to adduce such a writer as Epiphanius, extolling tradition; for it can be proved, that from this source he imbibed many foolish notions, and fabulous stories, which the more impartial among the Romanists are as far from receiving as we are. Nor do we feel bound, on this subject, to adopt all the opinions any where found in the writings of Origen, Basil, Augustine, &c.; for we are persuaded, that this was one of the errors of antiquity, and that it was prolific of numerous evils, by which the church of God became greatly corrupted, in after times. But it answers no purpose to the Romish church to plead these authorities, for they themselves do not receive, as articles of faith, or parts of divine worship, all that these Fathers received from tradition. The principle of Protestants ever has been, that the Scriptures contain all things necessary to guide the faith and practice of believers; and they feel under no obligations to receive any article of religion which cannot be proved to be contained in the sacred volume. If, in the explanation of Scripture, light can be derived from tradition, or the universal opinion or practice of the primitive church, they are very willing to avail themselves of it, as they are to derive aid from any other quarter; but when they are convinced that the Fathers were fallible men, and actually fell into many mistakes, it would be folly to build their faith on their opinions; much more to adopt their errors, knowing them to be such. "The Bible is the Religion of Protestants."

The fact is, that the Fathers generally depended on Scripture for the proof of their doctrines; and called in the aid of tradition, only to confirm the doctrines which they derived from the written word. And here it is important to remark, that tradition, in the earlier and purer times of the church, was a very different thing from what it is now. Men who lived within one or two hundred years of the Apostles, had an opportunity of ascertaining their opinions and practices from tradition, with a degree of certainty, which is utterly unattainable after the lapse of ages of error and darkness. If it should be agreed to receive, as apostolical, every thing which the early Fathers professed to have received by tradition from the Apostles, yet it would be most unreasonable to be required to admit, as divine, the monstrous mass of traditions held by the Romish church, which has been accumulating for ages.

But it is capable of the clearest proof, that great uncertainty attended all matters received by tradition, which were not contained in Scripture, even in those times that were nearest to the days of the Apostles. This fact is manifest in the case of

Papias, who was contemporary with the last of the Apostles; and of Clement of Alexandria, who lived in the second century. If, then, tradition was so uncertain, at its very source, who can place any confidence in this channel of communica tion, after it has been increasing in impurity for seventeen hundred years? If the stream had even been pure in its commencement, it would, by this time, have become so turbid, and so poisoned, that no dependence could be placed in the information conveyed by it. But where certain things are said to have been received by tradition from the Apostle John at second hand, it was deemed important to verify them, by a comparison with the Scriptures, as we have already seen. How unreasonable then is the demand, that we should now receive all traditions which have come down to us, without any test of their genuineness, or any comparison of them with the Oracles of God!

Here, also, it is necessary to observe, that there is a wide distinction to be made between articles of faith and institutions of worship, which are obligatory on all, and such modes of worship as were adopted under the general rule, of doing all things decently and in order; or from notions of expediency, with a view of conciliating those that were without. It may be proved, indeed, from the writings of the Fathers, that many things of this kind existed, which they never thought of placing on a level with the faith received from the Apostles. And it may be here remarked, that it was one of the first and greatest mistakes into which the church fell, after inspiration ceased, to make too free a use of this doctrine of expediency. The abuses which have crept in under this specious disguise were not foreThe Fathers saw no harm in an indifferent ceremony, to which, perhaps, their new converts were attached from long custom. By adopting things of this kind, the church, which was at first simple and unencumbered with rites, became strangely metamorphosed; and in place of her simple robe of white, assumed a gorgeous dress, tricked off with gaudy ornaments and various colours. And this practice of inventing new ceremonies, went on increasing, until, in process of time, the burdensome ritual of the Levitical law was not comparable to the liturgy of the Christian church. Who that now attends a Romish chapel, on some high day, would suppose that the service performed was connected with the religion of the New Testament?

seen.

It is of no consequence, therefore, to adduce testimonies from the Fathers, of the second, third, and fourth centuries of the

Christian church, to show, that such ceremonies were then in use, in some particular part of the church; or even in the church universal. All know by what means these things were received, and obtained prevalence. But let it be kept in memory, that the Fathers do not assert that these usages were derived from the Apostles; nor do they pretend that they were necessary; and accordingly we find, that in different countries they were not the same.

4. I come now to consider the last argument for unwritten traditions, which I have been able to discover. It is this: That without the aid of tradition, the Scriptures will be of no real benefit to us, because it is only by this means that we can arrive at their true meaning. And it is alleged, that the Fathers, in all disputes with heretics, when they referred to Scripture, still appealed to universal tradition, for a true exposition of the meaning of the passages adduced.

In returning an answer to this argument, I would observe, that should we even grant all that is contended for, it would not be a concession of the main point in controversy. The claim of the Romanists, so unblushingly advanced, in the decree of Trent, already cited, is, "That traditions relating both to faith and manners, are to be received with equal affection and reverence, as the Canonical Scriptures." And, lest we should be at any loss to know what articles of faith are pre tended to be received by tradition alone, PETER A SOTO, one of the great defenders of the decrees of the Council of Trent, and a member of that Council, explicitly declares, "That the rule is infallible and universal; that whatever things the Romish church believes and holds, which are not contained in the Scriptures, are to be considered as derived from the Apostles; provided the observances cannot be traced to any certain origin, or author." Every thing in use in this church, of the commencement of which we are ignorant, must be ascribed to the Apostles without doubt, and without further proof. And then he descends to particular doctrines and rites, which, according to this sweeping rule, we must receive, as handed down by tradition, from the Apostles; among which, are, "The oblation of the Sacrifice of the Altar, Unction with Chrism, or the holy oil, invocation of saints, the merit of good works, the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, the consecration of the water in baptism, the sacrament of confirmation, of orders, of matrimony; prayers for the dead, extreme unction, auricular confession, and satisfaction, &c. But beside these, there are innumerable other things which are held sacred by the Ro

mish church, which cannot be proved from Scripture, such as, the mutilation of the Lord's Supper, the celibacy of the clergy, the distinction of meats, purgatory, pilgrimages, indulgences, the worship of images and relics, the canonization of saints," &c. &c. Now, she cannot pretend that all these were received from the Apostles, for some of them are in direct repugnance to the plain declarations of Scripture; and the occasion of the introduction of some of them is matter of history, and acknowledged by the Romanists themselves. And surely, it is not a very convincing argument of the apostolical origin of doctrines or ceremonies, that we do not know when they took their rise.

But the argument now under consideration, relinquishes this ground, and goes back to the Scriptures as the foundation of faith, but insists, that the true interpretation of Scripture can only be known by tradition. On which we remark

That many things in Scripture are so clear, that they stand in need of no interpretation. They are already as plain as any exposition can make them. Who wants tradition to teach him, that Christ is the Son of God; was born of the Virgin Mary; was crucified under Pontius Pilate; rose again the third day; and ascended to heaven, whence he will come again to judge the world? If we cannot understand the plain declarations of Scripture, neither could we understand an exposition. If we cannot know what the Apostles and Evangelists mean, in their plainest declarations, when we have their very words before us, how shall we know what is the meaning of the vague language of tradition?

There are many parts of the New Testament, of which tradition has handed down no interpretation. If we wish to know their meaning, it is in vain that we apply to the Fathers for instruction. They are silent. They have not commented on these books and passages. To which of the Fathers shall I go for an exposition of the Book of Revelation? Or, will the Pope himself, aided by all his cardinals, or by an oecumenical council, undertake to give us the true interpretation of this prophecy? It cannot be true, that Scripture can be interpreted only by tradition, unless we agree to give up a large part of the New Testament, as wholly incapable of being understood.

We cannot build our faith on the interpretation of the Fathers, in all cases, because they often fall into palpable mistakes, which is not denied by the Romanists themselves; and again, they differ among themselves. How, then, can it be known what that interpretation is, which was received from the

TO THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE.

209

Apostles? Must I follow JUSTIN, or IRENEUS, or CLEMENT of Alexandria ? or must I believe in all the allegorical interpretations contained in the Homilies of ORIGEN, according to which the plainest passages are made to mean something perfectly foreign from the literal sense? If the tradition which brings down this interpretation is not found in the writings of the Fathers, where is it? And how has it come down? Surely, that which was never mentioned nor recorded by the ancient church, ought not to be received as an apostolical tradition; for, as the great CHILLINGWORTH says, "A silent tradition is like a silent thunder," a thing inconceivable.-But we shall be told, that the Church has preserved this deposit, and can testify that it was derived from the Apostles. What Church? And where is her testimony? And how do we know that, among such a mass of traditions, some have not crept in, which originated in other sources than the teaching of Christ and his Apostles? Who kept these traditions securely, when the Church was overrun with Gothic ignorance and barbarism? Who kept this treasure unadulterated, when Arianism was predominant? If there be such an oral law, containing an exposition of Scripture, how has it happened that there have existed such dissensions about doctrine, in the Romish Church itself? And as it is acknowledged that many usages of the Church have had their origin, long since the Apostles' days, what authority is there for these innovations? If the authority of the Church was sufficient to establish these, it could as easily establish all the rest, and there is no need of apostolical tradition: but if there is a distinction to be made between observ ances derived from the Apostles, and such as have been invented by men, how can we draw the line between them?

An implicit believer in the infallibility of the Pope, would deem it sufficient to answer, that his Holiness at Rome knows certainly what is apostolical, and what not; what is obligatory, and what not. All we have to do, is to believe what he believes, or what he tells us to believe. Now, without disputing the pretensions of the Bishop of Rome to such extraordinary knowledge, at present, I would ask, if we must go to an infal lible judge to learn what are apostolical traditions, what use is there in traditions? Why does not this infallible teacher declare at once what is truth, in all cases, without the trouble of searching into antiquity after traditions, which never can be found?

But if it be alleged, that the traditions which ought to be received as the rule of our faith, are such as were universal, and