undertake to manifest this by certain evidence of antiquity, they should insist especially in that manner of revelation which Christ, the Antient of days, the high and œcumenical Bishop, and the immediate converter of souls, hath commended unto his Church, to wit, the oracles of the Sacred Scriptures; wherein, according to the common consent of antient Fathers, all necessary principles of faith and precepts of life, are fully registered. But they endeavour rather to derive a confirmation of their profession from the testimonies of succeeding Fathers; not so much presuming thereby, as may be thought, to evince a demonstration of their religion, as to draw us from the written word, the anchor-hold of faith, whereby all men who have given up their souls unto Christ, must be judged in the day of the Lord. NOTWITHSTANDING we willingly answer this their challenge, and directly proceed in our Appeal' against their 'Apology." That is, notwithstanding we do not agree with them in thinking it necessary to go to "the testimonies of succeeding Fathers" for "a confirmation of our profession," when we have "the oracles of the sacred Scriptures," we yet" willingly answer their challange," knowing that we have antiquity with us.

Again; "Our adversaries, by such their sinister handling of the writings of antient Fathers, and wresting of divine Scriptures for erecting a new article of faith, do give us just cause to suspect their profession herein, and IN ALL DOCTRINES of faith,

TO ADHERE PRECISELY TO THE WRITTEN WORD, AS UNTO THE SUFFICIENT AND INFALLIBLE RULE OF FAITH.

"Such is the partial practice of our adversaries in condemning Protestants of impudence for refusing the testimonies, although but of a few; and yet will he have it held a point of learning and wisdom in themselves to reject, as often as they list, almost all; which their opposition unto Fathers might seem more tolerable, if herein they did not also cross and thwart the express and plain direction of the Spirit of God in the word."

The antient Fathers with common consent, do profess and adore the sufficiency of Scripture in all doctrines necessarily belonging unto points of faith, or precepts of life."

"What good is it that is required unto an avтäpxsia, and full sufficiency in any law, which issueth not abundantly from this sacred fountain of the written word ?”'5

"We have heard of the confessed uncertainties of many traditional points, of the infallibility of the written word unto all believers, from the Fathers, so magnifying the sufficiency of the same

1 Lib. i. c. 1. § 1. p. 1.

3 Lib. ii. c. 1. § 4. p. 89.

2 Lib. i. c. 2. § 15. p. 18.
4 Lib. ii. c. 25. § 11. p. 326.

5 Lib. ii. c. 25. § 13. p. 330.

6

word in all necessary doctrine, as without which nothing may be spoken,' (Theod. and Gregory,) nothing delivered,' (Damasc.) without which there is no necessary tradition,' (Cyprian.) no true' wisdom,' (August.) 'no faith,' (Jer. and Orig.) without which who shall speak,' (Ambr.) and wo to them that shall speak,' (Tertull.) without which it is a sign of infidelity,' (Basil.) and of a devilish spirit to speak,' (Theoph.); because the Scripture is a 'door against thieves,' (Chrysost.) the true balances against all false,' (August.) the foundation and pillar of faith,' (Jer.) the 'most exact canon and rule of truth,' (Chrys.) the anchorhold of belief,' (Athanas.). And that therefore our consent must be only from Scriptures (August.), THAT HERETICS MUST BE COMPELLED TO STAND ONLY UNTO SCRIPTURES (Tertull.), that he is an anathema, (Hilar.) whosoever desireth not that the faith may be tried only by Scriptures (Athanas.) because they are in themselves sufficient for our instruction. (Cyril and others.)

Wherefore we appeal unto the conscience of every Christian to judge whether it do not deeply concern him to adore the sufficiency of Sacred Scripture as the treasure of all truth, the chair of Christ, and highest tribunal of souls upon earth; and whether they who, in their cloven mitres, do profess the understanding and preaching of the doctrine of the two written. Testaments, could justly refuse that condition which Protestants required of them in the Council of Trent, viz., that the Scriptures only might be allowed for the rule of deciding of all doctrines necessary for salvation,' or whether they might justly call this condition unjust; or rather, whether this refusal be not, in truth, strongly prejudicial against their profession."1

"The Romanists are very large in their protestations in this behalf. [i. e. "of consenting unto the Fathers' expositions."] saying, 'When either all, or almost all antient Fathers consent in one opinion, or else in the interpretation of any one place of Scripture, they may not be impugned;' or thus, When the greater part of Fathers do agree in one judgment, we profess this to be a Catholic truth.' And the Bull of Pope Pius the Fourth, in the confirmation of the Council of Trent, prescribeth an oath unto all Bishops, Deans, Canons, and all that have cure of souls, together with all that enjoy any places in monasteries, convents, or houses, and to whatsoever person regular,' to swear 'never to receive or use any interpretation of Scripture, which is not according to the uniform consent of antient Fathers.' Never did the antient Jews more boast of their original and descent from Father Abraham, than do the Romanists glory in their pretended consent of antient Fathers; yet, as the ostentation of the

6

Lib. ii. c. 25. § 8. p. 323.

.

former was condemned of Christ as carnal, so this latter may be justly condemned as sophistical. For they affirm that the Fathers are to be accounted as doctors, not as judges, not necessarily to be obeyed, but to be followed, so far as reason shall persuude.' THIS MIGHT SEEM REASONABLE, if they had not bound themselves, by oath, to follow their uniform assent;' for where there is a necessity of duty challenging the assent, there is no place left for liberty of persuasion by reason."""

"To conclude, we find not any tradition absolutely unwritten, (whether doctrinal or ceremonial,) delivered by the Fathers, to be of that nature, as that it ought to be embraced, (this is the Romish profession,) with the like godly affection and reverence, as we do the sacred Scriptures. This we hold to be, in divinity, more than a paradox." But, of course, if he had sup posed that there were any such traditions entitled to be received as "precious Apostolical relics," this is an observation he could not have made.

And so a little further on, having noticed various ceremonial ordinances claiming to be considered Apostolical traditions, he speaks of the uncertainty of such like traditions."

And noticing the profession of the Romish clergy to interpret Scripture only according to the uniform consent of antient Fathers," (which is so fully adopted by the Tractators, as that they make that consent part of the rule of faith,) he says, "which they neither can, nor do perform;" adding, in the margin, For what one of a thousand doth read all the Fathers, to try their consent in all interpretations?"4

66

On the fourth point, as to the obscurity of Scripture, the following may suffice.

"This displayeth the now Romish inhibition to be but indeed a pernicious innovation; whereby Rome, of a mother, is become a stepdame; dehorting her people from the reading of Scripture, because, forsooth, of the marvellous obscurities' thereof. Which argument doth fight against the conscience, first, of their own Jesuit Acosta, who saith, that our gracious God hath marvellously provided in holy writ that the most rude reading in humility may profit thereby; secondly, against experi ence, I have seen, saith he, some men utterly unlearned, and scarce knowing Latin, who have gathered out of the Scripture such profound knowledge, that I marvelled at them; but the spiritual man judgeth all things.' "'s On the subject of the fifth position, he had not occasion to

1 Lib. 2. c. 29. § 1. pp. 347, 8.

3 Lib. ii. c. 25. § 10. p. 326.

Lib. ii. c. 25. § 14. p. 332. 4 Lib. ii, c. 29. § 8. p. 357.

Lib. iv. c. 18. § 4. pp. 524, 5.

speak; but, of course, this falls with those that have preceded it; because it is not the truth or validity of the tradition relating to matters of fact, as to the genuineness, &c. of the sacred books, or the truth of the tradition respecting the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture, that is called in question; or that such tradition is an introductory motive to induce us to believe that doctrine; but only whether this or any Church-tradition is a divine informant, an authoritative testimony, binding the conscience to immediate assent; which it is evident from the preceding extracts, that Bishop Morton did not hold it to be,

BISHOP HALL.

The extract given from Bishop Hall by Mr. Keble, consists of two sentences occurring in a sermon of his preached before Convocation in 1623, which prove nothing more than that "we, of the Reformed Church," receive all those points which are maintained in "the primitive creeds,"" the four General Councils," and by "the concordant judgment of the Fathers for the first six hundred years from Christ." But this is not the point in question. It is a matter totally distinct from that which Mr. Keble adduces it to support. This fact will be admitted by many who are altogether opposed to those views in support of which he urges it. And such will be found to be the case as it respects Bishop Hall, whose sentiments on the points now in question are very clearly manifested in other parts of his writings.

As it respects the first point, viz. the divine origin of Churchtradition, the following extracts will show Bishop Hall's mind.

"As for those traditions which they do thus lift up to an unjust competition with the Written Word, our Saviour bath beforehand humbled them into the dust. In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.' Matt. xv. 9. Making this a sufficient cause of abhorring both the persons and the services of those Jews, that they thrust human traditions into God's chair, and respected them equally with the institutions of God. Cardinal Bellarmin would shift it off with a distinction of traditions. These were such, saith he, quas acceperant a recentioribus, &c. as they had received from some later hands; whereof some were vain, some others pernicious; not such as they received from Moses and the Prophets.'. . . But this is to cast mists before the eyes of the simple; for who sees not that our Saviour's challenge is general, to TRADITIONS THUS ADVANCED, not to these or those traditions? And where he speaks of some later hands, he had forgotten that our Saviour

› Works, ed. Pratt, Vol. v. p. 148 &o.

upon the Mount tells him sppen To's apxarois: that these faulted traditions were of old. . Let them be able to deduce ANY Evangelical tradition from the Apostles, and we are ready to embrace it with all observance." 971

"As for oral traditions, what certainty can there be in them? What foundation of truth can be laid upon the breath of man? How do we see the reports vary of those things which our eyes have seen done! How do they multiply in their pas sage, and either grow or die upon hazards!"*

"What is grounded upon the divine word must needs be irrefragably true, that which upon human traditions either must or may be erroneous.

Church-tradition, then, is no divine informant, according to Bishop Hall.

Let us proceed to the second and third points.

"What can be more full and clear," says the bishop, "than that of St. Austin? In these things which are openly laid forth in Scripture are found all matters that contain either fuith or manners." Cardinal Bellarmin's elusion is not a little prejudicial to his own cause. He tells us, that St. Austin speaks of those points which are simply necessary to salvation for all men, all which he acknowledges to be written by the Apostles; But, besides these there are many other things,' saith he, which we have only by tradition,' [which is just what our authors say. And how does Bishop Hall meet it? Thus.] Will it not therefore hence follow that the common sort of Christians need not look at his traditions?"

Again; "Even the very light of reason shows us that as there is a God, so that he is a most wise and most just God. Needs, therefore, must it follow, that if this most just and wise God will give a word, whereby to reveal himself and his will to mankind, it must be a perfect word; for, as his wisdom knows what is fit for his creature to know of himself, so his justice will require nothing of the creature but what he hath enabled him to know and do. Now, then, since he requires us to know him, to obey him, it must needs follow that he hath left us so exquisite a rule of this knowledge and obedience as cannot admit of any defect, or any supplement. THIS RULE CAN BE NO OTHER THAN HIS WRITTEN WORD; therefore written that it might be preserved entire for this purpose to the last date of time."

125

"How miserably," he sarcastically remarks," were every one

1 Old Religion, ch. 12. § 2. Works, ed. Pratt, vol. 9. p. 288.