66

of the learned Fathers of the Church blinded, that they could never either see or acknowledge any other rule of faith!"" And so in his sermon to the Synod of Dort he says, No one can doubt that the Holy Spirit, speaking in the sacred Scripture, ought to be the Judge of Controversies."a

The second of these passages also clearly shows us his opinion as to the notion that there are any important revealed points not contained in Scripture, for if " the written word" is "so exquisite a rule of this knowledge and obedience as cannot admit of any defect, or any supplement," there cannot be any important revealed truths not conveyed to us in it, and for which we are indebted only to tradition.

The following, however, are perhaps still more clear on the point. "St. Augustine's words [alluding to the passage quoted above] are full and comprehensive, expressing all those things which contain either faith or manners, whether concerning governors or PEOPLE. If now they can find out anything that belongs not either to belief or action, we do willingly give it up to their traditions, but ALL THINGS WHICH PERTAIN TO EITHER OF THOSE ARE OPENLY COMPRISED IN SCRIPTURE." "Whatsoever is not written, by this rule [i. e. one quoted from Tertullian] may not be obtruded to our belief."

On the alleged obscurity of the Scriptures urged in the fourth position, his opinion may be judged from the following ;

66

Yet one step more. Our question is, Whether the Scripture be easy or most obscure, and whether in all essential points it do not INTERPRET ITSELF, so as what is hard in one place is openly laid forth in another. Hear the judgment of the Old Church AND OURS. All things are clear and plain, and nothing contrary in the Scriptures,' saith Epiphanius. Those things which seem doubtfully and obscurely spoken in some places of Scripture, are expounded by them which in other places are open and plain,' saith Basil. What could Calvin and Luther say more?"

And having quoted several other passages from Augustine and Chrysostom, he concludes with the two following from the latter. "He [i. e. Chrysostom] makes this difference betwixt the philosophers and Apostles, The philosophers speak obscurely, but the Apostles and Prophets,' saith he, contrarily make all things delivered by them clear and manifest; and, as the common teachers of the world, have so expounded all things, that EVERY MAN may oF HIMSELF by bare reading learn those things which are

1 No Peace with Rome, § 4.

2 Judicem esse debere controversiarum Spiritum Sanctum in sacra Scriptura loquentem nemo est qui ambigat. Conc. ad Syn. Dordr.

3 Old Rel. ch. 12. § 1.

spoken.' Yea, lastly, so far he goes in this point as that he asketh, Wherefore needeth a preacher? all things are clear and plain in the divine Scriptures; but because ye are delicate hearers, and seek delight in hearing, therefore ye seek for preachers,' 9991

"It is not to be imagined that the same word of God which speaks for all other truths should not speak for itself. How fully doth it display its own sufficiency and perfection! 'All Scripture,' saith the chosen Vessel, is given by inspiration of God; and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.' 2 Tim. iii. 16. Profitable,' saith the Cardinal, but not sufficient. Many things may avail to that end whereto they suffice not; so meat is profitable to nourish, but without natural heat it nourisheth not.' Thus he. Hear yet what followeth. That the man of God may be perfected and thoroughly furnished unto all good works.' 2 Tim. iii. 17. Lo, it is so profitable to all these services, that thereby it perfects a divine, MUCH MORE AN ORDINARY CHRISTIAN. That which is so profitable as to cause perfection is abundantly sufficient, and must needs have full perfection in itself. That which can perfect the teacher is sufficient for THE LEARNER.”

Against the last position, as to our receiving the Scriptures on the authority of Church-tradition, the following may suffice.

"This is yet most shamefully injurious, to deny unto the word of God credit of itself, avtoniota; and so to hang the Scriptures upon the Church, that they must needs beg all their authority from the voices of men." This remark, I need hardly observe, is as forcible against the views of the Tractators on this point, as against those of the Romanists. And in his "Serious dissuasive from Popery," (div. 2. § 5.), he quotes several passages from Augustine and Chrysostom, showing that, in their view, the Scriptures are not to be received "on the authority of the Church." Can it be a question, then, as to what would have been Bishop Hall's sentiments respecting the system under consideration?

ARCHBISHOP LAUD.

The next witness whose testimony we propose to examine is Archbishop Laud, and there can be little doubt that the Archbishop took tolerably high views of Church authority, and its correlative points, and accordingly he is a great favorite with the Tractators. Mr. Keble has, therefore, given us a passage from his conference with Fisher the Jesuit; a passage, however, in

which there is not one word about tradition from beginning to end. And this is the more extraordinary, because in this very work the Archbishop has entered somewhat fully into this question of tradition; and if it shall turn out that the views of the Archbishop are entirely opposed to Mr. Keble's, then I think that the reader will agree with me in thinking that Mr. Keble's fondness for the notions he has imbibed on this subject has betrayed him into much unfairness. His reference, moreover, in this case would be singularly unfortunate, for if Archbishop Laud opposes his views, a fortiori are they contrary to those of the great body of the English clergy on such a point.

Now, as to the first point, the Archbishop says,-" Even in those fundamental things in which the whole universal Church neither doth nor can err, yet even there her authority is not divine, because she delivers those supernatural truths by promise of assistance, yet tyed to means; and not by any special immediate revelation, which is necessarily required to the very least degree of Divine authority. And therefore our worthies do not only say, but prove, that all the Church's constitutions are of the nature of human law.' And some among you, not unworthy for their learning, prove it at large, that all the Church's Testimony, or Voice, or Sentence, (call it what you will,) is but suo modo or aliquo modo, not simply, but in a manner divine.' Yea, and A. C. himself, after all his debate, comes to that and no farther, That the Tradition of the Church is, at least in some sort, divine and infallible.' Now that which is divine but in a sort or manner, be it the Church's manner, is aliquo modo non divina, in a sort not divine. But this great principle of faith, the ground and proof of whatsoever else is of faith, [viz. that Scripture is the word of God,] cannot stand firm upon a proof that is and is not, in a manner and not in a manner, divine."

"You have been often enough told (were truth and not the maintaining of a party the thing you seek for), that if you will show us any such unwritten word of God delivered by his Prophets and Apostles, we will acknowledge it to be divine and infallible." Here the ground taken by the Archbishop is manifestly what we contend for, viz. that there is nothing remaining to us which can be shown to be the word of God but the Scriptures; as is confirmed also by the following. "Therefore Tradition must be taken two ways. Either as it is the Church's act delivering, or the thing thereby delivered, AND THEN IT IS HUMAN AUTHORITY OR FROM IT, and unable infallibly to warrant

Relation of the Conference between Laud and Fisher, § 16. n. 6. 4th ed. 1686. p. 42. Ib. § 16. n. 7. pp. 43, 4.

divine faith, or to be the object of it. Or else, as it is the unwritten word of God, and then WHEREVER IT CAN BE MADE TO APPEAR so, it is of divine and infallible authority, no question. But then I would have A. C. consider where he is in this particular. He tells us, We must know infallibly that the books of Holy Scripture are divine, and that this must be done by unwritten Tradition, but so as that this tradition is the word of God unwritten.' Now let him but prove that this or any tradition which the Church of Rome stands upon is the word of God though unwritten, and the business is ended. But A. C. must not think that because the Tradition of the Church tells me these books are Verbum Dei, God's Word, and that I do both honour and believe this tradition, that therefore this tradition itself is God's word too, and so absolutely sufficient and infallible to work this belief in me.". Here we see that even in that Church-tradition that Scripture is the word of God, the Archbishop utterly repudiates the idea that such a tradition is to be received as an unwritten word of God, a divine informant, or as "sufficient and infallible to work belief in him" of what it testifies.

These extracts, therefore, of themselves form also a complete answer to our opponents on the fifth point; but for that part of the question, I shall add to them presently.

The reader will see the importance of such extracts from Archbishop Laud, and therefore I make no apology for adding more. If such passages from Archbishop Laud do not settle the question as to the opposition of the views of the Tractators on this matter to those of the English Church, it is difficult to conceive what will do so.

"For the tradition of the Church, then," he says, "certain it is we must distinguish the Church before we can judge right of the validity of the Tradition. For if the speech be of the prime Christian Church, the Apostles, disciples, and such as had IMMEDIATE REVELATION from heaven, no question but the voice and tradition of this Church is divine, not aliquo modo, in a sort, but simply, and the word of God from them is of like validity, written or delivered. And against this tradition (of which kind this, That the books of Scripture is the word of God,' is the most general and uniform) the Church of England never excepted. And when St. Augustine said, I would not believe the gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me,' some of your own will not endure should be understood save of the Church in the time of the Apostles only, and some of the Church in general, not excluding after ages, but sure

to include Christ and his Apostles. And the certainty is there, abundance of certainty in itself, BUT HOW FAR THAT IS EVIDENT TO US SHALL AFTER APPEAR. But this will not serve your turn. The tradition of the present Church must be as infallible as that of the primitive. But the contrary to this is proved before [referring to the passage first quoted], because this voice of the present Church is not simply divine. "

And let not Mr. Keble deceive himself here as to the meaning of the Archbishop, from his use of the phrase "the present Church" for what he means by it is, the Church in its post-apostolic state, as is evident, not merely from the conclusion of the above sentence, but because, in another passage," he quotes Cyril and Augustine as speaking of the present Church, and uses the phrase with reference to the time of Basil."

And the distinction which the Archbishop makes between the tradition of the Apostles, or the Church when under their guidance, and the tradition of the post-apostolic Church, is an important one. The former only he allows to be divine, the latter he affirms to rest upon the authority of Scripture. "I have often," he says, "heard some wise men say, That the Jesuit in the Church of Rome, and the Precise Party in the Reformed Churches, agree in many things, though they would seem most to differ. And surely this is one, for both of them differ extremely about tradition. The one in magnifying it, and exalting it into Divine authority, the other vilifying and depressing it almost beneath human. And yet even in these different ways both agree in this consequent, That the sermons and preachings by word of mouth of the lawfully-sent pastors and doctors of the Church, are able to breed in us divine and infallible faith." Nay, are the very word of God." "FOR [adds the Archbishop here in a note] THIS A. C. SAYS EXPRESSLY OF TRADITION. He would have been rather more surprised to hear such language from divines of the Church of England and himself quoted in support of their views.

994

Again: having spoken of "the tradition of the Church of the Apostles themselves," he adds, "As for the tradition of after ages, in and about which miracles and divine power were not so evident, we believe them (by Gandavo's full confession) because they do not preach other things than those former, the Apostles, left IN SCRIPTIS CERTISSIMIS, IN MOST CERTAIN SCRIPTURE. And it appears by men in the middle ages, that these writings were vitiated in nothing, by the concordant consent in

1 Ib. § 16. n. 20, 21, p. 52.

3 Ib. § 16. n. 26. p. 59.

2 Ib. § 16. n. 33. p. 66.

4 Ib. § 16. n. 31. p. 64.