FOOTNOTES:
[326:1] [E. g. development itself is such a principle also. "And thus I was led on to a further consideration. I saw that the principle of development not only accounted for certain facts, but was in itself a remarkable philosophical phenomenon, giving a character to the whole course of Christian thought. It was discernible from the first years of Catholic teaching up to the present day, and gave to that teaching a unity and individuality. It served as a sort of test, which the Anglican could not stand, that modern Rome was in truth ancient Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople, just as a mathematical curve has its own law and expression." Apol. p. 198, vid. also Angl. Diff. vol. i. Lect. xii. 7.]
[328:1] University Sermons [but, more carefully in the "Essay on Assent">[.
[329:1] c. Cels. i. 9.
[330:1] Hær. iv. 24. Euseb. Præp. Ev. i. 5.
[330:2] [This is too large a subject to admit of justice being done to it here: I have treated of it at length in the "Essay on Assent.">[
[331:1] Init.
[331:2] Vid. also supr. p. 256.
[332:1] pp. 142, 143, Combe's tr.
[333:1] pp. 144, 145.
[333:2] p. 219.
[335:1] pp. 221, 223.
[336:1] pp. 229, 230.
[336:2] pp. 230, 231.
[339:1] Vid. Proph. Offic. Lect. xiii. [Via Media, vol. i. p. 309, &c.]
[339:2] A late writer goes farther, and maintains that it is not determined by the Council of Trent, whether the whole of the Revelation is in Scripture or not. "The Synod declares that the Christian 'truth and discipline are contained in written books and unwritten traditions.' They were well aware that the controversy then was, whether the Christian doctrine was only in part contained in Scripture. But they did not dare to frame their decree openly in accordance with the modern Romish view; they did not venture to affirm, as they might easily have done, that the Christian verity 'was contained partly in written books, and partly in unwritten traditions.'"—Palmer on the Church, vol. 2, p. 15. Vid. Difficulties of Angl. vol. ii. pp. 11, 12.
[340:1] Opp. t. 1, p. 4.
[341:1] Opp. t. i. pp. 4, 5.
[341:2] Ibid. p. 9.
[342:1] Proem. 5.
[342:2] p. 4.
[345:1] Lengerke, de Ephr. S. pp. 78-80.
[346:1] pp. 24-26.
[346:2] p. 27.
[348:1] Euseb. Hist. iv. 14, v. 20.
[349:1] Contr. Hær. iii. 3, § 4.
[349:2] Ed. Potter, p. 897.
[350:1] Ed. Potter, p. 899.
[350:2] Clem. Strom. vii. 17. Origen in Matth. Comm. Ser. 46. Euseb. Hist. vi. 2, fin. Epiph. Hær. 57, p. 480. Routh, t. 2, p. 465.
[352:1] Eur. Civil. pp. 394-398.