ful; and there is so much weakness generally in mankind, that we have no reason to throw aside any assistances given us for relief or remedy. Antiquity, therefore, superadded to Scripture, is what we sincerely value, and pay a great regard to. . . . . St. Athanasius and St. Basil pleaded the same cause, and exactly in the same way, as we of the Church of England do. They appealed to Scripture first; speaking for itself, and proving its own sense to the common reason of mankind, according to the just rules of grammar and criticism: after that, they referred also to the wellknown faith of all the antient Churches, as superabundantly confirming the same rational and natural construction.” (pp. 254, 5.)

...

"We allow that Scripture is plain in necessaries; yea, it is WHAT WE URGE AND CONTEND FOR;" adding, "while Scripture is plain, antiquity is plain also; and two plain things are better than There is so much weakness commonly in human nature, and so much reluctance shown to the reception of divine truths, that we have need of all the plain things we can any where procure; and had we twenty more as plain as these, we could make use of them all; and, indeed, should be obliged to do so, lest otherwise, we should be found guilty of despising the blessings of heaven." "We admit, as I before said, that Scripture is VERY PLAIN IN NECESSARIES." "If they [i. e. antient monuments] were all lost, burnt, or otherwise extinguished, our Scripture proof, supposing Scripture itself to want no proof, would stand firm without them; but when we have the antients to compare with Scripture, and know that, in the very nature of the thing, they ought to tally with each other; the antients now, of consequence, must be either a very strong confirmation as to any doctrines held for articles of faith, or as strong an objection. They are considerable disadvantages where they run counter, and as considerable advantages where they favour." (pp. 284-8.)

As it respects the subject of the fifth position, I can find but two incidental allusions to it; but as they might seem to favour the view opposed in this work, I subjoin them.

The first respects the Canon of Scripture, and intimates that we receive the testimony of the antient Fathers as proof "with respect to the Canon of Scripture," (p. 271.) which we allow; though we add that it is not the only argument, not the whole proof, we have for it.

The other respects the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture, and is as follows. "Even common Christians," he says, " do enjoy the benefit of it [i. e. antiquity], if not at first hand, yet at the second, third, or fourth. . . . . How do they know, for instance, that Scripture is the word of God? They know it immediately or proximately from their proper guides, or other instructors; who, in the last resort, learn it from the antients."

(pp. 286, 7.) That Dr. Waterland, however, meant by this, that we believe that Scripture is the word of God, solely and entirely, because the antients tell us that it is so, no impartial reader of his works will, I think, conclude. At any rate, it affects not his testimony with regard to the more material points of the system under review, which are included in the former positions.

We come now to the last on Mr. Keble's list, with whose testimony we shall, as proposed, close our counter appeal to his witnesses, viz.

BISHOP VAN MILDERT.

On the extract given by Mr. Keble no further remark seems to be necessary (as there is nothing in it in which we do not fully concur) than to ask how it is that a writer, who is acknowledged to have made the following remark, (occurring in that extract,) can be quoted as advocating the views of the Tractators. "We do not claim for them [i. e. the Fathers] . . . any absolute authority as Scripture interpreters. The appeal still lies from them, as from all other religious instructors, to that word itself, which was no less their rule of faith, than it is ours."

Mr Keble's extract is taken from the Bishop's Bampton Lectures, entitled, “An Inquiry into the general principles of Scripture-interpretation;" and to this work I shall confine myself in the passages I am now about to give.

On the subject, then, of the first, second, and third positions, we have the following testimonies.

"Traditions, in the sense in which the observance of them is enjoined by the Apostles, are received by Protestants with as much reverence as by the Romish Church. For, according to the Apostolical usage of the word, the traditions enjoined to be observed are the doctrines and precepts delivered, whether orally or in writing, by the Apostles themselves. Stand fast,' says St. Paul to the Thessalonians, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our Epistle,' (2 Thess. ii. 15.) that is, whatever has been personally delivered to you by me either in preaching or in writing. Protestants do not question the truth of the position, that the word of an inspired Apostle, whether written or unwritten, is to be regarded with entire deference; since in whatever way the word of God be communicated to us, it has the same claim to our submission, provided we know that it proceeds from him. But here is the question from which the Romanist has no escape, Can after ages have the same kind of assurance respecting the authenticity of the written and of the unwritten word? WE CON

TEND THAT THERE CANNOT NOW BE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE AU

THENTICITY OF ANY SUCH UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS; AND THAT THEREFORE ON THE WRITTEN WORD ONLY WE CAN WITH SAFETY RELY. ON THIS GROUND THE SCRIPTURE IS MAINTAINED TO BE NOW THE ONLY RULE OF FAITH. . . . The Governors of the Church . . . record no intimation given by the sacred writers themselves that their oral communications were to be transmitted to succeeding generations, or promulgated by the Church as authentic documents. On this is founded the distinction between Scripture and unwritten tradition. The former is a structure compact, and resting on an immovable basis; the latter is composed of uncemented materials, AND UNSUPPORED BY ANY SOLID FOUNDATION." (pp. 72-5.)

Stating the general design of his Lectures, he says" It is purposed to consider in the first place the moral qualification requisite for a right apprehension of the sacred word. An inquiry will then be instituted into the paramount authority of that word as the rule of faith AND ITS OWN INTERPTERER:1 and in connexion with this will follow a consideration of the subsidiary means by which, subject to that authority, its interpretation must be sought." (p. 22.)

Again, on the text 1 Pet. iv. 11. "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God," he comments thus ;-"The necessity of a constant recurrence to first principles as a preventive of any deviation from truth is in no case more apparent than in the study of Holy Writ. For since the great foundation on which revealed religion is established is an absolutely Divine authority, everything which tends to displace that its fundamental basis will endanger the whole system; and the consequences must be infinitely more injurious to the best interests of mankind than any similar violation of principles in matters of human science; according to the acknowledged maxims, that the worst of abuses is the abuse of that which is best in itself, and that no truth can be made more certain than by sufficient evidence that it proceeds from God. The Apostolical injunction in the text evidently rests upon the supposition of this supreme authority of Holy Scripture as the rule of faith AND THE INTERPRETER OF ITS OWN DOCTRINE. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God;' let him, both as to the doctrine and the interpretation, be careful to advance nothing contrary to those Sacred Oracles, nothing that may bring into competition with them authority of a different kind. But, however indisputable the principle may appear on which this injunction is founded, it is not only continually violated through ignorance or inadvertency, but a very great

1 Compare with this the following passage in Mr. Newman's Lectures; "This is the Anglican principle; we do not profess to judge of Scripture in greater matters by itself, but by means of an external guide," that external guide being "the early Church."-Newm. p. 113.

1

portion of the errors and corruptions prevalent in the Christian world evidently spring from systems virtually, if not formally, opposed to it; from maintaining the necessity of some ulterior tribunal of appeal for the decision of controversies, and for framing unerring standards of interpretation. Besides the moral dispositions, therefore, already shown to be requisite in the search after spiritual knowledge, it is necessary to determine this great preliminary question, Whether there be any authority paramount or even equivalent to the Sacred Word, which either as jointly connected with it, or as its judicial superior, may claim our unreserved obedience? If there be any such, the sincere inquirer after truth must submit to its pretensions. If there be not, to admit such pretensions is not only superfluous but dangerous; as derogating from the authority which possesses the rightful claim. Upon this head, St. Peter's admonition might be deemed decisive, and there are other texts of Scripture which ought to place it beyond dispute." (pp. 57-9.) And, in reply to the objection of "the Romanist," that "the Scriptures cannot be deemed an infallible rule to the unlearned who read them in translations only . . . and there is besides so much inherent obscurity in the original itself, as to require some authoritative and infallible interpreter to render it an unerring standard of truth," he says, "Let us consider the question as we are wont to do in the case of a work of merely human authority. Were the purpose simply to ascertain the sense of such a work, that sense-whatever helps might be found useful for its illustration -would be sought for in the work itself, and the book be interpreted as far as possible in conformity with its own declared principles." (p. 68.) "The full and clear interpretation of these [i. e. spiritual] truths . . . is to be obtained by faithfully comparing together whatever the word of God has made known to us concerning spiritual things,'-things above the reach of our natural faculties, and of which we can otherwise obtain no certain or satisfactory information. This principle of interpreting Scripture by Scripture is what theologians call the analogy of faith." (pp. 179, 80.) "Whatever be the authority that assumes a power to determine, suo jure, the sense of Scripture

...

THAT AUTHORITY ITSELF, IF ITS RIGHT BE ADMITTED, beCOMES THE RULE OF FAITH, AND VIRTUALLY SUPERSEDES THE

OTHER." (p. 72.) "If we bear in mind that whatever was once immediately communicated to the Sacred Writers by Divine inspiration, has been in effect mediately communicated through them to the rest of mankind, so that they having been taught of God, we also have by their instrumentality been taught of him, we shall perceive that nothing more is wanting to the entire fulfilment of his promises, than that we should faithfully abide by the written word as THE

EXCLUSIVE RULE OF FAITH." (p. 94.) "If any man speak,' says the Apostle, 'let him speak as the oracles of God;' let him found his doctrine on the word of God, let him search there for what he intends to deliver as sacred truth; let his first inquiry and his last appeal be directed to that Fountain of heavenly wisdom. In opposition to this principle, different maxims have been inculcated by different parties. If any man speak, says the Papists, let him speak as the oracles of the Church; according to PRIMITIVE TRADITIONS, to GENERAL COUNCILS, or to the Pope's Decretals; whose decisions are infallible. . . . If any man speak, says the self-called Rationalist, let him speak as the oracles of reason. ... If any man speak, says the Fanatic, let him speak as the oracles of the inward light. . . . With these several parties the sound SCRIPTURAL CHRISTIAN1 has to contend in maintaining the supreme authority of the oracles of God. Upon the genuine principles of the Protestant reformation. . . . he has to establish this main foundation of revealed religion." "But, [as he justly adds, giving a caution which should never be kept out of sight in this matter,] if, in resisting the claims of these opponents, he hastily conclude that all the oracles which they reverence are to be despised as nothing worth, he will soon find himself on untenable ground. To deny to them that secondary rank to which they are entitled, and to reject them. even as auxiliaries in the interpretation of Scripture, must be injurious to the truth itself." (pp. 98-100.) But at the same time how completely he discards the idea of absolute authority being vested anywhere but in the Scriptures appears from the following remarks:-"In this respect private judgment stands upon a similar footing with Church-authority. Both must submit to the word of God, and neither may assume a right over the other, contrary to that word. The individual may not conform to the Church in opposition to Scripture; the Church may not allow the departure of her members from what Scripture declares to be necessary to salvation. As the obedience required on the one hand is conditional, so is the right conferred on the other. Both are limited by the obedience due to the Supreme Power; both are equally subject to Him who ruleth over all.' The responsibility, therefore, on either side is great." (p. 111.) And in a note on this passage he adds, "This is certainly a point of great nicety and of difficult adjustment. IF IT BE ASKED, WHAT

IS TO BE DONE WHEN THE INDIVIDUAL THINKS THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH EVIDENTLY UNSCRIPTURAL IN ESSENTIAL POINTS, AND THE CHURCH FORBIDS HIM TO DEPART FROM IT,-WHETHER HE OUGHT NOT IN THAT CASE TO DEPART FROM IT?-THE ANSWER MUST SURELY BE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE." (p. 341.)

1 Compare with this Mr. Newman's observations in his Lectures, pp. 291, 2. The reader may compare with this the observations of Mr. Newman on this subject, pp. 160 and 320.