revelation, because it would have been sufficiently evident when the inspiration of its Author was proved ". What the apostles and evangelists wrote, cannot but be the word of Him who invested them with miraculous powers. Hence the inspiration of each book of scripture follows on its genuineness being established, and we need not suppose that any special revelation was necessary to prove that inspiration, any more than to prove the genuineness and authenticity of scripture, the truth of the miracles, the integrity and freedom from imposture of our Saviour and the apostles.

I. There are four customary modes of proving that scripture "containeth all things necessary to salvation." From the nature and end of scripture; from the general sentiment of Christians; from the inadequacy of oral tradition; and from the scripture itself. These I shall consider successively.

It has been contended by the majority of Roman theologians in modern times, that only a part of the word of God is contained in scripture, and that the remainder has been handed down by unwritten tradition; whence they conclude that it is lawful to require the belief in certain doctrines as articles of faith, which are not mentioned in scripture. In opposition to this principle I argue thus, from theological reasons:

1. It is an article of faith even in the Roman obedience, that scripture is the word of God, and that it was written by His authority. The Synod of Trent "receives all the books of the Old and New Testament, because one God is the author of both." To

h Van Mildert, Boyle Lectures, perspiciensque hanc veritatem et vol. ii. p. 400, 401.

"Sacrosancta, œcumenica, et generalis Tridentina Synodus...

disciplinam (evangelii) contineri in libris scriptis, et sine scripto traditionibus, quæ ab ipsius Christi

suppose, indeed, that the scriptures could have been written without the will of God, and yet that the church in all ages should regard them as standards of faith, would be altogether inconsistent with the promise of Christ to be always with his church, and to send it the Spirit of truth for ever. A circumstance so deeply affecting the whole people of God, could not have occurred without the Divine will. Scripture then was written not casually or by the momentary impulse of the apostles and evangelists, however apparently it may have been so it was really the decree of GOD which caused it to be written. This should be remembered by those who are so rash as to argue from the apparently casual origin of some books of scripture, that it was not designed to be a standard of faith'.

Now, I would ask of our opponents, for what conceivable end could scripture have been written by the will of God, except for that of preserving those doctrines of Revelation which were to be in all future ages believed by men? They prove that scripture was not designed to be a judge in controversy, that it was not calculated to teach the Gospel. They show abundantly that he

ore ab apostolis acceptæ, aut ab ipsis apostolis, Spiritu Sancto dictante, quasi per manus traditæ ad nos usque pervenerunt; orthodoxorum patrum exempla secuta, omnes libros tam Veteris quam Novi Testamenti, cum utriusque unus Deus sit auctor, nec non traditiones ipsas, tum ad fidem tum ad mores pertinentes, tanquam vel oretenus a Christo vel a Spiritu Sancto dictatas, et continua successione in ecclesia catholica conservatas, pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit et veneratur."-Sess. iv. See Perceval on the Roman Schism, p. 159.

retics have made an evil use of it, and pretended to confirm their errors by its words'. The question then recurs with still greater force: Why did God cause the scripture to be written? It was evidently for the purpose of preserving an authentic record of his Revelation. But if so, the whole Revelation of God must be contained in scripture, because otherwise it would accomplish only partially and imperfectly the end of its creation. If a legislator desires to commit his laws to writing, in order that an authentic record of them may remain to all future times, it is not to be supposed that he will omit a portion of them. He will indeed provide some mode of interpreting and executing those laws but he will not designedly leave any portion of them out of the record.

2. If tradition alone is supposed to convey some articles of the Christian faith, I ask, why does it not convey all? Why were not the inconveniences, which you allege to arise from the existence of scripture, avoided? If you reply that scripture was designed to afford a greater evidence to Christian truths, then you admit that doctrines supported by scripture as well as tradition have more evidence, are more certain, than those supported by tradition only; and therefore that God meant to establish a distinction between the necessity of those doctrines. For surely it is in the highest degree improbable, that doctrines equally necessary should be left with totally unequal evidence, that some articles of the faith should be delivered by

Bailly, Tract. de Eccl. Chr. t. i. p. 294, &c.; De la Luzerne, Dissert. sur les Eglises Cath. et Prot. t. i. p. 25; Collet, Theologia Scholast. t. ii. p. 499.

1

Milner, End of Controv. let. viii; De la Luzerne, Dissert. sur les Eglises Cath. et Prot. i. 20— 25; Delahogue, p. 90.—Melchior Canus, De Loc. Theol. 1. iii. c. 2.

scripture as well as tradition, and others by tradition only. Such a mode of proceeding would seem inconsistent with the order, the uniformity, the harmony, nay, the equity of the Divine proceedings. If indeed it could be proved directly that God had so ordered his Revelation, we should firmly believe that He had secret purposes, to the accomplishment of which these apparent irregularities were all conducive: but in the absence of such direct proof, we must conclude in favour of the doctrine of the sixth Article, which asserts the completeness of scripture for the very end for which it was written, and which supposes the whole of revealed truth to be supported by an uniform and equal authority. All articles of faith, according to the Anglocatholic doctrine, are proved by scripture, and by a universal tradition establishing the right interpretation, and corroborating the testimony of scripture. This is certainly a much more reasonable system, and much more probable in the abstract, than that which imagines that God would have left some of his Revelation to be proved from tradition only.

3. If tradition alone had been perfectly sufficient for the conveyance of Christian doctrine in all ages", it is not to be supposed that scripture would have been written at all; because there is no superfluity in the works of God. His means are always adequate to their ends, but they are never expended unnecessarily. Hence, from the existence of scripture, we may infer that tradition alone was insufficient for the preservation of Christian doctrine in the catholic church in all ages.

"The Christian doctrine and discipline might have been propagated and preserved by the unwritten word, or tradition, joined with the authority of the

church, though the Scriptures had not been composed; however profitable these most certainly are," &c.-Milner, End of Controv. let. x.

Nor can this argument be retorted on us, because we admit the necessity of both scripture and tradition to prove every article of faith, and therefore tradition is not superfluous.

4. Scripture comprises some things that are not essentials of religion. It mentions several rites and regulations such as washing of feet, the kiss of peace, the prohibition of long hair, &c. which are acknowledged now to be non-essential. How improbable is it that God should permit such things to be introduced in his word, while he willed that some articles of the faith should not be found there.

II. From the general persuasion of Christians.

I claim the whole weight of authority in favour of the doctrine of the sixth Article. That doctrine was generally held by the fathers and the schoolmen, and it is even more consistent with the doctrine of the Roman church, than the opinion to which it is opposed.

It was the doctrine of the Egyptian churches that the scripture contains all the articles of the faith. Origen says: "In the two testaments every word that appertaineth unto God may be sought and discussed, and out of them all knowledge of things may be understood. And if any thing remains which holy scripture does not determine, no other third scripture ought to be received to authorize any knowledge, but we must commit to the fire what remains, that is, reserve it unto God "." Athanasius: "The holy and divinely inspired

"In hoc biduo puto duo testamenta posse intelligi, in quibus liceat omne verbum quod ad Deum pertinet (hoc enim est sacrificium) requiri et discuti, atque ex ipsis omnem rerum scientiam capi. Si quid autem superfuerit,

quod non divina scriptura decernat, nullam aliam tertiam scripturam debere ad auctoritatem scientiæ suscipi. . . sed igni tradamus quod superest, id est Deo reservemus."-Orig. Hom. v. in Levit. t. ii. p. 212. ed. Bened.