of Rome, who, boasting that she is the only church remaining that has preserved the apostolical succession sanctifies by this rule all her impositions, shutting out by her exclusive claims the possibility of contradiction; but I speak of the rule in itself, and according to its fair application. And if I rightly understand the doctrine of "episcopal grace" as delivered in these works, it completely establishes the truth of this rule. " Apostolical or episcopal grace," says Mr. Keble, "is by God's ordinance the guardian of sound doctrine; the spirit abiding in Timothy is to watch incessantly the deposit or trust of divine truth left in his charge; and where the one, the succession, fails, there, as this verse would lead us to expect, and as all church history proves, the other, the truth of doctrine, is immediately in imminent jeopardy." (p. 44.)

But, however this may be, the theory of the two on the subject of tradition is evidently precisely the same; and the power which the Church of Rome in every age assumes of declaring what is and what is not an apostolical tradition, is a power limited in theory by these rules. It is true that in the application of these rules the Church of Rome may be "neglectful of antiquity" for the sake of maintaining some favourite doctrine or rite, as Mr. Newman justly charges upon her, but so may others also, and some think that the writers of the Tracts for the Times may in some points be included in the number; nay, the Church of Rome may (as Bellarmine does for her in the passage we have been quoting) claim to be the only church remaining that possesses the apostolical succession. But these matters are quite distinct from her doctrine of tradition. They may lead her into error in her application of that doctrine, but they are quite distinct from and independent of it. The doctrine is precisely the same as that advocated by the Tractators.

Mr. Newman has devoted his second lecture to the subject of "Romanism as neglectful of antiquity." The charge is a just one, but I cannot think that Mr. Newman has there proved it; for all which his observations go to prove is, that some individual members of the Church of

Rome have without difficulty conceived themselves to have found in the Fathers precisely what their prejudices led them to wish for.

Now did it never strike him that if his own great argument is just, viz. that the meaning of Scripture must be uncertain and obscure, because it is quoted in support of opposite doctrines, this is one of the best proofs he could have given of the uncertainty and obscurity of patristical tradition, that the Fathers can so readily be adduced in favour of contrary views?

In making these remarks, I would by no means be understood to deny that practically the system of the Romish church is much worse than a faithful adherence to such a rule of judgment would produce. On the contrary, we are at issue with Rome, not merely as to her theory of tradition, but also as to her allegation that primitive antiquity is on her side. We deny altogether that patristical testimony taken as a whole is in her favour, and claim it in behalf of the doctrines of our own church, and therefore are opposed to Rome, as it respects the fact what doctrines and practices have the support of antiquity. And to this part of our controversy with her our opponents would limit our whole controversy with her, and still further reduce even this part of it, by admitting doctrines repudiated both by the authoritative documents and the best divines of our church, and claiming for them with the Romanists the support of antiquity. We may say of them, therefore, what both we and they agree to say of the Romanists, that their doctrines are worse than a faithful adherence to their own rule would produce; ever remembering that besides this controversy as to the matter of fact, we have another and a more important with them, as to what is the sole divine rule of faith and practice.

II. That such tradition is consequently a part of the divinely-revealed rule of faith and practice.

In addition to the extracts given under the last head, I subjoin the following,

I assert," says Bellarmine, "that Scripture, although

not composed principally with the view of its being a rule of faith, is nevertheless a rule of faith, not the entire rule but a partial rule. For the entire rule of faith is the word of God, or God's revelation made to the church, which is distributed into two partial rules, Scripture and tradition."

And so the Tridentine Catechism says, "The whole of the doctrine to be delivered to the faithful is contained in the word of God, which is distributed into Scripture and traditions."

III. That it is a necessary part of the divine rule of faith and practice, on account of the defectiveness of Scripture, for that (1) though it does not reveal to us any fundamental articles of faith or practice not noticed in Scripture, Holy Scripture containing, that is, giving hints or notices of, all the fundamental articles of faith and practice, it is yet a necessary part of the divine rule of faith and practice as the interpreter of Scripture, and as giving the full development of many articles, some of which are fundamental, which are but imperfectly developed in Scripture and, (2) it is an important part of that rule as conveying to us various important doctrines and rules not contained in Scripture.

The former of these two propositions includes two points; the first, that Holy Scripture contains all the fundamental articles of faith and practice; the second, that nevertheless it is to be considered as even in these only a part of the rule of faith and of the divine rule of practice, the other part being tradition as its interpreter, and as giving a sufficient development of those articles.

On the first of these points, Mr. Newman and Mr. Keble both assert that it is not held by the Church of Rome. With how little reason the following extracts will show.

"There are two things," says Bellarmine, "to be par

1 De V. D. iv. c. 12.

2 Omnis doctrinæ ratio, quæ fidelibus tradenda sit, verbo Dei continetur, quod in Scripturam traditionesque distributum est. Cat. Trid. Præf. §. xix.

ticularly observed . . . . The first is, that there are some things in the Christian doctrine as well of faith as of morals, that are in themselves (simpliciter) necessary to all for salvation, such as is a knowledge of the Articles of the Apostles' Creed, likewise a knowledge of the ten commandments and certain sacraments. The rest are not so necessary, that without an explicit knowledge and belief and profession of them a man cannot be saved, if only he have a ready mind to receive and believe them when they shall have been legitimately propounded to him by the church. . . . . Observe, secondly, that those things which are in themselves (simpliciter) necessary, the apostles were in the habit of preaching to all; but of other things they did not deliver all to all men, but some of them to all, those, namely, which were of use to all, some to the prelates, bishops, and presbyters only 1 These things being observed, I assert, that all those things were written by the apostles which are necessary to all, and which they themselves had openly preached to all without distinction; but that of other things not all were written." 2 And further on he says, (going quite as far as, if not beyond, even our opponents themselves in his admissions on this point,)" I assert, that of all those articles which relate to the nature of God, there exist proofs (testimonia) in the Scriptures, and that we may be fully and clearly instructed concerning those articles from the Scriptures if we take them in their right sense."3

1

And, like our opponents, he repudiates with indignation the charge made against the Romanists by the Protestants, of undervaluing Scripture. “It is usual,” he says, "with them, [i. e. the Protestants] to treat the matter as if they defended the Scriptures only, and we defended

This notion of there being a reserve observed by the apostles in the communication of religious knowledge, and of some matters having been committed by them more especially to the custody of the clergy, has also been embraced by our opponents, and an exhortation given by them to the present church to practise a similar reserve! See Tract 80, "On reserve in communicating religious knowledge."

traditions only, nor cared whether traditions were agreeable to Scripture or contrary to Scripture. But it is not so: for we put a higher value on Scripture (Scripturam pluris facimus) than they do; nor admit any tradition against Scripture." 1

From the two former of these passages, then, it is evident that the more learned Romanists hold that all those doctrines the belief of which is essentially necessary to salvation, including particularly the articles in the Apostles' Creed, are contained in the Scriptures. There is, indeed, an intimation that there must also be a willing mind to embrace those points which may be propounded for belief by the church, but then it must be recollected that the Church of Rome does not profess to introduce new doctrines, but only to inculcate those which are derived either from Scripture or that church-tradition which (like the Tractators) it receives as apostolical. That is, the concession here made that the Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation is accompanied by the requirement that that is also to be believed which the church propounds as an apostolical doctrine derived from tradition; a demand which seems to me to be equally made by the Tractators.

And when it is intimated that what is propounded by the church is a necessary article of faith, it is not meant that the matter of it is in itself a necessary article of faith, but that a direct rejection of what the church delivers from "tradition" as divine revelation is a mortal sin. As it is said by a "learned and esteemed writer" (as he is called by Chalmers) of the Romish communion, viz. Abraham Woodhead, "Fundamental, indeed, they [the Romanists] call sometimes all points defined by the church's councils, and hold them necessary to be believed for attaining salvation; but not necessary in such a sense as ratione medii necessary; or absolutely extra quas

1 Ib. c. 3.

266

Among the polemic writers of the seventeenth century, few are more generally read or respected than the celebrated Abraham Woodhead."-Charles Butler.