113

Correspondence.

MR. STANLEY FABER AND "PHOENIX."

To the Editor of the Churchman.

SIR, Our estimable friend Phoenix will, I am sure, not think me guilty of disrespect, if I point out a little error into which he has fallen by too implicitly adopting the statement of Bishop Hurd.

1. In describing the progress of the controversy between Popery and Protestantism, that learned Prelate, after remarking that the Reformed originally combated their opponents by an appeal to Ecclesiastical Antiquity, goes on to say that this plan was afterward given up in consequence of a discovery made by Daillé, which opened the eyes of the more candid and intelligent inquirers. He then adds: "Our incomparable Chillingworth took advantage of it, to set the controversy with the Church of Rome once more on its proper foot, and to establish for ever the old principle: that the Bible, and that only, interpreted by our best reason, is the religion of Protestants." Churchman for Jan. 1843, p. 52.

That the Bible ONLY is the religion of Protestants in the sense of our sixth Article, no sound Anglican will ever think of denying: and as little will he think of denying, that the Bible ONLY, interpreted by our best reason, is the religion of genuine Protestantism. But then the question is: What are we to deem its interpretation by our best reason? Is the Bible interpreted by our best reason, when we studiously reject all evidence as to its true import, or when we systematically avail ourselves of it in aid of plain common sense and judicious criticism?

It might seem from the context of the citation, that Bishop Hurd, and Phoenix after him, think that we are using our best reason in the interpretation of Scripture, when we studiously reject all evidences as to its true import. That I cannot agree with them in this opinion, is a matter of small abstract importance: what we are at present concerned with is the broad allegation, put forth by the Bishop and adopted by Phoenix, that Chillingworth did good service to the controversy, by systematically undervaluing and discarding the evidence of Antiquity, and by maintaining that the Bible only, interpreted by our best reason (this our best reason being avowedly placed in opposition and contradistinction to the formally rejected evidence of Antiquity), is the religion of Protestants.

:

Here, if I mistake not, a FACT respecting Chillingworth is asserted and, very probably on the authority of the Bishop, this supposed FACT has been confidently reiterated, almost ad nauseam, on platform and in magazine and in periodical; the FACT, to wit, that, In the judgment of Chillingworth, the Bible only, interpreted by our best unaided reason and with a studious exclusion of all ancient testimony to its true import, is the religion of Protestants.

I have, more than once, been amazed at the singular and undoubting confidence with which this assertion has been hazarded.

But you shall not take Chillingworth merely on my report of him: you shall hear him speak in his own precise words.

"Let me tell you," says he: " the difference, between the various Protestant Reformers, is the difference, not between GOOD and BAD, but between GOOD and BETTER. And they did BEST, that followed

SCRIPTURE INTERPRETED BY CATHOLIC WRITTEN TRATITION:

which rule the Reformers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow." Relig. of Protest. chap. v. § 82. p. 285. Edit. tenth. London, 1742.

And again: "The Doctors of the Romish Church do the principal and proper work of the Socinians for them: undermining the doctrine of the Trinity, by denying it to be supported by those PILLARS OF THE FAITH, which alone are fit and able to support it: I mean, SCRIPTURE, and THE CONSENT OF THE ANCIENT DOCTORS." Ibid. Preface. § 16. p. 16. On this point, see my Apostolicity of Trinitarianism. book ii. chap. 1. § I. 8.

Certainly Chillingworth, like every sober-minded man, held The Bible only, interpreted by our best reason, to be the religion of Protestants; but he does not appear to me to have had the same idea of Interpretation by our best reason, which Phonix, on the authority of Bishop Hurd, and to put me to shame, would incautiously ascribe to him.

II. Phoenix thinks, that, in adducing the old ecclesiastical writers as WITNESSES to the nature of the doctrine, understood, by the Catholic Church from the beginning, to be set forth in Scripture, I do, really, however I may disclaim it, ascribe to them a de facto AUTHORITY. p. 52. note.

This is true, exactly to the same amount, as the adduction of an ancient WITNESS to the original universally received sense of Magna Charta would be an ascription of a de facto AUTHORITY to such a witness. That is to say, in each case alike, the so called AUTHORITY binds not a jot further, than any individual, following the guidance of his best reason, allows it to bind him. If the sense of a passage in Magna Charta be disputed, every individual is freely at liberty to judge for himself: whether the sense, put upon that passage by a systematically insulated commentator, who avowedly discards all external testimony, and who flourishes in the nineteenth century; or the sense, unanimously attested by historians and lawyers of the thirteenth century to be the then universally received true sense; is the most likely to exhibit the real meaning of the passage. He is quite at liberty to prefer either sense, just according to what he deems the highest amount of probability, and, by that estimate, he would, I suppose, as a reasonable being, be guided. Exactly the same remark applies to a litigated passage in the Bible; a passage, for instance, the sense of which is disputed between Catholics and Socinians. Every individual is at liberty to judge for himself, according to what he deems the best proof. If he thinks the insulated interpretation of Dr. Priestly bids more fair to exhibit the true sense of the fact than the united attestation of the early ecclesiastics to the fact of a different interpretation having been held by the Church from the beginning, he will, of course, prefer the interpretation of

Dr. Priestly: but, if the reverse; then, the opposite. In either case, he allows no AUTHORITY, save that species of MORAL AUTHORITY, which, in the very nature of things, must ever attach to supposed preponderating evidence of whatsoever description.

In the way, however, of an argumentum ad hominem, Phoenix alleges, what he calls, "my still unsettled dispute with Mr. Newman" respecting the interpretation of the Roman Clement's words on the subject of Justification, as "shewing, in a strong light the inutility of the new (?) system which I have adopted. p. 53.

My dispute with that gentleman is "unsettled," exactly in the same manner as the dispute of the Catholic with the Socinian may be said to be "still unsettled." So long as Mr. Newman persists in effectively maintaining that Clement's negative particles (negative, I mean, according to sense given them in every lexicon and in every greek author that I have met with), ov and ovde, ought to be understood and interpreted affirmatively; our dispute, so far at least as he is concerned, will doubtless be "unsettled." But then, on the principle advocated by Phonix, if a thorough-going controversialist shall resolutely maintain that Black is White, the dispute, as to the real colour of a clerical coat, must needs remain an "unsettled" dispute, so long as the champion of the White shall strenuously deny Black to be Black. My dispute with Mr. Newman was this. According to my reading of Clement, "we are NOT (ov) justified through ourselves, NEITHER (ovce) through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we have done in holiness of heart, But (a) through faith." According to Mr. Newman's reading of the same venerable Father, Clement ought to be understood as teaching affirmatively, that we ARE justified through ourselves inasmuch as we ARE justified through our infused piety and the works which we thence have done, in holiness of heart. In despite of the commonly understood ov and oveè, Phoenix, because Mr. Newman will not allow himself to have interpreted Clement erroneously, proves the inutility of an evidential appeal to Antiquity, on the score that my dispute with Mr. Newman, touching the true sense of Clement, is still "unsettled." According to this theory, perhaps no dispute was ever yet settled: for what diputant, even in the plainest case, ever allowed himself to have been beaten? A man need but doggedly stand out and, though every body of mere common sense sees that he is in the wrong, still, according to Phoenix, the dispute must be viewed as "unsettled." This is, indeed, granting the old Polish Liberum Veto to an extent which the Poles probably never dreamed of. It is to be Πώλων πωλικώτερος ο

I may take this opportunity of remarking, that, in my last communication (Churchman for Jan. 1843. p. 45, 46.), I inadvertently did not make by any means so much of the valuable testimony of Guillem de Vigueras to the Non-Manichèism of the Albigenses, as I might have done.

He says: Tell the FALSE (falsa) Clergy, that in Toulouse men are well acquainted with the truth.

Mark the word FALSE in the connection where it stands. Figueras vindicated the Albigenses from that charge of Manichèism, which the FALSE Clergy brought against them. The FALSEHOOD, therefore, or LIE, of the FALSE or LYING Clergy, consisted in the specific act of their bringing this charge.

Here, to all appearance from his own personal knowledge of the calumniated Albigenses, Figueras distinctly pronounces the Popish Clergy to be FALSE, because they charged the Albigenses with Manichèism: and the honest indignation of his language imports, that they vented their foul calumnies, knowing such calumnies to be rank

LIES.

Under this aspect, his testimony is peculiarly valuable: for he not only vindicates the Albigenses, but likewise charges their interested and profligate enemies with direct FALSIFICATION prepense.

I think he is perfectly borne out by independent circumstantial evidence. The miserable trash, industriously, with the aid of Bossuet, raked together by Mr. Maitland, under the now amusing name of Facts and Documents, stands self-convicted of impudent falsification: and, when accessories are further, as they ought to be, taken into the account, though, in the first instance, he volunteered a most virulent and totally unprovoked attack upon me; yet he has never, so far as I am aware, either explained or ventured to deny the numerous shameful suppressions and perversions of evidence, wherewithal I have publicly charged him. From his silence, therefore, under such accusations which wholly destroy the modicum of credit that his Book might otherwise have had, I must inevitably set him down as tacitly confitentem reum.

Sherburn-House, Jan. 5. 1843.

G. S. FABER.

ANCIENT PAINTINGS OF THE EVANGELISTS.

To the Editor of the Churchman.

SIR,-In collections of paintings by the earlier masters of the art, the pictures of the four Evangelists are often found to be accompanied with representations of the four figures, of the lion, ox, eagle, and man. Each of these figures is invariably ascribed to the same evangelist-viz., the man to St. Matthew, the lion to St. Mark, the ox to St. Luke, the eagle to St. John. It may be interesting to some of your readers to know the reasons of such distribution. They are, indeed, fanciful, but interesting, as handed down from an age of far remote antiquity. I send you the reasons of the supposed propriety of this distribution, from Irenæus, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine:

“ Και γὰρ τὰ χερεβὶμ τετραπρόσωπα· και τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν εἰκόνες τὴς πραγματείας του υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ πρῶτον ζῶον, φησί, ὅμοιον λεόντι· το ἔμπρακτον αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἡγεμονικὸν, και βασιλικὸν χαρακτηρίζον· τὸ δὲ δεύτερον ὅμοιον μόσχῳ, τὴν ἱεροργικὴν καὶ ἱερατικὴν τάξιν ἐμφαινον· τὸ δὲ τρίτον ἔχον πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπε, τὴν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον αὐτοῦ παρεσίαν φανερώτατα διαγράφον· τὸ δὲ τέταρτον ὅμοιον ἀετῳ πετωμένῳ, τὴν τε πνεύματος ἐπὶ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐφιπταμένη δόσιν σαφη

τίζον. Και τὰ εὐαγγέλια οὖν τέτοις σύμφωνα, ἐν οἷς ἐγκαθέζεται Χριστός. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ κατὰ Ἰωάννην, τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡγεμονικὴν αὐτοῦ,

“ και ἔνδοξον γενεὰν διηγείται, λέγον· ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος.

“ τὸ δὲ κατὰ Λουκᾶν, ἅτε ἱερατικοῦ χαρακτήρος ὑπάρχον, ἀπὸ το Ζαχαρία τε ἱερέως θυμῶντος τῷ θεῷ ἤρξατο. ἤδη δὰρ ὁ σιτευτὸς ἡτοιμάζετο μοσχος, ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀνευρέσεως τοῦ νεωτέρου παιδός μέλλων Ούεσθαι. Ματθαῖος δε τὴν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον αυτε γέννησιν κηρύττει, λέγων· Βίβλος Ἰησε χριστοῦ, ὑπε Δαβίδ, υἱε Αβραάμ.

“ Μάρκος δὲ ἀπὸ το προφητικό πνεύματος, του ἐξ ὕψους ἐπιόντος τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐποιήσατο, λέγων· Ἀρχὴ τὸ εὐαγγελίου Ιησού χρώτο, ὡς γέγραπται εν Ησαΐα της προφήτῃ τὴν πτερατικὴν εἰκόνα το ευαγγελίου δεικνύων· διὰ τοῦτο δὲ και σύντομον και παρατρέχουσαν τὴν καταγγελίαν πεποίηται• προφητικὸς γὰρ ὁ χαρακτὴρ οὗτος· Καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ λόγος το θεοῦ, τοῖς μὲν πρό Μωυσέως πατριάρχαις, κατὰ το θεϊκὸν και ἔνδοξον ὡμίλει· τοῖς δὲ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, ἱερατικὴν τάξιν ἀπένεμεν· μετὰ δε ταῦτα ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος, τὴν δωρεὰν τὸ ἁγίου πνώματος εἰς πᾶσαν ἐξέπεμψε τὴν γῆν, σκεπάζων ἡμᾶς ταῖς, ἑαυτε πτέρυξιν. Οποία οὖν πραγματεία το υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεό, τοιαυτη και τῶν ζώων ή μορφὴ και οποία των ζώων μορφὴ, τοιοῦτος και χαρακτὴρ τοῦ ἐυαγγελίου. Τετράμορφα γὰρ τὰ ζῶα, τετράμορφον και το εὐαγγέλιον και ἡ πραγματεία το Κυρίω, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τέσσαρες εδόθησαν καθολικὰι διαθῆκαι τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι· μία μὲν το κατακλυσμό το Νῶς, ἐπὶ τε τόξου· δευτέρα δε το Αβρααμ, ἐπὶ τε σημείου τῆς περιτομής· τρίτη δὲ ἡ νομοθεσία ἐπὶ τοῦ Μωυσέως· τετάρτη δὲ ἡ τε ευαγγελίου, διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου Ιησε Χριστου.” (See Irenaeus. adv. Har., lib. iii., pp. 221, 223. Ed. Joan. Ern. Gratii. Oxon. MDCCI. " Quidam quatuor evangelia, quos nos in proæmio commentariorum Matthæi secuti sumus, horum animalium putant nominibus designari: Matthæi quod quasi hominem descripserit. Liber generationis Jusu Christi, filli David, filii Abraham. Leonis, ad Marcum referunt: Initium Evangelii Jesu Christi, filii Dei, sicut scriptum est in Esaia propheta: Vox clamantis in deserto, parate viam Domini, rectas facite semitas Ejus. Vitulum ad Luca evangelium, quod a Zachariæ incipit sacerdotis. Aquila ad Johannis exordium: qui ad excelsum evolare cæpit: in principis erat verbum et verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat verbum." "St. Hieronymus, lib. i. in Ezechielem, c. 2.

"Et apud Ezechielem prophetam, et in Apocalypsi ipsus Johannis, cujus est hoc evangelium, commemoratur animal quadruplex, habens quatuor personas, hominis, vituli, leonis, aquilo. Qui ante nos scripturarum sacrarum mysteria tractaverunt, plerique in hoc animali, vel potius in his animalibus quatuor evangelistas intellexerunt. Leonem pro rege positum, quoniam videtur leo rex esse quodammodo bestiarum, propter potentiam et terribilem fortitudinem. Hæc persona tributa est Matthæo, quia in generationibus Domini regiam seriam prosecutus est, quemadmodum esset Dominus per stirpem regiam de semine David regis. Lucas autem quoniam cæpit a sacerdotis Zachariæ sacerdotis, faciens mentionem patris Johannis Baptistæ, vitulo deputatus est: quia magna victima vitulus erat in sacraficio sacerdotum. Marco homo Christus merito adsignatus est, quia neque de regia potestate aliquid dixit, neque de