ancient writings in general". It is moreover a kind of Tradition, which is applied to the Written Word, whereas Tradition, as a Rule of Faith, applies exclusively to the Unwritten Word.

Another argument for the similarity of the two Churches has been drawn from a confusion of the Interpretatio tradita with the Doctrina tradita. The interpreters of the Bible, like all other interpreters, copy occasionally from the works of their predecessors. The commentators of the eighteenth century have drawn from commentators of the seventeenth century; those of the seventeenth from those of the sixteenth; those again of the sixteenth from those of the fifteenth; and so on to the most ancient commentators. The consequence is, that if we compare a collection of ancient commentaries, such as may be seen in a Catena Patrum, with a collection of modern commentaries, such as may be seen in Pole's Synopsis, we shall find that the expositions of many passages are common to both collections: These expositions therefore, having been handed down from commentator to commentator, are considered as a sort of Tradition. But in order to distinguish the Tradition of interpretations from the

" If we undertake to prove the authenticity of the Epistles ascribed to Cicero, or to Pliny, we must use a similar process to that, which is employed in establishing the authenticity of the Epistles ascribed to St. Paul. The latter indeed are inspired, whereas the former are not. But this makes no difference, when we are concerned only with the question, whether a work is written by the author to whom it is ascribed. For the inspiration of the sacred writings is a fact, to which no Church, whether ancient, or modern, can bear witness. It is a fact, of which no human observation can take cognisance. It lies beyond the reach of human evidence; it can be proved only by divine testimony, and consequently by Scripture alone.

Tradition of Doctrines, writers on systematic Theology, have given the name of Traditio hermeneutica to the former, and the name of Traditio dogmatica to the latter. The same distinction is made by Bishop Burnet in his Exposition of the sixth Article. He there says, "We on the contrary assert, that "the Scriptures are a complete Rule of Faith, and "that the whole Christian Religion is contained in them, and no where else. And, although we "make great use of Tradition, especially that, which "is most ancient and nearest to the source, for "a clear understanding of the Scriptures, yet as to "matters of Faith, we reject all oral Tradition, as "an incompetent mean of conveying down Doctrines to us, and we refuse to receive any Doctrine, that "is not either expressly contained in Scripture, or "clearly proved from it"." But, if suppressing the distinction, which is here made between the Traditio hermeneutica, and the Traditio dogmatica, men argue, as if the admission of the one implied the admission of the other, they may argue to an agreement between the Churches of England and Rome. But even then their argument is inconclusive. For when the Church of Rome employs Tradition for the interpretation of Scripture, it employs it as something, which has the same authority with Scripture, and consequently as an authority, from which it has not the power to depart. But when the Church of England receives interpretations, which have been handed down from the early ages of Christianity, it receives them at 22 See Doederlein Institutio Theologi Christiani, tom. I. p. 181-187.

its own discretion, and not as a matter of obligation. It considers them as conveying merely the opinions of the Commentators themselves, in regard to the sense of the passages explained; and not as transmitting any thing divine or apostolical. The interpretations, which have received the sanction of antiquity, are so far indeed entitled to our respect. But we deny, that the interpretations even of the most ancient Fathers afford a criterion, by which the interpretations of our Church are to be tried. Indeed no one, who was acquainted with the fanciful interpretations of Justin Martyr, the forced interpretations of Irenæus, or the allegorical interpretations of Origen, would conclude, that interpretations were necessarily to be recommended, because they originated in the second and third centuries.

There is only one more instance, of which it can be necessary to take any notice; and that is the strange comparison of the English Liturgy with Romish Tradition. If our Liturgy be compared with any thing belonging to the Church of Rome, it must be compared with the Roman Missal, from which it was partly derived. But with Tradition, in whatever sense the term be taken, it has no similarity whatever. It is true, that our Liturgy and the Articles form a kind of Regula Fidei, when this term is used to denote Summary of Doctrines, or Formulary of Faith; in which sense the term is used by the most ancient writers of the Latin Church. But when this term is applied by the

24 Regula Fidei is then synonymous with Summa Fidei.

Hence

modern Romanists to Tradition, it is applied in a totally different senses. For it then denotes not merely a Rule, by which the Doctrines of one Church are distinguished from those of another, and which are founded solely on Scripture, but

Hence Tertullian applies it to a Summary, or Formulary of Faith, which contains nearly the same Articles, as are contained in the Formulary, called the Apostles' Creed. In this treatise De præscriptione Hæreticorum, cap. 13, Tertullian describes it in the following words, "Regula est autem Fidei, ut jam hinc quid “defendamus profiteamur, illa scilicet quâ creditur; Unum ❝ omnino Deum esse, nec alium præter mundi conditorem, qui “universa de pihilo produxerit, per Verbum suum primo om"nium demissum; Id Verbum filium ejus appellatum, in nomine "Dei varie visum a Patriarchis, in Prophetis semper auditum, "postremo delatum, ex spiritu Patris Dei et virtute, in virginem “Mariam, carnem factum in utero ejus, et ex eâ natum egisse "Jesum Christum: exinde prædicasse novam legem, et novam "promissionem regni cœlorum; virtutes fecisse; fixum cruci; "tertiâ die resurrexisse; in cœlos ereptum sedisse ad dexteram "Patris; misisse vicariam vim Spiritus Sancti, qui credentes 66 agat; venturum cum claritate, ad sumendos sanctos in vitæ "æternæ et promissorum cœlestium fructum, et ad profanos "adjudicandos igni perpetuo, factâ utriusque partis resuscisa"tione, cum carnis restitutionę." Tertulliani Op. p. 235. ed Rigaltii. We see then, that Tertullian gives the title of Regula Fidei to the Articles of Faith, which were then received by the Latin Church; and which contained nothing in addition to the Articles founded on Scripture. It is true, that Tertullian objected to the perversions, which the Heretics at that time made of Scripture, But his own appeals were so frequent, that the Index Scripturarum sacrarum, ut citantur a Tertulliano, occupies in the edition of Rigaltius, forty-nine folio pages.

25 Hence the celebrated Lutheran Divine, Dr. John Gerhard, who was professor of Divinity at Jena, about sixty years after Luther's death, says, " Requirit Stapletonus REGULAM FIDEI, Requirimus eandem et nos; sed sensu plane diverso ; öμola pèr τα λαλοῦμεν, ἀνόμοια δὲ φρονοῦμεν. Loci Theologi, tom. Ι. p. ed. Catta.

a Rule by which the very truth of Doctrines is supposed to be established, and established independently of Scripture. When we appeal to the Liturgy and Articles, we appeal to them as a Rule to determine, what the Doctrines of our Church really are: and we appeal to Scripture, when we intend to prove, that those Doctrines are true. But when a Romanist appeals to Tradition as a Rule of Faith, he appeals to it in proof of the Doctrines, which he learns from Tradition; he receives them on its sole authority, which he considers as equal, in all respects to the authority of Scripture. The latter he calls the Written Word of God; the former he calls the Unwritten Word of God; and consequently receives them pari pietatis affectu ac reverentiâ 6. But it is still objected, that, if we accompany the Bible with our Liturgy and Articles, we tacitly at least acknowledge the insufficiency of Scripture. We thereby admit (say our adversaries) as well as the Church of Rome, that "true religion cannot be found by the Bible alone." How then, I would ask, did our Reformers find it? It could not have been by the aid of the Liturgy and Articles; for the Liturgy and Articles were the

26

26 See the second section of Chap. II. See also the second section of Chap. III, where the Doctrines were described, which are founded solely on Tradition. Indeed the most distinguished among the Romish writers themselves, though they seem un◄ willing to separate the Articles of Faith, which are founded on Scripture, from those which are not founded on Scripture, acknowledge that many Articles of the latter kind are admitted by the Church of Rome. Thus says Bellarmine, “Quod autem "multa sint credenda, quæ non sunt in Scripturis, supra copiose "ostendi mus.” De Verbo Dei, Lib. IV. cap. 12.