No Part of the Christian Revelation Handed Down by Unwritten Tradition

In the former part of this work, it was seen, that it was not only necessriry to show, that the Apocryphal writingrg had no right to a place in the Sacred Volume, hut that there was no additional revelation which had been handed down, by oral tradition. The same necessity devolves upon us, in relation to the New Testament; for while it is pretty generally aajreed, by all Christians, what books should be received into the Canon, there is a large Society which strenuously maintains, that besides the revelation contained in the divine record, written by the apostles and their assistants by the plenary inspiration of the Holy Spirit, there is a further revelation, consisting of such things as were received from the mouth of Christ himself while upon earth, or taught to the churches by his inspired apostles, which were not by them, nor in their time, committed to writing, but which have come down to us by unbroken tradition.

The importance of this inquiry, is exceedingly manifest: for if, in addition to the written word.

there are important doctrines, and necessary sacraments of the cliuich, which have come down by tradition; it would be a perilous thing for us to remain ignorant of those thino;s, which God has enjoined, or to deprive ourselves of the benefits to be derived from those means of grace which he has instituted for the edification and salvation of the church. But, seeing traditions are much more liable to alteration and corruption than written documents, it is very necessary that we should be on our guard against imposition; and if it is a duty to exercise much care and diligence, in distinguishing between inspired books and such as are spurious, it cannot be less incumbent, to ascertain first, whether any part of God’s revealed will has been handed down by tradition only; and next, to learn accurately, what those things are, which have been thus communicated. And as there are Apocryphal books which claim a place in the Canon; so, doubtless there would be Apocryphal traditions, if any truths had been conveyed to the church, through this channel. But if there be no satisfactory evidence of any such revelation having come down to us; nor any possibility of ascertaining what proceeded from the apostles, and what from the fancy and superstition of men, thn we are right in refusing the high claims of tradition, and adhering inflexibly to the written word, which is able, through faith, to make us wise unto salvation.

This doctrine of traditions, is most convenient and favoiirahle to the church of Rome, in all her controversies with Protestants and others; for whatever she may assert, as an article of faith, or tearh as a part of Christian duty, althousjh there be no vestipje of it in the word of God, may readily be established by tradition. For as the church alone has the keepinsj of this body of oral law, she only is the proper judge of what it contains, and indeed can make it to suit herself. If we shoidd concede to the Romanists what they claim, on this point, the controversy with them, migjht well be brought to an end; and all we should have to do, wouW be, to yield implicit faith to whatever they miffht please to teach us. And even if we should be required to believe and practise, in direct opposition to the plain declarations of Holy Scripture; yet, as the true interpretation of Scripture, on this plan, is only in the hands of the infallibir. head of the church, and is indeed understood by means of unwritten traditions, we must not trust to our own understanding in the most evident matters, nor even to our own senses, although several of them should concur in giving us notice of some fact. Now, before we give ourselves up to be led bhndly in such a way as this, it behoves us, diligrntly and irn|)artial!y, to inquire, wiiethcr God has required of us, this implicit subm ion to men. VVe ought tt) be assured, that their suthoiity over our faith and conscience, has a divine warrant for its exercise; and especially, we should be satisfied, on sufficient grounds, that these unwritten traditions, on which the whole fabric rests, are truly the commands of God; for if they are not, we have the hi<j;hest authority for rejecting them. And if their claim to a divitie origin cannot he made out clearly, they cannot, in reason, bind us to obedience; for, when God gives a law, he promulgates it with sufficient clearness, that all whom it concerns, may know what is required of them.

To exhibit fairly, the true point of controversy on this subject, it will be requisite to make several preliminary observations, that it may be clearly understood what we admit, and what we de-

1. In the first place, then, it is readily admitted, that a law revealed from Heaven and communicated to us, orally with clear evidence of its origin, is as binding, as if written ever so often. When God uttered the ten commandments, on Mount Sinai, in the midst of thunderings and lightnings, it surely was as obligatory on the hearers, as after He had written them on tables of stone.

It is a dictate of common sense, that it is a matter of indifference, how a divine revelation is Communicated, provided it come to us properly authenticated.

2. Again, it is conceded, that for a long time, there was no other method of transmitting the revelations received from Heaven, from sjeneration to generation, but by oral tradition, and such external memorials, as aided in keeping up the remembrance of important transactions. As far as appears, books were unknown, and letters not in use, until a considerable time after the flood. During the long period which preceded the time of Moses, all revelations must have been handed down by tradition. But, while this concession is willingly made, it ought, in connexion, to be remarked, that this mode was then used, because no other existed; and that, in the early ages of the world, the longevity of the patriarchs, rendered that a comparatively safe channel of communication, which would now be most uncertain; and not.vithstanding this advantage, the fact was, that in every instance, as far as we are informed, in which divine truth was committed to tradition, it was utterly lost; or soon became so corrupted by foreign mixtures, that it was impossible to ascertain what part of the mass contained a revelation from God. It is therefore the plausible opinion of some, that writing was revealed from heaven, for the very purpose of avoiding the evil which had been experienced, an<l that there might be a certain vi-hicle for all divine communications: and it is certain, that all that we know of the history of alpbal)etical writing, leads us to connect its origin with the commencement of wrii-ten revelations.

It is therefore not an improbable supposition, that

■God taught letters to Moses, for the express pui-pose of conveying, by this means, his iaw>, to distant ages, without alteration; and it deserves to be well considered, that after the command was given to Moses, to write in a book the laws and statutes delivered to him, nothing was left to oral tradition, as has been shown in the former par4; of this work.

3. It will be granted also, that tradition, especially when connected with external memurials,is sufficient to transmit, through a long lapse of time, the knowledge of particular events, or of transactions of a Vfry simple nature.

Thus, it may be admitted, that if thegopels had not come down to us, we might by tradition be assured, that Christ instituted the Kucharist, 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 founfled in fact. Besides, the thing handed down, in this instance, is so simple in its nature, that there was no room for mistake.

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, at the books of the New Testament were written by the persons undei- whose names they have come down to us. Tlii.s fact is incapable oi” lieiiig proved from the Scripiures, because we niusi first be assured ihat they contain the testimony of inspired men, befure we can prove any thing by them. The point to be cptal)lished here, is, that the aposth’S wrote these books. If it yvtre ever so often a.sserted m a book, that a certain person was its author, this would not be sati.sfactory evidence of its genuineness, because any impostor can write what f;ds.’hoopls he pleases in a hook, and may apcribt’ it to whom he will; as in f;ict, many have written spurious works, aid a->cribed them to the apostles. We must therefore have the fetimony of (hose who had the oppnrtuniiy of judging uf the fait, given either ex|;licitly, or inijjlicitly. In njost cases, whore a book is published under the name of some certain author, in Ihf co’iiitry in which he lived and was known, a general, pilent acquiescence in the fiict, b the peopl-’’ of that age and cmititry, w itti the cohsent of all that came after them, may be consiilen d as satisfactory evidence of thf giuuineness of such book. But where much dt-pends on the certainty oi (he fact in question, it is nt’cessary to have positive testimony; and in order that it be satisfactory, it should be univ- isal, and uncontradicied. When, thenfore, a certMiu viinnie is expieS’ly received as the work of certain individuals, by all vlh lived at or near the lime when h was published, and ail 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 eviilence 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 botpks of the New Testament, has been made a sfreat handle of, by the Romanists, in the defence of their favourite doctrine. They pretend, that the point which we have here conceded, is aH 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 writinos. 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 nof:

therefore necessary to prove the iruth oi 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 liiis, 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, an<i on some accounts, judge it to be the most un- €Xceptional)le. While we weigh this evidence, it would be absurd to make its validity depend on tlve witnvsses 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 Scripiurcs were not inspired, the authority of the Christian church would have been worth nothing: and therefore, previously to the decision on thif

34a

pomt, we cannot defer any thing to the authority of the church. The truth is, that the wiin» sses beino- of the church, is, in this inquiry, merely an incidental circumstance. A sufficient mimbnr’of competent and credible witnesses, not of (he church, would establish the fact just as well as th<se 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 Heathen, has, on this account, been demanded by infidels, and has been suught 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 apusiolical origin, were members of the church. The law enacted by the Supreme Legislature 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 tfstimony in favour of their divine origin, this confers no authority on them; it only proves to us, that they have authority, which is derivecl from the spirit of God, by whom they wf-re indited. It is truly wonderful, how this |>l;iin case h:is been perplexed and darkened, by the artittce and sophistry of the wil(;rs of tlic church of Rome.

But if it be insipted, 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 t 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 cotisiderinjj, seems to raise a sironsj pi’esumption aninst 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 oi 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 itclf: otherwise, the possession of written records would be useless. If, indeed, a dotibt should arise about the meaning oi aomelhiug in the record, it would not be unreason-G G 2 able to.inquire,how it bad been understood and practised on, by those who received it at first; but if pve 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 Gbspels and Epistles, by the preaching of the apostles and others; and doubtless were as well instructed as those churches which have 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 wriling 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 tinngs 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 itccount, uronly brief hints; which though they might be readily understood by those who had received their verbal instructions, are insufTicient, 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 u ord?

I have now presented the argument ia 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 should be constrained to receive, to some extent, this oral law of the Romish church. But before any man can reasanably be req’iired to rest his faith on tradition, he h:is a right to be satisfied on several important points; as, whether it was th’^ 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 traditon, 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 how improbable that the same plan was pujsue’l, in regiri to the writini:;s of ‘h^ Ntw Covenait; especially, when it is consi ierrd, how much superior written communic::>tiipiis are to verbal, as it respects accuracy. When a chaanel for conveying the truth had been provided, calculated to preserve all communications from corruption; and when it is acknowledged, th t this was user! for a part of the matter to be tranmiued, 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 doAn 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 aithority fully equal to that which is given to the Scriptures, they ought to be able to produce the very tvords, in which these instructions wre 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 demanrd 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 certainly and authodty with the written word. When an article of faith f5S

ispropospd, which is contained in the Scriptures we can turn to the sacred text, and read the words of Christ and his apostles; and may he assnrrd, tlial they express the truth contained in said article; but if an article of faith he 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 advociite 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 Scriptures?

But it is essential to the credit of traditions, that it be proved clearly, that those articles of religion, or institutions of worship, said to be received fron) this source, have indeed been handed down without alteration or corruption, from Christ and hisaposiles. It is not suflBcient, that they have been Ions: received and have now the sanction of the belief and practice of (he whole Catholic church; it oua;hl to be shown, that they have always, from the very days of the apostles, been received with universal consent. We know that the (-hurch has undergone many vicissitudes; that she has sometimes been almost extirpated by the sword of peisecution; has been overrun with d;ingerous errors; has been ovf-rwhelmed 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 vtstige in the Scriptures, and concerning which there is no early tradition. Many rules and ceremonies which have been long in use, an 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

3 Thes. ii. 3.

with certainty, what we ought to believe and prac« tise; hut if there be on earth an inf:tlli!>l«; Ju l’”* we have no tieed of iraditi ms. All thtt is neiessiry. is, for this p’T8on to eslahlish his claim to iufallihility, and then all will be as much bound to receive his decisions, as if they were expressly written in the Holy Scriptures. On this ijrouiid the controversy between the Romanists and Protestants first commenced. The dff(Mutersof the v)l(l 8> siem appealed to the authority of the Pope, and tl)e infallibility of the church, hut as it was impossible to sustain thcmsclvi-s by Scripture, on these points, they found it vtry 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 theje is no doctrini, however absurd, which may not be supported. Grant ihem this, and it will l)e in vain to appeal any m’ir<- 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 considired as the bulwark of the Romish church. Concede to them, the ground which they assume, and the whole body of their ceremonial laws, and unscriptnral practices, are safe. For as they can feiyn 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, tUat the Bibii; knows nothJMg of their monstrous accumulation of superstitious rites.

The Council of Trent, therefore, early in their sessions, ma.ie a decree on this subject, in vvhifh, after recognising the Scriptures, they add. — “iVec non tradttiones ipsas, turn ad fidem, turn ad mnres pertinenfes, tanquam vel oretenus a Chrislo, vel a spiritu sancto, dictatus et continiia successione in Ecclesia Catholica conservatas, pari pietatis affectu et reverentia suscipitac veneratur.^^ The meaning of which is, that The Holy Synod receives and venerates traditions relntiig both to faith aid manners, as proceeding from the mmiih of Christ himself, or as dictated by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in an uniutt rrupted succession in theCaiholic church, with equal affectiun and reverence, as the writt-n Scriptures! This was the first decree of the fourth Session of this ffimous Council.

Before leaving this subject, it will be proper to consider somti of the other aigunients, wluch 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 traiiitions. 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 P;iul inak« s express mention of tradiloii. And in {y’ precedinaj chapter, Therefore brethren stand fist (Did hold the TRAninoNs which ye hove been tuui/it lohether 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 reft-rs to what he had said to them in his First Epistle, for the words following are. For yourselves knoiu how ye ought to follow us; for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; neither did ive cat 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 tliecn, where it is said, nd 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 2il chapter, it is clear, that by traditions, the apostle did not mean merely oral communications, for lie explains hims.lf, by saying, whether by word or our Epistle. It is not

2 Thes. ill. 6,7, II, 15. 1 Thcs. iv. 11.

n H denied, that Paul delivered many things orally to the churches, as has been ah’eady 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 churcl), was committed to writing, another important pai’t 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 1 delivered unto you first of all, where the word for ti-ansmitting 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 loas buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptu es.

It is manifest, therefore, that the arguinent derived from the exhortation of Paul to obey tradition, is but a shadow, and vanishes upon the slightest touch of fair examination. 1 Cor. XV. 3, 4.

^. Their next, ami principal argument, is deri-Ced from the iVeqiicnt declarations of the early Fnthers, in favour of tradition. Cyprian refers those who might he in doubt respecting any doctrine, to the hoh, trddition, received from Christ and his apostles: and Irenaius, as cited by Eusebius, says, “That those things which lie 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, (ir’avTa tfijixtpwva Tar? y«^a(5.)This sentence of Irenaeus 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. Irenseus 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 Irenaius, 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 tra-Lib. V. c. 20.

dition of the apostles is manifest, in the whole woild. 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 c urch, 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 Iruth. 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 an their hearts; which also they follow.”

And Tertullian, in his work, concerning Prescriptions, says, “If Christ commissioned certain persons to preach his gospel, then certainly none should be received as preachers, except those appointed to office by him. And as they preach, ed what Christ revealed unto them, what they taught can only he known, by applying to the churches, which the apostles planted, by preaching to them, whether 7^iva vocp. or by their Epis lies. Therefore, all doctrine which agrees with that held by the apostolical churches, is to he considered as Irue, and held fust, because the churches received it from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, aiul Christ fiom God; hut all other doctrine whici) is repugnant to that received by the churches, should be rejected as false, as being ref)U2nant to that tnitfi taught by the apostles, by Chript, and by God.”

These declarations, from such men, in favour of tradition, seem at first vii w, to be altogether favour:d)h to the doctrine of the church of R’me; but we despair not of bcin<; able to convince the candid reader, that when the occasion on which these things wore said, and the character and opin* ions of the persons against whom these Fathers wrote, arc considered, ih’.ir testimony, instead of making against the sufliciency of the Scrijiluros will be found corroborative of thu opinion which we maintain. They do not apfical to tradition, let it be oljservcd, 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 lu prove, that other doctrines, not contained in the Scriptures, may be established by tradition. H H 2 se2

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? To which I would answer, that Irenasus 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 a. the very foundation of the Christian reliiijion, and to record which, the Gospels and Epistles were written. But still the ques’ion returns, why did these Fathers appeal for proof to tradition, when they had testimony so full and decisive from the Scriptures? The answer to t;;is question will show us, in th.e clearest manner, that the views of Irenaeus and Terlullian, relative to the Scriptures and lo traditions, wore such as are now held by Protestants, and that the heretics whom they opposeiK occii;>!<h 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 Scrip! urt-s, they would not admit. This is not conjecture j for Irenaeus has explicitly stated the case. <’When,” says lu-, <Mhey are conlutt’d iVuin the Siriptures liiem>^clv(’s, they alltge, that thi’y are not lorrect, or not oi” authority, and assert that they speak so variously, iliat the truth cannot he cstabhshcd by iheni, wiihonl tradition; f»>r 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 corrupti’d by additions, or detract ions, 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 hw pers pns, which they say, the apostle Paul meant, by the c/eposittim.”

From these quotations, the reason why these Fathers had recotirse to traditions, ig 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 certiun and sufficient standar<l of troth. They said, that their meaning could nut he ascertained without tradition; that they were defective 5 and abo, that there were some parl« which they did not acknowledge; and they held moreover, that some things

1 Tim. VI. 20 were never committed to writing, but designedly handed down by tradition. We did not, indeed, expect to find ‘he exact doctrine of ti»e Romanists, respecting the Scriptures and tradition, at so earJy 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 iheir day, tiadition 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 apos’les. Instead, therefore, of using tradition, as thp Romanis s do, to prove some doctrine not contained in the Scrip’ure, they used it merely to confirm the truths wiiic hare manifestly contained in the New Testament They were at no loss for Scripture testimonies to establish these truths, but they were (‘isputing with men who did not admit the authority of the Scriptures to be decisive, and therefijre they appeal to universal tradition, in support of them It is said, indeed, by Irenseus, that many barbarous nations had received the fpith, among whom letters and writing were unknown. They must, therefore, it is conclud’d, 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 harharous nations received, were not diflferent from those contained in the Sacred Scriptures, but the very same, taught in a short conipreh«-nsive creed. In fact, we have hero, the true origin of that symbol of doctrine, commonly caHed, ‘I’he 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 It staisent, or who had no access to it. That Irenaeus actually referred, in the p:iss:igp 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 suUored under Pontius Pilate, and having risen again, w:is received into heaven; about to come again in glory; the Saviour of those who are saved, and the judge ol tho><e 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 bmbarians, if any one should announce to them the doctrines invented by heretic>, stopping their ears, t’ley 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, Irenaeus 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 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, diligoiitly konp5, as if she iiiliahited one house, and believes in it, as it’ possessing but one soul and one hciirt; ind in accordance with the same, sho leaches and pf’ aches, as with one mouth. Althousi;h the languages which are in the world are difTerenf, yet there is one and the same tradition. Neither do the churches which are founrlcd in Germany, believe difftrently, from those in Italy, nor fiom those among the Celts, nor from thnse in the East, nor from those which are in Egypt, or in Lybia, or in the middle of the world. But as the Stm is one and the same through the whole world, so the light and preaching of the truth, every where shines, and illumiiiatos all men, who are willing to come to the knowledge of the truth, 4’C.”

This then is the apostolical tradition, of which these Fathers speak so muguiticenlly. Not any secret doctrine never commitled 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

S(j8

furnishes us with another summary of the common faith of primitive Christians; “^ The rule of faith,” says l-.e, “is that by which it is behevtd, that there is no more than one God, and no other beside the Creator of the world, who produced al things out of nothing by h’S 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 her 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 uf God the Faiher; 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 pai’ts, and the flesh will be restored. This rule of fiith 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

* TertuU. De PrsescriiJlionibus.

fundamental articles of tlic Christian ReligIoiip which are written amply in every gospel, and recognized 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 fact, that there are some doctrines, not expressly mentioned inScrip- * ture, 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 I J from the 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 iacts recorded in the New Testament, from which it can be fairly concluded, that the first day of the week vlas 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 Scrijitural principles, are correct. But why should wo 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 r Thus, on the subject of infant baptism, which the Romanists pretend is derived solely from traditioa, we fmd 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 implicitly autholized. Irenaeus, 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 undoubind 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. By yielding too ready an assent to traditions, they were leil to adopt false opinions, si»me of which were directly repugnant to the written word. It can have no weight with us, therefore, 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 jnore impartial among the Romanist?.

are as far from receiving, as we are. Nor, do we Ibel 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 Fatherg received from tradition. The principle of Pro-* testants 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 prinjitive 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 opinp ions; much more to adopt their errors, knowing them to be such. “The Bible is the Religion oir Protestants.”

The fact is, that the Fathers generally dcr peuded on Scripture for the proof of their dox:-

Irincs; and called in the aid of tradition, only to confirm the doctrines which they derived from the written word. And Iiert- it is important to remark, that tradition, in the earlier and pui’er 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, nith 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.

hut it is cajiable of the clearest proof, that great uncertaiity attended all matters received by tradition, which were not contained in Scripture, even in those limes 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 lliis channel of communication, after it has been increasing in impurity, for seventeen hundred years? If the stream had even been 1 I 2 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 thinss are said to have been received by tradition from the apostle John n 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 arr obligatory on all, and such modes of worship as were adopted under the s;eneral rule, o{ doing all thitigs decently and in order; or frf)m notions of expediency, with a view of conciliating; those that were without. It w.^y be pro ed, indeed, from the writings of the Fathers, that many things of this kind ^;xisted, which they never thoug;ht 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 ahuses which have crept in under this specious disguise were not foreseen. The Fathers saw no harm in an indifferent ceremony, to which., perhaps, their new converts were attached from lone; custom. By adopting things of this kind, the church, which was t fiist 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?

It is of no consequence, therefore, to adduce testimonies from thr Fathers, of the second, third, and fourth ajjes, of the Christian church, to show, that such ceremonies were then m 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 acordingly 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 ua, 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 herelics, 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, 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 ttt he received with equal affection and reverence, as the Canonical Scriptures.’^ And, lest we should be at any loss to kn ‘W what articles of faith are pretended 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 Uie 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 thfe Sacrifice of the altar, Unction with Chrism or the holy oil, invocation of saints, the merit of good works, the primacy of the Roman pontifi”, the consecration of the water in baptism, the sacra* ment 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 Romish 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 Ro* manists 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. Bufe the argument pow undef consideration, r.

iinquishes 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 thin2;s 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 y 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 #f 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 wholy incapable of being understood.

We cannot build our faith on the interpretation of the Fnthcrs, 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 apostles? Must I follow Justin, or Iren.us, or Clement of Alexandria? or must 1 believe in all llie allegorical interpretations contained in the Homilies of Origen, according to which, the plainest passages arc 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 apos. ties’ 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 observances 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 infallible judge to learn what are appstolical 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 concerning which, there cannot be any doubt, I answer, that many such traditions may indeed be found, but what do they respect? Those very doctrines which are most plainly and frequently inculcated in Scripture; and of which we need no exposition; for as was said before, they are expressed as perspicuously as any exposition can be. But it affords us satisfaction to find the church openly professing, from the beginning, those truths, which we find recorded in Scripture. If it does not add confirmation to our faith, in these points, it gives us pleasure to find such a harmony in the belief of true Christians.

Finally, it is dangerous to rely upon traditions. Heretics, in all ages, sheltered themselves under this doctrine. Those with whom Tertullian contended,alleged, that the apostles did not know every thing necessary, as Christ declared he had many things to say, which they could not bear yet; or, there were some things which they did not teach publicly, nor commit to writing, but communicated privately to a few chosen persons, and therefore they declined the authority of Scripture. The same is true of those against whom Irena’-us wrote. They appealed from Scripture to tradition, and he

K K answers thera by showing, that universal traditioh was conformable to Scripture.

Eusebius informs us, that Artemon, who asserted that Christ was a mere man, pretended that he had learnt, from tradition, that all the apostles were of his opinion.*

Thus also, Clement of Alexandria, says, <’That Basilides gloried in having received his doctrine, through a few hands, from Peter; and Valeniinus gloried, in having been instructed by one who had been a disciple of Paul, “t The Marcionltes professed to have received their doctrines from St. Matthew. The Arians, as appears by an oration against them by Athanasius, appealed to tradition, for the confirmation of their tenets.

In fact, this doctrine of unwritten traditions, has been justly compared to Pandora’s box, which is calculated to fill the world with evils and heresies.

But not only have heretics availed themselves of this corrupt fountain, but good men have been deceived by lending too credulous an ear to traditions.

Papias, one of the hearers of John the apostle, was a great collector of traditions. He was inquisitive to know what each of the apostles had, at any time, said; and there was some chance of coming at the truth from oral tradition, by one who was a hearer of one of the apostles. But what valuable information did this good man obtain by all his inquiries, which is not in Scripture .-* Let Eusebius an- * Liber v. c. 28. f Strom, xiii.

swer: “Papias adopted many paradoxical opinions by giving heed to unwritten traditions, {iraa5o(ttu «7^a(p8,) and received certain strange parables of our Saviour, mixed with fabulous things, among which was the error of the Chiliasts; by which many other excellent men were deceived, paying too much deference to antiquity and unwritten traditions. Even such men as Irenaeus, Apollinarius, Tertullian,Victorinus, and Lactantius, were misled by these ancient traditions, so that they adopted an opinion for which there is no foundation in Sacred Scripture,and not only so, but which is repugnant to the doctrine of Christ and his apostles.”

Clement of Alexandria, too, than whom no man of the ancient church was more celebrated, speaks of certain persons who had taken much pams to preserve the sayings of the apostles, handed down by tradition, among whom he mentions a Hebrew, who is supposed to be Papias; but when he comes to tell us what he had learned from these unwritten traditions, which is not contained in Scripture, it amounts to this, “That there was a public doctrine %nd a secret doctrine; the one esotericy and the other exoteric; that the former was committed to writing, and was in the hands of all; but the latter was communicated secretly to chosen disciples. And if we may judge of the secret doctrine handed down by tradition, from some speci mens of it which he had learned, we will not appreciate unwritten traditions very highly, in comparison with the written word. Among these, is the Opinion, that the Greek Philosophy answered the same purpose as the Law of Moses, and was a schoolmaster to bring those that professed it unto Christ; that this philosophy, as well as the Law of Moses, was able to justify men ;-and that there were many ways of obtaining life. From the same tradition, he teaches, that Christ’s ministry was finished in one year, which opinion Irenasus ascribes to heretics, and declares it as a tradition from John, that Christ, when he was crucified, was nearly fifty years of age. Clement relates it as a tradition, “That the apostles after their death, went and preached to the dead, who descended with the apostles into a place of water, and then came up alive,” and many other like things.*

There is much reason to believe, that the corruption of the church, which commenced about this time, was owing to a disposition which began to be indulged, of lending too credulous an ear to traditions, and to Apocryphal writings.

But among the Fathers, no one gave himself up so entirely to unwritten traditions, and Apocryphal fables, as Epiphanius. His writings abound with things of this kind: but who would assert that we are bound to receive these stories, as articles of faith? Even the Romish church, with all her store of legends, will not receive as true

* Strom. Lib. If.

and necessary, all that is handed down by tradition from one and another of the Fatluwa.

From what has been saiti therefore, the conclusion is clear, that the Scriptures are complete without unwritten traditions: that no articles of faith, nor institutions of worship, concerning which the Scriptures are silent,have cO’Ue down to us by tradition; that wo have uniform, universal tradition, on those points, whirh are plainly taught in Scripture; that many thi y;s pretended to have been received from the AjjOstles by tradition, cannot be tractd to thtm; and that many other things made equally nectssarv by the Romish church, can be proved to have orij:;inatod many hundreds of years since the death of il»o Apostles. It has- also’ been shown, that there is no ct-rtain method ofdistingiuishitijj; between what is apostolical, and what has been derived from other sources, unless we make the Scriptures our standard; that tradition cannot be our guide even in inttrpreting Scripture; and finally, that tradition has been the common refuge of heretics, and has greatly misled good and orthodox men, by inducing theui to adopt wild theories, fabulous stories, and paradoxical opinions, some of which, are directly repugnant to Scripture.

The traditions of the Romish Church stand on no higher ground, than the traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees, in the time of our Saviour j but he rejected these traditions as having no authority, and as making void the law of God. Why doyCf says

K K 3

Christ, also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? — Thus have ye m,ade the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. — Howbeit in vain do they worship mcy teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. The -same questions and reproofs may with equal propriety be addressed lo the Pope, and the doctors of the Romish church. But we say, To the Law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to these it is because there is no ight in them. ‘”

Thus have we brought this work to a close; and it affords us pleasure to believe, that most who read these pages, will be convinced, thai the Bible IS A COMPLETE RULE, BOTH OF FAITH AND

PRACTICE. The Law of the Lord is perfect. What a treasure havf we in the Old and New Testaments! Here, God speaks to us by his lively oracles. The truth is taught so plainly, in this Sacred volume, that he who runs may read. The way of life is delineated so distinctly, that the wayfaring man, though a fool, shall not err therein. We have, indeed, a sure word of prophecy, to which ye do well that ye take heed, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.

There is nothing lacking to him that is in possession of the Scriptures; for, t/2ll Sanpture is

Matt. XV. 3, 6. Mark. vii. 7. Isaiah, viii. 20.

given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Let us then be mrateful to God, and give him unceasing thanks foihis precious deposit, which he has committed to his church; and which by his Providence he hath preserved uninjured, through all the vicissitudes, through which she has passed.

Let us praise God, that in regard to us, that night of darkness is past, in which there was a famine, not of bread, nor of water, but of the word of the Lord; when the light of this brilliant lamp was put out, or rather <put under a bushel,’ and the feeble erring light of tradition, was substituted in its place.

Let us be glad and rejoice that we have lived to see the day, when copies of theBible arc mulii|)lied, and when many run to and fio, to circulate them; and let us wait in assured hope for the day, when

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LoKD SHALL COVER THE
EARTH, AS THE WATERS COVER THE SEA. EvEN

so, COME Lord Jesus. Amen.
2 Tim, iii. 10, 17.

m-