pound as well as he can.' But yet still he calls us to the rule of plain places... the plain places of Scripture are the way of expounding the more obscure, and there is no other, viz. so apt and certain.'

991

And in reply to the argument made use of by Mr. Keble and Mr. Newman, that where Scripture is alleged on both sides, or its testimony explained away, there it cannot be clear, and certain, and sufficient to determine the point, the Bishop remarks,"Although the Anabaptists endeavour to elude the arguments of Scripture, yet it follows not that Scripture is not clear and certain in the article; for it is an easy thing to say something to everything; but if that be enough against the argument, then no heretic can be convinced by Scripture; and there is in Scripture no pregnant testimony for any point of faith; for in all questions all heretics prattle something. And therefore it is not a wise procedure to say, the adversaries do answer the testimonies of Scripture, and by Scripture cannot be convinced, and therefore choose some other way of probation. For, when that is done, will they be convinced?""

These passages at least need no interpreter to show their com plete opposition to the system under review.

I pass on to the fifth position, on which a passage already quoted has shown pretty clearly the Bishop's views, in which he says, that, "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 ;" and hence that tradition is not "entire and full in assigning the Canon of Scripture." And the use of tradition in this matter is thus cautiously and judiciously stated. "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 a check to our assent in their degrees, because the longer, the succession runs, still the, more the Church was established in it."

I will add, however, the following extracts.

"It matters not by what means it be conveyed to us that the Scriptures are the word of God. Oral tradition is an excellent means; but it is not that alone by which it is conveyed. For if, by oral tradition, he means the testimony of the Catholic Church, it is the best external ministry of this, being a MATTER OF FACT, and of so great concernment. To which the testimo3 See p. 545 above.

1 Ib. pp. 413-17.

2 Ib. § 3. p. 432.

ny of our adversaries, Jews and heathens, adds no small moment; and the tradition is also conveyed to us by very many writings." "Yea, but if this proposition that the Scriptures are the word of God,' is conveyed to us by oral tradition, this must needs be the best and only principle; for, if it be trusted for the whole, why not for every particular?.... Besides the ridiculousness of the argument, there is is a particular reason why the argument cannot conclude; the reason in brief is this, because it is much easier for any man to carry a letter, than to tell the particular errand; it is easier to tell one thing, than to tell ten thousand; to deliver one thing out of our hand than a multitude out of our mouths; one matter of fact, than very many propositions; as it is easier to convey in writing all Tully's works, than to say by heart, with truth and exactness, any one of his orations. That the Bible was written by inspired men, God setting his seal to their doctrine, confirming, by miracles, what they first preached and then wrote in a book-this is a matter of fact; and is no otherwise to be proved unless God should proceed extraordinarily and by miracle, but by the testimony of wise men, who saw it with their eyes, and heard it with their ears, and felt it with their hands. This was done at first, then only consigned, then witnessed, and thence delivered."""

"I wonder why J. S. saith, that for want of tradition we cannot know either right Scripture, Fathers or Councils. I do not think that by tradition they do know all the books of Scriptures. Do they know by universal or apostolical tradition that the Epistle to the Hebrews is canonical Scripture? The Church of Rome had no tradition for it for above four hundred years, and they received it at last from the tradition of the Greek Church. . . . And what universal tradition can they pretend for those books which are rejected by some Councils, as particularly that of Laodicea, which is in the Code of the Universal Church, and some of the Fathers, which yet they now receive? Certainly in that age which rejected them there was no catholic tradition for them." "The Old and New Testament are agreed upon to be the word of God; and that they are so, is delivered to us by the current descending testimony of all ages of Christianity; and they who thus are first led into this belief, find upon trial great after-proofs by arguments both external and internal, and such as cause a perfect adhesion to this truth, that they are God's word; an adhesion, I say, so perfect as excludes all manner of practical doubting." "If you will not allow Scripture to give testimony to itself, who shall give testitimony to it? .. . 'quoad nos' it is to be allowed primely credi 2 lb. p. 287. 3 Bk. 1. § 2. x. 383, 4.

1 Introd. x. pp. 270, 1.

ble, because there is no creature besides it that is so. Indeed God was pleased to find out ways to prove the Scriptures to be his word, his immediate word, by miraculous consignations and sufficient testimony and confession of enemies, and of all men that were fit to bear witness that these books were written by such men who by miracle were proved to be 'Divini homines,' men endued with God's Spirit, and trusted with his message; and when it was thus far proved by God, it became the immediate and sole ministry of entire salvation, and the whole deposi tory of the Divine will; and when things were come thus far, if it be inquired whether the Scriptures were a sufficient institution to salvation, we need no other, we can have no better testimony than itself concerning itself.”

We pass on to another learned prelate of the English Church, whose name has been put forward by Mr. Keble as an authority in favour of the views which we have been considering. It were useless to express the surprise, and more than surprise, with which one views such names so used. I will proceed at once to show his real sentiments on the points in question, for which the extracts already given in former parts of this work will have prepared the reader. I quote principally from the very same work from which Mr. Keble has given his extract.

On the first point, then, as to Church-tradition being an unwritten word of God or divine informant, his whole course of reasoning is directly and in terms opposed to it, and he tells us,"We say that to us, who enjoy the Scriptures as delivered down to us, the only certain and infallible conveyance of God's word to us is by them." Nay, he ridicules the idea of an unwritten word. After quoting a passage from Clemens Alexandrinus, intimating that nothing was to be received without the written word, he asks in derision, "Where was the unwritten word then?" Again, still more distinctly ;-" The reason of his [i. e. Archbishop Laud's] falling on the unwritten word, is not his fear of stooping to the Church to show it him, and finally depend on her authority, but to show the unreasonableness of your proceedings, who talk much of an unwritten word, and are not able to prove ANY SUCH THING. If he will not believe any unwritten word but what is shown him delivered by the

1 Ib. pp. 387, 8.

2A rational account of the grounds of Protestant Religion, being a vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's [Laud's] relation of a Conference, &c. from the pretended answer by T. C. Lond. 1665. fol.

3 p. 192.

4 p. 274.

prophets and Apostles,' I think he hath a great deal of reason for such incredulity."

The Bishop then proceeds to observe that the statements of the Romanist whom he was refuting, might be summed up in the three following positions; "1. That there is an unwritten word which must be believed by us, containing such doctrinal traditions as are warranted by the Church for Apostolical. 2. That the ground of believing this unwritten word is from the infallibility of the Church, which defines it to be so. 3. That our belief of the Scriptures must be grounded on such an unwritten word which is warranted by the Church." The only difference, then, between this Romanist and the Tractators is, that for the infallibility of the Church they would substitute the rule of Vincentius for discovering catholic consent, which with them is an unwritten word. Does the Bishop hold out any support to such notions when refuting these positions? Far, very far from it; and as for the rule of Vincentius, we shall see hereafter how little weight he attached to, it even for the discovery of catholic consent. Proceeding to disprove the first position, he says,-"These three things are necessary ingredients of this unwritten word. 1. That it must be originally Apostolical; and not only so, but it must be of Divine revelation to the Apostles too. For otherwise it cannot be God's word at all, and therefore not his unwritten word. I quarrel not at all with you for speaking of an unwritten word, IF YOU COULD PROVE IT; for it is evident to me that God's word is no more so by being written or printed than if it were not so, for the writing adds no authority to the word, but only is a more certain means of conveying it to us. It is therefore God's word, as it proceeds from him, and that which is now his written word was once his unwritten word; but, however, whatever is God's word must come from him, and since you derive the source of the unwritten word from the Apostles, whatever you call an unwritten word you must be sure to derive its pedigree down from them. So that insisting on that point of time when this was declared and owned for an unwritten word, you must be able to show that it came from the Apostles, otherwise it cannot be owned as an Apostolical tradition. 2. That what you call an unwritten word must be something doctrinal, so you call them yourself doctrinal traditions, i. e. such as contain in them somewhat dogmatical or necessary to be believed by us; and thence it was this controversie rose from the dispute concerning the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a rule of faith, whether that contained ALL GOD'S WORD, or ALL MATTERS TO BE BELIEVED OR NO; or, whether there were not

1 p. 161.

some objects of faith which were never written, but conveyed by tradition. 3. That what is thus doctrinal must be declared by the Church to be an Apostolical tradition, which you in terms assert. According, then, to these rules, we come to examine the evidences by you produced for such an unwritten word." And having examined the instances produced of an unwritten word, among which are the traditions as to Scripture being the word of God, infant baptism, and the observance of the Lord's day, he concludes, "Among all these instances, therefore, we are yet to seek for such a doctrinal tradition as makes an unwritten word.”1

Nay, he points out "the great uncertainty of knowing Apostolical traditions, some things having been taken for such which we believe were not so, and others which could not be known whether so or no, by the ages next succeeding the Apostles." (p. 249.)

But above all, let me recommend to Mr. Keble's and the reader's attention the passage already quoted from him, relating to the authority of what is called Catholic consent, and the boasted rule of Vincentius Lirinensis for ascertaining it. "Wise men who have throughly considered of Vincentius his way, though in general they cannot but approve of it so far as to think it highly IMPROBABLE that there should be antiquity, universality, and consent against THE TRUE AND GENUINE SENSE OF SCRIPTURE, yet when they consider this way of Vincentius with all those cautions, restrictions and limitations set down by him (1. 1. c. 39), they are apt to think that HE HATH PUT

MEN TO A WILD-GOOSE-CHASE TO FIND OUT ANYTHING ACCORDING

TO HIS RULES, and that St. Augustine spake a great deal more to the purpose when he spake concerning all the writers of the Church, That although they had never so much learning and sanctity, he did not think it true because they thought so, but because they persuaded him to believe it true EITHER FROM THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE OR SOME PROBABLE REASON. And, in another place, he shows by an instance out of the Treatise of Vincentius, "how little the judgment of Vincentius Lyrinensis is to be relied on as to traditions," and "how little certainty in his way of finding out traditions."s

These passages, be it remembered, occur in the very same work from which Mr. Keble has quoted to show that Bishop Stillingfleet held that catholic consent, as ascertained by this rule of Vincentius, is part of the rule of faith!!

And so in another work, he speaks of "the notorious uncertainty of mere tradition," adding, "I say notorious, because

1 pp. 161, 162, 166. VOL. II.

2 p. 279.

3 p. 247.

ССС