But then, all the while, what he ought to have done if he could have done it, he never once attempts to deny the accuracy of the charge preferred by Julian'.

Such being the case, from the concurrent testimony, positive and negative, both of Julian and of Cyril, I readily allow, with as much fulness as any Romanist can desire: that the adoration of the wood of the cross existed in the fourth and fifth

centuries.

But does this acknowledged fact establish the yet additional fact so necessary to the cause of Tridentine Popery: that the adoration of the cross was authoritatively enjoined by the Apostles, and that from them it was unanimously received by the earliest Church Catholic?

On the principles of oral tradition, as advocated by modern Romanists through the medium of the ancient argument from prescription, the FACT, Substantiated by the joint testimony of Julian and of Cyril, ought to establish the additional FACT of the apostolicity of cross-worship: yet the distinct earlier testimony of Minucius Felix, most effectually, and as if in very scorn of the favourite latin theory of oral tradition, precludes the possibility of any such establishment.

When charged by the pagan speaker Cecilius with the worship of the cross, Octavius, the christian speaker in the Dialogue of Minucius, promptly

1

Cyril. Alex. cont. Julian. lib. vi. p. 194-198.

and explicitly denies ALTOGETHER that identical adoration, which, at a later period, when unequivocally alleged by Julian, Cyril was unable to disavow.

We neither, says Octavius, worship, nor covet, crosses 1.

Cruces, etiam, nec colimus, nec optamus. Minuc. Fel. Octav. p. 284. Lugdun. Batav. 1762.

The laconic, but quite decisive, brevity of Minucius curiously contrasts with the rambling ambages of the sorely perplexed and much irritated Cyril some two hundred years later.

Dr. Trevern, who is a staunch advocate for the undoubted apostolicity of cross-worship, does not despair of moulding to his wishes even the untractable testimony of Minucius Felix.

With this object, he takes upon himself to interpret the speaker Octavius, as meaning only to say, that Christians adore not ALL crosses INDISCRIMINATELY; the crosses, for instance, on which the two thieves were executed: and, on the strength of this gratuitous interpretation, he would broadly assert, that Octavius had not the least wish, in disagreement with the decisions of the second Council of Nice and the more recent Council of Trent, to deny, that Christians DO adore those which are made in imitation and in memory of the true cross.

Thus glosses Dr. Trevern: to reconcile, however, the primitive testimony of Minucius Felix with the decisions of those two celebrated Synods, will, I fear, prove a task beyond the expositorial ingenuity of the Bishop of Strasbourg.

Even to say nothing of the total silence of the speaker Octavius respecting any adoration of Christ's cross, the interpretation, projected by Dr. Trevern, is utterly irreconcilable with the

context.

Cecilius alleges, that Christians adored Christ and HIS CROSS in particular. Nam, quod religioni nostræ, says Octavius in reply, hominem noxium et CRUCEM EJUS adscribitis, longe de vicinia veritatis erratis. Min. Fel. Octav. p. 280.

Minucius Felix wrote about the year 220, or about one hundred and forty years anterior to the time when Julian brought forward against his christian contemporaries a direct accusation of gross cross-worship. From the evidence of Julian and Cyril it appears, that the worship of the cross prevailed in the Catholic Church during the fourth and fifth centuries: from the evidence of Minucius Felix it appears, that the worship of the cross did not prevail in the Catholic Church at the beginning of the third century. Therefore, as the

Now, to this precise allegation, a mere denial, that Christians adored the crosses of ALL malefactors IN GENERAL, were plainly no answer for it were nugatory to deny a matter, which had never been charged upon them.

The crosses, therefore, mentioned by Octavius in his final reply, can only be material imitations of the true cross of Christ EXCLUSIVELY, then apparently beginning to be introduced symbolically into churches, and afterward by the second Council of Nice proposed to the relative adoration of the faithful.

I suppose the Bishop would fain ground his gloss upon the mere play of words, observable in the answer of Octavius: at least, no other even semblance of a basis for that gloss can I discover.

We neither worship, nor covet, crosses; says Octavius: that is; We neither worship representations of Christ's cross (CRUCEM EJUS), nor have we the least wish to be crucified.

If such be the groundwork of his lordship's projected interpretation, I conceive no other reply to be necessary, than the simple exhibition of the charge and the answer in immediate juxta-position.

Nam, quod religioni nostræ hominem noxium et CRUCEM EJUS adscribitis, longè de vicinia veritatis erratis.

CRUCES nec colimus, nec optamus.

worship of the cross could not have been apostolically inculcated upon the earliest Church Catholic: so, most clearly, it had crept into existence during the period which elapsed between the year 220 and the year 360. Hence the evidence of Minucius abundantly demonstrates, if indeed so plain a matter requires any demonstration: that Mere unsupported citations from writers of the fourth and fifth centuries are utterly incapable of establishing the APOSTOLICAL origin of any of those peculiarities, which, by latin ecclesiastics, are so zealously and so pertinaciously advocated.

V. On the perfectly intelligible grounds here laid down, it is manifest, that, with the most bountiful chronological allowance, the sole really effective historical testimony, produced by the Romanist, must be confined to the three first centuries: and, even within that period, no testimony will be legitimately conclusive, unless it form one of the links of a chain extending to the age of the Apostles themselves.

I need scarcely to add, that any portion of the more modern testimony of the three first ages, the evidence (for instance) of the third century or of the latter part of the third century, if, instead of being confirmed, it be directly contradicted, by yet earlier testimony, is, a fortiori, altogether useless and nugatory: and even the unsupported, though not formally contradicted, testimony of the third century will only be a shade more cogent, than the similarly unsupported testimony of

the fourth or fifth century: for, in historically determining the apostolicity or the non-apostolicity of any given doctrine or practice, the most ancient testimony will always be the most valuable.

In fine, while the laws of historical evidence clearly forbid the Romanist to indulge in the delusive habit of largely adducing testimonies later than the third century; the cautious inquirer must learn distinctly to impress and firmly to retain upon his mind the exclusively true point of investigation.

Now that point is: not What doctrines or practices might be received in the Church during the lapse of the fourth or fifth or any subsequent century; but, simply and solely, Whether we have sufficient historical evidence, that the peculiarities of the modern Latin Church were originally inculcated by the inspired Apostles and were from them universally received by the earliest race of primitive Chris

tians.

VI. In the first part of the present discussion, it is my intention simply to consider the evidence, which, by roman ecclesiastics, is produced from writers of the three earliest centuries, for the purpose of substantiating the HISTORICAL FACT so repeatedly alleged by the Fathers of the Tridentine Council: that The peculiarities of the Latin Church were originally inculcated by the Apostles, and were from them unanimously and universally and professedly received in the very beginning by the strictly primitive Christians.