Tomline on Article VI: Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation

We have seen that the first five articles relate to the foundation of all religion, the existence of a God, and to the characteristic doctrines of the Christian Religion, concerning the Father, the Son, and tue Holy Ghost. The next point to be settled is the rule of our faith and practice; this is a subject upon which there is a nmterial difference between the church of Rome and the church of England, and to that diff^ence this article is directed.

The divine Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, and consequently their ^ruth and obligation, is allowed both by papists and by the members of our church : but the papists assert, that the books of the New Testament do not contain the whole rule of a Christian’s faith and prac- tice; they believe that the Apostles orally de- livered many doctrines and precepts of the

». highest

[…]

biAest importance to oar eternal happiness, which are not contained in the New Testament ; and they £arther believe, that these doctrines and precepts have been fiedthfiiUy transmitted to the present time; and that there is an in&l Hble authority, vested by Christ in his church, to judge of their correctness, and to distinguish those which are tru from those which are £alse (a). On the contrary, we of the church of England affirm, that the Scriptures contain a complete rule of faith and practice, and we reject every doctrine and precept, as essential to lalvation, or to be obeyed as divine, which is not ’ aupported by their authority.

In proof of the former part of this article we may first observe, that oral tmdition, on account of the prodigious length to which human life was at first extended, had greater advantages in the early ages of the world, than it could have in any subsequent period. Methuselah lived about 300 years while Adam was alive, and Shem lived almost 100 years with Methu- fldah, and above 100 years with Abraham; but though it thus appears that two intorme^

^ diate

(0) It 4oeB not appear that there is any collection of these traditions, which is considered as authentic by papists. The Jewish traditions were collected into a book, and commisnts written upon them, as has been before observed^ Part 1 . Chapter 4.

igi Hzpositian of the [*art iir.-

diate persons, namely Methuselah and Shem, were sufficient, to convey any tradition from Adam to Abraham, , yet the simplicity and purity of the primseval religion were so grossly cdrrupted in the days of Abraham, that all knowledge of the one true God would have been utterly extinguished, and idolatry would have prevailed universally, if it had not pleased the Almighty to reveal himself in an especial manner to Abraham and his posterity, and to separate them from the rest of mankind. If to this experience of former times, we add the observation which must have occurred to every one concerning the inaccuracy of reports upon the plainest matter of fact, we may conclude that oral tradition is altogether incompetent to transmit to us, from the time of the Apostles, any doctrines or precepts in which our eternal salva- tion is concerned. Surely therefore it ought not to be believed, that points of such import8uic6 would be trusted to so doubtful a conveyance. It is certain that the Evangelists and Apostles have elivered to us in writing same articles of faith and same rules of practice, as essential to salva> tion; but if same^ why not all? Is it probable that we should receive part of our religion in ^vriting, and part by oral tradition ? Is there any mention in the New Testament of authentic

traditioui

ART, VI.] Thirty-nine Articles. 193

tradition, which was to be added to the written word of God? of any defects in the Gospels, which the church was to supply by her unwritten precepts and doctrines ?

But let us consider the case of the Mosaic dispensation, which was introductory to the Gos- pel, and was derived from the same divine origin. The Law of Moses was delivered on^ Mount Sinai* under the most striking and impressive circum- stances, and it contained rites and feasts calcu- lated to preserve the memory of it ; it was tem- porary, and confined to a single people, who were kept united, and were not permitted to mix with otiier nations; it consisted chiefly of or- dinances, which were to be performed, without any great interval of time, at one place : and yet the whole of this religion, thus suited, if any could be, to oral tradition, was, by the express command of God, committed to writing. On the other hand, the Christian religion is designed for the whole world, for men of all countries, languages, and times, and every part of the worship enjoined by it may be performed in any part of the eaith. Surely tiien we may conclude that the whole of the Christian religion was committed to writing — that God would make the same provision for the preservation of the universal religion of mankind, which he did for

roL, II. O the

[…]

the partial religion of the Jews. St. John, In- ’ d, seems to declare, that a belief i)f ‘iVhat he alone had written was sufficient to feiiuk eternal life : ” These things,** says he, at the of his Gospel, ” are writtien thfet ye mit be- lieve that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have Bfe thriCfnl’his name (b);''' and St. Luke tells’ thebi)hihis,‘ifliat he wrote his Gospel that he ” might knIiTrtte certainty of those things” In which he had Been instructed (c).

Though the whole Jewish religion was*!n ’ feet contained in the books of Moses, ‘yet At Jews in ihe time of our Saviour, had a’[ number of traditions, which they ohservedwtth the utmost strictness. , thirist and his Apoes frequently appealed to Moses and the prophets, mid encouraged and commanded the Searching of the Scriptures; but in no one instance’ did they acknowledge the authority of the ’ ti:- tions, which were then held in such mgh esteem ; on the contrary, Christ told the Jews, that they had made the commandments ol” Cod of ii16ne effect by their traditions (d) ; ” and that ‘they worshipped God in vain, when they taught for doctrines the cominandnients of nien f’.”

Siiicc

(b) John, c. 20. V. 31 . (c) Luke, c. 1 . v. 4.

(4) Matt 0. 15. V. 6. (e) Mark, c. 7. v. 7.

I

^RT. y I J Thirty-nine A rticks. 1 95

Since then oral tradition is, from the very na- ^tureof man, incompetent to convey any doctrine to us from the times of the Apostles; since it ]& improbable in the highest degree that part of our religion should be delivered in wnting, and part ^ by oral tradition ; since the New Testament con- tains not the slightest intimation concerning any

*■''' •• ‘1. • _r-i. _ t. f

, rules or precepts to be transmitted to Christians by oral tradition ; and since ttie traiditions of tlitt ^Jews were severely condemned by our Saviour himself, and no authentic tradition is referred to, either by him or his Apostles, we consider our- selves fully justified in rejecting all oral ‘tradition as of divine authority, and in believing that laoLY

J/. . J . «’ . It ; 1 … ( ‘i ;

^ SARY TO SALVATION.

■ ^^ . 1 » . • • t ; .

‘Pie antient fathers always speak of the Scrip- tures as containing a complete rtde of faith’ and practice, and appeal to them, and to them only, in support of the doctrines which they £ld- vance. ” The Scriptures, says Irenaeus, ^ are indeed perfect, inasmuch as they aire dictated by

’ &e Vord’of God and Ins ^mxit (/}}” Tertul- lian, arguing against a certain tenet of Hermo- genes, says, ” If it be not writieh, let him* fear

,‘.4 curse denounced againsV those wK6’add to,

or

(f) Lib. «. C.47.

I ’

1 g6 Exposition of the [part in.

or diminish from, the written word of God (gX’ “Whence,” says Cyprian, “is that tradition? Is it derived from the authority of our Lord and the Gospels, or does it come from the commands of the Apostles and the Epistles ? For God him- self witnesses that these things are to be done which are written (h).’^ Chrysostom declares, that ” he who does not make use of the Holy Scriptures, but goes aside into another road, leaving the common way, is a thief (i);” and Basil maintains, that ” every thing which is done or said, ought to be confirmed by the testimony of Holy Scripture (ky

The written word of God being the sole rule of our faith and practice, it follows that whatsoever is not read therein, nob mat 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.

In the name of the holy scripture,

WE DO understand THOSE CANONICAL

[…] ■

DOUBT

(g) Adv. Hermog. cap. 12.

(h) Cyp. ad Pomp. Ep.

(i) In Joan. 10. f ft^ Esth. Des. 26.

ART VI.] Thirty-nine Articles. 197

DOUBT IN THE CHURCH. As I have already treated of the canon both of the Old and New Testament, it is unnecessary for me to say any thing upon that subject in this place, except that in the enumeration of the books of the Old Testament contained in this article, the books of Ezra and Nehemiali are called the first and second books of Esdras, Esdras being the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew word Ezra. Ezra and Nehemiah, as was observed in the beginning of this work, were formerly joined in one book, and when they were separated, the book of Nehemiah being considered as a conti- nuation of the book of Ezra, was called by his name.

There is no authority, internal or external, for admitting the books, commonly called apocry- phal (I), into the sacred canon ; they contain no

prophecy

(I) ” Apocrypha from iiroxwwTAr to hide. The word seems to have been first applied only to books of doubtful authority, or, as it is used by Origen, to imply works out of the canon ; it was afterwards employed to characterize spurious and pernicious books. It has been thousfht that books of doubtful character were first termed apocryphal by the Jews, because they were removed ao ti? jct/jrn?, from the ark of the cove- nant, where the canonical books were placed. Eus. Lib. de Pond, et Mensur. p. 534 ; or because shut up

from

1 ’ !

[…]

prophecy or other authentic mark of inspiration ; tiiey were all written subsequent to the cessation of the prophetic spirit, but before the promul- gation of the Gospel ; they were not included in the Jewish canon, and therefore received no sanction from our Saviour; they are not cited or alluded to in any part of the New Tes- tament ; nor are they mentioned as inspired writ- ings by any ecclesiastical writer of the first three centuries; and they are expressly rejected by Athanasius and Jerome in the fourth centuiy. Though these two fathers, and several subsequent authors, speak of these books with respect, yet the same authority was never ascribed to them as to the Old and New Testament, till the council olf Trent, at its fourth session, admitted them all,

•

^except the prayer of Manasseh, and the third and fourth books of Esdras (mX into their canon ; and this still continues one of the many points of difference between the church of Rome and that of England, There is therefore no groimd for

applying

from the generality of readers, and concealed, as some assert, in a chest of the temple. In the primitive church some of these books, especially those of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, were imparted to catechumens, and all of them were allowed to be read under certain restric- tions. Vid. Canon. Apost. Athan. Synops.” — Gray^

(m) These three books are not mentioned in the acts of the council.

AEX. vj.l. Tkifiu-nine Articles. ion

applying the books of Apocrypha to establish ANY DOCTRINE, but they are highly valuable as antient writings, which throw considerable light upon pla3l9gy of scripture, and upon the hifitpiry f mnqers of the East; and as they cont Ay Qpble sentiments and useful, pre- c$pt opj hiif9h, hi imitation of the primitive

chui;cb.O.C C’^W^A OOJH READ THEM FOR EXAM- PJ.E 0,F LIFE 4N]p ;NSTRyCT10N OF MANNERS :

[…]

(n) Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom.

(o) Jerome, Preef. to the Transl. of th« Books of

C!»l jt

200 Eiposition of the [part jiu