APPEALS TO CATHOLIC DECISIONS SUPERFluous. 49 which they rest the vindication of their own decisions; and as taking for their authoritative standard of rectitude and truth in religious matters, not Scripture alone, but Scripture combined and" blended with Tradition." § 23. The readiness with which some persons acquiesce, at least profess to acquiesce, in supposed decisions of the Universal or Catholic Church, using the term in a sense in which it can even be proved that no such Community ever existed on Earth, and of General Councils, such as, And it is very true that they do (as it in fact, never met, and of Traditions sewas perfectly natural they should, enveral of which are such as to need proof, gaged as they were in controversy with first, how far they are genuine, and next, the Romanists) frequently refer to the how far, if admitted to be genuine, they records which their opponents appealed would be binding on all Christians, this to, in order to show that the very authorready acquiescence, I say, is the more ex-ities these last were accustomed to rely traordinary, when we consider that many of the points which are attempted to be supported by an appeal to such authority, do, in fact, stand in no need of that support, but have a firm foundation in Scripture, by virtue of the powers plainly conferred by Christ Himself on Christian Communities. Any forms, for instance, for Public Worship, and for the Ordaining of Christian Ministers, which contain (as our Reformers maintain respecting those they sanctioned*) nothing that is in itself superstitious and contrary to God's Word," are plainly binding, by Christ's own sanction, on the members of the Church that appoints them. But some, it should seem, are not satisfied with a justification of their own ordinances and institutions, unless they can find a plea for condemning all those who differ from them. And this plea they seek, not by endeavouring to show the superior expediency, with a view to decency, good order, and edification of the enactments they would defend, but by maintaining the obligatory character of supposed apostolical traditions; and then they are driven, as I have said, to shift our own institutions from the foundation on a rock, to place them on sand. When one sees persons not content with the advantages they enjoy, unless they can exclude others, and in the attempt to do so, "falling into the midst of the pit they have digged for another," it is hardly possible to avoid recalling to one's mind the case of Haman, and the result of his jealousy of Mordecai. Some persons have endeavoured, from time to time, to represent our Reformers as appealing to the practice of what is called the Primitive Church, and to the writings of the early Fathers, as the principal, or as one principal-ground on Article xxxvi. on, are in fact opposed to them. They point out the proofs extant that many doctrines and practices which had been made to rest on supposed ancient tradition, were in fact comparatively modern innovations; and they vindicate themselves from the charge of innovation in some points by referring to ancient precedents. All this is perfectly natural and perfectly justifiable. But it is quite a different thing from acknowledging a decisive authority in early precedents, and in Tradition, either alone, or "blended with Scripture."* If any man is charged with introducing an unscriptural novelty, and he shows first that it is scriptural, and then, (by reference to the opinions of those who lived long ago) that it is no novelty, it is most unreasonable to infer that Scripture authority would have no weight with him unless backed by the opinions of fallible men. No one would reason thus absurdly in any other case. For instance, when some bill is brought into one of the Houses of Parliament, and it is represented by its opponents as of a novel and unheard-of character, it is common, and natural, and allowable, for its advocates to cite instances of similar Acts formerly passed, Now. how absurd it would be thought for any one thence to infer that those who use such arguments must mean to imply that Parliament has no power to pass an *The maxim of "abundans cautela nocet ne mini" is by no means a safe one if applied without limitation. See Logic, b. ii. ch. 5, § 6.) It is sometimes imprudent (and some of our Divines have, I think, committed this imprudence) to attempt to "make assurance doubly sure" by bringing forward confirmatory reasons, which, though in themselves perfectly fair, may be interpreted unfairly, by representing them as an suming, for instance, that an appeal to such and acknowledged indispensable foundation;-by assuch of the ancient Fathers or Councils, in con firmation of some doctrine or practice, is to be understood as an admission that it would fall to the ground if not so confirmed. Act unless it can be shown that similar] were early precedents for the form of Acts have been passed formerly! Church-government they maintained.-If any Bishop of the present day should for the different Orders of the Ministry, be convinced that such and such Theolo- and for the mode of appointing each. gians, ancient and modern-had given They believed, no doubt, as a fact, that correct and useful expositions of certain the Apostles ordained Ministers, and these parts of Scripture, he could not but wish others, and so on in succession, down to that the Clergy he ordained should give the then-existing period. But what was similar expositions; and he would proba- the basis on which they deliberately chose bly recommend to their attentive perusal to rest their system? On the declared the works of those theologians. Now principle that "those and those only are now monstrous it would be to represent to be accounted as lawfully appointed aim, on such grounds, as making those Ministers who are called and sent out by works a standard of faith conjointly with those who have authority in the Congrega. Scripture! tion" (or Church) "to call and send laOf a like character is the very reference bourers into the Lord's vineyard:" and have now been making to the documents though themselves deliberately adhering Out forth by those Reformers themselves. I to episcopal Ordination, they refrain, both certainly believe them to be in accordance in the Article on the "Church" and in with the principles above laid down as that on "ministering in the Church" from scriptural and reasonable: but I protest specifying Episcopacy and episcopal Orand so probably would they) against dination as among the essentials. blending with Scripture" the writings of § 24. Some individuals among the Rethe Reformers, to constitute jointly a rule formers have in some places used lanof faith binding on every Christian's con- guage which may be understood as imscience. If any one is convinced that the plying a more strict obligation to conform doctrines and practices and institutions of to ancient precedents than is acknowDur Church are unscriptural, he is bound ledged in the Articles. But the Articles in conscience to leave it. being deliberately and jointly drawn up for the very purpose of precisely determining what it was designed should be determined respecting the points they treat of, and in order to supply to the Anglican Church their Confession of Faith on those points, it seems impossible that any man of ingenuous mind can appeal from the Articles, Liturgy, and Rubric, put forth as the authoritative declarations of the Church, to any other writings, whether by the same or by other authors.* Our Reformers believed, no doubt, that their institutions were, on the whole, similar to those of the earliest Churches; perhaps they may have believed this simiarity to be greater than it really is; but what is the ground on which they rested the claim of these institutions to respect ful acquiescence? On the ground of their "not being in themselves superstitious, and ungodly, and contrary to God's Word;" on the ground of the "power of each particular Church to ordain and abrogate or alter" (though not wantonly. and inconsiderately) Church-rites and ceremonies, provided nothing be done contrary to Scripture. So also, they believed, no doubt, that the doctrines they taught, and which they commissioned others to teach, were such as had been taught by many early Fathers; and thinking this, they could not but wish that the teaching of the Clergy should coincide with that of those Fathers: but what was the rule laid down, the standard fixed on, for ascertaining what should be taught as a part of the Christian Religion? It was Holy Scripture; not Scripture and Tradition, jointly and "blended together," but the Written Word of God; nothing being allowed to be taught as an Article of faith that could not thence be proved. Again, they doubtless believed that there * Articles XIX. XX. XXIII. XXXIV. XXXVI. "XIX. Of the Church.-The visible Church of Christ [" ecclesia Christi visibilis est," &c. evidently A visible Church of Christ is a congrega tion, &c.] is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly administered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. "As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith. "XX. Of the Authority of the Church.The Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, alneither may it so expound one place of Scripture, though the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it n THE ARTICLES THE SYMBOLS OF OUR CHURCH. On the contrary, the very circumstances that opinions going far beyond what the Articles express, or in other respects considerably differing from them, did exist, and were well known and current, in the days of our reformers, gives even the more force to their deliberate omissions of these, and their distinct declaration of what they do mean to maintain. It was not hastily and unadvisedly that they based the doctrines of their Church on " the pure Word of God," and the claim of their Church to the character of a Christian Community, on its being a "Congregation of believers, in which that pure word is preached, and the Christian Sacraments duly administered." Whatever therefore may have been the private opinion of any individuals among their number, they have declared plainly to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation. "XXIII. Of Ministering in the Congregation. -It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord's vineyard. "XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church. -It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. Whosoever through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the uh, which be not repugnant to the Word of red. and be ordained and approved by common ay ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the con sciences of the weak brethren. "Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying. 51 what it was they agreed in regarding as a safe and sufficient foundation, and as essential, and consequently requiring to be set forth and embodied in the Symbol or Creed of their Church. But neither the Reformers of our Church, nor any other human being, could frame any expressions such as not to admit of being explained away, or the consequences of them somehow evaded, by an ingenious person who should resolutely set himself to the task. And accordingly our Church has been represented as resting her doctrines and her claims on Scripture and Tradition jointly, and “blended" together. We have been told for instance of a person held up as a model of pure Anglican Church principles, that he "submitted to the decision of inspiration wherever it was to be found, whether in Scripture or Antiquity." And again we have been told that "Rome differs from us as to the authority which she ascribes to tradition: she regards it as co-ordinate, our divines as sub-ordinate; as to the way in which it is to be employed, she, as independent of Holy Scripture; ours, as subservient to, and blended with it: as to its limits, she supposes that the Church of Rome has the power of imposing new articles necessary to be believed for salvation; ours, that all such articles were comprised at first in the Creed, and that the Church has only the power of clearing, defining, and expounding these fixed ar ticles." Now whether the above description be a correct one as far as regards the tenets of the Church of Rome, I do not pretend to decide, nor does it belong to my present purpose to inquire: but the description of the tenets of the Anglican Church, is such as I feel bound to protest against. If indeed by "us" and "our divines" is to be understood certain individuals who profess adherence to the Church of England, the above description is, no doubt, very correct as far as relates to THEM: but if it be meant that such are the tenets of our Church itself as set forth in its authoritative Confession of Faith,— the Articles,-nothing can be more utterly unfounded, and indeed more opposite to "XXXVI. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers.-The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such consecration and Ordering: neither hath the truth. Our Church not only does not it any thing that of itself is superstitious and un-" blend Scripture with Tradition," but godly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated takes the most scrupulous care to disor ordered according to the Rites of that Book, tinguish from every thing else the Holy since the second year of the forenamed King Ed- Scriptures, as the sufficient and sole au ward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same Rites; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered." thoritative standard. Our Reformers do not merely omit to ascribe to any Creed or other statement of any doctrine, an intrinsic authority, or one derived from tradition, but in the Article on the three Creeds, they take care distinctly to assign the ground on which those are to be retained; viz., that "they may be proved by Holy Writ." $25. As for the distinction drawn between making Tradition on the one hand "an authority co-ordinate with Scripture," on the other hand "subordinate and blended with Scripture," I cannot but think it worse than nugatory. The latter doctrine I have no scruple in pronouncing the worse of the two; because while it virtually comes to the same thing, it is more insidious, and less likely to alarm a mind full of devout reverence for Scripture. When men are told of points of faith which they are to receive on the authority of Tradition alone, quite independently of any Scripture warrant, they are not unlikely to shrink from this with doubt or a disgust, which they are often relieved from at once, by a renunciation, in words, of such a claim, and by being assured that Scripture is the supreme Authority, and that Tradition is to be received as its handmaid only,-as not independent of it, but "subordinate and blended with it." And yet if any or every part of Scripture is to be interpreted according to a supposed authoritative Tradition, and from that interpretation there is to be no appeal, it is plain that, to all practical purposes, this comes to the same thing as an independent Tradition. For on this system, any thing may be made out of any thing. Nor, by the way, is it true that our Church has declared, in that, or in any other Article, " that all such Articles as are necessary to be believed for Salvation were comprised at first in the [Apos tles'] Creed. This, in fact, is neither done, nor was intended to be done, by the framers of that Creed; if at least they held as I doubt not they did the doctrine of the Atonement: for this is not at all mentioned in the Apostles' Creed. The cause, I have no doubt, was that the doctrine had not in the earliest ages been disputed. But at any rate, the fact is certain, that the Creed does dwell on the reality of the bistorical transaction only, the actual death of Christ, without asserting for whom or for what He suffered death. It is not meant to be implied that all persons who take this view are, themselves, disposed to join the Romish Church, or to think little of the difences between that and their own. Distinc tions may be felt as important by one person, which may appear to others, and may really be, utterly insignificant. The members, for instance, of the Russian branch, at least, of the Greek Church, are said to abhor image-worship, while they pay pictures an adoration which Protestants would regard as equally superstitious. to The Jews may resort, whenever it suits their purpose, (and often do,) to an appeal to their Scriptures INTERPRETED according to their tradition, in behalf of any thing they are disposed to maintain. I remember conversing some years ago with an educated Jew on the subject of some of their observances, and remarking, in the course of the conversation, that their prohibition of eating butter and flesh at the same meal, rested, I supposed, not like several other prohibitions, on the Mosaic written Laws, but on Tradition alone. No, he assured me it was prohibited in the Law. I dare say my readers would be as much at a loss as I was, to guess where. He referred me to Exod. xxiii. 19. In like manner, if any ordinary student of Scripture declares that he finds no warrant there for believing in the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and that he finds on the contrary our Lord Himself declaring that "it is the Spirit that quickeneth," (giveth life;) "the flesh profiteth nothing," he is told that Tradition directs us to interpret literally the words "This is my Body," and that he must not presume to set up his "private judgment" against the interpretation, and this, when perhaps he is assured by the same person, on similar grounds, that "the whole Bible is one great Parable!" If again he finds the Apostles ordaining Elders, (Presbyters,) and never alluding to any person, except Christ Himself, as bearing any such office in the Christian Church as that of the Levitical Priest, (Hiereus) he is told, on the authority of Tradition, which he must not dispute, that Presbyter means Hiereus, a sacrificing Priest. Mahomet's application to himself of the prophecy of Jesus, that He would send another Paraclete" or Comforter, was received by his followers on similar grounds; that is, it was an interpretation which he chose to put on the words; and woe to him who should dispute it! If again we find the whole tenor of Scripture opposed to invocation of Saints, and Image-worship, we may be told that there is a kind of invocation of Saints which the Scriptures, as interpreted by Tradition, allow and encourage. And so on, to an indefinite extent; just as effectually, and almost as easily, as if Tradi tion had been set up independent of Scripture, instead of being "blended with it."* • See Powell on Tradition, § 14-17. "You re two burdens instead of one. And it may be added that the insidious character of this system is still further increased, if the principle be laid down without following it out, at once, into all the most revolting consequences that may follow, and that have followed, from its adoption. For by this means a contrast It is almost superfluous to remark that is drawn between the most extravagant, nothing at variance with all this has been and a far more moderate, system of false- here advanced. The testimony of ancient hood and superstition; and it is insinu- writers as to the facts, that such and such ated that this favourable contrast is the doctrines or practices did or did not preresult of the one being built on "co- vail in their own times, or that such and ordinate" and the other on "subordi- such a sense was, in their times, conveyed nate" Tradition; the real difference being by certain passages of Scripture, may often only that every usurped and arbitrary be very valuable; provided we keep clear power, is usually exercised with compara- of the mistake of inferring, either that tive leniency at first, till it has been well whatever is ancient is to be supposed established. Let but the principle which apostolical, or even necessarily, in accordis common to both systems be estab-ance with apostolical teaching; (as if erlished; and the one may be easily made to auswer all the purposes of the other. 66 rors had not crept in, even during the lifetime* of the Apostles,) or again, that every practice and regulation that really had the sanction of the Apostles (and which, therefore, must be concluded to have been the best, at that time) was designed by them, when they abstained [see § 16] from recording it in writing, to be of universal and eternal obligation;-in short, that they entrusted to oral Tradition any of the essentials of Christianity. And, again, the opinions of any author, ancient or modern, are entitled to respectful consideration in proportion as he may have been a sensible, pious, and learned man: provided we draw the line distinctly between the works of divine messengers inspired from above, and those of fallible men. And all this time the advocates of this authoritative tradition may loudly proclaim that they require no assent to any thing but what may be proved by Scripture" that is, proved to them; and which, on the ground of their conviction, must be implicitly received by every man. It is most important,-when the expression is used of "referring to Scripture as the infallible standard," and requiring assent to such points of faith only as can be thence proved, to settle clearly, in the outset, the important question, "proved to whom?" If any man or Body of men refer us to Scripture, as the sole authoritative standard, meaning that we are not to be called on to believe any thing as a necessary point of faith, on their word, but only on our own conviction that it is scriptural, then they place our faith on And yet one may find persons defending this the basis, not of human authority, but of view by alleging that we have the Scriptures themdivine. But if they call on us, as a point selves by Tradition. Any one may be believed to of conscience, to receive whatever is be serious in urging such an argument, if it is proved to their satisfaction from Scrip- found that he places as much confidence in the tures, even though it may appear to us mitted from mouth to mouth by popular rumours genuineness of some account that has been transunscriptural, then, instead of releasing us from one end of the kingdom to another, as in a from the usurped authority of Man taking letter that has been transmitted over the same space. the place of God, they are placing on us | See Appendix, Note (K.) But what is the object (unless it be to * See Appendix, Note (L.) |