15
manner in which he treats this whole subject, (Tertullian, p. 202–307. ed. 2.) and especially his refutation of Mr. Thirlwall, (p. 297. sqq. note.)
Or I may refer you to the learned Dr. Hammond, "Seasonable exhortations to all true sons of the Church of England, wherein is inserted a discourse of heresy in defence of our Church against the Romanist." (§3.)
I will cite one passage only, but the whole essay is well deserving of study.
"To this also my concession shall be as liberal as any Romanist can wish, that there are two ways of conveying such revelations to us; one in writing, the other by oral tradition; the former in the Gospels and other writings of the Apostles, &c. which make up the Sacred Writ, or Canon of the New Testament; the latter in the Apostles' preachings to all the Churches of their plantation, which are no where set down for us in the Sacred Writ, but conserved as deposita by them to whom they were entrusted."
"And although in sundry respects the former of these be much the more faithful, steady way of conveyance, and for want thereof many things may possibly have perished, or been changed by their passage through many hands (thus much being on these grounds confessed by Bellarmine himself, that the Scripture is the most certain and safe rule of belief), yet there being no less veracity in the tongues than the hands, in the preachings than the writings, of the apostles; nay, 'prior sermo quam liber, prior sensus quam stylus,' saith Tertullian; 'the apostles preached before they writ—planted Churches before they addressed epistles to them;' on these grounds, I make no scruple to grant that apostolical traditions, such as are truly so, as well as apostolical writings, are equally the matter of that 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."
In the subsequent chapters. Dr. Hammond illustrates from the rules of Vincentius Lirinensis, "where these qualifications may be found."
I will add one more writer, the great Hooker (and I may note that Whitaker, whom He, quotes, leans in some things over-much to Geneva, and so to ultra- Protestantism, and yet is here on the same side). Truly, if we are herein Papistical, we are so in goodly company, and no otherwise than our
