gift SHRussell 6-9-33

PREFACE.

AT various intervals, during the course of some years past, my attention has been turned to that part of the Latin controversy, which respects the evidence afforded by the early ecclesiastical writers.

I. It appeared to me, that, on all the great leading points of divinity, those who conversed with the apostles, and those who lived nearest to the times of the apostles, must best have known the mind of the apostles. Whence it seemed to follow, that, if the Latin church really possessed that immutability of character which is so constantly claimed on her behalf, all those various doctrines and practices, which many persons are wont to deem corruptions of the truth, must have subsisted from the apostolic age itself, and might therefore be clearly discovered in the productions of all the early ecclesiastics.

Such a testimony as this in favour of the Roman system of theology, should it actually exist, would be so powerful, that it is difficult to conceive how it could be reasonably set aside: for, if all the ancient writers, with one voice, up to the very time of the apostles, taught and maintained, as the familiar and acknowledged doctrines and practices of the primitive catholic church, those identical doctrines and practices which

are now taught and maintained by the church of Rome; I see not how we can avoid the inference, that those doctrines and practices rest ultimately upon the inspired authority of the apostles themselves.

II. It is obvious, that, in collecting evidence of this description, we require, as a point indispensably necessary to constitute its validity, both the unbroken continuity of the chain of witnesses, and the strict mutual harmony of the witnesses themselves.

Unless the chain of witnesses extend to the apostolic age, the evidence is incomplete: and, since its whole strength depends upon its completeness, if incomplete, it is altogether worthless.

To discover any peculiar doctrine or practice of the Latin church, in the works (we will say) of a writer of the fourth century, will be of no avail, unless the same doctrine and practice be also recognised, in orderly succession, by a train of yet earlier writers from the very beginning. The attested existence of the doctrine or practice in the fourth century will indeed prove its relative antiquity: but this will not afford to us any satisfactory proof of its apostolic origination. An error, which sprang up at that early period, is not the less an error, because, by lapse of time, it has now become ancient. With a reference to the apostolic age, it is still an innovation: nor does its relative antiquity on the one hand obliterate its indelible character of relative novelty on the other hand. We cannot justly admit any peculiar doctrine or practice of the Latin church to be apostolic, unless it can be regularly traced, step by step, up to the time of the apostles. If, while a suspicious silence pervades all the writings of the three earlier centuries, a doctrine or practice be mentioned

for the first time in the fourth century; we must not deem the novel and unsupported testimony of a later age sufficient to justify the church of Rome in maintaining that such doctrine or practice existed from the very beginning. Whatever is first, is true, says Tertullian: whatever is more recent, is spurious. This being the case, if a doctrine or practice, mentioned in the fourth century, be not only left altogether unmentioned b writers of an earlier date; but if it be even contradicted and dissallowed by them: then, à fortiori, that doctrine or practice must assuredly be, with reference to the apostolic age, an unauthorized and untenable innovation.

Thus manifest is it, that any evidence from antiquity, which can be brought in favour of the peculiar doctrines and practices of the Roman Church, is of no worth, in regard to proving their apostolic origination, unless an unbroken chain of witnesses extend to the apostolic age, and unless all the successive witnesses themselves strictly harmonize together.

III. Before we can bring the system of the church of Rome to this reasonable test, we must ascertain what that system actually is.

Protestants have often been charged with giving a false colour to the opinions of the Latins: and it is far from impossible (such is the infirmity of human nature), that, in the violence of controversy, each party may have dealt unfairly with the other. I have now before me a tract of the seventeenth century, said to have been written by Mr. Gother; which, enforcing this identical allegation, bears the inculpatory title of A Papist misrepresented and represented. Without entering into the merits of that composition, this at least we must

say, that, first to charge a Latin with what he holds not, and then gravely to confute opinious which all the while he strenuously disclaims, is alike unfair and unprofitable. In discussing the doctrinal system of the Roman church, an honest inquirer will take for his text-book, not the allegations of a protestant polemic, but some work of credit, written by an esteemed and responsible Latin himself. Thus acting, he will see what the members of the Roman church profess to hold: and, unless he can bring proof from authoritative documents that his author disingenuously garbles the real opinions of his own communion, the sentiments to be brought to the test of antiquity are the sentiments avowed in a work of this respectable description.

IV. While such thoughts occupied my mind, an English gentleman of family and fortune, with whom I have not the advantage of being personally acquainted, forwarded to me, from the south of France, in the spring of the current year, a copy of a recent publication by M. Trévern, formerly vicar-general of Langres, and now bishop of Aire.

The copy, thus transmitted to me, was accompanied by a letter in which my correspondent spoke in the highest terms of the bishop's personal character; represented his work, as having produced a very considerable sensation among the travelling English laity; and, with a degree of earnestness which I could scarcely have anticipated, requested me to answer it.

1. On perusing the very able publication of the learned and excellent prelate, I found its chief characteristic to be that of a studied vindication of the church of Rome, and a studied attack upon the church of England.