Revelation of Jesus Christ? Certainly not. He received it from Paul, from man, in the very way in which Paul denies that he received it. By Paul's apostolic inspiration, there was a security that he received it right and communicated it right: as Paul says; Now, we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things which are freely given us of God; which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth. Could Clement say these things of his way of receiving or communicating divine truth? Assuredly not. Why, then should Mr. Faber or any other person assume, that Clement was the first recipient of divine truth from Heaven

(sic!), so that he must be acknowledged to be so in possession of truth, that every thing not found in his writings should be considered extraneous, and every sentiment differing from him must be considered erroneous? He makes these first Fathers to be equal to the Apostles in authority, and superior to them in clearness (sic!): he throughout seems (most judiciously is the word SEEMS employed by the Editor!) to say; that, whilst the Apostles have the word of Revelation, the Fathers have the meaning, the interpretation. Ibid. p. 932.

It really is marvellous, and (I must honestly confess) somewhat trying to my patience, that the Editor should add himself to the wearisome list of those, who either cannot or will not understand that The Early Fathers from the beginning, are adduced, not as INSPIRED MEN themselves (Heaven bless the mark!), but purely as WITNESSES to the sense which the Primitive Church Catholic put upon passages of Holy Scripture, the true import of which, in these latter days, is, as we all know, perpetually litigated.

Now, under such an aspect, when the very meaning of Scripture itself is the point disputed, how, with any logical possibility, can we place this identical Scripture the first in the list of WITNESSES as to how the Primitive Church Catholic understood it? Yet does the Editor censure me, because, with Tertullian (Tertull. de Præscript. adv. hær. §. 5. Oper. p. 101.), I eschew this glaring paralogism.

The earliest uninspired Fathers I deem the first in the long series of WITNESSES to the true interpretation of Scripture.

Whereupon the Editor gravely asks (I marvel how he could keep his countenance): Were not the Apostles the first who received the revelation from Heaven; would not their writings, as a matter of course, be considered the first in the series; had Clement of Rome the first communication from heaven?

I can only answer: Was there ever in this fitful world of ours such a wonderful Ignoratio Elenchi ?

NUMBER III.

IMPORT OF THE TERM MERIT, AS USED BY THE FATHERS.

I have had occasion to notice the term Merit, as used by Augustine. See above, chap. iv. § xvi. 4. It will be useful to subjoin the valuable remarks of Archbishop Usher on this important subject.

For the better understanding of the meaning of the Fathers in this point, we may observe, that Merits, in their writings, do ordinarily signify nothing but Works; and to merit, simply to procure or to attain, without any relation at all to the dignity either of the person or the work as both in the last words of Ambrose is plainly to be seen: and in that passage of Bernard concerning children promoted to the prelacy, that they were more glad they had escaped the rod, than that they had merited (that is, obtained) the preferment.

Verum quidem est, neque id me fugit, usurpari nonnunquam nomen Meriti, ubi nulla est ratio meriti, neque ex congruo, neque de condigno. Andr. Vega Defens. Concil. Trident, de

Justif. lib. viii. c. 8.

Si aliquis vocabulo promerendi usus est, aliter non intellexit, quam consecutionem de facto. Stapleton. Promptuar. Catholic. Fer. v. post Dominic. Passion.

Vocabulum merendi apud veteres ecclesiasticos scriptores fere idem valet quod consequi seu aptum idoneumque fieri ad consequendum. Georg. Cassand. Schol. in Hymn. Eccles. Oper. p. 179.

Omnia, quæ patimur, minora sunt et indigna, quorum pro laboribus tanta rependatur futurorum merces bonorum, quæ revelabitur in nobis, cum ad Dei imaginem reformati gloriam ejus facie ad faciem aspicere meruerimus. Ambros. Epist. xxii.

Lætiores interim quod virgas evaserint, quam quod meruerint principatum. Bernard. Epist. xlii.

And, therefore, as Tacitus writes of Agricola, that by his

virtues he merited (that is to say, incurred) the anger of Caius Cæsar so St. Augustine saith, that he and his fellows for their good doings, at the hands of the Donatists, instead of thanks, merited (that is, incurred) the flames of hatred.

Tis virtutibus iram Caii Cæsaris meritus. Tacit. in vit. Agric. Pro actione gratiarum, flammas meruimus odiorum. August. cont. liter. Patilian. lib. iii. c. 6.

On the other hand the same Father affirmeth, that St. Paul, for his persecutions and blasphemies, merited (that is, found the grace) to be named a vessel of election; having reference to that in 1 Tim. i. 13, Who was before a blasphemer and a persecutor and injurious; but I obtained mercy: where instead of λenny, which the Vulgar Latin translateth misericordiam consecutus sum, St. Cyprian readeth misericordiam merui, I merited mercy.

Pro persecutionibus et blasphemiis, vas electionis meruit nominari. August. de Prædestinat. et Grat.

Whereunto we may add that saying which is found also among the works of St. Augustine, that no sinner should despair of himself; seeing Paul hath merited pardon: and that of Gregory; Paul, when he went about to extinguish the name of our Redeemer upon earth, merited to hear his words from heaven: as also that other strain of his concerning the sin of Adam, which is sung in the Church of Rome at the blessing of the taper; O happy sin that merited (that is, found the favour) to have such and so great a Redeemer.

Ut omnis peccator propterea de se non desperet, quia Paulus meruit, indulgentiam. August. Serm. xlix. de Tempore.

Quid quod Paulus, cum Redemptoris nomen in terra conaretur extinguere, ejus verba de coelo meruit audire? Gregor. Moral. in Job. lib. ix. c. 17.

O felix culpa, quæ talem ac tantum meruit habere Redemptorem !

Howsoever, therefore, the ancient doctors may seem unto those that are not well acquainted with their language to speak of Merits as the Romanists do, yet have they nothing common with them but the bare word: in the thing itself they differ as much from them every way as our Church doth. Usher's Answer to a Jesuit's Challenge. chap. xii. p. 478, 479. Cantab. 1835.