tinued 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."s

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 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 lat

ter 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. "In the 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."

Rem tanta connexionis et successionis serie confirmatam. In. Ib.

2 Tam fundatæ auctoritati, a temporibus Apostolorum usque ad hæc tempora

certis successionibus custoditæ atque perductæ. In. Ib.

3 Ep. ad. Vincent. Rogat. et. 93. ii. 246, 7. See vol. i. pp. 162, 163. 4 In canonicis autem Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quamplurium auctoritatem sequatur, inter quas sane illæ sint, quæ Apostolicas Sedes habere et Epistolas

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 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."

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

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. In. De doctr. Christ. lib. ii. c. 8. ii. Part. 1. col. 23.

1 Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Catholicæ Ecclesiæ commoveret auctoritas. ID. Contra Ep. Man. quam voc. Fundam. c. 5. viii. 154.

2 ID. ib. c. 4. viii. 153. See the passage, p. 324 above.

00*

work, and an argument which, if I mistake not, savours more of the ingenuity of the sophist than the simplicity and force of truth.'

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, 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.*

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.

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

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

3 ID. Ib. § 3. vii. 8. A.

4 ID. Ib. § 4. vii. 8. C. 9. A, B.

439

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 prima 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.

The extracts given by Mr. Keble in support of the system under consideration, are to be found in No. 78 of the Tracts for the Times, entitled, "Testimony of writers in the later English Church, to the duty of maintaining, quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus traditum est,"-a copy of which is subjoined to his Sermon on Tradition, and the following remarks made respecting it; "He [i. e. Mr. Keble] is principally anxious to remove any impression which may exist of his wishing to recom

1 See vol. i. p. 40, 41.

mend a new theory, or rule of faith, devised for present occasions, by any particular school of divines, now or at any former time. On the contrary, he is persuaded that what he is endeavouring to inculcate, is no other than the very rule of the Church of England, as distinguished on the one hand from Romish usurpation, on the other from rationalistic licentiousness. And in support of this persuasion, he appeals to the collection of authorities concerning Tradition, from the standard English divines, under the title of Catena Patrum, which is subjoined to this reprint of the sermon, by permission of the editor of the Tracts. for the Times. If he err in his estimate of the spirit of the English Church, it will appear, he trusts, by those papers, that at least his error was not of his own invention-that he has both high and ancient authority for it." (p. 68.)

And in the introductory observations in this Tract, we are told that the extracts were intended "to show that the succession of our standard divines ever since their [the reformers'] times, understood them to hold that view of doctrine which it has been the endeavour of these Tracts [Tracts for the Times] to recommend; and that no other can be taken, without contradicting both that illustrious succession itself, and its judgment concerning the reformers."

These remarks, be it observed, are made of those very men, of whom Mr. Newman now tells us that, in the service of the Eucharist, they "mutilated the tradition of 1,500 years," that the Arcicles are "the offspring of an un-catholic age," that "it is NOTORIOUS that the Articles were drawn up by Protestants, and intended for the establishment of Protestantism," the word Protestantism being used to describe those views in our Church, which the Tractators oppose, their interpretation of the Articles being admitted to be "Anti-Protestant," and "not that which their authors took themselves ;" and of whom Mr. Keble himself tells us elsewhere that, in the revision of the liturgy, they gave up altogether the ecclesiastical tradition “regarding certain very material points in the celebration, if not in the doctrine, of the holy Eucharist ;" and "must have felt themselves precluded ever after from urging the necessity of episcopacy, or of anything else, on the ground of uniform Church-tradition."

Such are the astounding self-contradictions of the Tractators. "The doctrine maintained," says the Tract, is, that "Catholic tradition teaches revealed truth, Scripture proves it; Scripture