WHAT SAYS VINCENT OF LERINS?
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.