Further 2. Our Church holding that all vitally important points are, in fact, contained and expressed in the writings of those who are called the catholic doctors of the first few centuries, has warned her ministers not to bring forward anything as vitally important which does not find some support in those writings. 1

And 3. Conscious that the writings of those Fathers, and the information we can gather from them as to the doctrines of the primitive Church, preponderate beyond comparison in her favour, she is at all times ready to meet the Romanists, or any other pseudo-catholics, on their own ground, and to let the Fathers be judges between us.

It remains for us to see what countenance our Church affords to the notion of our possessing articles of revelation of minor importance not contained at all in Scripture.

Our opponents contend that the 6th Article speaks only of points necessary to salvation. But its words seem not so limited. It tells us, as we have just seen, that what is not read in Scripture, nor may be proved thereby, "is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of the faith." And the attempt to explain this away, by understanding the phrase "the faith" to mean only the fundamentals of the faith, and to maintain that there are nevertheless articles of religious belief to be held by us that are not in Scripture, is surely a mode of dealing with the Article worthy only of censure and reprobation.

But however this may be, we have abundant other evidence. Thus the first homily says,-"In holy Scripture is fully contained what we ought to do and what to eschew, what to believe, what to love and what to look for at God's hands at length." "Nowadays," says the Apology, "the holy Scripture is abroad, the writings of the Apostles and Prophets are in print, whereby all truth

1 This warning, however, it must be observed, is given only in a Canon of Convocation, of no authority. But no doubt it is agreeable to the spirit in which our church and her great divines have upon the whole acted, and is well founded, and not without its use.

and catholic doctrine may be proved, and all heresy may be disproved and confuted." (Pt. 1. c. 8. div. 1.) And again; "We profess that in them [i. e. the Scriptures] be abundantly and fully comprehended all things whatsoever be needful for our health." (Pt. 2. c. 9. div. 1.) So Nowell's Catechism. "We are admonished not to follow or seek for anything in religion beyond what we are there [i. e. in the Scripture] taught by God." "Do you affirm, then, that all things necessary to piety and salvation are contained in God's written word? A. Certainly, for it would be the part of intolerable impiety and madness to think either that God had left an imperfect doctrine, or that men could complete what he had left imperfect." So that all the doctrine which "God has left" us, is contained in the Scriptures. And so, finally, the "Reformatio leg. eccl. ;"-"From the Scriptures alone the doctrines of religion and faith ought to be made up (constare) and confirmed," (tit. 1. c. 6,) which is clearly saying, in other words, that Scripture is the only source of all religious truth.

In reply to the fourth position, asserting the necessity of tradition on account of the obscurity of Scripture, even in the fundamental articles, we may refer to the testimonies already given on the second, particularly the following,—

"The humble man may search any truth boldly in the Scripture, without any danger of error. And if he be ignorant, he ought the more to read and to search holy Scripture to bring him out of ignorance." (Hom.) "We hear God himself PLAINLY speak to us in his most holy Scriptures, and may understand by them his will and meaning." (Apol.) Indeed, all the testimonies there given, directly or indirectly negative the position before us. We may add to them the following. Although many things in Scripture be spoken in obscure mysteries," says the Homily," yet there is nothing spoken under dark mysteries in one place, but the self-same thing in other places is spoken more familiarly and plainly, to the capacity both of learned and unlearned. And those things

66

in the Scripture that be plain to understand and necessary for salvation, every man's duty is to learn them, to print them in memory, and effectually to exercise them. And as for the dark mysteries, to be contented to be ignorant in them, until such time as it shall please God to open those things unto him."

And in direct opposition to Mr. Keble's statement, that for" the catholic doctrine of the most holy Trinity, as contained in the Nicene Creed," we are indebted to "the unwritten teaching of the first age of the Church," (see pp. 32 and 41,) the homily says," In these books [i. e. the Scriptures] we shall find the Father from whom, the Son by whom, and the Holy Ghost in whom, all things have their being and keeping up, and these three persons to be but one God and one substance.”

And so, in the "Declaration of certain principal Articles of religion," published in the first year of Queen Elizabeth, and required to be read by "all parsons, vicars, and curates," twice a-year, the second Article is, "I believe, also, whatsoever is contained in the holy canonical Scriptures, in the which Scriptures are contained all things necessary to salvation, by the which, also, all errors and heresies may sufficiently be reproved and convicted, and all doctrine and articles necessary to salvation established." 1

-

As it respects the fifth position,-that it is on the authority of Church-tradition that we must rest the canon and inspiration of Scripture, and the genuineness of what we receive as such, it is sufficient to remark, that our Church gives not the smallest countenance to such a notion. If, indeed, the testimonies adduced on the former points have (as we trust they have) shown that our Church does not admit the authority of tradition, or what is called catholic consent, as binding the conscience to the belief of what it testifies, there needs no further proof that she does not consider herself bound to accept the Scriptures as the word of God on that authority. The reception of

1 Wilk. Concil. iv. 195.

these books by the primitive Church is of course a necessary and indispensable part of the testimony upon which our reception of them depends; but that, not on the ground of any authority in the witness so borne, such that it should of itself bind us to belief in what it delivers, but because, had they doubted the claims of any book to be inserted in the canon, the historical evidence in its favour would have been imperfect and insufficient. And hence it was that our Church rejected from the canon several books which had been admitted into it by the Church of Rome.

The doctrine of our Church upon this point, however, will more fully appear in the testimonies which I am about to quote respecting the whole subject from the writings of some of her most eminent divines; to which I now proceed. And the first we have to notice is that of

BISHOP JEWell.

1

To find the name of this venerable Prelate and champion of Protestantism, called by Hooker," the worthiest divine that Christendom hath bred for the space of some hundreds of years," so associated, is indeed passing strange. The passages already quoted from the "Apology of the Church of England," written by him, make any further reference to his works almost needless; but it may have its use to those who are unacquainted with his sentiments.

The testimony quoted from him by Mr. Keble, is of course his famous challenge to the Romanists, calling upon them to point out any passage in any author of the first six centuries who supported their views and customs on certain points, and he would yield the question. For this, and this alone, Mr. Keble quotes him as a defender of his system! He must be driven to great straits to find witnesses to give his system a character. If he had only read to the end of the sermon from which he has quoted this challenge, he would have seen that his wit

Eccl. Pol. ii. 6.

ness altogether fails him. For at the close of the sermon, after quoting some passages from Ambrose, Cyprian, and Tertullian, directing us to the holy Scriptures as our guide and rule of faith, he adds,-"O that our adversaries, and all they that stand in defence of the masse this day, would content themselves to be judged by this rule! O THAT, IN ALL THE CONTROVERSIES THAT LIE BETWEEN US AND THEM, THEY WOULD REMIT THE JUDGMENT UNTO GOD'S WORD! So should we soon agree and join together. So should we deliver nothing unto the people but that we have received at God's hand." And in his correspondence with Dr. Cole respecting this very challenge, at the close of his last letter he says," O Master Doctor, let us lay aside all self-will and contention, and have recourse only unto the truth that God hath revealed to us in his holy word. For thereby shall ye be able to know whether the Church do right or no. And thereby shall ye be able to reform her if she happen to do amiss.

Thus Christ reformed the errors of the Church in his time, brought in by the Scribes and Pharisees, and said unto them, Scriptum est. . . . [and then, after having quoted some passages from the Fathers as before, he adds] To conclude, like as the errors of the clock be revealed by the constant course of the sun, even so the errors of the Church are revealed by the everlasting and infallible word of God."1

These passages clearly show that he had no intention, when making his challenge, of setting up the authority of the Fathers as any part of the rule of faith or supreme Judge of controversies. But when the Romanists boasted of their antiquity, to drive them even from this plea, he challenges them to produce any proof of it; and to show the certainty of his conviction that they could not do so, he offers to yield the cause to them, if they were able to do so.

We will not, however, dismiss so able and venerable a witness so hastily, especially as he has elsewhere still

I Works, p. 44.