But let it be observed after all, what kind of Tradition he is upholding; an independent witness of Christian Truth? far from it, merely and solely an interpretative Tradition, a Tradition interpretative of Scripture in the great articles of faith. Thus the very treatise, which is so destructive to mere Protestantism, is as fatal to the claims of Romanism. Not only is all mention of the Pope omitted as the judge of controversies, but all mention of Tradition, except as subordinate to Holy Scripture. The opening of his work will set this clearly before us :

"I have made frequent inquiries," he says, "and that with much earnestness and anxiety, of a great number of holy and learned men, for some definite and general rule for discriminating the truth of the Catholic faith, from the falsity of heretical pravity; and have always got an answer such as this, I may say, from all to fortify my faith in two ways first, by the authority of the Divine Law, next, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church. Here some one may ask, Since the Canon of the Scriptures is perfect, and sufficient, and more than sufficient in itself for all purposes, what is the need of joining to it the authority of the ecclesiastical sense? I answer, because the depth of Holy Scripture is such, that all do not take it in one and the same sense, but its statements are interpreted variously by various persons, so that as many senses seem deducible from it, as there are men to read it. .

On this account it is very necessary, such complicated and various error abounding, to regulate the interpretation of Prophets and Apostles by the standard of the Ecclesiastical and Catholic sense 1."

Now, on the former part of this extract I make this remark; Tradition, we know, is prior to Scripture in order of time, both historically and in its application to individuals 2. Romanists indeed rest its claims in no slight degree on this very circumstance. "Jesus Christ," says Bossuet 3, "having laid the foundation of His Church by preaching, the unwritten word was consequently the first rule of Christianity; and when the writings of the New Testament were added to it, its authority was not forfeited on that account." This being the case, it is very remarkable that Vincentius should put the written word first, and Tradition second. Had not Scripture been first in dignity and consideration, he necessarily would have made prior mention of the unwritten word. There is no other way of accounting for his saying, "first the authority of the Divine Law, next the Tradition of the Church Catholic." What follows makes this abundantly clear. The very need of Tradition arises only from the obscurity of Scripture, and is terminated with the interpretation of it. Vincentius assumes as undeniable, the very doctrine rejected by the Romanists, the sovereign

and sole authority of Scripture in matters of faith, nor has a thought of any other question but the further one, how it is to be interpreted. His submission even to Catholic Tradition, is simply and merely as it subserves the due explanation of Scrip

ture.

Vincentius's treatise was occasioned by the Nestorian controversy. I will now review some of the documents of the Apollinarian, in which the same principle of verifying doctrine by Scripture is firmly and uniformly kept in view.

Athanasius, in the following passage, distinguishes between Tradition as teaching, and Scripture as proving, verifying doctrine. "Our faith is correct, and is derived from Apostolical teaching and the Tradition of the Fathers, being established out of the New and Old Testaments 1." The same contrast between Scripture and Tradition, is observed by Cyril of Jerusalem. For instance, he says just before the passage already quoted from him, after reciting and commenting on the Creed, "Keep in thy mind alway this seal of faith, which I have now summarily stated in its chief articles. But if the Lord permit, I will speak of them according to my power with proofs from Scripture." And shortly after, "Learn and hold fast thy faith in what is taught and promised; that faith which alone is now delivered to thee by Traditions of the Church and

1 Ad Adelph. § 6.

C C

established from Scripture. But, since not all have ability to read the Scriptures, but are hindered from knowing them, whether by want of education or of leisure, we comprehend in a few articles the whole doctrine of faith, lest souls perish from want of instruction 1" To return to Athanasius:

In the following passage, that great authority recommends the very course, as a mode of acting familiar to him, which has been already described as the Church's usual procedure towards innovators; viz. first to silence them by her own authority and the received Tradition; but if matters became worse and a controversy ensued, then to have recourse to Scripture as a sure confirmation of the Catholic doctrine. He has been recounting the Apollinarian tenets, and then chides the Bishop, to whom he writes for not having silenced them at "For my part," he says, "I was astonished that your holiness endured such impieties; and did not silence the authors of them with the reverent Faith of the Church; that in this way matters might be brought to an issue, either submission leading to peace, or resistance to excommunication....However, perhaps it is necessary formally to prove and expose their extravagance; yet it were well, if possible, to stop here, and say not a word more. For doctrines which are unsound, as these are on the very face of them, ought not to be discussed

once.

1 iv. 12, v. 7.

6

and made much of, lest disputatious men should take it as a proof that there is no clear case against them. They ought to receive this answer and nothing beyond, It is enough that these are not the doctrines of the Church nor of the Fathers.' However, lest these devisers of evil should be emboldened by our continued silence, it may be well to bring to memory a few things from the Holy Scriptures, since this may shame them perhaps from pursuing their unseemly theories 1."

Again: "Either then deny the Holy Scriptures, or, if you acknowledge them, do not indulge speculations beyond what is written, which will do irreparable mischief 2" Now, this is one of those passages, which, taken by itself, would stand for little; for it might easily be said, that it merely asserts that Scripture is of authority, not that Tradition is not. But when we find this appeal to Scripture repeated again and again in various shapes, and no similar appeal to Tradition, the argument for Scripture being the record of saving faith, becomes a strong one.

For this reason, I add the following passages from the same treatise; "If then ye be disciples of the Gospels, speak not iniquity against God, but walk by what is written and done. But if ye desire to speak other things beyond what is written, why do you contend with us, who are determined

1 Ad Epict. 3.

2 Contr. Apoll. i. 6.