true interpretation of scripture. He does not allude to the question whether tradition conveys any truths of revelation which are not also in scripture. In the second passage, he establishes the lawfulness of certain practices from apostolic tradition as we do but these practices or rites were not part of the revelation made by God.

(3.) S. Basil: "Among the points of belief and practice in the church, some were delivered in writing, while others were received by apostolic tradition in mystery, that is in a hidden manner; but both have an equal efficacy in the promotion of piety; nor are they opposed by any one who is but slightly versed in ecclesiastical rites," &c."

Answer. S. Basil held our opinion, as we have seen (page 11). He is here arguing with those who objected to the form of ascribing glory to the Holy Ghost used in the church, because it was not expressly written in scripture against such he argues that tradition alone is sufficient to justify forms and rites; for that this is his meaning appears, by his referring to a number of rites and forms which were only derived from tradition. If this eminent writer meant to go further, we must only say with the Romanist Delahogue: "Non semper ad vivum urgenda sunt Patrum verba, et speciatim ubi adversus hæreticos disputant: vehemens enim cum adversariis contentio, inquit Theodoretus Dialogo 3o, quandoque facit ut modum excedant," &c. And as Vincentius Lirinensis says, Whatever any one may think beyond all or against all, though he may be holy

a

and learned, a bishop, a confessor or a martyr, should be placed among peculiar, secret, private opinions, apart from the authority of the common, public and general doctrine "" Now the whole weight of tradition is in favour of the perfection of scripture.

b

(4.) S. Epiphanius: "We must look also to tradition, for all things cannot be learned from scripture For which reason the holy apostles left some things in writing and others not," &c."

S. John Chrysostom: "Hence it is plain that they did not deliver all things by epistle, but many without writing: yet the latter are worthy of faith like the former. Wherefore let us hold the traditions of the church to be worthy of faith. It is a tradition: seek nothing more "."

d

Answer. S. Epiphanius alludes to matters of discipline, which we admit were not all written. Chrysostom, as we have seen (p. 12) maintained the perfection of scripture. He here piously urges the credibility of the church in general; but if his words be strictly taken to mean that any part of the catholic faith was handed down without scriptural proof, we must consider it as an inaccuracy, which cannot have any weight against the general sentiment of the church.

(5.) The synod of Nice determined the consubstantiality of the Son both by scripture and tradition, therefore the principle of the sixth Article is wrong.

b Vincentii Lirinens. Commonitor. c. 28.

с

Epiphanii Hæres. lxi. Oper. t. i. p. 511.

d Chrysostom. Hom. iv. in 2 Thess. c. iii. Oper. p. 532. t. xi. Trevern, Discussion Amicale, t. i. p. 185.

Answer. The Article does not deny that Christian doctrine should be proved both by scripture and tradition, which is the doctrine of our churches.

Our op

ponents hold that tradition only is sufficient, therefore they, and not we, contradict the synod of Nice.

CHAPTER II.

ON DEDUCTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE.

HAVING established the first truth of the sixth Article, I now proceed to another which is of even greater importance; namely, that not only what is "read" in scripture, but what is "proved thereby," may be an article of faith. It has been alleged that the Article merely implies that if a point cannot be proved out of scripture, it is no truth of revelation; but that it does not follow that what can be proved out of scripture must therefore be a truth of revelation. This objection is equally applicable to the other assertion of the Article, and would prove that what is "read" in scripture, may not be a truth of revelation. The simple question is, whether the Article does not admit " scriptural proof" as much as the express words of scripture, to be sufficient to establish articles of faith and that it does so is evident from the disjunction "whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man," &c.

The doctrine now under consideration involves two questions:

Hampden, Observations on Religious Dissent, p. 9. 2d, ed.

VOL. II.

D

First, whether any deductions from scripture, in the sense of interpretations, are matters of revelation and articles of faith?

Secondly, whether all deductions from scripture interpretations are merely matters of opinion and human speculation?

On the determination of these questions the whole fabric of Christian doctrine, nay the truth of revelation itself depends. If the latter be determined in the affirmative, it is most true, as it has been alleged, that the differences between the various societies of professing Christians are unimportant. Socinians, Pelagians, &c. cannot be regarded as heretics, for the doctrines of the Trinity, the real divinity of Jesus Christ, Original Sin, &c. being only "proved" by scripture, are of course to be regarded as human speculations. On the same principle the doctrinal statements of the Articles and Creeds in general are merely

pious opinions "," which it must be uncharitable to urge as matters of faith, or as a mark of discrimination between Christian and Christian. Thus the necessity of believing the most vital truths of Christianity is subverted.

If the former question be determined in the negative, that is, if no "interpretations" of scripture be matters of faith, then the same consequences as before follow in a still greater degree, because every doctrine

b Hampd. p. 4, 5. "If I prove my point," said Tindal the deist, "I shall, it may be hoped, in some measure put an end to those otherwise endless disputes which divide and distract the Christian world."-Christianity as old as

the Creation, p. 121.

Ibid. p. 19, 20, 21. 26, 27. d Ibid. p. 14.

e Ibid. p. 5 compared with p. 14. 21, 22.

f Ibid. p. 4. 7.

and duty of religion rests on the interpretation or meaning of scripture, and if no particular interpretation is necessary to salvation, no particular belief or practice can be requisite to salvation.

This is a conclusion in which the mind cannot rest. Either it is false; or Christianity is a delusion.

I. If the scripture be a revelation from God to man for his salvation, it must have a fixed meaning impressed on it by God himself. For the object of the All-merciful and All-wise Creator in presenting to us the scripture, could not have been merely that we might possess a book without meaning. On the contrary it is manifest, that the sole immediate object which God could have had in view, in clothing his revelation in language, was, that it might convey to us a certain meaning which we call the interpretation. Language would be entirely worthless in a revelation, except as a medium for conveying the Divine meaning. Those therefore who maintain that all interpretations of the language of scripture are merely human, and that no one interpretation is necessary to be held, must advance another step, and either admit that the scriptures do not contain any Divine revelation necessary to be believed, or else blasphemously assert that God made a

Morgan the infidel argues, that after the most honest enquiries, men understand the same verbal propositions of Scripture in different senses, and that "the doctrines doubtless consist of the sense, and not in the verbal propositions abstracted from their meaning; and therefore if two men believe the doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation, Christ's sa

tisfaction, &c. in different senses, they really believe different doctrines about the same thing: but is it not strange that God should reveal a religion as of any necessity or use to mankind, which is not to be understood in any one certain determinate sense, but may be taken in as many different senses," &c.-Moral Philosopher, p. 18.