....

of the holy Scripture being altogether of heavenly doctrine. ... 5. The doctrine of the Scripture is such as could never breed in the brains of man. . . . . 6. The sweet concord between these writings..... 7. A continuance of wonderful prophecies, foretelling things to come so long before. . . . . 8. The great majesty full of heavenly wisdom and authority. .... 9. In speaking of matters of the highest nature, they go not about to persuade men by reasons as philosophers and orators, but absolutely require credit to be given to them because the Lord hath spoken it. .... 10. The end and scope of the Scriptures is for the advancement of God's glory and the salvation of man's soul. . . . 11. The admirable power and force that is in them to convert and alter men's minds. . . . . 12. The Scriptures, as experience showeth, have the power of God in them. . . . . 13. The writers of the holy Scriptures are the most antient of all others. .... 14. The deadly hatred that the devil and all wicked men carry against the Scriptures. . . . . 15. The marvellous preservation of the Scriptures. . . . .-Show now how the holy Scriptures have the consonant testimony of men of all times since they were written, that they are the most holy word of God. . . . [where, having spoken of the testimony borne to Moses by Joshua, and the testimony of other writers of the Old Testament to their predecessors in the Canon, he adds], Finally, from that time [i. e. the time of Malichi] the Church of the Jews, until the coming of Christ in the flesh, embraced all the former writings of the prophets as the book of God. Christ himself appealeth unto them as a sufficient testimony of him. John v. 39. The Apostles and Evangelists prove the writings of the New Testament by them; and the Catholic Church of Christ from the Apostles' time unto this day, hath acknowledged all the said writings, both of the Old and New Testament, to be the undoubted word of God. Thus have we the testimony both of the Old Church of the Jews, God's peculiar people and first-born, to whom the oracles of God were committed, (Acts vii. 38. Hos. viii. 12. Rom. iii. 2. and ix. 4.) and the New of Christians, together with the general account which all the godly at all times have made of the Scriptures, when they have crossed their natures and courses, as accounting it in their souls to be of God; and the special testimony of martyrs, who have sealed the certainty of the same by shedding their blood for them. Hereunto also may be added the testimony of those which are out of the Church, heathens, out of whom many antient testimonies are cited to this purpose by Josephus contra Appion., Turks, Jews, who to this day acknowledge all the books of the Old Testament, and heretics who labour to shroud themselves under them, &c.-Are there not some divine testimonies which may likewise be added to these? Yes; First, the known

VOL. II.

AAA

miracles, which the devil was never able to do, that did so often follow the writers and teachers of the Scriptures. Secondly, the manifold punishments and destruction of those that have reviled and persecuted the same.-Are these motives of themselves sufficient to work saving faith, and persuade us fully to rest in God's word? No; Besides all these, it is required, that we have the Spirit of God as well to open our eyes to see the light, as to seal up fully unto our hearts that truth which we see with our eyes. For the same Holy Spirit that inspired the Scriptures, inclineth the hearts of God's children to believe what is revealed in them, and inwardly assureth them, above all reasons and arguments, that these are the Scriptures of God. Therefore the Lord, by the prophet Isaiah, promiseth to join his Spirit with his word, and that it shall remain with his children for ever. Isa. lix. 21. The same promíseth our Saviour Christ unto his disciples concerning the Comforter, which he would send to lead them. into all truth, to teach them all things, and to put them in mind of all things which he had said unto them. John xiv. 26. and xv. 26. and xvi. 23. The Lord, by the prophet Jeremiah, also promiseth to give his law into their minds, and to write it in the hearts of his people. Jer. xxxi. 33, And St. John saith to the faithful, that by the anointing of the Holy Spirit which is on them, they know all things. 1 John ii. 20. This testimony of God's Spirit in the hearts of his faithful, as it is proper to the word of God, so is it greater than any human persuasions grounded upon reason or witnesses of men.”—“ They [i. e. the Papists] object that it is by tradition and not by Scripture that we know such and such books to be Scripture. Though new beginners do first learn it from the faithful, yet afterwards they know it upon grounds of Scripture. As an ignorant man may be told of the king's coin, but it is not that telling but the king's stamp that maketh it current and good coin."

I proceed to

To the testimony of this learned and able Prelate, Mr. Keble justly attaches much importance; and therefore, besides the extract from him in the "Catena," he is quoted at some length in the Postscript to the Sermon, and claimed as a supporter of the system under review. Where lies the force of the passage in the "Catena" to prove the truth of Mr. Keble's views, I confess I cannot see. Nay, in that passage (taken from the Dissuasive

1 Body of Div. Art. 1.

See pp. 68-73, and 80, 81.

from Popery, Pt. 1. bk. 1. § 1.) the bishop says,-" To these [i. e. the Scriptures] we also add, not as authors or finishers, but as helpers of our faith, and heirs of the doctrine apostolical, the sentiments and catholic doctrine of the Church of God in the ages next after the Apostles." "Any number that is less than all, does not prove a catholic consent." "We do easily acknowledge that to dispute these questions from the sayings of the Fathers, is not the readiest way to make an end of them; but therefore we do wholly rely upon Scriptures as the foundation and final resort of all our persuasions and from thence can never be confuted; but we also admit the Fathers as admirable helps for the understanding of the Scriptures, and as good testimony of the doctrine delivered from their forefathers down to them, of what the Church esteemed the way of salvation; and therefore, if we find any doctrine now taught which was not placed in their way of salvation, we reject it as being no part of the Christian faith, and which ought not to be imposed upon consciences”—i. e. in vital points, he admits the testimonies of the Fathers negatively as proof against novel doctrines.

True, he says,

66

It is not easy to find a better [sword to combat the errors of the Romanists] than the word of God, expounded by the prime and best antiquity." But this proves nothing more than that the bishop held that the expositions of that antiquity, the authority of which the Romanists acknowledged, were good arguments for their confutation. For his own views as to their use or authority, we must look further; and we find them abundantly manifested in the very work from which this extract is taken.

Before, however, we proceed to the passages we are about to quote, there are some extracts in the Postscript of the Sermon to be considered, and particularly an alleged change of views in Bishop Taylor on this matter.

In his "Liberty of Prophesying," published in 1647, and republished by the author in 1657, and his "Ductor Dubitantium," or Rule of Conscience, published in 1660, only seven years before his death, there are some passages admitted to be very inconsistent with the views of the Tractators. It appears, however, that in a sermon to his clergy between 1660 and 1664, there are some passages supposed to be favourable to them; and accordingly Mr. Keble intimates that his views underwent a change on these points at that time; and Bishop Jebb (as quoted by Mr. Keble) hesitates not to say, "Vincentius' rule . . . has been unreservedly acknowledged as a just and true guide by Bishop Taylor, in one of his latest works, his Visitation Sermon at Connor ; a tribute this last the more remarkable, because, in his Liberty of Prophesying, and in his Ductor Dubitantium, he had spo

ken less respectfully of the principle; and his remarkable change of language can be accounted for only by his having undergone a correspondent change of sentiment. He had seen, felt, and weighed every difficulty; the result of all was a deliberate persuasion that Vincentius was right, and that he himself had been wrong."

Now it must at once strike the reader as not a little extraordinary, that such a change should have taken place in such a case. And before the assertion was ventured that Bishop Taylor had changed his mind in a matter of such moment, and one in which he had repeatedly stated his views, in very clear and strong language, and that, in his greatest and most elaborate work, the Ductor Dubitantium," it would have been well to have referred to his last work, viz. the Second Part of the Dissuasive from Popery, which was passing through the press at the time of his death in 1667, and published shortly after. Would not any ordinary reader suppose that there was no testimony subsequent to that sermon, by which the views of Bishop Taylor could be ascertained? And is it fair thus to keep back part of the case? And with the existence of this work Mr. Keble is well acquainted; for, as we have seen, the extract in his Catena is taken from the first part of it.

I commend the following passage from that work to the attention of the reader. "I shall now," he 66 says, represent the uncertainty and fallibility of the pretence of traditions in ordinary, and the certain deceptions of those who trust them, and the impossibility of ending many questions by them. . . . This topic of pretended tradition is the most fallible thing in the world. . . . Add to this, that the world is not agreed about the competency of the testimony, or what is sufficient to prove tradition to be apostolical. Some require and allow only the testimony of the present Catholic Church, to prove a tradition. . . . But there is a better way; Vincentius Lirinensis's way of judging a traditional doctrine to be apostolical and divine, is the consent of all Churches and all ages.' It is something less than St. Austin requires (Lib. de doctr. Christiana, c. 8.) . . . . He speaks it of the particular of judging what books are canonical; in which, as tradition is the way to judge, so the rule of tradition is the consent of most of the Catholic Churches, particularly those places where the Apostles did sit, and to which the Apostles did write.'. . . This way of St. Austin is of great and approved use in the knowing what books are canonical; and in these things it can be had, in some more, in some less, in all more than can be said against it; and there is nothing in succeeding times to give

1 Lett. 53. Forster's Life, ii. 249.

a check to our assent in their degrees, because the longer the succession runs, still the more the Church was established in it. But yet concerning those books of Scripture, of which it was long doubted in the Church whether they were part of the Apostolical Canon of Scripture, there ought to be no pretence that they were delivered for such by the Apostles; at least not by those Churches who doubted of them. . . the consequent will be that TRADITION IS AN UNCERTAIN THING; and if it cannot be entire and full in assigning the Canon of Scripture, it is hardly to be trusted for anything else which consists of words subject to divers interpretations. But, in other things, it may be, the case is not so; for we find that, in divers particulars, to prove a point to be a tradition apostolical, use is made of the testimony of the three first ages. Indeed, these are the likeliest to know; but yet they have told us of some things to be traditions, which we have no reason to believe to be such. ONLY THUS FAR THEY ARE USEFUL; if they never reported a doctrine, it is the less likely to descend from the Apostles; and if the order of succession be broken anywhere, the succeeding ages can never be surer. If they speak against a doctrine, as, for example, against the half communion, we are sure it was no tradition apostolical; if they speak not at all of it, we can never prove the tradition; for it may have come in since that time, and yet come to be thought or called tradition apostolical' from other causes, of which I have given account. AND, INDEED, THERE IS

NO SECURITY SUFFICIENT, BUT THAT WHICH CAN NEVER BE HAD, AND THAT IS THE UNIVERSAL POSITIVE TESTIMONY OF ALL THE CHURCH OF CHRIST; which [adds Bishop Taylor, applying these GENERAL remarks on tradition in the abstract, to the particular case with which he was then dealing,] he that looks for in the disputed traditions, pretended by the Church of Rome, may look as long as the Jews do for their wrong Messias. So much as this is, can never be had; and less than this, will never do it."

This is but one of many similar passages in this work, some of which I shall adduce presently; but this alone may, I think, be allowed to decide the question as to Bishop Taylor's alleged change of views in this matter, as far as points of faith are concerned. The fact is, it is only necessary to put together what he has said in his "Ductor Dubitantium" on this point, and observe his whole mind upon it, to see that in all that he has said respecting it in these various works, at least as far as concerns points of faith, he has taken precisely the same ground.

It will be observed that in the passage just quoted from the Second Part of the Dissuasive, Bishop Taylor allows the useful

1 Diss. from Pop. Pt. 2. Bk. 1. Sect. 3. § 6. Works, x. 441—51.

AAA*