Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

to which all other are reducible. The first is, the tradition of the Church, and this leads us to a reverent persuasion of it. The second is, the light of nature, and this shows us how necessary. such a revealed learning is, and that no other way it can be had. Nay more, that all proofs brought against any point of faith neither are nor can be demonstrations, but soluble arguments. The third is, the light of the text itself, in conversing wherewith we meet with the Spirit of God inwardly inclining our hearts, and sealing the full assurance of the sufficiency of all three unto us. And then, and not before, we are certain that the Scripture is the word of God, both by divine and by infallible proof. But our certainty is by faith, and so voluntary, not by knowledge of such principles as in the light of nature can enforce assent whether we will or no." "Certain it is, that by human authority, consent, and proof, a man may be assured infallibly that the Scripture is the word of God, by an acquired habit of faith, cui non subest falsum, under which nor error nor falsehood is. But he cannot be assured infallibly, by divine faith, cui subesse non potest falsum, into which no falsehood can come, but by a divine testimony. This testimony is absolute in Scripture itself, delivered by the Apostles for the word of God, and so sealed to our souls by the operation of the Holy Ghost. That which makes way for this as an introduction and outward motive, is the tradition of the present Church." "Tradition doth, but morally and probably confirm the authority of Scripture."

So also as to the accuracy of our copies of the Scriptures, the Archbishop says, "As it [i. e. tradition] is the first moral inducement to persuade that Scripture is the word of God, so is it also the first but moral still that the Bible we now have is a true copy of that which was first written. But then, as in the former, so in this latter for the true copy, the last resolution of our faith cannnot possibly rest upon the naked tradition of the present Church, but must by and with it go higher to other helps and assurances. Where I hope A. C. will confess we have greater helps to discover the truth or falsehood of a copy than we have means to look into a tradition; or especially to sift out this truth, That it was a divine and infallible revelation by which the originals of Scripture were first written; that being far more the subject of this inquiry than the copy, which according to art and science may be examined by former preceding copies close up to the very Apostles' times." "The Scripture being put in writing is a thing visibly existent, and if any error

1 Ib. § 16. n. 34. punct. 9. p. 74.
s Ib. 16. n. 31. p. 63.

2 Ib. 19. n. 1. pp. 80, 81.

4 lb. § 16. n. 30. p. 63.

be in the print, it is easily corrigible by former copies. Tradition is not so easily observed, nor so safely kept."

I might add other points of disagreement between Archbishop Laud and the Tractators, not unimportant; such, for instance, as that General Councils may err against "fundamental verity," though not "easily ;" and the jealousy of the Tractators of the term Protestant being applied to the Church of England, while the Archbishop expressly applies that appellation to her, and uniformly includes her as part of the Protestant Body. "The Church of England," he says, "is Protestant too."s But into these points our limits forbid us to enter.

The extracts given above, then, clearly show, that at least in all the main points of the system under review the Archbishop was entirely opposed to the views of the Tractators.

DR. THOMAS JACKSON.

The next author to whose testimony I would draw the attention of the reader, is that learned and able divine, Dr. Thomas Jackson. The extract which Mr. Keble has given us from his writings certainly cannot be said to be an unfair one, for testimony more explicit and direct than it contains against the system under review, the most decided opponent of that system could hardly desire. For instance, let the reader observe the following passages, taken from that extract: "Our Church, according to Vincentius his rule, admits a growth or proficiency in faith, in that it holds not only those propositions which are expressly contained in Scripture, but such as may by necessary consequence be deduced out of them for points of faith, and this growth is still in eodem genere, from the same root. Other points of faith besides these our Church admitteth none, but ties even her Prelates and Governors to obtrude no other doctrines as points of faith upon their auditors, than such as are either expressly contained in Scriptures, or may infallibly be deduced from them." (p. 21.) "The second addition made by the Roman Church unto the antient canon of faith is a transcendent one and illimited; and that is, the making of ecclesiastical tradition to be an integral part of the canon of faith. THIS DOTH NOT ONLY POL

LUTE BUT UNDERMINE THE WHOLE FABRIC OF THE HOLY PRIMITIVE AND CATHOLIC FAITH." (p. 23.) And lest the Tractators should say that this only refers to Romish traditions which have no ground in Scripture, not to Church-tradition as the expounder of Scripture, let us observe what follows;-"We affirm with antiquity

1 Ib. § 16. n. 27. pp. 59. 60. 2 Ib. § 32. n. 5. P. 178. VOL. II.

3 Ib. § 35. n. 6. punct. 4. p. 192.

YY

and in particular with Vincentius Lirinensis, that the Canon of Scripture is a rule of faith, perfect for quantity, AND SUFFICIENT FOR QUALITY; that is, it contains all things in it that are necessary to salvation, or requisite to be contained in any rule; and so contains them as they may be believed and understood without relying on any other rule or authority equivalent to them in certainty, or more authentic in respect of us than the Scriptures are. The modern Romish Church denies the Canon of Scripture to be perfect and complete in respect of its quantity, or sufficient for its quality or efficacy." (p. 23.) "When we reject ecclesiastical tradition from being any part of the rule of faith, we do not altogether deny the authority or use of it. Howbeit that ecclesiastical tradition, whereof there was such excellent use in the primitive Church, was not unwritten tradition. . . . That ecclesiastical tradition which Vincentius Lirinensis so much commends, did especially consist in the confessions or registers of particular Churches. Now the unanimous consent of so many several Churches as exhibited their confessions to the Nicene Council, being not dependent one of another, not overswayed by authority, nor misled by faction. . . . was a pregnant argument to any impartial understanding man that this faith wherein they all agreed had been delivered unto them by the Apostles and their followers. . . . . HOW BEIT THIS UNANIMOUS TRADITION ECCLESIASTIC WAS NOT IN THESE TIMES HELD FOR ANY PROPER PART OF THE RULE OF FAITH, BUT ALLEGED ONLY AS AN INDUCEMENT TO INCLINE THE HEARTS OF SUCH AS BEFORE ACKNOWLEDGED THE WRITTEN WORD FOR THE ONLY RULE OF FAITH, TO BELIEVE THAT THE INTERPRETATIONS OR DECISIONS OF THOSE COUNCILS DID CONTAIN THE TRUE SENSE AND MEANING OF THE RULE ACKNOWLEDGED BY ALL. .. The chief authority which the visible Church then challenged did consist in the unanimous consent of the ecclesiastic tradition, and that, as was said before, BUT AN INDUCEMENT to embrace the interpretations of the present Church, and reject the interpretations of upstart heretics." (pp. 23-25.) "But although heresies of long standing and continuance cannot be refuted, nor may not be assaulted, in Vincentius's judgment, by the former method, that is, by multitude of suffragants, or joint consent of several Provinces, is there therefore no other means left

1 How far this is correct we are not here concerned to inquire. The only question here is as to the views of Dr. Jackson himself on our present subject.

2 That there is no sufficient authority for this statement I have already shown in the observations on the Council of Nice, in chap. 10.

to convince them, no way left to eschew them? Yes, we may eschew them, saith he, as already condemned by antient and orthodoxal Councils, or we may convince them, so it be needful or expedient, by the sole authority of Scriptures. Now, if the Scriptures be sufficient to convince heresies of long continuance or long standing, and to confute such heretics as want neither wit, will, nor opportunity to falsify antient records, and imprint traditions of their own coining with inscriptions of antiquity, I hope the same Scripture was, in Vincentius's judgment, a rule of faith neither incomplete for its quantity, nor insufficient for its quality; A RULE EVERY WAY COMPETENT FOR Ending controveR

SIES IN RELIGION, WITHOUT THE ASSUMPTION EITHER OF TRADITION OR DECREES OF COUNCILS AS ANY ASSOCIATES OR HOMOGENEAL PARTS OF

THE SAME RULE." (pp. 26, 7.) "Unto what use, then, did ecclesiastical tradition of General Councils serve for quelling heresies? Ecclesiastical traditions, or unanimous consent of particular Churches throughout several kingdoms or provinces in points of faith' was in antient times, and yet may be, an excellent means by which the Spirit of God leads General Councils into the truth. . . . Into the same truths which these Coun. cils were then we now are led, not by relying upon the sole authority of the Councils which the Spirit did lead, but by tracing their footsteps and viewing the way by which the Spirit did lead them. And this was by necessary deductions, or consequences, which reason, enlightened by the Spirit, and directed by the sweet disposition of Divine Providence, did teach them to make, and doth enable us to judge that they were truly made by them." (p. 27.)

Such are the clear statements of sound Protestant doctrine contained in the very extract given by Mr. Keble. Of what use Mr. Keble supposed they could be to his cause, it is difficult to see, except that they referred to the canon of Vincent of Lerins. But the way in which that canon is here applied, be it observed, is very different to that in which the Tractators and even Vincent himself apply it. In fact, Dr. Jackson applies it merely in a way in which few Protestants would disallow its applicability and use; just as many other of our divines have quoted it as, to a certain extent and within certain limits, a useful rule. But here, as in other cases, a casual recognition to a certain extent of this Rule of Vincent, is taken advantage of by Mr. Keble, to lead the reader to the conclusion that Dr. Jackson supports the use made of that rule by the Tractators.

And in the next chapter to those from which Mr. Keble has

1 He does not speak of it, let us observe, as if it were the consent of the whole body of believers.

quoted, Dr. Jackson adds the following testimony on this subject, "It is their doctrine. . . if any controversy should arise concerning the meaning of those Scriptures which she hath determined to be canonical, or concerning the meaning, limitation, or use of those traditions which she hath acknowledged to be authentic, no private man may take upon him absolutely to believe this or that to be the meaning of either, but with submission of his judgment to the Church's sentence. And this, as I have elsewhere showed at large (Bk. 3. Sect. 4.), is not only to make the authority of the Church to be above the authority of the Scriptures, but utterly to nullify the authority of the Scriptures, save only as far as they may serve as a stale or footstool to support or hold up the authority of THE CHURCH or Pope." A sentence which precisely and in terms overthrows the system of the Tractators.

But though these passages are clear enough to show the opposition of his views to those of the system under consideration, there are others, in his 2nd and 3rd books on the Creed, if possible still more clear and pertinent to the points under consideration, to which, therefore, I now proceed.

As it respects the first position, namely, that Church-tradition is a divine informant, the following brief declaration may be sufficient. "Revelations from above we acknowledge none but the written word: they [i. e. the Romanists] acknowledge traditions as well as it."

As it respects the second and third positions, that Churchtradition is part of the rule of faith as the interpreter of the Scriptures, &c. we may judge of his opinion by the following passages.

First, as it respects its alleged authority as the interpreter of the Scriptures.

"Let us see," says Dr. Jackson, "whether the sense and meaning of these Scriptures, which both they and we hold for canonical, may not be known, understood, and fully assented unto, immediately and in themselves, without relying upon ANY visible Church or congregation of men, from whose doctrine we must frame our belief without distrust of error or examination of their decrees with any intention to reform them or swerve from them. That the Scripture is not the rule whereon private men, especially unlearned, ought to rely in matters of faith, from these general reasons or topics they seek to persuade us. First, &c. &c."

And proceeding afterwards to point out the principal points of difference between him and the Romanists, he sums them up in

On the Creed, bk. 12. c. 23.

3 Bk. 2. sect. 1. c. 1.

2Bk. 2. sect. 4. c. 5.

« PoprzedniaDalej »