TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.

135

firmly and mildly oppose ourselves, if we would accelerate the progress of sound spiritual religion. Nor must. we be diverted from our purpose, by any exemplary qualities we may admire in the persons of these mistaken but respectable writers.

It is impossible in a brief chapter of observations contained in a biography itself not very extended, to attempt a full refutation of the opinions sent forth into the world by the authors of the "Tracts for the Times." But a few remarks upon some of the doctrines they contain, will not be irrelevant to the general purposes of the present volume.

The foundation upon which these theologians rest, is that "Catholicity is the only test of Truth ;" and their primary object is to build on the old rotten basis of tradition. They assert that the best divines of our Church, from the list of which they carefully exclude the Reformers of the sixteenth century, held views, the sum of which is comprised in the following compendium : "Catholic tradition teaches revealed truth, Scripture proves it; Scripture is the document of faith, tradition the witness of it; the true creed is the Catholic interpretation of Scripture, or scripturally-proved tradition; Scripture by itself teaches mediately and proves decisively; tradition by itself proves negatively and teaches positively; Scripture and tradition taken together are the joint rule of faith." Thus they sum up their notover lucid statement. They acknowledge at the same time, that the extracts from English divines given in their "Catena Patrum," are but expositions and comments upon the celebrated tract of Vincentius Lirinensis on heresy, which they conceive from the respect paid to

Tracts for the Times, No. 78, Ad populum.

his notions by the authors they quote, may be looked upon as "the formal manifestation of our Church as regards all the controversies of the last three hundred years." This remarkable tract was written in the fifth century, and was chiefly directed against the Pelagians and Nestorians, and others, the first of whom Vincentius calls "certain frogs, corruptible gnats and flies," while he denounces Nestorius as one who "from a sheep suddenly transformed into a wolf, began to devour the flock of Christ." The acuteness with which he reasons against these heresies is undeniable, and some of his observations are worthy of our admiration; but unfortunately, he sets out with asserting that it is by the word of God and tradition jointly, that our faith must be defended and preserved. To this end, he uses thoroughly Popish arguments; and how far he is entitled to be the expositor of Protestant views of tradition, may be at once imagined from the high commendation Bellarmine the champion of Popery bestows on his work." What right also, a man holding such notions on tradition, has to be considered as agreeing with our Church, will best appear from the words of our sixth Article, which makes a declaration perfectly the contrary. "Holy Scripture," it declares," contains all things necessary for salvation so that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary for salvation." If our Oxford divines mean to elude this plain statement, I would tell them an anecdote for their consideration. A worthy sufferer of the name of Hawkes, was under ex

1 "Ranæ quædam et cyniphes et musca moritura."

2 Bellarmine says of him, " Scripsit opusculum parvum mole, sed virtute maximum.”

TRADITION.

ANECDOTE.

137

amination before one of Bonner's chaplains, of whom he ventured to inquire, " Is not the Scripture sufficient "Is for my salvation ?" "Yes," replied the chaplain, "it is sufficient for our salvation, but not for instruction." "Well then," rejoined the honest but quaint martyr, "God send me the salvation, and take you the instruction." So when the writer of the Catena Patrum, No. III., asserts that Scripture "proves decisively," and that "tradition by itself proves negatively," I would say to him, "give me the decisive proof, and take you the negative one-only pray keep it to yourself if you are so fond of it, and do not send it forth to mystify the Christian Church." In making these remarks, it is not intended to assert that we reject tradition altogether, for we embrace some traditional points historical and ceremonial; but there is a wide distinction between these and opinions of faith or precept, which must have a sure basis, like that which can alone be found in the written, unanswerable volume of divine inspiration. This view will be maintained by sound Churchmen in spite of being called ultra-protestant, remembering that the friends of the sole authority of the word of truth have been nicknamed before, by the Cabalist Jews who applied to such contemptuously the term karaim, and by the Catholics who bestowed upon the men who opposed tradition that of Scripturarians. Thank God, we belong to a Scripturarian Church.

But I would further ask those persons who conceive that " Scripture and tradition taken together, are the joint rule of faith," whether they do not believe the true Church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone?" And if they admit this, then I would inquire is not every doctrine necessary for a Christian to know,

66

revealed in the writings of the apostles and prophets? Christ and his apostles condemned those who rested on human traditions instead of the Old Testament; and if this was spoken with reference to the books of Moses and the prophets, it is true a fortiori of the canon of the Old and New Testament together. Certain modes and forms in themselves not essential and so not explicitly laid down, but left open in the Bible, may be fairly referred to tradition; but this is an entirely different thing from basing on it articles of faith. We look," says Mede, "after the forms, rites, and discipline of antiquity, and endeavour to bring our own as near as we can to that pattern;" but the extreme care of this learned writer with regard to fundamentals, appears throughout the whole of his well known letters to Mr. Hartlib. I mention Mede, because the writer of the Catena Patrum has quoted him in his favor, with the same infelicity which marks his choice of several other authors. He had better listen to Mr. Mede's observation on Truth and consider it well: "I cannot believe that truth can be prejudiced by the discovery of truth; but I fear that the maintenance of truth by fallacy may not end in a blessing." With regard to tradition, the Romanists are placed in this dilemma: by them tradition is made to supply the defects, as they say, of Scripture, and Scripture is made to supply the defects of tradition; but both are undermined by the interpreting authority of the Church! Neither Scripture nor tradition have weight with them but by that authority-that is, they believe nothing but themselves! If our Oxford writers are not very careful indeed, they will soon find that they are in a similar difficulty, out of which it is to be wished that they may find a happy extrication, by reverting to the good old principles which make the Bible the only foun

EFFICACY OF THE SACRAMENTS.

139

dation of every article of faith. article of faith. We call the Scriptures canonical, not because the authority of the Church has stated them to be so, but because they supply a canon or rule to the Church by which ecclesiastical doctrines must be tested, as well as the spiritual condition of every believer. As to the antiquity As to the antiquity made a ground for tradition, what is so old as the Bible itself? The sacred writings are the oldest records of religion; and in making them our guide we follow antiquity, authenticity, and inspiration. What can we need more? Nay, as we can diminish nothing from the doctrines of the word of God, without taking a link from the luminous and perfect chain of truth, so we can add nothing thereto without impairing its proportions, and mingling with the lustre and beauty of its celestial shining, the dimness and clumsiness of the dogmas of man.

Near akin to the error just adverted to, and invariably joining hands with it in its misty path, is the notion of the efficacy of the Sacraments. When we see the ex

tremes into which men are carried in their speculations on this subject, it is an unspeakable privilege to have a Church amongst us, like ours, maintaining the true mean. Far be it from us to look upon these sacred ordinances as only nude rites, or mere pictures of grace, when we ought to know that they are nothing less than signs to exhibit, seals to confirm, and channels to convey to the souls of the faithful the choicest blessings of the Covenant.

Believing, as we do, that the children of Christian parents are not "unclean but holy," we conceive that they are as much called to baptism as infants of Jewish parents were to circumcision. Hereby they are intro

1 1 Cor. vii. 14.