1

Moreover, as to the grounds upon which we rest the genuineness and incorrupt preservation of the books of Scripture, the following passage from his work against Faustus the Manichee, will clearly show us what was his view of the matter. "If you ask of us," he says, "how we know that these are the writings of the Apostles, we briefly answer you, that we know this just in the same way as you know that these are the writings of Manichæus;" proceeding to say that as they would laugh at any one who should deny "a thing confirmed by such a continued line of connexion and succession," as that their books were written by Manichæus; so they themselves were to be laughed at if they questioned the genuineness of the canonical Apostolical writings, "an authority having such a foundation to rest upon, preserved and carried down by certain successions from the times of the Apostles, even to the present time." "

And he says elsewhere (in a passage already quoted), "The integrity and a knowledge of the writings of any one bishop, however illustrious, could not be so preserved, as the canonical Scripture is preserved by the variety of the languages in which it is found, and by the order and succession of its rehearsal in the Church; against which nevertheless there have not been wanting those who have forged many things under the names of the Apostles. To no purpose indeed, because it was so in esteem, so constantly read, so well known."

From these passages, then, it is evident that Augustine rested the question of the genuineness of the Scriptures not upon any dictum of the Church conveyed down by succession from Apostolical teaching, nor upon the mere testimony of the Church, but upon grounds similar to that

Hic jam si quæratis a nobis, nos unde sciamus Apostolorum esse istas litteras, breviter vobis respondemus, inde nos scire, unde et vos scitis illas litteras esse Manichæi. In. Contra Faust. lib. xxxii. c. 21.

2 Rem tanta connexionis et successionis serie confirmatam. ID. Ib.

3 Tam fundatæ auctoritati, a temporibus Apostolorum usque ad hæc tem

pora certis successionibus custoditæ atque perductæ. In. Ib.

4 Ep. ad. Vincent. Rogat. ep. 93. ii. 246, 7. See vol. i. pp. 200, 201.

on which the genuineness of other books rests, though justly considering that those grounds were vastly more full and forcible in the former than in the latter case.

Nay, he draws a distinction between the canonical books themselves on account of the difference in the amount of the external testimony to them.

canonical Scriptures," he says, "let him follow the authority of as many Catholic Churches as possible, among which let those without fail be included which have deserved to have Apostolical Chairs and to receive Apostolical Epistles. Therefore he will observe this method in the canonical Scriptures, that he must prefer those which are received by all Catholic Churches to those which some do not receive; but in the case of those which are not received by all, let him prefer those which the greater number and the worthier receive, to those which the fewer Churches and those of less authority hold. But if he shall have found that some are maintained by the greater number, and others by those of more weight, although he cannot easily find this, I think, nevertheless, that such are to be esteemed of equal authority." 1

On the statements in this passage I offer no opinion, as that would be irrelevant to our present subject, but one thing it certainly proves, namely, the wide difference between the views of Augustine on the question, and those of the Romanists and the Tractators.

We may also remark, both from this and other passages, that Augustine often uses the word "authority," not in the sense of something absolutely and of itself binding those on whom it acts, but rather in the sense of

In canonicis autem Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quamplurium auctoritatem sequatur, inter quas sane illæ sint, quæ Apostolicas Sedes habere et Epistolas accipere meruerunt. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in Scripturis canonicis, ut eas quæ ab omnibus accipiuntur Ecclesiis catholicis, præponat eis quas quædam non accipiunt: in eis vero quæ non accipiuntur ab omnibus, præponat eas quas plures gravioresque accipiunt, eis quas pauciores minorisque auctoritatis Ecclesiæ tenent. Si autem alias invenerit a pluribus, alias a gravioribus haberi, quamquam hoc facile invenire non possit, æqualis tamen auctoritatis eas habendas puto. ID. De doctr. Christ. lib. ii. c. 8. iii. Part. 1. col. 23.

a testimony, having a degree of weight proportioned to the character and power of him who bears it.

And this leads me to notice the famous passage so frequently objected to our views from Augustine. Writing against the Manichees, he says, "But I would not believe the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so." 1

But that "the authority of the Catholic Church" was not the sole motive that induced him to believe the Gospel, is evident from what we have already quoted above from his Confessions; nor does the passage imply as much, but only that "the authority of the Catholic Church" was one necessary ground upon which his belief rested; and that that "authority" was not absolute in his view, is evident, not only from other passages, but from the words. that precede, where, after enumerating the motives which induced him to prefer the Catholic Church, and remarking that none of these were to be found with the Manichees, but only the promise of the truth, he adds,—" which indeed, if it is so manifestly exhibited as not to be doubtful, is to be preferred to all those things by which I am retained in the Catholic Church."2

This passage, therefore, if explained so as to be consistent with Augustine's own statements elsewhere, means no more than that the witness of the Church to the Scriptures is an important and necessary part of the grounds upon which we believe the Scriptures. And if the construction of the argument seems to imply more, it is an inconsistency in which we must judge of Augustine's real sentiments by the general tenor of his statements, rather than by a casual argument in a controversial work, and an argument which, if I mistake not, savours more of the ingenuity of the sophist than the simplicity and force of truth.3

1 Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Catholicæ Ecclesiæ commo. veret auctoritas. ID. Contra Ep. Man. quam voc. Fundam. c. 5. viii. 154. 2 ID. ib. c. 4. viii. 153. See the passage, p. 432 above.

See Laud's Conf. with Fisher, § 16. n. 20. p. 52. and § 19. n. 2. pp. 81, 2. d. 1686. and Stillingfleet's Vindication of the Answer to some late papers, p. 47, 8. ed. 1687.

CHRYSOSTOM (fl. a. 398.)

Many other testimonies in favour of our views might be added from other writers, but, not to multiply them unnecessarily, we conclude with Chrysostom, who, in his first homily on Matthew, refers to the internal evidence of the Gospels, as showing the fidelity of the writers,1 and also that they were assisted by the Spirit of God, and to the influence and success of their writings in the world at large, as showing that a Divine power accompanied them.3

We have thus endeavoured to set before the reader the sentiments of the principal early Fathers on all the five points in which the views of our opponents, upon this question of the Divine Rule of faith and practice, may be summed up; and, without detaining him by any further observations on them, leave it to his judgment to determine whether their suffrages are with the Tractators, or with us.

We pass on to the consideration of the doctrine of the Church of England, and her principal divines, on this question; and hope, notwithstanding the representations of the Tractators, clearly to show that, with respect to these, there can be, if possible, even less doubt of their agreement with us, and repudiation of the doctrines we are here opposing, than in the case of those whose views we have been considering.

CHRYS. In Matt. hom. 1. § 2. tom. vii. p. 5. C. p. 6. A, B.

2 ID. Ib. § 3. vii. 8. A.

3 ID. Ib. § 4. vii. 8. C. 9. A, B.

583

CHAPTER XI.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, AND HER PRINCIPAL DIVINES, ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK.

THE doctrine of the Tractators on the subject of "tradition," has been very confidently put forth by them as the doctrine of the Church of England; and an attempt has been made by Mr. Keble in particular to prove this to be the case, by a series of extracts from the works of Anglican divines.

Now, it cannot fail to strike the reader as very remarkable that, if the doctrine of the Church of England on this subject is, as we are now told, the same as that of the Church of Rome, our divines should have troubled themselves to write, as undeniably they have written, against the Romish doctrine of tradition and the Rule of Faith. If the question between us and Rome on this subject had been (as Dr. Pusey tells us) "purely historical," relating to the genuineness of certain particular traditions, to this question would the dissertations and remarks of our divines have been limited. There is, therefore, a primâ facie case against such a notion of the strongest kind. And I will venture to add, and will now endeavour to prove, that the further the inquiry be extended, the more complete and overwhelming will be the evidence against their having entertained such views.

1 See vol. i. p. 38.