1.
It is pretty clear that most persons of this day will be disposed to
wonder at the earnestness shown by the early bishops of the Church in
their defence of the Catholic faith. Athanasius, Hilary, Basil,
Gregory, and Ambrose resisted the spread of Arianism at the risk of
their lives. Yet their repeated protests and efforts were all about
what? The man of the world will answer, “strifes of words, perverse
disputings, curious questions, which do not tend to advance what ought
to be the one end of all religion, peace and love. This is what comes
of insisting on orthodoxy; putting the whole world into a fever!”
Tantum religio potuit, etc., as the Epicurean poet says.
Such certainly is the phenomenon which we have to contemplate:
theirs was a state of mind seldom experienced, and little understood,
in this day; however, for that reason, it is at least interesting to
the antiquarian, even were it not a sound and Christian state also. The
highest end of Church union, to which the mass of educated men now
look, is quiet and unanimity; as if the Church were not built upon
faith, and truth really the first object of the Christian's efforts,
peace but the second. The one idea which statesmen, and lawyers, and
journalists, and men of letters have of a clergyman is, that he is by
profession “a man of peace:” and if he has occasion to denounce, or to
resist, or to protest, a cry is raised, “O how disgraceful in a
minister of peace!” The Church is thought invaluable as a promoter of
good order and sobriety; but is regarded as nothing more. Far be it
from me to seem to disparage what is really one of her high functions;
but still a part of her duty will never be tantamount to the whole of
it. At present the beau ideal of a clergyman in the eyes of many
is a “reverend gentleman,” who has a large family, and “administers
spiritual consolation.” Now I make bold to say, that confessorship for
the Catholic faith is one part of the duty of Christian ministers, nay,
and Christian laymen too. Yet, in this day, if at any time there is any
difference in matters of doctrine between Christians, the first and
last wish—the one sovereign object—of so-called judicious men, is to
hush it up. No matter what the difference is about; that is
thought so little to the purpose, that your well-judging men will not
even take the trouble to inquire what it is. It may be, for what they
know, a question of theism or atheism; but they will not admit,
whatever it is, that it can be more than secondary to the preservation
of a good understanding between Christians. They think, whatever it is,
it may safely be postponed for future consideration—that things will
right themselves—the one pressing object being to present a bold and
extended front to our external enemies, to prevent the outward fabric
of the Church from being weakened by dissensions, and insulted by those
who witness them. Surely the Church exists, in an especial way, for the
sake of the faith committed to her keeping. But our practical men
forget there may be remedies worse than the disease; that latent heresy
may be worse than a contest of “party;” and, in their treatment of the
Church, they fulfil the satirist's well-known line:—
“Propter vitam vivendi perdere causas.”
No wonder they do so, when they have been so long accustomed to
merge the Church in the nation, and to talk of “Protestantism” in the
abstract as synonymous with true religion; to consider that the
characteristic merit of our Church is its “tolerance,” as they call it,
and that its greatest misfortune is the exposure to the world of those
antagonistic principles and views which are really at work within it.
But talking of exposure, what a scandal it was in St. Peter to exert
his apostolical powers on Ananias; and in St. John, to threaten
Diotrephes! What an exposure in St. Paul to tell the Corinthians he had
“a rod” for them, were they disobedient! One should have thought,
indeed, that weapons were committed to the Church for use as well as
for show; but the present age apparently holds otherwise, considering
that the Church is then most primitive, when it neither cares for the
faith itself, nor uses the divinely ordained means by which it is to be
guarded. Now, to people who acquiesce in this view, I know well that
Ambrose or Augustine has not more of authority than an English
non-juror; still, to those who do not acquiesce in it, it may be some
little comfort, some encouragement, some satisfaction, to see that they
themselves are not the first persons in the world who have felt and
judged of religion in that particular way which is now in disrepute.
2.
However, some persons will allow, perhaps, that doctrinal truth
ought to be maintained, and that the clergy ought to maintain it; but
then they will urge that we should not make the path of truth too
narrow; that it is a royal and a broad highway by which we travel
heavenward, whereas it has been the one object of theologians, in every
age, to encroach upon it, till at length it has become scarcely broad
enough for two to walk abreast in. And moreover, it will be objected,
that over-exactness was the very fault of the fourth and fifth
centuries in particular, which refined upon the doctrines of the Holy
Trinity and our Lord's Incarnation, till the way of life became like
that razor's edge, which is said in the Koran to be drawn high over the
place of punishment, and must be traversed by every one at the end of
the world.
Now I cannot possibly deny, however disadvantageous it may be to
their reputation, that the Fathers do represent the way of faith as
narrow, nay, even as being the more excellent and the more royal for
that very narrowness. Such is orthodoxy certainly; but here it is
obvious to ask whether this very characteristic of it may not possibly
be rather an argument for, than against, its divine origin. Certain it
is, that such nicety, as it is called, is not unknown to other
religious dispensations, creeds, and covenants, besides that which the
primitive Church identified with Christianity. Nor is it a paradox to
maintain that the whole system of religion, natural as well as
revealed, is full of similar appointments. As to the subject of ethics,
even a heathen philosopher tells us, that virtue consists in a
mean—that is, in a point between indefinitely-extending extremes; “men
being in one way good, and many ways bad.” The same principle, again,
is seen in the revealed system of spiritual communications; the grant
of grace and privilege depending on positive ordinances, simple and
definite—on the use of a little water, the utterance of a few words,
the imposition of hands, and the like; which, it will perhaps be
granted, are really essential to the conveyance of spiritual blessings,
yet are confessedly as formal and technical as any creed can be
represented to be. In a word, such technicality is involved in the very
idea of a means, which may even be defined to be a something
appointed, at God's inscrutable pleasure, as the necessary condition of
something else; and the simple question before us is, merely the
matter of fact, viz., whether any doctrine is set forth by
Revelation as necessary to be believed in order to salvation?
Antecedent difficulty in the question there is none; or rather, the
probability is in favour of there being some necessary doctrine, from
the analogy of the other parts of religion. The question is simply
about the matter of fact.
This analogy is perspicuously expressed in one of the sermons of St.
Leo:—“Not only,” he says, “in the exercise of virtue and the
observance of the commandments, but also in the path of faith, strait
and difficult is the way which leads to life; and it requires great
pains, and involves great risks, to walk without stumbling along the
one footway of sound doctrine, amid the uncertain opinions and the
plausible untruths of the unskilful, and to escape all peril of mistake
when the toils of error are on every side.”—Serm. 25.
St. Gregory Nazianzen says the same thing:—“We have bid farewell to
contentious deviations of doctrine, and compensations on either side,
neither Sabellianizing nor Arianizing. These are the sports of the evil
one, who is a bad arbiter of our matters. But we, pacing along the
middle and royal way, in which also the essence of the virtues lies, in the judgment of the learned, believe in Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost.”—Orat. 32.
On the whole, then, I see nothing very strange either in orthodoxy
lying in what at first sight appears like subtle and minute exactness
of doctrine, or in its being our duty to contend even to confessorship
for such exactness. Whether it be thus exact, and whether the exactness
of Ambrose, Leo, or Gregory be the true and revealed exactness, is
quite another question: all I say is, that it is no great difficulty to
believe that it may be what they say it is, both as to its truth and as
to its importance.
3.
But now supposing the question is asked, are Ambrose, Leo, and
Gregory right? and is our Church right in maintaining with them the
Athanasian doctrine on those sacred points to which it relates, and
condemning those who hold otherwise? what answer is to be given? I
answer by asking in turn, supposing any one inquired how we know that
Ambrose, Leo, or Gregory was right and our Church right, in receiving
St. Paul's Epistles, what answer we should make? The answer would be,
that it is a matter of history that the Apostle wrote those letters
which are ascribed to him. And what is meant by its being a matter of
history? why, that it has ever been so believed, so declared, so
recorded, so acted on, from the first down to this day; that there is
no assignable point of time when it was not believed, no assignable
point at which the belief was introduced; that the records of past ages
fade away and vanish in the belief; that in proportion as past
ages speak at all, they speak in one way, and only fail to bear a
witness, when they fail to have a voice. What stronger testimony can we
have of a past fact?
Now evidence such as this have we for the Catholic doctrines which
Ambrose, Leo, or Gregory maintained; they have never and nowhere not
been maintained; or in other words, wherever we know anything positive
of ancient times and places, there we are told of these doctrines also.
As far as the records of history extend, they include these doctrines
as avowed always, everywhere, and by all. This is the great canon of
the Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, which saves us
from the misery of having to find out the truth for ourselves from
Scripture on our independent and private judgment. He who gave
Scripture, also gave us the interpretation of Scripture; and He gave
the one and the other gift in the same way, by the testimony of past
ages, as matter of historical knowledge, or as it is sometimes called,
by Tradition. We receive the Catholic doctrines as we receive the canon
of Scripture, because, as our Article expresses it, “of their
authority” there “was never any doubt in the Church.”
We receive them on Catholic Tradition, and therefore they are called
Catholic doctrines. And that they are Catholic, is a proof that they
are Apostolic; they never could have been universally received in the
Church, unless they had had their origin in the origin of the Church,
unless they had been made the foundation of the Church by its founders.
As the separate successions of bishops in various countries have but
one common origin, the Apostles, so what has been handed down through
these separate successions comes from that one origin. The Apostolic
College is the only point in which all the lines converge, and from
which they spring. Private traditions, wandering unconnected
traditions, are of no authority, but permanent, recognised, public,
definite, intelligible, multiplied, concordant testimonies to one and
the same doctrine, bring with them an overwhelming evidence of
apostolical origin. We ground the claims of orthodoxy on no powers of
reasoning, however great, on the credit of no names, however imposing,
but on an external fact, on an argument the same as that by which we
prove the genuineness and authority of the four gospels. The unanimous
tradition of all the churches to certain articles of faith is surely an
irresistible evidence, more trustworthy far than that of witnesses to
certain facts in a court of law, by how much the testimony of a number
is more cogent than the testimony of two or three. That this really is
the ground on which the narrow line of orthodoxy was maintained in
ancient times, is plain from an inspection of the writings of the very
men who maintained it, Ambrose, Leo, and Gregory, or Athanasius and
Hilary, and the rest, who set forth its Catholic character in more ways
than it is possible here to instance or even explain.
4.
However, in order to give the general reader some idea of the state
of the case, I will make some copious extracts from the famous tract of
Vincent of Lerins on Heresy, written in A.D. 434, immediately after the
third Ecumenical Council, held against Nestorius. The author was
originally a layman, and by profession a soldier. In after life he
became a monk and took orders. Lerins, the site of his monastery, is
one of the small islands off the south coast of France. He first states
what the principle is he would maintain, and the circumstances under
which he maintains it; and if his principle is reasonable and valuable
in itself, so does it come to us with great weight under the
circumstances which he tells us led him to his exposition of it:[367]
“Inquiring often,” he says, “with great desire and attention,
of
very many excellent, holy, and learned men, how and by what
means I
might assuredly, and as it were by some general and ordinary
way,
discern the true Catholic faith from false and wicked heresy;
to
this question I had usually this answer from them all, that
whether
I or any other desired to find out the fraud of heretics,
daily
springing up, and to escape their snares, and to continue in a
sound faith himself safe and sound, that he ought, by two
ways, by
God's assistance, to defend and preserve his faith; that is,
first,
by the authority of the law of God; secondly, by the tradition
of
the Catholic Church.”—Ch. 2.
It will be observed he is speaking of the mode in which an
individual is to seek and attain the truth; and it will be observed
also, as the revered Bishop Jebb has pointed out, that he is
allowing[368] and sanctioning the use of personal inquiry. He
proceeds:—
“Here some man, perhaps, may ask, seeing the canon of the
Scripture
is perfect, and most abundantly of itself sufficient for all
things, what need we join unto it the authority of the
Church's
understanding and interpretation? The reason is this, because
the
Scripture being of itself so deep and profound, all men do not
understand it in one and the same sense, but divers men
diversely,
this man and that man, this way and that way, expound and
interpret
the sayings thereof, so that to one's thinking, 'so many men,
so
many opinions' almost may be gathered out of them: for
Novatian
expoundeth it one way, Photinus another; Sabellius after this
sort,
Donatus after that; Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius will have this
exposition, Apollinaris and Priscilian will have that;
Jovinian,
Pelagius, Celestius, gather this sense, and, to conclude,
Nestorius
findeth out that; and therefore very necessary it is for the
avoiding of so great windings and turnings, of errors so
various,
that the line of expounding the Prophets and Apostles be
directed
and drawn, according to the rule of the Ecclesiastical and
Catholic
sense.
“Again, within the Catholic Church itself we are greatly to
consider
that we hold that which hath been believed everywhere,
always,
and of all men: for that is truly and properly
Catholic (as the
very force and nature of the word doth declare) which
comprehendeth
all things in general after an universal manner, and that shall
we
do if we follow universality, antiquity, consent.
Universality
shall we follow thus, if we profess that one faith to be true
which
the whole Church throughout the world acknowledgeth and
confesseth.
Antiquity shall we follow, if we depart not any whit from those
senses which it is plain that our holy elders and fathers
generally
held. Consent shall we likewise follow, if in this very
Antiquity
itself we hold the definitions and opinions of all, or at any
rate
almost all, the priests and doctors together.”—Ch. 2,
3.
It is sometimes said, that what is called orthodoxy or Catholicism
is only the opinion of one or two Fathers—-fallible men, however able
they might be, or persuasive—who created a theology, and imposed it on
their generation, and thereby superseded Scriptural truth and the real
gospel. Let us see how Vincent treats such individual teachers, however
highly gifted. He is speaking in the opening sentence of the Judaizers
of the time of St. Paul:—
“When, therefore, such kind of men, wandering up and down
through
provinces and cities to set their errors to sale, came also
unto
the Galatians, and these, after they had heard them, were
delighted
with the filthy drugs of heretical novelty, loathing the
truth, and
casting up again the heavenly manna of the Apostolic and
Catholic
doctrine: the authority of his Apostolic office so puts itself
forth as to decree very severely in this sort. 'But although
(quoth
he) we or an Angel from heaven evangelize unto you beside that
which we have evangelized, be he Anathema.'[369] What meaneth
this
that he saith, 'But although we?' why did he not rather say,
'But
although I?' that is to say, Although Peter, although Andrew,
although John, yea, finally, although the whole company of the
Apostles, evangelize unto you otherwise than we have
evangelized,
be he accursed. A terrible censure, in that for maintaining
the
possession of the first faith, he spared not himself, nor any
other
of the Apostles! But this is a small matter: 'Although an
Angel
from heaven (quoth he) evangelize unto you, beside that which
I
have evangelized, be he Anathema,' he was not contented for
keeping
the faith once delivered to make mention of man's weak nature,
unless also he included those excellent creatures the
Angels....
But peradventure he uttered those words slightly, and cast
them
forth rather of human affection than decreed them by divine
direction. God forbid: for it followeth, and that urged with
great
earnestness of repeated inculcation, 'As I have foretold you
(quoth
he), and now again I tell you, If anybody evangelize unto you
beside that which you have received, be he Anathema.' He said
not,
If any man preach unto you beside that which you have
received, let
him be blessed, let him be commended, let him be received, but
let
him be Anathema, that is, separated, thrust out,
excluded, lest
the cruel infection of one sheep with his poisoned company
corrupt
the sound flock of Christ.”—Ch. 12 and 13.
5.
Here, then, is a point of doctrine which must be carefully insisted
on. The Fathers are primarily to be considered as witnesses, not
as authorities. They are witnesses of an existing state of
things, and their treatises are, as it were, histories,—teaching us, in the first instance, matters of fact, not of opinion.
Whatever they themselves might be, whether deeply or poorly taught in
Christian faith and love, they speak, not their own thoughts, but the
received views of their respective ages. The especial value of their
works lies in their opening upon us a state of the Church which else we
should have no notion of. We read in their writings a great number of
high and glorious principles and acts, and our first thought thereupon
is, “All this must have had an existence somewhere or other in those
times. These very men, indeed, may be merely speaking by rote, and not
understand what they say; but it matters not to the profit of their
writings what they were themselves.” It matters not to the profit of
their writings, nor again to the authority resulting from them; for the
times in which they wrote of course are of authority, though
the Fathers themselves may have none. Tertullian or Eusebius may be
nothing more than bare witnesses; yet so much as this they have a claim
to be considered.
This is even the strict Protestant view. We are not obliged to take
the Fathers as authorities, only as witnesses. Charity, I
suppose, and piety will prompt the Christian student to go further, and
to believe that men who laboured so unremittingly, and suffered so
severely in the cause of the Gospel, really did possess some little
portion of that earnest love of the truth which they professed, and
were enlightened by that influence for which they prayed; but I am
stating the strict Protestant doctrine, the great polemical principle
ever to be borne in mind, that the Fathers are to be adduced in
controversy merely as testimonies to an existing state of things, not
as authorities. At the same time, no candid Protestant will be loth to
admit, that the state of things to which they bear witness, is,
as I have already said, a most grave and conclusive authority in
guiding us in those particulars of our duty about which Scripture is
silent; succeeding, as it does, so very close upon the age of the
Apostles.
Thus much I claim of consistent Protestants, and thus much I grant
to them. Gregory and the rest may have been but nominal Christians.
Athanasius himself may have been very dark in all points of doctrine,
in spite of his twenty years' exile and his innumerable perils by sea
and land; the noble Ambrose, a high and dry churchman; and Basil, a
mere monk. I do not dispute these points; though I claim “the right of
private judgment,” so far as to have my own very definite opinion in
the matter, which I keep to myself.
6.
Such being the plain teaching of the Fathers, and such the duty of
following it, Vincentius proceeds to speak of the misery of doubting
and change:—
“Which being so, he is a true and genuine Catholic that loveth
the
truth of God, the Church, the body of Christ; that preferreth
nothing before the religion of God; nothing before the
Catholic
faith; not any man's authority, not love, not wit, not
eloquence,
not philosophy; but contemning all these things, and in faith
abiding fixed and stable, whatsoever he knoweth the Catholic
Church
universally in old times to have holden, that only he
purposeth
with himself to hold and believe; but whatsoever doctrine, new
and
not before heard of, such an one shall perceive to be
afterwards
brought in of some one man, beside all or contrary to all the
saints, let him know that doctrine doth not pertain to
religion,
but rather to temptation, especially being instructed with the
sayings of the blessed Apostle St. Paul. For this is that
which he
writeth in his first Epistle to the Corinthians: 'There must
(quoth
he) be heresies also, that they which are approved may be made
manifest among you.' ...
“O the miserable state of [waverers]! with what seas of cares,
with
what storms, are they tossed! for now at one time, as the wind
driveth them, they are carried away headlong in error; at
another
time, coming again to themselves, they are beaten back like
contrary waves; sometime with rash presumption they allow such
things as seem uncertain, at another time of pusillanimity
they are
in fear even about those things which are certain; doubtful
which
way to take, which way to return, what to desire, what to
avoid,
what to hold, what to let go; which misery and affliction of a
wavering and unsettled heart, were they wise, is as a medicine
of
God's mercy towards them.
“Which being so, oftentimes calling to mind and remembering the
selfsame thing, I cannot sufficiently marvel at the great
madness
of some men, at so great impiety of their blinded hearts,
lastly,
at so great a licentious desire of error, that they be not
content
with the rule of faith once delivered us, and received from
our
ancestors, but do every day search and seek for new doctrine,
ever
desirous to add to, to change, and to take away something
from,
religion; as though that were not the doctrine of God, which
it is
enough to have once revealed, but rather man's institution,
which
cannot but by continual amendment (or rather correction) be
perfected.”—Ch. 25, 26.
7.
Then he takes a text, and handles it as a modern preacher might do.
His text is this:—
“O Timothy, keep the depositum, avoiding the profane
novelties of
words, and oppositions of falsely-called knowledge, which
certain
professing have erred about the faith.”
He dwells successively upon Timothy, on the deposit,
on avoiding, on profane, and on novelties.
First, Timothy and the “deposit:”—
“Who at this day is Timothy, but either generally the whole
Church,
or especially the whole body of prelates, who ought either
themselves to have a sound knowledge of divine religion, or
who
ought to infuse it into others? What is meant by keep the
deposit? Keep it (quoth he) for fear of thieves, for
danger of
enemies, lest when men be asleep, they oversow cockle among
that
good seed of wheat, which the Son of man hath sowed in His
field.
'Keep (quoth he) the deposit.' What is meant by this deposit?
that
is, that which is committed to thee, not that which is
invented of
thee; that which thou hast received, not that which thou hast
devised; a thing not of wit, but of learning; not of private
assumption, but of public tradition; a thing brought to thee,
not
brought forth of thee; wherein thou must not be an author, but
a
keeper; not a beginner, but a follower; not a leader, but an
observer. Keep the deposit. Preserve the talent of the
Catholic
faith safe and undiminished; that which is committed to thee,
let
that remain with thee, and that deliver. Thou hast received
gold,
render then gold; I will not have one thing for another; do
not for
gold render either impudently lead, or craftily brass; I will,
not
the show, but the very nature of gold itself. O Timothy, O
priest,
O teacher, O doctor, if God's gift hath made thee meet and
sufficient by thy wit, exercise, and learning, be the Beseleel
of
the spiritual tabernacle, engrave the precious stones of God's
doctrine, faithfully set them, wisely adorn them, give them
brightness, give them grace, give them beauty. That which men
before believed obscurely, let them by thy exposition
understand
more clearly. Let posterity rejoice for coming to the
understanding
of that by thy means, which antiquity without that
understanding
had in veneration. Yet for all this, in such sort deliver the
same
things which thou hast learned, that albeit thou teachest
after a
new manner yet thou never teach new things.”
Next, “avoiding:”—
“'O Timothy (quoth he), keep the deposit, avoid profane
novelties
of words.' Avoid (quoth he) as a viper, as a scorpion, as a
basilisk, lest they infect thee not only by touching, but also
with
their very eyes and breath. What is meant by avoid
?[370] that is,
not so much as to eat with any such. What importeth this
avoid?
'If any man (quoth he) come unto you, and bring not this
doctrine,'[371] what doctrine but the Catholic and universal,
and
that which, with incorrupt tradition of the truth, hath
continued
one and the selfsame, through all successions of times, and
that
which shall continue for ever and ever? What then? 'Receive
him not
(quoth he) into the house, nor say God speed; for he that
saith
unto him God speed, communicateth with his wicked works.”
Then, “profane:”—
“'Profane novelties of words' (quoth he); what is profane
? Those
which have no holiness in them, nought of religion, wholly
external
to the sanctuary of the Church, which is the temple of God.
'Profane novelties of words (quoth he), of words, that is,
novelties of doctrines, novelties of things, novelties of
opinions,
contrary to old usage, contrary to antiquity, which if we
receive,
of necessity the faith of our blessed ancestors, either all,
or a
great part of it, must be overthrown; the faithful people of
all
ages and times, all holy saints, all the chaste, all the
continent,
all the virgins, all the clergy, the deacons, the priests, so
many
thousands of confessors, so great armies of martyrs, so many
famous
and populous cities and commonwealths, so many islands,
provinces,
kings, tribes, kingdoms, nations; to conclude, almost now the
whole
world, incorporated by the Catholic faith to Christ their
Head,
must needs be said, so many hundreds of years, to have been
ignorant, to have erred, to have blasphemed, to have believed
they
knew not what.”
Lastly, “novelties:”—
“'Avoid (quoth he) profane novelties of words,' to
receive and
follow which was never the custom of Catholics, but always of
heretics. And, to say truth, what heresy hath ever burst
forth, but
under the name of some certain man, in some certain place, and
at
some certain time? Who ever set up any heresy, but first
divided
himself from the consent of the universality and antiquity of
the
Catholic Church? Which to be true, examples do plainly prove.
For
who ever before that profane Pelagius presumed so much of
man's
free will, that he thought not the grace of God necessary to
aid it
in every particular good act? Who ever before his monstrous
disciple Celestius denied all mankind to be bound with the
guilt of
Adam's transgression? Who ever before sacrilegious Arius durst
rend
in pieces the Unity of Trinity? Who ever before wicked
Sabellius
durst confound the Trinity of Unity? Who ever before cruel
Novatian
affirmed God to be merciless, in that He had rather the death
of a
sinner than that he should return and live? Who ever before
Simon
Magus, durst affirm that God our Creator was the Author of
evil,
that is, of our wickedness, impieties, and crimes; because God
(as
he said) so with His own hands made man's very nature, that by
a
certain proper motion and impulse of an enforced will, it can
do
nothing else, desire nothing else, but to sin. Such examples
are
infinite, which for brevity-sake I omit, by all which,
notwithstanding, it appeareth plainly and clearly enough, that
it
is, as it were, a custom and law in all heresies, ever to take
great pleasure in profane novelties, to loath the decrees of
our
forefathers, and to make shipwreck of faith, by oppositions of
falsely-called knowledge; contrariwise that this is usually
proper
to all Catholics, to keep those things which the holy Fathers
have
left, and committed to their charge, to condemn profane
novelties,
and, as the Apostle hath said, and again forewarned, 'if any
man
shall preach otherwise than that which is received,' to
anathematize him.”—Ch. 27-34.
From these extracts, which are but specimens of the whole Tract, I
come to the conclusion that Vincent was a very sorry Protestant.
FOOTNOTES:
[367] The Oxford translation of 1837 is used in the following
extracts.
[368] [He allows of it in the Absence at the time of the
Church's authoritative declaration concerning the particular question
in debate. He would say, “There was no need of any Ecumenical Council
to condemn Nestorius; he was condemned by Scripture and tradition
already.”—1872.]
[369] Gal. i. 8.
[370] 1 Cor. v. 11.
[371] 2 John 10, 11.