ditions, were such as are now held by Protestants, and that the heretics, whom they opposed, occupied nearly the same ground as the Romanists now do, in this controversy. These heretics either rejected the Scriptures as being an insufficient rule, and asserted that they were not competent for the decision of such matters; or they so corrupted them, that it was useless to appeal to them for proof; for testimonies derived from the genuine Scripture, they would not admit. This is not conjecture; for Irenæus has explicitly stated the case. "When," says he, "they are confuted from the Scriptures themselves, they allege, that they are not correct, or not of authority, and assert that they speak so variously that the truth cannot be established by them without tradition; for, say they, it was handed down, not by letters, but viva voce." And Tertullian says, "This heresy does not receive some parts of the Scriptures; and what they do receive is so corrupted by additions or detractions, to suit their own doctrine, that they cannot be said to receive the Scriptures entire," &c. Again: They pretend that the Apostles did not wish to reveal all things plainly, for while they made known certain truths to all, there were others, which they communicated secretly, and to a few persons, which, they say, the Apostle Paul meant by the depositum."

66

From these quotations, the reason why these Fathers had recourse to tradition, is most manifest. It was the only ground on which these heretics could be met; for they denied (as the Romanists now do) that the Scriptures were a certain and sufficient standard of truth. They said, that their meaning could not be ascertained without tradition; and that they were defective; and, also, that there were some parts which they did not acknowledge; and they held, moreover, that some things were never committed to writing, but designedly handed down by tradition. We did not, indeed, expect to find the exact doctrine of the Romanists, respecting the Scriptures and tradition, at so early a period of the church; but, unfortunately for their cause, the persons who are found agreeing with them are gross heretics.

It is now easy to see why the appeal was made by the Fathers to universal tradition; and they show, that in their day, tradition and Scripture were harmonious; and that if the Apostles had written nothing, the consent of all the churches would be sufficient to prove, that the doctrines which they defended were received from the Apostles. Instead, therefore, of using tradition, as the Romanists do, to prove some

doctrine not contained in the Scripture, they used it merely to confirm the truths which are manifestly contained in the New Testament. They were at no loss for Scripture testimonies to establish these truths, but they were disputing with men who did not admit the authority of the Scriptures to be decisive, and therefore they appeal to universal tradition in support of them. It is said, indeed, by Irenæus, that many barbarous nations had received the faith, among whom letters and writing were unknown.* They must, therefore, it is concluded, have received it from tradition. Very good. Just as heathen tribes now receive, from those missionaries who preach the gospel to them, a short summary of the most important doctrines of the New Testament. The truths which these barbarous nations received, were not different from those contained in the Sacred Scriptures, but the very same, taught in a short comprehensive creed. In fact, we have here the true origin of that symbol of doctrine, commonly called the Apostles' Creed, which was a summary of Christianity used in very early times, in the instruction of those who were not able to read the New Testament, or who had no access to it. That Irenæus actually referred in the passage alluded to, to these elementary doctrines, he explicitly informs us; for, immediately after mentioning these barbarous nations, who were destitute of "letters and ink," he adds, " Believing in one God, the Maker of heaven and earth, and all things which are therein; and in Jesus Christ the Son of God, who, for his exceeding great love to his creatures, submitted to be born of a virgin, by himself uniting man to God; and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and having risen again, was received into heaven; about to come again in glory; the Saviour of those who are saved, and the judge of those who are judged; and will send into eternal fire the perverters of the truth, and the despisers of his Father, and of his coming;† which barbarians, if any one should announce to them the doctrines invented by heretics, stopping their ears, they would fly far away from them. Thus, the ancient apostolical tradition does not sanction those monstrous opinions inculcated by heretics."

In the second chapter of the first book of the same work, Irenæus describes the apostolical doctrine thus: "The church," says he, "planted by the Apostles and their disciples throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, receives the same faith; which is, In one God Almighty, the Father, who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all things which are * Lib. iii, c. 4. + Note F.

therein; in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who by the prophets, predicted the good-will of God; his advent; his generation of a virgin; his passion, and resurrection from the dead; and the ascension in the flesh of our beloved Lord Christ Jesus; and his coming again from heaven, in the glory of his Father, as our Lord Jesus Christ; our God, Saviour, and King; before whom, according to the good pleasure of the Father invisible, every knee shall bow, of things in heaven and things in earth, and things under the earth; and every tongue shall confess the justice of his judgments towards all, when he will send wicked spirits, fallen and apostate angels, and blaspheming men, into eternal fire; but the just and upright, who have kept his precepts, and persevered in his love, some, indeed, from the beginning, and others, as having received the gift of repentance, he will surround with eternal glory.' "This faith, the church spread over the whole world diligently keeps, as if she inhabited one house, and believes in it, as if possessing but one soul and one heart; and in accordance with the same, she teaches and preaches as with one mouth. Although the languages which are in the world are different, yet there is one and the same tradition. Neither do the churches which are founded in Germany believe differently from those in Italy, nor from those among the Celts, nor from those in the East, nor from those which are in Egypt, or in Lybia, or in the middle of the world. But as the sun is one and the same through the whole world, so the light and preaching of the truth every where shines, and illuminates all men who are willing to come to the knowledge of the truth."†

This, then, is the apostolical tradition, of which these Fathers speak so magnificently. Not any secret doctrine never committed to writing; not any articles of faith, or rites of worship, of which no vestige can be found in the Bible; but the plain, prominent, fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion: the very doctrines contained in the Apostles' Creed. That the preaching of the Gospel preceded the circulation of the Scriptures, we admit, but this preaching, we insist, and have proved, contained nothing different from that which is written in the Gospels and Epistles.

Tertullian speaks to the same purpose, and furnishes us with another summary of the common faith of primitive Christians: "The rule of faith," says he, "is that by which it is believed, that there is no more than one God, and no other beside the † Ib. lib. i, c. 2 and 3.

* Note G.

Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing by his Word first of all sent forth; which Word is called his Son; was seen under different forms by the Patriarchs; was always heard by the Prophets; and, finally, by the Spirit and Power of God, being conceived by the Virgin Mary, became flesh in the womb. Jesus Christ having thus become man, published a new law, and a new promise of the kingdom of heaven; was crucified; rose again the third day; was caught up into heaven; sat down on the right hand of God the Father; sent, as his substitute, the Power of the Holy Spirit, to influence those who believe; will come again in glory to take his saints to the fruition of eternal life, and of the celestial promises; and to adjudge the profane to eternal fire; at which time there will be a resuscitation of both parts, and the flesh will be restored. This rule of faith was instituted by Christ, and is questioned by none but heretics, and such as teach those things which make heretics."*

These are the apostolical traditions, which were universally received; the very plainest, and most fundamental articles, of the Christian Religion, which are written amply in every gospel, and recognised fully in every Epistle. Thus far, then, it does not appear that any thing was left to unwritten tradition, to be communicated to future ages; for those very truths which were at first delivered orally by the Apostles, were afterwards recorded by inspiration, and when the preachers of the gospel instructed the ignorant who were unacquainted with letters, they taught them precisely, but in a summary way, what is written in the New Testament.

3. Another argument depended on by the advocates of tradition, is derived from the facts, that there were some doctrines, not expressly mentioned in Scripture, which are universally inculcated by the Fathers, which all true Christians have received as articles of faith in all succeeding ages, and which are not denied even by Protestants themselves To this class belong the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of the Son being of the same substance as the Father, the deity of the Holy Spirit, his proceeding from the Father and the Son, the two natures in Christ constituting one person, the baptism of infants, the religious observance of the Lord's day, &c. Now, in regard to these articles of religion, we observe, that although they are not contained in Scripture, in so many words, they may be derived from Scripture, by legitimate inference; and conclusions fairly deduced from the

* Tertull. De Præscriptionibus.

declarations of the word of God, are as truly parts of divine revelation, as if they were expressly taught in the sacred volume. All the articles mentioned above, are capable of satisfactory proof from Scripture; and if we did not find them taught there, we should feel under no obligation to receive them. We do not deny, however, that the universal consent, and uniform practice of the primitive church, ought to have great weight in confirming our faith in important doctrines, and in satisfying us that certain things, not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, were practised by the Apostles. Although the doctrine of the Trinity, and the essential deity of the Son and Holy Spirit, are doctrines very plainly taught in the New Testament, yet, in a matter of such vast importance, it cannot but afford satisfaction to every sincere inquirer to find, that these doctrines were universally believed by the Fathers to be taught in the writings of the Apostles.

And although there are principles and facts recorded in the New Testament, from which it can be fairly concluded that the first day of the week was set apart for public worship, and that the infants of believers were, from the beginning, baptized, and thus connected with the visible church; yet, as these institutions are not so expressly included in Scripture, as to remove all uncertainty, the fact of their universal observance in the primitive church, has, deservedly, great influence in convincing us, that our reasonings and inferences from Scriptural principles are correct. But why should we be required to receive these things merely on the authority of tradition, when the Fathers themselves appealed for their truth to the infallible rule contained in the New Testament? Thus, on the subject of infant baptism, which the Romanists pretend is derived solely from tradition, we find the Fathers appealing, not only to universal practice and apostolical tradition, but frequently to the words of Scripture, in which they believed, that the practice was explicitly authorised. Irenæus, Origen, Augustine, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Chrysostom, do all appeal to Scripture, when treating this subject, although they do, indeed, lay great stress on the derivation of this practice from the Apostles, by undoubted tradition. It is not denied, however, that after some time an undue deference was paid to traditions. It will be shown hereafter, that many were misled from the simplicity of the gospel by this very means. yielding too ready an assent to traditions, they were led to adopt false opinions, some of which were directly repugnant to the written word. It can have no weight with us, therefore,

By