* God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will.' (Heb. ii. 3, 4.) Where we plainly see the resolution of faith as to the divinity of the doctrine, was into the miracles wrought for the confirmation of it, (which was the proper witness or testimony of the Holy Ghost;) but the means of conveyance was by the tradition of those who were eye and ear witnesses of what Christ said or did. As, therefore, it was not supposed necessary for them who saw the miracles of Christ, either to have some inward testimony of the Spirit, or some external infallible testimony of the Church, to assure them that these miracles were really done by Christ, but God left them to the judgment of sense, so, proportionably, neither of those two is now necessary for the resolution of our faith; but God, instead of the judgment of sense, leaves us to the evidence of tradition [i. e. that tradition which consists principally of the testimony which the eye and ear witnesses of what Christ said and did,' bave left us in the Scriptures. See p. 158, &c.]

"3. On what account do I believe these particular books of Scripture to be God's word. Which may admit of a double sense : 1. On what account, I do believe the doctrine contained in these books to be God's word. 2. On what account I do believe the books containing this doctrine to be God's word. And to the first, I have answered already, viz. upon the same rational evidence which God gave, that the testimony of those who delivered was a divine and infallible testimony. To the second, I answer in these two propositions.

"1. That the last resolution of faith is not into the infallibility of the instrument of conveyance, but into the infallibility of that doctrine which is thereby conveyed to us... Hence we may discern the difference between the formal object, and the rule of faith; the formal object is that evidence which is given of the infallibility of the testimony of those who delivered the doctrine, [which, as we have seen, he considered to be their miracles]; the infallible rule of faith to us is the Scripture, viz. that which limits and bounds the material objects of faith, which we are bound to believe; and this doth, therefore, discover to us what those things are, which, on the account of the formal object, we are obliged to believe.

"2. Those who believe the doctrine of Scripture to be divine, have no reason to question the infallible conveyance of that doctrine to us in those books we call the Scripture. Therefore, whatever things we are to believe in order to salvation, we have as great evidence as we can desire that they are infallibly conveyed to us. 1. If the doctrine of Christ be true and divine, then all the promises he made were accomplished. Now that was

one of the greatest, that his Spirit should lead his Apostles into all truth. (John xvi. 13.) Can we, then, reasonably think that if the Apostles had such an infallible assistance of the Spirit of God with them in what they spake in a transitory way to them who heard them, that they should want it in the delivering those records to the Church, which were to be the standing monuments of this doctrine to all ages and generations? ... So that it will appear an absurd thing to assert that the doctrine of Christ is divine, and to question whether we have the infallible records of it... 2. Because these books were owned for divine, by those persons and ages who were most competent judges whether they were so or no. For the age of the Apostles was sufficiently able to judge whether those things which are said to be spoken by Christ, or written by the Apostles, were really so or no. And we can have no reason at all to question but what was delivered by them was infallibly true. Now, from that first age we derive our knowledge concerning the authority of these books, which, being conveyed to us in the most unquestionable and universal tradition, we can have no reason in the world to doubt; and therefore the greatest reason firmly to assent that the books we call the Scripture are the infallible records of the word of God."

Where we see that the utmost which is allowed to Churchtradition in this matter is, to bear witness to the matter of fact that the books of Scripture were written by those whose names they bear, and were from the first acknowledged by Christians as inspired; and that this testimony stands not alone in proof of it.

And this is still further proved by the supposed dialogue he introduces between himself and a heathen, in which he says,— "Will you believe such things wherein persons of several ages, professions, nations, religions, interests, are all agreed that they were so? A. Yes IF IT BE ONLY TO BELIEVE A MATTER OF FACT ON THEIR TESTIMONY; I can see no ground to question it. [to which the reply is] THAT IS ALL I DESIRE OF YOU, and therefore you must believe that there was in the world such a person as Jesus Christ, who died and rose again, and while he lived wrought great miracles to confirm his doctrine with; and that he sent out Apostles to preach this doctrine in the world, who likewise did work many miracles, and that some of these persons, the better to preserve and convey this doctrine, did write the substance of all that Christ either did or spake, and withal penned several Epistles to those Churches which were planted by them." Then having proceeded to prove the divinity of the doctrine by the miracles of Christ and the success of his doctrine, he adds, on the

1pp. 204, 5, 8, 9.

VOL. II.

DDD

point of the divine inspiration of the Scripture, "If you believe the doctrine to be true and divine, you cannot reasonably question the infallibility of the Scriptures. For in that you read that not only Christ did miracles, but his Apostles too, and therefore their testimony, whether writing or speaking, was equally infallible; all that you want evidence for is, that such persons writ these books, and that, being a matter of fact, was sufficiently proved and acknowledged before," namely in that "persons of several ages, professions, nations, religions, interests, are all agreed" in it. That is, Church-tradition supplies us only with evidence for the matters of fact connected with this point, and with but part of the evidence we have for them.

And so with respect to the genuineness of what we receive as Scripture, though he grants and asserts that "the universal consent of persons of the Christian Church in all ages" would be a sufficient ground for our being certain "that the Scripture we have was the same delivered by the Apostles," yet he says that this is not the only testimony we have for it, but "we do justly appeal to the antient copies and MSS., which confirm the incorruption of ours."'3

Again, combating the idea that we receive the Scriptures "on the sole authority of Church-tradition," he says, "Is there any repugnancy in the thing, that Scripture should be received first upon the account of tradition, and yet afterwards men resolve their faith into the Scripture itself? May not a man very probably believe that a diamond is sent him from a friend upon the testimony of the messenger who brings it, and yet be firmly persuaded of it by discerning the sparklings of it?"4

"General tradition at first makes way for the first admission of Scripture, as the general repute of an Embasadour's coming doth for his access to the Prince; the particular tradition of the Church is like the Embassadour's affirming to the Prince that he hath letters of credence with him; but then when he inquires into the certainty of those letters, those motives of credibility (not which relate to the person of the Embassadour but) which evidently prove the sealing of those letters (as the constant testimony of such who were present at it, the Secretaries and Embassadours venturing their lives upon it) must confirm him in that; and lastly, his own reading the credentials give [gives] him the highest confirmation; i. e. the testimony of those who saw the miracles of Christ and his Apostles, and confirmed the truth of their testimony by their dying for it, are [is] the highest inducement to our believing that the Scriptures were sealed by God himself in the miracles wrought, and written by his own hand, 1 p. 177. 2 pp. 211, 12. 3 p. 210. 'p. 222.

his Spirit infallibly assisting the Apostle; but still, after all this, when in these very Scriptures we read such things as we cannot reasonably suppose could come from any but God himself, this doth in the highest degree settle and confirm our faith." And he applauds Justin Martyr for that "in all his discourses, where he had the most occasion administered to him to discover the most certain grounds of Christian faith, he resolves all into the rational evidence of the truth, excellency, and divinity of the doctrine which was contained in the Scriptures.""

I will add but one more quotation. It is pleaded by the Tractators as by the Romanists, that as Scripture is known (according to them) by tradition, so the oral tradition of the Apostles may be as to the substance of it known in the same way. The following extract will show Bishop Stillingfleet's opinion of such a notion. "Your next inquiry is to this sense, whether Apostolical tradition be not as credible as the Scriptures. I answer freely -SUPPOSING IT EQUALLY EVIDENT-what was delivered by the Apostles to the Church by word or writing hath equal credibility. You attempt to prove, That there is equal evidence, because the Scripture is only known by the tradition of the Church to be the same that was recommended by the Apostolical Church, which you have likewise for Apostolical tradition.' But, 1. Do you mean the same Apostolical tradition here or no, which the Archbishop [Laud] speaks of, i. e. that act of the Apostles whereby they delivered the doctrine of Christ upon their testimony to the world? If you mean this tradition, for my part I do not understand it as anything really distinct from the tradition of the Scripture itself. For although I grant that the Apostles did deliver that doctrine by word as well as writing, yet if that tradition by word had been judged sufficient, I much question whether we had ever had any written records at all. But because of the speedy decay of an oral tradition, if there had been no standing records, it pleased God in his infinite wisdom and goodness to stir up some fit persons to digest those things summarily into writing, which otherwise would have been exposed to several corruptions in a short time. For we see presently in the Church, notwithstanding this, how suddenly the Gnostics, Valentinians, Manichees, and others, did pretend some secret tradition of Christ or his Apostles distinct from their writings. When, therefore, you can produce as certain evidence for any Apostolical tradition distinct from Scripture as we can do that the books of Scripture were delivered by the Apostles to the Church, you may then be hearkened to, but not before."

The next witness to whom I would refer is

1

1 p. 260.

2 p. 267.

3 p. 210.

BISHOP PATRICK,

from whose "Discourse about Tradition" Mr. Keble has given an extract. From this passage the system under review can clearly look for no support in more than one point, and that is as to the degree of authority to be given to what is called catholic consent in the interpretation of Scripture. On this point Bishop Patrick uses expressions in this extract which leave it doubtful what degree of authority he attributed to it. But what is wanted from Mr. Keble's witnesses is not a testimony of this doubtful nature, but one which distinctly declares, in accordance with his system, that such consent is part of the rule of faith. We do not deny, but on the contrary affirm, that our Church receives the faith which has the witness of what is popularly called catholic consent, but we do deny that she considers herself bound by the authority of that consent, i. e. of a certain number of Fathers and Councils, or that it forms any part of her rule of faith. Where does Bishop Patrick assert this? Nowhere. On the contrary, when we come to read his treatise as a whole, we find that in the commencement of it he distinctly states that Church-tradition has but human authority, and begins by showing that such texts as 2 Thess. ii. 15, ("hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our Epistle"), upon which Mr. Keble appears to ground his reverence for traditions,1 are nothing to the purpose as an argument for our receiving traditions.

"In this," he says, "we all agree, that the whole Gospel or doctrine of Christ which is now upon record in those books we call the Scriptures, was once unwritten, when it was first preached by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles, which must be noted to remove that small objection with which they of the Roman Church are wont to trouble some people's minds, merely from the name of traditions, which St. Paul in his Epistles requires those to whom he writes carefully to observe; particularly in that famous place 2 Thess. ii. 15. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our Epistle.' Behold, say they, here are things not written, but delivered by word of mouth, which the Thessalonians are commanded to hold. Very true, should the people of our Church say to those that insist upon this, but behold also, we beseech you, what the traditions are of which the Apostle here writes, and mark also when it was that they were partly unwritten. For the first of these, it is manifest that he means by traditions, the doctrines which we now read in the holy

1 Serm. p. 22, and text.