TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHURCHMAN'S MONTHLY REVIEW.

SIR,-AS you have admitted some communications of correspondents in your valuable periodical, I take the liberty of sending a few lines to call attention to simple facts which appear to me to confirm the arguments of the Rev. H. McNeile, in his letter to the Rev. G. S. Faber, contained in your number for this month.

I am sensible of the value of Mr. Faber's works, and am very partial to those of them which I possess, always referring to them with pleasure; yet his favourite principle, that tradition must be our interpreter of Scripture quite puzzles me, and appears utterly untenable, for the reasons assigned by Mr. McNeile; which reasons are confirmed by the following illustration. It is well known that there are many different opinions as to the meaning of the clause in the creed "He descended into hell;" and as a profession of this creed is required at baptism, it is of some importance. Now the learned Bishop Pearson gives his reasons for concluding from Scripture that "Hades" here means "the place of departed spirits ;" and he then refers to "the fathers" (whom he quotes largely) to prove this opinion; saying that "there is nothing which they agree in more than this which I have already affirmed, the real descent of the soul of Christ unto the habitation of the souls departed," (p. 357. Dobson's Edit.); and that the "interpretation " is "founded upon the general opinion of the Church of Christ in all ages," (p. 355.) If we turn, however, to Bishop Beveridge on the 3rd Article, we find the tenor of his line of argument identical with that of Bishop Pearson but he comes to a different conclusion;-viz. that "hell" here means the place of torment, which interpretation is expressly noticed and rejected by Bishop Pearson, pp. 348-350. Bishop Beveridge, like Bishop Pearson, appeals to Scripture first, and gives his reasons for his opinion. At this point the case would stand thus, according to Mr. Faber, that the opinion of one was as likely to be the right one, as that of the other, and therefore that the consent of the Fathers is needful to decide since these learned doctors disagree. Now, Bishop Pearson makes this appeal, as I have showed. But lo! Bishop Beveridge does the same. Speaking of his interpretation, he says, "Neither is this truth of yesterday's growth, but almost all the Fathers of the primitive church have acknowledged and received it as an article of faith," (p. 134.) The Bishop also quotes from the Fathers. It would occupy too much time and space to enter fully on the subject, or to quote more from Bishops Pearson and Beveridge. I must

:

therefore only say, that if any person will read Bishop Pearson's remarks on this Article of the Creed, and Bishop Beveridge on the 3rd Article, he cannot fail to be struck with the almost verbal identity of the line of argument pursued by these learned prelates, and also with the insufficiency of "the Fathers" to decide between the very opposite conclusions at which they arrive as to the import of the phrase "He descended into hell.”

In conclusion, I have only to allude to another fact. If any one will compare the remarks of Mr. Faber in his "Primitive Doctrine of Justification,"-Preface, pp. xliv, xlv, and xlvi, and p.378 (2nd Edit.) "Primitive Doctrine of Regeneration,"-Preface, pp. xi--xxii, and "Apostolicity of Trinitarianism,”—Introduction, p. xxvii, &c. with the remarks of the Rev. W. A. Hammond in his "Preface" to his translation of "the Canons of the Church," pp. ii, iii, v-vii, and with the remarks of Dr. Hook in his "Novelties of Romanism," pp. 5–7, &c. he will almost think he is reading the same author, so strikingly similar is the line of argument to prove the necessity of an appeal to the Fathers, in order to decide the true sense of Scripture: e. g. Mr. Faber and Mr. Hammond both contend that even in the case of Socinianism "one man's private judgment is just as authoritative as another man's private judgment; and therefore, what has been called heresy, stands upon the very same footing of authority as what has been called orthodoxy!" (Faber on Justification, p. 378.) Surely then we may reasonably conclude that there is uniformity of doctrine among these three learned divines. Is it not, however, well known that Mr. Faber and Dr. Hook belong to very different schools of theology in the Anglican communion? I much question (unless I altogether mistake their real opinions) whether Mr. McNeile and Bishop Mant, who both agree as to the sole sufficiency of Scripture (but who, as is well known, belong to very different schools of theology,) differ as much as Mr. Faber and Dr. Hook, who both assert the necessity of an authoritative interpretation of Scripture!

I must apologise for trespassing so long on your space, and at the same time declare that I make these remarks not because I undervalue Mr. Faber,-for I set a high value on the intrinsic excellence of his learned works to which I have referred, but simply to elicit truth. To me the above facts have always appeared to overthrow Mr. Faber's favourite principle. If I am in error, I will gladly receive instruction. I remain, Sir,

Sept. 1, 1846.

Your obedient servant,
A COUNTRY CURATE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHURCHMAN'S MONTHLY REVIEW.

DEAR SIR,-Mr. Faber complains that he does not understand the drift of my questions. I wish he had reconsidered them before replying; as they are not, I think, very unintelligible. What I seek is, to know how, upon his principles, he can undertake to assert that certain passages in Cyprian, &c., contradict the meaning put by Augustine on some passages of those authors whom he has quoted in favour of his doctrine of election. If Augustine had agreed with him in attaching that sense to them, he would not have quoted the latter as he has, as we know that he was well acquainted with the works of their authors. When therefore Mr. F. dogmatically pronounces upon their sense, he adopts a course which he calls in the case of others, when putting a meaning on Scripture, dogmatizing-not arguing.

He says "I can only say, that if Augustine himself had thought them to his purpose, he would, I suppose, have quoted them along with the others." It is difficult to see how even that follows. But it is obvious that they may not be to the purpose," and yet not be directly contradictory."

He adds, "at any rate, it is quite evident, that nobody else had ever deemed them inculcations of Augustine's peculiar doctrine." How is this" quite evident?" Who has told Mr. F. what were the views of the hundreds of thousands or millions for whom he is here answering?

"And it is equally evident," he proceeds, "that that doctrine when promulgated only in the fifth century could by no possibility have been a feeble and openly-declared novelty, if it had been universally taught in the Church from the beginning, and thence by a plain necessity had been universally familiar. So far as I can understand the principle of evidence, the palpable result is, that Augustine was the inventor of a doctrine, which, till he propounded it, had never been heard of." Here Mr. F. forgets that the very thing to be proved is, that it was a novelty, and had never before been heard of; which he will not do by adducing a few cotemporaries of Augustine who "declared" it to be so. The notion of its having been universally taught in the Church from the beginning, so as to be universally familiar, is probably held by no one.

I will not, however, enter upon the general question. All I seek is an answer to the question at the commencement of this letter.

Y. Z.

Sept. 1, 1846.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHURCHMAN'S MONTHLY REVIEW.

DEAR SIR,-You will perceive, by a comparison of dates, that Mr. M'Neile's Letter, addressed to me in the August Number of the "Churchman's Monthly Review," is answered proleptically in my paper, addressed to yourself, in the same Number. Nothing further, therefore, need be said, save on a single point, which I certainly could not have anticipated.

In the commencement of his Epistle to the Ephesians, Ignatius employs the word εἰς δόξαν.

Mr. M'Neile states, speaking of myself, "Your translation of “elç dóţav is, to ecclesiastical privileges: my translation of el "déĘav is, to glory.”

For this, he refers to pp. 222, 223, of my Treatise.

Being somewhat surprised, I forthwith turned to the reference: but, neither in my first edition nor in my second, is there, at pp. 222, 223, the slightest mention made of Ignatius. Consequently still less does there occur the absurd translation, which he ascribes to me. Mr. M'Neile is a good and useful man: but I doubt whether his cause will be much strengthened by the employment of such devices.*

No sane person, I suppose, will doubt the learning of that consummate critic Mr. Cureton: and, in the present case, he must be admitted as a perfectly impartial translator. I shall, therefore, content myself with giving his version of the entire passage from the Syriac, which does not seem materially to differ from the ordinary Greek.

"Ignatius, who is Theophorus, to the Church which is blessed "in the greatness of God the Father, and perfected; to her who "was separated from eternity that she should be at all times for "the glory that continueth and changeth not, and is perfected and "chosen in the purpose of truth, by the will of the Father of Jesus "Christ our God; to her who is deserving of happiness; to her who "is at Ephesus in Jesus Christ in joy unblameable: much peace." If this passage can afford any testimony to the primeval holding of the system now commonly denominated Calvinism, Mr. M'Neile is heartily welcome to it. In that case, I can only say, that he is much more easily satisfied than myself. Augustine, I much incline to think, agreed with me as to the amount of its evidential value. Had he agreed with Mr. M 'Neile, he could not but have produced it, when challenged by the Christians of Marseilles.

The whole is purely a question of HISTORICAL TESTIMONY: and, so far as that is concerned, nothing, I think, can be more clear, than that the scheme, which is now called Calvinism, was purely the invention of Augustine at the beginning of the fifth century.

With many thanks for your kind admission of my papers, I must now beg to close this discussion: for I really do not see the utility of prolonging it.

Sherburn House, Sept. 5th, 1845.

G. S. FABER.

[Mr. Faber has been recently suffering from indisposition, or we should have begged him to withdraw this painful expression; an expression which probably dropped from his pen during a moment of illness.

As is generally the case when men of truth differ on a question of fact, both Mr. M'Neile and Mr. Faber are substantially right: -i.e. each has a portion of the truth.

In Mr. F.'s Apostolical Doctrine of Election, 2nd edit. p. 142, he thus translates the passage in question:

"To the Church deserving beatification in Ephesus of Asia, "always predestinated before the world to glory, that it should be permanent.'

Thus, then, Mr. Faber may truly say, "I translated Ignatius' words correctly, and not in the absurd manner which you attribute to me."

But the passage to which Mr. M'Neile evidently referred, stands in the very next page, (2nd edit. p. 143,)-where Mr. Faber says, "The Idea, in short, annexed by Ignatius to Election, was that "of an Election of all the individuals, who constituted any parti"cular Church, into the pale of Christ's Church Catholic, with "an intention, on God's part, that, through permanence in holiness, they might all attain to glory; but, with a possibility, through "their own perverseness, that some might fall away and perish.' Alluding to this, Mr. M'Neile thus wrote, in p. 644 of our last number:

"According to your view of Antiquity, Ignatius bears witness "that the Church was predestinated to ecclesiastical privileges, with a possibility through their own perverseness, of falling "short of glory."

Now we suppose, that, in thus describing Mr. F.'s views, Mr. M'Neile did not misrepresent him. But, in repeating his argugument with brevity, he says,

"Your translation of eis doav is, to ecclesiastical privileges," &c. My translation of eiç doav is, to glory.

We may safely presume, that Mr. M'N. never meant to affirm that Mr. F. had deliberately written down this, as his translation of the Greek words,-but merely that such was the view he gave, of Ignatius' meaning. We have added this note, to save Mr. M'N. the trouble of any further reply.-EDIT.]