LECTURE XI.

ON SCRIPTURE AS THE RECORD OF FAITH.

Ir will perhaps be questioned, whether the foregoing view of Catholic Tradition and the Fundamentals of the Church, is consistent with the supremacy of Holy Scripture in questions of faith. That it is not consistent with present popular notions on the subject I am quite aware; but it may be that those notions are wrong, and that the foregoing view, which, is received from and maintained by our great divines, is right. If it could be proved contrary to any thing they have elsewhere maintained, this would be to accuse them of inconsistency, which I leave to our enemies to do. However, I will not content myself with a mere appeal to authority, but will argue the question on grounds of reason. In this, then, and the two following Lectures, I propose to discuss the question of what is sometimes called "the Rule of Faith;" and to show, that nothing that has gone before is inconsistent

with the reverence, gratitude, and submission with which we should receive Scripture.

The sixth Article speaks as follows: "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever 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 to salvation."

Now, this statement is very plain and clear except in one point, viz. who is to be the judge what is and what is not contained in Scripture. Our Church is silent on this point,-very emphatically So. This is worth observing; in truth, she does not admit, strictly speaking, of any judge at all, in the sense in which Romanists and Protestants contend for one; and in this point, as in others, holds a middle course between extreme theories. Romanism, as we all know, maintains the existence of a Judge of controversies, nay, and an infallible one, that is, the Church Catholic. It considers, that the Pope, in General Council, can infallibly decide on the meaning of Scripture, as well as infallibly discriminate between Apostolic and spurious Traditions. Again, the multitude of Protestants also maintain the existence of a judge of Scripture doctrine, but not one and the same to all, but a different one to each individual. They consider every man his own judge; they hold that every man may and must read Scripture for him

self, and judge about its meaning, and make up his mind for himself; nay, is, as regards himself, and practically, an infallible judge of its meaning; -infallible, certainly, for were the whole new creation against him, Bishops, Doctors, Martyrs, Saints, the Holy Church Universal, the very companions of the Apostles, the unanimous suffrage of the most distinct times and places, and the most gifted and holiest men, yet according to the popular doctrine, though he was aware of this, he ought ultimately to rest in his own interpretations of Scripture, and to follow his Private Judgment, however sorry he might be to differ from such authorities.

Thus both Protestantism and Romanism hold the existence of an authoritative judge of the sense of Scripture; whereas our Article preserves a significant silence about it; which agrees with our mode of treating the subject in other passages of our formularies. For, in truth, we neither hold that the Catholic Church is an infallible judge of Scripture, nor that each individual may judge for himself; but that the Church has authority, and that individuals may judge for themselves outside the range of that authority. This is no matter of words, but a very clear and practically important distinction, as will soon appear.

The Church is not a judge of the sense of Scripture in the common sense of the word, but a witness. If indeed, the word judge be taken to mean what it means in the Courts of Law, one vested

with authority to declare the received appointments and usages of the realm, and with power to enforce them, then the Church is a judge,-but not of Scripture, but of Tradition. On the contrary, both Protestant sectaries and Romanists consider their supposed judge to be a judge not merely of past facts, of precedents, custom, belief, and the like, but to have a direct power over Scripture, to contemplate questions of what is true and false in opinion, to have a special gift by divine illumination, gift guaranteed by promise, of discerning the Scripture sense without perceptible human Media, to act under a guidance, and as if inspired, though not really so. Whether any such gift was once destined for mankind or not, it avails not to inquire; we consider it is not given in fact, and both Romanists and Protestants hold it is given. We, on the other hand, consider the Church as a witness, a keeper and witness of Catholic Tradition, and in this sense invested with authority, just as in political matters, an ambassador, possessed of instructions from his government, would speak with authority. But, unless in such sense as attaches to an ambassador, the Church, in our view of her office, is not a judge. She bears witness to a fact, that such and such a doctrine, or such a sense of Scripture, has ever been received and came from the Apostles; the proof of this lies first in her own unanimity throughout her various branches, next in the writings of the Ancient Fathers; and she acts upon

Y

this her witness as the executive does in civil matters, and is responsible for it; but she does not undertake of herself to determine the sense of Scripture, she has no immediate power over it, she but alleges and submits to what is ancient and Catholic. The mere Protestant, indeed, and the Romanist may use Antiquity; but it is as a mere material by which the supreme judge, the spiritual mind, whether collective or individual, forms his decisions, as pleadings in his court, he being above them, and having an inherent right of disposing of them. We, on the contrary, consider Antiquity and Catholicity to be the real guides, and the Church their organ. For instance, in the 20th Article, a distinction is made between rites and doctrines, and it is affirmed the Church has power over the one, but not over the other; "the Church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith." Again, in the Canon of 1571, the rule of deciding these controversies is given: "Preachers shall be careful not to preach aught to be religiously held and believed by the people, except what is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old or New Testament, and collected from that very doctrine by the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops."

The Act of Queen Elizabeth, though proceeding from the laity and since repealed, expresses the opinion of the age which imposed the Articles, and it speaks to the same purport as this Canon. It