the antient Fathers evermore think UNLAWFUL, IMPIOUS, EXECRABLE. "1

And that his views on this point include matters of practice as well as matters of faith, that is, that none can be considered as certainly of divine or apostolical origin, but those that are in the Scriptures, is fully proved by the extracts already given in a previous page1.

On the fourth point, alleging the obscurity of Scripture, and the consequent necessity of the traditional interpretation for understanding it, he bears this witness ;—

"There is in Scripture, therefore, no defect, but that any man, what place or calling soever he hold in the Church of God, may have thereby the light of his natural understanding so perfected, that the one being relieved by the other, there can want no part of needful instruction unto any good work which God himself requireth, be it natural or supernatural, belonging simply unto men as men, or unto men as they are united in whatsoever kind of society. It sufficeth, therefore, that nature and Scripture do serve in such full sort, that they both jointly, and not severally either of them, be so complete, that unto everlasting felicity we need not the knowledge of anything more than these two may easily furnish our minds with on all sides."

"The unsufficiency of the light of nature is, by the light of Scripture, so fully and so perfectly herein supplied, that further light than this hath added there doth not need unto that end [i. e. "that we may attain unto life everlasting"]."

"We maintain that, in Scripture, we are taught all things necessary unto salvation ;" and a little further on, he adds that, in interpreting Scripture, "between true and false construction, the difference reason must shew."

Again; "I would know, by some special instance, what one article of Christian faith, or what duty required necessarily unto all men's salvation there is, which the very reading of the word of God is not upt to notify. Effects are miraculous and strange, when they grow by unlikely means. But did we ever hear it accounted for a wonder, that he which doth read should believe, and live according to the will of Almighty God? (Exod. xxiv. 7.) Reading doth convey to the mind that truth, without addition or diminution, which Scripture hath derived from the Holy Ghost. And the end of all Scripture is the same which St. John proposeth in the writing of that most divine Gospel, namely, faith; and through faith, salvation. (John xx. 21.) Yea, all Scripture is to this effect in itself available, as they

1 Bk. ii. ch. 5.

2 See p. 490 above.

3 Bk. i. ch. 14.

4 Bk. ii. ch. 8.

5 Bk. iii. ch. 8.

which wrote it were persuaded. (Prov. i. 2-4. Rom. i. 16. 2. Tim. iii. 15.); unless we suppose that the Evangelist, or others, in speaking of their own intent to instruct, and to SAVE BY WRITING, had a secret conceit which they never opened unto any; a conceit, that no man in the world should ever be that way the better for any sentence by them written, till such time as the same might chance to be preached upon, or alleged at the least in a sermon, [or, to give another instance, fully included in Hooker's argument, explained by Church-tradition.] Otherwise, if he which writeth, do that which is forcible in itself, how should he which readeth, be thought to do that which, in itself, is of no force to work belief, and to save believers ?"

Again, even still more clearly and pointedly. "Touching hardness, which is the second pretended impediment, as against homilies being plain and popular instructions it is no bar, so neither doth it infringe the efficacy, no not of Scriptures although but read. The force of reading, how small soever they would have it, must, of necessity, be granted sufficient to notify that which is plain or easy to be understood. And of things necessary to all men's salvation, we have been hitherto accustomed to hold, (especially sithence the publishing of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, whereby the simplest having now a key unto knowledge, which the Eunuch in the Acts (Acts viii. 31) did want, OUR CHILDREN

MAY OF THEMSELVES, BY READING, UNDERSTAND THAT WHICH HE,

WITHOUT AN INTÉRPRETER, COULD NOT,) they are in Scripture PLAIN AND EASY TO BE UNDERSTOOD. As for those things which at the first are obscure and dark, when memory hath laid them up for a time, judgment afterwards growing explaineth them. Scripture, therefore, is not so hard, but that THE ONLY READING THERESurely if we

OF MAY GIVE LIFE UNTO WILLING HEARERS

perish, it is not the lack of scribes and learned expounders that can be our just excuse. The word which saveth our souls is near us: WE NEED FOR KNOWLEDGE BUT TO READ AND LIVE. (Rev. i. 3.)"'*

Lastly, as it respects the fifth point, as to the authority on which we receive the Scriptures as the word of God, respecting which Archbishop Lauds and Bishop Stillingfleet' have long ago vindicated the Protestant orthodoxy of Hooker against the misrepresentation of the adherents of Tradition, he speaks thus ;"Scripture, indeed, teacheth things above nature; things which our reason, by itself, could not reach unto. Yet those things, also, we believe; knowing, by reason, that the Scrip

1 Bk. v. ch. 22.

3 Conference with Fisher, § 16. No. 26.

2 Bk. v. ch. 22.

4 Grounds of Protestant Religion, Pt. 1. c. 7. sub fin.

TT*

ture is the word of God. What with him [i. e. Agrippa] did authorize the Prophets, the like with us doth cause the rest of the Scripture of God to be of credit. . . . . Scripture teacheth us that saving truth which God hath discovered unto the world by revelation; and it presumeth us taught otherwise that itself is divine and sacred. The question, then, being, by what means we are taught this; some answer that to learn it, we have no other way than only tradition, as namely, that so we believe, because both we from our predecessors, and they from theirs, have so received. BUT IS THIS ENOUGH? That which all men's experience teacheth them, may not in anywise be denied. And by experience we all know, that the first outward motive, leading men so to esteem of the Scripture, is the authority of God's Church. For when we know the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture, we judge it, even at the first, an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary mind, without cause. Afterwards the more we bestow our labour in reading or hearing the mysteries thereof, the more we find that the thing itself doth answer our received opinion concerning it. So that the former inducement prevailing somewhat with us before, doth now much more prevail, when the very thing hath ministered farther reason." Upon which passage Archbishop Laud observes, "Here then, again, in his [i. e. Hooker's] judgment, tradition is the first inducement; but the farther reason and ground is the Scripture. And resolution of faith ever settles upon the farthest reason it can; not upon the first inducement." And Bishop Stillingfleet,-"Can anything be more plain, if men's meaning may be gathered from their words, especially when purposely they treat of a subject, than that Hooker makes the authority of the Church the primary inducement to faith, and that rational evidence which discovers itself in the doctrine revealed, to be that which it is finally resolved into?" And, moreover, we may add, he distinctly intimates to us that tradition is not enough to assure us that Scripture is the word of God.

It will throw further light upon his views, however, if we add the context following the passage given above. "If infidels or atheists," he says, "chance at any time to call it in question, this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is, whereby the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture, and our own persuasion, which Scripture itself hath confirmed, may be proved a truth infallible. In which case the antient Fathers, being often constrained to shew what warrant they had so much to rely

1 Bk. Hi. eh. 8

upon the Scriptures, endeavoured still to maintain the authority of the books of God by arguments, such as unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable, if they judged thereof as they should. Neither is it a thing impossible or greatly hard, even by such kind of proofs, so to manifest and clear that point, that no man living shall be able to deny it, without denying some apparent principle, such as all men acknowledge to be true."

By these passages, therefore, we may see clearly the meaning of Hooker in the following. "Finally, we all believe that the Scriptures of God are sacred, and that they have proceeded from God; ourselves we assure that we do right well in so believing. We have, for this point, a demonstration sound and infallible. But it is not the word of God which doth, or possibly can assure us, that we do well to think it his word. For if any one book of Scripture did give testimony to all, yet still that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest, would require another Scripture to give credit unto it; neither could we ever come unto any pause whereon to rest our assurance this way; so that unless BESIDE Scripture there were something which might assure us that we do well, we could not think we do well, no not in being assured that Scripture is a sacred and holy rule of welldoing." This passage, when compared with the preceding, presents no difficulty; as is shown, both by Archbishop Laud and Bishop Stillingfleet.

In the same guarded and judicious way does Hooker speak on this point, in another place. The voice and testimony of the Church," he says, " acknowledging Scripture to be the law of the living God, is, for the truth and certainty thereof, no mean evidence. For if, with reason, we may presume upon things which a few men's depositions do testify, suppose we that the minds of men are not, both at their first access to the school of Christ, exceedingly moved, yea, and for ever afterwards, also confirmed much, when they consider the main consent of all the Churches in the whole world witnessing the sacred authority of Scriptures, ever sithence the first publication thereof even til this present day and hour?" Doubtless, it is an argument of great power, and a testimony which, in its place, and to a certain extent, is necessary.

Such is the testimony of "the judicious" Hooker respecting the system under review. And I suppose, indeed, it needs but few arguments to show that, however much the Tractators may have endeavoured, in the first instance, to avail themselves of

Bk. iii. ch. 8.

2 Bk. ii. ch. 4.

3 Bk. v. ch. 22.

Hooker's great name, he who held Bishop Jewell to be the worthiest divine that Christendom had produced for centuries, and they who hold such language respecting the same prelate as the Tractators now do, cannot have much agreement with one another on such matters.

BISHOP MORTON.

The passage given by Mr. Keble from Bishop Morton, extracted from his will, amounts to little more than a statement of the identity of his creed with that of the Three Creeds, and the first four General Councils; and is just one of those passages of doubtful meaning, from the quotation of which Mr. Keble has obtained some apparent, and but apparent, support for his cause. I will give him another passage from the same author still stronger, but by no means supporting his views; as will clearly be seen, when we come to consider its terms, especially when viewing it in its connexion with other passages which I shall af terwards adduce,

"It hath been," he says," the common and constant profession of all Protestants to stand unto the judgment of antiquity for the continuance of the first four hundred years, and more, in all things; which appeareth by their undoubted books and testimonies, clearly and universally held in those purest times for necessary doctrines of faith."

Now the very fact that he quotes "all Protestants” as agreeing in this, goes some way to prove that it is not equivalent to what our opponents maintain; for I suppose they themselves would not claim "all the Protestants," even of Bishop Morton's day, as on their side. No; it amounts to nothing more than this, that the Protestants, conscious that they had, upon the whole, the support of antiquity, and that the Romanists had not, openly avowed their willingness to be judged by that standard. Such an appeal to the testimony of antiquity, was the great subject of this work of Bishop Morton. But even there he speaks so as to show that the system under review is altogether opposed to his sentiments.

For the first three points, I would beg the reader's attention to the following passages.

"That which directeth and ordereth man's soul unto God, and to eternity, is his faith; and the subject matter of faith is a truth revealed by the mouth of God, who only knoweth the way unto himself. Which, because these Apologists have appropriated unto their Romish party, wisdom would require that, seeing they

Catholic Appeal, lib. ii. c. 29. § 5. p. 354.