INTRODUCTION.

ready to receive both Scripture and the sense of Scripture, upon the authority of original Tradition." LAUD says, "We never did, nor ever will

1

refuse any tradition that is Universal and Apostolic for the better exposition of the Scripture."2 PRIDEAUX allows of "historical and exegetical Tradition."3 HAMMOND remarks, "I make no scruple to grant that Apostolical traditions, such as are truly so, as well as Apostolical writings, are equallythe matter of a Christian's belief; who is equally secured by the fidelity of the conveyance, that, as the one is Apostolical writing, so the other is Apostolical tradition." BRAMHALL writes thus to a Romanist:-"Thou art for Tradition, so am I. But my Tradition is not the tradition of one particular Church contradicted by the tradition of another Church, but the universal and perpetual Tradition of the Christian world united;" and in another place he calls such Tradition "the necessary means of finding out the true sense of Scripture."6 USHER, in his "Answer to a Jesuit," distinguishes between Catholic and Roman traditions, and, after admitting the former, proceeds to observe, "Traditions, therefore, of this nature,

5

come not within the compass of our controversy, the question being betwixt us de ipsâ doctrinâ traditâ, not de tradendi modo; touching the substance of the Doctrine delivered, not of the manner of delivering it." TAYLOR observes that both Anglicans and Romanists have received the faith "from the fountains of Scripture and Universal Tradition, not they from us, or we from them, but both of us from CHRIST and His Apostles." BARROW affirms, "It can, indeed, nowise be safe to follow any such leaders, who in their Doctrine or practice deflect from the great beaten roads of holy Scripture, Primitive Tradition, and Catholic practice." TILLOTSON admits that " general Tradition gives us the greatest and truest light for the right understanding of the true sense and meaning of Scripture." STILLINGFLEET says, "We reject nothing that can be proved by an universal Tradition from the Apostolical times downwards." PATRICK declares, "It is a calumny to affirm that the Church of England rejects all Tradition; and I hope, none of her true children are so ignorant, as when they hear that word, to imagine they must rise up and oppose it. No, the Scripture itself is a

tradition; and we admit all other traditions which are subordinate, and agreeable unto that; together with all those things that can be proved to be Apostolical by the general testimony of the Church in all ages. 991 SHERLOCK affirms "that to be a true exposition of Scripture which agrees with the ancient Formularies of faith, delivered down to us by an unquestionable Tradition, from the first ages of the Church ;" and adds, that the "faith of the Church of England is founded both on Scripture and Apostolic Tradition." And WAKE asserts, "We receive with the same veneration whatsoever comes from the Apostles, whether by Scripture or Tradition." 3

These citations might be continued to an almost unlimited extent. More than enough have been given to prove that the Church of England acknowledges Primitive Tradition. And here it may be observed, once for all, that wherever in her Formularies, or in the writings of her confessed champions, she inveighs against traditions, it is against such as presume to add any essential doctrine to the written Word-not against such as

1

1 P. 166.

2 P. 167.

See "Notes to the Introduction," Note (A).

3 P. 206.

are merely its interpreters, and are allowed by Catholic Antiquity.

Catholic
Tradition.

III. If it be inquired by what test she discri- The test of minates between true and counterfeit, Catholic and Roman Tradition, I answer, by the application of the golden rule of St. VINCENTIUS LIRINENSIS, Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus: Antiquity, Universality, Consent. This rule (to employ the language of Bishop Jebb) has been " received, extolled, and acted upon," by all the great Divines of our communion. CRANMER observes, "that the whole Church cannot make one Article of faith, although it may be taken as a necessary witness for the receiving and establishing the same, with these three conditions, that the thing which we would establish thereby, hath been believed in all places, ever, and by all men."1 JEWEL exclaims of the Romanists, "they have not, O good God! they have not on their sides what they pretend to have; they have neither Antiquity, Universality, nor Consent, of either all times or all nations; and of this they are not ignorant themselves."2 BILSON writes, "Now in the Catholic Church herself we must take heed we hold that which hath been believed at all

times, in all places, of all persons, for that is truly

991

992

and properly Catholic.” "Were Vincentius his rules," remarks JACKSON, "as artificial as they are orthodoxical and honest, the issue betwixt us and the Romanist would be very easy and triable." CHILLINGWORTH says, "That whatsoever hath been held necessary to salvation, either by the Catholic Church of all ages, or by the consent of Fathers, measured by Vincentius Lirinensis's Rule. . . . . I do verily believe and embrace." HALL inquires, "What is it which maketh a Church? what is it which maketh that Church One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic? Is it not One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic faith? But what is that? Is it not the same which was delivered by CHRIST and the Apostles to the whole world, and was always and everywhere approved through all ages, even unto our own times?" HAMMOND, when speaking of the qualifications of true Tradition, observes, " And herein I shall hope also that the resolution will be unquestionable, if it be bounded by those three terms, to which Vincentius Lirinensis, in his defence of the Catholic faith against heresies and innovations, hath directed us, Universitas, Antiquitas, Consensio :

1 P. 37.

2 P. 52.

3 P. 62.

4 P. 74.