through a long lapse of time, the knowledge of particular events, or of transactions of a very simple nature.

Thus, it must be admitted, that if the gospels had not come down to us, we might by tradition be assured, that Christ instituted the Eucharist, as a memorial of his death; for from the time of its institution, it has in every successive age, and in many countries, been celebrated to perpetuate the remembrance of that event. And it is not credible, that such a tradition should be uniform, at all times, and every where, and be connected with the same external rite, if it was not founded in fact. Besides, the thing handed down, in this instance, is so simple in its nature, that there was no room for mistake.

to us.

There is one fact, for the truth of which we depend entirely on tradition, so far as external testimony is concerned, and that is the truth which in this work we have been attempting to establish, that the books of the New Testament were written by the persons under whose names they have come down This fact is incapable of being proved from the Scriptures, because we must first be assured that they contain the testimony of inspired men, before we can prove any thing by them. The point to be established here, is, that the Apostles wrote these books. If it were ever so often asserted in a book, that a certain person was its author, this would not be satisfactory evidence of its genuineness, because any impostor can write what falsehoods he pleases in a book, and may ascribe it to whom he will; as, in fact, many have written spurious works, and ascribed them to the Apostles. We must, therefore, have the testimony of those who had the opportunity of judging of the fact, given either explicitly, or implicitly. In most cases, where a book is published under the name of some certain author in the country in which he lived and was known, a general, silent acquiescence in the fact, by the people of that age and country, with the consent of all that came after them, may be considered as satisfactory evidence of the genuineness of such book. But where much depends on the certainty of the fact in question, it is necessary to have positive testimony; and in order that it be satisfactory, it should be universal and uncontradicted. When, therefore, a certain volume is expressly received as the work of certain individuals, by all who lived at or near the time when it was published, and all succeeding writings concur in ascribing it to the same persons, and not a solitary voice is raised in contradiction, the evidence of its genuineness seems to be as complete as the nature of the case admits. Just such is the evidence of the genuineness

of the books of the New Testament; or, at least, of most of them. It is, however, the evidence of tradition; but of such a tradition, as is abundantly sufficient to establish a fact of this sort. The thing attested is most simple in its nature, and not liable to be misunderstood. This necessity of tradition to establish the authenticity of the books of the New Testament, has been made great handle of by the Romanists, in the defence of their favourite doctrine. They pretend, that the point which we have here conceded, is all that is necessary to establish their whole system, on the firmest foundation. They argue, that if we must receive the Scriptures themselves, by tradition, much more other things. Indeed, they ascribe all the authority which the Scriptures possess, to the testimony of the church, without which, they assert, that they would deserve no more credit than any other writings. But, because a single fact, incapable of proof in any other way, must be received by tradition, it does not follow, that numerous other matters, which might easily have been recorded, must be learned in the same manner. Because a document requires oral testimony to establish its authenticity, it is not, therefore, necessary to prove the truth of the matters contained in that record, by the same means. The very purpose of written records, is to prevent the necessity of trusting to the uncertainty of tradition; and as to the allegation, that the Scriptures owe their authority to the church, it amounts to no more than this, which we freely admit, that it is by the testimony of the early Fathers, that we are assured that these writings are the productions of the Apostles; and, it is true, that most of those witnesses who have given testimony, were members of the Catholic church. But our confidence in their testimony, on this point, is not because they were members of the church, but because they lived in times and circumstances, favourable to an accurate knowledge of the fact which they report. And, accordingly, we admit the testimony of those who were out of the church; yea, of its bitterest enemies, to the same fact, and, on some accounts, judge it to be the most unexceptionable. While we weigh this evidence, it would be absurd to make its validity depend on the witnesses being members of the church; for that would be to determine, that the church was divine and infallible, before we had ascertained that the Scriptures were the word of God. Surely, if, on examination, it had turned out that the Scriptures were not inspired, the authority of the Christian church would have been worth nothing; and, therefore, previously to the decision on this point, we cannot

defer any thing to the authority of the church. The truth is, that the witnesses being of the church, is, in this inquiry, merely an incidental circumstance. A sufficient number of competent and credible witnesses, not of the church, would establish the fact just as well as those who have given testimony; and, as was before observed, such testimony, on the score of freedom from all partiality, has the advantage. The testimony of Jews and Heathens, has, on this account, been demanded by infidels, and has been sought for with avidity by the defenders of Christianity, and, in the view of all considerate men, is of great weight. But it is not just to ascribe the authority of these books to the church, because the greater number of the witnesses of their apostolical origin were members of the church. The law enacted by the supreme legisla ture of the state, does not owe its authority to the men who attest its genuineness. It is true, it would not be known certainly to be a law, without the attestation, but it would be absurd to ascribe the authority of the law to the persons whose testimony proved that it was really a law of the state. The cases are exactly parallel. The Scriptures cannot owe their authority to the church, for, without them, the church can have no authority; and although she may, and does, give ample testimony in favour of their divine origin, this confers no authority on them: it only proves to us, that they have authority, which is derived from the Spirit of God, by whom they were indited. It is truly wonderful how this plain case has been perplexed and darkened, by the artifice and sophistry of the writers of the church of Rome.

But if it be insisted, that if we admit tradition as sufficient evidence of a fact in one case, we ought to do so in every other, where the tradition is as clear, we answer, that to this we have no objection, provided this species of proof be as necessary, and as clear, in the one case, as the other. Let any other fact be shown to be as fully attested, as the genuineness of the books of the New Testament, and to need this kind of proof as much, and we will not hesitate to receive it as true, whatever may be the consequence. But the very fact which we have been considering, seems to raise a strong presumption against the necessity of depending on tradition for any thing else. Why were these books written? Was it not to convey to us, and to all future ages, the revelations of God to man? Because it is necessary to authenticate, by testimony, this record, must we depend on the same testimony for information on the points of which the record treats? Surely not. For the

proof of these we have nothing to do, but refer to the document itself; otherwise, the possession of written records would be useless. If, indeed, a doubt should arise about the meaning of something in the record, it would not be unreasonable to inquire, how it had been understood and practised on, by those who received it at first; but, if we should find a society acting in direct opposition to a written charter, on which their existence depended, and pretending to prove that they were right, by appealing from the written documents to vague traditions, all sensible men, not interested, would judge that the case was a very suspicious one.

4. We are, moreover, ready to acknowledge, that the Gospel was, at first, for several years, communicated orally, by the Apostles and their assistants. The churches when first planted had no written Gospels; they received the same truths, now contained in the Gospels and Epistles, by the preaching of the Apostles and others; and, doubtless, were as well instructed as those churches which had possession of the whole inspired volume. And what they had thus received, without book, they could communicate to others; and thus, if the Gospels and Epistles had never been written, the Christian religion might have been transmitted from generation to generation. Then, it may be asked, why the writing of these books should hinder the transmission of many things which might not be contained in them, to future generations ?-for it cannot be doubted that many things were said and done by Christ which were not recorded in the Gospels: and there is reason to think, that the Apostles were much fuller in their sermons than in their writings; and that they established many rules for the good order and government of the Church, of which we have, in their Epistles, either no account, or only brief hints; which, though they might be readily understood by those who had received their verbal instructions, are insufficient, without tradition, to teach us what rules and institutions were established in the churches by apostolical authority. Now if these were transmitted, by tradition, to the next generation, and by them to the following, and so on, in an uninterrupted series, until the present time, are we not as much bound to receive such traditions, and be governed by them, as by the written word?

I have now presented the argument in favour of traditions, in the strongest light in which I am able to place it; and it would be uncandid not to admit, that it wears, at first sight, a face of plausibility; and if the whole case, as here stated, could be made out with satisfactory evidence, I think we

N

should be constrained to receive, to some extent, this oral law of the Romish church. But before any man can reasonably be required to rest his faith on tradition, he has a right to be satisfied on several important points; as, whether it was the purpose of God to permit any part of the revelation intended for the use of the church in all future ages, to be handed down by tradition? For, as he directed every thing in the law given at Mount Sinai, intended to regulate the faith and practice of the Israelites, to be committed to writing by Moses, it is no ways improbable that the same plan was pursued, in regard to the writings of the New Covenant; especially when it is considered how much superior written communications are to verbal, as it respects accuracy. When a channel for conveying the truth had been provided, calculated to preserve all communications from corruption; and when it is acknowledged, that this was used for a part of the matter to be transmitted, how can it be accounted for, that another part should be committed to the uncertainty of oral tradition? Why not commit the whole to writing?

But it is incumbent on the advocates of tradition to show, by undoubted proofs, that what they say has come down by tradition was really received from the mouth of Christ, or from the teaching of his Apostles. As they wish to claim for this rule an authority fully equal to that which is given to the Scriptures, they ought to be able to produce the very words in which these instructions were given. But this they do not pretend to do. It may be said, indeed, that words and sentences, in their just order and connexion, cannot be conveyed by tradition; and, therefore, this demand is unreasonable. I answer, that this allegation is most true; but instead of making in favour of traditions, it is a strong argument to prove, that nothing thus received can be of equal certainty and authority with the written word. When an article of faith is proposed, which is contained in the Scriptures, we can turn to the sacred text, and read the words of Christ and his Apostles; and may be assured, that they express the truth contained in the said article; but if any article of faith be asserted to have come down by tradition, we have no opportunity of knowing the words in which it was expressed: for, while it is pretended that the doctrine or instruction has reached us, the words have been lost: for what advocate of traditions is able, in any single case, to furnish us with the words of any divine revelation, which is not contained in the Sacred Scripture?

But it is essential to the credit of traditions, that it be