AS COMING FROM CHRIST OR HIS APOSTLES.

195

proved clearly, that those articles of religion, or institutions of worship, said to be received from this source, have indeed been handed down without alteration or corruption, from Christ and his Apostles. It is not sufficient, that they have been long received, and have now the sanction of the belief and practice of the whole Catholic church; it ought to be shown, that they have always, from the very days of the Apostles, been received with universal consent. We know that the church has undergone many vicissitudes; that she has sometimes been almost extirpated by the sword of persecution; has been overrun with dangerous errors; has been overwhelmed with the darkness of Gothic ignorance; and, we believe, has greatly apostatized from purity of doctrine and worship: and this accords with the Prophecy of Paul, who clearly intimates, that a time would come, when there should be " a falling away."* Now it may have happened, that during this long period of adversity, heresy, darkness, and corruption, many things may have crept in, and may have obtained an extensive and firm footing, which were totally unknown in the days of the Apostles, or in the primitive church; and that this has in fact occurred we are not left to conjecture. It is a matter of historical record, which cannot be disputed, and which is not denied, even by the Romanists themselves. Who, that is not insane with prejudice, could persuade himself, that all the opinions, rites, and ceremonies, which now exist in the Romish church, were prevalent in the times of the Apostles, and were received from them by tradition?

Besides, there is a multitude of other things received and held to be important, by the church of Rome, of which there is no vestige in the Scriptures, and concerning which there is no early tradition. Many rules and ceremonies which have been long in use, can be traced to their commencement, at a period much later than that of the Apostles? Now, amidst such a mass of traditions, how can it be ascertained which have come down from Christ and his Apostles?-Perhaps we shall be told, that the infallible Head of the Church can determine, with certainty, what we ought to believe and practise; but if there be on earth an infallible judge, we have no need of traditions. All that is necessary, is, for this person to establish his claim to infallibility, and then all will be as much bound to receive his decisions, as if they were expressly written in the Holy Scriptures. On this ground, the controversy between the Romanists and Protestants first commenced. The defenders of the old system appealed to the authority of the • 2 Thess. ii, 2.

Pope, and the infallibility of the church; but as it was impos sible to sustain themselves by Scripture, on these points, they found it very convenient to have recourse to the doctrine of unwritten traditions, which they pretended had been handed down from Christ and his Apostles. Grant them this, and there is no doctrine, however absurd, which may not be supported. Grant them this, and it will be in vain to appeal any more to the Sacred Scriptures as a standard of truth; for this traditionary law not only inculcates what is not found in the Scriptures, but teaches the only true interpretation of Scripture. Traditions may, therefore, be considered as the bulwark of the Romish church. Concede to them the ground which they assume, and the whole body of their ceremonial laws, and unscriptural practices, are safe. For as they can feign what traditions they please, having the keeping of them entirely in their own hands, they are prepared to defend every part of their system: but take this away from them, and their defence is gone. Bring them to the ground of clear Scriptural testimonies, and they are weak; for it is manifest, that the Bible knows nothing of their monstrous accumulation of su perstitious rites.

The Council of Trent, therefore, early in their sessions, made a decree on this subject, in which, after recognising the Scriptures, they add-"Nec non traditiones ipsas, tum ad fidem, tum ad mores pertinentes, tanquam vel oretenus a Christo, vel a Spiritu Sancto, dictatas et continua successione in Eeclesia Catholica conservatas, pari pietatis affectu et reverentia, suscipit ac veneratur." The meaning of which is, that the Holy Synod receives and venerates traditions relating both to faith and manners, as proceeding from the mouth of Christ himself, or as dictated by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in an uninterrupted succession in the Catholic church, with equal affection and reverence as the written Scriptures! This was the first decree of the fourth session of this famous Council.

Before leaving this subject, it will be proper to consider some of the other arguments, which the Romanists bring forward, in support of their beloved traditions.

And the first is imposing, as it is derived from the express declarations of Scripture, in which we are exhorted to obey traditions. "Now we command you brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." Here Paul makes express mention of tradition. And in the preceding chapter, v. 15, "Therefore

* 2 Thess. iii, 6.

CANNOT STAND THE TEST OF SCRIPTURE.

197

brethren stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our Epistle." Now all that is necessary to refute the argument derived from these and such like passages, where the word tradition is used, is to observe, that Paul employs this word in a very extensive sense, to signify whatever doctrines or institutions he had delivered to the churches, whether by his preaching or writing. And in the verse first cited, he evidently refers to what he had said to them in his First Epistle; for the words following are: "For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us; for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; neither did we eat any man's bread for nought," &c. Now this tradition which he commanded the Thessalonians to obey, was contained in the former Epistle addressed to them, where it is said, "And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you.' *And in the quotation from the second chapter, it is clear, that by traditions, the Apostle did not mean merely oral communications, for he explains himself, by saying, "whether by word, or our Epistle." It is not denied, that Paul delivered many things orally to the churches, as has been already acknowledged; all the instructions given to the churches first planted were oral, for as yet no Gospels nor Epistles were written; but the true point in dispute is, whether any article of faith, or any important institution, thus originally communicated, was omitted, when the books of the New Testament were written, by divine inspiration? Whether, while a part of the revelation of God, for the use of his church, was committed to writing, another important part was left to be handed down by tradition? That the word tradition, as used by Paul, makes nothing in favour of the doctrine of the Romish church, is evident, because by this word he commonly means such things as were distinctly recorded in the Scriptures. Thus, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, he says, "For I delivered unto you first of all," where the word for transmitting by tradition is used; but what were those things which he had by tradition communicated to them? He informs us in the next words, "How that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures."+

It is manifest, therefore, that the argument derived from the exhortation of Paul to obey tradition, is but a shadow, and vanishes upon the slightest touch of fair examination.

1 Thess. iv, 11. tragidana, delivered.-EDIT. 1 Cor. xv, 3, 4.

2. Their next, and principal argument, is derived from the frequent declarations of the early Fathers, in favour of tradition. Cyprian refers those who might be in doubt respecting any doctrine, to the holy tradition received from Christ and his Apostles: and Irenæus, as cited by Eusebius, says, “That those things which he heard Polycarp relate concerning Christ, his virtues and his doctrines, which he had learned from converse with the Apostles, he had inscribed on his heart, and not on paper." But after* a few sentences, he informs us, "That all which he had heard from them was in accordance with the Scriptures,” (πάντα σύμφωνα ταῖς γραφαίς.) This sentence of Irenæus is of great importance, for it teaches us how the Fathers understood this subject. They received such traditions as came down through pious men from the Apostles, but they compared them with the Scriptures: even then the Scriptures were the standard by which all traditions must be judged. Irenæus insinuates, plainly enough, that if what he had heard from Polycarp, had not been in accordance with the Scriptures, he would not have considered it as deserving attention.

But the same Irenæus, and Tertullian, have spoken, in still stronger terms, in favour of tradition, in their controversies with heretics. The former, in the third chapter of the third book of his work on Heresies, says, "The tradition of the Apostles is manifest in the whole world. In the church it is exposed to the view of all who are willing to know the truth." And in the fourth chapter, "It is not necessary to seek the truth from others, which can easily be acquired from the church, since the blessed Apostles have deposited in her, most fully, all those truths which are needful, so that every one who will may drink of the water of life. This is the true door of life, and all others are thieves and robbers; them we should avoid: but those things which appertain to the church we should delight in with great diligence, and should lay hold of the tradition of truth. For what if the Apostles had left us no writings, ought we not to follow the order of traditions, which they, to whom the churches were committed, have delivered to us? To which institution, many barbarous nations have submitted, having neither letters nor ink, but having the tradition of the Apostles inscribed on their hearts; which also they follow."

And Tertullian, in his work concerning Præscriptions, says, "If Christ commissioned certain persons to preach his gospel,

* Lib. v, c. 20, and Note E.

then certainly none should be received as preachers except those appointed to office by him. And as they preached what Christ revealed unto them, what they taught can only be known by applying to the churches which the Apostles planted, by preaching to them, whether viva voce, or by their Epistles. Therefore, all doctrine which agrees with that held by the Apostolic churches, is to be considered as true, and held fast, because the churches received it from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God; but all other doctrine which is repugnant to that received by the churches, should be rejected as false, as being repugnant to that truth taught by the Apostles, by Christ and by God."

These declarations, from such men, in favour of tradition, seem, at first view, to be altogether favourable to the doctrine of the church of Rome; but we despair not of being able to convince the candid reader, that when the occasion on which these things were said, and the character and opinions of the persons against whom these Fathers wrote, are considered, their testimony, instead of making against the sufficiency of the Scriptures, will be found corroborative of the opinion which we maintain. They do not appeal to tradition, let it be observed, for confirmation of articles of faith, not contained in the Scriptures; but the doctrines which they are defending are among the most fundamental contained in the New Testament. They are precisely the doctrines which are comprehended in the Apostles' Creed. Now, to appeal to tradition for the confirmation of such doctrines as these, never can be of any force to prove, that other doctrines, not contained in the Scriptures, may be established by tradition. But it may be asked, if those doctrines concerning which they disputed are plainly inculcated in the New Testament, why have recourse to tradition? Why not appeal at once to the Scriptures? Το which I would answer, that Irenæus does little else, in the third, fourth, and fifth books of his work, than confirm the truth by a copious citation of Scripture. Nothing can be more manifest, therefore, than that the matters in dispute were not such as could only be proved by tradition, but they were such truths as lie at the very foundation of the Christian religion, and to record which the Gospels and Epistles were written. But still the question returns, Why did these Fathers appeal for proof to tradition, when they had testimony so full and decisive from the Scriptures? The answer to this question will show us, in the clearest manner, that the views of Irenæus and Tertullian, relative to the Scriptures and to tra