rmmpden Mh£56 1*39 LECTURE ON TRADITION, READ BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY, IN THE DIVINITY SCHOOL, OXFORD, ON THURSDAY, March 7th, 1833, WITH ADDITIONS, BY R D. HAMPDEN, D. D. REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, ETC. SECOND EDITION. LONDON : B. FELLOWES, LUDGATE STREET. 1839. OXFOBD : PRINTED BY D. A. TALBOYS. So much has lately been said and written on the subject of Tradition, that it might seem almost superfluous to have selected it for particular no tice from this Chair. But the very fact of the increased and marked attention which questions relating to Tradition have attracted among us lately, renders it more imperative on me, in the discharge of my duties to the University and the Church, and, above all, to Him whose servant I am, — that I should thus solemnly, from this place, bring before your consideration what appears to me to be the true doctrine of our Church on this most important subject. It is not then that others, who have discussed these questions, and maintained the pure and simple views of the Church of England in regard to Tradition, have not done so ably and instruc tively. Nor is it, that I think there is serious danger of an extensive or permanent modification of opinion on this head, among members of our Church, in a direction opposite to that marked out by the Reformation, and in the pursuit of which we have enjoyed, for nearly three cen turies, so much truth and so much freedom. I im only desirous of doing my part. I would, according to my office, moderate, if I might be patiently and candidly heard, between the dis putants on each side of the questions involved in this great argument. And, at any rate, I would satisfy my own conscience, by not leaving unsaid, what I conceive may be useful, in order to a right understanding of the matters in dispute. Though, too, I may state nothing original on the subject, and the substance of what I shall advance may be familiar to several here present, yet it may do good, to " stir up the pure minds" of some, by putting them in "remembrance" of what they know ; whilst I more particularly ad dress myself to those who have yet to sound the depths of this controversy, and endeavour to confirm them in their hold of a fundamental principle of our Church. For it is to the junior part of the University that the labours of this Chair, originally designed for the Inceptors in Arts, are now practically devoted. For their needs, I feel myself especially called upon to consult. For their benefit, (for, none of us hold his place in the world, be it what it may, but for some special providence, and some wise and benevolent design of God in regard to it,) I may humbly trust, I have been permitted to discharge the duties of this office now for the space of three years, " through evil report and good re port," — amidst much discouragement, and yet mueh encouragement, — under the burthen of the unmerited suspicion and dislike of some, and yet cheered and supported by the good-will and in- 3 dulgence and respect of others, — depressed Bt times with fears of my own incompetence to the arduous Work set before me, and yet refreshed by the promises of Divine Grace on all humble and hearty endeavours, and, in particular, by that comforting assurance, "Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence to ward God." Let me not be supposed, however, to allude- to these circumstances of trial, in the way of reproach, or resentment, or complaint. If there has been enmity exerted, and indignity received, it were well at least, could those un happy feelings of our fallen nature, which such circumstances call forth and foster, be sub dued and silenced by that great law of Charity, without which, all our earnest contentions for the Faith, are as nothing, — and by the para mount obligation of us all, to promote with one heart and one mouth the welfare of our common Zion. And may God grant us the right mind to learn from such occasions as that to which I have been referring, the hard lesson of Christian humiliation before Him, the Searcher of hearts ; and enable those, between whom offences have arisen, to say, in the true spirit of the Apostle Paul, "Brethren, I be seech you, be as I am, for I am as ye are ; ye have not injured me at all." I only advert to the peculiar circumstances of my case, in order to point out distinctly, that I am influenced by no personal or party feeling in addressing myself b 2 4 to the subject now before us, — that I desire simply to discharge a duty providentially imposed on me, by stating, to the best of my judgment, the truth, on a subject demanding our especial con sideration at this time, and on which the junior members of the University will naturally look to me for an expression of my views. God forbid that I should ever employ this Chair for any mere selfish purpose, or any purpose but that of the Christian edification for which it was insti tuted. I am not come here to censure or to praise any one. The fundamental constitution ofthe University has appointed the Regius Pro fessor of Divinity a judge of heretical opinions. So far as I am personally concerned, I have no thing to regret, but much rather to rejoice, that this charge is not laid upon me ; however strenu ously I must object to a suspension of the an cient constitution of the University in regard to the office itself, and the assumption of a power not conceded by our Charters and Statutes, and the establishment of a precedent, so insigni ficant in its effect, and yet so dangerous to the future repose of this place. I desire, for my part, to be no man's censurer ; as I am answer able for no man's error but my own. But prin ciples and opinions, every one is entitled to discuss ; and in matters of Theology especially am I entitled, or rather indeed required, to do so, by the prescription of my office. And I would take this opportunity of observing, that far more effectual service would be done to the cause of Truth and Religion, — those high convic tions and professions of duty, by which men apologize to their own hearts and the world for their severities of judgment or conduct, would be more fully answered, — if, in questions of Truth, the person were altogether left out of consider ation, and opinions, and arguments, and state ments, were simply examined on their own merits. Misrepresentation and calumny, and, at any rate, all just ground of offence between man and man, would thus be avoided ; and contro versialists would be less exposed to the delusion of regarding themselves mere friends of Truth, whilst they are rather advocates of a cause, or a side, or a party, against an opponent. It may seem strange, at the first view, that we should at this time be debating a fundamental principle of the Reformation itself, — that after nearly three centuries of happy experience of a Church-system established on the basis of Scrip ture-authority, we should be inquiring into the Authority due to Tradition in the Church of God, and wrangling about boundary-lines which it was one great business of the Reformation to ascertain and fix". No principle so broadly and positively separates our Church from that of Rome, as the limit placed by our Reformers to the authoritative source of Divine Truth. And yet it is now eagerly asked, what is the nature and use of Tradition ; — as if we had yet to settle " Note I. the terms of difference between Rome and our selves, — as if the wisdom and piety of our fore fathers had not already decided them for us. Still stranger is it, that controversy should be going on among ourselves, among members of the Church of England itself, and not only mem bers but ministers of that Church, as to the esti mation in which our Church holds Tradition, — a controversy in the presence of our Article de claring the sufficiency of Scripture to salvation, and excluding every thing not contained in Scripture from being required of any man as necessary to salvation. But the strangeness of all this disappears, when we look to the freedom of discussion which our Church allows, — to the waywardness of the human mind, — to the love of contradiction, — to the tendency of men to obviate error, or supposed error, by insisting on some principle the most opposite to that which they would impugn, — the tendency again, to con tract statements of a truth into the most pre cise form, or to take advantage of the absence of extreme precision, to interpret a given state ment according to some peculiar view. These, and other natural principles of human conduct, acted on by the force of circumstances, — situated as our Church is in relation to that of Rome on the one hand, and the various Protestant Com munions on the other, — must be expected to pro duce alternations of opinion within the Church itself, on such points more especially as belong to its distinctive character. And as our Church 7 from its very moderation, may seem, when viewed from the opposite extreme either of ultra-protes tantism, or of ultra-catholicism, to approximate to the other ; — or again, from that very modera tion, is liable to be claimed by either of the extremes as agreeing with it in principle ; — it is not to be wondered at, that, in such a position, we should be subject to agitations from within, even on questions deeply affecting our existence as a Catholic, and yet Reformed and Protestant, Church. May we hope and pray, that, by the Divine blessing, this agitation of the waters may result in their purification ; and that the Church, as a tree of God's planting, may both firmly stand the shaking of the tempest without, and present a heart of oak to the gnawings of the canker that would consume it within. I have referred to the moderation of our Church, — its distinctive character, as it is sepa rated from the extremes to which it may appear to approximate. I need not state that, at this period, the prevailing disposition, or rather the tendency of that energy which is most bu sily working among us, is to represent the Church in its points of resemblance to Roman- catholicism, and throw it into strong contrast with the spirit of Protestantism. Thus it is, that we find the subject of Tradition now so studi ously brought into notice, and elaborate argu ments drawn from the stores of ancient contro versy, adduced to prove the traditionary deri vation of the doctrines of the Church, or the 8 insufficiency of Scripture for salvation, until its treasures have been unlocked by the key of a supposed Divine Tradition of Doctrines and In terpretations, and Rites. As I feel it my duty to oppose this statement, it will be proper for me in the first instance, — lest I should seem to incur the fault, which I have just noticed, of meeting an erroneous opinion by its direct contrary, — to state that view of the nature of Tradition which is maintained, as I conceive, by the Church of England, and which accordingly I would advocate. Let me be understood then, as one most ready to concede very great importance to Tradition, taken in its most comprehensive and popular sense, as an authentic collection of Doctrines, Interpretations, and Rites, existing in the Chris tian Church by the side of the Bible. But then I attribute no divine authority to it in itself. It is divine only as it is shone upon by Scripture. Like the giant of heathen story, it has strength only as it touches the solid and holy ground of Scripture. Take it by itself, as something ex isting independently of the Bible, and it has no vitality in it. I will go along with the most ar dent admirer of antiquity, in expressing my vene ration for truth that comes down to us with the hoar of ages upon it, and for whatever is asso ciated with the piety and constancy of our fore fathers in the faith. But I remember, that I must not make my religion a matter of imagina tion, or even of feeling exclusively, — that because I am disposed to love and cherish a precious re lic of antiquity, I must not suffer it to tempt me to superstition and an idolatrous reverence of itself. If some are inclined, like those objectors in the time of Ignatius, to rest the whole cause of the Gospel on the appeal to antiquity, I would reply with Ignatius ; — epol Se apxala ecrriv 'Irjaovs Xpiaros, to, aQiKra apyala 6 . i. 7. p. 367. 22 ligion has been, had not the Bible existed, as the great original and standing corrective of the aberrations and obscurities of the tradition of the Gospel. History, indeed, as strongly evi dences the latter fact, as it does the former. So far then from asserting, as some do, that we must bring our researches into the Bible under the supervision of Tradition, — Tradition must be evidenced, corrected, purified, deter mined by Scripture. Scripture exhibits, so far as anything finite can approximate to the infinite, the eternal ideas of the Divine mind in their own fixed unvarying character, ever the same. Tra dition only very imperfectly represents the Divine sameness of God's Truth, reproducing it, as it may, by successive repetitions. And though in the stream of Tradition, as in the successions of Time itself, there may be no pause, and the suc cession of doctrines may have been continuous throughout, still this is nothing, in point of truth and excellence, to that eternal invariableness — that everlasting present — which, as it belongs to Eternity itself, belongs analogously to the one standing record of the Divine counsels. Would you then fix the passing, ever-flowing Tradition of the truth, — would you correct the il lusions which belong to its temporary evanescent form, — would you not mistake shadows for' realities — a science of the variable, for the eternal knowledge of the invariable and divine — study Tradition in the light of Scripture,— fix the shift ing forms of Tradition by looking to the realities 23 contained in Scripture. You will be told that Scripture is obscure and difficult, and capable of an infinite variety of interpretations. But how idle is it to impute the imperfection and weakness and perversity of man to the Divine record itself? If Scripture is difficult, seek an instructor and guide ; listen to the expositions of those set over you in the Lord ; examine your own motives and capacities for interpreting it ; pray for a right understanding of it. And is not Tradition far more difficult and obscure in itself, than Scripture is in itself? To understand Tradition rightly, you require a far more voluminous reading, than for a competent knowledge of the Bible in order to salvation. For unless, with the Roman Catholics, you resolve Tradition into the autho rity of the present Church, you must go through all the ecclesiastical writers of the primitive ages, and interpret a variety of statements consist ently with one another, and so trace the chain of Truth in unbroken series up to its first link. And should you, after all this labour, doubt of an interpretation at any point, what is to fix the sense for you, — what is to decide for you the true tradition, out of several interpretations and doctrines, which will necessarily be brought before you in such a search ? You will be an swered ; look to what has been taught at all times, and in all places, and by all persons; — an in terminable and impracticable labour, — and even, were it accomplished, incapable of giving positive satisfaction as to the truth, though it may nega- 24 tively conclude as to what is not the truth. But what is the answer which the Articles of the Church of England give in such a case — Search the Scriptures. The voice of Scripture will fix for you what is the true tradition, whether it be a doctrine, or a comment, about which you are in doubt. Difficulties may be thrown out to perplex you in the use ofthe Scripture- criterion. But you may answer, it is the best you have, and by God's appointment, and the order of our Church, the ultimate one. Doubtless, you may err in the use of it ; but it is in itself infallible. You may err also in the use of the Tradition- criterion ; but then it is further in itself fallible; or, at any rate, you cannot be sure of its infallibility. There is labour too in proving the authenticity and canonicity of Scripture. But this is the simple labour of verifying the documents of Scripture, as to their integrity, and number, and reception among Christians. Whereas, in veri fying Tradition, you must authenticate every point, one after the other. You must prove that each traditionary doctrine regularly descends from Apostolic times, without any interruption what ever ; — an interminable and impracticable labour, as I have said. I am aware, however, that this account of the difficulty accompanying the verification of Tra dition, may be invidiously represented. It will be paralleled with the difficulty belonging to Scripture ; and you will be charged with incon sistency in receiving Scripture notwithstanding 25 its difficulties, and rejecting Tradition on ac count of its difficulties. The objection is both invidious and illogical. It is invidious, to magnify the difficulties of Scripture, a confessed authentic record of God's counsels and dealings, in order to prepare the way for Tradition, a controverted organ of divine truth — to throw back on what we all agree to be divine, the doubts and suspi cions belonging to a questionable source of divine instruction ; whilst it is actually denied by the disputants on one side, that Tradition is of divine authority. But the objection is, further, illogical ; because the difficulties belonging to Tradition are of a different kind from those which belong to Scripture. The difficulties of Tradition are strictly those of Evidence : whereas the Evidence of Scripture is most satisfactory and indisputable. The difficulties of Scripture come after its evi dence ; being such as arise, either from the mys teries of which it treats, or from its nature as an ancient record of divine things. But to make the analogy valid, it should first be conceded that Tradition is evidenced as a divine instruction, and then, that the difficulties belonging to it are of the same kind as those belonging to Scripture. Such is the case in Butler's argument from the course and constitution of nature. And his Analogy accordingly is a just and valid argument. But it is a vain parade of ingenious illustrations of the difficulties accompanying the rejection of Tradition, to point out, and dilate to the utmost, seeming inconsistencies or difficulties in Scrip- 26 ture. The analogy, you should reply, does not hold ; and no illustration, much less argument, can be drawn from one case to the other. Such representations may act as means to awe down pious and susceptible minds into submission to the authority of Tradition. I fear, however, the general effect, so~ far as they are attended to, will be, to weaken the just impression of the ex clusive sanctity of the Scripture-records, by placing them on the level of disputable Tra dition. But I trust your true Protestant loyalty to Scripture, and your deep reverence of the Holy Spirit speaking there, will induce you to turn from such offensive parallels with disgust. We are sometimes told, too, that if we reject the authority of Tradition, we must reject with it our grounds for acknowledging the Canon of Scrip ture, as also for holding several particular articles of our Religion, — for example, Infant-Baptism. I need scarcely observe to you, that this head of objection has been very fully considered and re futed by several of our older divines, in their controversies with Romanists. It may be enough to refer you to the answer of Bishop Taylor in his Dissuasive from Popery. The objection turns on a confusion between Authority and Testi mony. Certainly the Canon of Scripture is established by Tradition ; if by Tradition ,we mean the constant testimony of the Church. But this testimony gives no divine authority to the truths contained in the Canon. Their divine authority is a doctrine, derived from the internal 27 evidence of it in the Books themselves, as other doctrines are ; that is, from the express attesta tion of the sacred text to its own inspiration, and the miracles and other marks of divinity ac companying this attestation. As for Infant- Baptism ; we know that the grace of Baptism is a doctrine of Scripture ; and that our Lord's com mand to baptize, is in Scripture : and, conse quently, that the general necessity of baptism is also a doctrine of Scripture. But these points being established, it is clear that we may be guided, in the administration of Baptism to indi viduals at this or that time of life, by the practice existing in primitive times ; provided we do not prescribe any particular period not prescribed in Scripture, as necessary and indispensable to the due reception of the sacrament, nor enjoin any thing inconsistent with the Scriptural institution of it. Now our Church has not laid itself open to these objections. It has left the question of the time of administering Baptism as open as Scripture has left it ; and it does not therefore go beyond the text of Scripture, nor require, consequently, authority from any other source for what it does in this respect. It simply en joins, that we should not depart from an usage in the Church in regard to infants, because that usage is most agreeable to the institution of Christ. Whether the baptism of infants be agreeable, or no, to the institution of Christ, is a point which Scripture alone is able to attest. So that even in this matter, in which we seem, on a superficial view, to be resting on Tradition 28 as an authority, we are throughout looking to the authority of Scripture0. There is no irreverence, or want of faith, it should be observed, in refusing to acknowledge any thing to be equally binding on your faith and acceptance, which has not an equal evi dence of its authenticity and divinity with Scrip ture. You must not be deterred therefore by arguments ad verecundiam — by reproaches of in credulity — by taunts of your setting up private judgment against the judgment of God declared by the Church. You ask only for the authority of Tradition, the like evidence to that on which you receive Scripture. The point at issue is, that the evidence is not the same in kind. It is no question of the right of private judgment, in contradistinction to that of the many, and the wise, and the gifted. You ask only a corre sponding public universal judgment on the case of Tradition, to that which you have for the di rection of your private judgment in regard to Scripture. You believe what God has said in Scripture, because it has Scripture-evidence for it ; being assured that " unless you believe" you cannot "be established" in the truth; for that there is no knowing any thing of God but by commencing with believing Him. But you be lieve Scripture, because you have full and dis tinct evidence to its authenticity and its divinity. Let Tradition be in like manner authenticated and proved divine, and you will then as readily 0 This point is well argued in Stillingfleet's Grounds of Prot Rel. P. 1. c. 4. pp. 105-109. 29 believe the word of God so conveyed, if it be in deed such, as you now believe His written word. I do not advert here to the distinction between oral and written teaching, because, in point of fact, the distinction does not exist now. All Traditions are now written. For, as Bellarmine points out, a tradition differs only from a scrip ture in the circumstance of " not being written by the first author of itp." The controversy then is actually between the Bible and the statements of Fathers and Councils. To argue your incre dulity, therefore, in rejecting the authority of Tradition, it must be shown that the statements of Fathers and Councils, are no less divine and no less authentic than Scripture. Nor is it necessary to dwell on the distinction of Tradition into Dogmatic and Hermeneutic. It is not material to the argument now in hand. For it is against imputing a divine authority to any Traditions whatever that I am contending. I may remark, however, that though a Tradition of interpretations is apparently more consistent with the assertion of the doctrinal sufficiency of Scripture, it still as really impairs that suffi ciency, if such interpretations be regarded as positively fixing the sense of Scripture. The supposed authoritative interpretations would in p Vocatur autem doctrina non scripta, non ea quse nusquam scripta est, sed quae non est scripta a primo auctore. Exemplo sit, Baptismus parvulorum. Parvulos baptizandos, vocatur traditio Apostolica non scripta, quia non invcnitur hoc scriptum in ullo Apostolico libro, tametsi scriptum est in libris fere omnium veterum Patrum. Bellarmiu. De Verb. Dei. 1. 4. c. 2. 30 that case be the proper revelation ; and Scripture would be but subordinate and instrumental to the conveyance of the Truth, instead of being it self the direct conveyance ofthe Truth. Further, a system of Divine Traditive Interpretations re duces itself to an infinite series ; and is conse quently of no practical use. For, suppose a doubt to arise about the meaning of a given in terpretation ; how is that to be solved but by another interpretation of the interpretation itself, and so on without end ? The only method by which a stop can be put to this infinite series, is, the interposition of a decisive authority, — an authority without appeal, — at some point. And whether with the Church of Rome we fix that point in the decisions of the present Church, or in those of the early centuries, we must equally assert a divine authority of Tradition at that point. Indeed, the method adopted by the Church of Rome is the only consistent way of getting out of the perplexity of the infinite series of tra ditive interpretations. For those who would fix the limit, — say ofthe Fourth century, — require us in fact to take their interpretations ofthe doctrines of that century, as authorities without appeal, and consequently as divine. They virtually a°ree with the Church of Rome as to the principle of Tradition. Only they will not let the Church of Rome speak for them, but they must themselves speak in the name of the Church. At the same time they would relieve themselves of the invidi- ousness of declaring the divine truth on their 31 own authority, by throwing back their decisions on the Church of former ages, and overshadowing them with the name and awe of Antiquity. There is, however, a still more subtile view of the nature of Tradition which I must notice. It is that which represents it in close and imme diate connection with Scripture, — as the supple ment of Scripture, — as a full expression of what is covertly contained in Scripture, — or, as a Roman Catholic writer has stated it, " the word unwrit ten in the Scriptures p." We are referred, in proof of this view, to the indirect manner of Scripture, — to the mere hints and allusions by which often the highest doctrines are intimated. It is argued, that this indirectness and incompleteness of form in Scripture, point to some more direct and systematic teaching as its exposition and supplement. This view evidently coincides with that before stated, which assigns to the Church the prerogative of being the authoritative source of doctrine, whilst virtually it makes Scripture a dead letter apart from the vivifying comment of the human teacher, and thus concedes to the Romanist all that he desires. But such a state ment of Tradition is more likely to insinuate it self into the minds of Protestants, because it maintains in sound the sufficiency of Scripture ; the whole that is thus represented as taught by the Church being stated to be contained in Scrip ture. But what sort of sufficiency is this ? Is it p Cited by Bp. Marsh, in his Comparative View of the Churches of England and Rome, c. 7. p. 154. 32 a sufficiency to salvation in Scripture itself, as as serted in our 6th Article ? Quite otherwise. It is a sufficiency only for the purpose of the autho- ized teacher. It makes the Bible the book of the minister of religion, a revelation to the priest, — and not the hand-book, as it is, of every man that has an ear to hear and a soul to be refreshed by its living word. And in what way can any thing be said to be contained in a book which is actually supplied from without? That a doctrine is indirectly stated, or only alluded to, in some passages of Scripture, instead of being formally stated, is no proof of its not being sufficiently stated in Scrip ture at large. By putting together a number of hints or indirect statements, and interpreting them according to " the analogy of faith," a strong direct proof results of every doctrine of our faith. And though as I have said, we are providentially guided beforehand to a knowledge of the leading articles of our faith, this is no prejudice to our assertion that on examination of Scripture we trace them all as evidently written in its pages, though not everywhere in full and express terms, or such as oblige a man to admit the truths whether he will or no. But this indirectness of the language of Scripture has been greatly ex aggerated. From the way in which the indi rectness of Scripture-teaching is sometimes put forward by the advocates of the authority of Tradition, one might really suppose that Scrip ture was written in cipher, or in dark and mys tic hieroglyphics; or that it was merely a sug- 33 gestive treatise, like some of the writings of the philosophers of old, designed only for the master eye and master hand. The truth is, indeed, that Scripture is " written within and without,"— that there are secrets in it which are not read by every vain intruder into its sanctuary. Still it is open to all ; " the word is very nigh" unto us; and the knowledge which is hidden from the wise and prudent, from the conceited, and the curious, and the carnal, will be revealed to " babes," — to those that seek it in simplicity of faith, content with that evidence which is adapted to their nature and state of trial in the world. It is instructive to observe here, — for it should impress on us the value of the moderation of our Church, — how the advocate of Authoritative Tra dition coincides with the ultra-protestant, in de nying the openness of Scripture, and its imme diate application to the use of private Christians. The Puritan teachers, in maintaining their the ory of the dependence of spiritual edification on the efficacy of Preaching, taught, under the name of the Word preached in Sermons, precisely the same view of Scripture, in which the theory of Authoritative Tradition has involved its sup porters. The language of the two extremes is different; but the principle is the same. Ex pounding, and Sermons, and special gifts of in terpretation, are stated to be the conveyance of the Divine Truth in the one : Apostolic Succes sion, the grace of Ordination, Sacerdotal autho- 34 rity, are the means of its transmission, in the other. In both systems, the Word is regarded as contained in Scripture, but latent. According to both, the light must come from without : for until the preacher expounds, or the priest opens the seal, the sacred oracle is shut up and darkp. ! But as passages both of Scripture and of the Fathers are adduced to prove the authority of Tradition, it will be proper, that I should consi der the argument drawn from these heads. To look first to -Scripture. — St. Paul cer tainly refers to Traditions in several places of his Epistles. He speaks to the Thessalonians of " holding fast the Traditions which they had been taught, whether by word or by his Epis tle9;" to the Corinthians, of sending Timothy to them to bring them into "remembrance of his ways in Christ, how he taught everywhere in every Church1," in addition to instructions given them in writing ; the Corinthians he also praises, for " remembering him in all things, and keeping the ordinances as he delivered them to them8;" he charges Timothy to "hold fast the form of sound words which he had heard of him ; to keep that good thing which had been committed unto him, by the Holy Ghost dwell ing in them';" he contrasts the simple instruc tion given to converts, at first, with the " going on unto perfection" — the "milk" for "babes" with "the strong meat for the grown." Our p Note III. i 2 Thess. ii.15. r 1 Cor iv 17 • 1 Cor. xi. 2. '2 Tim. i. 13, 14. " 35 Lord himself in the gospels is found expounding his parables to his more intimate disciples. Even to these he says, " I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now; howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth";" and after his Passion, he was "seen of the Apostles forty days, speaking of the things pertaining to the king dom of GodV From these and the like pas sages of Scripture, either declaring, as it is thought, the value of Traditions, or alluding to peculiar instructions in Christian truth, supposed to be conveyed down in the Church, it has been attempted to establish a theory adverse to the sufficiency of Scripture, by the evidence of Scrip ture itself. It will be observed from the application of such passages of Scripture, that the subject of Tradition closely connects itself with that of the " Discipline of the Secret" practised in the early ages of Christianity. In the argument from these texts, Tradition is supposed to be a collection of higher, fuller views of doctrine, not disclosed on the open page of the Bible. And its de fence consequently is identified, on this ground, with the advocacy of a system of reserve and concealment in the propagation of Christian 'Truth. The Discipline of the Secret is in it self a fruitful subject of inquiry. I can only ad vert to it at present as it coincides with the sub ject of Tradition. » John xvi. 12, 13. " Acts i. 3. d2 36 That this method of reserve was adopted by Christian teachers in the early ages, is abund antly evident from the writings of Clement of Alexandria. But it does not require much ar gument to shew, that it obtains no countenance from the language or spirit of Scripture. The Gospel indeed is full of mystery at every point ; but it is not mystic in its address to the world, or its mode of instruction. By it, the Lord has "destroyed the face of the covering cast over all people, and the veil that was spread over all na tions," and revealed the mystery of the common salvation, that had before been hidden. Its sys^- tem certainly was gradually unfolded to the Chris tian disciple in the progress of his education under it; as it was to the Apostles themselves by our Lord. But we cannot justly construe this gradual method into a mystic economy of Divine Truth itself — or a twofold system of religious teaching, — the one for the vulgar and the un initiated, the latter for the proficient — the one written for all to read, the other borne along on the lips of the priest, and reluctantly com municated even to the faithful. Nor do the texts of Scripture usually appealed to in refer ence to this point, suffice for the purpose. It would take us far too long to examine them in detail. They have however been repeatedly dis cussed by Protestant writers, and their incon- clusiveness as evidences of a doctrine of secret Tradition has been amply demonstrated. I will only remark in reference to such appeals 37 to Scripture, that, even if they did apply to Tra dition, in the modern sense of the term, they would not prove Tradition to be a distinct divine authority. The very attempt to establish a theory of Tradition by Scripture- evidence neu tralizes itself; since it virtually ascribes the superior authority to the source from which it seeks to establish the theory. And if the exist ence and importance of Tradition are to be proved from Scripture, why, we may ask, should less evi dence than Scripture be admitted for the Tradi tions themselves, the particular doctrines sup posed to be conveyed by Tradition. But in fact it is idle to attempt to prove the divinity of Tra dition generally, apart from the particular doc trines of which it is made up. Would we prove therefore that Tradition is recognized in Scrip ture as authoritative, if we would prove anything to the purpose, we must prove that each tradi tional doctrine has Scripture-evidence for it, and thus acknowledge, by our very process of proof, that Scripture is our only existing divine source of truth. If Tradition is good as a divine source of doctrine, it must stand independently of Scrip ture-evidence ; as the real, indisputable, primitive Tradition, that of the Apostles themselves, did. For, doubtless, whatever St. Paul, or any other inspired Teacher, delivered by word, was no less to be received than what he delivered by epistle; each kind of instruction resting separately and immediately on the authority of God miraculously evidenced in him. 38 Nor, again, do the passages commonly cited from the Fathers, when they are strictly ex amined, amount to the proof of the existence of authoritative Traditions. There are many pas sages which speak of the use of Tradition, but yet do not prove its divine authority — inculcating the necessity of considering what doctrines have been delivered down in the Church by the con stant succession of Pastors, and what has been uniformly and universally taught. This use of Tradition, I have already observed in effect, is most just and important. The Fathers them selves are highly valuable in this respect. What ever may be their theories, or their errors, they are unanswerable witnesses to the existence of the doctrines which they discuss and state. We may dispute the weight of their opinion respecting any particular doctrine. It may be said, that they were prejudiced in its favour, — that they rested it on wrong grounds. Still, it cannot be denied that they witness its existence. And if this be the case, a doctrine so attested demands our most serious attention, as to whether it be not really a doctrine of Scripture, and consequently a truth of God. This however is quite inde pendent of their opinion as to the value of such testimony. They may overrate the importance of the like testimony received by them from their predecessors. But whilst we accept their testi mony to the utmost, we are not bound at the same time to accept their estimate of its value. It happens, however that their opinion is not, as 39 it is often represented, adverse to the simple Protestant view of Tradition. That we may judge it rightly, we should consider the circum stances under which they advocate Tradition. Can we be surprised to find Irenaeus insisting so much as he does on the sufficiency of Tra dition ? when we remember the sort of persons against whom he wrote. The heresiarchs of Gnosticism, whom he is employed in controvert ing, set up for themselves a rival system of religion against the authority of the successors of the Apostles, as much as ever Mahomet didz. Fur ther, they so taught their peculiar systems, as to make Christianity, just as Mahomet also did, subordinate and instrumental to their own heresy. In their disputes accordingly with the Church, these heretics claimed an authority for themselves, equal at least to that which the members ofthe Church claimed for the Apostles. How were they to be answered then in argu ment ? The authority of Scripture was not so much the matter of dispute here, though this was disputed also, as the authority of the teachers. It was justly urged, therefore, that those only possessed the truth who had received it by in heritance from Christ and the Apostles. The real tradition of doctrine would thus be put for ward by .Irenaeus with peculiar stress and energy. And thus would he triumphantly declare, that the glorious martyr Polycarp, who had not only • John of Damascus reckons Mahometanism among Christian heresies. De Hrer. 101. 40 been placed by the Apostles themselves over the Church of Smyrna, but had been discipled by Apostles, and had conversed with many who had seen Christ, was a witness of the Truth, far more worthy of credit and firm reliance than Valentinus and Marcion, and other men of per verse minds a. Another- occasion which the Fathers had for insisting on the appeal to Tradition, was in the injurious treatment of Scripture, on the part of the heretics, by mutilation, or interpolation, or fanciful and perverse interpretation. The early heretics, further, had their own spurious gos pels, to which they referred as of equal autho rity with the canonical books. If a passage was cited from Scripture, the heretic would reply, this is not in our sacred books. At another occasion, he would appeal to a passage which had been interpolated, and was not found in the canonical books, or to some unauthorized volume ; or he would draw some fanciful in terpretation out of the acknowledged text un known to the Church in former days, and de mand for it the same credit as for the most an cient and received truth. And then, in this last instance, the heretics, when confuted by Scrip ture, would recur to the appeal to Tradition, and maintain that their doctrines had been secretly conveyed down to them, and that they thus pos sessed a key to the interpretation of Scripture. This state of things has been forcibly- de- a Note IV. 41 picted both by Irenaeus and Tertullian. They both argue that heretics were not to be ad mitted to enter on the appeal to Scripture ; on the ground that the heretics could be " proved, without the Scriptures, to have nothing to do with the Scriptures." We may say to them, ob serves Tertullian, in a spirited passage, " Who are you ? when and whence came you ? what are you doing on my property, you that are not mine 1 what right have you, Marcion, to fell my wood ? what license have you, Valentinus, for diverting my streams ? what power have you, Apelles,to disturb my landmarks? The possession is mine. Why do the rest of you, at your will, sow and feed here ? The possession is mine. I have been all along in possession of it ; I have a prior possession of it ; I have a firm title to it, from the very authors whose property it was. I am the heir of the Apostles. As they provided by their will, as they entrusted to my faith, as they solemnly gave under oath, so I hold. You, indeed, they have disinherited for ever, and abdi cated, as strangers, as enemies. And whence are heretics strangers and enemies to the Apostles, except from the diversity of doctrine which each, at his own caprice, has either brought forward, or received, against the ApostlesV' Thus then it is that Irenaeus and Tertullian would rest the question between the heretics and the catholics of their day on the preliminary ground of Tradition ; not that Tradition was to b De Prase. Haer. c. 37. 42 be compared with Scripture as an authority of doctrine; but that the impugners of Scripture, and usurpers of what they had no right to, should be met with a previous refutation of their pretensions, from the fact of an uniform Tradi tion of the same Truths existing in the Apostolic Churches, and no such Tradition existing among them. But Tertullian, in particular, is explicit in denying that other doctrine, now so closely connected with the notion of Tradition, — the theory of a reservation of truths, — of a collection of sayings consigned, not to writing, but to the lips of the Apostles and their successors. He denies that the Apostles concealed any thing from the faithful, as the heretics pretended. " They will have it," he says, " that the Apostles com mitted some things secretly, and to a few, be cause even Paul used this expression to Timothy — ' O Timothy, keep the deposit :' and again, ' Keep the good deposit.' " — (Observe, how these are the very texts on which advocates of Tradi tion take their chief stand.) — " What," says Ter tullian, " is this secret deposit, that it should be ascribed to another teaching ? Did it belong to that charge, concerning which he says, ' this charge I commend to thee, son Timothy ;' to that precept again, about which he says, ' I charge thee, in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Jesus Christ, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession, that thou keep the commandment.' What then was 43 the commandment ? what the charge ? It will be understood from what is written both before and after ; not that by this expression some covert allusion is made to a more remote doctrine, but it is rather inculcated, that no other should be admitted beside that which he had heard from himself, and, as I think, openly. ' Before many witnesses,' he says. Who these many witnesses were, if they will not understand by them the Church, matters not at all ; since nothing could have been secret which was pro duced before many witnesses, &c." " No testimony accordingly can be stronger than Tertullian's, against the notion of Tradi*- tion being the channel of secret doctrine latent under the text of Scripture ; whilst he sets forth the real importance of Tradition, in the simple sense of a continuous regular delivery of Chris tianity with its sacred documents. His treatise, De Prcescriptione Hcereticorum, to which I have been chiefly referring, and to which we are com monly sent for proof of the Authority of Tradi tion, contains in reality an exposure of the un soundness and evil of taking Tradition for an Authority, and representing Scripture as incapa ble of being understood or interpreted but by the light of Tradition. It is throughout an illustra tion to us, how such an assumed authority over the sacred text, serves only to introduce a sub tile rationalism under the mask of primitive 1 De Praesc. Haer. c. 2d. p. 407. 44 Christian teaching, and to obscure the undoubted universal tradition of the Gospel by a disputable partial tradition of the judgments and command ments of men. A third reason why the Fathers insist on Tra tion is, that they had to oppose the disputa- tiousness of Heretics, who charged the Catholic Christian with credulity, and professed for their part, on the contrary, to give " reasons" for every thing they should teach in the name of Religion. These Heretics would not allow that the word of the Christian teacher was a presumption in fa vour of what he taught ; but required that his authority should be rejected altogether, and that attention should be given exclusively to them, and the " reasons" they should offer for their pe culiar systems of doctrine, — reasons, ostensibly drawn out of Scripture, but in reality grounded on their own philosophies, and perversely ap plied to the interpretation of Scripture. For they put forward indeed the Scriptures as the ground of their doctrine. They had ever on their tongue — " Search the Scriptures" — " Seek and ye shall find," They boasted too of their knowledge and expertness of practice in the Scriptures : but it was not in order to obtaining evidence of the truth, that they searched and sought and handled the Scriptures. It was not for the instruction and support of. Faith, but for mere knowledge, — for the discovery of Truth apart from all external information respecting it ; eV>?- ped&vre? ra? ypda