,• %

"I give tAe/e Booh
. far tie favfraSBig^ of a. College in ihts Celonyi^

'Y^LE«¥]MIIVIEI^Smr¥-

APPEAL FROM TRADITION

SfRIPTURE AND COMMON SENSE;

OR, AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION,

WHAT CONSTITUTES THE DIATNE RULE OF
FAITH AND PRACTICE.

BY GEORGE PECK, D. D.

M&Ttiv Si ai^ovral fie, iiddaKovrec iiSaaKoKloQ, kvTd^/MTa
&v6pCmov. — Matt, xv, 9.

.Xf'--

NEW-YORK:
PUBLISHED BY G. LANE & P. P. SANDFOKD, >5-
rOR THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CIIUEeH,.AT THE CONPESSNOB
OFFICE, 200 MULBEEKY-STKEBT.
J. Cottord, Printer.
1844.

" Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1844, by
G. Lane & P. P. Sandpoed, in the Clerk's Office of the District
Court of the Southern District of New- York.

PREFACE.

¦ Since the decision of the Council of Trent, that
"traditions should be received as oi equal authority
with the Scriptures," the subject of the present
work has been one of animated, and often of angry
controversy. The great labour of the Romish party
has been to show the deficiency of the Scriptures
as a rule of faith, and the perfect adapta,tion of the
traditions of the church to supply that deficiency.
On the other hand, Protestants have laboured to
prove the suitableness and sufficiency of the Scrip
tures to teach men the way of salvation, and the
iUtter worthlessness of tradition as an infallible guide
in matters of faith.
. i This question constituted an important portion of
the battle-ground of the Reformation. Upon the
one side were the " Catholics," and on the other
the great champions of truth — Luther, Melancthon,
Calvin, Beza, Knox, Cranmer, Peter Martyr, and
Jewel. Though the defenders of the Reformation
often appealed to antiquity, they did not make this

PREFACE.

appeal as to an infallible record, or a recognised
supreme judge of controversy. But finding the
Romish dogmas unsupported by the purest and best
of the fathers, they met their opponents upon their
own ground, and- successfully fought them with
their own weapons. No one carried on the war
with the Romanists upon patristical ground more
successfully than Bishop Jewel. The defenders
of tradition, in our own time, have not a little
exulted in this, as though the learned bishop had
sanctioned an appeal to tradition as an authoritative
rule in controversies. This conclusion is, however,
gratuitous — ^without the least foundation in fact.
I have endeavoured to meet traditionists in the
same way in this work ; but I hope the fact will
not be supposed to imply that I have no faith in the
principles for which I contend from the opening to
the close of the volume, namely, that the Bible is
the divine rule of faith and practice, and that what
is called tradition is totally without authority, any
further than it harmonizes with, and is built upon,
the Holy Scriptures.
I dp not, however, fully endorse all that the re
formers have left upon record, upon the authority
and right use of the fathers, and the power of the
church, to determine controversies. Sometimes
they concede too much, and at others they do

PREFACE. 5
not allow enough. They were often driven by-
circumstances to see how much they could admit
without sacrificing the truth, and sometimes went
further in their concessions than was quite consistent
with their fimdamental principles. At other times,
in the heat of controversy, they took positions, and
let fall statements, which were taken up by fanatics
and pushed out to extremes which they never con
templated, and which they were the first to rebuke.
The reformers, in the main, fought the battle well,
and we should venerate their memory and their
precious remains. They WerBj howeverj men —
uninspired men-^and thfeir decisions are to be
measured and tried, the same as all other merely
human compositionSj by the undeviating standard
of truth.
The late revival of the Romish controversy, both
by the professed adherents of the pope, and real
Romanists under the name and style of " Anglican
Catholics," has brought back the old elements of
discord^ — dug up, from the rubbish of former cen
turies, the Popish armoury which the mighty cham
pions of the glorious Reformation had broken to
pieces, and which the world had reason to suppose
would only be resumed by the faithful servants of
his holiness in their last effort to recover their
former glory.

6 PREFACE.
From this cause we are brought under the neces
sity of fighting over again the battles of the sixteenth
pentury. Instead of improving all our time and
strength in pressing our aggressions against pagan
ism, infidelity, and wickedness in its various forms,
we must pause to demolish a corrupt form of
Christianity, which throws itself up, like a brazen
mountain, between us and our wonted field of
labour. The circulation of the Oxford Tracts and
kindred publications, in this country, together
with the progress which their doctrines have
made in certain quarters, has awakened great
interest among the churches. And such is the
bold front of the Pusey party, such their extra
vagant assumptions, and such their lofty preten
sions, that " the sects," as they are scornfully deno
minated, have naturally been aroused to a new and
thorough investigation of the grounds of their faith.
The question of the supremacy of the Scriptures
alone as the rule of faith and practice is the Ther
mopylae of the great controversy between Romanists
and Tractarians on the one hand, and the different
evangelical Protestant churches on the other. It
I is consequently of great importance that the whole
, question should be well understood.
I have endeavoured, in the present work, to pre-

PREFACE.

sent all the essential features and phases of the
traditionary system, and to show the circumstances
of their development and application. In many
instances the mere unmasking of an error is its
refutation. This^js the case with many parts of
,the system I here oppose, and indeed the same
*may be said of the system as a whole. I have
accordingly drawn it out as set forth in acknow
ledged authorities, and endeavoured to show its
practical bearings upon the great system of faith
and practice set forth in the Scriptures.
This, however, in such a controversy, is not
sufficient. The arguments presented in support
of the heresy must be met and refuted, and
tl^ose which bear against it presented clearly and
forcibly. I have endeavoured to imbody in
this volume all that is essential to the question,
though very much that is appropriate, and has
more or less weight, is necessarily excluded. I
have intended to make the argument, as a whole,
a perfect one, and to look fairly in, the face every
thing of importance presented by the supporters
of the traditionary theory.  .-^¦
It will be seen that I make frequent refer
ence to the learned and able work of Mr. Goode.
This powerful champion of true Protestantism has
rendered great service to the church by his inge-

8 PREFACE.
nious and learned labours. But his work is too
heavy for general circulation, and there are several
points in the controversy, particularly as it stands
between high-Churchmen and the evangelical deno
minations in this country, whichjie has not so fully
entered into and laid open as the occasion requires.
It has been my object uniformly to quote my
authorities, and, as far as I can now recollect,
I have carried out this purpose. I lay under
heavy contributions the old English divines, many
of whom are quite out of print, and scarcely
knovra. I feel a pleasure in being able to bring
these venerable fathers of the English Church
before the present generation : and especially in
calhng the attention of their degenerate sons to the
" sound speech which cannot be condemned," of
their sainted doctors, bishops, and archbishops.
Let their names be in perpetual remembrance in
the church below, while they are enrolled in the
Lamb's book of life above !
When I quote the fathers, or such Romish
writers as are only to be consulted in a dead lan
guage, I do not generally insert the originals.
This course I take to save room ; and as I have
prepared this volume for the public in general,
and not merely for the scholar and critic, and espe
cially as I always make a full reference in the

PREFACE.

margin to the work I quote, I hope this will not be
deemed a defect.
As to the style of this work I have little to
say. I have laboured to attain the perspicuity and
strength which are necessary in piresenting and
sustaining a great argument. How I have suc
ceeded in this, I leave for the candid reader to
judge. I need scarcely say, that ornament has
been left entirely out of the question.
The labour which such a work costs the author,
no one can appreciate who has not made an expe
riment in the same way. All this has been en
dured with cheerfulness, in the hope of rendering
some little service to the church and the world.
Pressing official duties have necessarily protracted
my inquiries and delayed the pubhcation, and
the same cause has doubtless, more or less, re
stricted my investigations ; I do not, however, now
recur to any point which is left materially de
fective. I hope my manner will not appear harsh or
severe. I have desired to treat those with whom
I feel compelled to differ with due respect and
Christian charity. If I have failed in this, I
must hope for the forgiveness of the injured, and,
above all, for the mercy of Him "who alone can
forgive sins," and "who knows our frame, and
1*

10 PREFACE.
remembers that we are dust." This, however, is
hot designed as an apology for the decided tone and
sharpness of rebuke which characterize the work.
Errors, such as I here meet, are not to be handled
with gloves. The axe of truth and reason must be
laid at the root of the deadly Upas — and the blows
continue to fall thicker and heavier until it is laid
prostrate upon the ground^/ This is not the time
for the watchman to sleep. 'The enemy is sowing
his tares with an industry worthy of a good cause.
Let the lovers of truth, then, come to the rescue !
Let the evangelical denominations leave their petty
differences, and unite in the support and diffusion
of the great doctrines of the Reformation, or, to
speak more properly, the great doctrines of the
Bible. / The period in which we live is truly
eventful. Is it a time to compromise essential
truth, or give place to invidious error 1 Surely not.
The great battle which is to decide the fate of the
world is at hand^-yea, is already begun ! Let
those, then, who are upon the side of God and
truth, " come up to the help of the Lord, to the
help of.the Lord against the mighty."
George Peck.
New. York, Dec. 1, 1843.

CONTENTS. CHAPTER I.
THE TRADITIONlEY SYSTEM STATED AND EXAMDIED. Page
Sect. I. Origin and Nature of the Question upon the Rule
of Faith and Practice  13
11. The twofold Rule stated  18
III. The System of Tradition more fully de velope d  31
IV. Pretended Distinctions between the Rule as held
by the Church of England and by the Church of
Rome  38
V. Tradition a Witness — the Church a Witness  49
VI. How is Tradition made accessible to the People ? . . 59
VII. Principles upon which Tradition is to be inter
preted  , 72
CHAPTER n.
AEODMENTS IN FAVOtm OF PATRISTIC TEADITION.
Sect. I. The Arguments a priori and d posteriori  98
n. The alleged Necessity for Tradition  114
III. The Scripture Evidence adduced in favour of Tra-
dition  140
IV. Evidence in proof of Tradition from Fathers  152

12 CONTENTS.
CHAPTER III.
considerations in opposition to the claims of teadition as a
divine*iiifobmant.
Sect. I. The Improbabilities which oppose the -System of
Tradition  178
II. The Analogy between the Doctrine of Tradition as
held by Catholics and that held by the Jews, and
condemned by Christ  .'  183
III. Catholic Tradition is wanting in Divine Authority . . 203
IV. Records of Antiquity doubtful or defective  224
V. Traditionists do not follow out their Prmciples  268
CHAPTER IV.
proof that scerptuee is a sufficient rule of faith and
practice.
Sect. I. Proof from the Scriptures themselves  283
II. Views of the Fathers upon the SufBciency of the
Scriptures as the Rule of Faith  321
III. Romish Evidence against Tradition  379
IV. Church of England Authorities  404

AN APPEAL

TRADITION TO SCRIPTURE.

CHAPTER I-
THE TRADITIONARY SYSTEM STATED AND EXAMINED.
SECTION I.
Origin and Nature of the Question upon the Rule of Faith and
Practice.
Diversity of views in relation to moral truths is
incident to the imperfection of the human understand
ing. But, lest this diversity should extend so far as
to embrace inconsistencies and contradictions, and we
should not be able to arrive at safe determinations
upon radical questions, it vrould seem necessary that
there should be some rule or test by which our judg
ments might be tried. Especially might this be ex
pected in matters of religion. It would be strange if
a God of infinite wisdom and goodness had left man
without a guide in relation to the most important of all
interests, that of his soul and a future state. While
he has established laws for the government of the
material universe, and for the regulation of our intel
lectual processes in relation to them ; that our hea-

14 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
venly Father should have left rehgion to the sport of
chance — ^to be decided and acted upon as passion or
caprice might direct — is repulsive to reason and com
mon sense.
But if God has given to his poor erring creatures
a rule of faith and of duty, where is it to be found ?
This is a question which has agitated and agon
ized the soul in all its varieties of elevation and
of depression, of despair and of hope. The mere
Theist tells us that this rule is to be found in natural
religion ; that in our desires and repugnances, con
nected with the consequences of human actions — their
relation to individual happiness and the best good of
the universe — reason is able to detect the great moral
rule which should be regarded as paramount law.
That the mind of man does not rest in this conclusion
is obvious from the fact that where legitimate revela
tion has not shed its beams, and men have, from tra
dition or the convictions of natural conscience, any
notions of God, they will have their superstitions.
They have mysteries — altars, prophets, and priests ;
and in many instances sacred books ; by the help
of which they hope to ascertain the will of the great
governing Power whose authority they acknowledge,
and whose wrath they dread. Whence all this, if a
revelation of the divine Mind more direct and intelli
gible than that which comes through the voice of
nature is not one of the natural and legitimate wants
of man? As, however, it constitutes no part of my
purpose to dispute the ground of divine revelation with
the Deist or skeptic, I may now leave this general
view of the subject, and direct my attention to the

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 15
special matter which I design in the present work to
discuss. It might reasonably have been supposed, that with
those who acknowledge both the necessity and the
fact of a written divine revelation, no question would
have arisen whether such revelation would constitute
the only rule of faith and practice. But, unhappily,
this question has been agitated by theologians for
centuries. In the extension of the Christian church
in numbers and political power, many became nomi
nally Christians who were not wholly divested of no
tions of religion radically heathen, and consequently
not in harmony with the religion of Christ. These
seeds of error developed themselves in the various
forms of heresy which marked the early ages of the
church. These heresies were in some instances dis
owned, and in others cherished, by the learned doctors
and leaders whose dictum was taken as the true test
of the orthodox faith. Hence arose discussions and
contentions, divisions and schisms. Doctrines and
usages not recognised in Holy Scripture coming to be
insisted upon as essential to Christianity, not only
among those who were officially branded as heretics,
but also those who represented the orthodox or the
Catholic Church, an appeal simply to Scripture did not
meet the case. Hence the views of Catholic doctors,
the opinions of the Catholic Church, the decisions
of the fathers, and traditions apostolical, laid claim to
a right to settle controversies ; and ultimately these
were made to constitute a portion' of the rule of faith
and practice. As early as the Council of Nice, the
authority of the holy fathers was plead both for and

16 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
against the supreme divinity of Christ, and the trinity
of persons in the Godhead. And in the fifth century.
Catholic consent was set up as a test of the orthodox
faith. The question ultimately raised was, whether Holy
Scripture alone, or Scripture and the voice of the
Church conjoined, constituted the divine rule of faith
and practice./! The sober portions of those who have
maintained that "the Bible alone" constitutes the
divine rule of faith and practice, have always agreed
in recognising all legitimate helps to a correct under
standing of the sacred writings. Though they main
tain that whatever is morally obligatory as matter of
faith or practice is either taught expressly, or is so
evidently implied in the word of God, that the simple
unsophisticated mind may, without difficulty, gather it
from reading the Scriptures, yet they also maintain
that many portions of the sacred writings cannot be
understood without critical skill, and that the proudest
intellect, with all the aids of ancient and modem
learning, will often be exhausted without penetrating
the profound mysteries of these writings. It is often
erroneously asserted that those who take this view of
the rule of faith hold that private judgment constitutes
the true rule. Private judgment upon the meaning of
Scripture is certainly the right of every human being,
so far as he is capable of exercising such a judgment.
But this is simply judging of the application of the
true rule, and not setting up one independently. If
private interpretation were the rule in the sense here
opposed, we should indeed have, as we are often
accused of having, as many rules of faith as there are

THE RUIE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 17
individuals who read and judge of the sense of the
Bible. But no sensible man ever held any such view.'
The principle maintained by sound Protestants is,
that Efoly Scripture is the word of God — that God's
will lies in the sense or meaning of Scripture — that
this sense is to be ascertained by understanding the
language — that the more perfectly the language is un
derstood, the more perfect knowledge do we have of
the will of God — and that it is our duty to use every
means within our power which will in any way con
tribute to a clear and perfect understanding of this lan
guage. Whatever means, then, conduce most effect
ually to develop the mind of the Spirit, as couched
in Holy Scripture, are really of the greatest importance.
The fragments which are left to us from antiquity are
always embraced in this category, but all do not attach
to them the same importance.
Among those who give to the voice of the Church
divine authority, there are several diversities of opi
nion. The view most prevalent among Roman Catho
lics, and a class of divines of the Church of England
which are sometimes denominated high-Church, is,
that Scripture and tradition jointly constitute the divine
rule of faith and practice ; — that Scripture is the rer
cord, and tradition the commentary; — that tradition, as
well as the New Testament Scriptures, is of aposto
lical origin, and of course of divine authority in reli
gious controversies ; — that the teaching and practice
of the primitive church is evidence of the sense which
the writers of the New Testament Scriptures intended
to express in those writings, or rather of what the
apostles preached and practised.

18 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
SECTION II.
The twofold Rule stated.
The English reformers, together with many eminent
divines of the English Church who have lived since
the Reformation, agree in paying a high degree of
deference to the opinions of the fathers, but still con
sider their testimony human, and consequently falli
ble. I have for myself not the least disposition to
question the competency or credibility of the fathers
as witnesses "of facts which they knew. In relation
to these, when their testimony has not been corrupted
or mutilated, I believe their declarations as high a
species of human testimony as is to be found in the
records of antiquity. But there are many abatements
to be made to the weight of their testimony when it is
adduced in proof of doctrines which were supposed to
have existed in the apostolic age. This will be shown
at large hereafter.
Mr. Wesley, after he had given his followers in
this country a plan, or " sketch," of church organ
ization, left them "at full liberty simply to follow
the Scriptures and the primitive church." From this
we see that this great man venerated " the primitive
church," and considered a high degree of respect due
to it in matters of church order and discipline. And
I have no fears that the Methodist Episcopal Church
in this country will ever contemn or neglect the primi
tive pattern, either in doctrine, discipline, or usages.
But then, be it observed, first, that by the primitive
church we mean the church near the apostolic age ;

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 19
and, secondly, that we follow the primitive church,
only so far as it harmonizes with the word of
God. We take nothing as of divine authority which
is not clearly expressed or evidently implied in God's
most blessed word ; nothing as being necessary for
faith or maimers which is not therein expressed or
thereby capable of evident proof.
I shall now proceed to present the twofold rule in
detail, with the grounds upon which it is made by its
assertors to rest.
Mr. (now Archdeacon) Manning professes to give us
the true view of the Anglican Church upon the sub
ject.* And by comparing his system with that of
the Oxford school, it will be seen that he only differs
from them in the carrying out — or the extent of the
consequences to which he pushes his fundamental
principles. His foundation is the same as that of the
Tractators, and theirs the same as that of the Roman
ists ; but he seems to have less courage in looking
fairly in the face the ulterior consequences of the
principles in which they all substantially agree. But
I wiU now let the archdeacon speak for himself.
He says, —
" We believe in the sufficiency of Holy Scripture
for salvation, not upon any argument a priori drawn
from our conceptions of what God would do for the
* The work I quote is " a Sermon preached in the Cathedral
Church of Chichester, June 13, 1838," entitled, " The Rule of
Faith," with an appendix of 136 pages, 8vo. This work being
a temperate, learned, and sensible production, for one of the
class, and held in high estimation by Churchmen, I make it the
basis of the traditionary theory as held by them.

20 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
safe keeping of the faith ; (though that might raise a
presumption of the fact;) nor upon any attempted
judgment of our minds respecting the doctrines there
made known to us ;  ^but upon the same constant,
unanimous witness on which we receive the sacred
books; from which, also, we learn what is genuine,
what authentic, and what pure, in the writings of the
apostles of Christ. And that witness declares to us
that the Holy Scripture is ' the one perfect instrument
of God,' perfect, that is, both in harmony and compass ;
' the most true rule of doctrine ;' ' the even and true
balance ;' ' the mirror without a flaw ;' ' the healing
medicine of the soul.' ' For in those things,' we are
told, ' which are openly set in Scripture, is to be found
everything that contains the faith and practice of life.' "
—Pp. 14, 15.
The sum of this statement is, that the Church of
England believes in "the sufficiency of Holy Scripture
for salvation," simply " upon the constant, unanimous
witness" of the fathers — or upon the testimony of
Origen, Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyril, Vincent, and
Jerome, as these are the authorities he gives in the
margin. Next he gives us the following : —
" This appeal to the proof of Holy Scripture might
appear to be at once a sufficient test to ascertain what
the apostles preached. And so indeed it would be, if
either the Scriptures were so clear that private Chris
tians could not err in understanding, or churches so
infallible as never to go astray in expounding the inter
pretation. But as neither of these conditions is true ;
as churches both may err, and have erred, and private

the RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 21
Christians, by the repugnancy of their interpretations,
daily convict themselves of error ; and as the gospel
of Christ is not syllables and letters, whether of the
original or translated text, but the meaning of them ;
and as, of all the meanings Holy Scripture may bear,
we must believe one only to be the sense intended, it
is plainly necessary that we should have some further
rule for our common guidance." — Pp. 26, 27.
What that " rule" is, may be gathered from the fol
lowing : —
" The rule of faith, as recognised and contended for
by the Reformed Church of England, is Scripture and
antiquity, or universal tradition attesting both Scripture
and the sense." — Appendix, p. 33.
In what form that " rule" is now presented, which
he considers so " plainly necessary," he states as
follows : —
" And thus the two creeds, as we receive them, are
to. us the representatives of the apostolical tradition,
the two witnesses of the East and the West to the one
catholic faith.
" Scripture, then, being the proof of the creed, and
the creed the interpreter of Scripture, the harmony of
these is the first rule of interpretation." — P. 35.
We have the theory of the' archdeacon more syste
matically drawn out in the Appendix, thus : —
"1. All points of faith necessary to salvation must
be proved by Holy Scripture.
" 2. All interpretations of Holy Scripture, in matters
of religious belief, must be made in accordance with
the faith of those on whose evidence we receive the
written word of God itself

22 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
" 3. The faith of the primitive church, on whose
testimony we receive the canon of Holy Scripture, is
presented to us in the creeds and universal consent
of Christians. This consent is the basis of the doc
trinal Articles of the Church of England.
" 4. All primitive interpretations prevalent, though
not universal, claim their several measures of defer
ence from us, and we may not lightly contradict
them. " 5. Where we have no external evidence of primi
tive interpretation, we have no other rule than our own
judgment, aided by the laws of criticism and unautho
ritative exposition." — Appendix, p. 3.
Here we see that the Scriptures constitute the
authorized record ; but their sense is to be sought in
the records of antiquity. This sense our author had
limited in the Sermon, which constitutes the foundation
of his book, to the Apostles' and the Nicene Greeds.
But now he gives it a wider range, embracing it " in
the creeds and universal consent of [primitive] Chris
tians.'' The different forms of this " universal con
sent," then, whether exhibited in the creeds or other
wise, " claim their several measures of deference from
us." And these creeds, with whatever else the arch
deacon would give the same authority, he claims to
have come from the apostles — to have constituted an
unwritten revelation, brought and reported from the
mouths of the apostles by competent witnesses. But
he seems to hang principally upon the creeds, and
doubtless would scarcely have made provision for the
admission of other records had the creeds embraced
all the topics which it seems now exceedingly desira-

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. S3
ble that he should be able to settle by the " unanimous
consent" of the primitive church. In his Appendix
our author undertakes to prove that " Scripture and the
creed, attested hy universal tradition, was the rule of
faith in the primitive church." But the rule of faith
furnished in the creed, and doubtless all other records
equally ancient and well attested, the archdeacon
makes out more ancient than the writings of Christ
and the apostles. In proof of his main position he
undertakes to prove " the following facts :" —
" 1 . That the oral preaching of the apostles was the
sole rule of faith before the Scriptures were written.
" 2. That it is recognised as such in Holy Scripture
itself. " 3. That it was the chief icvi[e of faith to the uni
versal church until the books of Scripture were col
lected, and dispersed in the canon throughout all
churches. " 4. That it is recognised by the early Christian
writers as a rule of faith distinct in itself from the
apostolic Scriptures, although in absolute agreement
with them.
" 5. That the oral preaching oi \h& apostles, and not
the Scripture, was the original source of the creed."
" It cannot be doubted that the Nicene and Apostles'
Creeds are the offspring and representatives of the oral
preaching of the apostles." — Appendix, pp. 37, 75.
The first proposition our author thinks " requires
no proof, being self-evident." It is not, however, to
me quite " self-evident." By " Scripture" I suppose
the archdeacon means the apostolic writings. And
though we do not doubt that before these writings

24 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
were executed and given to the churches "the oral
preaching of the apostles" had the same authority that
their writings now have, and constituted a part of " the
rule of faith ;" yet we deny that it did constitute " the
sole rule of faith." For the Old Testament Scriptures
were by them appealed to as a divine record, and, so
far as they go, as an infallible guide in religion. The
learned author seems almost entirely to lose sight of
the old covenant, using the general term " Scripture,"
which is usually understood to embrace both the Old
and New Testaments, for the New Testament writings
exclusively. As to the second, it is no way important.
The third proposition of our author, he thinks, is
fully sustained by the fact, that the canOn of Scripture
was gradually settled ; and assumes, without proof, that
the reports of " the oral preaching of the apostles must
have been the chief lale of faith" until that event had
taken place. And he supposes the canon " to have
been fixed somewhere about the end of the second or
the beginning of the third century." If this hypothesis
is correct, we might expect to find some evidence of it
in the fragments from the fathers of the first and. second
centuries. But so far is this from being the fact, that
these fathers uniformly refer to the written productions
of the evangelists and apostles, in connection with the
Old Testament, as constituting, not merely " the chief,"
but the only rule of faith and practice.
Justin Martyr, who flourished in the second century,
says, " Neither did God ask Adam where he was, as
one who knew not, nor Cain where Abel was ; but for
the purpose of convincing each of them what he was,

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 25
and that the knowledge of all things might be conveyed
to us by their being committed to writing."
Irenesus, of the same century, says, " By no othei
have we come to the knowledge of the plan of om
salvation, but those through whom the gospel came to
us, which they then preached, but afterward, by the
will of God, delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be the
foundation and pillar of our faith."*
Many more passages equally clear might be quoted
from the writings of this period, but I must not enlarge
at this point. In the absence of all proof of our author'.?
position, that " the oral preaching of the apostles was
the chief rule of faith to the universal church, even
after the books of Scripture had been written, until
they were collected and dispersed in a body or canon
throughout all the churches of the world," the above is
certainly sufficient to evince the contrary. There can,
indeed, be no question but that the writings of the
apostles and evangelists superseded all traditionary
reports of their oral preaching, as soon as they were
known and read, and those who had listened to their
discourses had, with them, gone to the world of spirits.
Eusebius clearly asserts that, according to the tradi
tion, the sacred writings of the New Testament were
written to stand in the place of the living voice of the
apostles. " Matthew,'' he says, " having first proclaimed the
gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to
other nations, committed it to writing in his native
tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to
them by his writings."t
* Irensei Adv. Her., lib. iii, c. 1. t Book iii, chap. 24.
2

26 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
The following is his account of the origin of the
Gospel according to Mark : — " So greatly, however,
did the splendour of piety enlighten the minds of
Peter's hearers, that it was not sufficient to hear but
once, nor to receive the unwritten doctrine of the
gospel of God, but they persevered in every variety
of entreaties, to solicit Mark, as the companion of
Peter, and whose Gospel we have, that he should
leave them a monument of the doctrine thus orally
communicated, in writing. Nor did they cease their
solicitations until they had prevailed with the man,
and thus became the means of that history which is
called the Gospel according to Mark."*
As to Luke's Gospel, the same author says, " But
Luke also, in the commencement of his narrative,
premises the* cause which led him to write, showing
that many others, having rashly undertaken to com
pose a narration of matters that he had already com
pletely ascertained, in order to free us from the uncer
tain suppositions of others, in his own Gospel, he
delivered the certain account of those things, that he
himself had fully received from his intimacy and stay
with Paul, and also his intercourse with the other
apostles. "t
The following is his account of the origin of St.
John's Gospel: — "But after Mark and Luke had
already published their Gospels, they say, that John,
who, during all this time, was proclaiming the gospel
without writing, at length proceeded to write it on the
following occasion : — The three Gospels previously
written, having been distributed among all, and also
* Book ii, chap. 15. 1 Book iii, chap. 24.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 27
handed to him, they say that he admitted them, giving
his testimony to their truth ; but that there was only
wanting in the narrative the account of the things
done by Christ, among the first of his deeds, and at
the commencement of the Gospel."*
All this seems most clearly to imply that the Gos
pels were written to remedy the imperfections of oral
tradition : — that they were a record of the preaching
of the apostles, and not entirely another thing, to be
explained and understood by the traditions of their
oral teaching. The notion, that the preaching of the
apostles constituted one portion of revelation, which
was to be handed down by tradition, and that the
Scriptures constituted another, which mean nothing of
themselves, but must be interpreted by oral tradition, is
a discovery made several hundred years after the de
cease of the apostles, and made to serve the purposes
of heresy and corruption.
The fourth position, like the second, is wholly irre
levant to the question at issue.
The whole argument which the archdeacon draws
from the dates of the Gospels and Epistles, in proof
of his " self-evident" proposition, and by the aid of
which he arrives at the result that, with a few " slight
exceptions, the whole body of the church, from Spain
to India, possessed for twenty years (that is, nearly a
generation) no other rule of faith than the oral preach
ing of the apostles," is entirely irrelevant. For, so
far as the Gentile converts are concerned, none ever
denied the fact, nor does it bear at all upon the ques
tion at issue. * Book iii, chap. 24.

28 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
, The fifth proposition is a mere hypothesis, without
the least support.
That the creeds came from the apostles' mouths to
us in the precise forms in which we have them, the
archdeacon is a little too wary to assert. The autho
rity for this, however, at least so far as the Apostles'
Creed is concerned, is as ancient and as valid as that
upon which he relies for proof that any formulary of
the kind was in use as early as the apostolic age.
St. Ambrose says, " The twelve apostles, as skilful
artificers, assembled together, and made a key by their
common advice, that is, the creed ; by which the dark
ness of the devil is disclosed, that the light of Christ
may appear."
Ruffinus says, that " they had received by tradi
tion from their fathers, that after the ascension of our
Saviour, and the effusion of the Holy Ghost, before
the apostles separated from each other to go into the
several parts of the habitable world, to preach the
gospel to them, they settled ainong themselves the
rul^ of their future preaching, to prevent their teaching
different doctrines, during their separation, unto those
whom they should invite unto the Christian faith :
wherefore they assembled all together, and being full
of the Holy Ghost, they composed the creed ; each one
inserting what he thought convenient ; and ordained it
to be a test of their future sermons, and a rule to be
given unto the faithful."
"Besides the opinion, that the apostles were in
general the authors of the creed, some have advanced
one step further, and affirmed, that every apostle in
serted his particular article ; by which, according to

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 29
the number of the apostles, they have divided the
creed into twelve articles, allowing one article for
each apostle : a full account whereof is in a sermon
falsely attributed to St. Austin; where the author
thereof gives us this following relation, concerning
each particular article that was put in by each parti
cular apostle. ' Peter,' saith he, said, ' I believe in
God the Father Almighty ;' John, ' Maker of heaven
and earth ;' James, ' and in Jesus Christ his only Son,
our Lord ;' Andrew, ' Who was conceived by the Holy
Ghost, bom of the Virgin Mary;' Philip, 'suffered
under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried ;'
Thomas, ' he descended into hell, the third day he
rose again from the dead ;' Bartholomew, ' He ascended
into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father
Almighty ;' Matthew, ' from thence shall he come to
judge the quick and the dead ;' James, the son of Al-
pheus, ' I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy catholic
church ;' Simon Zelotes, ' the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins ;'. Jude, the brother of James,
' the resurrection of the body ;' Matthias, ' life ever
lasting. Amen.' "*
All this has been considered by many a devout ad
mirer of patristical tradition as certainly true as the
Acts of the Apostles. It is not, however, marvellous
that a writer of Lord King's learning and shrewdness
should come to a different conclusion. He says, —
" Now as to the truth of this tradition, I think it is
altogether to be denied, and that for several reasons :
as that it was nigh four hundred years after Christ
* See the History of the Apostles' Creed, with critical observa.
tions on the several articles, by Sir Peter King, pp. 25-28.

30 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
before the framing of the creed by the apostles was
ever heard of; and even Ruffinus himself, one of the
first reporters thereof, though in the beginning of his
commentary-he doth roundly assert it, yet in the midst
thereof he speaks of it doubtfully, as if its authors
were uncertain and unknown." — P. 28.
The same author tells us that " it is true the exact
form of the present creed cannot pretend to be so
ancient as the apostolic times by four hundred years."
" As for the authors thereof," says he, " it cannot be
denied but that they were several and many ; the
creed was neither the work of one man, nor of one
day, but, during a long tract of time, passed succes
sively through several hands, ere it arrived to its pre
sent perfection ; the composure of it was gradual, and
not instantaneous.'' And though he thinks " some of
the articles therein were derived from the very days
of the apostles," he says, " The others were afterward
added by the primitive doctors and bishops, in opposi
tion to gross heresies and errors that sprung up in the
church."— P. 33.
Again he states, " ' The descent into hell,' as Ruffi
nus informs us, ' was neither in the Roman nor Orien
tal creeds ;' ' the communion of saints' was not in any
creed till above four hundred years after Christ, and
then not immediately received in all : the clause of
• life everlasting' was omitted in several, while in others
it was inserted." — Pp. 29, 30.
This is all that it is very important to present in
relation to " the creeds," at present : in another place
the subject will be resumed, and more fully canvassed.
So far, we have seen the theory of patristical tradi-

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 31
tion in its mildest and least exceptionable form. Its
most prominent features are, that the oral preaching
of the apostles originally constituted the rule of faith —
and that out of that oral preaching was wrought a
formulary of faith, embracing the articles of the Apos
tles' and Nicene Creeds, which were proposed to all
who were baptized as a condition of admission to that
ordinance. All of which would be harmless enough,
if it were based upon legitimate evidence, and did not
cast a shade over the peculiar splendours of the writ
ten revelation. A system which carries in its train
consequences so grave must not be hastily admitted.
The arguments adduced in its support must be tho
roughly canvassed. To them I shall pay all due atten
tion in another place. For the present, it is desirable
to see a more full development of the system itself.

SECTION m.
The System of Tradition more fully developed.
We have seen that Archdeacon Manning considers
" the creeds and universal consent of Christians — the
creed attested by universal tradition," as an authorita
tive commentary upon the Scriptures. He does not,
indeed, award the highest kind of evidence to all pri
mitive traditions, but very modestly says that " all
primitive interpretations prevalent, though not univer
sal, claim their several measures of deference from us,
and we may not lightly contradict them." But for such
" primitive interpretations'' as were " universal" he
takes higher ground, giving them a divine authority —

32 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
an authority equal to that of the written word. The
following is his language : —
" Universal tradition, as it is the ordinance of God
for the perpetuation of his truth, so does it directly
lead every man that commits himself to its guidance
to the knowledge of the faith. For this we must ever
bear in mind, that the only tradition which the English
Church believes in is the universal ; and that the uni»
versal tradition of all ages is no less than the voice of
God." — Appendix, p. 133.
The following is quoted with approbation by Arch
deacon Manning from Dr. Hammond, a divine of the
seventeenth century, of the Laudean school, and now
highly in favour with the Oxford divines :* —
"^ " And to this also my concession shall be as liberal
as any Romanist can wish, that there are two ways of
conveying such revelation to us : one in imiting, the
other by oral tradition ; the former, in the Gospels, and
other writings of the apostles, &c., which make up
the sacred writ, or canon of the New Testament ; the
latter, in the apostles' ^reacAm^j to the churches of
their plantations, which are nowhere set down for us
in the sacred writ, but conserved as deposita by them
to whom they were intrusted.
" And although in sundry respects the former of these
be much the raorei faithful, steady yra,y of conveyance,
yet there being no less veracity in the tongue than in
the hands, in the preachings than in the turitings of the
* The work from which this extract is made is now before
me, and is entitled, " A Farienesis, or Seasonable Exhortation to
all True Sons of the Church of England." Originally printed in
London, 1656. Reprinted, Oxford, 1841.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 33
spostles ; nay, ' prior sermo quam liber, prior sensus
quam stylus,' saith Tertullian ; the apostles preaclicd
before tliey writ, plmUed churches before tliey addressed
rpistles to them. On these groundal make no scruple
to grant, that apostolical traditions, such as are truly
so, as well as apostolical writings, are equally the
tiiatttr of that Christian beliif, wliich is equally secured
by the fidelitj- of tlie conveyance ; that as one is apos
tolical writing, so tlie other is apostolical tradition." —
Appenduv, pp. 11, 15.
Af\er an extended investigation of the sense of the
Church of England, as expressed by several of her
learned divines, die archdeacon makes the following
induction : — " Treating, therefore, the foregoing col
lection of testimonies as the particular instances m the
process of induction, we are warranted in asserting,
tliat die rule of faith, as recognised and contended for
by die Reformed Church of England, is Scripture and
anUquitj-, or universal tradition attesting both Scripture
and the sense.^' — Appendix, p. 33.
According to all diis, die system of divine revelation
is composed of two parts, one written and the other
oral — the Scriptures and tradition— one the record and
die other the explanation, equally essential and of equal
autJwrily. This is precisely the view of the Tracta
rians and the Romanists.
Mr. Newman says, " We have as litde warrant for
rejecting ancient consent as for rejecting Scripture
itself." And that "cadiolic tradition — the unwritten
word — is a divine informant in religious matters."
Again, more at large, —
" Let us nndoi-stand what is meant by saying that

34 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
antiquity is of authority in religious questions. Both
Romanists and ourselves maintain as follows : — That
whatever doctrine the primitive ages unanimously at
test, whether by consent of fathers, or by councils, or
by the events of history, or by controversies, or in
whatever may fairly and reasonably be considered to
be the universal belief of those ages, is to be received
as coming from the apostles."*
The following explicit statement is from " Tracts
for the Times, No. 70 :"—
" With respect to the supreme authority of inspired
Scripture, it stands thus : — Catholic tradition teaches
revealed truth. Scripture proves it; Scripture is the
document of faith, tradition the witness of it ; the true
creed is the catholic interpretation of Scripture, or
scripturally proved tradition ; Scripture by itself teaches
mediately, and proves decisively; tradition by itself
proves negatively, and teaches positively ; Scripture
and tradition, taken together, are the joint rule of
faith." That the views of the Romish authors of the highest
authority are really the same with those of the high-
Church authorities above quoted, will be seen from
what follows : —
Bellarmine says, " I assert, that Scripture, although
not composed principally with the view of its being a
rule of faith, is nevertheless a rule of faith ; not the
entire rule, but a partial rule. For the entire rule of
faith is the word of God, or God's revelation made to
the church, which is distributed into two partial rules.
Scripture and tradition. That the Scripture is not the
* Lectures on Romanism and Popular Protestantism,

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 35
judge, is evident ; because it admits different mean
ings, and cannot tell which is the right one."
And the Tridentine Catechism says, " The whole
of the doctrine to be delivered to the faithful is con
tained in the word of God, which is distributed into
Scripture and tradition."
The Council of Trent distribute traditions as fol
lows, namely, — " Those which were received by the
apostles from the mouth of Christ ; or delivered from
hand to hand, from the apostles to our times ; the Holy
Ghost dictating them unto them."*
Let it not be pretended, then, that Roman Catholics*'
are heretical and Anglican Catholics orthodox, when
they maintain the same general ground. They are
brethren, why should they disagree ? They must stand
or fall together, in spite of their mutual criminations,
and exclusive assumptions of orthodoxy^JI'TftTeast,
upon points which they hold in common, if they ex
plain themselves intelligibly, it looks captious to see
them raise a dust as if to blind the eyes of mankind,
and then attempt to draw mighty lines of distinction.
' Let it also be remembered that the best of the
Romish writers, when they come to specific defini
tions, go scarcely a hair's breadth beyond the views
of the prerogatives of the Church in settling matters
of faith which are entertained by the great mass of
high-Churchmen, and are expressed by Archdeacon
Manning. Indeed, they often wholly disclaim the
imputation of holding that the Church has a right to
originate new doctrines of faith not contained in divine
* See Elliott on Romanism, vol.- i, p. 95 ; also Lighffbot's
Works, vol. viii, p. 284.

36 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
revelation. Witness the following passages from Bel
larmine : — •
" There are two things to be particularly observed :
The first is, that there are some things in the Chris
tian doctrine, as well of faith as of morals, that are in
themselves (simpliciter) necessary to all for salvation,
such as is a knowledge of the articles of the Apostles'
Creed, likewise a knowledge of the ten command
ments and certain sacraments. The rest are not so
necessary, that without an explicit knowledge, and
belief, and profession of them a man cannot be saved,
if only he have a ready mind to receive and believe
them when they shall have been legitimately pro
pounded to him by the Church. — Observe, secondly,
that those things which are in themselves (simpliciter)
necessary, the apostles were in the habit of preaching
to all ; but of other things they did not deliver all
men, but some of them to all, those, namely, which
were of use to all, some to the prelates, bishops, and
presbyters only. These things being observed, I as
sert, that all those things were written by the apostles
which are necessary to all, and which they themselves
preached openly to all without distinction ; but that
of other things not all were written.'' Again he says,
" I assert, that of all those articles which relate to the
nature of God, there exist proofs (testimonia) in the
Scriptures, and that we may be fully and clearly in
structed concerning those articles of Scripture, if we
take them in their right sense." And again he says,
" It is usual with them [that is, the Protestants] to
treat the matter as if they defended the Scriptures
only, and we defend traditions only, nor cared whether

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 37
traditions were agreeable to Scripture or contrary to
Scripture. But it is not so ; for we put a higher value
on Scripture (Scripturam pluris facimus) than they do ;
nor admit any tradition against Scripture."
Mr. Goode, after these passages from the great
Romish oracle, adds the following very just observa
tions : — " From the two former of these passages,
then, it is evident that the most learned Romanists
hold that all those doctrines, the belief of which is
essentially necessary to salvation, including particu
larly the articles in the Apostles' Creed, are contained
in the Scriptures. There is, indeed, an intimation
that there must also be a willing mind to embrace
those points which may be propounded for belief by
the Church, but then it must be recollected that the
Church of Rome does not profess to introduce new
doctrines, but only to inculcate those which are de
rived either from Scripture, or that church tradition
which (like the Tractators) it receives as apostolical.
That is, the concession here made that the Scriptures
contain all things necessary to salvation is accom
panied by the requirement that that is also to be be
lieved which the Church propounds as an apostolical
doctrine derived from tradition ; a demand which seems
to me to be equally made by the Tractators."* And
I may add, " a demand which seems to me to be equally
made by" Archdeacon Manning.
So it seems obvious that the cautious statements
made by the Romanists, when they speak in view of
Protestant objections, are very much like those which
high-Churchmen generally make, touching the simple
* The Divine Rula of Faith and Practice, vol. i, pp. 78, 79.

38 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
sufficiency of divine revelation to set forth and prove
the doctrines of Christianity. / Their fundamental
principles are the same, their mode of development
sometimes differs ; but the discrepancies between the
leading teachers of the two schools are scarcely so
great as those which are discoverable between leading
and learned doctors of each school respectively among
themselves.

SECTION rv.
Pretended J^tinctions between the Rule as held by the Church
"of England and by the Church of Rome.
It is not a little annoying to many high-Churchmen
to hear it said that they agree in all essential points
with the Romanists. To meet the imputation of Ro
manism, they sometimes undertake to make distinc
tions where none but themselves are able to see the
least difference. Mr. Goode shows most conclusively
that the Oxford divines have, in several instances, in
order to prove themselves anti-Papists, most miserably
misrepresented and caricatured the. Romish theory.
On the same ground Archdeacon Manning raises three
great questions upon which he makes a radical differ
ence between Anglican and Roman Catholics in the
use they make of tradition. I shall just glance at
these points, and see what the essential difference is
between the archdeacon and his brother Catholics of
Rome. The first question is, " Whether there exists any
living, infallible judge of controversy." Upon this
question the archdeacon takes the negative. But by

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 39
a careful examination of all he has said, it will appear
that he considers the Church to be a judge of contro
versy, from whose decisions there is no appeal — that
her authority is divine, and her determinations final,
but that she is still not quite " infallible." I give the
following as specimens of the character and offices of
the " living judge :" —
"Although it is always both the right, as men speak,
and the privilege of Christians to labour out their belief
by analysis and induction, by evidence and history, it
can never be their necessary duty until the Church has
failed of hers. For it is her office to anticipate all
reasonings by holding forth the well-approved results.
And for this very cause it pleased God, in the beginning,
to store up in her the whole treasure of the gospel :
her sacred books were as a steadfast memory, ever cor
recting her conceptions of heavenly things ; her living
ministry, a thousand tongues ; her rule of faith, an
universal instinct ; her councils, acts of deliberations ;
her decrees, utterances of judgment. She was, and is,
a living, responsible being ; witnessing, defining old
truths, condemning false novelties. Her charge is to
sustain, from age to age, the whole body of revealed
wisdom ; to imbue each successive generation of her
children with the conclusions of the faith, openly ten
dering also the proofs of Holy Scripture ; and thus
going before us from our childhood, being ever herself
of one ripe age, teaching us what things are necessary,
probable, or doubtful — ^both what we must, and what
we may believe ; ever leading on those who will fol
low from conclusions to proofs, to inner ranges, and to
higher paths of wisdom." — Pp. 44, 45.

40 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
Upon this truly rhetorical passage I shall, for the
present, make no comment. Its style and sentiment
would not have disgraced Vincent of Lirin.
In another place, the archdeacon turns aside, in a
note, to meet an objection of Dr. Wiseman against
the Articles of the Church of England, for giving
" the Church authority in controversies of faith," and
yet admitting private judgment. And here he says,
" We acknowledge no authority superior to the
Church ; but supreme authority does not mean autho
rity which admits of no limit or restriction — the al
mighty Father has ordained in his Church laws of
preceptive right and positive institution, of order, and
teaching, and sacramental mysteries, and the like.
The proof and boundary of these obligations are to be
found in the Catholic traditions ; and the test of those
traditions, ' universitas, antiquitas, consentio.' On this
ground the Church of England asserts that ' Holy
Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation.'
She declares herself to be obliged by Catholic tradi
tion in this respect." — Pp. 24, 25.
Now, it seems that the archdeacon acknowledges
" no authority superior to the Church" — even the au
thority of Christ must of course be subordinate to that
of the Church ! The Church has " supreme authority,''
and is only limited by " Catholic traditions." So long,
then, as she keeps within this " boundary," " her de
crees are utterances of judgment," and though Chris
tians are bound to go to her to learn " both what they
must and what they may believe,'' and " it can never
be their necessary duty to labour out their belief, by
analysis and induction, until the Church has failed of

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 41
hers," yet for all this she may err — she is no " living,
infallible judge." Now, there is such an evident in
consistency in giving so much authority to the Church,
and depriving her members entirely of the right of
private judgment, and yet making her fallible in her
decisions, that it is quite strange that the learned
archdeacon does not, with the British Critic and the
Tractators, go entirely over to the Romish doctrine of
" a living, infallible judge of controversy." It seems,
indeed, absurd to deprive us of the right of private
judgment in matters of faith and practice, lest we
might chance to err, and yet hand us over to a judge
who is also fallible.
But after all, high-Churchmen generally, and Arch
deacon Manning with them, do hold to a' "living, in
fallible judge of controversy.'' They hold that the
Church Catholic is " indefectible," and that her deci
sions in a, general council are " infallible."
Dr. Hammond says, " The inerrability of general
councils — is a theological verity which may piously
be believed." — Paresnesis, p. 65. Again : " We do
not believe that any general council, truly such,
ever did, or shall err, in matter of faith, nor shall we
further dispute the authority, when we shall be duly
satisfied of the universality of any such." — lb., p. 169.
Again, more at large: "Nay, on the contrary, we,
that never disbelieved any word of God, written or
unwritten, (by any means made known to us to be
such,) particularly never questioned any voice or testi
mony of the whole Church concerning such word, but
are ready to believe that to be apostolical, which shall
be to us universally testified to come from the apostles.

42 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
and persuade ourselves that God will never permit any
such universal testimony concerning the faith to con
spire in conveying error to us ; and upon the strength
of that persuasion, as we have never yet opposed any
universal council, nor other voice of the whole Church,
such as by the Catholic rules can be contested to be
such ; so for the future we profess never to do : are
by our grounds thus far secured froih all heretical
pravity, that unless we destroy in the retail what we
have built in the gross, and until we shall be proved,
by the particular view of our doctrines, to have thus
failed in some particulars, we cannot, with any justice,
or without great unreasonableness, be accused of it." —
lb., pp. 154, 155.
The last of these passages Archdeacon Manning
quotes, in the note, a part of which I have already
given, and accompanies it with the following remarks :
— " We therefore no more submit the doctrinal
decisions of the Church to the judgment of individual
minds than the canon of Scripture itself. We do
acknowledge an authority higher than either the
Church of England or Rome in particular. What
hinders the appeal to that tribunal Dr. Wiseman knows
as well as we. But if such a council, truly general,
fully assembled, should meet to-morrow, the rule of its
decisions would be 'non sua posteris tradere, sed a
majoribus accepta servare.'* The witness of primitive
tradition must be the manner of its determinations,
after all ; so that, whether the gathering of a council
* Not to hand down their own decrees to posterity, but to
preserve those received from their ancestors.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 43
be possible or not, ' the law is open, let them implead
one another.' "—P. 26.
Here the supremacy of a general council is fully
and explicitly asserted by the archdeacon, and the
" inerrability" of such a council, asserted by Dr. Ham
mond, is not by him denied.
Dr. Pusey says, " The ' indefectibility of the Church'
is very different from the infallibility assumed by Rome.
We believe that (although councils which have been
termed ' general,' or which Rome has claimed to be
so, have erred) no real oecumenical council ever did ;
that is, no council really representing the universal
Church."* And Mr. Newman says, " Both we and Romanists
hold that the Church Catholic is unerring in its decla
rations of faith for saving doctrine ; but we differ from
each other as to what is the faith, and what is the
Church Catholic."t There is, then, according to all
these high authorities, no difference between high-
Churchmen and Romanists as to the fact of " a living,
infallible judge of controversy," though they doubtless
do differ as to who constitutes this "judge."
Dr. Pusey gives us a more particular view of the
authority of the Catholic Church, and the relations
of the English Church to it, as follows : — " Our own
Church is the immediate, the Church universal the
ultimate visible authority ; she is to us the representa
tive of the universal Church, as the Church universal
is of her Lord ; our own derives her authority from
* Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, p. 29.
t Quoted by Dr. Pusey, Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, p. 33.
For more of this sort, see Good's Divine Rule, vol. i, p. 43.

44 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
the universal Church, and cannot claim any contrary
to her : we belong to her, because we were baptized"
in her, and she is the descendant of the primitive
church in this land, and her bishops ' the successors
of the apostles:' we receive, as articles of faith, what
she delivers to us as fixed by the universal Church ;
what she has by her private judgment deduced from
Holy Scripture we teach, because we also think it to
be so deducible ; if we did not so think, we should
obey, must belong to her, but could not teach: her
sacraments we receive, because she has received the
commission to impart them ; her rites, because she
has the power to ordain or to change them. To our
Church we owe submission ; to the decisions of the
Church universal we owe faith." — lb., pp. 34, 35.
The Church of England "is the immediate, the
Church universal the ultimate visible authority" — she
is to us the representative of the universal Church —
to the former " we owe submission ; to the decisions
of the" latter " we owe faith." The Church of Eng
land, then, is a sort of vicar of the universal Church
— possessing the same powers over her individual
members that the Church universal has over all the
individuals of all particular churches collectively. But
what is the specific difference between the " submis
sion" we owe one, and the " faith" we owe the other,
is not so clear. The sense seems to be this : — That
tiiough in controversies of faith we are, for the present,
bound to submit to the decisions of the Church of
England, yet we are entitled to an ultimate appeal to
the Church universal, whose decisions are final and
infallible, and in which we are bound to exercise the

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 45
same " faith" that we must exercise in the voice of
God in any other form. For " the Church universal"
" is the representative of her Lord" — and the Church
of England is, in like manner, " the representative of
the universal Church." Romanists and high-Church
men, then, only differ as to the "living, infallible
judge- of controversy" in relation to the question of
immediate access to the judicial power. Romanists
claim that the Church of Rome is the universal Church,
and has from God plenary powers to decide all con
troversies — high-Churchmen award that claim to " a
general council ;" and in the mean time, as the con
vening of a general council involves some little dif
ficulty, they acknowledge the duty of " submission" to
the Church of England, which is, in fact, " to us the
representative of the universal Church."
And there is no great hazard in this " submission," for
the Church of England has in her possession the grand
"rule" of settling all controversies in matters of reli
gion, by which a general council, " should it be assem
bled to-morrow," would be governed in all "its deci
sions." " Not to hand down their own decrees to posteri
ty, but to preserve those received from their ancestors."
Now, why all this squeamishness upon awarding
even to the English Church the character of " a living
judge of controversy ?" Perhaps it is sheer modesty
which prevents our high-Churchmen from claiming for
her this prerogative. For that they would, according
to their principles, have a right to do so, few will deny.
The second question upon which the archdeacon
differs from Romanists is, " Whether Scripture is the
only sufficient proof of the faith ?"

46 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
It is not a litde singular that high-Churchmen and
Romanists should take opposite sides upon this ques
tion, when they agree that the sense of Scripture is to
be found in tradition. Can Scripture, without sense,
prove anything ? Can we gather from it any doctrine,
or prove by it any abstract proposition, until its sense
is made obvious ? It would seem not, according-to our
best high-Church authorities, for they gravely tell us
that " Scripture is the only sufficient proof of the
faith," while " universal tradition'' attests " the sense :"
that " tradition teaches revealed truth," while " Scrip
ture proves it." Tradition goes before, and tells us
what " revealed truth" is ; (and tradition being " a
divine informant," a query would naturally arise, whe
ther it is not a perfect revelation in itself ;) but Scrip
ture comes along in the rear, and tells us that what
tradition has told us is even so. Upon this our high-
Churchmen vehemently exclaim, " See how clear it is
that Scripture is the only proof of the faith !" This
ground is so exceedingly slippery that it is impossible
long to maintain it. The Tractators have fully aban
doned it, and gone over to the Romish theory, that
there are certain necessary doctrines of Christianity
not taught in the Scriptures.
The third question is, " Whether the creed contains
all necessary points of mere belief?"
Now, wherein do high-Churchmen and Romanists
differ upon this question 1 The former, as well as the
latter, embrace articles of faith, or, as the archdeacon
phrases it, " necessary points of mere belief," which
are not found in " the creed." If the high-Churchman
points to the creed of Pope Pius the Fourth as an in-

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 47
Stance of an assumption, upon the part of the Romish
Church, of the right to make articles of faith not found
in the creed, the Romanist can, on the other hand,
direct the attention of his opponent to the Thirty-nine
Articles, or to his list of " Church principles," and
demand of him whether these are all to be found in
" the creed."
To what, then, does this wonderful difference be
tween Roman and Anglican Catholics amount ? Why,
simply, that they have a somewhat different nomen
clature — that they have a different mode of expressing
the same thing. Both hold that the authority of the
Church is paramount, and her decisions final. Both
hold that Scripture is defective as a rule of faith with
out the definitions and explanations of tradition. And
both hold that the Church has a right to decree articles
of faith not expressed in the creed.
The following is from the creed of Pope Pius the
Fourth, communicated in a bull from Rome, A. D. 1564,
as the result of the deliberations of the Council of Trent :
" The apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions, and
other observances and constitutions of the Church, do
I firmly admit and embrace. Also the sacred Scrip
ture, according to that sense which our holy mother
the Church hath holden and doth hold, (whose office
it is to judge of. the true sense and interpretation of
Scripture,) do I admit, neither will I ever receive and
expound it but according to the uniform consent of the
fathers."* * This creed, both in the original Latin and a translation,
may be seen in the Appendix of Appleton's edition of Burnet's
Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles.

48 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
The concluding point in this article, which requires
us to " receive and expound Scripture according to the
unanimous -consent of the fathers," is legitimately built
upon the view maintained by Archdeacon Manning,
that " the sense of Scripture" is to be found in " uni
versal tradition ;" and that " the universal tradition of
all ages is no less than the voice of God." For most
assuredly, if universal tradition conveys to us the only
true meaning of God's written word — if we here have
the true commentary from " the voice of God" himself,
then it is perfectly right that we should be required to
" receive and expound it" only " according to the una
nimous consent of the fathers." We must, indeed,
come to this, or contemn " the voice of God !"
The conclusion which clearly follows from this
system is, that the creeds, with every other ancient
tradition which has the sanction of " unanimous con
sent," are of the same authority and importance as
canonical Scripture. They are necessary parts of
divine revelation, and cannot be rejected or doubted
but at the peril of damnation. And any doctrine or
usage clearly proved from universal tradition is as
certainly true, and as universally obligatory, as if it
were proved by the holy Gospels or the inspired
Epistles. The archdeacon does make a distinction between
" the inspiration of the apostles in the writing of Holy
Scripture, and the guidance of the Church in inter
preting its sense, the former being immediate, and the
latter mediate, that is, through ordained means." — Ap
pendix, p. 83. But I see not how this changes the
character of the " inspiration" or " guidance," or what-

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 49
ever else it may be called. For if it be " the voice of
God" intelligibly annunciated— 'the divinely-appointed
means of "guidance to the knowledge of the faith,"
its decisions must be final and infallible. Whether
the inspiration be mediate or immediate, it is such, I
take it, as infallibly preserves from error or mistake,
and calls for implicit faith.

SECTION v.
Tradition a Witness — the Church a Witness.
As the theory of tradition is developed it become*
complicated, and it is often difficult, without special
attention, to understand it. As we have seen,rthe
assertors of tradition represent it as a teacher of the
sense of Scripture. In further explaining themselves,
they tell us that the fathers are mere witnesses of
facts; that is, their testimony goes to the fact that
such and such doctrines were received by the
Church in their respective ages. But in collecting
their testimony, they do not confine themselves to
the formal statements of the fathers that such are the
doctrines of the Church, but they embrace all their
didactic and other writings — the decrees of synods
and councils — creeds, liturgies, &c., &c. From all
these they make up a theology, and assume that the
doctrines herein set forth are the doctrines of the
Church Catholic, and that the authors of these various
records are making formal and solemn depositions of
doctrines believed and usages practised by the Church
Catholic. "Thus they make the Nicene fathers witness
3

50 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
that the doctrines of the Nicene Creed are the doctrines
of the Catholic and Apostolic Church — and the English
reformers witness that the doctrines of the Prayer-book
are the doctrines of the primitive church. Leslie says,
" Thus every doctrine is reduced to fact : for it is
purely fact, whether such doctrine was received or not."
" This," says the bishop of New-Jersey, " sets in the
proper light the whole question as to the true use of
the fathers. We look to them, not as interpreters of
doctrine, but as witnesses of the fact of doctrine."*
And Mr. Newman says, " The doctrine of the apos
tles is an historical fact, and ascertainable as other
facts, and obvious to the intelligence of inquirers as
other facts : private judgment has as little exercise
here as in any matters of sense and experience."t
Let us then for a moment look at the fathers in the
character of witnesses, and see whether their testimony
is available upon the points of doctrine and practice
which are in question between Catholics and Pro
testants. It will not be necessary for us to inquire at
large here into the qualifications of a witness. Two
points only need be noticed. The first is, whether
the fathers are competent witnesses. To the compe
tency of a witness it is necessary that he should be in
circumstances to know what he alleges. Were the
fathers, then, in circumstances to know what was the
oral teaching of the apostles ? Those whose testimony
is most employed by Catholics — both Romish and
Anglican — -lived from one to four, and even six hun
dred years later than the apostles, whose oral teaching
they are supposed to report. The fragments we have
* Convocation Sermon, p. 25. + Lectures on Romanism.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 51
from the apostolic fathers, that is, those who saw and
heard the apostles, so far as their writings are un
doubtedly genuine, are not at all available in these
controversies, because they say nothing to the point.
The later fathers are more to the purpose, provided
they are to be considered as competent witnesses.
But they were removed by several generations from
the apostolic age, and of course could have no per
sonal knowledge of what the apostles preached, except
from their writings. It is urged, however, that they
did know what had, in their own time, the sanction
of universal consent, and what was universally re
ceived in the church so near the apostolic age must
have come from the apostles themselves. In answer
to this it is alleged, that in those ancient times the
facilities for intercommunication among the different
nations and provinces were comparatively small. And
as the art of printing had not yet been discovered,
written records were comparatively scarce ; and we
are thrown into doubt, from an d priori view of the
subject, whether every branch of the Christian church
knew exactly what doctrines were held and what
usages obtained among all other branches of the church
universal. And especially, does it not appear doubtful
whether the individuals whose writings have come
down to our times had this knowledge 1
And if we could be certain that every branch of
the whole church knew accurately what every other
branch of the church held and practised, after all, this
would only amount to a strong probability that the
doctrines and usages they report came from the apos-
des, for we know that the seeds of error were very

52 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
early scattered among the professors of Christianity,
and, for aught we can tell, some of these things may
have been ingrafted upon the Christian system by
uninspired men. The testimony of these witnesses,
then, either in relation to what the apostles preached,
or what the universal church believed and practised,
is not an adequate test of truth, the witnesses not being
competent to know the truth of what they attest.
In the next place, the testimony of a witness must
be specific and relevant. But there is often much
doubt with regard to the meaning of the fathers : and,
when their scope is understood, it is often not at all
clear that their language implies what it is cited to
prove. Mere isolated passages from the fathers can
prove nothing. A comprehensive view must be taken
of their scope and design, before a correct induction
can be made of their opinions upon any point of doc
trine or ecclesiastical usage.
And when witnesses of equal competency and credi
bility clash with each other, the fact necessarily ori
ginates doubt with regard to the matter deposed. And
a much stronger doubt arises when the same witness
contradicts himself. 1 can at this point only call at
tention to these plain and obvious principles ; hereafter
I shall attempt to show the facts at length, when it
will be made clear that the testimony of the fathers is
utterly powerless touching the matters in controversy
between Catholics and Protestants.
But the fathers are not only made witnesses of apos
tolical tradition, but " the Church" is made a witness
of the sense of the fathers. That is, the Church tes
tifies to individuals what the fathers testify to her.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 53
Arcbiie,a,con Manning says, " The Church of England
has given a guide to her members in her Articles,
which are not new theological determinations, deriving
their weight from her sole wisdom or authority, but
depositions of evidence, [the italicising is the author's,]
exhibiting interpretations that have obtained from the
beginning. In her Articles the Church does not ex
pound, but witness ; and, faithful to the primitive rule,
she does not require assent to them as terms of com
munion, but as conditions of the license to teach her
people. And these chief points of doctrine, which
range next in importance to the fundamentals of the
creed, she holds herself, and delivers to us as the
witness of those ' who are presumable, by their anti
quity, to know the truth, and, by their uniform con
sent, neither to mistake themselves nor to deceive
others.' "*
Mr. Faber says-, " The attestation of Parker, of
Canterburyj to the principles and practice of his illus
trious predecessor, Cranmer, is well worth the atten
tion of those who seem to think that a departure from
the avowed system of our English Reformation is the
best and most consistent mode of upholding that same
Reformation. ' Which matters being perceived,' says
Parker, our chief reformer, 'he unrolled the most
ancient fathers, both Greek and Latin : he investigated
all the councils, and every part of antiquity, up to the
very times of the apostles.' " — Prim. Doct. Just.
A divine of the Scotch Episcopal Church, of high
standing, takes the same position. He says, " At the
* Hammond's Parsenesis, chap, v, sec. iv. See Rule of Faith,
pp. 38, 39.

54 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
time of the Reformation, the pious and learned men
who undertook and accomplished that great work, con
sidered the revealed word of God, contained in the
Old and New Testaments, as the great charter of our
faith ; and they declared that the Holy Scriptures con
tained all truth necessary to salvation. But in order
to ascertain the true and full meaning of the sacred
record, these holy men carefully and patiendy examined
every ancient record and document which bore on the
subject. Nor was this all ; they imbodied the fruits
of their labours in the several Formularies and Offices
which make up the Book of Common Prayer. The
Prayer-book was not an invention, nor even a compo
sition, of the reformers ; nor was it written at random ;
nor was it the work of one or two individuals ; but it
was a compilation, carefully and faithfully gathered
from the primitive Liturgies, and the writings of the
early Christian fathers, by those eminent and pious
men to whom we are indebted for the Reformation.
In the Liturgy, the Creeds and Collects, the Offices
for Baptism and the Holy Communion, the Catechism,
and other Offices, the Ordinal and the Thirty-nine Ar
ticles of Religion, we have a full and complete com
mentary, showing, in the clearest and most distinct
manner, what the primitive Christians" believed and
taught, as the doctrines of revelation. The reformers
further enable us to determine the system of divinity
which the early Christians taught as deducible from
the written record of God's word ; for, from the ancient
Liturgies, they so arranged the course of services for
the year, that in them is delineated the grand scheme
of human redemption in all its essential features, while

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 53
the true and catholic meaning of the word of God is
so fixed in regard to every part of this mighty plan,
that the faithful member of the Church can scajrcely
put a private or erroneous interpretation on any portion
of the divine record. Thus the member of the Church
has, in his Prayer-book, all the information concerning
the meaning attached to God's holy word by the early
Christians that the AngUcan reformers, by profound
learning and patient research, could discover. They
examined the ancient Liturgies, Creeds, Decrees of
Councils, and writings of individuals : he, therefore,
who makes himself acquainted with the Liturgy,*
Creeds, Formularies, and Articles, contained in the
Book of Common Prayer, is very well prepared to
read the Bible, as it has always been understood and
interpreted by those who continued in the apostles'
doctrine and fellowship. The learned are still ex
pected to examine the original records of the primitive
church, and to ascertain the fulness of the evidence
extant, for every doctrine deduced from sacred Scrip
ture ; but those who have neither time nor acquire
ments for such investigation have only to lean on the
whole host of Anglican reformers — men who went to
the stake in defence of the principles which they
imbodied in the Book of Prayer, and as witnesses of
the true faith which they had so fully proved. Safely,
then, may every member of the Church trust to the
evidence of such pious and learned men, and be con
tent to throw in his lot with theirs. They faithfully
* " N. B. The Scotch Communion Office imbodies the doc
tiine of Scripture as interpreted by the primitive church, more
fully than the English Office, as it now stands."'

56 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
proved all things ; and they laid down their lives rather
than relinquish what was good. Thus the Church, as
the pillar and ground of the truth, supplies a rule by
which even the most unlearned of her members may
be able to read and interpret the Bible, in all essential
points, as it was read and interpreted by the immediate
disciples of our Lord and his apostles, and by the
faithful in all ages."*
From all this it would seem that the Articles of the
Church of England (and the same is said of the
Liturgy) were by the " chief reformer" derived from
" the most ancient fathers." History does, indeed,
attribute the Thirty-nine Articles, and the compilation
of the Liturgy, principally to Archbishop Cranmer.
And, according to the high-Church authorities above
quoted, we are to regard him in all this as " a witness"
to what the fathers had reported from the apostles — as
giving in " depositions of evidence, exhibiting interpre
tations that have obtained from the beginning."
In order, then, to a full confidence in these " depo
sitions," we must have entire confidence in the ability
and integrity of the witness. We must believe that
the Liturgy is faithfully translated from the ancient
Liturgies, and that the Articles contain the true primi
tive faith, without addition or diminution. We must
believe that Cranmer was competent to give us a digest
of Christian doctrine, and an exhibition of Christian
usages, which should be perfectly true Jo the original ;
and that he has honestly executed this" task. All this
the people must believe, for the Articles thus presented
* See " The Old Paths ; by Rev. J. B. Pratt, Episcopal Minis.
ter of St. James,' Cruden." Oxford, 1840.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 57
" the Church of England has given as a guide to her
members." But have our Churchmen of the present
day so much faith in Cranmer as this ? What do they
say to the following "depositions" of their own wit
ness ? " A bishop may make a priest by the Scriptures,
and so may princes and governors also, and that by
the authority of God committed to them, and the people
also by their election. — And the people, before Chris
tian princes were, commonly did elect their bishops
and priests." Again, in answer to the question,
" Whether (if it fortuned a Christian prince learned to
conquer certain dominions of infidels, having not but
the temporal learned men with him) it be defended by
God's law, that he and they should preach and teach
the word of God there or no, and also make and con
stitute priests or no" — Cranmer says, " It is not against
God's law, but contrary, they ought indeed so to do,
and there be histories that witnesseth, that some
Christian princes, and other laymen unconsecrate,
have done the same."*
What says the most moderate Churchman of the
present day to these " depositions of evidence ?" Is
the witness competent to report the true traditionary
explanations. of God's word, and has he faithfully exe
cuted his work in this instance ? Do these depositions,
solemnly put forth, in answer to questions proposed
by his sovereign, tally with antiquity? Are they the
result of his having " investigated all the councils,
and every part of antiquity, up to the very times of
the apostles ?" Churchmen generally believe no such
thing. And the Tractarians believe no more in the
* See Burnet's History of the Reformation, Records, book iii.
3*

58 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
fidelity of Cranmer's " depositions'' than in those of
Baxter or Wesley ! It is folly to give implicit confi
dence to a witness when he speaks what pleases us,
and wholly to distrust him when he does not. And
yet this is the course taken by Anglican as well as
Roman Catholics with their own sworn witnesses.
Again, in the forms of ordination prepared by the
reformers, in the words of consecration there is no
essential difference between those used in the ordina
tion of a " priest" and those employed in the ordination
of a " bishop." In the two books of Common Prayer
successively set forth by authority of parliament in the
reign of Edward VI., in the ordination of a bishop it
is simply said, " Take the Holy Ghost, and remember
that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee,
by imposition of hands," &c.* This occasioned the
Church no little difficulty from two opposite quarters,
and for very different reasons. The Romanists ob
jected that the English .bishops were not canonically
ordained; and, on the other hand, the Presbyterians
plead that, according to the ordinal, a bishop was no
more than any other priest. To obviate these objec
tions, the ordinal was, in the reign of James I., 1662,
reduced to its present form.t Now, did the reformers
faithfully report the form of making or " ordering" a
* See the two books of Common Prayer, &c. Oxford, 1838.
t See Burnet's History of the Reformation, vol. iii, p. 229 ;
also. Short's History of the Church of England, p. 546 ; and also.
Ecclesiastical Tracts, by Humphrey Prideaux, D.D., Lond., 1716.
The first of these rare and valuable Tracts is a discussion of " the
validity of the orders of the Church of England," occasioned by
a conference upon the subject between two Romish and two
English divines.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 59
bishop in the old ordinal or not ? If they did, then the
change of 1662 is an innovation, and the Prayer-book
is not an exact copy of the primitive traditions of the
Church. But if they did not, then are they false or
incompetent " witnesses," at least in one instance, and
possibly they may be in others. Now, our high-
Churchmen can take which horn of the dilemma they
prefer.

SECTION VI.
How is Tradition made accessible to the People ?
Learning from Romanists and high-Churchmen
that the true sense of Scripture is to be derived from
tradition, it then becomes a question of no little im
portance how the great mass of men are to have access
to this true commentary. It is referred to by these
Catholic teachers as a matter which involves no diffi
culty at all — we have only to go to the holy fathers,
and they will tell us at once what the Bible means.
The Scriptures are dark and difficult, but tradition
disperses all obscurity and removes all doubts. All
this is easily said ; but if an inquirer asks. How am I
to know what the fathers say? the answer varies
somewhat according to circumstances.
The Romanists will tell us, we are to learn what
sense the holy fathers have put upon the Scriptures
from the Church, or, in other words, the people must
go to the priest for the information. Bishop Jewel, in
his Apology, asks, " I pray you, what manner of men
be they, and how is it meet to call them which fear
the judgment of the Scriptures, that is to say, the

60 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
judgment of God himself, and do prefer before them
their own dreams and full cold inventions : and, to
maintain their own traditions, have defaced and cor
rupted, now these many hundred years, the ordinances
of Christ, and of the apostles 1" To this Dr. Harding,
the great defender of Romanism, replies, " The Scrip
tures consist not in ink and paper, but in the sense ;
which sense the Holy Ghost, by Christ's promise,
hath taught the Church. — Tradition," says he, is " the
sense and understanding received of the fathers : for
that is the key of the word of God. — Now we require
you to admit this tradition, that is to say, the Catholic
sense and understanding of the Scriptures, which hath
been delivered unto us by the holy fathers of all ages,
and of aU countries where the faith hath been received.
And then we will call you again to be tried by the
Scriptures. . . .
" As for the true sense and interpretation of the
Scriptures, where shall we find it, but, as before we
said, in the Catholic Church? The Church having
Christ remaining with it all dales to the end of the
world, having by promise of Christ the Spirit of truth
• remaining in it for ever, having by God's own ancient
promise both the words which the Father hath put in
the mouth of Christ, and the Spirit which he put in
him, whereby it may understand the meaning of God's
words : we may not now seek for the true sense, un
derstanding, and interpretation of the Scriptures any
where but in the Church."*
According to this, the fathers, equally with the
Scriptures, are in the hands of the Church, to be used
» Jewel's Works, fol„ 1609, pp. 63, 64.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 61
by her as she sees good, and she alone can judge of
the " sense" which they put upon the Scriptures. An
appeal to the fathers, then, upon a common-sense
principle of interpretation, is just as useless as an
original appeal to the Scriptures : for " the Church"
must tell us what " the fathers" say. The whole
question is finally resolved into the Church's infallibi
lity. Christ is with the Church " all days — having
by promise the Spirit of truth remaining in it for ever,"
therefore what the Church says must be implicitly
relied upon as infallibly true. She gives the sense of
the Scriptures given to her by the fathers, or through
tradition, as Christ teaches her. The sense of the
fathers, then, no more than the sense of Scripture, is
a proper subject for the exercise of private judgment.
The same view, that is, that the Church has depo
sited with her, not only the Scriptures, but tradition
likewise, to use at her discretion for the benefit of her
children, is taught by the Tractarians. Mr. Newman
says, " The Church enforces a fact, apostolical tradi
tion, as the doctrinal key to the Scriptures." And
another asks, " Is not private judgment as apt to mis
lead in the interpretation of antiquity, as in that of
Scripture ?" The British Critic says, " We have in
no way maintained that an ordinary religious inquirer
would have any chance of discovering for himself the
truth, by his personal study of the fathers ; and should
any be inclined to think otherwise, we shall be very
much pleased if the facts brought together by Mr. Goode
prove to him his mistake.''
" Mr.Goodewould consider, indeed, the ground we
have taken wholly inadequate to our purpose, from his

62 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
notion of its being involved in the principles of those
whom he opposes, that the individual Christian is to
have the gospel from personal appeal to patristic testi
mony. From which, for our own parts, we so entirely
dissent, that we have no hesitation in speaking of the
existing necessity of resorting to church history in the
manner we do, as the mere result of our present de
graded condition. In the time of St. Augustine or
St. Thomas Aquinas, it would be as little a matter of
conscious inquiry with Christians whether they should
follow the ChurcKs instructions, as it is in our days
with infants, whether they should believe what their
parents teach them. The Church bore on her surface
the plain and certain marks of her divine commission,
and was listened to as a mother, of course ; those who
acted on her instructions most faithfully, just as in the
parallel case of child and parent, obtained, witliout
seeking it, a proof of their truth by so acting. This is
the condition to which every true Catholic among us
burns, so far as it may be granted, to restore the Eng
lish Church ; and in such a state of things, the study
of church history, though always, of course, full of
interest, nay, of essential importance, would still be
only one theological study out of many ; it would by
no means have that peculiar exclusive nature which
our unhappy circumstances now give it."* " That the
Bible is in the hands of the Church, to be dealt with
in puch a way as the Church shall consider best for
the expression of her own mind at the time — may
surely be considered a Catholic axiom."!
* Vol. xxxi, pp. 97, 98. See also pp. 83, 84.
t Vol. xxix, p. 453.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 63
" As to the field on which their judgment is to be
exercised, some say the text of Scripture without note
or comment ; others, with the best note and comment
attainable ; others, again, the works of the Christian
writers, accounted orthodox, during the first five centu
ries ; while others consider it proved, whether a priori,
or from Scripture, or from tradition, that there is some
infallible guide, and enforce the duty of persons at
some period of their life (whomever and whenever)
removing themselves, to the utmost of their ability,
from the homes of their childhood, as it were, into the
highway of speculation, and looking about with calm
and unbiased eyes to recognise this promised guide.
. . . Widely different, then, is the subject matter where
on these various classes exercise their judgment, and
widely different are the results at which they usually
arrive ; but in the principle itself they all agree, of
private, independent, deliberate choice, aforethought
and of set purpose. . . . We consider, then, that the
principle, involved in any one of these four alterna
tives, is highly offensive to God ; and that while the
idea of deciding without prejudice on moral subjects
is in itself (however men may deceive themselves) as
wild and visionary, as would be that of detaching our
selves from the conditions of time and space in order
to choose our side, at the same time, in whatever
proportion success may crown our efforts, in that very
proportion (saving, indeed, the last alternative of fol
lowing a guide believed infallible) should we succeed
also in overthrowing the very foundations of moral
belief, and precluding ourselves from the possibility
of a stable and genuine conviction founded on evi-

64 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
dence. It would appear sufficiently from much less
than we have said, that no- two ideas can be more
distinct, whichever be the true one, than the duty of
following the authority of the English Church, and
according to it a generous and unsuspicious loyalty in
the first instance, as being the Church wherein God's
providence has placed us, or, on the other hand, of
going along with the English Church, because she
proves her doctrines, or rather what are commonly
considered her doctrines, to the satisfaction of our
private judgment."*
All this is as pure Romanism as what I have quoted
above from Dr. Harding. It goes to supersede entirely
all private judgment, both with regard to the sense of
Scripture and the sense of antiquity. It makes it the
business oi the Church to unfold both. According to
this, the voice of the Church is the rule of faith — neither
Scripture nor tradition are entitled to the honour of
such an appellation. It has never been a secret that
Romanists, with all their croaking about tradition,
fathers, and councils, have as little reverence for them
as for the Scriptures themselves, and that the infallible
Church is all. But this is bold ground for Churchmen.
Most high-Churchmen, it may be presumed, still
encourage those who have the means to prosecute the
study of antiquity, as the best means of ascertaining the
meaning of Holy Scripture. But for such as are not
in a situation to pursue these investigations to ad-
* Vol. xxxii, pp. 208, 209. The article frpm which the last
quotations- are made is a laboured effort to prove that we must
receive the " dogmas" of the Church upon the Church's " author
ity," entirely irrespective of all reasons.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 65
vantage they wouW provide a substitute. They still
adhere to the position that the sense of the Scriptures
is to be found in tradition, and would make the Church
responsible for the accurate development of that sense
through the medium of antiquity, for the advantage of
the unlearned and unstable.
Well indeed it is, if the people must have the sense
of Scripture through the medium of ancient tradition,
that " the Church" has made ample provision to pro
cure and hand such sense over to them. For)it would
be utterly overwhelming to an ordinary mind to be
told that we must read a cart-load of Greek andx Latin
folios before we can certainly know what we must do
to be saved. Well, what is the process by which
" the Church" draws the precious treasure from the
mine of antiquity, and imparts it to her hungry chil
dren, even "without their seeking it?" Do all her
priests read and understand all the holy fathers, the
decrees of councils, &c. ? Not one in a hundred of
them has ever read, in the originals, half a dozen of
the fathers. The English Church, for the present,
until she can, by the aid of her faithful sons and
mighty champions at Oxford, save herself from her
"present degraded position," points her children to
her Book of Common Prayer as a faithful, if
not an infallible echo of antiquity. Mr. Newman
says itEe church of England " transmits the ancient
Catholic faith simply and intelligibly — to follow the
Church, THEN, in this day, is to follow the Prayer-
book." Dr. Hook conducts us to the same result, in connec
tion with an account of the process by which the mass

66 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
of patristical traditions was transferred by the reformers
to the Prayer-book. He says, —
" Intent, not on pleasing the people, not on gaining
popularity, not on consulting the spirit of the age, but
on establishing and maintaining the truth as it is in
Jesus, they compared the ancient Liturgies of the
Church of England, in the first instance, with Scrip
ture, discarding at once what was plainly and palpably
contrary thereto ; such customs, for instance, as pray
ing in an unknown tongue, and seeking the interces
sion of dead saints :* they then compared them with
the ancient rituals, renouncing all usages not clearly
primitive ; and, studying deeply the writings of the
fathers, they imbodied the doctrines which had been
universally received in the primitive church, in that
which is the result and glory of their labours, the Book
of Common Prayer. — In taking the Prayer-book for
your guide to the right understanding of Scripture —
the whole Prayer-book, creeds, catechism, articles,!
baptismal office, office for the eucharist, office for
* When Dr. Hook wrote this, the Oxford system had not fully
developed itself. Now the Oxfordists openly advocate the inter
cession of the saints. For one of their acknowledged doctrines
is, that " the saints" in " the intermediate state" " pray for us, and
that our prayers benefit them." So Dr. Hook must take back
this incautious and erroneous concession.
t The Thirty-nine Articles are now admitted by the Oxfordists
to be, at least in their phraseology, anticatholic. Mr. Newman
has made an ineffectual effort in Tract No. 90 to give them a
Catholic sense. But it must require a mind of singular obliquity
to concede that these Articles have the sanction of " the consen
tient voice of the universal primitive church," and yet to maintain
that this " consentient voice" sanctions all the Romish dogmas
which the Oxford divines now boldly and explicitly adopt.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 67
the ordaining of bishops, priests, and deacons — ^you
take for your guide the consentient voice of the uni
versal primitive church."* After quoting this passage,
the good bishop of New-Jersey adds, " In other words,
the faith once delivered to the saints."!
We now are able clearly to see the Catholic theory
as to the process and-the media of divine communica
tion with the mass of men — the means by which God
reveals his will. First, he gave the Scriptures as the
record of truth, but leaving them blind and imperfect,
to supply their deficiency as a revelation he ordered
the apostles to give the sense orally, (or rather, this
oral sense was given anterior to the record itself, as
we have seen from Archdeacon Manning,) which sense
was reduced to writing by the fathers. Next, the
writings of the fathers being voluminous, and only in
dead languages, the reformers digested, condensed,
and translated them, and gave us the result in the
Book of Common Prayer. Now, there being many
things in this book that common minds and weak
consciences are not able fully to settle or understand,
the priest gives to such the true sensc^ But here, on
* See " The Gospel, and the Gospel only, the Basis of Edu
cation." t Convocation Sermon, p. 27.
t In the Preface to the Book of Common Prayer we have
the following remedy for all misunderstandings : — " Forasmuch
as nothing can be so plainly set forth but doubts may arise
in the use and practice of the same ", to appease all such
diversity, (if any arise,) and for the resolution of all doubts con.
ceming the manner how to understand, do, and execute the
things contained in this book; the parties that so doubt shall
alway resort to the bishop of the diocess, who by his discretion
shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same.

68 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
the final step of the process, a trifling difficulty occurs.
For priests, bishops, and archbishops, equally canoni
cally authorized and apostolically commissioned, hap
pen to differ upon vital points. There is no consent
among them, even as to the sense of some articles of
the creed, and there is more discrepancy as to the
authority and meaning of the Thirty-ni^ Articles.
What shall be done now ? Shall we follow Archbishop
Laud or Archbishop Tillotson? Bishop" Peafippn or
Mr. Newman? '\; , "'.i.
Archdeacon Manning says, " But, in fact, the mean
ing and intention of the creed is never disputed ; the
whole controversy turns on the meaning of Scripture."*
That this statement is not true, is evident enough to
all who are acquainted with the diversity of expositions
upon the creed which have been put forth by Church
men in modern times, to say nothing of the ancien^!;
controversies upon this formulary.!
And if the bishop be in doubt, he may send for the resolution
thereof to the archbishop."
* Appendix, p. 78.
t The article in the creed on the holy Catholic Church, Bishop
Pearson makes to assert " the existence of the church of Christ."
That is, when we say, " 1 believe in the holy Catholic Church,"
we mean, / helier>e in the fact that there is such a church.
Archbishop Seeker takes the same view of this article. He says,
" In this holy Catholic Church our creed professes belief. But
the meaning is not, that we engage to believe all things, without
exception, of which the majority of the Church, at any time, shall
be persuaded : and much less, what the rulers of it, or, it may
be, a small part of them, who may please to call themselves the
Church, shall at any time require : for then we must believe many
plain falsehoods, uncertainties without number, and contrary
doctrines, as contrary parties prevail." Agam : " As believing

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRA.CTICE. 69
We see, then, precisely how near we are brought ,
to the original fountain of truth. God speaks ; the
fathers explain the sense of his words ; the reformers
explain the sense of the fathers ; and the priests ex
plain the sense of the reformers. Surely we " are not
far fxc^ «&e kingdom of heaven !" But we must not
go.dSbiiast: We are not absolutely obliged " at pre-
siniH' to waive all exercise of our own eyes and ears ;
we nKuy.have.the Prayer-book, and even the Bible, in
our hahds, a"M exercise some degree of private judg
ment in relation to their contents ; but when the Church
shall leave her " present degraded position," and come
back to the good old times of " St. Augustine and St.
Thomas Aquinas," then all her true children will im
plicitly " follow the Church's instructions ;" and then
tjie Bible and the Prayer-book may be exchanged for
¦.'auricular confession and the mass ! This will bring
us One step nearer the original source of information,
and will lop off all the vexatious excrescences ap-
in God, means only believing that there is a God ; and believing
in the resurrection, means only believing that there shall be a
resurrection : so believing in the holy Catholic Church, means
only believing that by our Saviour's appointment there was
founded, and through his mercy shall ever continue, a society
of persons, of what nation or nations is indifferent, who have faith
in his name, and obey his laws.'" But Mr. Newman, with the
Romanists, understands this article to mean, " / believe what the
holy Catholic Church sats." Here is a wide and radical differ
ence between the two expositions. Now who shall decide ?
Archdeacon Manning tells us that " the Church has the power
of explanation."" But who is "the Church 1" And where is
the " explanation ?"
1 See Lectures on the Catechism, vol. i, pp. 221, 222.
» Rule of Faith, p. 34.

70 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
pended to the Catholic system by the English reform
ers. And is " this the condition to which every true
Catholic burns to restore the English Church ?" So
it would seem, the British Critic being judge.
There can be no doubt but the Puseyites stand
upon the divine authority and infallibility of the Church.
This position is now boldly and unequivocally taken
by their leading writers. When the new movement
first commenced we heard much about antiquity —
apostolical traditions — the Catholic rule of Vincentius,
&c. But now they tell us plainly that private judg
ment upon antiquity is as fairly out of the question as
private judgment upon the Scriptures, and that we
must take " the authority of the Church" for every
thing, without waiting to understand the grounds of
her " dogmas," " The duty oi following the authority
of the Church of England" is a very different thing
from " going along with" her " because she proves her
doctrines, to the satisfaction of private judgment." Im
plicit obedience to the voice of the Church is the bounden
duty of all. And as " the Bible is in the hands of the
Church, to be dealt with in such a way as the Church
shall consider best for the expression of her own
mind," when the English Church shall " consider
best" to deal with it as the Church of Rome does —
that is, withhold it from the people altogether — the
Oxford movement will have reached the ne plus ultra
of perfection for which the Tractarians now so ar
dently labour. This will be the legitimate practical
issue of the system of Church prerogative for which
many Churchmen now contend, who shrink from such
a result.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 71
The following is the language of a Churchman of
our own country and times : — " Why may not the
authority of Scripture itself be set aside by the indi
vidual as freely as that of the Church Catholic, which
gives him the Scriptures ? If, on the authority of the
Church of Christ, the Christian receives his Bible,
(as in point of fact he does,) on what ground of con
sistency does he stand when he refuses to listen to its
authority when teaching it to him ? Trusting the word
of the Church in greater, why not in minor questions ?
or was there a church, we ask, to form the canon of
Scripture, and is there none to interpret it ? — a church
for the early Christians, and none for those that come
after? Did Christianity begin with an authoritative
teacher, when its individual members were few and
united, and such bond of unity consequently less
needed, and is it now to be held destitute of such,
when, through the many men and many minds of
Christendom, such bond of Christian unity is essential
to its very existence ? If the judgment of the indivi
dual be the adequate test of Christian truth, then can
there be no such thing as a Christian church, or, at
any rate, churches as numerous as individual Chris
tians, since individuality, that is, difference of opinion,
is as essential to the spiritual mind of man, as indivi
duality of features is to his animal frame."*
What is this, short of resolving the Church into an
authoritative instructer, who, of course, has a right to
choose her own method of imparting instruction, and
to require implicit obedience of all ? If we must go to
* Review of Palmer on the Church, New-York Review,
vol. X, p. 109.

72 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
the Church both for the Bible and the sense of it,
when she shall see proper to give us the sense without
the book, what right will we have to complain ? Of
what material importance is it to us to have the book
at all, provided we have the sense it expresses in the
ear of the Church 1 The Romanists alone in practice
carry out this principle to its legitimate consequences ;
but we may well expect that they will be followed in
this respect by the Anglican Church, so soon as she
shall be raised from her " present degraded condition"
to the lofty eminence which will enable her to put her
foot upon the neck of kings, and trample down the
British constitution. And doubtless, " this is the con
dition to which every true Catholic . . . burns ... to re
store the English Church." But as Protestants, we
may all m6st devoutly hope, that, if the unholy fire
which the Tractators have kindled up in the breasts of
pseudo-Catholics cannot be extinguished, they may
continue to burn on until they are reduced to ashes,
before their antichristian schemes are consummated.
May God avert the judgment, of the extinction of the
remnant of liberty and the few rays of light which
survive in the English Church !

SECTION VH.
Principles upon which Tradition is to be interpreted.
We will next proceed to consider the principles
upon which we are instructed, by our Anglican advo
cates for tradition, to conduct our investigations in
seeking for the sense of Scripture in the records of
antiquity.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 73
We would naturally be led to suppose, from the
language of Catholics, both Roman and Anglican, that
the holy fathers speak clearly and explicitly upon
every important doctrine of religion, and that we only
need to learn what theysay to know fully- .the^mjnd
of the Holy Spirit. But/when we come to particulars,
we find that these infallible guides have left many
things upon record which we must not believe, and so
great is the difficulty, after all, of settling the true
catholic doctrine by this means, that we stand in need
of certain rules of judgment by which we must be
governed in our conclusions. We must have a rule
of faith to judge of the application of the rule of faith.
The rule we are to carry with us in the study of tra- "^
dition is embraced in these three words : " universal
ity, antiquity, and consent." This rule is itself quite
ancient, being proposed by Vincentius Lirinensis, or,-
Vincent of Lirin, a monk of the fifth century^^'It
would seem that so early as this author (and indeed,
as might be shown, much earlier) there were rival
claims to the support of ecclesiastical tradition. The
Arians, and other heretics, claimed the authority of
the fathers and the tradition of the church. And
those writings, then comparatively fresh from the hand
of their authors, which are now considered as infallible
guides to the right sense of Scripture, were appealed
to by both heretics and Catholics. Hence it became
necessary to fix upon some great principles, by the
application of which the true doctrine could be cer
tainly gathered from ecclesiastical records. We will
now give the rule from the " Commonitory" of Vincent
in the translation of Reeves, published in London, 1709:
4

74 NOT TRADlTIO^f, BUT SCRIFTURE,
" Certain Rules for the safe conduct of a Christian in
the choice of his opinions.
" And for us who are in the bosom of the Catholic
Church, it ought to be our first and principal care to
choose such doctrines as we find to have been believed
in all places, at all times, and by all the faithful. For
there is nothing truly and properly catholic, (as the
word sufficiently declares,) but what truly and fully
comprehends all these. And we are thus catholic,
when we follow universality, antiquity, and unanimous
consent ; but we follow universality, when we profess
that only to be the true faith which is professed by the
church 'all the world over. In like manner, we are
followers of antiquity, when we religiously adhere to
that sense of Scripture which manifestly obtained
among the holy fathers, our predecessors. And, lastly,
we follow consent, when we embrace the definitions
and opinions of almost all, if not all, the bishops and
teachers in the ancient church." — Chap. 3.
The translator tells us that, " in exact conformity to
this rule, the Church of England professeth to defend
and maintain no other doctrine than that which is truly
catholic and apostolic ; and for such warranted not
only by the written word of God, but also by the con
current testimonies of the ancient fathers." And in
" Tracts for the Times, No. 78," we have a " catena
patrum" — chain of fathers, that is, of the old English
divines, who are alleged to have maintained the prin
ciple of Vincent ; and are told, in a note, that " this
tract has just been republished, with a translation, at
Oxford, and should be carefully studied by all who wish

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 75
to understand in what sense the English Church up
holds tradition."*
So we may understand this famous rule of Vincent
as having been fully admitted by the old English di
vines, and unhesitatingly adopted by the Tractarians.
All we have to do, then, when we would find what
God would have us to believe or do, is to find out from
the fathers, 1. What has the sanction of the universal
church — or what has been received everywhere. This
we shall learn as soon as we can become acquainted
with the opinions of every branch of the Catholic
Church from the days of the apostles down to the
time of Vincent, and collate and compare them, and
gather out of them a common sentiment. And when
this small task is performed, then we must find out,
2. What is most ancient. This will require no little
attention, for some fathers and some doctrines are
older than others. If, then, we find a doctrine or a
usage to be older than its opposite, so far we are safe ;
but we must mind well our dates, or we are at once
far from the course. 3. More than all this : all our
doctrines and usages must have the sanction of consent.
They must be, as our oracle says, " the definitions and
opinions of almost all, if not all, the bishops and teachers
in the ancient church." In finding out this we must,
of course, consult with great care all that " almost all
the bishops and teachers" have said ; a work which a
monk, in the course of a long life of seclusion from
society, might partially, and could but partially, accom
plish. But we must go the whole course before we
can be sure we are right. What a glorious way this !
« Tracts for the Times, vol. ii, p. 420.

76 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
We may lay the Scriptures aside, and just find Out
what has been believed everywhere, at all times, and
by all men, and then we understand the whole mystery
of the faith !*
* We have seen already that the British Critic leaps over all
the diificulties of this course by going over to the Romish doctrine
of the unlimited authority of the Church to teach. In a review
of Dr. Jelf's sermon, this great organ of Puseyism urges this view
by presenting the real difficulties in the study of antiquity more
strongly than I have done in the text. Dr. Jelf says, " That
doctrine cannot but be divine and true, which can be established
as agreeable to Scripture by the testimony of so many independ
ent churches in divers countries and from the earliest time. . . .
This seems the true standard ... by which to try the historical
facts [Dr. Jelf's italics ;] . . . and to this, therefore, I propose to
refer." To this the Critic replies : " On the whole, indeed, the
sermon shows plainly that this is the standard to which the author
refers, private judgment exercised not solely on Scripture, but, as
interpreting this, on the history ' of the earliest, and therefore the
purest ages.' Here, then, let us note one preliminary difficulty ;
that he has not helped his hearers on this very important ques
tion, What are they to do while the historical examination to
which he invites them is pending ? On what religious system are
they meanwhile to proceed ? The ground on which he incul-
cates the duty of following our Church is that Rome has inno.
vated and corrupted the faith ; well, what are his hearers to do
until they are satisfied that the allegation is true ? Mr. Caswall
tells us of a religious American, who having joined the Method.
ists, and then apprehending ' that they might be in a state of
schism,' ' shut himself up in his study and applied himself closely
to the perusal of books on the subject,' ' during which investiga
tion he attended no place of worship, and determined to attend
none until he had succeeded in discovering the true church."
We can hardly suppose that Dr. Jelf would recommend this
course, as tending to produce the habit of mind which will decide
> Caswall on the Amencan Church, pp. 327, 228.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 77
But is this rule definite ? la it inteUigible ? Or, in
Other words, does it answer to the character of a rule?
Do we not need another rule still by which to measure
and adjust this rule ? Yes, we do, and thanks to Mr.
Newman, he gives us one ; or, at least, a commentary
upon it. He says, " The rule of Vincent is not of a
mathematical or demonstrative character, but moral,
and requires practical judgihent and good sense to
apply it. For instance, what is meant by being taught
always ? Does it mean in every century, or in every
year, or every month ? Does everywhere mean in every
country, or in every diocess ? And does the consent
of fathers require us to produce the direct testimony
of every one of them ? How many fathers, how many
places, how many instances, constitute a fulfilment of
the test proposed ? It is, then, from the nature of the
case, a condition which never can be satisfied as fully
as it might have been ; it admits of various and unequal
application in various instances ; and what degree of
application is enough, must be decided by the same
principles which guide us in the conduct of life, which
determine us in politics, or trade, or war ; which lead
us to accept revelation at all, for which we have but
rightly on religious subjepts ; yet he has really left no room for
any other. Nor can it be said that this perplexity would remain
but for a short time ; for our own parts, we should be inclined to
say that, On a very moderate computation, five times the amount
of man's natural life might qualify a person, endowed with ex
traordinary genius and power of research, to have some faint
'notion (though this we doubt) on which side truth lies ; but all
must confess that a series of many actively-employed years would
be necessary.'" ' Vol. xxxii, pp. 313, 214.

78 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
probability to show at most, nay, to believe in the
existence of an intelligent Creator."*
/- Now, reader, here you have Mr. Newman's rule,
upon Vincent's rule, upon the rule of faith ; and how
much the wiser are you for all these rules upon rules ?
You are just left where your divinely-authorised guides
found you, with a stock of common sense which, thanks
to Mr. Newman, you are permitted to put in requisi
tion. Though we are explicitly denied the right of
private judgment upon the Scriptures themselves, and
constructively, at least, upon tradition, we may, it
seems, after so wide a remove from God's word as is
occasioned by the intervention of two rules which we
are not able to use to any good purpose, exercise our
own judgment. The final rule is, then, that the " ap
plication" of the one next preceding " must be decided
by the same principles which guide us in the conduct
of life." This is a very general rule indeed, and, in
fact, just nothing to the purpose. If some wise Tract-
arian will now give us another rule to apply to Mr.
Newman's rule, or commentary, that will be intelli
gible and will work, he will confer upon the world a
lasting obligation. Then, perhaps, with the help of
all these wondrously wise rules, we may find out that
black is not white, nor white black \
Upon this famous rule Bishop Stillingfleet, as quoted
by Mr.Goode, makes the following sensible remarks :
"Wise men who have thoroughly considered of
Vincentius his way, though in general they cannot but
approve of it so far as to think it highly improbable
that there should be antiquity, universality, and consent
» Prophetic Office of the Church.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 79
against the true and genuine sense of Scripture, yet
when they consider this way of Vincentius, with all
those cautious restrictions and limitations set down by
him, they are apt to think that he hath put men to
A WILD goose chase TO FIND OUT ANYTHING ACCORD
ING TO HIS RULE ; and that St. Augustine spake a great
deal more to the purpose when he spake concerning
all the writers of the Church, that although they had
never so much learning and sanctity, he did not think it
true because they thought so, but because they persuaded
him to believe it true, either from the authority cf Scrip
ture or some probable reason."*
But it must not be forgotten that the British Critic
now explicitly disclaims putting the people in general
upon this " wild-goose chase," fully admitting that the
ascertainment of the sense of Scripture, through the
study of antiquity, is to nearly all the world utterly
impossible. And in this every sensible man must
agree with him. But another high-Church authority
to which we have referred prescribes as a remedy for
the difficulties in the way of a personal investigation
of antiquity, faith in the reformers. Says he, " But
those who have neither time nor acquirements for
such investigation have only to lean on the whole host
of Anglican reformers."^ As for the great mass of
men, then, they must believe that the reformers have
given us a faithful expose of antiquity in the Prayer-
book. Then faith comes in — ^faith in the reformers —
faith in the Prayer-book — and supersedes all reason
ing, and of course all necessity for the catholic rule
of Vincent. Now I am too much of a rationalist for
* Divine Rule, vol. ii, p. 350. t See page 55.

80 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
all this. I must look a little into the grounds of the
allegation that the Prayer-book is a faithful record of
apostolic traditions. In a previous section I have
presented considerations which bear upon this point ;
but it is so vital a portion of the theory of tradition, as
held by Churchmen, that I shall be justified in resuming
it here, and adding somewhat to the strength of my
argument. And in the first place, I would call the attention of
the reader to the history of the Prayer-book, and the
mutations which it has undergone. That Cranmer
was a diligent student of antiquity cannot be denied.
But that he considered traditions " an unwritten reve
lation," and that he felt himself sacredly bound to em
brace, in the Articles and Liturgy of the Church of
England, all the doctrines and usages of the primitive
church, without any regard to their being taught in the
Holy Scriptures, is not true. Nor is it true that the
matter of the Prayer-book is all so purely primitive
that there is no reason to doubt but that it truly sets
forth the " unwritten word of God." For if so, how
has it come to pass that this Prayer-book has under
gone so many changes ?
The Prayer-book was first published in the reign of
Edward the Sixth, in 1549. But in 1552, this same
book, true as it was to the type of antiquity, was re
vised, and underwent many important alterations. In
the first book we notice auricular confession distinctly
admitted. In the homily appointed to precede the
communion we have the following : — " And if there
be any of you whose conscience is troubled and
grieved in anything, lacking comfort or counsel, let

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 81
him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned
priest, taught in the law of God, and confess and open
his sin and grief secretly, that he may receive such
ghostly counsel, advice, and comfort, that his con
science may be relieved, and that of us (as of the
ministers of God and of the Church) he may receive
comfort and absolution, to the satisfaction of his mind,
and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness ; requiring
such as shall be satisfied with a general confession
not to be offended with them that do use, to their fur
ther satisfying, the auricular and secret confession to
the priest."
We have also prayer for the dead. The following
is in the communion service : — " We commend unto
thy mercy (O Lord) all other thy servants, which are
departed hence from us with the sign of faith, and now
do rest in the sleep of peace ; grant unto them, we
beseech thee, thy mercy, and everlasting peace," &c.
And in the burial service a prayer is dictated to be
said for the deceased.
In the baptismal service the following form of exor
cism is found : — " I command thee, unclean spirit, in
the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost, that thou come out, and depart from these
infants, whom our Lord Jesus Christ hath vouchsafed
to call to his holy baptism, to be made members of his
body, and of his holy congregation. Therefore, thoa
cursed spirit, remember thy sentence, remember thy
judgment, remember the day to be at hand wherein
thou shalt burn in fire everlasting, prepared for the
devil and thy angels. And presume not hereafter to
exercise any tyranny toward these infants, whom
4*

82 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
Christ hath bought with his precious blood, and by
his holy baptism called to be of his flock."
The Romish custom of signing with the cross was
retained in the first Prayer-book, but the words used
on the occasion somewhat varied. The words in the
Romish Breviary are, " Receive the sign of the cross,
both in thy forehead and in thy heart, and take the
faith of the heavenly precepts." Those in the Prayer-
book : — " C. N., receive the sign of the holy cross,
both in thy forehead and in thy breast, in token that
thou shalt not be ashamed to confess thy faith in Christ
crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner against
sin, the world, and the devil, and to continue his faith
ful soldier and servant unto thy life's end. Amen."
In the communion service there is an offeratory
prayer in which are these words : — " Sanctify these
thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they
may be unto us the body and blood of thy most dearly
beloved Son, Jesus Christ."
But all these, with still other things which I cannot
now mention, were, in the revised Prayer-book of 1 552,
expunged, as essentially Romish in their character and
tendency. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth the Prayer-
book was again revised, and'several things which had
been left out in the edition of 1552 were restored.
Among these was the sign of the cross, with a form
of words connected with the ceremony still different
from either the Romish or that adopted by the re
formers in the first Prayer-book. Which of all these
" came from the apostles" we have yet to learn. This
book received its final revision under the reigns of
Charles II., when the office for " the baptism of such

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 83
as are of riper years'' was first inserted.* Some
of the alterations were made by the bishops, some by
the reigning sovereigns, and some by nobody knows
who. But they all must, of course, have been in
accordance with " the consentient voice of the uni
versal primitive church !"
Dr. Brett, a learned nonjuror, charges the Church
of England with a vital omission in her eucharistic
service, on account. of her not making "an oblation
of the sacramental body and blood of Christ." This
charge is founded upon the fact that the oblatory
prayer retained in the first Prayer-book of Edward the
Sixth was stricken out in the second, and has never
been restored. With this complaint the Tractarians
deeply sympathize. The following evidence is exhi
bited by Mr. Good. He says, " How far our oppo
nents agree in reality with Dr. Brett in this view may
be seen in Mr. Fronde's Remains, Mr. Newman's
Letter to Dr. Fausset, and Mr. Keble's Preface to
Hooker. By Mr. Froude it is said that our present
communion service is ' a judgment on the Church,'
and that there would be gain in ' replacing it by a
good translation of the Liturgy of St. Peter,' (a eu
phemism for the mass-book;) by Mr. Newman, that
our reformers, in not adopting ' the canon of the mass,'
which is called a ' sacred and most precious monument
of the apostles,' ' mutilated the tradition of fifteen
hundred years,' and that ' our present condition is a
judgment on us for what they did ;' and by Mr. Keble,
that our reformers, in their revision of the Prayer-
* See Archdeacon Echard's History of England — Charles II.,
1662.

84 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
book, have ' given up altogether the ecclesiastical
tradition regarding certain very material points in the
celebration, if not in the doctrine, of the holy eucha
rist.'"* To all this Dr. Hook and Bishop Doane doubtless
most heartily consent. And yet they tell us that " the
whole Prayer-book" — ^not excepting the " office for the
eucharist," which, it seems, has been so miserably
mangled — constitutes " the consentient voice of the
universal primitive church," or "the faith once deli
vered to the saints !"
But the difficulty has been much increased by the
action of the Protestant Episcopal Church in this
country. So far was she from receiving the digest
of antiquity presented to her by the mother Church
with implicit faith, that she has almost entirely new-
modelled the whole, and made still more fatal retrench
ments than those of which the Tractarians complain.
She has even laid hands upon those " precious monu
ments of antiquity, the creeds," wholly throwing over
board " the Athanasian,'' and suffering " the minister"
to mutilate " the Apostles'," by leaving out " the de
scent into hell," and to use either the " Apostles' " or
" Nicene" at discretion. But I will here give the
reader the whole account of the emendations of the
American Prayer-book, as given by Dr. (now Bishop)
Short, in a note found in his History of the Church
of England. This author says, —
" With the exception of one or two particulars, the
changes appear to be judiciously made ; and as it is
not a book which falls in the way of every English
• See " The Case as it is," p. 22.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 85
reader, a brief statement of some of its chief variations
from our own may not prove unacceptable. Through
out the whole, there are many small verbal alterations,
where obsolete terms, or forms of expression, are ex
changed for such as are now in common use ; and
most of those sentences and words are altered which
are liable to foolish cavils, or real objections. It
begins with a preface, which modestly justifies the
alterations. "1. In the calendar, the lessons are a good deal
changed. About one-half the first lessons for Sundays
are the same, and there are also proper second lessons
from the New Testament, appointed for each Sunday.
Those for saints' days are nearly the same as in ours.
In the general calendar of lessons, the chapters com
posing the first lessons are so divided, that all those
taken from the Apocrypha, and which are read in our
Church from September to November, are omitted.
The second lessons in morning service, taken from
the Gospels, are so divided, that the Gospels are read
over only twice during the year, and the Epistles, as
in our Church, three times.
" 2. In the general arrangement of the three ser
vices which are used together in morning prayers in
our Church, such portions of each as are virtually
repetitions may be omitted at the discretion of the
minister. Thus one creed only need be read; the
Lord's Prayer and the collect for the day need only
be used once ; and the Gloria Patri repeated only at
the end of the psalms for the day, or the Gloria in
excelsis substituted for it. Thus also a large portion
of the Litany (from ' 0 Christ, hear us,' to ' as we do

86 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
put our trust in thee') may be omitted ; and thus the
morning prayer, litany, and communion service, are
converted, as far as possible, into one uniform office.
" 3. Of the three forms of absolution in our Prayer-
book, that used in the visitation of the sick is wholly
omitted ; and either the form contained in the morning
prayer, or that taken from the communion service, may
be used at the discretion of the minister.
" 4. With regard to the psalms, there are ten por
tions of them selected, and ordered to be used instead
of those of the day, at the discretion of the minister ;
and in cases of fasts and thanksgivings, where none
are appointed by authority, the minister is allowed to
choose them for himself The version is the same as
that in our Liturgy. ,
" 5. The Athanasian Creed is wholly omitted, and
the minister may use, at his discretion, the Nicene, or
Apostles'. "6. In the evening prayers, the Magnificat and Song
of Symeon are omitted, and the 92d psalm introduced.
" 7. The occasional prayers are newly arranged,
and several new ones, as well as corresponding thanks
givings, introduced.
" 8. In the communion, no previous notice is to be
required of the communicants, who are all to receive,
kneeling. There is a new additional preface for Tri-.
nity Sunday ; and a prayer of oblation, partly new, in
which the invocation of the three persons of the Tri
nity is reintroduced from the Liturgy of 1549.
" 9. In baptism, the parents are allowed to stand as
sponsors, and the use of the cross may be omitted at
their desire. The rubric about baptized children being

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 87
undoubtedly saved is omitted ; and in the baptism of
persons of riper years, all mention of informing the
bishop is left out.
" 10. The catechism is nearly the same. Ministers
are not ordered to catechise after the second lesson.
The confirmation is nearly the same.
"11. In matrimony, the ceremony may take place
in a house, and the prayers are a little altered, and
some are omitted.
" 12. In the visitation of the sick, all notice of pri
vate confession and absolution is omitted ; the psalm
is changed to the- 130th, and there are some new
occasional prayers at the end.
" 13. In the burial of the dead, the psalms are
shortened, and all expressions changed which seem
to apply to the state of the person buried.
" 14. The churching of women is much shortened,
and may be confined to a single prayer. The offering
to be applied to the relief of distressed women in
childbirth. "15. The form of prayer to be used at sea is nearly
the same.
" 16. The commination is wholly omitted.
" 17. The form of ordaining priests and deacons,
and consecrating bishops, is nearly the same.
" 18. There are added, a form of prayer for the
visitation of prisoners, a prayer of thanksgiving for the
fruits of the earth, a form of family prayer, a form for
consecrating churches, (which is nearly the same as
that published by Bishop Andrews,) and an office of
institution. " 19. The Thirty-nine Articles are hardly changed.

88 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
In the eighth, all mention of the Athanasian Creed is
left out; the twenty-first, about assembUng councils,
is left out. In the thirty-fifth, the Homilies are allowed
of as containing sound doctrine, but are not to be read
till they have been revised." — Pp. 590, 591.
Now, in view of these radical changes in the Ame
rican Prayer-book, how are we to understand the fol
lowing language of the learned bishop of New-Jersey :
" To one and all, then, unlearned not less than learned,
we say, with admirable Doctor Hook, ' in taking the
Prayer-book for your guide to the right understanding
of Scripture — the whole Prayer-book, creeds, cate
chism, articles, baptismal office, office for the eucha
rist, office for the ordaining of bishops, priests, and
deacons — you take for your guide the consentient
voice of the universal primitive church' — in other
words, ' the faith once delivered to the saints.' "*
It is certain, of course, that Dr. Hook refers to the
English Prayer-book, containing " the Athanasian
Creed," " Commination," &c., &c. And the query is,
whether it is this book, with all the parts enumerated,
preserved in their integrity, that Bishop Doane en
dorses as " the faith once delivered to the saints," or
the expurgated edition which, it may be presumed, he
uses himself Perhaps this inquiry may be thought
impertinent ; but certainly, when we are in search for
an accredited apostolical commentary upon the Scrip
tures, it does not become us to be satisfied with mere
generalities. If we are permitted at all to look into
the character and claims of such a book, we cannot
pass unnoticed a matter of so much importance as
* Convocation Sermon, p. 27.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 89
these American emendations. If I trust to a tradition
ary exposition upon the Bible, I want it perfect in all
its parts. And if the English Prayer-book is the
authentic traditionary record, the American is not —
but is a mutilated record not worthy of confidence.
If Bishop Doane can hold to the English Prayer-book
as " the faith once delivered to the saints," and yet
approve of the American Prayer-book, which is so
essentially different, and in which so many vital parts
of \h3,i faith are given up, I see not why he cannot give
up the whole. To characterize as " the faith once
delivered to the saints" both these books would be an
absurdity too gross even for a Romanist, and much
more so for the bishop of New- Jersey.
But before I close this section, I beg leave to show,
from the most unquestionable sources, that the claim
which is set up for the apostolical origin of the Liturgy
of the Common Prayer is wholly unfounded. The
learned Bingham is admitted to be good authority by
all grades of Churchmen. He maintains that the
ancient Christians used set forms in public worship ;
but makes such admissions, and so presents the facts,
as to render entirely baseless the claims which are
set up to high antiquity for the Liturgy of the Prayer-
book. He maintains that " every bishop was at liberty
in the first ages to order the form of divine service in
his own church," and fully admits that the primitive
liturgies were not preserved and handed down to suc
ceeding ages. The following is his statement : —
" When the extraordinary spirit of prophecy ceased,
then the rulers of the Church supphed this want by
proper forms of their own composition, according to

90 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
Christian prudence and discretion. And this seems
to have been the true original of liturgies, or stated
forms of divine service. But why, then, have we none
of these liturgies remaining entire and perfect to this
day ? I answer. There may be several reasons assign.ed
for this. One is, that the bishops at first made every
one their own liturgy, for the private use, as we may
call it, of their own particular churches. And there
fore the use of them not extending further than the
precincts of their own diocesses, there was_ little know
ledge of them beyond the bounds of those churches,
and not much care to preserve them but only for the
uses of such churches, for which they were particu
larly designed. That every bishop had at first this
power and privilege to compose and order the form
of divine service for his own church, I have shown in
another place,* where I had occasion to discourse of
the independency of bishops, and their absolute power
in their own church : where, among other things, I
observed, that as they had the privilege to word their
own creeds, so they had the privilege to frame their
own liturgy ; which privilege they retained for several
ages."! Again he meets the query, " Why none of the
ancient liturgies are now remaining ?" more at length,
thus : " If it be inquired, why then none of the an
cient liturgies are now remaining, as they were at
first composed for the use of particular churches?
I answer. Several reasons may be assigned for this.
1 . The very liberty, which every bishop had to frame
* Book ii, chap, vi, sec. 2.
t Origines Ecclesiasticae, book xiii, chap, v, sec. 1.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 91
the liturgy of his own church, was one reason
why none of these are now remaining perfect and
entire, as they were at first composed for the use of
such a particular church. For the design of them
being only for the use of such a particular church,
there was no great reason to be very solicitous,
either to communicate and diffuse the knowledge of
them to other churches, or to preserve them entire to
posterity, who were not precisely tied up to the use
of them, but might frame others at their own discretion.
2. It is not improbable, but that, as a late learned
French writer has observed,* the ancient liturgies
were for some ages only certain forms of worship
committed to memory, and known by practice, rather
than committed to writing, which is the only certain
way of preserving such sort of monuments to late
posterity. This seems very probable, because in the
persecutions under Diocletian and his associates,
though a strict inquiry was made after the books of
Scripture, and other things belonging to the church,
which were often delivered up by the traditores to be
burnt, yet we never read of any ritual books, or books
of divine service, delivered up among them. Which
is an argument, that their forms of worship and admi
nistration of the sacraments were not then generally
committed to writing, or at least not compiled in books,
distinct from the Psalms or other books of Scripture :
otherwise, it is very probable, that as the Scriptures,
with other utensils and treasures of the church, were
often found by the heathens, or betrayed by aposta-
* Renaudotius. CoUectio Liturgiar. Oriental. Dissertat. i, p. 9,
torn. i. Par,, 1716.

92 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
tizing Christians, and delivered up to be burnt ; so we
should have heard something of their books of divine
worship undergoing the same fate : since they were
so curious in inquiring after the cups, and lamps, and
torches, and vestments, and other utensils and vessels
of the church, as in some of their calendars and bre-
viats we find they were, would hardly have omitted
their books of worship, as being more proper objects
of their spite and malice, had they found any such in
the Christian churches."*
Again he asserts that it was " in after ages" that
efforts were made to reduce the liturgies to uniformity.
He says, " In after ages bishops agreed by consent to
conform their liturgy to the model of the metropolitical
church of the province to which they belonged. And
then it was enacted into a law by several councils,
that the same order and uniformity should be observed
in all churches. The rudiments of this discipline
were first laid in the French churches. For in the
Council of Agde a canon was made about the year
506,! ' that one and the same order should be equally
observed in all churches of the province in all parts
of divine service.' "J
Nor were the liturgies which were written in after-
ages preserved in the churches. As says our author,
" Even those liturgies, which were most certainly
compiled in books, in the following ages, are now in a
great measure lost also by the injuries of time, as the
old Galilean, Spanish, African, and Roman liturgies,
* Origines Ecclesiasticse, book xiii, chap, v, sec. 3,
t Con. Agathens., can. xxx.
t Origines EoclesiasticEB, book xiii, chap, v, sec. 2.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 93
of which there is nothing but fragments and dismem
bered parcels now remaining. Which is a third reason
why none of those ancient liturgies are extant at this
day. The fourth and last reason, is the interpolations
and additions made to the ancient liturgies in future
ages."* _^
I will now submit the question to any Churchman,
high or low, after leaving out the selections from the
Bible, which part of the Common Prayer came from
the. apostles? Will he say the creeds? These, we
have seen, came into being piecemeal, and were not
perfected until the fourth or fifth century. Will he
say the liturgy and offices ? According to the best
high-Church authority, no liturgy was reduced to
writing, during the first ages of Christianity, and " pos
terity were not precisely tied up to the use of" the
first liturgies, "but might frame others at their own
discretion ;" and after the liturgies were reduced to
writing, which was in later ages, scarcely a vestige
of the first of these compositions escaped the ravages
of time. But will he say the Thirty-nine Articles
came from the apostles ? This would be too shocking
to common sense ;! for there is the clearest prima facie
evidence, to say nothing of the evidence of history,
that either as to their language, or sentiment, or both,
these Articles originated subsequent to the Reforma
tion. What now is left to which any sensible man
will be disposed to accord the honour of apostolic
origin ? Nothing ; absolutely nothing. _ , —— '
According to this learned writer, all claims to apos-
* See Bingham's Works, vol. iv, p. 102.
+ Will Dr. Hook and Bishop Doane pardon this ?

©4 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
tolic origin in favour of any existing liturgy must, in
the nature of things, be utterly groundless. For,
1. Each bishop composed his own creed and liturgy;
and of course they could not have been composed by
the apostles, nor without a miracle would they have
verbally harmonized with each other. 2. Whatever
these ancient forms were, they were not committed to
writing. And as the learned author admits " writing"
to be " the only certain way of preserving such sort
of monuments to late posterity," we can have no cer
tain evidence of the apostolical origin of any existing
liturgy. 3. Such was the diversity of the primitive
liturgies, that councils judged it necessary to take
measures to remedy the evil by enacting that " the
same order should be observed in all churches of the
province ;" and " bishops agreed by consent to conform
their liturgy to the model of the metropolitical church
of the province to which they belonged." And this,
be it observed, was in the sixth century, until which
time, it would seem, there had been no uniformity in
the formularies even in the same province. And sub
sequently to these acts of uniformity the same diversity
existed in different provinces, as they only contem
plated uniformity in the same province. And 4. The
earliest -written liturgies " are now in a great measure
lost by the injuries of time."
<^ Now let the reader glance back over the whole
subject, and see the route by which he has been con
ducted along to his present position. The traditions
of the Church are derived from the oral preaching of
the apostles, and constitute a part of the rule of faith
and practice, and are of divine obligation ; the Prayer-

THE RULE OF FAlTH AND PRACTICE. 95
book imbodies the whole system of ancient tradition,
so fully and exactly that " the whole Prayer-book,
creeds, catechism, articles, baptismal office, office for
the eucharist, office for the ordaining of bishops,
priests, and deacons," claims for its support " the con
sentient voice of the universal primitive church"—
and is " the faith once delivered to the saints." Ac
cording to all this, we must reckon the Prayer-book
of equal authority with the canonical Scriptures, and
of course all alterations or emendations of it as sacri
legious ! What bishop, what Christian king, what
parliament, would ever have thought of adding to and
taking from the word of God ?
But here let it be observed, that though by Tracta
rians as well as by more moderate Churchmen we
are directed to the Prayer-book for the doctrines and
usages of the primitive church — though with one con
sent they tell us this is the true exhibition of the sense
of Holy Scripture : that by " taking the Prayer-book"
we " take for our guide the consentient voice of the
primitive church," yet at the same time our advisers
are not at all agreed as to certain radical points which
have either been expunged, or have never been admit
ted into this sacred book of primitive and apostolical
traditions. We have seen that the book has undergone
a series of mutations. Though we are told that the
reformers carefully collected together such doctrines
and forms as had the sanction of the highest antiquity,
yet we find them in the course of three years making
great changes, and excluding as Romish corruptions
some of these very things. At different periods for
more than a century, various efforts were made in

96 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
England to make what was all right before still better.
In America, another effort at improvement produced
"the American Prayer-book," so that we now have
two, materially different from each other. Now the
Tractarians, after telling us that " the Church of Eng
land transmits the ancient catholic faith simply and
intelligibly" in " the Prayer-book," bethink themselves,
and declare this same book is essentially defective —
that it is no less than " a judgment on the Church,''
and that in their improvements the reformers " muti
lated the traditions of fifteen hundred years !" Amid
all these contradictions and absurdities, what can the
people, for whose benefit the Prayer-book was com
piled, do for security against radical error ?
And is there nd reason to doubt the claims which
are set up to a pure apostolic origin for the formu
laries of faith and liturgical services of the Com
mon Prayer? A careful examination of their whole
history will show that many of them are of com
paratively modern origin. The Thirty-nine Articles
are the work of the reformers, the Creeds originated
partiy in the Greek and partly in the Roman Church,
and the Liturgy is mostly of Romish origin — ^being
taken from the Roman Catholic Missal. Exorcism
and chrism, now wholly rejected, at least in practice,
by Churchmen, are as ancient as any part of the
Liturgy. And there are portions of this boasted digest
of apostolical traditions which were inserted by in
dividuals, without legal authority either civil or eccle
siastical. I make these statements after due examina
tion and reflection.*
* Those who wish to examine for themselves may consult

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 97
But I must not be understood as disparaging the
Prayer-book. All there is good in it, and that is not
a little, I love, and Can most heartily adopt. I care
not whence it came ; whether from councils, popes,
bishops, parliaments, kings, or queens ; if it is true to
the Scriptures, I most cordially take it to my heart.
But I protest against the claims which are set up for
its apostolical origin. As " the faith Once delivered
to the saints" I discard it.
Burnet's History of the Reformation, Short's History of the Church
of England, and Palmer's Antiquities of the English Ritual;
Caldwell's " History of the Conferences and other Proceeding;^
connected with the Revision of the Book of Common •Prayer,
from the year 1568 to 1690," Oxford, 1840; and " Reliquise
Baxterianae ; or, Mr. Richard Baxter's Narrative of the most
memorable Passages of his Life and Times." London, 1696.
Since this section was put in type, I have read a new work
by the Rev. W. J. Kip, entitled " The Double Witness of the
Church." This author reduces "all the primitive liturgies to
four :" these are the liturgies of St. James, of St. Peter, of St.
Mark, and of St. John. And he thinks it " difficult to assign
their origin to a lower period than the apostolic age.'" I have
here no space in which to show up the palpable errors of the
author upon this subject. He will, however, find himself, and
Mr. Palmer, whom he follows in his errors, amply refuted by the
learned Du Pin.' This author clearly proves that these aposto
lical documents cannot claim an antiquity earlier than the fifth
century ! I, however, must thank Mr. Kip for drawing my atten
tion to such " collects" in the Common Prayer " as are composed
anew."' Under this head we have no less than twenty-five col.
lects, or prayers, which were " composed anew," in " 1549 " and
" 1552." Will Dr. Hook and Bishop Doane please tell us which
of the apostles arose from the dead to compose these " collects ?"
1 Pp. 165-167. s See Hist. Eccles., vol J, pp. 8, 9. s pp. 233, 224.
5

98 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
CHAPTER II.
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF PATRISTIC TRADITION.
SECTION 1.
The Arguments d priori and d posteriori.
The arguments in favour of patristic tradition, which
I shall consider in this section, may be supposed
Scarcely worthy of a moment's attention. This may
indeed be said of nearly all the proofs which are ad
duced upon the same side. But as they constitute a
part of the controversy upon the subject, and are urged
with great earnestness and ^ith apparent sincerity,
they can scarcely be omitted. Some of them, as mere
literary curiosities — as phenomena in mental processes
—are worthy of the attention of philosophers.
A learned Romish writer lays down the d priori
argument thus: "First. That Christian doctrine was
at first unanimously settled by the apostles, in the
hearts of the faithful, dispersed in great multitudes
over several parts of the world. Secondly. That this
doctrine was firmly believed by all those faithful to be
the way to heaven, and the contradicting or deserting
it to be the way to damnation : so that the greatest
hopes and fears imaginable were by engaging the ¦
divine authority strongly applied to the minds of the
first believers, encouraging them to the adhering to
that doctrine, and deterring them from relinquishing
it ; and indeed infinitely greater than any other what
ever, springing from any temporal consideration : and

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 99
that this was in all ari;es the persuasion of the faithful.
Thirdly. That hopes of good and fears of harm strongly
applied, are the causes of actual will. Fourthly. That
the thing was feasible or within their power: that
what they were bred to was knowable by them. This
put, it follows as certainly, that a great number or body
of the first believers, and after faithful in each age,
that is, from age to age, would continue to hold them
selves, and teach their children as themselves had been
taught, that is, would follow and stick to tradition ; as
it doth, that a cause put actually causing produceth its
effect." A mere synopsis of Archbishop Tillotson's reply to
this argument will be sufficient. The archbishop
proceeds : — " To show the vanity and weakness of
this pretended demonstration, I shall assail it these
three ways ; by showing, first. That if the grounds of
it were true, they would conclude too much, and prove
that to be impossible which common experience evin-
ceth, and himself must grant to have been. Secondly.
That his main grounds are apparently false. Thirdly.
That his demonstration is confuted by clear and unde
niable instances to the contrary."
1 . "If the grounds of it were true, they would con
clude too much, and prove that to be impossible which
common experience evinceth, and himself must grant
to have been. For if these two principles be true,
* that the greatest hopes and fears are strongly applied
to the minds of all Christians ; and that those hopes
and fears strongly applied are the cause of actual will
to adhere constantly to Christ's doctrine ;' then from
hence it follows, that none that entertain this doctrine

100 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
can ever fall from it, because falling from it is incon
sistent with an actual will of adhering constantly to it.
For supposing (as he doth) certain and constant causes
of actual will to adhere to this doctrine, those who
entertain it must actually will to adhere to it, because
• a cause put actually causing produceth its effect,'
vvhich is constant adherence to it. And if this were
true, these two things would be impossible ; first.
That any Christian should turn apostate or heretic.
Secondly. That any Christian should live wickedly :
both which not only frequent and undoubted experience
doth evince, but himself must grant de facto to have
been  It would be impossible that any Christian
should turn apostate or heretic. Heresy, according
to him, is nothing else but the renouncing of tradition.
Now he tells us, ' That the first renouncers of tradition
must have been true believers or holders of it ere they
renounced it ;' and I suppose there is the same reason
for apostates. But if all Christians or true believers
(as he calls them) have these arguments of hope and
fear strongly applied, and hope and fear strongly ap
plied be the causes of actual will to adhere to this
doctrine ; 'tis necessary all Christians should adhere
to it, and impossible there should be either apostates
or heretics."*
2. " Secondly. The main grounds of his demonstra
tion are apparently false : for, first. This demonstra
tion supposeth that the generality of Christian parents
in all ages perfectly understood the doctrine of Christ,
and did not mistake any part of it ; that they remember
it perfectly, and that they were faithful and diligent to
* See The Rule of Faith, gart iii, sec. 3.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 101
instruct their children in it ; which is as contrary to
experience as that the generality of Christians are
knowing and honest. It supposeth, likewise, that this
doctrine, and every substantial part of it, was received
and remembered by the generality of children as it
was taught ; and was understood perfectly by them
without the least material mistake : so he tells us,
* That the substance of faith comes clad in such plain
matters of fact, that the most stupid man living cannot
possibly be ignorant of it.' But whether this be rea
sonable to be supposed or no, may easily be deter
mined, not only from every man's own experience of
the world, but from a more advantageous instance of
the experience of the first age of Christianity. Was
there ever a more knowing and diligent teacher of this
doctrine than our Saviour ? And yet his disciples fell
into many mistakes concerning it : so that in order to
the certain propagating of it, the wisdom of God
thought it requisite to endue even those who had
learned this doctrine from himself with an infallible
Spirit, by which they might be led into all truth, and
secured from error and mistake ; which had been un
necessary, had it been impossible for them to mistake
this doctrine. The apostles, who taught the world by
an infallible Spirit, and with infinitely more advantage
than ordinary parents can teach their children, yet in
all the churches which they planted they found Chris
tians very apt to mistake and pervert their doctrine, as
appears by their frequent complaints in most of their
epistles. . . . Secondly. This demonstration supposeth
the. hopes and fears which Christian religion applies
to men's minds to be certain and necessary causes of

102 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
actual will in men to adhere to the doctrine of Christ ;
and consequently that they must necessarily adhere to
it. That he supposeth them to be necessary, I have
his own word for it ; for he tells us, that ' he hath en
deavoured to demonstrate the indefectibleness of tradi
tion as the proper and necessary effect of those causes
which preserve and continue tradition on foot,' and
what those causes are he told us before, ' that they
are hopes and fears strongly applied.' But I hope
that the indefectibleness of tradition cannot be ' a
necessary effect' of the strong application of those
hopes and fears, unless those hopes and fears be a
' necessary cause' of that effect. And indeed this is
sufficiently implied in his saying ' that they are the
causes of actual will' in Christians to adhere to tradi
tion. For if these ' causes of actual will' be constant,
(as he must suppose,) then they are certain and neces
sary and infallible causes of adhering to this doctrine.
For whatever is in act is necessary while it is so, and
if it be constantly in act, the effect is always neces
sary. But what a -wild supposition is this, that moral
motives and arguments working upon a free. principle,
the will of man, do necessarily produce their effect 1
Is it necessary that the hopes of heaven and the fears
of hell should keep Christians constant to the doctrine
of Christ ? And is it not as necessary that these argu
ments should prevail upon them to the practice of it ?
It is in vain to go about to demonstrate that all men
must be good who have sufficient arguments pro
pounded to them, when experience tells us the con
trary. Nay, it is in reason impossible that moral
arguments shquld be of a necessary and infallible effi-

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 103
cacy, because they are always propounded to a free
agent, who may choose whether he will yield to them
or not. Indeed, it is always reasonable that men
should yield to them, and if they be reasonable they
will; but so long as they are free, it can never be
infallibly certain that they will."*
3. " Thirdly. This demonstration is confuted by
clear and undeniable instances to the contrary. I will
mention but two.
" First. The tradition of the one true God, which
was the easiest to be preserved of any doctrine in the
world, being short and plain, planted in every man^s
nature, and perfectly suited to the reason of mankind.
And yet this tradition, not having passed through many
hands, (by reason of the long age of man,) was so
defaced and corrupted, that the world did lapse into
polytheism and idolatry. Now a man that were so
hardy as to demonstrate against matter of fact, might,
by a stronger demonstration than Mr. S.'s, prove that
though it be certain this tradition hath failed, yet it
was impossible it should fail ; as Zenp demonstrated
the impossibility of motion against Diogenes walking
before his eyes. For the doctrine of the one true God
was settled in the heart of Noah, and firmly believed
by him to be the way to happiness, and the contradict
ing or deserting of this to be the way to misery. And
this doctrine was by him so taught to his children,
who were encouraged by these motives to adhere to
this doctrine, and to propagate it to their children, and
were deterred by them from relinquishing it. And
this was in all ages the persuasion of the faithful.
* See Rule of Faith, part iii, sec. 4.

104 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
Now the hopes of happiness, and the fears of misery
strongly applied, are the causes of actual will. Be
sides, the thing was feasible, or within their power ;
that is, what they were bred to was knowable by
them, and that much more easily than any other doc
trine whatsoever, being short, and plain, and natural.
' This put, it follows certainly that a great number in
each age would continue to hold themselves, and teach
their children as themselves had been taught, that is,
would follow and stick to this tradition of the one true
God, as it doth that a cause is put actually causing
produceth its effect. Actually, I say ; for since the
cause is put, and the patient disposed, it follows in
evitably that the cause is put still actually causing.'
This demonstration, which concludes an apparent
falsehood, hath the whole strength of Mr. S.'s, and
several advantages beyond it. For the doctrine con
veyed by this tradition is the most important, being
the first principle of all religion ; the danger of cor
rupting it as great, the facility of preserving it much
greater, than of the Christian doctrine, for the causes
before mentioned. And yet, after all, it signifies no
thing against certain experience, and unquestionable
matter of fact ; only it sufficiently shows the vanity
of Mr. S.'s pretended demonstration, built upon the
same or weaker grounds.
" Secondly. The other instance shall be in the
Greek Church, who received the Christian doctrine as
entire from the apostles, and had as great an obligation
to propagate it truly to posterity, and the same ' fears
and hopes strongly applied to be the actual causes of
will ;' in a word, all the same arguments and causes

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 105
to preserve and continue tradition on foot, which the
Roman Church had : and yet, to the utter confusion
of Mr. S.'s demonstration, tradition hath failed among
them. For as speculators, they deny the procession
of the Holy Ghost from the Son ; and as testifiers,
they disown any such doctrine to have been delivered
to them by the precedent age, or to any other age
of their Church by the apostles as the doctrine of
Christ."* " The demonstration a posteriori" is thus stated : —
" The effect then we will pitch upon, and avow to be
the proper one of such a cause, is the present persua
sion of traditionary Christians, (or Catholics,) that their
faith hath descended from Christ and his apostles un
interruptedly, which we find most firmly rooted in their
heart ; and the existence of this persuasion we affirm
to be impossible, without the existence of tradition's
ever indeficiency to beget it. To prove this, I lay this
first principle, That age which holds her faith thus
delivered from the apostles, neither can itself have
changed anything in it, nor know or doubt that any
age since the apostles had changed or innovated there
in. The second principle shall be this : No age could
innovate anything, and withal deliver that very thing
to posterity as received from Christ by continual suc
cession." " The sum of which," says the archbishop,
" is this : That because a present multitude of Chris
tians (namely, the Roman Church) are persuaded that
Christ's doctrine hath descended to them solely by an
uninterrupted oral tradition, therefore this persuasion
is an effect which cannot be attributed to any other
* See Rule of Faith, part iii, sec. 5.
5*

106 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
cause but the indeficiency of oral tradition. For if
neither the present age, nor any age before, could
make any change or innovation, then the persuasion
of the present age is a plain demonstration that this
doctrine was always the same, and consequently that
tradition cannot fail.
" In answer to this, I shall endeavour to make good
these four things : —
" First. That these principles wholly rely upon the
truth of the grounds of his demonstration o priori.
" Secondly. That these principles are not sufficiently
proved by him.
" Thirdly. That doctrines and practices, which must
be acknowledged to have been innovated, have made
the same pretence to uninterrupted tradition.
" Fourthly. That it is not the present persuasion of
the Church of Rome, (whom he calls the traditionary
Christians,) nor ever was, that their faith hath de
scended to them solely by oral tradition. If I can
now make good these four things, I hope his demon
stration is at an end.
1 . " That these principles wholly rely upon the
truth of the grounds of his demonstration & priori.
For if the doctrine of Christ was either imperfectly
taught in any age, or mistaken by the learners, or any
part of it forgotten, (as it seems the whole Greek
Church have forgot that fundamental point of the pro
cession of the Holy Ghost, as the Roman Church
accounts it,) or if the arguments of hope and fear be
not necessary causes of actual will to adhere to tradi
tion, then there may have been changes and innova
tions in any age, and yet men may pretend to have

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 107
followed tradition. But I have shown, that ignorance
and negligence, and mistake, and pride, and lust, and
ambition, and any other vice or interest, may hinder
those causes from being effectual to preserve tradition
entire and uncormpted. And when they do so, it is
not to be expected that those persons who innovate
and change the doctrine should acknowledge that
their new doctrines are contrary to the doctrine of
Christ ; but that they should at first advance them as
pious, and after they have prevailed and gained gene
ral entertainment, then impudently affirm that they
were the very doctrines which Christ delivered ; which
they may very securely do, when they have it in their
power to burn all that shall deny it."*
From this the archbishop proceeds to descant upon
the darkness of the middle ages, and to show, from
the best authorities, when and how many of the cor
ruptions of Rome were introduced, and were dignified
with the imposing title of apostolical traditions.
2. " Secondly. The principles upon which this de
monstration relies are not sufficiently proved by him.
" His first principle is this, ' That age which holds
her faith delivered thus from the apostles, neither can
itself have changed anything in it, nor know or doubt
that any age since the apostles had changed or inno
vated anything therein. This proposition,' he tells us,
' needs no proof to evidence it, but only an explication :
for since no man can hold contrary to his knowledge,
or doubt of what he holds, nor change or innovate in
the case proposed without knowing he did so ; 'tis a
manifest impossibility a whole age should fall into an
* Rule of Faith, part iii, sec. 6 and 7.

108 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
absurdity so inconsistent with the nature of one single
man.' But (by his favour) that which he says is no
proof, but only an explication, is a proof if it be any
thing ; and the force of it is this : That which is ' in
consistent with the nature of one single man, is mani
festly impossible to a whole age ;' but it is inconsistent
with the nature of any single man ' to hold contrary to
his knowledge,' &c., therefore impossible to a whole
age ; and consequently, ' that age which holds her faith
delivered thus from the apostles, neither can itself
have changed anything, nor,' &c. So that in order to
the making good of this first principle, Mr. S. hath left
nothing unproved but only this proposition, namely.
That it is impossible that any one single man that
holds his faith to have been delivered uninterruptedly
from the apostles, should ever himself have changed
anything in it, or know or doubt that any age since
the apostles hath changed or innovated anything there
in : and to make out the truth of this proposition, there
only remains this to be proved, namely, that it is im
possible for any single man to be mistaken : for if that
be possible, then, contrary to Mr. S., a man may hold
that to have been delivered as a doctrine of faith from
the apostles which was not so delivered.
" His second principle is this : ' That no age could
innovate anything, and withal deliver that very thing
to posterity as received from Christ by continual suc
cession.' He proves it thus : ' Since man is a rational
creature, he must have some reason or motive, good
or bad, which he proposeth to himself as an end to be
achieved by his action : and whatever his remote end
is, his immediate end, in telling posterity a late in-

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 109
vented thing was held immediately before, is to make
them believe it. Wherefore, since a seen impossibi
lity cannot be a motive to one not frantic ; and since
'tis evidently impossible they should make posterity
believe a thing so universally known to be false, as
this must needs be, &c., it is as impossible this prin
ciple should falter, as that the foregoing age should
conspire to act without a motive, or that the succeeding
age should believe what they know to be otherwise,
that is, should hold both sides of a contradiction in a
clear matter of fact.' The force of which is this. That
it is impossible that any man not frantic should attempt
to innovate in matter of Christian doctrine, because
the immediate end of such an attempt must be to have
this new doctrine believed ; but it is impossible he
should attain this end, and impossible he should not
see that it is impossible to attain it. Now a seen
impossibility is an end that cannot move any one that
is not frantic ; therefore no man that is not frantic can
attempt to innovate in matter of Christian doctrine.
Thus he hath demonstrated it impossible that there
should be any heretics, if a heretic be one that attempts
to innovate in matter of Christian doctrine : for if there
be any such attempters they must be frantic, and if
they be frantic they can be no heretics ; for heresy
implies a crime, but God will not impute the actions
of madmen to them as faults. Again : suppose he
that attempts to innovate be mistaken, (and I hope
Mr. S. will grant that a heretic is fallible,) and think
that which he delivers as Christ's doctrine to be really
so, though indeed it be not ; why should such a person
think it impossible to make men beUeve that to be

110 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
received from Christ which he really thinks was re
ceived, and thinks he can make it appear that it wa's
so ? And if this be granted, then it is not impossible
that man, though he be a rational creature, may attempt
to innovate. And if so, then his second principle is
not proved. If Mr. S. had any regard to the noble
science of controversy, (whereof he pretends to be so
great a master,) he would not bring such trifling
sophisms instead of demonstrative proofs : and nothing
less than a demonstrative proof will serve to establish
any principle upon which a demonstration is to be
buiU."* 3. " Doctrines and practices which must be acknow
ledged to have been innovated, have made the same
pretence to uninterrupted tradition. And of this I
shall give several instances ; one among the Jews, the
rest among Christians.
" First. I shall instance among the traditionary Jews,
whose persuasion in our Saviour's time was, and still
is, that their oral doctrine, which they call their cabala,
hath descended to them from Moses uninterruptedly.
Now, here is the existence of such a persuasion, as
Mr. S. affirms to be 'impossible without tradition's
ever indeficiency to beget it.' And this persuasion of
theirs is most exactly parallel with the pretensions of
the Romish Church, according to Mr. S. For here's
a multitude of traditionary Jews, manifoldly greater in
proportion to the dissenters in that Church, than the
Romish Church is in comparison to those Christians
that dissent from her."
" Secondly. As for instances among Christians,
* Rule of Faith, part iii, sec. 8.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. IH
whereof many remain yet upon record ; as namely,
the various and opposite traditions about the time of
Easter, and concerning the baptism of heretics, and
-the apostolical tradition (as St. Austin calls it) con
cerning the admission of infants to the communion ;
all which have been frequently urged in this contro
versy, and none of them yet sufficiently answered ; I
shall, to avoid tediousness, passing by these, insist
only upon that of the Chiliasts ; which, in Justin Mar
tyr's time, was the persuasion of all orthodox Chris
tians, that is, (in Mr. S.'s dialect,) of all the ' holders
to tradition.' "
4. " It is not the present persuasion of the Church
of Rome, nor ever was, that their faith hath descended
to them by oral tradition as the sole rule of it. And
this being proved, the supposition upon which his de
monstration is built falls to the ground.
" And for the proof of this, I appeal to that decree
of the Council of Trent,* in which they declare, that
because the ' Christian faith and discipline are con
tained in written books and unwritten traditions, &c.,
therefore they do receive and honour the books of
Scripture, and also tradition, [pari pietatis affectu ac
reverentia,] with equal pious affection and reverence ;'
which I understand not how those do who set aside
the Scripture, and make tradition the sole rule of their
faith. And consonantly to this decree, the general
doctrine of the Romish Church is, that Scripture and
tradition make up the rule of faith. ' So the Roman
Catechism (set forth by order of the Council of Trent)
says. That the sum of the doctrine delivered to the
* Decret. priraum quartae sess.

112 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTTJR^
faithful is contained in the word of God, which is dis
tributed into Scripture and tradition.' Bellarmine*
speaks to the same purpose, ' That the Scripture is a
rule of faith, not an entire, but partial one. The en
tire rule is the word of God, which is divided into two
partial rules. Scripture and tradition.' According to
this, the adequate rule of faith is the word of God ;
which is contained partly in Scripture, and partly in
the tradition of the Church. And that ScriptufI is
looked upon by them as the principal rule and primary
foundation of their faith, and tradition as only supplying
the defects of Scripture, as to some doctrines and rites
not contained in Scripture, must be evident to anyone
that has been conversant in the chief of their contro
versial divines."!
By the archbishop's fourth argument we are not to
understand him as denying that the ground taken by
his opponent, that tradition constitutes the sole rule
of faith, had never been taken before by any other
Romish writer, for this would not have been true ; but
that the better sort and the most learned of that class
of writers do not take this ground. The fact is, that
Romanists, in maintaining their dogmas, take such
ground as the occasion suggests — they are high or
low toned, according to circumstances. And they
frame their theory and construct their arguments ac
cording to the character of the materials with which
they have to deal. I will just add, for the reader's
edification, another specimen of Romish logic. Thus
proceeds the archbishop's opponent : —
* De 'Verbo Dei, &c., lib. iv, c. 12.
t Rule of Faith, part iii, sec. 10.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 113
" It would require a large volume to unfold particu
larly how each virtue contributes to show the inerrable
indeficiency of tradition, and how the principles of
almost each science are concerned in demonstrating
its certainty : arithmetic lends her numbering and
multiplying faculty, to scan the vast number of testi
fiers ; geometry her proportions, to show a kind of
infinite strength of certitude in Christian tradition,
above those attestations which breed certainty in
human affairs ; logic her skill to frame, and make us
see the connections it has with the principles of our
understanding ; nature her laws of motion and action j
morality her first principle, that nothing is done gratis
by a cognoscitive nature, and that the body of tradi
tionary doctrine is most conformable to practical rea
son : historical prudence clears the impossibility of an
undiscernable revolt frtom points so descended and
held so sacred : politics show this to be the best way
imaginable to convey down such a law as it concerns
every man to be skilful in ; metaphysics engages the
essences of things, and the very notion of being, which
fixes every truth, so establishing the scientifical know
ledges which spring from each particular nature by
their first causes or reasons exempt from changes or
motion. Divinity demonstrateth it most worthy of God,
and most conducive to bring mankind to bliss. Lastly,
controversy evidences the total uncertainty of anything
concerning faith, if this can be uncertain, and makes
use of all the rest to establish the certainty of this first
principle.'' To all this the archbishop drily adds : " A very fit
conclusion for such demonstrations as went before.

114 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
It is well Mr. S. writes to none but intelligent readers ;
for were it not a thousand pities, that so manly, and
solid, and convincing a discourse as this, should be
cast away upon fools ?"*

SECTION IL
The alleged Necessity for Tradition.
The assertors of tradition most generally pretend to
deal in facts, and to have little to do with philosophy.
But finding it difficult to persuade men of the truth of
a theory which does not seem to be called for by any
evident necessity of the case, they venture upon an
attempt to show why it is that the Bible alone is not
to be taken as the rule of faith and practice.
1. And first, they allege/ that the Bible, without
rGaditioii, has no authority, as it is by tradition that we
learn what books belong to the canon of Scripture, and
(that the whole is inspired./
Bellarmine sets down several uses of tradition, as
follows : — " Fourthly. It is necessary to know that
there exist certain truly divine books, a truth which
certainly cannot be obtained in any way from the
Scriptures. For although Scripture may say that the
books of the prophets and apostles are divine, yet I
cannot believe this for certain, unless I should pre
viously have been brought to believe that the Scripture
which says this is divine. For in the Alcoran of
Mohammed we everywhere read that the Alcoran was
sent by God. from heaven, and yet we do not believe it.
* Rule of Faith, part iii, sec. 11.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 115
Therefore, this so necessary article, namely, that there
is some divine Scripture, cannot bo sufficiently proved
from Scripture alone. Therefore, since faith is founded
upon the word of God, unless we have an unwritten
word, of God, we can have no faith. . . . Fifthly. It is
not sufficient to know that there is a divine Scripture,
but it behooves us to know which it is ; a thing which
cannot in any way be had from the Scriptures  If it
be so, then Scripture is not sufficient alone  For if
it be left destitute of this unwritten tradition and the
testimony of the Church, it will be of little service.
Moreover, if this tradition has been able to come down
to us, why cannot others also have come down in the
same way?"*
_ High-churchmen take precisely the same ground.
'jVIr. Newman asks, " How do we know that Scripture
comes from God 1" and answers, " It cannot be denied
that we of this age receive it upon general tradition ;
we receive through tradition both the Bible itself, and
the doctrine that it is divinely inspired. The sacred
volume itself, as well as the doctrine of its inspiration,
comes to us by traditional conveyance. We receive
the New Testament in its existing shape by tradition."
Archdeacon Manning says : " We believe in the
sufficiency of Holy Scripture for salvation — upon the
same constant, unanimous witness, on which we receive
the sacred books ; from which, also, we learn what is
genuine, what authentic, and what pure, in the writings
of the apostles of Christ."!
Again this author says, " Word it as you may, the
* De Verb. Dei, lib. iv, t. 4.
tRule of Faith, p. 14.

116 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
attack on universal tradition undermines the foundation
of Christianity. It is not an interpretation, but the
gospel, that is at stake."*
Mr. Palmer also urges, with his whole power, that
upon the question of tradition depends the truth of the
whole Christian system. Thus he reasons upon the
subject : " Is it possible that the infinite majority of
Christians in all ages can have mistaken, or adulterated
their own religion — a religion which they held to be
divine, and on which they believed their salvation to
depend? And this while the Scriptures were in -their
hands, and the care of God was (as Christians believe)
extended over his church — the people whom he chose
for himself. If so, then they may have been equally
deceived as to the authenticity of Scripture, as to the
truth, of the mission of our Saviour ; and the whole
fabric of revelation totters to its base."!
Two points are assumed in these quotations. One
is, that tradition is the only evidence we have of the
verity and divine inspiration of the sacred writings ;
and the other, that the traditions upon which these
truths are attested are of the same character and credi
bility as those which are adduced in proof of the doc
trines delivered in the oral discourses of the apostles.
Now we deny both of these assumptions.
We do not question the validity of traditionary evidence
in matters of fact, when the witnesses to such facts were
capable of knowing them, and have given in an intelli
gible and consistent deposition. We admit that the fact
of the Scriptures having- been written by the persons
* Appendix, p. 111.
t See Treatise on the Church, vol. ii, p. 50.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 117
whose names they bear, and at the time which they
claim for their origin, comes within the rule, and
consequentiy, that the unanimous consent of Christian
writers for several hundred years subsequent to the
apostolic age is a necessary part of the historical evi
dence of the truth of the New Testament Scriptures.
The fact is one which tradition could never attest
unless it were true. This tradition depends not upon
uncertain processes of reasoning, is attended by no
natural improbabilities, and is opposed- by no counter.
tradition. But/ tradition is so far from constituting the
sum of the evidence by which we credit the Scriptures, !
that it is only one among several historical evidences,!
and the historical evidence is but one part of the wide. \
The universal consent of Christian writers from the'
very age of the aposties is good evidence of the
authenticity of the apostolic writings. But this evi
dence is materially strengthened by the concessions
of enemies. Both heathen and apostate Christians,
whose interest it was to discredit these books, acknow
ledged them authentic, and attempted by various means
to answer the arguments which were drawn from. them.
Profane history also gives a concurrent testimony in
favour of the claims of these books, so far as it says
anything about them. Under these circumstances the
testimony of the fathers, though they had been much
worse divines than they really are, though it should
not be acknowledged divine and infallible in other*
matters, would be valid and conclusive in relation to
the authenticity of the books of the New Testament.
But if upon this matter patristic testimony were found
vague and self-contradictory, and. utterly opposed to all

118 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
probability, and arrayed against all the chronicles of
the times, the case would be very different. There is,
indeed, no need of annexing this species of evidence
to the Scriptures as of equal authority and importance
merely because it is useful to the cause of Christianity
in relation to matters of fact of public and universal
notoriety. Because it is good for something, we should
not make it everything.
The evidence upon which we receive the Scriptures
as an inspired record is historical and moral — external
and internal. The historical evidence we may divide
into traditionary and collateral. The internal evidence
arises from the character of the writings themselves.
As to the evidence of the inspiration of the sacred
writings, this is wholly internal. No traditionary evi
dence would of itself be sufficient to establish this
point; for in this respect, perhaps, the Holy Scrip
tures can scarcely boast of a more unanimous consent
than the Zendavesta and the Koran.
The line of legitimate argument upon the inspiration
of the Scriptures is this : — The Scriptures afford the
most incontestable evidence that their writers were men
of sound intellect and of honest hearts. And they
profess to bear to us God's word — ^to write under the
guidance of inspiration. In confirmation of the truth
of their professions they utter prophecies which could
never have been the result of human foresight, and
"they work miracles which evince the interference of
divine power. Add to this, what they say is consistent
with itself, and every way beneficial to the human race.
The doctrines taught, and the duties enjoined, as far
as we can judge, are worthy of God, and every way

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 119
calculated to promote the great ends for which the
revelation professes to be made. This is a brief, but
doubtless a very imperfect, sketch of the evidence of
the authenticity and inspiration of the sacred writings.
And how much more satisfactory this combined testi
mony is than the mere traditions of the Church, I need
not attempt to show.
But with what reason do the abettors of patristical
tradition identify the evidence of what they are pleased
to consider as the oral preaching of the apostles, with
the evidence of the authenticity and inspiration of
Holy Scripture ? And with what justice and candour
do they charge those who impugn their traditions with
undermining the foundations of Christianity ? If they
will show that the cases are precisely parallel, then
we will confess that we are bound in all consistency
either to receive tradition as a part of the rule of faith,
or to reject the Scriptures as such. But before they
can do this, they must prove, first, that we have no
evidence but that of tradition for the authenticity and
inspiration of the Scriptures ; and, secondly, that un
written discourses are as easily handed down, pure
and unaltered, from generation to generation, as writ
ten records ; both of which are false, and, of course,
can never be proved. The pretence of Mr. Palmer,
that Christians would not be disposed to adulterate
" a religion which they hold to be divine," is against
all experience, and such a multitude of facts rise up
before us at once to confute it, that no time need be
spent upon it. And the assertion that oral tradition is
a safe and certain mode of conveying doctrines, pre
cepts, and religious rites down through successive

120 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
ages, is so contrary to the dictates of common sense^
that we have more reason to pity the delusion of those
¦who make it, than to entertain a reasonable hope of
reclaiming them by argument.
Still, the abettors of tradition will probably continue
to urge against us this objection : — If we have no
certainty of the purity of oral traditions, what security
have we against the corruption of the written record ?
The answer is easy : What is delivered orally is
easily varied, but it is entirely different with a perma
nent record. If a record is public, and copies are
multiplied, change cannot easily escape detection.
But extended argument upon this point is entirely un
necessary. Whoever wishes to see the whole ques
tion fully and satisfactorily discussed, will find it done
in Mr. Good's Divine Rule of Faith and Practice.
2. The second reason urged in favour of the neces
sity of tradition is founded upon the pretended obscurity
_of Scripture.
Bellarmine says, " We assert that there is not con
tained in the Scripture, in express terms, {expresse,) the
whole necessary doctrine either concerning faith or con
cerning manners ; and therefore that beyond the written
word of God is required also the unwritten word of
God, that is, the divine apostolical traditions." Again :
" Scripture is very often ambiguous and obscure, so
that, unless it be interpreted by some one that cannot
err, it cannot be understood ; therefore it is not suffi
cient ALONE  It is to be observed that there are two
things in Scripture, — the written words, and the mean
ing contained in them. ... Of these two, the first is
possessed by all . . . the second is not possessed by all,

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 121
nor can we in many places be certain of the second,
but by the addition of tradition."*
In exact accordance with the views of the great
oracle of Romanism upon this point are those of high-
Churchmen. Mr. Newman says, " The need of tradi
tion arises from the obscurity of Scripture, and is ter
minated with the interpretation of it. Scripture does
not interpret itself, or answer objections or misrepre
sentations. We must betake ourselves to the early
church, and see how they understood it. Scripture
was never designed to teach doctrine to the many."
Archdeacon Manning is equally explicit. He says,
" This appeal to the proof of Holy Scripture might
appear to be at once a sufficient test to ascertain what
the apostles preached. And so it would be, if either
the Scriptures were so clear that private Christians
could not err in understanding, or churches so infal
lible as never to go astray in expounding, the inter
pretation. But as neither of these conditions is true ;
as churches both may err, and have erred, and private
Christians, by the repugnancy of their interpretations,
daily convict themselves of error ; and as the gospel
of Christ is not syllables and letters, whether of the
original or translated text, but the meaning of them ;
and as, of all the meanings Holy Scripture may bear,
we must believe only one to be the sense indeed, it is
plainly necessary that we should have some further
rule for our common guidance."!
How closely the archdeacon follows the Romish
doctor and the magnus Apollo of Tractarianism need
« De Verb. Dei, lib. iv, c. 3, 4.
t Rule of Faith, pp. 26, 27.
6

122 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
scarcely be intimated. That high-Churchmen take
their cue from Romanists upon the point in question
is beyond doubt. Let the reader compare the lan
guage of the archdeacon with the following quaint and
ludicrous passage from Archbishop Tillotson's oppo
nent. Says he, the Scriptures are "ink variously
figured in a book, unsensed characters, waxen-natured
words, not yet sensed, nor having any certain inter
preter, but fit to be plaid upon diversly by quirks of
wit — that is, apt to blunder and confound, but to clear
little or nothing."* But in meeting the whole argu
ment two inquiries are naturally suggested. The first
is, whether there is, in fact, any such " obscurity" in
the Scriptures as is pretended : and the second, whe
ther tradition is the appropriate remedy for the evil.
It must be admitted that there are difficult and ab
struse passages in the Scriptures which " the many"
cannot understand ; and we might venture a query
whether even the Oxford divines themselves, with all
the helps derived from fathers and councils, are able
fidly to explain them. But that the Bible, as a whole,
or in matters essential, is obscure, we deny; and indeed
the insinuation impugns the wisdom and goodness of
its divine Author. A revelation so obscure that its
sense must be handed down through successive ages
" from hand to hand," by the uncertain instrumentality
of oral tradition, would be a phenomenon. It would
be a reversing of the natural order of things. Written
records are usually resorted to as a remedy for the
uncertainty and obscurities of oral traditions ; but in
this case, it would seem, the order is reversed. We
» Rule of Faith, part i, sec. 2.

THE RULE OP FAITH AND PRACTICE. 123
have a written revelation so obscure that it cannot be
understood — a revelation, indeed, that has of itself no
sense at all — the true meaning being infallibly pre
served in the oral traditions of the Church! In all
similar cases we should naturally be led to inquire
why the defect was not removed by another written
revelation, or by notes of explanation which would
make the record plain. But h^re, it seems, we must
leave the course of experience, and abandon all com
mon-sense notions, and trust wholly to authority, or
yield to what our learned instructers tell us is plain
matter of fact. The sense of the Bible is not to be
found in the written record, but is contained in the
traditions of the fathers.
Now, if this be so, the Bible alone is not a revela
tion. A revelation is an intelligible communication of
the mind of the Spirit. But the Bible is merely "the
written word," " the scabbard," while " the sense is
the sword itself of the Spirit." The Bible is mere
" syllables and letters." According to this representa
tion, who does not see that the revelation is not in the
words or language of the Bible, but in the explanation ?
This is the true theory of traditionists, both Roman
and Anglican. And what is this but elevating tradi
tion at the expense of the Scriptures ? What is it, in
fact, but making tradition the sole rule of faith ? This
very consequence high-Churchmen charge upon Ro
manists, and Romanists as explicitly repudiate it as
high-Churchmen themselves. But to an unprejudiced
mind it will appear that they are both, and indeed
equally, involved in the condemnation. How clear is
the process by which we are forced to this result!

124 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
The revelation is, of course, sense. But the sense is in
tradition. Ergo, tradition is the revelation. The sense
of Scripture must certainly be the rule of faith and
practice, and if we locate the true sense in tradition,
is not tradition, in fact, the sole rule ? The argument
of Chillingworth against the authority of the Church,
contended for by Romanists, is upon this point equally
pertinent and conclusive. He says, " As, if I should
pretend, that I should submit to the laws of the king
of England, but should indeed resolve to obey them in
that sense which the king of France should put upon
them, whatever it were, I presume every understand
ing man would say that I did indeed obey the king of
France, and not the king of England. If I should
pretend to believe the Bible, but that I would under
stand it according to the sense which the chief mufti
should put upon it, who would not say that I were a
Christian in pretence only, but indeed a Mohamr
medan ?" And may we not ask whether " every un
derstanding man" will not conclude most certainly that
those who receive the Scriptures " in that sense only"
which the fathers put upon them do indeed "obey"
the fathers ? Is it not most obvious, according to the
theory here opposed, that tradition is the sole rule of
faith? But insisting no further upon this point at
present, I will now return to the particular question at
issue, which is the pretended obscurity of Scripture.
And first, I urge, d priori, that it is necessary to a
revelation that, in all matters essential, it must be so
plain, that, with reasonable diligence in its examina
tion, it may be understood by all whom it concerns.
I see not how it can be called a revelation if this be

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 125
not the Case. Surely, to those who are not able to
understand its import, it cannot answer the purpose of
a revelation, nor can such be in the least responsible
for conformity to its contents. There would be no
adaptation in such a record to the ends proposed to be
answered by it, and the supposition that Gtod has made
such a revelation to mankind is a gross imputation
both upon his wisdom and goodness.
But what is the fact? Our opponents tell us the
Scriptures are obscure. It would seem quite sufficient
for us to meet this declaration with its contrary,
namely, that the Scriptures are plain, but that we are
met with the overwhelming fact that there are nume
rous and conflicting opinions with regard to the sense
of Scripture, which would not be the case if the
Scriptures were plain and " designed for the many."
As says the bishop of New-Jersey : " Of the innmne-
rable forms of Christian doctrine, which from age to
age have been proclaimed as true by the unnumbered
sects which have assumed the name of Christ, how
ever differing from, however opposite to, each other,
not one that does not build his claim upon the sacred
record."* And Archdeacon Manning cannot admit
that Scripture is " a sufficient test to ascertain what
the apostles preached," because the Scriptures are
not " so clear that private Christians could not err in
understanding, or churches so infallible as never to go
astray in expounding,'' them.
But what has all this to do with the real question at
issue ? No one in his senses has ever asserted that
"the Scriptures are so clear that private Christians
* Convocation Sermon, p. 18.

126 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
could not err in understanding" them, or that there
may not be a variety of opinions in relation to many
points of minor importance among Christians. But
are the Scriptures consequently so obscure that they
do not constitute a perfect rule of faith and practice ?
Have they therefore no sense in themselves ? This
consequence by no means follows from the premises.
A written rule may certainly be so plain that common
minds may, with suitable attention, so far understand
its import and application that none of its practical
objects will necessarily be thwarted, without being so
clear that they " could not err" under any circum
stances. And we have never alleged that divine
revelation was so plain that there is no hazard,
through negligence or prejudice, of misconceiving its
true import. The Author of the Scriptures has so
adjusted them that a clear apprehension of their import
requires the exercise of our voluntary powers ; and
1 as made us accountable to himself for a right under
standing and a proper application of their great princi
ples of faith and rules of duty. There is, indeed, a
wide difference between the fact and the allegations
of our opponents — between the necessity of careful
examination of the Holy Scriptures, aided by all the
means within our reach, and the necessity of a tradi
tionary sense handed down from the apostles.
And is no rule sufficiently plain about which men
may chance to differ in opinion ? Apply the principle
to common law, or the Constitution of the United
States. Are there no differences of opinion, even
among jurists, in relation to their provisions? And
because men may err in relation to their sense, must

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 127
we have an appendage handed down by oral tradition
from their framers, of equal authority, explaining their
meaning, or rather giving them a sense ? The suppo
sition is utterly preposterous. It is one which is^not
admitted in any similar case. i
But I come next to inquire whether, upon the sup- \
position that Scripture is as obscure as is pretended, \
tradition is the appropriate remedy.
I shall not now inquire into the evidence adduced
of the divine appointment of this remedy for the alleged
obscurity of Scripture, but shall simply examine its
practical workings. Now, what are the facts in the
case ? Where tradition has been received as a part
of the rule of faith, has it so dispelled the darkness
which hangs over the oracles of God that "private
Christians could not err in understanding, or the
churches go astray in expounding," them ? If we are
to believe our opponents, the primitive church were
guided by the transmitted reports of the oral preaching
of the apostles in their expositions of Holy Scripture.
But did they never err? Whence the feuds, and
schisms, and heresies which arose in the church
during the early ages, when, if ever, the traditions of
the church must have been universally acknowledged
and well understood ?
Even in the days- of the apostles, when their
preaching was listened to by multitudes, " strife, and
divisions," and " heresies," arose. And will our good
Catholics please to inform us how it can reasonably
be expected that the traditionary reports of the
"apostles' preachings," handed down through cen
turies, should be a more potent remedy for schisms

128 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
and heresies than they were when they were ringing
in the ears of listening multitudes ? If the reports we
have of the discourses of Peter, and Paul, and John,
in the records of antiquity, now give an infallible
sense to Holy Scripture, and effectually prevent all
diversities of opinion as to its meaning, why were not
these discourses, in their original delivery, the means
of preventing all such diversities of religious opinion ?
Let our traditionists look to this matter a little more
closely. And let it be observed, that the ancient heresies
arose under the action of this very infallible remedy
for all misunderstanding of the meaning of Holy
Scripture. Heretics were Catholics before they be
came heretics. The sects sprung up in the church.
Where, in the mean time, was this grand remedy for
the obscurity of Scripture ? Should it be here alleged,
as it has sometimes been, that the heretics repudiated
tradition, and betook themselves to private interpreta
tion ; the answer is, that the assertion is not justified
by the records of impartial history. There is strong
evidence that the ancient heretics were the first to
allege tradition in support of their dogmas. It is an
incontrovertible fact, that in the ancient controversies
in relation to the di-vinity of Christ and the doctrine of
the Trinity, the Arians resorted to this species of
evidence, while the orthodox only used it as an
argumentum ad hominem, and grounded their main
arguments upon the language of the sacred writ
ings. But let us come down to later times. Were there
no differences of opinion in the Church during those

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 129
ages when tradition was generally admitted as a part
of the rule of faith ? Look at the history of the Church
from the days of Vincent, in the fifth century, to the
Council of Trent, in the fifteenth. What is the prac
tical effect of the great catholic rule, " Quod ubique
quod semper, quod ab omnibus, creditum est ?" — What
is believed everywhere, always, and by all. Did it
prevent the general spread of the Pelagian and semi-
Pelagian heresies ? Did it prevent the great schism
between the East and West ? Did it prevent the
controversies in relation to the supremacy of the
pope, the worship of images, transubstantiation, here
tical baptisms, predestination ? &c., &o. Did it pre
vent endless feuds between the Dominicans and
Franciscans, the Jansenists and Jesuits, the Nom
inalists and Realists ? What, after all the influence
of this grand catholicon for all errors in religion, but
the recognition of the supremacy and infallibility of
the pope, has, for centuries, prevented the Romish
Church from splitting into a thousand fragments ?
But let us come to the English Church, where we
are told the famous rule of Vincent is, and ever has
been, acknowledged. Is there any theological error
which has not developed itself in this same Church ?
But to waive the argument which I might base upon
the diversities of opinion which have prevailed at dif
ferent periods in the Church of England among the
mass, I shall select a few of the leading expositors of
the doctrines of the Church, who, it is contended by
high-Churchmen themselves, equally held the catholic
maxim above referred to, and equally acknowledged
the authority of tradition.

130 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
In Tracts Nos. 74, 76, and 78,* we have a " catena
patrum" of forty-two names, who are all claimed as
strict adherents to the doctrine of tradition on the
principle of Vincentius Lirinensis. The Tractator, in
the commencement of No. 78, clearly declares this. He
says, " The following extracts from English divines
are but expositions and comments upon the celebrated
Tract of Vincentius Lirinensis on heresies, which has
been so generally adopted by them, that it may justly
be considered as the formal manifestation of our
Church as regards all the controversies of the last
three hundred years." It may reasonably be ex
pected, then, that at least the names which our Trac
tator introduces into his " catena," guided, as they are
asserted to have been, by this grand remedy for diver
sity of opinions, will be found to agree in relation to
" all the controversies of the last three hundred years."
But what are the facts ? Why, the facts are that we
have among these very " divines" almost every variety
of opinion in relation to these " controversies." It
is alleged, and I will not now question it, that these
divines go by this "everywhere, always, and by all"
rule — the very principle which, we are gravely told,
will guide all wise and good men to the same con
clusions in relation to the sense of Scripture. But an
examination of the writings of these fathers of the
English Church will show that, upon vital points in
the " controversies" in question, they take precisely
opposite grounds. Upon the Catholic Church, Pear
son is opposed to Potter ; upon the apostolical suc
cession, Taylor to Usher; upon the infallibility of
• Tracts for the Times, vol. i.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 131
general councils, Jewel to Hammond ; upon the
divine presence in the eucharist and baptismal re
generation. Jewel, Hooker, Beveridge, and Patrick,
are opposed to Laud, Thorndike, Brett, Hicks, and
Collier ; upon the rule of faith. Jewel, Field, Hooker,
and Stillingfleet, are opposed to Bramhall, Hammond,
Thorndike, Brett, Hicks, Collier, Leslie, &c. ; upon
predestination. Laud and Hall are at sword's points.
It would be easy to adduce passages, almost in
numerable, from the writers named, to prove what I
here assert. This, however, would occupy too much
space. It is sufficient to add, what all, who have the
least acquaintance with the history of " the contro
versies of the last three hundred years" well know,
that these names stand upon opposite sides in nearly
all these controversies. They are opposed, in the
great ecclesiastical controversies upon church govern
ment, and in the theological controversies in relation
to predestination, grace, free-will, &c.
Further, though it is conceded by high-Churchmen,
and even vaunted as a matter of triumph by the British
Critic, that Bishop Jewel acknowledges the authority
of the fathers, and meets the Romanists on the
catholic ground of Vincentius, yet these same men
charge him with heresy. Froude denounces him as
" an irreverent dissenter," and the British Critic
heartily commends him for the justice of his. sentence.
Indeed, at present, as may be seen in this great organ
of Puseyism, few of the names paraded in the catena
above alluded to are considered to be perfectly sound
in what is denominated " Church principles," or
"catholic verities." How these learned divines

132 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
came to stumble upon fatal errors while following
out, with all fidelity, the great cathohc rule, which
is so confidently represented as an unerring guide, is
not for me to say. But the conclusion to which Solo
mon helps us, namely, that " what has been may be,"
is at least safe in the matter. If, indeed, our " English
divines," in the application of this rule, which has so
long been held and acted upon by Cathohc doctors,
have fallen into errors, we certainly may not be alto
gether safe in its adoption.
Romanists and high-Churchmen certainly presume
much upon the ignorance of the world, when they urge
the diversity of opinions among " the sects" as an evi
dence of the obscurity of Scripture, and the danger of
private judgment, in religious matters. And especially
when they propose, as the sovereign remedy for this
enormous evil, the catholic rule of interpretation. They
must presume that none but themselves know the his
tory of their own controversies and schisms, and that
all will take whatever they please to propose without
examination. It is time, however, that they had
learned their mistake, and begun to exercise some
thing hke a decent respect for the common sense of
the world.
3. Finally. It is contended that the Scriptures are
defective — that they do not teach us all that is essen
tial to Christianity; and hence the necessity of tra
ditionary teaching upon several points.
Bellarmine says, " And truly Scripture, inasmuch
as it is a rule, has, in consequence, this property, that
whatever it contains is necessarily true and to be be
lieved, and whatever is contrary to it is necessarily

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 133
false, and to be rejected ; but inasmuch as it is not
the entire, but a partial rule, the consequence is, that
it is not a rule for all things, and, moreover, that there
may be something relating to the faith which is not
contained in it."*
Mr. Keble says, " It may be proved, to the satis
faction of any reasonable mind, that not a few frag
ments yet remain — very precious and sacred fragments
of the unwritten teaching of the first age of the church.
The paramount authority, for example, in church
government ; the threefold order established from the
beginning ; the -virtue of the blessed eucharist as a
commemorative sacrifice ; infant baptism ; and, above
all, the catholic doctrine of the most holy Trinity, as
contained in the Nicene Creed. All these, however,
surely confirmed from Scripture, are yet ascertainable
parts of the primitive unwritten system of which we
yet enjoy the benefit. If any one ask. How we ascer
tain them ? we answer, By the application of the well-
known rule, ' Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab
omnibus.'"! Again, "Without its aid, (that is, tra
dition,) humanly speaking, I do not see how we could
now retain real inward communion with our Lord
through his apostles, or the very outward face of
God's church and kingdom among us."J
The blindness of this learned Oxonian must be
almost judicial, or he could scarcely help seeing
"the catholic doctrine of the most holy Trinity"
clearly taught in the Scriptures. But if Mr. Keble is
unable to see in the Scriptures this " catholic doc-
» De Verb. Dei, lib. iv, c. 12.
t Sermons, p. 32. X Ibid, p. 41.

134 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
trine," the Nicene fathers saw it there, for it was from
the Scriptures, and not from " the very precious and
sacred fragments of the uu'written teaching of the first
age of the church," which he says "yet remain," that
they drew their materials for the construction of the
famous " Nicene Creed." This is made perfectly
clear by the learned Mr. Goode. Is it not strange
that the Tractarians, in order to make room for the
introduction of " Church principles," will concede to
the Unitarians that the holy Trinity is not taught in
the Scriptures ? Any sacrifice must be made, any
doctrine of the Bible must be considered doubtful, it
would seem, in order to make it possible for them, in
connection with Romanists, to find a divine sanction
for such dogmas as they see proper to ingraft upon
the Christian system.
Mr. Goode gives us, from the writings of the Roman
ists and the Tractators, a list of doctrines, usages, and
facts, which are admitted not to be found in the Scrip
tures, but are alleged to be taught in the traditions of
the Church. Here the cloven foot shows itself fully.
No unprejudiced mind can avoid the conviction, upon
looking over this list . of patristical verities, but that
this system of adding tradition to the Scriptures, as
the rule of faith, is a device to give divine sanction to
doctrines and practices not taught in the word of God.*
* Bellarmine says,'" When the Church believes anything as
a doctrine of faith, which is not in the Scripture, we must judge
it to be an apostolical tradition. Otherwise the Church must
have erred in taking that for a matter of faith which was not."
Here the true reason for enlarging the rule of faith is honestly
and explicitly stated. It is a pity our high-Churchmen were not
as honest as the great Romish doctor.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 135
But we must not longer withhold from the reader these
necessary truths.
" Of points relating to the practice of the Church,
then, we have the following ; —
" 1. Relating to points disused, — the non-literal
acceptation of our Lord's words respecting washing
one another's feet ; the non-observance of the seventh
day as a day of religious rest.
" 2. Relating to ordinances and observances in use
among us, — infant baptism ; the sanctification of the
first day of the week ; the perpetual obligation of the
eucharist ; the identity of our mode of consecration in
the eucharist with the apostolical ; that consecration
by apostolical authority is essential to the participation
of the eucharist ; the separation of the clergy from the
people as a distinct order ; the threefold order of the
priesthood ; the government of the Church by bishops ;
the apostolical succession.
" 3. Of points purely doctrinal, — baptismal regene
ration ; the virtue of the eucharist as a commemorative
sacrifice ; that there is an intermediate state, in which
the souls of the faithful are purified, and grow in
grace ; that they pray for us,, and that our prayers
benefit them.
" 4. Of points concerning matters of fact, — the
canon of Scripture ; that Melchisedek's feast is a
type of the eucharist ; that the book of Canticles re
presents the union between Christ and the Church ;
that Wisdom in the book of Proverbs represents the
second person in the Trinity ; the alleged perpetual
virginity of the mother of our Lord."*
• See Divine Rule of Faith, vol. ii, pp. 18, 19.

136 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
This, then, is the sum of the important appendage
to the system of revealed truth furnished by patristical
tradition. And to what does it amount? Why,
simply to this : upon one of these points, the canon
of Scripture, the testimony of ecclesiastical antiquity
seems necessary : upon two or three others, such as
infant baptism and the Christian sabbath, this source
of information is important ; but in relation to the
great mass it is absolutely worthless. For, 1 . Those
things which are probably true are taught with suffi
cient clearness in the Scriptures. And, 2. As to
those which are, at least to all good Protestants, en
tirely indifferent or utterly antiscriptural and heretical,
which embrace by far the greatest part, no amount of
patristical testimony, however explicit, could possibly
be of the least authority. That the great mass of
these catholic truths are in fact Romish corruptions I
need not here attempt to prove. Nor is it in the least
marvellous, that those who hold" these dogmas to con
stitute the most vital part of the Christian system,
should be extremely anxious to extend the divine rule
of faith and practice beyond the -written record.
It is not my purpose to investigate these principles,
though it were easy to show that the mass of them
are not only independent of the Scriptures, but dia
metrically contrary to them, and that they have no
sanction in the purest antiquity. This Mr. Goode
has done most effectually; to whom I would refer the
reader who may wish satisfaction upon these points.
A few general remarks upon the question which I am
at present discussing, and the views taken of it by
Catholics, may however be necessary.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 137
It is rather strange, that both Roman and Anglican
Catholics deny (this long list of novel principles and
usages notwithstanding) the charge of making or ori
ginating articles of faith which are not authorized by
Holy Scripture. Though here is a long list of reli
gious truths which are not taught in Scripture, and
which can only be sustained by calling in the aid of
tradition, yet " the Scriptures," we are told, " contain
all things simply necessary to salvation," and, as the
record of faith, are perfect. But not insisting further
upon this obvious inconsistency, let another fact be
noticed. High-Churchmen condemn Romanists for
adding to the creed novel articles. They allege that
the creed of Pope Pius IV., so far as it goes beyond
the Apostles' Creed, is just so much matter of belief
over and above Scripture and the acknowledged faith
of the primitive church. And this we are not at all
disposed to deny. But do Churchmen add no new
articles of faith to the creed of the primitive church in
their list of " Church principles ?" Let them show
that these principles are based upon divine revelation ;
or let them show us that they are supported either by
the Scriptures or by the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds,
and I doubt not but they will, in the process, help the
Romish doctors to good and valid arguments in proof
that all the articles settled by the Council of Trent
are sustained by the great cathohc rule of faith both
- acknowledge in common. The Tractarians are at
present so pressed by this issue that they are fast
going over to the Romish faith — they find it impossible
to stop upon the slippery hill-side where they at first
took their position. Taking up the doctrines of

138 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
" baptismal regeneration," " the eucharistic sacrifice,"
" the intermediate state, in which the souls of the
faithful are purified," "the threefold order of the
priesthood," " the inerrability of the Church," " the
apostolical succession,'' &c., they naturally slide
down to the worst features of Romanism. These
principles necessarily run into the doctrines of
transubstantiation, purgatory, the infallibility of the
Church, the merit of penance, works of supererogation,
and the supremacy of the pope.
And if there were no natural relationship between
the high-Church and the Romish doctrines, still the
one favours the other by erecting for them a foundation
to rest upon. For if high-Churchmen have a right to
remedy " the defects of Scripture," have not Roman
ists the same right ? If one may believe a doctrine
upon the catholic principle of Quod ubique, quod sem
per, et quod ab omnibus, without any regard to the
Scriptures, may not the other do the same ? It will
not do here to allege that the Anglican follows out
this principle in establishing his " Church principles,"
but the Romanist does not do this in settling his list
of " catholic verities," for the Romanist denies the
allegation, and, of course, it cannot be assumed as
though it were conceded. I have, for myself, no
doubt but the Romanist is as faithful to the great
catholic principle above alluded to, as the high-
Churchman, and that he can as easily prove, by its
use and application, the creed of Pope Pius the
Fourth as the Tractarian can his list of Church
principles. It is a matter of no small interest to observe that

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 139
the Tractarians concede that the above-named doc
trines and usages are not clearly taught in the Scrip
tures. For this they are condemned by more mode
rate Churchmen, who are not at all willing to concede
that " the apostolical succession," and " the threefold
order of the priesthood," with several kindred doc
trines, are not clearly taught in the Scriptures. This
point we may leave them to settle as best they can.
But all Churchmen do not assert the defectiveness
of Scripture who assert its obscurity. This is only a
difference in the number of the reasons for holding to
the same theory. It is not very material whether
they hold that Scripture is defective as to the doc
trines and usages of Christianity, when they have
first taken up the principle that its sense is deposited
in the records of the primitive church. For if the
sense of Scripture is to be found only in the traditions
of the Church, to these traditions must we go for its
doctrines and institutions, and, as there found, we must
embrace them, be they few or many. We are then
at liberty to embrace no doctrine not found in the tra
ditions of the Church, and all that is there taught we
must believe. Upon the principle that the sense of
Scripture is only to be found in tradition, the Scrip
ture is not only defective in doctrinal development,
but, alone, it teaches absolutely nothing.
The Romish and high-Church doctrine is, that " tra
dition teaches, and Scripture proves," that the sense
of Scripture is to be sought in tradition. If this be the
true view, then the reason for the necessity of tradition
which we now have under consideration should be
stated in much stronger terms, and should be made

140 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
much more comprehensive than it is, as stated either
by Churchmen or Romanists. For tradition, upon this
hypothesis, would not be merely necessary to remedy
the defectiveness of Scripture, in teaching a few
Christian doctrines and Usages, but to supply the utter
want of all teaching. If the sense of the Scripture is
in tradition; if Scripture only "proves," while it is
the unlimited office of tradition to teach, what can be
more logical than the conclusion, that without tradition
the Scriptures have no sense — they teach nothing at all?
This is the result of the system of tradition, even as
held by Archdeacon Manning. And how strange it
is that after making it necessary for tradition to sup
ply the whole creed of Christianity, he finds grave
fault with the Romanists for attempting merely to add
several articles to the creed, as they pretend, from the
same source.

SECTION III.
The Scripture Evidence adduced in Favour of Tradition.
Before entering upon the examination of particular
texts of Scripture which are supposed to recognise
tradition as a part of the rule of faith, some things
must be premised. And let it first be borne in mind,
that we do not deny that the oral discourses of the
apostles were a rule of faith to those who heard
them. Nor will it be questioned, that if there were
sufficient evidence of the transmission of the words or
the sense of these discourses through the medium of
tradition, such words or sense would be a portion of

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 141
the rule of faith to us. And, hence, all such passages
as merely make reference to the discourses of the
apostles, as furnishing matter of faith and a rule of
duty to those who heard them, are wholly irrelevant.
Archdeacon Manning labours hard, and quotes a
multitude of passages to prove " that the oral preach
ing of the apostles is recognised as the rule of faith in
Holy Scripture itself"* All this, however, is labour
thrown away. It is an effort to prove what none
deny, and what has no sort of relation to the real
question at issue. It would, of course, be a fruitless
toil for me to proceed to an examination of the various
passages presented. For though it might be shown
that some of them are misconstrued, yet nothing of
any importance, touching the real point at issue, would
be gained by such a process.
There are, however, several passages which are
supposed to imply that certain oral traditions were
left by the apostles as a sacred deposite, which must
be presumed to have been handed down through suc
cessive ages, and preserved in their purity.
The first of these which I shall notice is the fol
lowing : " Hold fast the form of sound words, which
thou hast heard of me," 2 Tim. i, 13. The Romish
construction is given by the Rhemists as follows : —
" A form — The apostles did set down a platform of
faith, doctrine, and phrase of catholic speech and
preaching, and that not so much by writing, as here
we see, as by word of mouth : to which he referreth
Timothy over and above his epistle unto him. And
how precisely Christian doctors ought to keep the
* See Appendix, pp. 40-48.

142 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
form of words anciently appropriated to the mysteries
and matters of our religion."*
The high-Church exposition is the same, and is
thus given by Dr. Hammond : — " When thou wert
with me I gave thee a short summary of the chief
things that were to be believed by all, in opposition
to the growing heresies ; and do thou take care not to
depart from it in any part of it, but keep constant
to it in the outward confession, and constant adhe
rence to Christ, and in preaching and in teaching
others."! The learned doctor, in his Paraphrase, supplies the
idea which is wanted, in order to press the apostle
into his service. But if he has brought out the true
sense, it is not because it is in the language used by
the inspired author.
This vnoTVTTuaiv vyiaivdvruv koyuv delineation
of wholesome doctrines was the account which the
apostle had given Timothy in his public and private
instructions of the gospel system. But that it was
a digest of this system, such as we have in the
creed, independently of the Scriptures, is not capable
of proof; much less is there any evidence that such
a form was preserved, independent of the Scriptures,
and handed down entire through successive ages.
Upon this passage Dr. Fulke, in opposition to the
views of the Rhemists, has this note : " For substance
* " The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ ; translated out of the Latin Vulgate, diligently compared
with the original Greek, and first published by the English Col.
lege of Rheims, Anno 1582."
t See Paraphrase, in loc.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 143
of doctrine, the apostles taught nothing by word of
mouth, but that which is contained in their writings.
' The apostles,' saith Irenaeus, ' preached the gospel,
and after, by the will of God, delivered it to us in
writing, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith.'*
Therefore the truth of all those terms which the
Church useth to express the mysteries of our religion,
or to meet with the fraud of heretics, is manifestly
contained in the Scriptures, though the terms them
selves be not expressed."! Here this learned cham
pion of the Reformation takes the two great Protestant
positions : First. That the matter of the apostles' dis
courses was incorporated in the Scriptures ; and,
secondly, that theological terms, which have been
invented to meet heretics, such as those in the
creeds, set forth the truth contained in Scripture.
The revelation is in the Scripture, these " terms" are
human commentaries.
Another proof adduced by our opponents is the fol
lowing : " That good thing which was committed unto
thee keep, by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us,"
2 Tim. i, 14. Tjjv KaX'^v napadi]Krjv, may be lite
rally rendered the good deposite : but what this deposite
was is a question to be settled.
Dr. Hammond has settled the question in his way,
as follows : " Hold thee constantly to the doctrine of
the gospel, or summary of it agreed on by the apostles
to be taught in all churches, and whenever thou art
tempted to the contrary, remember that this stands by
the direction of the Spirit of God that abides among
* Lib. iii, cap. 4.
t See Confutation of the Rhemish Testament.

144 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
US, and make use of that Spirit to confirm thyself
in it."*
Mr. Keble's exposition is, " The same treasure of
doctrine which we know to have been imbodied in
the confession or creed" — " a certain form, arrange
ment, selection, methodizing the whole, and distin
guishing fundamentals ; and also a certain system of
church practice, both in government, discipline, and
worship" — " comprising matter independent of, and dis
tinct from, the truths which are directly Scriptural."!
" To this exposition, however," says Mr. Holden,
" many are totally opposed, as may be seen in Poole's
Synopsis, and other commentators. Neither the con
text, the parallel passages, the cognate verb napari-
drjfii, nor versions, establish it beyond a doubt ; and
if we appeal to primitive tradition, it here deserts us.
Mr. Keble, indeed, attempts to prove that it is ratified
by the general consent of primitive antiquity, and for
that purpose has cited Jerome, Hippolytus, and Vin
centius Lirinensis ; but though some of the fathers
adopted this view, others explain itdifferently, instances
of which may be seen in Suicer.
" But supposing ' the good deposite' to denote the
Christian doctrine, as being the best supported inter
pretation, and granting, moreover, that the Church was
in possession of the substance of saving truth by the
sole teaching of the apostles ; yet the text only enjoins
Timothy to guard and keep safe this good deposite of
Christian doctrines ; and is entirely silent whether the
deposite was ' independent of, and distinct from, the
truths that are directly Scriptural ;' or how it was to
* Paraphrase, in loc. t Sermon on Tradition.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 145
be guarded and kept safe. It is, therefore, without
any ground in the apostle's language to assume that it
refers to any doctrine distinct from Scripture, or now
preserved by tradition."*
By this "good deposite" the learned Cardinal Hugo
understands "the office, or the proper spirit, or the
talent of gifts, or the souls of those placed under
him."! And Grotius, " the evangelical doctrine ¦"% and
others, "the ministry;" others, "the gospel;" others,
" the deposite of soimd doctrine committed to him by
Paul ;" and others, " the Christian religion."^
There are two passages in which the word " tra
ditions" is used, which will require some attention in
this connection. They are as follows : " And keep
the ordinances \TTaga86aeig traditions^ as I delivered
them to you," 1 Cor. xi, 2. Again, " Therefore, bre
thren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye
* Authority of Tradition, pp. 64, 65.
t Bonum depositum custodi— Glos. Officium tibi commissum,
vel animam propriam, vel talentum donorum, vel animas subdito-
rum, 1 Tim. vi, 10. 0 Timothee depositum custodi, quod potes.
—Hugonis Cardinalis Opera, Omnia in universum Vetus et
Novum Testamentum, in loc.
It is remarkable that this Romish dignitary and commentator
Says nothing about " a form of words comprising matter inde
pendent of, and distinct from, the truths which are directly
Scriptural." So we see, as I find occasion to obseiTe in another
place, our high-Churchmen are often far in advance of the better
sort of Romanists.
t Sic vocat doctrinam illam evangelicam ut, 1 Tim. vi, 20. —
Hugonis Grotii Annotationum in Novum Testamentum, in loc.
§ See A. Clarke, Macknight, Pyle, Harwood, Hewlett, and
Bloomfield, in loc. 7

146 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
have been taught, whether by word or by our epistle,"
2 Thess. ii, 15.
Dr. Elliott says, " The word tradition, from the
Latin traditio, means something delivered by word of
mouth without written memorials ; or it means any
thing delivered orally from age to age. But the
Greek word tragcidoaig, for which tradition is used as
a translation, is of more extensive signification, and
means precept, instruction, ordinance, delivered either
orally or in writing. The compound root of this word
is napadld<,)[j,i, to deliver from one to another, or de
liver down, and is from trapd,, down, and di6(d^i, to
give, extend, deliver from one to another."*
It is obvious that the word tradition is used by the
apostle for the Christian doctrine in general, which
had been delivered both by loord and writing, and,
consequently, cannot prove the doctrine of tradition as
here opposed — as something wholly independent of
the Scriptures.
Archbishop Cranmer, who, as we have seen, is
represented as the patron of the doctrine of the
sacredness of unwritten traditions, gives us the fol
lowing commentary upon 2 Thess. ii, 15 : —
" ' Stand fast, brethren, and keep the ordinances
that ye have learned, either by our preaching or by
our epistle.' Of these words they gather, that Paul
taught diverse things to the Thessalonians by word of
mouth, without writing, which, nevertheless, he com-
* See Delineation of Roman Catholicism, vol. i, p. 97. The
reader is referred to this whole chapter for a learned discussion
of the Romish views, and a complete refiitation of the leadmg
arguments by which they are attempted to be sustained.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 147
manded them to do. Answer, I grant that Paul
taught many things by word of mouth, which he
wrote not in his Epistles to the Thessalonians. But
how shall they prove that the same things be neither
written by him in any other of his epistles, or in any
other place of the whole Bible ? For what argument
is this ? It is not -written in this place or to those
persons ; ergo, it is not written in the Scripture at all.
For the shortness of one epistle, or of one sermon,
cannot sufficiently contain all things necessary for our
salvation ; and therefore be there many books of the
Scripture, that what is so omitted, and not spoken of
in one place, or else darkly spoken of, might be written
plainly in another place. And for this cause St. Paul
writeth to the Colossians, saying, ' When this letter is
read with you, cause it also to be read to the Laodi-
ceans. And read you also the Epistle written from
Laodicea.' 2 Cor. x. And St. Paul writeth of him
self, ' Such as we are in our absence by letters, such
are we indeed, being present.' Moreover, Paul
speaketh not here of doctrines of faith and charity,
which ever continue without changing, adding, or
minishing, but of certain traditions, observations,
ceremonies, and outward rites, and bodily exercises,
which, as he saith, is little worth to God-ward, but to
be used for comeliness, decent order, and uniformity
in the church, and to avoid schism : which ceremonies
every good man is bound to keep, lest he trouble the
common order, and so break the order of charity in
offending his weak brethren ; so long as they be
approved, received, and used by the heads and com
mon consent. But they, and every one of such cere-

148 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
monies as be neither sacraments, nor commandments
of faith and charity, may be altered and changed, and
other set in their places, or else utterly taken away by
the authority of princes, and other, their rulers and
subjects in the Church. Yea, also, the traditions
made by the apostles in full council at Jerusalem,
may be, and already are, taken away, as to abstain
from things offered unto images, from blood and
strangled, are nowhere kept. And this, of Paul, that
a man should neither pray nor preach capped, or with
his head covered, is also clean abolished."*
I have quoted this exposition at length, not because
I suppose it to be an entirely correct view of the
text, but to show that the father of the English Re
formation wholly rejected both the doctrine of "un
written verities" and the application made of the text
under consideration by its defenders. He is, indeed,
so far from considering the ecclesiastical traditions of
the primitive church a part of the divine rule of faith
and practice, that he considers some traditions which
were established by the apostles themselves as now
" clean abolished."
In my copy of the Douay Bible! we have the fol
lowing note upon this passage : " Traditions — See
here that the unwritten traditions of the apostles are
no less to be received than their epistles." If the
learned commentators mean that these "un-written
traditions" were " no less to be received than their
epistles" by those who heard them from the mouths of
the apostles, we do not object. But this is not the
* Confutation of Unwritten Verities, chap. ix.
t Sixth edition, folio. Dublin, 1794.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 149
sense of the note. It is making the apostle support
the doctrine of " unwritten traditions" as reported by
the Church, through succeeding ages : a doctrine
which the words do not imply, and which they
cannot be made to support without the grossest per
version. The note in the Rhemish Testament is more full.
I will here give the exposition of the learned Romish
annotators, as there set forth, with the refutation by
Dr. Fulke :—
" Traditions — Not only the things written and set
down in the Holy Scriptures, but all other truths and
points of religion uttered by word of mouth, and de
livered or given by the apostles to their scholars by
tradition, be so here approved, and elsewhere in the
Scripture itself, that the heretics purposely, guilefully,
and of ill-conscience, that belike reprehendeth them,
refrain in their translations, from the ecclesiastical and
most usual word, tradition, evermore when it is taken
in good part, though it express most exactly the sig
nification of the Greek word : but when it soundeth in
their fond fantasy against the traditions of the Church,
as indeed in true sense it never doth, there they use
it most gladly. Here, therefore, and in the like
places, that the reader might not so easily like of
traditions unwritten, here commended by the apostle,
they translate it, instructions, constitutions, ordinances*
and what they can invent else, to hide the truth from
the simple or unwary reader, whose translations have
* Tyndall, in 1534, had translated the word napaioaeic, " or.
dinances ;" Cranmer, in 1539, the same ; the Geneva translatow,
in 1557, " instructions." See English Hexapla, in loc.

150 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
none other end but to beguile such by art and con
nivance."* To this Dr. Fulke answers, " Our translations are
true, and according to the true sense of the word, and
of the text. And seeing traditions are sometimes
taken in evil part, as you confess, we do rightly
avoid the ambiguity, when, as the signification of
the word doth bear, we translate instructions, con
stitutions, ordinances. And it is as much advantage
as you can justly require, to have instructions, con
stitutions, ordinances of the apostles, unwritten, but
that under the voice, sound, and .colour of the -word;
traditions, you would have all your fables and inven
tions of false doctrine received without any examina
tion or trial, whether they came from the apostles
or no.
" But now let us see whether this text doth allow
any traditions, or ordinances of the apostles, that are
nowhere expressed and contained in the Scriptures.
Paul wiUeth them to hold the traditions which they
had learned, whether it were by word or by his
epistle : ergo, say you, ' not only the things written
and set down in the Holy Scriptures, but all other
points of truth, and points of religion uttered by word
of mouth, and delivered by the apostles to their
scholars by tradition, be here approved. Indeed, as
well that which the apostles did preach, as that which
they did write, is here approved.' But how doth it
follow out of this text, that the apostle did preach or
deliver anything by word of mouth, which is not
¦written and set down in the Holy Scriptures ? Un-
* New Test., Rhem.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 151
less this be your argument, all was not -written in the
Epistle to the Thessalonians : ergo, it is written and
set down nowhere in the Holy Scriptures."*
Thus did the old English doctors refute the very
arguments and constructions of Scripture, which are
revived and propagated by a large portion of the
English divines of the present day, and not a few of
the divines of the Protestant Episcopal Chinch in this
country. There are many other passages of Scripture which
are employed in support of the doctrine of patristical
tradition ; but they, are wholly irrelevant. I have
noticed the most prominent, passages, and the only
ones which afford our opponents the semblance of
support. The reader will be perfectly safe in con
cluding that, if the doctrine is not supported by the
passages which I have considered, it is not by any
other, for these indeed approach the nearest to proof
of anything which is brought from the Bible, either by
Romish or Anglican Catholics. Those who wish for
a more extended investigation of this part of the argu
ment, are referred to Dr. Fulke's Confutation of the
Rhemish Testament, and to Mr. Goode's learned work
upon the Divine Rule of Faith and Practice.
* See " Confutation of the Rhemish Testament." This work
was completed in 1589, and is pronounced by Mr. James Her-
vey, " A valuable piece of ancient controversy and criticism, fvdl
of sound divinity, mighty arguments, and important observations.
¦Would the young student," says he, " be taught to discover the
very sinews of Popery, and be enabled to give an effectual blow
to that complication of error, I know scarcely a treatise better
calculated for that purpose." — Preface to the American edition.

152 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
SECTION IV.
Evidence in proof of Tradition from Fathers.
It must not be inferred from my readiness to in
quire into the opinions of the fathers upon the subject
of tradition, that I recognise their competency to settle
the divine rule of faith and practice. I acknowledge
no authority competent to this but God himself, or
those whom he has inspired. So that if those who
are called fathers should explicitly tell us that oral
tradition coming down, as says the Council of Trent,
" from hand to hand," is to be received to the end of
time as a part of this rule, we should not submit to
their decision in the case, unless it could be sustained
by God's word.
But after some examination, having become per
fectly satisfied that our opponents derive no support
from the most ancient of the fathers, whose writings
have come down to our times, I shall devote a brief
space to the consideration of the evidence which is
adduced from this source.
And first, let it be noted that no proof of the exist
ence of any such appendage to the rule of faith and
practice as is contended for by our opponents is at
tempted to be produced from the apostolic fathers, nor
from Justin Martyr. The earliest evidence they pro
fess to find in the fathers is in Irenaeus, who flourished
in the latter part of the second century. Here, then,
we see that, our adversaries being judges, nearly two
centuries had elapsed before there is any direct appeal
to tradition in settling controversies in religion : —

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 153
rather an unaccountable fact, if tradition had from the
beginning been a necessary part of the rule of faith —
and the divinely-authorized commentary upon the
Scriptures. I shall quote verbatim from Archdeacon
Manning all that he has seen proper to bring from the
ancient fathers. There will then be no dispute as to
the selection or the translation. The archdeacon
proceeds : —
" The first passages we will take are from St. Irk-
NiEus, the earliest and greatest witness to Holy Scrip
ture in the second century, who testifies to us, that
what the apostles first preached ' they afterward, by
the will of God, delivered to us in writing, to be the
foundation and pillar of our faith.'*
" ' When they [that is, heretics] are convicted from
the Scriptures, they turn about, and accuse the Scrip
tures themselves, as if they were incorrect or unau
thentic ; alleging that they are equivocally expressed,
and that the truth cannot be found from them by those
that are ignorant of [their] tradition ; for that tradition
[of theirs] was not delivered in writing, but by word
of month ; for which reason, also, Paul said, " We
speak wisdom among them that are perfect, but not
the wisdom of this world." And each one of them
declares that to be their wisdom, which he has in
vented of himself, that is, a mere fiction; so that,
according to them, truth may well be sometimes in
Valentinus, sometimes in Marcian, sometimes in Ce-
rinthus ; then afterward it was in Basilides, or in him
who opposed him, who could utter nothing that was
sound ; for each one of them, perverse every way, de-
* See Sermon, p. 20, and note.
7*

154 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRlFtURE,
pfaving the rule of truth, {regulam veritatis depravans,)
is not ashamed to preach himself But when again
we challenge them to come to that tradition which is
from the apostles, which is kept in the churches by
the succession of elders, they set themselves against
tradition, saying that they being not only wiser than
the elders, but also than the aposties, have found the
pure truth  And so therefore it turns out, that they
agree neither with Scripture nor with tradition.'*
" ' Since, therefore, there are such abundant proofs,
it is not right to seek among any others the truth,
which it is easy to receive from the church, foras
much as the apostles most fully laid up in it, as in a
rich depository, all things belonging to the truth, that
all who would might take from it the water of life :
for this is the entrance of life ; but all others are
thieves and robbers. Wherefore we ought to avoid
them ; but whatsoever is in the church that to affect
with the greatest diligence, and to embrace as the
tradition of truth. Wherefore, if there did arise a
controversy about ever so small a point, ought we not
to have recourse to the most ancient churches, which
the apostles in person frequented, and receive from
them a decision, certain and manifest, of the point at
issue ? For what if the apostles had left us no Scrip
tures at all, ought we not to follow the line of tradition,
which they delivered to them to whom they committed the
churches ? With which rule many barbarous nations
agree who believe in Christ, having salvation written,
without paper and ink, by the Spirit, in their hearts ;
and -Who watchfully preserve the ancient tradition,
* St. Iren., lib. iii, c. ii, 1, 2

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 155
believing in one God the maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things which are in them, through Jesus
Christ the Son of God ; who, by reason of his exceed
ing love toward the work of his hands, (mankind,)
endured to be born of a virgin, himself by himself
uniting man to God, and suffered under Pontius Pilate,
and rising again, and being received up in glory, shall
come in glory to be the Saviour of them that are saved,
and Judge of those that are judged, and shall send
away into eternal fire the corrupters of truth, and the
despisers of his Father, and of his coming. This
faith, they who have believed without letters, as con
cerns our language are barbarians, but as to their
wisdom, and way of life, and conversation, are most
wise for the faith's sake, and are pleasing to God,
walking in all righteousness, and chastity, and wisdom.
To whom should any one, speaking with them in their
own tongue, declare the inventions of heretics, straight
way they would close their ears, and flee as far as
possible, not enduring even to listen to blasphemous
discourses. So, by means of the same ancient tradi
tion of the apostles, they do not admit even in the
conception of their minds any of the portentous blas
phemies (of the heretics,) and never, as yet, had there
been among them any sect, nor had their [that is, the
heretical] doctrine been broached.'*
" ' The tradition, therefore, which came from the
apostles, so obtaining in the church, and abiding even
to our time, let us come back again to that demon
stration which is drawn from the Scriptures of those
apostles who wrote the gospel.'!
* St, Iren., lib. iii, c. iv, 1, 2. t Ibid., c. v, 1.

156 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
" ' The true knowledge {yvuaie; of which the Gnos
tics vaunted) is the doctrine of the apostles, and the
ancient system of the church which is in all the world ;
and the form (character, %apaKT^p) of the body of
Christ according to the successions of bishops, to
whom they delivered the church which is in every
place, and the full use of Scripture, which has de
scended to us by a safe custody, free from adulteration,
admitting neither addition nor diminution ; and the
reading without falsification, and the rightful exposition
according to the Scriptures.'"*
In this passage the following things are noticeable :
1. That Irenseus alleges the Scriptures to be "the
foundation and pillar of our faith." 2. That they were
the grand weapon used against heretics. 3. That the
heretics first had recourse to tradition independent of
Scripture. Here I would call attention to the words
" their" and " of their," inserted in brackets by the
archdeacon. These explanatory words give a wrong
sense to the father, for he charges the heretics with
appealing to tradition in general, and not to " their
tradition." 4. The father then appeals to tradition,
just as we do, as an argumentum ad hominem, it being
the ground his opponents had chosen, and so meets
them with their own weapons. 5. But the articles in
question between Irenaeus and the heretics were few
and simple, and those about which the traditions of
the church would be likely to have suffered at that
period but little or no deterioration. And 6. Admitting
that there were authentic oral traditions in the church
in the days of this father, this by no means proves that
* St. Iren., lib. iv, c. xxxiii, 8. Appendix, pp. 51-54.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 157
they are still in the church in a state of perfection.
Much less does the fact that the few fundamental doc
trines which this father mentions had been handed
down to the church of his time, not only in the Scrip
tures, but through the medium of oral tradition, prove
that the complicated system of " catholic verities" —
or " church principles" — which is presented for our
adoption, could have come down to us uncorrupted from
the apostles. It would be a strange argument that be
cause several simple principles, which are also expli
citly set forth in the Scriptures, could come down pure
through oral tradition two centuries, therefore, a mul
titude of abstruse doctrines not distinctly taught in the
Scriptures has passed uncorrupted " from hand to hand"
through oral tradition for a period of near two thousand
years. And this is the sum of the argument from Ire
naeus, if you make the very most of it.
The next witness presented by the archdeacon is
Tertullian. I will now present all that our author
has seen proper to quote from this father, with his com
mentaries upon the same.
Tertullian says, " Christ Jesus our Lord . . . chose
to himself twelve special companions, the destined
teachers for all nations. One therefore having fallen,
he commanded the remaining eleven, as he was de
parting, after his resurrection, to the Father, to go
and teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Straightway, therefore, the apostles, . . . having chosen
by lot Matthias for a twelfth in the room of Judas, by
authority of the prophecy which is in David's psalm,
and having received the promised might of the Holy

158 not tradition, but scripture.
Ghost for miracles and gifts of utterance, having first
borne witness of the faith which is in Jesus Christ,
and founded churches throughout Judea, then went
forth into the world, and promulgated the same doc
trine of the faith to the Gentiles, and founded churches
in every city : from which; thenceforward, other
churches borrowed, and continually borrow, the line
of the faith and the seeds of doctrine, and become
churches themselves. And by this they are reputed
to be themselves apostolical, as being the offspring
of apostolical churches. Every family must be re
ferred to its original. Therefore these, so many, and
so great churches, are still that same church which
was first from the apostles, from which all are derived.
Thus all are primitive, and all are apostolical, so long
as all are one. The proofs of unity are the fellowship
of peace, the name of brotherhood, the mutual pledge
of hospitality, which rights no other rule controls, than
the united tradition of the same mystery. Hither,
therefore, we must refer the prescription."*
Upon this passage our author remarks, " By ' pre
scription' Tertullian means that form of traditionary
doctrine which had so obtained in the church from
the beginning, that it had preoccupied the ground to
the exclusion of all novelties."!
I question whether the father, by " tradition" or
" prescription" means a " form of traditionary doctrine"
independent of the Scriptures. The fathers, as I shall
have occasion to notice hereafter, used the word " tra
dition" sometimes with reference to the Scriptures,
* TertuU. de Praescript. Hser. xx, xxi.
t Appendix, pp. 55, 56.

the rule of faith and practice. 159
and very frequently for the whole system of Christian
doctrine as taught in the Scriptures. And when the
word is used in contrast with the Scriptures for some
thing universally received in the church, it cannot be
proved that by any of the ancient fathers it was used
for " an unwritten revelation,'' of equal divine authority
with the Scriptures themselves. Tertullian made the
Scriptures " the documents of the doctrine," that is,
the doctrine of religion. " And in a word, throughout
all his treatises, with few exceptions, he refers to the
Scriptures alone for the proof of the doctrines of reli
gion, and that, not as Mr. Newman does, who would
have us suppose that it would be no proof unless tra
dition had delivered the doctrine, that is, in other
words, that it is no proof at all, but as a real proof
speaking to the common sense of every man. More
over, that Scripture contains all the points of faith
belonging to the Christian religion, we have these
testimonies : — ' I adore,' he says, ' the fulness of Scrip
ture, which manifests to me both the Creator and his
works. But in the Gospel I find discourse very abun
dantly serving both as the minister and witness of the
Creator. But that all things were made by some sub
jacent matter I have nowhere as yet read. Let the
shop of Hermogenes show that it is written. If it is
not written, let him fear that wo that is destined for
those who add to or take from Scripture.' "*
The archdeacon proceeds with further quotations : —
" But, to return from this digression, priority is to be
ascribed to truth, and posteriority to falsehood, under
the sanction of that parable which gave the first place
» Goode's Divine Rule, vol. ii, p. 220.

160 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
to the good grain of wheat sown by the Lord, and
brings in afterward the aduUeration by the enemy, the
devil," &c. " So that, from the very order, it is plain
that whatsoever is delivered first is of the Lord, and
true ; but that which is brought in afterward is false
and foreign."*
All right enough. The verities of religion which
have " priority" are set down in the Scriptures. The
corruptions both of primitive and of modern times have
been " brought in afterward." And the theory of an
unwritten revelation, which was even prior to the
written, is a device to procure for them the sanction
of this rule.
He proceeds : — " He then challenges the heretics
to show the succession of their doctrines. ' For their
doctrine itself, compared with that of the apostles, will
declare, by its diversity and contrariety, that it has
neither an apostle nor an apostolic man for its author ;
because, as the apostles did not teach diverse things
one from another, so neither would the apostolic Chris
tians put forth things contrary to the apostles, except
they also revolted from the apostles, and preached
contrary to them.'! This, he says, is the challenge
which heretics will have to answer ; and, as for their
appeals to Scripture, until they can show that they
hold the apostolic doctrines, they have no right to the
apostolic writings. ' To whom it may be justly said,
" Who are ye ? When and whence did ye come ?
What are ye doing in my property, seeing ye are none
of mine ? By what right do you cut my woods, Mar-
cion ? By what privilege do you turn my fountains,
* Tertull, de Praescript. Hser, xxxi. t Ibid., xxxii.

THE rule of faith AND PRACTICE. 161
Valentinus ? By what authority do you remove my
landmarks, Apelles ? The possession is mine. Why
do you sow and pasture at your will here ? The pos
session is mine ; I had it long ago ; I had first posses
sion ; I have secure titles from the very men whose it
was to bestow ; I am the heir of the apostles ; as they
provided in their will, as they intrusted it, so I hold it.
You, assuredly, they did always disinherit, and disown
as strangers and enemies.'' But how are heretics
strangers and enemies to the apostles, but by reason
of the diversity of doctrine, which each man, at his
own will, either propounds or takes up in opposition
to the apostles ? To their diversity of doctrine we
must impute their adulteration both of Scripture and
of interpretation.' "*
From this it appears that the father pleads the want
of unity in their doctrinal views among the heretics :
a test which our opponents could scarcely stand. For
with all the superior advantages of tradition, which,
according to them, contains the true sense of Scrip
ture, there is as great a diversity of opinion among
them as there could have been among the ancient
heretics. So that if tradition was ever the means of
preserving among the orthodox unity of doctrinal views,
it has long since failed to be so, as no one can have
the face to deny.
But the father talks rhetorically when he claims for
the orthodox the sole proprietorship of the Scriptures.
Had the heretics used the Scriptures, and not adulte
rated them, they would have infringed upon no man's
rights. For the Scriptures are not given exclusively
* Tertull. de Prsescript. Haer. xxxvii. Appendix, pp. 56, 57.

162 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
to the priesthood, nor to the church, but to the whole
world. The archdeacon proceeds : —
" Tertullian argues, throughout, that the faithful re
ception of apostolical tradition was a necessary condi
tion to appealing for proof to apostolical Scripture ;
most distinctly marking the coexistence of both the
unwritten and written tradition, and asserting their
exact agreement. ' What, forsooth, is there in ours
(Scripture) contrary to us ? What have we inserted
of our own, that we should need to remedy any con
tradiction to it, which is to be discovered in the Scrip
tures, by taking away, or adding, or transposing?
What we are, (that is, in doctrine,) that have the
Scriptures been from their very beginning.' "*
Now, who, upon reading the language that our
author quotes from the father, would ever dream that
he meant to say that " the faithful reception of apos
tolical tradition was a necessary condition to appealing
for proof to the apostolic Scriptures ?" If he can find
nothing more pertinent than this in his author, he will
scarcely prevent any from appealing directly to the
Scriptures irrespective of his " necessary condition,"
nor, until then, can we at all concede that his authority
gives him the least support.
Archbishop Cranmer meets the Romanists, who
claim Tertullian as a patron of " unwritten verities,"
in this straightforward manner : — " The same Tertul
lian also, as it is afore rehearsed, saith, that there is
nothing else that ought to be believed after Christ's
gospel once published. Yea, all the old authors, a
thousand years after Christ, and likewise almost all
* Tertull. de Praescript. Hter. xxxviii. Appendix, p. 57.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 163
the new, affirm the same, and would not have us credit
their sayings without the proof of God's word. Why
should we, then, believe Tertullian against so plain
Scriptures, against the old fathers of the church, and
also contrary to his own sayings? Yet will I here
gently interpret him, so as he may both agree with
the Scriptures, with the old authors, and also with
himself"* The next authority presented by our author is Ori
gen. He proceeds : — " Origen, speaking of the ap
peal made by heretics to Holy Scripture, says, ' As often
as they bring forward canonical Scriptures, in which
every Christian consents and believes, they seem to
say, " Behold, the word of truth is in your houses."
But we ought not to believe them, nor to depart from
the primitive ecclesiastical tradition, nor believe other-
vvise than as the churches of God have handed down
to us by succession.' "!
This is said in opposition to Marcion, Valentinus,
Basilides, and others, and clearly enough asserts that
the doctrines which these heretics rejected were held
in the church, and had been "handed down by suc
cession."' " But," says Mr. Goode, " let us consider to what
points this creed, for which the consent of the apos
tolical churches is challenged by Origen, extends.
Hardly to one of the points in controversy in the pre-
* Confutation of Unwritten Verities, chap. x. For a fiirther
and more complete discussion of the views of TertiUlian upon
the subject of Scripture and tradition, see Goode's Divine Rule,
pp. 219-225.
t Appendix, p. 57.

164 NOT tradition, BUT SCRIPTURE,
sent day. How, then, can the authority of Origen be
now pleaded for a reference to ' tradition' in proof of
points for which he* does not challenge the evidence
of tradition in his own day ? He professes to give in
the creed the whole of that for which the consent of
the apostolical churches could be claimed. We can
not, then, quote him as sanctioning an appeal to ' tra
dition' on other points. Moreover, he gives no inti
mation that these points are not all fully and clearly
delivered in Scripture, but, on the contrary, his lan
guage in other places shows that he was altogether
opposed to any such notion.''
The learned author concludes his remarks upon the '
testimony of Origen by observing, that this great light
in the primitive church " makes this tradition respon
sible for some of his own errors :" constituting " a
clear instance how easy it 'is for men to make great
mistakes, and embrace serious errors, and at the same
time claim ' church tradition' in their favour."*
The next witness is Eusebius of Cesarea. He
says, " Which things being shortiy propounded to the
Galatians, out of their own epistle, namely, the saving
faith which gives us the mystical regeneration in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost ; and besides the divine (traditions) which are
written, the catholic church of God, which is from
one end of the earth to the other, seals to us the testi
monies of Scripture, by tradition which is not written."^
In this passage it is simply asserted that the doc-
* See Divine Rule, vol. ii, pp. 237, 238.
t Eusebius contra Marcellum Ancyr., lib. i, c. 1. Appendix,
pp. 57, 58.

the rule of faith and practice. 165
trine of " mystical regeneration" by " faith," asserted
by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians, was pre
served in " the catholic church," and; with other
doctrines contained in Scripture, " sealed by tradition
which is not written." And what support does this
give our author's views of tradition ? It is encou
raging, indeed, to learn that in the days of Eusebius
this blessed doctrine was still sustained by unwritten
tradition. But how is this very doctrine regarded by
those who set tradition upon a level with Scripture
itself? The Romanists have for centuries rejected it
altogether, putting in its place baptismal regeneration,
penance, works of supererogation, &c., and the Tracta
rians now fall in with them. And both unite in an
effort to prove that the " sacraments of grace" are
sustained by the traditions of the church. Now, if
the catholic view of "mystical regeneration" is sus
tained by tradition, as Romanists and Churchmen
strenuously maintain, the single fact that the opposite
doctrine was once sustained by that "informant" is
enough to show the instability of this means of in
formation ; for nothing is more evident than that the
tradition of " the catholic church of God" in the days
of Eusebius was essentially different from what it is
now maintained to have become, before the documents
now relied upon as informants were perfected. Would
to God that we could bring back our opponents to the'
old tradition ! That, it seems, agreed with the Scrip
tures, but their traditions are wholly averse to them.
Our author next refers to Athanasius. This ancient
author says, " Our faith is right, coming to us from the
teaching of the apostles, and the tradition of the fathers,

166 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
and being confirmed both out of the Old and the New
Testaments." Again : " Nevertheless, in addition to
these things, (that is, the foregoing proofs from Scrip
ture,) let us examine the tradition itself, which was
from the beginning, and the doctrine and the faith of
the catholic church, which the Lord delivered, and
the apostles preached, and the fathers preserved. For
in this faith is the church founded, and he that falls
from it neither can be, nor may be, any longer called
a Christian  Thus the unity of God is preached in
the church  And that they may know that this is
the faith of the church, let them learn how the Lord,
sending his disciples, enjoined them to lay this founda
tion for the church, saying, ' Go teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' And the apostles went,
and so taught ; and this is the preaching which is in
every church under heaven." And at the close of the
same letter he writes, " I have delivered [this doctrine]
according to the apostolical faith delivered to us by
the fathers, adding nothing from any other source ; but
what things I have learned, (those) I have expressed,
in accordance with the Holy Scriptures."*
That Athanasius asserts that the " faith" which he
maintained came from " the aposties and the traditions
of the fathers" is sufficiently plain. And this refer
ence to tradition, if the word means anything more
than the apostolical testimony found in the Scriptures,
was doubtiess occasioned by the fact that the Arians,
against whom he was writing, plead tradition for their
* Ep. ad Adelph. 6, torn, ii, p. 914. Ad Serapionem, 28, tom.
ii, p. 676. Ibid. 33. Appendix, p. 58.

the rule of FAITH AND PRACTICE. 167
heresy. But where is the evidence that this father
considered the testimony of the fathers an authoritative
exposition of the Scriptures, or that the " faith" was
founded upon the " oral teaching of the aposties,'' in
dependent of the Scriptures ? Indeed, we need go no
further than the passage quoted by the archdeacon to
be convinced that no such theory was embraced by
Athanasius. None of the fathers base their arguments
more explicitly upon Scripture than he does. Though
he uses the word tradition frequently, he uses it for
the apostolical writings, and by fathers often means
the apostles themselves. That he held the sufficiency
of Scripture independent of oral tradition, and that it
is by Scripture that we receive the faith, is abundantly
evident from his writings. In proof of this I give the
following passage :—
" As you desire to hear something on this subject,
we will, as far as we are able, give a brief exposition
of the Christian faith ; which, indeed, you might have
found from the divine oracles ; but, nevertheless, po
litely hear also from others. For, indeed, the holy and
inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves for the
delivery of the truth."*
That Athanasius does not mean by "tradition" the
" oral teachings of the aposties," or " the creeds," but
that he applies this term to the Scriptures, will be
seen from the following passage : —
" I have written these things, beloved ; although,
indeed, there was no need to write anything more, for
the evangelical tradition is sufficient of itself; but be
cause you inquire respecting our faith, and on account
* In Orat. contra Gent.

168 Mot tradition, but scripture,
of those who love to make sport with the faith by theil"
inventions, and do not consider that he who speaks
from his own private fancy speaks a lie. For it is not
possible for the wit of man to declare fully the beauty
or glory of the body of Christ. But it is possible for
us both to confess the things that have been done, ac
cording as they are recorded in Scripture, and to worship
the true God."* Here there is no room to doubt but
Athanasius contends for the sufficiency of Scripture
alone, and by " evangelical tradition'' he means the
sacred writings of the New Testament.
The archdeacon next gives us St. Chrysostom as
authority. In his commentary upon 2 Thess. ii, 15,
he says, " Hence it is plain, that they did not deliver
all things by letter, but many things unwritten. Both
those and these are alike worthy to be believed : so
that we esteem the tradition of the church to be worthy
of behef "!
The inference the father draws here, " that we es
teem the tradition of the church," &c., would be legi
timate in relation to tradition as evidently coming from
the mouths of the apostles, as that which the Thessa
lonians had received by their " record," but -where is
there any such tradition ? It is nowhere to be found.
It must be conceded that Chrysostom supposes the
existence of " tradition" of some kind in " the church"
which was " worthy of belief" - Archbishop Cranmer,
Bishop Morton, and Mr. Goode, in order to reconcile
this passage with others to be found in the writings
of this father, in which he declares the Scriptures
* In contra ApoU., lib. i, § ult. i, 939, 940.
t Appendix, p. 59.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 169
" the ground and rule of all the truths of religion," &c.,
consider him in the passage in question as referring
to " traditions" in relation to " rites and ceremonies,
which be not necessary for our salvation, but be or
dained for decent order and conformity in the church,"
but which are " alterable." And Mr. Goode admits that
not only Chrysostom, but some other fathers, "held
that many of the rites and customs of the church, not
mentioned in the Scripture, might be considered as
having been derived from apostolical ordinance and
sanction."* But that they believed this without good and suffi
cient reasons is obvious enough upon a mere glance
at a list of these traditions, some of which have gone
out of use even among Romanists.!
Next we have the testimony of Gregory Nazianzen.
He says, " And God grant that we may confess unto
our last breath, in all boldness of speech, the good
deposite of the holy fathers who were nearest to Christ,
and to the original faith, even the confession in which
we have been nurtured, which we uttered before any
thing else, and in which may we together die at the
last."t There is no reason for supposing that the father
does not refer to " the faith" as presented in the Holy
Scriptures. There is nothing here said about " oral
tradition." But says Archdeacon Manning, " So com
pletely in their minds was the right interpretation of
Scripture combined with Scripture itself, that both, as
together expressing the whole doctrine of the apostles,
* Divine Rule, vol. ii, p. 332.
t See pages 198, 199. t Orat. vi, torn, i, 141.
8

170 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
are habitually called by the common term, apostolical
traditions."* Now this statement, I am persuaded, is utterly with
out foundation. By " the right interpretation of Scrip
ture," our author means " oral tradition," — " the creeds
and universal consent of Christians" of primitive times.
And it is not true of even his own witnesses, that they
" combined with Scripture itself" these traditionary
interpretations, and called them " by one common term,
apostolical traditions." No evidence yet produced
makes good this position. But our author proceeds to
further authorities touching this point. Let us see to
what they amount.
He says : " For instance, St. Hippolytus writes,
' Let us believe therefore, brethren, according to the
tradition of the apostles, that God the Word descended
from heaven into the holy Virgin Mary.' "!
But what evidence is there here that the father, by
" the tradition of the apostles," did not refer merely to
the writings of the apostles ? He, however, has another
witness to this point.
He proceeds : " And also St. Cyprian, ' Whence is
this tradition ? Does it descend to us by the authority
of the Lord, and of the Gospel ? Does it come from
the ordinances, and Epistles of the apostles ? .... If,
therefore, it is enjoined either in the Gospel, or in the
Epistles of the apostles, or contained in the Acts, &c.
... let this divine and holy tradition be observed.' And
in the same epistle : ' If in anything the truth shall
seem to fail and to waver, let us return to the original
* Appendix, p. 59.
t Hippol. contra Noetura. Op. 243. Appendix, p. 59.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 171
of the Lord, and to the tradition of the Gospel, and of
the apostles, and thence let our practice have its rise,
whence our rule, and order, and beginning came. For
it has been delivered to us, that there is one God,
and one Christ, and one hope, and one faith, and one
church, and one only baptism ordained in the church
alone ; from which unity he that departs must be found
among heretics, whom while he defends against the
church, he impugns the sacrament of the divine tradi
tion.'* St. Cyprian plainly means the whole gospel
of Christ attested by the whole apostolical tradition,
both written and unwritten."!
These fragments from St. Cyprian are torn from their
connections, and wrested from their evident meaning.
Let any one read the unbroken antitraditionary argu
ment of the father, as I give it in another place,:]; and
he will then see what confidence is to be placed in the
patristic proofs of the Archdeacon. Instead of mean
ing by tradition " both written and unwritten'' tradition,
the father 'evidently contrasts the two, and rejects that
which is " unwritten," as wholly worthless. This
sense is absolutely essential to the validity of his
argument against Stephen.
Our author's next authority is St. Basil. His words
are, " Wherefore, it behooves him that has before his
eyes the judgment of Christ, and who knows how
dangerous it is to take anything from, or to add to
those things which are delivered by the Spirit, not to
be ambitious of new expositions of his own, (Trop'
kavrdv Katvorofielv,) but quietly to rest in the things
which have been before declared by the saints. But
* Ep. 74 ad Pomp, t App., pp. 59, 60. t See pp. 351-356.

172 NOT tradition, but SCRIPTURE,
to venture upon anything which neither common cus
tom, nor the use of the Scriptures, (fi Koivr) ovvrjdeia
oire T] ruv ypa^wj' ;^;p^,(Wf,) admit, is the height of
madness."* A good exhortation against novel expositions of
Scripture. But what is said about " oral traditions ?"
Indeed, nothing at all. And that Basil is not a wit
ness for tradition in the sense held by our opponents is
evident from the fact that Romish writers have foisted
a passage into his work on the Holy Spirit exactly to
their liking. This passage is as follows : — " Of the
doctrine and instructions preserved in the Church,
some we have from the teaching of Scripture, and
others we have received delivered down to us secretly
from the traditions of the apostles ; both of which have
the like force toward piety ; and no one will contradict
these things, no one at least who has any experience
of the laws of the Church ; for if we should attempt
to repudiate the unwritten customs as not having any
great weight, we should unwittingly injure the gospel
in the very principal points, or, rather, reduce the
gospel to a mere name."!
This passage is noticed by Cranmer and Jewel with
decided disapprobation. But Erasmus, Bishop Tay
lor and Bishop Patrick, set it down as spurious.
Of this, doubtless, the archdeacon was aware, and
therefore did not bring it forward. The use I wish to
make of it is, to show that the Romanists thought it
necessary to put words into the mouth of this father
more to the purpose than any which he had voluntarily
* Basil, adver. Eunom., lib. ii, c. 8. Appendix, p. 60.
t De Spir. S., c. 27.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 173
uttered. And by doing this they have indeed made
him contradict himself. It is marvellous that the
Romish editors, after palming the above sentiments
upon the great BasU, left in his works such sentiments
as these : — " It is a manifest infidelity and arrogance,
either to reject what is written, or to add anything that
is not written." The wonder is, that while they had
compelled this father to utter the truth, they did not
expurgate his errors.
Our author's last witoess is Vincent of Lirin. " I
shall add," says he, " only one more -writer, who may
fittingly close the list, as he is the great cathohc wit
ness of the rule of which we speak." His " catholic
witness" proceeds : —
" Here somiebody may ask, ' Do the heretics also
use testimonies from the divine Scripture ?' They do
use them, and vehemently indeed. For you may see
them flitting through every book of the holy law,
through Moses, through the books of Kings, through
the Psalms, through the Apostles, through the Gospels,
through the Prophets. Whether among their own
famiUes, or among strangers, in private, or in public,
in their discourses, or in their books, in their feastings,
or in the streets, there is hardly anything that they
propound of their own inventions, without trying to
throw over it a shadow of words from Scripture.
Read the works of Paul of Samosata, of Priscillian,
of Eunomius, of Jovinian, and of the other posts ; you
may see an infinite heap of quotations, not a page
suffered to pass, but what is coloured and disguised
by sentences from the New or the Old Testament.
But, by just so much the more ought we to beware of

174 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
them, and to fear them, by how much the deeper they
lie, hid under the shadows of the divine law  And
if any man should ask onp of these heretics, who is
endeavouring to persuade liim to his opinion, Whence
do you prove, whence do you teach me that I ought to
let go the universal and ancient faith of the church
catholic ? he immediately answers, ' It is written.'
And straightway he produces a thousand testimonies,
a thousand quotations, a thousand authorities from the
Law, from the Psalms, from the Apostles, from the
Prophets, by which, interpreted in a new and false
way, the unhappy soul may be hurled from the catho
lic stronghold into the depths of heresy. . . ."What, then,
shall catholics, and sons of the church their mother
do ? In what way shall they discern truth from false
hood in the Holy Scriptures?, This they shall take
care with greatest heed to do, even that which in the
beginning of this commonitory we have written as the
counsel which holy and wise men have delivered to
us, namely, that they shall interpret the divine Canon
according to the traditions of the church universal,
and the rules of catholic doctrine : in which also it is
necessary for them to follow the universality, antiquity,
and consent of the catholic and apostolic church."*
Here we find an a,u\h.o^ of the fifth century who goes
explicitly for " catholic consent" as the rule of faith.
But it can scarcely escape the most cursory reader
that he seems to be' thrown upon this ground by the use
the heretics made of Scripture. Now, it is not im
probable but those who were called heretics in these
days held some truths that the catholics had lost sight
* Commonit,, sec. xxv-xxvii. Appendix, pp. 60, 61.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 176
of, and that the latter would find no little difficulty in
meeting their opponents upon Scripture ground. They
then, instead of a fair investigation upon the principles
of legitimate interpretation, throw themselves into the
trackless wilderness of " catholic consent."
But further. As Bishop Stillingfleet observes,
" Vincentius speaks of such a universal tradition,
which depends wholly upon antiquity, universality,
and consent ; and never so much as mentions, much
less pretends to, anything of infaUibUity.'' . . . ;' For if
Vincentius had even in the least thought of any such
thing, so great and zealous an opposer of heresies
could not have left out that which had been more to
his purpose than all that he had said."*
Moreover, this same Vincent says, "The canon of
Scripture is perfect, and most abundantly of itself
sufficient for all things."! This sentiment is exactly
antagonistic to the theory we here oppose, and, it must
be admitted, is scarcely consistent with the funda
mental principles of his treatise. Dr. Reynolds has
very wisely said, " I like his [Vincent's] judgment in
the general point touching the sufficiency and perfect-
ness of Scripture, which I know you like not, though
you make greater semblance of liking him than I. If in
the particulars I mislike somewhat, let the blame be
laid upon the blameworthy ; not me, who stand to that
which he hath spoken well, but him who falleth from it.
For, laying his foundation as it were on a rock, he
buildeth up his house beside it on the sand."J
* Nat. Ground of Prat. Rel., part i, c. 9.
+ Commonit., sec. ii.
X De Doctr. Christ, ch. ii.

176 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
There are several other admissions and qualifica
tions found scattered through the Commonitory of Vin
cent which clog and burden his great rule so effectually
as to render him rather a poor witness for our oppo
nents, after all. He says, " All true catholics may
know it to be their duty to receive their teachers as
the Church receives them, and not to desert the faith
of the Church upon the authority of their teachers."*
Now, what would be the practical operation of this
principle ? Should the regular clergy teach heresy,
here is authority for the exercise of private judgment.
Again he says, " 'Tis necessary to observe likewise,
that this method is not to be made use of at all times,
and against all sorts of heresy, but against such only
as are in their infancy ; when they first begin to show
their head, before the authors of them have falsified
the ancient creeds, the rules of faith ; before they can
have found time to spread their poison, and adulterate
the writings of the ancients."! So, according to Vin
cent, the Romish and Tractarian heresies being an
cient, and their authors having had " time" " to adul
terate the writings of the ancients," and, indeed, having
well used this " time," cannot be tried by his rule.
Again, we are told by our ancient catholic author,
that " the fathers we consult upon this occasion are to
be only such holy and wise doctors as have lived and
persevered to the last in the faith and communion of
the catholic chUrch, such as either died in the Lord,
or had the happiness of being martyred' for him."J
Now, who can tell which of the fathers is to be con
sulted, on this principle ? Unless they remained in the
* Chap, xxiii. t Chap, xxxiii. X Ibid.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 177
catholic chiuch, and died in the Lord, or were mar
tyrs, they are of no authority.
The intelligent reader is now fully qualified to make
up a safe opinion as to the support which the fathers
give the doctrine of tradition. He may rely upon the
fact, that if there had been anything to the purpose in
the writings of the fathers, the learned archdeacon
would have brought it forward. And if what he has
adduced is wholly irrelevant, it is quite certain the
writers he has laid under contribution give his theory
no countenance.
Such, then, are the arguments by which the adhe
rents of patristical tradition attempt to tack it upon the
Holy Scriptures, in order to supply their deficiency,
as a rule of faith and practice. How much better is
the rule for this mending ? How much gratitude do we
owe our patristical tinkers for all their labour in putting
the miserable patch of tradition upon the perfect rule
which God has given us ? Is there any need of it ?
Is not the whole a work of supererogation ? Is there
any good reason for admitting the claim set up in
favour of tradition ? I have presented the leading and
the strongest considerations which are alleged in favour
of this claim. I know not of another that is worth a
moment's attention. And if these reasons are utterly
powerless, on what ground can our catholics require
us to embrace their dogmas ? On none, it may be fairly
presumed, unless it is that of a divine right to dictate
to us our faith, and when they will finally sustain this
we will give them implicit obedience ; until which, we
must, however reluctantly, conclude them in error, and
refuse our assent to their theory. 8*

178 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,

CHAPTER III.
CONSIDERATIONS IN OPPOSITION TO . THE CLAIMS OF
TRADITION AS A DIVINE INFORMANT.
SECTION I.
The Improbabilities which oppose the System of Tradition.
There is a violent improbability in opposition to
the claims which are set up for tradition as the infal
lible standard of Christian doctrine^— The common
sense of men, in all ages of iS.e world, has uniformly
decided that oral tradition is an uncertain mode of
transmitting facts and principles from age to age.
The adoption of hieroglyphics, commemorative rites,
and written records, for the purpose of the secure and
faithful transmission of historical facts, philosophical
principles, and religious rites to succeeding ages, is a
clear and conclusive proof of this position. If oral
tradition is a safe mode of conveying down the stream
of time the facts of all past history, and the great reli
gious principles upon which the well-being of mankind
must ever depend, why have the ingenuity of men
and the wisdom of God been so deeply concerned in
devising another ? That oral tradition would naturally
be the earliest method of carrying down from father to
son the events and customs of the past, is natural to
suppose. And if there had been no danger of failure,
what could have induced men to look for some other
method ?

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 179
The doctrines and institutions of religion were at
the first, in the infancy of the world, few and simple,
the family of man small, and human life protracted to
several hundred years. Under such a state of things,
especially considering that then God held direct oral
intercourse with the patriarchs, oral tradition would
be more certain, and permanent records less neces
sary.* We have, accordingly, no evidence of written
revelations until the days of Moses, when we find the
method of recording the doctrines and institutions of
religion, and such facts in God's providential dealings
as go to illustrate them, adopted by the authority of
God himself. But if oral tradition be, as some con
tend, the only safe mode of transmission, how came
infinite wisdom to leave the better and take up the
worse ? or, to suit the position of those who take more
moderate ground, -whence the necessity of having re
course to a new system to make more firm and secure
that which was already sufficiently guarded against
mutations and errors ?
The history of religious traditions itself furnishes a
striking illustration of the truth and weight of the
consideration I here urge. The later Jews had their
oral traditions. But though they held that God, in
his wisdom, had seen proper, in their first communi
cation, to deliver them orally, yet as they wished to
have them retained and transmitted through succeed
ing ages uncorrupted, the rabbins made them all
matters of record. And if we are to credit the Chris-
* Notwithstanding all these advantages, the simple doctrine of
the one living and true God became corrupted, and was lost to
most of the world during the patriarchal ages.

180 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
tian rabbins, God, in his wisdom, saw proper to have
the sense of Scripture transmitted for several centuries
through the medium of oral tradition. But the holy
fathers, through some distrust of this method of pre
serving the orthodoxy of the catholic church, finally
committed it to writing Now what had occurred,
in these cases, to change the character of the oral
method of conveyance ? If that was the best method
at first, why is it not the best now ? No such changes
as have been noticed in the early history of the world
can here be plead. Circumstances remained very
much the same ; and yet, it would seem, though tra
dition had been at the first divinely sanctioned, and
had thus far operated to a charm — infallibly kept the
sense of God's word uncontaminated — at once it be
comes wholly insufficient for the purpose, and all its
great truths must be recorded! Now, how can this
be reconciled, upon the hypothesis I here oppose,
with reason or common sense, except upon the sup
position that those who had received " the depositum"
in all its integrity, through the medium of tradition,
and, of course, had the highest confidence in the
safety of this mode of conveyance, for some myste
rious cause became unwilling to trust to it for the
future? Though they fully believed that God had
faithfully kept his promise to the church that " the
gates of hell should not prevail against" her, through
this chosen and sanctified agency — oral tradition — ^yet
they feared to leave it in the same hands in which
they found it. They must make well enough a little
better, and write out the traditions ! Now, what is all
this but the clearest evidence that there was in the

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 181
minds of the holy fathers a distrust of the certainty of
Oral traditions ?
But we need not go so far for illustrations of the
truth and force of the consideration here urged, i Why
did not the Church of England leave her Thirty-nine
Articles and her hundred and forty-one canons to the
safe and certain method of oral transmission "from
hand to hand," instead of making them matters of
record? If oral tradition is a safe aiid certain method
of conveying the sense of Scripture — the doctrines and
discipline of the Church — why do not Churchmen and
Romanists adopt it? Why have we in writing the
decrees of the Council of Trent, and the creed of
Pope Pius the Fourth, and the Articles and Homilies
of the Church of England ? - . -
And who, in such cases, relies with any confidence
upon oral testimony transmitted " from hand to hand ?"
Need I urge the fact which everybody has observed,
and well understands, that the same facts are very
differently reported by different individuals, equally
honest in their intentions ; and that oral testimony is
depreciated constantly in proportion to the number of
hands through which it passes ? Let twelve indi
viduals hear a discourse upon some new doctrine, and
make a separate report of the matter of the discourse :
is it probable that these reports would harmonize ?
But let these reports be handed down to posterity
orally, through several succeeding generations, and
collected together, and who would eS:pect them to
agree, or would dream it possible to make out a con
sistent sense ? And should there be no material dis
crepancies between the different reports, yet who, in

182 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
his senses, would rely with the same confidence upon
the oral tradition for a correct representation of the
doctrines of the said discourse that he would have in
a written copy, which should have been deposited by
the author in some place of safety, and should bear
every mark of genuineness ? Who knows not how
soon oral traditions dwindle into legendary tales and
romantic -visions ? And yet, forsooth, it is to be re
garded as a most safe and secure method of conveying
down, from generation to generation, the vital truths of
religion — the whole system of Christian ethics and
ecclesiastical discipline !
But before I leave this point I would call special
attention to the matter which is supposed to be trans
mitted by oral tradition. It is not a simple fact, or a
few simple facts which would be likely to be univer
sally received, and about which there would be little
or no chance for a diversity of opinion ; but a compli
cated system of doctrines, morals, and rites or cere
monies ; the very last things which would be likely
not to suffer deterioration in transmission. The d
priori objection with which we are met here, that men
will not corrupt, and will be careful faithfully to trans
mit, what they consider sacred, is answered by ten
thousand facts which everywhere stare us in the face.
Let the objector but look for a moment at the history
of the heresies which have cursed the church from
its very beginning, or at the present state of the
churches professing the Christian name, and then see
with what face he can maintain his objection. No
fact is more obvious than that men will mutilate and
corrupt the principles and institutions of religion. And

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 183
it is about equally obvious, that if the Christian system
had been left entirely to oral tradition for its safe
transmission, without a perpetual miracle, little, if any,
of it would have remained to enlighten and bless the
present generation.
The doctrine of the Church's infallibility has been,
it would seem, invented to remedy the difficulty. For
no man can, in his senses, feel that confidence in oral
tradition, for which Catholics contend, without resort
ing to perpetual miracle. Hence the Romanists and
Tractarians are at least consistent with themselves
when they refer the security of oral tradition to the
infallibility of the Church, and the Church's infalli
bility to the immediate superintendence and inspira
tion of the Holy Ghost. But upon no other principle
can anything above human fallibility be attached to
any traditions in the Church not recorded in Holy
Scripture.

SECTION H.
The Analogy between the Doctrine of Tradition as held by
Catholics and that held by the Jews, and condemned by
Christ. -'"
That the traditions of the Jews were to them a
constant and fruitful occasion of stumbling, is so ex
plicitly declared in the word of God, that no Christian
will question it.- Our Lord declares, that " by their
traditions, they transgressed the commandments of
God," Matt. XV, 3 ; " They made the word of God of
none effect," ver. 6 ; and he says, " But in vain do

I

184 not TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
they worship me, teaching for doctrine the command
ments of men," ver. 9. And St. Peter declares the
Jewish converts "redeemed" from their "vain con
versation received by tradition from their fathers,''
1 Pet. i, 18.
That Jewish traditions are here explicitly condemned
as mischievous, and even destructive, no one will deny.
It only then remains to show, by a careful analysis and
comparison of the Jewish and Catholic systems of
tradition, their identity in principle and practical influ
ence, to make the censures here so solemnly pro
nounced against the former apply with equal force to
the latter.
First, then, these two systems are similar in their
pretended origin : both Jews and Catholics asserting
that the oral traditions which they maintain were com
municated by God.
The learned Basnage says, " The Jews are per
suaded that God gave two sorts of laws on Mount
Sinai : one, that Moses wrote down ; another, which
he trusted to his memory, which was transmitted to
posterity by the ministry of doctors and prophets."*
Christian traditionists maintain that the apostolical
traditions were communicated orally by the apostles
themselves. Baronius says that^he apostles, " having
thus imparted the creed, and also traditions without
Scripture to the church, they parted among them
selves what country every one of them should go
unto."! * See History of the Jews from Jesus Christ to the Present
Time. Fol., London, 1708, p. 163.
t Lightfoot's Commentary on Acts.

the RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 185
Secondly. The oral law was regarded as the com
mentary upon the written law — imbodying its sense
and particular application.
Prideaux says of the Jewish traditions, " They tell
us, that at the same time when.God gave unto Moses
the law on Mount Sinai, he gave unto him also the
interpretation of it, commanding him to commit the
former to writing, but to deliver the other only by word
of mouth, to be preserved in the memories of men,
and to be transmitted down by them, from generation
to generation, by tradition only ; and from hence the
former is called the written, and the otherthe oral, law."*
And the Cathohc divines of Douay say, "First,
then, we are only assured by traditions which are
the books of Scripture, &c. ; secondly, for the true
understanding of Scripture we are referred to the
Church. Thirdly. For things not expressed particu
larly in Holy Scripture, the Scripture and fathers do
commit us to tradition."! " Catholic tradition teaches
revealed truth — ^the true creed is the catholic interpre
tation of Scripture."^: And again, " All interpretations
of Holy Scripture in matters of religious belief must be
made in accordance with the faith of those on whose
evidence we receive the written word of God itself "§
Thirdly. These traditions are represented as having
been transmitted through a regular succession of di-
¦vinely-appointed ministers.
Basnage says of the Jewish succession, " It is not
» Connections, part i, book v.
t Anot. in Gen. v, 1. Synopsis Papismi, p. 57.
X Tracts for the Times, No. 87.
§ Archdeacon Manning's Rule of Faith, Ap., p. 3.

186 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
difficult to derive down these traditions and oral law
from mouth to mouth, while there were priests and
prophets, and sacred writers. They can choose in
the sacred history the saints that best please them,
and produce them to thp people as so many conduits
through which the oral law has run. But the con
fusion is greater from Esdras to Jude the saint, and
therefore the succession varies with the most judicious
¦writers, and is found frequently interrupted."*
Dr. Lightfoot, speaking of the Pharisees, says,
" Hence did a certain generation among them take
occasion and opportunity to vent and broach traditions,
and glosses upon the law, pretending them to have
descended from Moses himself, and to have been
handed over to them from hand to hand : and as the
prophets, while their race continued, expounded
Moses,' and instructed the people in the knowledge
of the law, by the Spirit of God — so these men (now
the prophets were gone) took on them to explain
Moses, and the law also — and by a way which they
pretended to be of equal authority with the words of
the prophets : ' For that (say they) is God's own gloss
upon his own law ; and this he taught Moses, while
he was with him in the mount ; and this Moses taught
Joshua, and. Joshua the elders ; and Eli received it
from the elders, and from Phineas, and Samuel from
Eli, and David from Samuel,' " &c.!
* Hist. Jews, p. 163.
t Harmony of the Gospels. For a full list of the successors
who were made the depositories of the oral law, see Lightfoot's
Works, vol. iv, p. 261 ; v, p. 205 ; and Prideaux's Connections,
part i, book v.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 187
How perfectly similar is the above language to that
of the Council of Trent upon the subject of tradition :
" They have come do-wn to us, either received by the
apostles from the lips of Christ himself, or transmitted
by the hands of the same apostles, under the direction
of the Holy Spirit : that these traditions relate both to
faith and morals, have been preserved in the Catholic
Church by continual succession, are to be received with
equal piety and veneration with Scripture, and whoso
ever shall knowingly and deliberately despise these
traditions is accursed."*
" The bishops of Christ's Church," says the British
Critic, "have formed, as it were, a series of light
hearers, who have delivered' down the sacred torch
from hand to hand, generation after generation." The
fact of the transmission of the true sense of Scripture
through an apostolic succession in the form of oral
tradition is maintained by all high-Churchmen, as well
as Romanists. As this will not be questioned, further
authorities need not be adduced.
Fourthly. The traditions which had accumulated to
an indefinite extent came finally to be written by the
doctors. Prideaux says, " After the death of Simon the Just,
there arose a sort of men, whom they call Tannaim,
or the Mishnical doctors, that made it their business
to study, and descant upon those traditions which had
been received and allowed by Ezra, and the men of
the great synagogue, and to draw inferences and con
sequences from them, all which they ingrafted into the
body of these ancient traditions, as if they had been
* See Elliott on Romanism, vol. i, p. 95.

188 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
as authentic as the other ; which example being fol
lowed by those who after succeeded them in this pro
fession, they continually added their own imaginations
to what they had received from those that went before
them ; whereby these traditions becoming as a snow
ball, the further they rolled down from one generation
to another, the more they gathered, and the greater
the bulk of them grew. And thus it went on to the
middle of the second century after Christ, when An
toninus Pius governed the Roman empire ; by which
time they found it necessary to put all these traditions
into writing ; for they were then grown to so great a
number, and enlarged to so huge a heap, as to exceed
the possibility of being any longer preserved by the
memory of man." Accordingly, " it was resolved,
that they should all be collected together, and put
into a book ; and Rabbi Judah, the son of Simon, who,
from the reputed sanctity of his life, was called Hak-
kadosh, that is, the holy, and was then rector of the
school which they had at Tiberias, irt Galilee, and
president of the sanhedrim that there sat, undertook
the work, and compiled it in six books, each consisting
of several tracts, which all together make up the number
of sixty-three ; in which, under their proper heads, he
methodically digested all that had hitherto been de
livered to them of their law and their religion, by the
tradition of their ancestors. And this is the book
called the Mishna; which book was forthwith received
by the Jews with great veneration throughout all their
dispersions, and hath ever since been held in high
. esteem among them ; for their opinion of it is, that all
the particulars therein contained were dictated by God

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 189
himself to Moses from Mount Sinai, as well as the
written word itself, and consequently of the same di
vine authority with it, and ought to be as sacredly
observed."* The oral traditions in the Christian church first re
duced to writing, we are told by Catholics, were the
creeds. The whole of the Apostles' Creed was finally
brought together in the fourth century. And the Ni
cene Creed, if we take the authority of the assertors
of tradition, both Romish and Anglican, was, by the
Council of Nice, concocted from the creeds which
had been orally communicated by the apostles to the
churches they planted, and were communicated by the
bishops, from the various quarters of the world, who
constituted the council. Mr. Keble gives us the cur
rent account, which is this : " Th€ method of proceed
ing at Nicaea appears to have been nearly as follows ;
Each bishop was required to rehearse the faith which
he and his church professed, and into which they were
baptized ;" and from these rehearsals, " the orthodox
traditional interpretation was incorporated into a written
creed, being first thoroughly vindicated both in the sub
stance and wording of it, and also in the annexed
anathema, by reasoning out of holy writ. The result
was the Nicene Creed, with its anathema."!
Mr. Palmer says, " The Apostles' Creed was the
ancient baptismal creed of the Roman and Italian
* Connections, part i, book v.
tSee Goode's Rule of Faith, vol. ii, p. 250. By the way, this
whole story Mr. Goode pronounces " a pure fiction," and shows
most conclusively from Eusebius and Athanasius that the Nicene
fathers based their decisions on the Scriptures, and not upon Me
creeds rehearsed hy the bishops.

190 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
churches ; the Nicene Creed was founded on the an
cient creeds of the eastern churches by the holy synod
Of three hundred and eighteen bishops at Nice, and
was adopted as the rule of faith by the universal church
in all subsequent times."* ,
There are various other compositions which claim
the same origin, namely, to have been handed down
orally from the apostles, and finally reduced to writing.
The ancient liturgies are said to be of this class.
Mr. Palmer says, " What has been said of the aposto
lic antiquity of creeds applies also to hturgies."! The
same is said of the decrees of the first four general
councils, of the homilies, epistles, and commentaries
of the fathers of the first four or five centuries, and of
several anonymous fragments, among which are the
Apostolical Canons, and the Apostolical Constitutions,
the latter palmed upon St. Clement of Rome, but which,
Du Pin says, " it is probable belong to the third, or
rather to the fourth, century :"J and the learned Dr.
Lardner assigns to " the latter part of the fourth, or
the beginning of the fifth, century."^
These writings are referred to by our traditionists
usually under the general name of " antiquity" — " the
voice of the primitive church" — "apostohcal traditions,"
&c. The reader will perceive that I here take these
representations of tradition from traditionists them
selves, without any inquiry into the foundations of
their claims for the genuineness of the records. That
there are genuine writings which come down to us
at least from th« second, third, and fourth centuries,
« Eccles. Hist., pp. 30, 31. t Ibid., p. 31.
t Eccles. Hist., vol. i, p. 30. § Works, vol. iv, p. 225.

THE RULE Of FAITH AND PRACTICE. 191
we will not question, and for the present we may go
Upon the supposition that those' writings which we have,
which are attributed to these early times, are genuine.
What I am here labouring to show is, that Christian
traditions, according to traditionists, were in process
of time recorded, and, like the Jewish Talmud, consi
dered the divinely-authorized commentary upon God's
originally-written law.
Fifthly. The record of the oral traditions not being
adequate to the office of a fuU and intelUgible com
mentary upon the written law, was itself a matter of
discussion and exposition.
Prideaux says, in relation to the Mishna, that, " as
soon as it was published, it became the subject of the
studies of all their learned men, and the chiefest of
them, both in Judea and Babylonia, employed them
selves to make comments on it : and these, with the
Mishna, make up both their Talmuds, that is, the Jeru
salem Talmud and the Babylonish Talmud. These
comments they call the Gemara, that is, the Comple
ment, because by them the Mishna is fully explained,
and the whole traditionary doctrine of their law and
their religion completed : for the Mishna is the text,
and the Gamara the comment; and both together is
what they call the Talmud."*
Almost an exact parallel to the Gemara we have in
the writings of Vincentius Lirinensis, in the fifth cen
tury ; Peter Lombard, of the twelfth ; and Alexander
Hales, Gulielmus Alvernus, and Thomas Aquinas, of
the thirteenth.
* Connections, part i, book v. See also Basnage's History of
the Jews, book iii, chap, vi, sec. 1-3.

192 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
It will be sufficient to give a brief sketch of the
efforts of one of these great Christian Gemarists. The
school divines had mystified everything, and seemed
to have lost the sense of the ancient fathers. " To
prevent these inconveniences," says Du Pin, " Peter
Lombard, bishop of Paris, undertook to make a collec
tion of the passages of the fath^s, ... on the principal
questions that were then in debate among the school
men ; imagining by that means to put an end to their
disputes, and to form such decisions, as the authority
of those persons, on whose testimonies they were
grounded, might render venerable, and might even
cause them to be received with common consent.
This collection was called The Book of the Sentences,
and being preferred before all others, was received
with so great approbation, that in a little time it be
came the only model of scholastic divinity that was
publicly used in the schools ; insomuch that the author
of it was called, by way of excellency, the master of
the Sentences."*
Mosheim tells us that " The Book of the Sentences
seemed to be at this time in much greater repute than
the Holy Scriptures, and the compilations of Peter
Lombard were preferred to the doctrines and precepts
of Jesus Christ."!
The analogy is too plain here to require a remark ;
I must therefore hasten to another point.
Sixthly. The traditionists have elevated their tradi
tions above, and at the expense of, the written word.
The following are some of the sayings of the rab-
* Eccles. Hist., vol. vi, p. 190.
t Eccles. Hist., Macklaine's translation, vol. ii, p. 293.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 193
bins : — " The words of the scribes are more lovely
than the words of the law, and more mighty than those
of the prophets." — " He that saith there are no phylac
teries, and, in so saying, transgresseth against the words
of the law,-— he is not guilty : but he that saith there
are five phylacteries, and, in so saying, addeth to the
words of the scribes, — he is guilty." — " The written law
is narrow; but the traditional is larger than the earth."*
" They compare the Scripture to water, and tradition-,
to excellent wine. The law is the salt ; the Mishna
is the pepper, and the Talmut are precious spices.
They boldly maintain, that he that sins against Moses
may be forgiven, but that he who contradicts the doc
tors deserves death."!
Bad as all this is, we have an exact parallel in what
now follows. Cardinal Baronius says, " Tradition is
the foundation of Scriptures, and excels them in -this,
that the Scriptures cannot subsist unless they be
strengthened by traditions ; but traditions have strength
enough without Scripture." Linden says, " Traditions
are the most certain foundations of faith, the most sure
ground of the sacred Scriptures, the impenetrable
buckler of Ajax, the suppressors of all heresies. On
the other side, the Scripture is a vase of wax, a dead
and killing letter without life, a mere shell without a
kernel, a leaden rule, a wood of thieves, a shop of
heretics."! Perhaps I ought to beg pardon of the Jewish rabbis
for calling these passages from the Romish doctors
¦ * See Lightfoot's Works, vol. iiirPP- 96, 97.
t Basn^e's Hist, of the Jews, p. 170.
X See Elliott on Romanism, vol. i, p. 108.
9

\

194 Not tradition, but scripture,
parallels to the maxims quoted from them ; for the lan
guage of the Christian rabbis is so much worse — more
extravagant and blasphemous — as almost to destroy all
resemblance. Doubtless many Protestants who contend for tradi
tion as a part of the rule of faith would repudiate the
language of the Romish doctors. It is well if, follow
ing out the principles they have taken up to their legi
timate results, they do not finally fall into the sentiments
expressed, though, for the sake of decency, they may
not be guilty of using the language.
The practical operations of the traditionary system
have been most injurious to religion. It has opened
the flood-gates of superstition and error. It has been
the means of uniting with the pure doctrine the veriest
puerilities and the most shocking blasphemies. It has
Operated as a dense fog and an impenetrable cloud to
obscure the light of the Sun of righteousness. This
we shall see illustrated in the next point of comparison.
Seventhly. The grossest puerilities and blasphemies
have been palmed upon the infinitely wise and holy
God upon the authority of tradition.
Upon this point I must only make a few selections,
and those not the grosser sort of traditions. A collec
tion of all the ridiculous fables, and gross and blas
phemous falsehoods, which are to be found in the
Talmud, and in the writings of Christian traditionists,
would of themselves constitute volumes, and many of
them are quite too bad to be repeated.
We are told in the Talmud, " that God, to pass the
time, before the creation of the universe, when he
was alone, busied himself with building divers worlds.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 195
which he immediately destroyed, till by different essays
he had learned to make one so perfect as ours.. They
relate a trick which a rabbin put upon God and the
devil ; for he entreated the devil to carry him to heaven-
gate, that having seen the happiness of the saints, he
might die with more tranquillity. The devil granted
the rabbin's request, who, seeing the gate of heaven
open, threw himself headlong in, swearing  that he
would never go out again : God, who would not suffer
him to be guilty of perjury, was obliged to leave him
there, while the devil, being tricked, slunk away in
great confusion."
" The little story of Cesar complaining to Gamaliel
that God was a robber is ridiculous enough. Cesar
asked Gamaliel why God had stolen a rib from Adam ?
The daughter answered, instead of her father, that
robbers came the night before to her house, and had
left a golden vessel instead of an earthen one, which
they took away, and that she did not complain of them.
The application of the story was easy : God gave a
handmaid to Adam instead of a rib ; the change was
advantageous, and Cesar approved of it ; but yet he
censured God for doing it clandestinely, while Adam
slept. The daughter, still ingenious, ordered a piece
of flesh to be brought her, that was baked in the ashes,
and then presented it to the emperor, who refused to
eat it. ' This goes against my stomach,' says Cesar.
' Very well,' replied the damseh; ' Eve would have
gone against the stomach of the first man, if God had
given her to him grdssly, without art, after having
made her before his eyes.' "*
* Basnaee's Hist, of the Jews, book iii, ch. vi, pp. 170, 171.

196 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE.
These specimens of Jewish nonsense must suffice.
Those which I shall give from Christian writers will
be such as are best authenticated and least offensive.
-The grosser legends of Romanism I shall entirely
omit. Papias, as Eusebius informs us, wrote " five books,
which he entitled ' An Explication of the Doctrine of
the Lord.' " He is represented by the historian as an
honest and good man, but " a man of a very narrow
understanding." " This Papias professes he received
the sayings of the apostles from those who had been
conversant -with them ; and was, as he says, the hearer
of Aristion and John the elder."* I will now give
some of the traditions preserved by this purely primi
tive Christian writer. He was a Chiliast, or Millena-
rian, and gives us the following tradition in relation to
the days of the millennium.
He says : " As the elders remember, who saw John
the disciple of the Lord, that they heard from him what
the Lord taught about those times, and said, ' The
days shall come in the which vines shall exist, each
containing ten thousand shoots, and in each shoot shall
be ten thousand arms, and in every true shoot shall be
ten thousand branches, and on every branch ten thou
sand clusters, and in every cluster ten thousand grapes,
and every grape, when pressed, shall give twenty-five
firkins of wine, and when any one of the saints shall
proceed to gather a cluster, some other cluster shall
exclaim, " I am a better cluster, take me, and bless the
Lord through me.'' In like manner a single grain of
wheat shall produce ten thousand ears, and each ear
* Euseb. Eccles. Hist., fol., p. 49. London, 1709.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 197
shall produce ten thousand grains, and every grain
shall afford ten pounds' weight of fine pure flour ; and
the other fruits, and grains, and herbs, shall abound
in the same proportion, and also all animals feeding
upon those kinds of food which spring from the earth
shall be tame and loving to one another, and in all
things be subject to the accommodation of man.'
" He adds also, these things shall be credible to the
true believers. And Judas the traitor, not believing
this_ account, and asking hiro, ' In what way shall all
these productions be brought by the Lord V our Lord
replied, ' Those persons shall see them who shall par
take of them.' It was in anticipation of these times
that Isaiah prophesied, saying, ' The wolf shall dwell
with the lamb,' " &c.
Another tradition reported by this weak man relates
to Judas the traitor, who, it would seem, did not die
by strangulation, as is recorded in Acts. " Judas,"
says he, " walked about in this world a great example
of the effects of impiety ; being so much swollen in
his body, that he could not find room to pass through
an opening which a cart could easily be led through ;
and thus he was crushed by a cart, and his entrails
squeezed out from his body." Another variety of
this story which prevailed in the fourth century adds
to the above, that "his head was so swollen, as to
exceed in dimensions the size of a cart, and that his
eyes, in consequence, were so deeply sunk within the
projecting flesh, that no optical instrument of the sur
geon could render them visible."*
* Dr. Shuttleworth. See "Not Tradition, but Scripture,"
pp. 34-38.

198 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
We here see how early floating oral traditions com
menced mixing water with the pure wine of divine
truth, and even give divine authority to foolish fiction
and absolute falsehood.
Tertullian gives us the following list of traditions.
He says : " To begin with baptism, when we are
ready to enter into the water, and even before we
make our protestations before the bishop, and in the
church, that we renounce the devil, all his pomps and
ministers ; after that they inake us taste milk and
honey, and we bathe ourselves every day during the
whole week. We receive the sacrament of the eucha
rist, instituted by Jesus Christ, when we eat, and in
the morning assemblies, and we do not receive it but
by the hands of those that preside there. We offer
yearly oblations for the dead in honour of the martjrrs.
We believe that it is not lawful to fast on a Sunday,
and to pray to God kneeling. From Easter to Whit
suntide we enjoy the same privilege. We take great
care not to suffer any of the wine and consecrated
bread to fall to the ground. We often sign ourselves
with the sign of the cross. If you demand a law for
these particulars, taken from Scripture, we cannot find
one there ; but we must answer, that it is tradition that
has established them, custom that has authorized them,
and faith that has made them to be observed."*
Archbishop Cranmer, after reciting the traditions
above from Tertullian, gives the following list from
Basil : — " Making a cross upon them that are chris
tened. — To turn our face to the east when we pray. —
Consecrating of oil and water in baptism, and of him
* Quoted in Elliott on Romanism, vol. i, pp. 117, 118.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 199
that is baptized. — Unction with oU. — To put them that
be baptized three times in the water. — To renounce
the devil and his angels in baptism." " Other authors,"
he says, "rehearse a great number of traditions, as, —
The fast of Lent. — To fast Wednesday and Friday. —
Not to fast Saturday nor Sunday  Giving the pax
after mass. — Consecrating of religious men. And a
thousand more traditions apostolic there be, if we give
credence to St. Denis, De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia,
Ignatiug, the canons of the apostles, Ecclesiastica et
Tripartita Historia, Cyprian, Tertullian, Irenseus, with
other old ancient authors.
" And yet an infinite number more we shall be con
strained to receive, if we admit this rule, which St.
Augustine many times repeateth, that whatsoever is
universally observed, and not written in the Scripture,
nor ordained by general councils, is a tradition coming
from the apostles."*
These are some of the earliest appendages supplied
to the Christian system by tradition. And well had it
been for the cause of religion, if those who thought
the gospel needed mending had been' satisfied with
appending to it such trumpery as is here delineated.
But the system of admitting doctrines and usages to
be of apostolic origin which could be set afloat upon
the credit of tradition, has been " like letting out water."
It has brought in a tide of heresies and corruptions
which have completely disfigured and perverted the
simple and spiritual institutions of Christianity.
Eighthly. In both instances the traditionary system
* Str3T)e's Memorials, vol. ii, part i, p. 137. Also, Cranmer's
Works, vol. iv, pp. 223, 224.

200 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
has resulted in the restricted reading, or the proscrip
tion of the Scriptures. Romanists restrict the free
circulation and reading of the Scriptures, and for the
alleged reason, that the sense of Holy Scripture can
only be ascertained through tradition, in the hands of
the living authorized teacher.
In the Index of Prohibited Books, ratified by a bull
of the pope, March 24, 1564, we have the following : —
" IV. Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience,
that if the Holy Bible, translated into the -vulgar tongue,
be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the temerity
of men will cause more evil than good to arise from
it, it is, on this point, referred to the judgment of the
bishops, or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the
priest, or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible
translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors,
to those persons whose faith and piety, they apprehend,
will be augmented, and not injured by it; and this
permission they must have in writing. But if any one
shall have the presumption to read or possess it with
out such written permission, he shall not receive abso
lution until he have first delivered up such Bible to
the ordinary."*
It is said in a popular work of the day, that the
Scriptures are prohibited by the rabbins ;! how far this
is the fact, I have not been able to learn. In the Tal
mud it is said, that " women, and slaves, and children,
are exempt from the study of the law."J Notwith
standing this, there still seems to be no such horror of
* See Towriley's Tlustrations of Bib. Lit., vol. ii, p. 161.
t See Judah'a Lion, p. 99.
X See The Old Paths, by Rev. A. M'Call, p. 9.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 201
the circulation of the Scriptures among the Jews as is
entertained among Romanists.
High-Churchmen do not generally follow out the
system to its result, though a strong tendency to it is
not unfrequently developed. They tell us that we
must go to the Church for Scripture, and not to the
Scripture for the Church. They utterly repudiate
private interpretation, or deny the individual the right
of judging of the sense of Scripture for himself. And
in England, especially, it is not strange to hear
them say that the services of the Church and the
Prayer-book are abundantly sufficient to guide the mass
in the way of salvation — ^that " Scripture was never
designed for the many." Now the main principle, as
here opposed, that tradition sets forth the sense of
Scripture, in the most guarded language in which it
can be couched, tends to the prohibition of the sacred
records. For how shall our divinely-constituted pas
tors and teachers allow us to meddle at discretion with
the dark " unsensed" record ? And how shall we dare
freely to read a record which we may not judge of
without the expositor at hand to preserve us from fatal
error? especially since we can no more understand
the patristical interpretation than we can the record
itself? And why need we desire to consult the record,
since holy mother is bound to give us the sense, and we,
as dutiful children, must implicitly believe what she
says ? As says Archdeacon Manning, " Although it is
always both the right, as men speak, and the privilege
of Christians to labour out their belief by analysis and
induction, by evidence and history, it can never be their
necessary duty until the Church has failed of hers."
9*

202 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
And as the duty of the Church herein may be pre
sumed to be done when she gives us the Prayer-book
and her public services, we may not feel obliged to go
any further, and with this provision " the many" may
be satisfied.
The Jews by their traditions set aside Moses and
the prophets. And what could be expected of a sys
tem precisely similar, adopted by Christian teachers,
but that it should cast into the background, and indeed
trample under foot, Christ and the apostles ? This has
been its practical result. What is pretended by our
traditionists to be the true exhibition of the sense of
Holy Scripture, is often the vilest caricature of God's
word, and, instead of having been handed down from
the apostles, came from heathenism. The grand ad
versary, by this device, under cover of honouring God
and his word, does most effectually dishonour both,
and claim for his own doctrines the authority of divine
inspiration. But not to enlarge at present upon this
obvious tendency of the system of tradition, I would
close this section by simply noticing the result which
most obviously follows from the parallel I have sketch
ed between the Jewish and Catholic systems.
''If the two systems present a perfect parallel in all
their essential features and practical workings, then
Christ, in condemning the one, condemns the other.
And who will attempt to prove, that what was once so
evil is now very good — that what Christ, in the days
of his flesh, abhorred and condemned, he now loves —
and what once made " void the commandments of God"
now constitutes an essentialpart of those commandments,
or is, at least, necessary to their right interpretation ?

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 203
SECTION m.
Catholic Tradition is wanting in Divine Authority.
Catholic tradition is held by our opponents to be
the divinely-appointed commentary upon the Holy
Scriptures. It is the witness not only of the divine
origin and inspiration, but also of the true sense of the
written word. It might, of course, be expected that
it would come down to us with attestations at least as
strong and intelligible as those upon which we credit
God's written word. As the traditions of the primitive
church are, according to the theory we oppose, the
appointed channel through which the sense of Holy
Scripture is communicated to all who have lived since
the apostolic age, it must be as important as the Scrip
ture itself; for of what worth is the Scripture without
sense? It is reasonable, then, to suppose that this
" divine informant" would come down to us properly
identified, clearly defined, and fully attested. With
out all this it would not be a competent witness. It
must have no human mixtures in its composition — it
must not have accumulated anything from any other
source than the " oral teaching of the apostles" — it
must be 'a clear, evident, and divinely-authenticated
testimony of what the apostles delivered in their dis
courses which were not committed to writing. But
what is the fact in the case ? The fact is, that there
is no such body of traditions, either now in writing, or
preserved unwritten down to the present day, in any
branch of the Christian church.
In the first place, let it be observed, that the assert

204 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
ors of tradition have not yet settled the question whe
ther it is all now written, or whether much of it is,
mysteriously, and by a constant miracle, preserved in
the minds of God's appointed ministers, or, in other
words, in the Church. Some have held that unwritten
traditions have never been written ; others, that they
are now to be found in the permanent records of the
Church. But waiving any difficulty which would
arise from the fact that this is still a mooted question,
let us see whether we can find out the true apostolical
traditions from the records of the Church. To these
we are incessantly directed by our traditionists, as to
some well-defined system of exegesis. But none of
these doctors tell us how many books are embraced
in this system, and what they are called. Sometimes,
indeed, these learned divines point us to the creeds —
at others to the acts of the councils — then they
embrace the epistles, homilies, and commentaries
of kno'wn Christian writers, and anon they refer to
certain anonymous compositions, such as the Aposto
lical Canons, the Apostolical Constitutions, &c. But
then when they come to particulars, they admonish us
that in this heterogeneous mass there is much objec
tionable matter. We are now lost in a maze, not
knowing where to go.
But here we are met with the famous test, " uni
versality, antiquity, and consent." And by this rule,
it would seem, we are to judge between the precious
and the vile. If we have the ability to apply this
rule, we shall find, that we must not only throw away
entirely many whole books, but we must cut and carve
others, retaining some portions, and casting away

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 205
Others, until we have very littie left; not indeed a
thousandth part enough to constitute a complete
system of theology, or to help to the sense of the
sacred writings, in opposition to the numerous here
sies and false expositions which have distracted and
cursed the Church. Nor, indeed, will one of the
learned doctors, or all of them together, be able so
clearly and satisfactorily to determine by the test in
question what is to be retained, and what rejected, as
to satisfy the doubting.
This rule has been adopted by the great mass of
the English divines since the Reformation, in their
controversies with the Romanists. But it has an
swered only one single purpose ; that is, to convict
the Romanists of having introduced into religion
" novelties," which were unknown to " the old learned
doctors." As an argumentum ad hominem against
Rome, it is conclusive. But in their controversies
with dissenters, the divines of the Church of England
find the famous rule of Vincentius a broken reed.
Indeed, it has been as potent a weapon against them
in the hands of their dissenting opponents as they
found it to be in their own against Rome. For
though they rejected many of the Romish novelties
which would not abide the test of Vincentius, yet they
retained many others which are equally put under the
ban by the monk of Lirin. Indeed, we might safely
challenge the Churchmen of our own times, who
adhere with such tenacity to " apostolic traditions,"
to bring their system of " Church principles" to this
catholic test, and promise to embrace every one of
them that should come out of the ordeal unscathed.

206 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
It must be understood that we give not the least
authority to that rule as it is commonly understood —
that we admit no umpire in matters of religion but
the written word of God — and yet we might safely
pledge ourselves to receive as true the doctrines of the
Tractarians, in relation to baptismal regeneration, the
real presence, apostolical succession, &c., when they
can be clearly demonstrated by " universality, anti
quity, and consent."
But who knows what writings belong to the system
of apostolical traditions ? This must be determined
by some competent tribunal before the limits and
bounds of the system can be known. Admitting the
rule of Vincentius, then, who is to determine what
writings in the gross, and what in the detail, are to be
received as in agreement with it ? Have the doctors
agreed upon this ? Has a general council decided it ?
Has the Church settled it ? Not at all. And until
there is a decision of this question by a competent
tribunal, after due examination, no one knows what is
meant by " antiquity,'' or " apostolical traditions."
How are private Christians to judge of this matter
when the learned themselves cannot agree, and when
the Church has not determined it ?
Now let us recur to one class of tho compositions
for which the claim to apostolical authority is made ;
I refer to the ancient creeds. It will be admitted by
our opponents that if the claim to an apostolical origin
in behalf of the creeds cannot be sustained, they may
well despair of sustaining the claim to that high cha
racter for any other fragments which have come down
to us from primitive times. I have in another place

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 207
presented evidence upon this point, which I need not
here repeat. I have also met the current arguments
in favour of the claim to an apostolic origin for the
creeds, and am entitled to assume, without further
discussion, that there is no conclusive evidence in
favour of this claim. But in addition to all I have
before urged I will now present two authorities of no
small weight, in opposition to the theory sustained by
Archdeacon Manning, that the ancient creeds had
their origin with the apostles. The first is the
learned Mr. Goode. The whole subject is ably and
patiently discussed by this author, and he fidly and
triumphantly sustains the following propositions,
namely : —
" 1 . That no precise form of words was left by the
apostles as the Christian creed.
" 2. Thaf there was no such definite summary of
the chief articles of belief given by the apostles to the
Christian church as the creed, and that what is called
' The Apostles' Creed' is merely the ancient creed of the
Church of Rome, and no more entitled to the name
than any other of the ancient creeds.
" 3. That what is called ' The Aposties' Creed' gra
dually attained its present form, and that two, at least,
of the articles it now contains were not inserted in it
~ before the fourth century.
" 4. That the creeds of the primitive church were
derived originally from the Holy Scriptures. And,
therefore, " 5. That none of the ancient creeds can be con
sidered as an apostolical production."*
* Divine Rule, vol. i, p. 96.

208 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
The learned author's reasoning upon these propo
sitions is perfectly conclusive. He shows that there
is no notice of any such form of words in the Scrip
tures ; and that the evidence from the ancient fathers
is clearly in his favour. He gives us the creeds of
Origen, Gregory of Neocaesarea, and Lucian the
martyr, and says, " These are the only creeds that
remain of the period anterior to the Council of Nice."
And further, that " it is not till quite the close of the
fourth century that we hear anything about ' The Apos
tles' Creed.' "*
My other witness is the celebrated Roman Cathohc
historian, Du Pin. As this learned writer presents,
in a condensed form, the argument upon the point in
question, pro and con, I shall insert the whole section
without abridgment. He proceeds, —
" Having already discoursed of .the works of every
one of the apostles in particular, it remains that we
should now give some account of those that are re
puted to be composed by them in general ; the most
authentic among these is the Apostles' Creed, which is
generally believed to have been made by all the
apostles. But authors are not agreed about the time
wherein it was written by them, nor concerning the
manner how it was compiled, nor the design they had
in making it. Some are of opinion with Ruffinus,!
that they compiled it in the very same year that Jesus
Christ died, a little after the descent of the Holy
Ghost ; whereas Baronius and others conjecture, that
* Divme Rule, vol, i, p. 110.
t " Eufiinus.1 In Exposit. Symboli : Isidore, lib. ii, de OfT.,
c. 22."

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 209
they did not finish it till the second year of the reign
of the emperor Claudius, a little before they were
separated. As to the manner of their drawing it up,
some have imagined that every one of the apostles
pronounced* his article, and that for this reason it is
called a symbol, as consisting of divers sentences :
others believe that it was compiled by them after they
had conferred all together ; and there are some also
who assert, that all the disciples had a share therein.
Lastly, as to their design in composing it, some de
termine that it was, that they might be all found
unanimously to agree in one and the same doctrine ;!
and others, that it was for the benefit of the people,
that they might be able to propound to them an
abridgment of the Christian faith, which should be
easie to be understood, and to be retained in their
memory. The etymology of the word symbol is yet
more uncertain ;J for some affirm, that the creed is so
* " Every one of the apostles pronounced his article.^ This
is the opinion of the author of the 115th Sermon, DeTempore
apud Aug. ; of St. Leo, Ep. 13, now 27 ; of Venant. Fortunat.
in exegesi Symb. Apost."
t " Some determine that it was, that they might be all found
unanimously to agree in one and the same doctrine.] The for
mer opinion is maintained by Ruffinus, and the later by the
modem authors."
X " The etymology of the word symbol is yet more uncertain.']
The Greek word Xijipo^ov, properly signifies a note, sign, or
mark, therefore the mystical signs and notes of Pythagoras were
called 'SiV^poTM Tlv&ay6piKa. Herodian uses the word to denote
a military signal. Other authors, as Dion Cassius and Suetonius,
apply it to signify signs or marks, and certain tickets that were
given to those that were to be admitted to public shows, and for
the distribution of largesses. Some say that the word symbolum

210 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
called, because it is, as it were, the distinguishing
mark and character of Christians ;* others, because it
was composed of the sentences of several persons ;
and, lastly, others, on the account of its being made
in a general conference.
" However, although it is an opinion established on
very good grounds, that this creed was [as to the sub
stance of it] made by the apostles, and it cannot be
among the Latins, signifies an entertainment, where every one
pays his club, or even the club itself; but this does nof belong
to the neuter symbolum, but to the feminine symbola, and in
Greek Xv/i^d^ri, as may be seen in Aristophanes's Scholiast ; in
Athenaeus and Plutarch ; therefore it ought to be read in Terence's
Andria, Symbolam dedit, and not symbolum. Aulus Gellius,
lib. vi, c. 1, makes use of the word symbola to signifie one man's
share in a reckoning, and declares, that this term was also attri.
buted to those questions that were expounded by Taurus the
pliilosopher, in the presence of divers persons. St. Cyprian is
the first that applied the word symbol to denote an epitome or
abridgment of the Christian faith. Ep. 45. Optatus calls the
heretics the deserters of the true symbol, alluding to a military
signal. And, to the same effect, St. Chrysologus, in Horn. 62,
declares, that the symbol is the covenant that we make with
God in baptism."
* " The distinguishing mark and character of Christians.']
This etymology is produced by Maximus Taurinensis and Ve-
nantiuB Fortunatus. It hath been likewise observed by Ruffinus,
Isidorus Hispalensis, lib. ii. de Off., c. 22, and Durandus de
Mende, lib. 4, Rationalis, t. 25. But the second and third ety.
mology are more common ; and the last is maintained by Ruf
finus ; St. Aug., serm. 181, de Tempore ; Isidore, lib. ii, div. Off.,
c. 22. Rabanus Maurua, lib. ii, Init. Clerical, cap. 56. Duran
dus supra ; Eucherius, Homil. de Symb., and Innocent IH., lib. ii.
De Sacris Missae Mysteriis, c. 49. The first, however, is the
most probable."

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 211
denied that they all preached and taught the articles
therein contained, after one and the same manner, as
the main points of the doctrine of Jesus Christ, in
which it was necessary that all Christians should be
instructed ; yet it may be justly doubted, without in
curring the imputation of rashness, whether they were
assembled together to compose this creed, and whether
they wrote it word for word, as it is now received in
the Church of Rome ; nay, there are very weighty
reasons whereby it appears that this opinion, though
commonly received, is nevertheless very improbable.
" For, first, neither St. Luke, in the Acts, nor any
ecclesiastical author before the fifth century, hath
made any mention of this assembly of the apostles,
and none ever affirmed that they composed the creed
of the Church of Rome, either by conferring together,
or by pronouncing every one a particular article.
" Secondly. The fathers of the three first ages, dis
puting against the heretics, endeavour to demonstrate,
by many arguments, that the doctrine contained in the
creed is that of the apostles, but they do not affirnj
that it was compiled by them ; and yet there could
not have been a stronger or more convincing proof
brought against those heretics, than to have said thus
to them : You impugn the doctrine of the creed, and
yet it is certain that the apostles were the authors
thereof, therefore you impugn the doctrine of the
apostles. However, they did not argue after this
manner; on the contrary, they prove by tradition,
and the consent of the apostolical churches, that the
doctrine comprised in the creed is that of the

212 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
"Thirdly. If the aposties had made a creed, it
would have been everywhere the same throughout
all churches, and in all ages ; all Christians would
have learnt it by heart ; all churches would have
repeated it after the very same manner ; in fine, all
authors would have expressed it in the same terms.
Now the contrary is evident ; for it is certain, that
not only in the second and third centuries, but also in
the fourth, there were many creeds, and all, though
the same as to the doctrine, yet differed in the expres
sion. In the second and third ages of the church we
find as many creeds as authors ;* and the same author
sets the creed down after a different manner in several
places of his Works, which plainly shows, that there
was not then any creed that was reputed to be the
apostles, nor even any regulated and established form
of faith. Ruffinus, in the fourth century, compares
three ancient creeds of the churches of Aquileia, Rome,
and the East ; and we may observe in these three
creeds, none of which perfectly agrees with the com
mon one, very considerable differences in the terms,
as appears from the table that is subjoyned at the end
of this article. St. Cyril, of Jerusalem, in his Cate-
chetick Lectures, produceth a particular creed, that was
used by the church of Jerusalem when this father
wrote. The authors that have written commentaries
* '^Aa many creeds as authors.] St. Irenaeus exhibits a creed,
lib. i, c. 2, and another in lib. ii, u. 1. Tertullian made use of
three different creeds in three several places. In praescript. lib.
contra Praxeam, and de Virgmibus velandis. See Origen, lib. i,
Peri Arch, and in Dialog, contra Mare. Optat. lib. i. All wliich
creeds are different from the vulgar."

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 213
on the creed, as St. Augustine in his 119th Sermon,
St. Maximus, Petrus Chrysologus, Fortunatus, and
others, omit divers expressions that are inserted in
our apostolical creed, among others this at the end,
' the life everlasting ;' and St. Jerome observes in
his Epistle to Pammachius, that the creed concludes
with these words, ' the resurrection of the body.'
" It is evident from these reflections, that although
the creed be the apostles as to the doctrine which it
contains, nevertheless it is not theirs as to all the
terms, and that they did not draw up any one form of
faith comprehended in a set number of words, which
they were all obliged to use : but that having learned
the same faith from Jesus Christ, they likewise taught
it to all those that were converted to the Christian
religion, and instructed them all in the same mysteries.
That they that were thus trained up in this faith, had it
so deeply imprinted on their mind, as (St. .Justin and St.
Irenaeus observe) that they were always ready to give
an account thereof, and as often as they should be
required to do it, without making use of any one par
ticular form ; and from thence proceeds the difference
of the creeds that are set down by the fathers. And,
lastly, that for the. assistance of the memory, certain
forms of these articles of faith were afterward com
piled, which were found to be different according to
the diversity of the churches wherein they were used.
For I doubt not in the least, that besides the above-
cited creeds, there were many others, of which we
have no knowledge, from whence it must be inferred,
that Jesus Christ is the author of the doctrine con
tained in the creed, and that the apostles preached and

S14 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
published it throughout the whole world ; but that it
cannot be determined by whom these forms were col
lected, wherein this doctrine is comprised.
" It may be objected, that St. Irenaeus, Tertullian,
Lucifer Calaritanus, and St. Jerome affirm, that the
creed is the rule of faith, which the Church hath re
ceived from the apostles ; that St. Ambrose says, that
the Church of Rome hath preserved the apostolical
creed in its purity without alteration ; that St. Augus
tine, Ruffinus, Leo, Maximus Taurinensis, Fortunatus,
Petrus Chrysologus, and a great many others,* have
taken it for granted, as a thing beyond controversie,
that the creed was composed in an assembly of the
apostles, that this opinion is authorized by the Church,
and that it seems to be a rash presumption to doubt
of it ; and, lastly, that all Catholicks are agreed in this
judgment, and that none but hereticks, or at least per
sons that are suspected of heresie, durst presume to
call it in question.
" To these objections I answer, first, that the testi
monies of St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Lucifer, rather
overthrow the vulgar opinion than establish it ; for
these fathers do not assert that we have received the
form of faith from the apostles, but only the faith and
doctrine that was communicated to them by Jesus
Christ ; therefore if there were any force in the ob
jection, it must be concluded, that our Saviour is the
* " And a great number of other authors.] St. Irenaeus, lib. i,
cap. ii, Tertullian, de Praescript. c. 37, and 13, de vel. 'Virg. c. i,
Lucifer, lib. ii, contra Const. Hier. Ep. ad Pammach. St. Am.
brose, Ep. 7, lib. i. As also Ruffinus in Expos. Symboli, Aug.
Serm. 115. Maximus, St. Leo, Fortunatus, &c."

THE RULE OP FAITH AND PRACTICE. 215
author of the creed. Moreover, it is further to be ob
served, that by the phrase, rule of faith, used by Ter
tullian, a set form of faith is not to be understood, but
the faith itself, which he declares to have been founded
by Jesus Christ ; and Lucifer Calaritanus doth not
discourse of the creed, but only of the faith of the
Church as it relates to our Saviour's divinity. Lastly,
when St. Jerome says that the faith of the creed, which
is an apostolical tradition, was not written on paper,
or with ink, but was engraved on the fleshly tables of
the heart, he gives us to understand that he meant
nothing else, but that the faith and doctrine compre
hended in the creed proceeds from the apostles, who
have taught it to all the faithful. After the same
manner, when St. Ambrose assures us, that the creed
was preserved in its purity by the Church of Rome, he
doth not speak of the form of the creed, but of the
doctrine therein contained. As for the other autho
rities that are alleged, they are of little moment.
Ruffinus is the first and the only person among the
authors of the fifth century that asserts that the creed
was composed by the apostles, and yet he proposes
this opinion as a matter that depended only on a
popular tradition ; St. Augustine never approved it,
for he doth not so much as mention one word thereof
in his 119th Homily, and the 115th, which might be
cited to this purpose, cannot be proved certainly to be
his : in fine, the other authors who lived after Ruffinus
have taken this history from him, and are too modern
to give a certain testimony of a matter of fact so
ancient as this is ; we may also add, that it is related
by none but the Latins i that the Greeks never spoke

216 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
of it, and that even they that produce it, do in no wise
agree among themselves concerning its circumstance's,
as hath been already shown. To conclude, there ia
no rashness in departing here.frem the >tulgar opinion,
since it is meerly a critical question, that hath no re
gard to faith, because it is granted on all sides, that
Jesus Christ is the author of the doctrine confprised in
the creed, and that the apostles taught it to all the
Christians. Besides, they that maintain the common
opinion, are at last obliged to subscribe to our deter
mination when they are urged ; and to acknowledge,
when it is objected to them, that the ancient Roman
creed was different from our vulgar, that our creed is
not the apostles as to the words, but as to the sense,
which comes to our opinion at last. And, besides, it
is not unusual in critical matters to forsake an opinion
that hath been generally received, and to embrace that
of some learned and judicious men, even of those that
are suspected not to be orthodox. Thus all the world
is at present agreed in this, that the Apostolical Con
stitutions and Canons were not written by the aposties,
as we shall show in the following article, and yet
scarce any man presumed so much as to doubt thereof
before Erasmus."*
The reader need go no further than to examine the
extract from Du Pin for a full view of the argument
in relation to the apostolical origin of the creeds. As
a Roman Catholic he was not likely to assert, what
Mr. Goodedoes, that the ancient creeds were founded
upon the Scriptures. He does, however, clearly prove
* History of Ecclesiastical Writers. First Century. Vol. i,
pp. 9-11.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 217
that the form of words did not originate with the
ajostles, and in relation to the grounds and reasons
for the articles of the ".vulgar creed," different opinions
had been ent88E\ihed by the great Romish doctors.
Is it not strange that Protestant divines are now
found whose views upon this question are less en
lightened', and more conformable ' to the theology of
the dark ages, than those of the better sort of Roman
Catholics themselves ?
If, then, the creeds are not apostolical documents,
nor to be certainly understood as precisely and speci
fically representing the oral preaching of the aposties,
where are there any such documents ? These are
the simplest formulas of Christian doctrine which
have been handed down to us from ancient times,
and have stronger claims than any other ancient
records extant to the character of divine informants
as to the sense of Scripture. But the highest honour
which can in truth and justice be awarded to them
is to say that they are Scriptural, and seem well
calculated to set forth several leading doctrines of
the gospel to the ignorant, whose means of study
ing the Scriptures may have been limited. That
they were drawn up by the apostles,, or are founded
upon their oral preaching, independent of the Scrip
tures, is a hypothesis -which is wholly destitute of
proof. %
Another point of importance to be considered here
is, what would' give the necessary sanction or autho
rity to traditionary explanations of God's written word.
Could anything short of a divine revelation, or the
attestation of miracles give this authority to the ancient
10

218 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
records of the Church, were they ever so well defined ?
Our opponents will not allow Scripture to bear witness
to its own divine origin and inspiration, and will they
contend that tradition can do this 1 If they should
take this ground, it would then be a question of fact,
which would still remain to be settled, whether indeed
it has done so. Will they resort to the " living judge,"
that is, the Church, as adequate evidence in the case ?
Archdeacon Manning, and with him many other
Churchmen, repel this idea. Who, then, is to tell
us that God speaks in the " unwritten word ?" I know
Romanists and high-Churchmen tell us so, but how
do I know that what they tell me is to be relied upon
as infallibly true ? Where is their commission ?
Perhaps I shall be told that the bishops, the suc
cessors of the apostles, in virtue of their commis
sion, have received the depositum from the great
Head of the Church, and I must rely upon their
word. But, then, these bishops, for the proof of their
succession from the apostles, go to tradition ; and
must they, at the same time, be allowed to attest to
the authority of tradition ? This would be forming
a circle — ^making tradition attest to the apostolical
succession, and the successors of the apostles attest
to the authority of tradition, which is a gross
sophism. #Here I may be told, that Churchmen do not agree
with Romanists in making the Church the " living
judge of controversies," but hold the Church to be
the " witness" of the catholic doctrine. " She holds
herself and delivers- to us the witness of those who
are presumable, by their antiquity, to know the

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 219
truth, and, by their uniform consent, neither to mistake
themselves, nor to deceive us."*
Now if this " witness" is to be relied upon with
infallible certainty, she must have a substantive exist
ence, she must be tangible or accessible to all, and
she must have given in a specific, intelligible, and
consistent testimony. Well, what is this Church?
where is she ? where, and what is her testimony ?
and where the evidence of her divine commission ?
These are all questions which must be met and an
swered before a spark of rational faith in her, as a
witness to the divine authority of tradition, can light
up the soul of the inquirer.
If we go to the real, or, as divines say, the invisible
church, which consists of all the true disciples of
Christ, no one will for a moment expect from her a
witness upon the point. Neither Romanists nor high-
Churchmen pretend that the invisible church can be
consulted upon this question.
If we go to the nominal or visible church, then who
will tell us whether we must have the testimony of
every individual member, or only of the clergy ; and
if of the clergy, whether all the clergy or only that of
the bishops. These are questions which neither
Romanists nor high-Churchmen have, as yet, settled
among themselves. There are among Romanists
three distinct theories maintained as to what con
stitutes " the holy Catholic Church." The first is,
that the Church is constituted of the baptized, who
outwardly profess the true faith, and adhere to the
pope of Rome, whether they be truly faithful or
* Manning's Rule of Faith, p. 39.

220 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
secretly infidels. The second, to an outward pro
fession adds internal faith, and excludes all infidels
and heretics. The third adds charity, and has no
place in the Church but for those who are " just and
free from mortal sin." The first opinion is maintained
by Canus, Bellarmine, Duval, and most of the later
writers, especially the French. The second is as
serted by Alensis, Clemangis, Turrecremata, and
Jacobatius. And the third is sustained by Bannes,
Hugo El Sancto Victore, Cusanus, and Lupus.*
These differences, however, only relate to the
question of what constitutes the present Church ; there
is still another question mooted among Romanists, of
equal interest to us in this inquiry, and that is, whe
ther it is the voice of the present Church, or of the
whole who have constituted the Church from the be
ginning, that constitutes " the pillar and ground of the
truth." This latter opinion was that of Waldensis,
and the book in which it was advocated was sanctioned
by a bull of Pope Martin V. But other popes, this
bull notwithstanding, have" assumed that they alone
constitute the Church, that is, have claimed that their
decisions, previous to any consultation either with
clergy or laity, and without their concurrence, con
stitute the voice of the spouse of Christ — of the
Church of the livingsGoS!' Here, then, we are left
witiiout any definite description of the Church — ^there
is no agreement upon essential points.
The Church of England, in her Nineteenth Article,
* See Placett's Incurable Skepticism of the Church of Rome,
chap, xxiv; and Bishop Gibson's Preservative against Popery,
Tit. xiii, pp. 116, 117.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 221
tells us that " the visible Church of Christ is a con
gregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word
of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly ad
ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those
things that of necessity are requisite to the same."
And in Article XX, "the Church" is declared to
" be a witness and keeper of holy writ," &c. In the
Homily for Whitsunday it is said, " The true Church
is a universal congregation or fellowship of God's
faithful and elect people, built upon the foundation of
the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being
the head corner-stone. And it hath always these
three notes or marks by which it is known : pure and
sound doctrine, the sacraments ministered according
to Christ's holy institution, and the right use of eccle
siastical discipline."
Now the Church here defined, Mr. Newman says,
" is the one catholic church, not an abstract idea of a
church which may be multiplied indefinitely."* Is it,
then, this same " one catholic church" which is made
both " a keeper and a witness of holy writ," and " a
keeper and a witness" of " apostolical traditions ?"
High-Churchmen now admit that the Roman- and
the Greek Churches are branches of this " one catholic
church ;" and that the Church of England and the
Protestant Episcopal Chhfch'in this country are but
branches of this same church. We must, I suppose,
either go to these particular churches separately, or to
the whole together, for testimony as to what we are
to regard as " the undoubted traditions of the Church."
But we find these branches of the original stock at
» See Tract No. 90, pp. 19, 20.

222 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
odds upon the most essential points. They give us
no " consentient testimony." Here, then, is our diffi
culty. We cannot harmonize the whole, and make
out a consistent sense, for the parts are utterly antago
nistic, and we dare not take the testimony of one and
reject that of the others, for we find them to have equal
claims to a divine commission, and to be equally legi
timate branches of the " one catholic church."
' To come directly to the point which especially
, concerns us in this country : How are we to
i know which bear the true testimony, the adherents
of Rome, or the Protestant Episcopal Church? It
will not answer for our high-Churchmen to tell us
we must compare the two systems, and judge for our
selves, for they require us to take their report of the
catholic doctrine upon their apostolic authority. Their
witness to the catholic doctrine is to be the foundation
of our faith, and not a matter of investigation and of
"private judgment." Alas for us, into what straits
are we brought ! Romanists and high-Churchmen
both cry out, ever and anon, " Hear the Church !"
The anxious inquirer turns this way and that, and
asks. Who is the Church? Where is she? What
does she say? And in answer to his earnest in
quiries, he hears one voice sternly announce, " Her
head quarters are in Rome," and another indignantly
respond, " Nay, but the true apostolical succession
comes through the English bishops." The Church
clergy tel} us that the Romanists here are schismatics,
and the Romish priests indignantly throw back the
charge. Now, in all this confusion, who can tell
where is the witness, and what is the testimony?

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 223
Common sense, unbiased by prejudice, under these
circumstances, can come to but one conclusion, and
that is, that the traditionary system is as utterly desti
tute of authority as it is impracticable and absurd.
There can be but one primary ground upon which
the authority of tradition can be made to rest, and that
is, the divine will clearly expressed. Where is this to
be found? Nowhere in the Bible. Not in tradition
itself, for this is the thing to be authenticated and made
authoritative before it can be credited. Not by the
whole church, for this is physically impossible. Not
any one branch of it, for the church catholic has not
commissioned any particular church to speak for her,
nor has the universal church, nor any one branch of it,
given a uniform and consistent expression in favour
of the authority of tradition, such as would be neces
sary to lay a foundation for an unwavering. faith. Nor
have all the pastors, nor, as we know, the greatest part ;-
' of them, borne any such testimony^ Tii3eed, there can
be but one way of arriving at the expression necessary
in a way to answer all queries, and that is through a
pope. If God has given to any one man the sole right
to explain Scripture, to sanction traditions, and to settle
controversies, this is the remedy, no doubt. And until
I beUeve this, I shall continue to doubt the authority
of tradition.

224 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
SECTION IV.
Records of Antiquity doubtful or defective.
I SHALL next proceed to an examination of the
character of the documents which are claimed to con
stitute a divinely-authorized commentary upon Holy
Scripture. And in this investigation it will appear that
the records of antiquity are inherently defective as a
divine informant as to the sense of the written word.
1. It must be considered that in all the records of
antiquity which remain, and are of undoubted authority,
we have nothing like an expression from the whole
primitive church.
From the first three centuries we have only a few
fragments, and most of them not only mutilated, but
treating, in general, subjects entirely different from
those now in controversy. The following is DaUle's
account of the writings which remain from this period :
" All that we have left us of these times, which is
certainly known to be theirs, and of which no man
doubts, are some certain discourses of Justin, the phi
losopher and martyr, who wrote his Second Apology
a hundred and fifty years after the nativity of our Sa
viour, Christ ; the five books of Irenaeus, who -wrote
not long after him ; three excellent and learned pieces
of Clemens Alexandrinus, who Uved toward the end
of the second century ; divers books of Tertulhan, who
was famous about the same time ; the episties and
other treatises of Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who
suffered martyrdom about the year of our Saviour 261 ;
the writings of Arnobius, and of Lactantius his scholar,

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 225
and some few others. As for Origen, Cyprian's con
temporary — who alone, had we but all his writings
entire, would be able, perhaps, to give us more light
and satisfaction in the business we are now engaged
in than all the rest — we have but very little of him
left, and the greatest part of that too most miserably
abused and corrupted ; the most learned and almost
innumerable writings of this great and incomparable
person not being able to withstand the ravages of time,
nor the envy and malice of men, who have dealt much
worse with him, than so many ages and centuries of
years that have passed from his time down to us."*
Besides these, Eusebius, Jerome, and others, notice
the works of about thirty Christian authors who lived
during this period, which are now lost.! Had we these
writings, and were those which remain in a state of
perfection, we might appeal to them with more confi
dence for the sense of the primitive church. But the
popes and their minions have not failed to use the
power which they so amply enjoyed, of annihilating
most of the records of purely primitive times which
* Right Use of the Fathers, p. 28.
t Athanasius, after giving a catalogue of the books of the New
Testament, says : " Such are the books of the New Testament,
those at least that are canonical, and, as it were, the first-fruits
or anchors and props of our faith, as being written and composed
by the apostles of Christ themselves, and those that associated
with him, and were taught by him ; but afterward, in accordance
with then- teaching, and in harmony with them, myriads of other
books, without number, were composed by the fathers, who in
their time were great and excellent in wisdom, and taught by
God." — Synopsis Script. Sacr., sec. 4. See Good's Divine Rule,
vol. i, p. 155. 10*

226 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
Ihey could not so garble as to make them serve the
purposes of heresy and corruption.
But in the place of the genuine writings of the pri
mitive Christians which Rome has suppressed, she
has introduced a mass of forgeries. The most promi
nent of these spurious writings palmed upon the first
century, is " The Canons of the Holy Aposties." In
the collection of these canons by Labbe and Binius
we are told, " they were made by the authority of the
holy apostles." But though we have eighty-five canons,
the Romish doctors do not altogether agree as to how
many of them are genuine. Baronius and Bellarmine
admit fifty of them, and reject the rest as apocryphal ;
but the learned editors, though they admit " only the
first fifty as authentic," yet maintain that " the rest
may, and ought also to be received, since they contain
nothing (two of them excepted) but what is approved
by some popes, councils, and fathers."* Du Pin main
tains the opinion of the bishop of Orleans, and also of
Bishop Beveridge, " that although these canons are not
written by the apostles, yet that they were very an
cient, as being properly a collection of the canons of
divers councils that were holden before that of Nice."!
But Daille maintains that these canons " are of a much
later date, and were not collected until about the end
of the fifth century." The last opinion is by far the
most probable.
Another production fraudulently palmed upon the
apostles is " The Apostolical Constitutions." Of these
Du Pin says, " The author is an impostor, that endea
vours everywhere to pass for Clement, a disciple of
* Lab., p. 53. Bm., p. 14. t Hist. Eccles., vol. i, p. 13.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 227
the apostles, and who imputes to them all in general,
and to every one in particular, divine ordinances that
are in nowise consonant to the apostolical ones."*
The famous " Decretal Epistles" connected with the
lives of the popes, from Clement to the time of Siricius,
who lived three hundred years after, pretended to have
been written by the several popes, constitute another
notable Romish fraud. These "decretals" were re
ceived in the Western Church for many centuries as
the genuine decrees of the ancient pious popes, trans
cribed into the canon law, and cited to justify the
usurpations and defend the corruptions of the Romish
Church ; to determine causes and decide controversies
in religion :! and yet they are all notorious forgeries ;
and since the revival of letters many eminent Romish
writers have rejected them as such. Cardinal Cusa
nus says, " That being compared with the times in
which they are pretended to have been written, they
betray themselves." And Baronius calls them " late
invented evidences of no credit." These decretals
were forged by Isidore Mercator near eight hundred
years after Christ, and first brought into France by
Riculphus, bishop of Mentz.:j:
* Hist. Eccles., vol. i, p. 15. For the period of this writing,
see before, p. 109.
+ The famous Council of Constance, which burned John Huss
and Jerome of Prague, ordained " that sucTi of the Decretal
Epistles as should be found, upon examination, to be rightly
ascribed to the popes whose names they bore, should be of equal
authority with the Epistles of the apostles." — L'EnfanVs History
of the Council of Constance, vol. i, p. 229.
X See Roman Forgeries in the Councils, by Dean Comber, in
Bishop Gibson's Preservative against Popery, tit. xi, p. 47.

228 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
Luther burned a copy of the " Decretal Epistles"
upon the pile with the pope's bull of excommunication,
having become fully satisfied of the spurious origin
and injurious tendency of these base forgeries. And
who can think of the infamous purposes which these
abominable frauds have served, without heartily ap
proving that heroic transaction ? Numerous other for
geries of the same character might here be noticed,
but I must forbear. ' Whoever wishes to see a full
illustration of Romish piety and veracity will be amply
satisfied by a perusal of Dean Comber's Roman For
geries, and Daille's Right Use of the Fathers.
We have a volume of what purports to be the writings
of the apostolic fathers, translated by Archbishop Wake,
which is of very little authority. Some of these wri
tings are unquestionable forgeries, and the whole so
corrupted that we can quote but very little of them
with any confidence. Verily, should the apostolic
fathers arise from the dead, it is quite doubtful whether
these writings would not be altogether new to them.
But though we were to admit them all as genuine, we
should lose nothing in this controversy, for they do not
settle one of the questions at issue between us and the
Roman and Anglican Catholics. Indeed, their expla
nations of Scripture are acknowledged by our oppo
nents themselves often to be forced, fanciful, and ab
surd. Du Pin Admits this, and yet proceeds to make
apologies for these instances of false interpretation,
which undoubtedly seemed to him of weight, but which
weigh not the heft of a feather against the objections
which they constitute against these writings in the
character of " a divine informant."

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 229
But when all these "precious monuments of the
apostles" are shown to be wholly without authority,
our high-Churchmen, like the Romanists, contrive to
do without them, by throwing themselves upon the
" Disciplina Arcani" of the primitive church. The
British Critic seems utterly astonished that Mr. Goode
should so totally have overlooked this wonderful source
of evidence as not to " give any reason to believe that
he ever even heard of it."* It would be strange if one
so thoroughly acquainted with ecclesiastical affairs
had " never even heard of the Disciplina Arcani :" it is
not so strange, however, that he thought it unworthy
of special attention. But lest I might, by some wise
Catholic, be subjected to the same suspicion of igno
rance of the true ground of the argument, I will set
down a few notes upon the subject.
" No intimation is given either in the Scriptures, or
in the writings of the apostolic fathers, or by Justin
Martyr, that any rites or ordinances of religion are to
be concealed from the people. Irenseus, Tertullian,
and Clemens, are the first who make mention of any
such custom of the Church. But it afterward became
customary to celebrate the sacrament with an air of the
most profound mystery, and indeed to administer bap
tism, and to perform most of the appropriate rites of
religion, with cautious secresy. Not only were unbe
lievers of every description excluded from the view of
these rites, but catechumens also, and all who were
not fully initiated into the Church and entitled to a
participation in it^ ordinances. From all else the
time, and place, and manner of administering the
» Vol. xxxi, p. 91.

230 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
sacred rites were concealed, and the import of each
rite was a profound mystery which none was at liberty
to divulge or explain."*
The use made by the Romanists of the secret dis
cipline of the primitive Christians is thus set forth by
Bingham. He says, " The learned Schelstrate with
a subtle invention has made a more general use of this
ancient practice, to palliate and excuse all the novel
doctrines and practices of his own church. He wrote
a book, which he intituled Disciplina Arcani, a book
highly magnified by Pagi and others of his own com
munion,! as stopping the mouths of the Protestants,
when they ask the Romanists,' why no footsteps of
their modern doctrines and practices appear in the
earliest writers of the Church ?' The answer is ready
upon all occasions from this Disciplina Arcani, ' that it
was because these doctrines and practices were kept
secret, and only handed down by tradition, not com
mitted to writing, lest they should come to the know
ledge of the uninitiated Jews and Gentiles, and the
catechumens of the Church.' This is the reason, he
tells us, why there is no account of the seven sacra
ments, nor of the worship of saints or images, in the
first writers of the Church. The things were reaUy
believed and practised from the days of the apostles,
as he will have it, but kept secret as the hidden mys
teries of religion, which were not to be divulged to
any but such as were initiated and prepared to know
them."t * Coleman's Antiquities of the Christian Church, p. 35.
+ Pagi, Critic, in Baron. An. 118, n. 9.
X Origines Eccles., b. ic, ch. v, sec. 1. Works, vol. iii, p. 97.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 231
Mr. Faber gives this system a heathen origin. He
says, " St. Paul, more especially when writing to the
Gentile churches, often alludes, with great felicity, to
the rites and ceremonies of the pagans. Among other
matters, he, again and again, refers most pointedly to
the ancient mysteries.* This last illustrative idea was
caught up, more eagerly than wisely, by the governors
of the Church, apparently, as I have said, about the
middle of the second century. The pagans had their
venerable mysteries, into which none were admitted
unless they had passed through a long previous novi
tiate : St. Paul might be supposed to countenance the
establishment of yet more venerable Christian myste
ries. Accordingly, the Church soon determined to
have an institution of this nature, into which none
should be admitted without passing through the long
probationary stage of catechumenism. Henceforth
then, with an ill-advised imitation of Gentilism, the
bishop or officiating presbyter was made to correspond
with the hierophant ; the deacon, with the daduchus ;
the catechumen, with the aspirant ; and the baptized
communicant, with the illuminated epopt. Such was
the mechanism of this singular institution ; and the
man must be ill-versed in the compositions of the early
ecclesiastical writers, who has not observed a studied
adaptation of language plainly enough borrowed from
the phraseology of the pagan mysteries."!
* Rom. xi, 25 ; xvi, 25-27. 1 Cor. ii, 4-8 ; xv, 47-51. Col.
i, 26-28 ; ii, 1-4 ; iv, 2-5. Ephes. i, 9, 10, 16-18 ; m, 31, 32.
t See Tertull. Apol. adv. Gent., p. 821. Clem. Alex. Strom.,
lib. V, pp. 574-579. Origen. in Levit. Homil. ix. Comment, in
Johan. Oper., vol. ii, pp. 97, 98. Lactant. Instit., lib. -yii, sec. 96.

i.,.-,x'_
232 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE^i-fv' -
But it is of little consequence whence thes0i!^i»ife-
tian mysteries came, or what they were,- since the vei^
notion of mysteries furnishes a grand repository for '
such traditions as cannot be found in any authentic
written documents. The use a modern Churchman
can make of the Disciplina Arcani may be seen in
Mr. Palmer's Antiquities of the English Ritual. But
how it was regarded by an old Churchman may be
seen by the following notice taken of the use made
of it by Romanists : —
" But in my opinion,'' says this learned writer, '' the
famous Mr. Schelstrate has gone the furthermost toward
the finding out an expedient which may be of equal
force in all controversies. For in the year 1685 he
put out a book, intituled Dissertatio de Disciplina Ar
cani, against Ernestus Teutzelius, a Lutheran divine,
in defence of his commentaries upon the second Coun
cil of Antioch. In this book he shows that the Church
concealed her doctrines a long time, and that the stream
of tradition, like some rivers, ran for a great way under
ground, till at last it broke out and discovered itself in
this age or that council. If you inquire why we read
nothing of transubstantiation in ancient authors ? the
answer is very easy and ready : Disciplina Arcani,
(p. 150, 151.) Why the fathers did not assert the
worship of images ? Disciplina Arcani, {p. 124:.) Why
the doctrine of the trinity was not clearly taught before
the Council of Nice ? Disciplina Arcani, (p. 10-17.)
Why we have no accounts of the seven sacraments
Cyril. Hieros. Praefat. in Catech., pp. 3, 6-9. Cyrosost. Sanct.
Miss, in Oper., vol. iv, p. 607. — Difficulties of Romanism, chap.
vi, pp. 81, 82.

IS*5

leE.RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 233
8.^he'^!e^venth century? Disciplina Arcani, (p. 104-
ml) Why the writings of St. Denys, the Areopagite,
lay so long concealed ? Disciplina Arcani, (p. 120.)
And so for any novelty else, Disciplina Armani still
returns upon you; anel it is so great a charm, that
some would be almost afraid of it, for it has a strange
faculty of making everything look aged that it can but
come near. This Disciplina Arcani is an occult qua
lity to solve all difficulties by ; and say what you will,
these two eraphatical words shall bear down all before
them. And I am persuaded the following considera
tions will stand out against ' any attack but that of
Disciplina Arcani."*
Now there can be no doubt but these are times of
great anxiety with traditionists. And, under the emer
gencies, which press upon them, that they should have
invoked from the shades this same Disciplina Arcani
to render them the needful aid, need not be thought
strange. But it may well be feared that when it shall
have a temporary resurrection, it will not, like the
shade of Samuel, raised by the witch of Endor, utter
oracles. 2. The records of primitive times which have come
down to us have, both through ignorance and fraud,
been greatly corrupted and mutilated. And what else
could be reasonably expected? We receive' these
writings from the hands of men who acted upon the
principle that the end sanctifies the means, and whose
interest it was to make them speak in favour of the
* The Authority of General Councils examined, and Roman
Forgeries therein detected. By Dr. Comber, late Dean of
Durham. Preface.

234 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
modern corruptions of the doctrines and institutions
of Christianity. The Greeks and the Latins mutually
accuse each other of corrupting even the most sacred
records of the primitive church, upon points which
were in question between them. Even the Nicene
Creed has not wholly escaped the touch of hands al
ways ready to make the ancient records what they
ought to be — or to adjust them to their purpose ; to
say nothing of de cadis — -from heaven ; secundum Scrip-
turas — according to the Scriptures ; and Deum de Deo —
God of God ; which Cardinal Julian declared at the
Council of Florence to be found in some creeds, and
in some others to be wanting. It is now several ages
since the Eastern Church accused the Western of
having added Filioque — and the Son, to the article on
the procession of the Holy Ghost ; and the Western
Church, in turn, accused the Eastern of having ex
punged this word from that article.*
The popes, in their Indexes, have authorized and
required such alterations — additions and retrenchments
— of the writings of the fathers as are necessary to
make them conform to their various heresies. I have
now before me the Index Expurgatorius and Prohibit-
* " One thing is remarkable," says Dean Comber, " that Baro
nius and Binius charge the Greeks with taking away those words
— ' and the Son' — out of this creed, and add, that they falsely
pretended, this was a late addition of the Latins.^ Yet Baronius
himself avers, that the Western Church added these' words — ' and
the Son' — to the Nicene Creed, above a hundred years after ;' so
that they accuse the poor Greeks for keeping the creed as Atha
nasius made it, and as theu- own church used to recitethe Nicene
Creed for many years after." — Soman Forgeries, Preservative,
tit. ix, p. 81. 1 Lab,, p. 605. ' Baron. An. 44T.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 235
orius of Pope Sixtus V. This wonderful document
furnishes the most ample proof of what I here allege.
It contains, together with catalogues of books and
authors prohibited or to be expurgated, twenty-two
rules by which the inquisitors were to be governed in
their work of ridding the literature of the Church of
existing heresy, and preventing its introduction in
future. The first two of these rules are as follows : —
" Rule I. — Whosoever shall not admit the books
of the holy fathers, or writings concerning either faith
or manners hiiherto received by the Church, must be
punished with penalties determined by law.
" Rule II. — But since the same religious teachers,
either because, they contended against heresies which
had before arisen, or against those then springing up,
being inflamed with zeal for the faith, have occasion
ally used some expressions, which the Church, taught
by the Holy Spirit of God, has subsequently rejected,
therefore it shall henceforth be lawful for no one to
retain or use them : yet due reverence should be be
stowed on the religious teachers themselves, because
they did not write things of this character with the
design of receding from the Catholic Church."*
* " Regula I. — Quicunque sanctorum patrum libros, vel scripta
fidem, seu mores concernentia, ab ecclesia hactenus recepta, non
admiserint, pcenis a jure statutis puniantur.
" Resula II. — Quoniam verd iidem sancti doctores, vel quia
ante obortas haereses, vel quia, ut eas surgentes irapugnarent,
fidei zelo accensi, quibusdam interdum locutionibus usi sunt, quas
postea Dei ecclesia Spiritu Sancto edocta rejecit, nemini posthac
eas tenere, aut eis uti liceat : Sanctis verd ipsis doctoribus, quia
non animo ab ecclesia catholica recedendi talia scripsenmt, debits
reverentia deferatur." — Index, <^c., p. 7.

336 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTUREj
Here we have the law : let us now proceed to look
at its practical operations. The following specimens
are given by Daille. He proceeds : —
" We do not here write against these men ; it is
sufficient for us to give a hint only of that which is as
clear as the sun, namely, that they have altered and
corrupted, by their additions in some places, and cur
tailing in others, very many of the evidences of the
ancient belief These are they, who in this part of
the twelfth epistle of Cyprian, written to the people
of Carthage — ' I desire that they would but patiently
hear our council, &c., that our fellow-bishops being
assembled together with us, we may together examine
the letters and desires of the blessed martyrs, accord
ing to the doctrine of our Lord, and in the presence
of the confessors, et secundum vestram quoque senten-
iiam, (and according as you also shall think conve
nient,') have maliciously left out these words, et secun
dum vestram quoque sententiam: by which we may
plainly understand, that these men would not by any
means have us know, that the faithful people had ever
anything to do with, or had any vote in, the affairs of
the church. These are the same, who, in his fortieth
epistle, have changed Petram into Petrum; (a rock
into Peter ;) and who, following the steps of the an
cient corrupters, have foisted into his tract De Unitate
Ecclesim, wherever they thought fit, whole periods and
sentences, against the faith of the best and most un
corrupted manuscripts : as, for example, in this place :
' He built his church on Him alone, (Peter,) and com
manded him to feed his sheep ;' and in this : ' He es
tablished one sole chair ;' and this other : ' The pri-

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 237
macy was given to Peter, to show that there was but
one church, and one chair of Christ ;' and this : ' Who
left the chair to Peter, on which he had built his
church.' These being additions which every one may
see the object of"
" These are the men, who, in Fulbertus, bishop of
Chartres, (where he cites that remarkable passage of
Augustine, ' This then is a figure commanding us to
communicate of the passion of the Lord,') have insert
ed these words, 'Figura ergo est, dicet htBreticus ;' (It
is a figure, then, will a heretic say :) cunningly making
us beheve this to be the saying of a heretic, which was
indeed the true sense and meaning of Augustine him
self, and so cited by Fulbertus."*
It would be tedious to enumerate a tithe of the
Corruptions which have been detected in the Romish
editions of the fathers and councils. The most that
I can do is to give a few specimens of the usage to
which these ancient authors have been subjected.
From these the reader will be able to judge of the
amount of confidence which is to be placed in the
copies which have come to us from the hands of
Romish editors.
We have a curious account of the efforts made to
suppress an epistie of Chrysostom, on account of an
offensive passage which it contained, given by Arch
bishop Wake. The following is the passage in the
letter to which the Romanists except : —
" Before the bread is consecrated, we call it bread,
but when the grace of God by the priest has conse
crated it, it is no longer called bread, but is esteemed
* Right Use of the Fathere, pp. 76, 77, 79.

238 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
Worthy to be called the Lord's body, although the
nature of the bread still remains in it ; and we do not
say there be two bodies, but one body of the Son ; so
here the divine nature being joined with the body, they
both together make up but one Son, or person. But
yet they must be confessed to remain without confu
sion, after an invisible manner, not in one nature, but
in two perfect natures."
The archbishop says, " It is now above a hundred
years since this passage was first produced by Peter
Martyr, in his dispute with Gardiner, bishop of Win
chester, concerning the eucharist. He then professed
that he had copied it out of a Florentine manuscript,
and that the whole epistle was put by him into Arch
bishop Cranmer's library. This Gardiner could not
deny, who therefore, in his answer to him in 1552,
endeavoured first to ascribe it to another John of Con
stantinople, who lived about the beginning of the sixth
century. But still the argument recurred upon them,
forasmuch as this other John was in the beginning of
the sixth age, and transubstantiation by consequence
was not the doctrine of the church then. And indeed
GamachEeus is not unwilling to acknowledge this : for
having with the rest assigned this epistle to the other
John, he tells us, he is to be excused, for that transub
stantiation was not so plainly delivered and explained
in those_ days as it is now. But this Cardinal Perron
could not bear ; he neither thought fit to rely upon an
evasion, which he saw would not do their business,
nor could he endure to allow so ancient an author as
either of the two Johns to have been so directly oppo
site to their sentiments in this matter. And therefore

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 239
flatly accused Peter Martyr o{ forgery, and uses abun
dance of arguments to persuade the world that there
was never any such epistle as had been pretended.*
Thus stood this passage, and the whole epistle for its
sake ; till about six years since, the learned Bigotius,
who had twelve years before brought a copy of it from
Florence, resolved to ruin all the endeavours of these
men, by publishing this very epistle, which the cardinal
had so loudly proclaimed to be a forgery, and proving
it to be the genuine offspring of St. Chrysostom, con
trary to what the rest had in vain pretended. Being
quite finished and ready to come abroad, some of the
doctors of the Sorbonne caused it to be suppressed,
and the printed leaves cut out of the book, without
anything to supply the place of them. And of 'this
the edition of Palladius of that year remains a stand
ing monument, both in the preface and in the book ;
and it was publicly complained of by a very learned
man, in an expostulation prefixed to a piece of Anas-
tasius, published by him about two years after. But
what that reverend person could not then obtain, having
since fallen into my hands, I mean the very leaves cut
out by these doctors, of Monsieur Bigot's preface, and
the epistle raised out of the book ; I was unwilling to
come into any part of their fraud, by detaining any
longer that which hath so well deserved, and had so
long since been prepared, for a public view. As to the
authority of this piece, I shall need say no more than
» As the Ubrary of Archbishop Cranmer, at his martyrdom, fell
into the hands of the Popish party, they had probably taken care
to destroy the copy of the epistle in question which Peter Martyr
had there deposited.

240 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
what Monsieur Bigot has already done to prove it to
be genuine. So many ancient authors have cited it,
as St. Chrysostom's Epistle to Cesarius ; such frag-
nients of it remain in the most ancient writers as au
thentic, that he who, after all these, shall call this
piece in question, may with the same reasonableness
doubt of all the rest of his works, which, perhaps upon
less grounds, are on all sides allowed as true and un
doubted."* After this statement of the facts of this monstrous
fraud, the archbishop gives the entire epistle, with
M. Bigot's preface.
Another striking instance of authorized corruption in
publishing the fathers is given by Du Pin, in his ac
count of the works of St. Ambrose. He says, " The fifth
and sixth [editions] appeared under the pontificate of
Sixtus v., in 1585 and 1587. This .edition was, after
that, the pattern and original which was followed in
the edition at Paris, begun in 1586, and in all the
other following editions, which are very numerous.
'Twas believed that a book published with so much
ostentation, valued so much by the publisher, printed
in so fine a character, and with so much care, must
needs be very correct and perfect ; and yet this edition
has many essential defects which disfigure it. The
first and most considerable is, that the Roman correct
ors took the liberty to change, cut off, and add what
they thought fit, though they had no ground to do so
* See The Doctrines in dispute between the Church of Eng-
land and the Church of Rome truly represented. Appendix.
I use the copy in Bishop Gibson's Preservative against Popery,
tit. ix, p. 104.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 241
from the authority of any manuscript. They carried
it so far, as that they did not content themselves with
changing those terms which appeared to them harsh,
and substitute others according to their fancy, but th^y
also blotted out or added whole lines and periods,
which made a perfectly new sense, and altogether
different from the author's, as may be seen by com-
-sparing the ancient editions and the last with this Ro
man edition. Secondly. They have inserted into the
commentaries the whole text of the sacred books,
which hinders the reading the commentary of St. Am
brose without interruption. Thirdly. The order which
they have observed in ranging the books is not natural.
They have placed some letters among the treatises
upon the Holy Scripture, they have separated books
that ought to follow one upon another, as the com
plaints of Job and David, whereof one is placed in the
first tome, and the other in the second; they have
joined together some treatises which should be sepa
rated ; they have ranked the letters in a very incon
venient order. In a word, by too much refining they
have corrupted all, as Faber says in a letter to Fronto
Ducaeus, where he observes the faults of the Roman
edition of St. Ambrose. ' I have found,' says he to
him, ' that nimis fuere ingeniosi in alieno opere, as in
the books De Interpellatione Sanctorum Job et David,
which they have separated, and placed the one in the
first tome, and the other in the second, to do which
they were forced, quoedam interpolare minime probabili
vxemplo. They have done the same in priore Apologia
David ; and in the second that which is yet worse ;
for because it is said in the eighth chapter that the
11

242 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
History of David with Bathsheba is not a history*
(which shows that this book is none of St. Ambrose's,
but some Origenist's, who allegorizes almost all the
Bible, as also it seems, by the reading of it, to be col
lected and made up out of two or three sermons,) they
have taken away five or six lines, which are found in
all the ancient editions.' Fourthly. They have made
a particular class of some supposititious books, and
yet they have left a great number of them among St.
Ambrose's genuine works. There are some of them
whose forgery is so manifest that they cannot be par
doned, such as the books De Arbore Interdicta, De
Dignitate Hominis, De Vocatione Gentium, the epistle
Ad Demetriadem in Symbolum Apostolorum, and many
others. They must be very ignorant who beheved
that these books were written by St. Ambrose, and
very impudent who left them among his genuine works,
when they had a design to make a distinct class of
those that were supposititious.
" In short, the authors of this edition have made no
notes, or marked in the margin any different readings ;
they have only added at the end the theological and
scholastical dissertations of one Ferdinand Wellofillus,
which are a collection of common-places and passages
of the fathers upon different questions, which are of no
use at all for understanding the text of St. Ambrose."*
No commentary upon these curious and instructive
pieces of history is necessary. They are but two in
stances of many in which ancient records have been
mutilated and suppressed, lest they should hear testi
mony against the abominations of Popery. Indeed, the
» Hist. Eccles., vol. ii, pp. 233, 234.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 243
Church of Rome claims the right to correct the fathers
when she finds them in error. The Jesuit Gutzer says,
" The sayings of.the fathers, as they are fathers, need
no purging ;" yet " being considered as sons, their
words may be corrected and censured by the Church."
" Dr. James refers to two Expurgatory Indexes, where
certain sentences or words in the text of Gregory
Nyssen, Chrysostom, Anastasius, Euchirius, Proca-
pius, Agapetus, and Didymus Alexandrinus, ' against
idolatry, satisfactions, Peter's primacy, and for the
supremacy of temporal kings and princes,' are ordered
to be erased ; and testifies to having seen a copy of
Chrysostom, in which ' diverse sentences' had been
blotted out by the inquisitors."*
The fact that these corruptions have proceeded so
far as to render doubtful almost the whole of the an
cient records of the Church which remain, is strongly
asserted by the learned Bishop Taylor. He says,
" But that the Indices Expurgatorii, commanded by au
thority, and practised with public license, profess to
alter and correct the sayings of the fathers, and to
reconcile them to the catholic sense, by putting in and
leaving out, is so great an imposture, so unchristian a
proceeding, that it hath made the faith of all books,
and of all authorities, justly to be suspected. For
considering their infinite diligence and great oppor
tunity, as having had most of the copies in their own
hands, together with an unsatisfiable desire of prevail
ing in their right, or in their wrong, they have made
an absolute destruction of this topic ; and when the
fathers speak Latin, or breathe in a Roman diocess,
* Goode's Divine Rule, vol. i, p. 175.

244 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
although the providence of God does infinitely over
rule them, and that it is next to a miracle that in the
monuments of antiquity there is no more found that
can pretend for their advantage than there is, which,
indeed, is infinitely considerable, yet our questions and
uncertainties are infinitely multiplied, instead of a
probable and reasonable determination. For since the
Latins always complained of the Greeks for privately
corrupting the ancient records both of councils and
fathers, and now the Latins make open profession not
of corrupting but of correcting dieir writings, and at the
most it was but a human authority, and that of persons
not always learned, and very often deceived, [and the
bishop might add, when not unlearned or deceived, de
signing to deceive the unlearned,] the whole matter is
so unreasonable, that it is not worth a further disqui
sition."* Now, considering that the Romish editors and
copyists have touched with their ruthless hands every
thing we have from the Latins or Greeks of primitive
times, and in -view of the numerous mutilations
and forgeries which have been detected, and the
multitude which have probably escaped detection,
who, with a whit of rational confidence, can go to these
records for true reports of " the oral preachings of the
apostles ?" This query I leave for the present for the
unprejudiced to solve, without further reflections.
* Lib. of Prophes., sec. 8. This author goes into a learned
investigation of the whole subject of tradition, and the frauds
and corruptions of the Romish editors, in his " Second Part of
the Dissuasion from Popery," book i, sec. 3, 6 ; in which a tole.
rably full view " of the Expurgatory Indices in the Roman Church"
may be seen.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 245
3. The fathers did not agree in many vital points,
and later fathers explicitly dissent from the opinions
of the more ancient.
Some of the anti-Nicene fathers express themselves
dubiously as to the divinity of the Logos, or Word ;
and several explicitiy teach that the Holy Ghost was
created. Origen teaches that " the Holy Spirit was
made by the Word." Pierius, who succeeded Origen
in the school of Alexandria, affirms that " the Spirit
is inferior in glory to the Father and the Son.'' Nova-
tian says, " Every Spirit is a creature," and says the
Paraclete is " inferior to Christ." Jerome says that
Lactantius " altogether denies the entity of the Spirit."
And Eusebius tells us that the Holy Spirit is " one of
those things which were made by the Son," and adds,
that this is the doctrine of " the catholic church." In
opposition to these, Cyprian, Basil, Jerome, and Augus
tine, bore a decided testimony in favour of the doctrine
of the personality and divinity of the Holy Spirit.
Another doctrine upon which the fathers have left
upon record contradictory opinions is the doctrine of
original sin. As a specimen, I oppose here Clement
of Alexandria and Augustine. The former says,
" Let them tell us where the new-born infant hath
committed fornication, or how one who has done nothing
has fallen under Adam's curse."* On the other hand,
Augustine asserts, " The race are propagated by gene
ration, bringing original sin with them, since the vice
propagates the vice."!
There is the like disagreement among the fathers
upon the intermediate state. lREN.a:us says, " Since
* Strom., lib. iii. t C. Jul., vi, 7.

346 NOT tradition, but scripture,
the Lord departed to the valley of the shadow of death,
where the souls of the dead were, and then afterward
rose in the body, and after his resurrection was taken
up ; it is manifest that the souls of his disciples also,
on whose account the Lord did these things, go away
to the place appointed for them by God, and there
dwell until the resurrection .... and then having had
their bodies restored to them, and risen perfectiy, that
is, with their bodies, even as the Lord arose, shall
thus come to the vision of God."* Justin Martyr
says, " The souls of the pious remain somewhere in a
better sort of place, and the unjust and wicked souls
in a worse, awaiting the time of the judgment."!
Again he says, "If ye meet with some who are
called Christians, . . . who say that there is no resur
rection of the dead, but that, as soon as they die, their
souls are taken up into heaven, you must not suppose
them to be Christians."J And Tertullian says, " It
is evident to every wise man .... that there is, a cer
tain place which is called the bosom of Abraham, set
apart for the receptipn of the souls of his children, . . .
that that place, therefore, . . . which, although not in
heaven, is yet above the lower regions, will, in the
mean time, afford refreshment to the. souls of the just
until the consummation of things shall bring about the
renovation of all in the fulness of the reward."§
Others might be quoted to the same purpose, especially
Clement of Alexandria and Origen.
But other fathers teach that the souls of the faithful
go immediately from the. body to heaven. Ignatius,
* Iren., lib. v, c. 31. t Dial, cum Trypho, § 5.
X Ibid., § 80, § Tertul. Mare., lib. iv, <;. 34.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 247
in his Epistle to the Romans, in the prospect of mar
tyrdom, says, " Suffer me to become the food of wild
beasts, through whom it is in my power to attain the
presence of God." Again he says, " The living water
.... says within me. Come to the Father."*
St. Cyprian says, " How great is the honour, and
how great the security, to go home joyful ! to depart
in triumph amidst afflictions and troubles ! to shut in
one moment the .eyes with which men and the world
are seen, and to open them immediately, that God may
he seen, and Christ ! How great the speed of the
happy journey! You are suddenly taken from the
earth, that you may be placed in a state of rest in the
heavenly kingdom."^ Epiphanius, Ambrose, and
others, maintain the same opinions.
But some of the ancient doctors oppose, without
the least scruple, the opinions of those who had pre
ceded them, and whose -writings, according to the
system here opposed, they must have recognised as
an infallible echo of " the preachings of the apostles."
Origen is taken severely to task by Jerome, and
many others. And Dionysius, of Alexandria, is
strongly reprehended by Basil and Gennadius.
And Gregory Nyssen charges Theognastus with
being " deceived" and led astray. Jerome says of
Lactantius, that, " in his writings, .... he alto
gether denies the entity of the Holy Spirit ; and, by
a Jewish error, says that he is to be referred either to
the Father or the Son ; and that the holiness of each
person is pointed out under his name." And, again,
" Many, through ignorance of the Scriptures, assert that
* Ep. ad Rom., § iv, et 7. t De exhort, mart.

348 not tradition, but scripture,
the Father and the Son are often called the Holy
Spirit. And while we ought clearly to believe in a
Trinity, they, taking away the third person, hold it
not to be a hypostasis of the Trinity, but a name."*
St. Augustine, after speaking of the unerring
truth of Holy Scripture, turns to the -writings of the
doctors, and says, " But others, however distinguished
they may be for holiness and learning, I so read as
not to think anything true, because they thought it to
be so, but because they are able to persuade me, either
by those canonical authors, or by some probable reason,
that it is agreeable to the truth."^ Surely Augustine
had not been instructed in the doctrine of patristic
tradition !
And when we consult the fathers upon particular
texts of Scripture, we find them differing- among them
selves as much as in their dogmatic discourses. Ori
gen acknovyledges this difference among Christian
teachers. " Celsus remarks," says he, " that they
[that is, the early Christians] were all of one mind ;
not observing in this, that from the very beginning there
were differences among believers respecting the meaning
of the books that were believed to be divine."X I cannot
give place to specimens of these diversities. The
subject is set in a just and clear light by Placette.
" How little help,'' says this learned author, " there
is for Scripture in tradition, appeareth hence, that it
can no otherwise teach what is the true sense of
Scripture, but by the unanimous consent of the fathers,
which, whethef it be to be had in any one text of
* See Goode's Divine Rule, vol. i, pp. 221-223.
t Epist. ad Hieron. 82. X Contra. Cel., lib. iii, § 11.

the rule of faith and practice. 249
Scripture, may be much doubted. It was a hard con
dition, therefore, which Pope Pius IV. prescribed in
his profession of faith to all who desired admission
into the Church of Rome, and which may for ever
silence all the Romish commentators, ' that they will
never receive nor interpret Scripture any otherwise
than according to the unanimous consent of the fa
thers.' Now I would fain know how this can be ob
served, since I may confidently affirm that tJiere is no
one place of Scripture explained the same way by all the
fathers. For there are many places which none of
them have touched, and none which all have inter
preted. Nor -will it suffice to say, that they agree
who have interpreted it, and that the silence of the
rest is to be taken for consent, as if they must be
supposed to consent who were ignorant of such inter
pretations, or died, perhaps, before they were made,
or, as if the ancients were wont expressly to reject
all interpretations different from their own, or those
might not be rejected, or, at least, others proposed, in
those books of the fathers which are lost. It is not
enough, therefore, to have the consent of a few unless
we be assured of the concurrence of the rest. But
granting that it is, it cannot be denied that our adver
saries can collect nothing certain out of any place of
Scripture, if any one of the ancients have interpreted
it otherwise. Hence Alphonsus a Castro requireth
that among the necessary qualifications of a text of
Scripture to be produced for the conviction of heretics,
this be the chief, ' That it be so plain and undoubted
that none of the sacred and approved doctors interpret
it in some other sense, according to which such a
11*

250 NOT tradition, but scripture,
proposition cannot thereby be convinced of heresy.'
But if this be true, how few places will there be of
whose sense we may not doubt ? Certainly there are
very few explained the same way by all ancient com
mentators  The anonymous writer of ihe ' Trea
tise of the Liberties of the Galilean Church' maintains
that there are few places of Scripture which the holy
fathers have not differently interpreted. As will also
manifestly appear to any one .who shall consult those
interpreters who are wont to produce the expositions
of the ancient writers. Hence the reader may ima
gine to what a strait our adversaries would be re
duced if they were tied up to their own laws, and allowed
to urge no other places of Scripture against us than
what are unanimously interpreted by the fathers. A
specimen hereof may be found in Launoy, where he
weigheth the texts of Scripture produced by Bellar
mine for the pope's authority ; and showing that they
are diversely explained by the ancients, concluding
thence, that they are wholly ineffectual. That the
sense of Scripture cannot be learned from tradition here
appeareth ; but neither is it taught any better by the
Church. At least she hath not yet taught it. For
how many decrees are there about the true sense of
Scripture ? Decrees, I say : for not every simple
explication or allegation of a text is to be looked
upon as an authentic interpretation of it ; but only
that which hath an anathema affixed to the deniers
of it, or dissenters from it. Of this kind I find but
four or five in the decrees of the Council of Trent,
and in those of elder councils none at all. For fifteen
hundred years the Church delivered not the sense of

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 251
SO much as one place ; whence may be judged both
what a faithful interpreter she is of the Holy Scrip
tures, and how small assistance we are to expect from
her in obtaining the true sense of them."*
So reasoned a learned French Protestant, who,
upon the revocation of the edict of Nantz, took refuge
in foreign countries, and from his retreat poured a
galling fire Upon his persecutors. And let it not be
forgotten that Placette's unanswerable argument against
tradition, as now contended for by good Churchmen,
was translated by an archbishop of the Church of
England,! and is republished by a bishop of that
Church,! in a great work, containing a multitude of
the best tracts against Popery, entitled, " A Preserva
tive against Popery," &c., three vols., folio, 1738. I
could wish our Churchmen of the present day would
take an occasional lesson from their ancient and
learned bishops and archbishops. But for aught that
appears, these great defenders of the Reformation are
to be left to " ultra-Protestants," " dissenters," and
" schismatics !"
4. It is a fact, that doctrines and usages maintained
by primitive fathers as having come from the apostles,
are rejected and opposed by other fathers.
The millennium, or the personal reign of Christ on
earth for a thousand years, after the resurrection of
the just and the unjust, was maintained by the fathers
of the first two and a half centuries. And for this
doctrine the fathers plead both Scripture and tradition.
* Incurable Skepticism of the Church of Rome ; Preservative
against Popery, tit. xiii, pp. 58, 59.
t Archbishop Tennison. X Bishop Gibson.

352 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
Iren.«ius says, "The above-mentioned blessing be
longs undeniably to the times of the kingdom, when
the just shall rise from the dead and reign ; when the
creation, renovated and freed, shall bring forth abun
dantly of all kinds of food, from the dew of heaven
and the fertility of the earth : as the presbyters, who
saw John, the disciple of the Lord, have related that they
heard from him in accordance with what the Lord taught
concerning those times, and said, ' The days shall come
in the which vines shall spring up, having each ten
thousand branches,' &c  These things also,
Papias, a hearer of John, and who became the com
panion of Polycarp, a man of ancient times, witnesses
in writing, in the fourth of his books, for there were
five books written by him." And again, " Then, as
the presbyters say, shall those who are worthy of a
dwelling in heaven, depart thither ; a'ftil others shall
enjoy the delights of paradise ; and others shall pos
sess the beauty of the city ; for everywhere shall the
Saviour' be beheld according as those who see him
shall be worthy  That this is the arrangement
and classification of those who are saved, the presby
ters, the disciples of the apostles, tell us, and that they
advance through such stages ; and ascend through the
Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father ;
the Son finally giving up his own creation, as also it
is- said by the apostles."*
Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Nepos, Victori-
Nus, Petamanensis, Lactantius, Apollinarius, jr.,
and SuLPiTius Severus, maintain the same views.
After adducing these authorities, Mr. Goode says, " It
* Iren. Adv. Hsr., lib. v, c. 33, 36.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 253
is impossible, then, to deny that the testimony, in
favour of this doctrine, as an apostolic tradition, is
such as can be adduced for hardly any other ; and by
the earliest fathers it is delivered to us as one which
it savours strongly of heresy to deny. They delivered
it to us as the undeniable sense of Scripture, and as
confirmed by the testimony coming to them by succes-
sional delivery from the oral teaching of the apostles.
" Nor is it till we come to the middle of the third
century that we find any record of any person of note
in the Church opposing it. About that time we find,
by an incidental notice of the work in Eusebius and
Jerome, that Dionysius of Alexandria wrote a book
against it, in refutation of one by Nepos, according to
Eusebius, or, as Jerome says, against Irenaeus ; and
was answered by Apollinarius, who (as Jerome tells
us) was foUo'wed in this point by most of the Western
Church in Jerome's part of the world. And after this
period we find most of the authors that remain to us
opposing, and even ridiculing, the doctrine."*
The same may be said with regard to the time of
keeping Easter. The Eastern division of the Church,
as Eusebius tells us, " observed the fourteenth day of
the moon, being the day on which the Jews were
commanded to kill the lamb." But in the West it
was solemnly determined " that the mystery of our
Lord's resurrection should never be celebrated on any
other day but Sunday." Now the same authority in
forms us, that each custom was professedly founded
upon " apostolical tradition."! And Socrates Scholas-
* See Divine Rule, vol. i, pp. 248-253.
t Euseb. Eccl. Hist., lib. v, c. 22.

254 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
ticus says, " The quarto decimani [that is, those who
kept the feast of Easter on the fourteenth day of the
moon] do affirm, that the observation of the fourteenth
day of the moon was deUvered to them by John the
apostle. But the Romans, and those in the Western
parts, say that the usage in force with them was de
livered by the apostles Peter and Paul."*
Irenseus, in his pacific letter to Victor, bishop of
Rome, who had pronounced against the Eastern
bishops sentence of excommunication for adhering
to their tradition, says, " This variety of observing —
has not been begun in our age, but a long while since,
in the times of our ancestors ; who being (as 'tis pro
bable) not so dihgent in their presidencies, proposed
that as a custom to their successors, which was intro
duced by simplicity and unskilfulness."!
The following forcible remark upon this matter is
from Dean Comber : —
" Though Binius's Notes brag of apostolical and
universal tradition, the bishops of Asia produced a
contrary tradition, and called it apostolical, for keep
ing Easter at a different time ; which shows how uncer
tain a ground tradition is for articles of faith, when it
varied so much in delivering down a practical rite
through little more than one century ."J
Conflicting traditions were also plead upon the sub
ject of rebaptizing those who had been baptized by
* See Eccl. Hist., as published in the English translation of
Eusebius. London, 1709.
t Euseb. Eccl. Hist., lib. v, c. 24.
X See Roman Forgeries in the Preservative against Popery,
tit. xi, p. 55.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 255
heretics. A controversy arose upon this subject in
the middle of the third century between Cyprian and
Stephen, bishop of Rome. Stephen maintained, as a
tradition, that " the apostles forbade that those who
came over from any heresy should be baptized, and
delivered this to posterity to be observed." But
Cyprian replies, " Nor let any one say, we follow
that which we have received from the apostles, since
the apostles delivered that there was only one Church
and one baptism." And Firrnilian, bishop of Cesarea,
in Cappadocia, says, " We to tiuih join custom, and to
the custom of the Romans oppose custom, but the
custom of truth ; holding this to have been from the
beginning which was deliv^ed by Christ and the
apostles. Nor do we recollect that this had any be
ginning with us, since it was always observed here, that
we should acknowledge but one Church of God, and
that we should reckon that only to be holy baptism
which was of the holy Church."*
There are other points in which it might be sup
posed that tradition would, at least for awhile, have
preserved the truth, upon which it entirely fails. The
following is presented by Mr. Goode : —
" Thus, as to the duration of our Lord's public
ministry, we are told by Clement of Alexandria, that
he preached only one year, and by Origen, that he
preached a year and a few months. Irenaeus, on the
other hand, shows how contrary this notion is to the
testimony of the Gospels themselves, but with equal
error asserts that our Lord was forty or fifty years old
at the time of his death, for which he refers to Scrip-
* Fii-m. ad Cyprian, ep. 75.

356 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
ture and tradition, asserting that all the elders who
had been acquainted with St. John in Asia, testified
that he had dehvered this to them; some of whom
had seen other apostles, and heard the same account
from them."
AU going most conclusively to show that "the
elders," even in those primitive times, were often
forgetful, and that the most learned fathers sometimes
wrote carelessly and fell into mistakes. And yet,
forsooth, they must be taken as infallible interpreters
of Holy Scripture !
5. The testimony of the fathers is not always to
be rehed upon when they claim the authority of the
Church. ^
Origen is charged by Jerome with " making his
own fancies mysteries of the Church." And Jerome
himself maintains it to be " a doctrine of the Church,
that the souls of infants are created by God, and
transfused into them before their birth." Augustine
opposed this dogma as being subversive of the doc
trine of original sin, which, with " the indubitable
damnation of infants, unless they are regenerated in
Christ," that is, baptized, he asserted to be doctrines
of the Catholic Church. Gennadius reckoned among
the doctrines of the Church, that " every creature is
corporeal, the angels and all the heavenly powers are
corporeal, although not of a fleshly substance." That
this, however, was the doctrine of the Church, may
be fairly doubted from the fact that Chrysostom,
Theodoret, and Gregory Nyssen wholly and explicitly
dissent from the notion.
Gennadius also reckons it a doctrine of the Church,

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 257
that " the angels and all the heavenly powers were
made when the darkness yet covered the waters. But
Origen tells us, that when and how the angels were
created is a point not clearly manifested in the teach
ing of the Church."*
6. As little confidence is to be placed in the deci
sions of councils, even the largest and most general
the Church has ever seen collected, as in the writings
of the fathers. We give from Mr. Goode two speci
mens of a want of consent in the decisions of these
councils : —
" In less than twenty-five years after the meeting
of the first council which had any pretension to be
called a general council — namely, the first Nicene —
the orthodox creed there established was contradicted
by a far more numerous assembly of bishops, which
met for the Western Church at Ariminum, and for the
Eastern at Seleucia ; and of which Bishop Stillingfleet
says, ' The Council of Ariminum, together with that of
Seleucia, which sat at the same time, make up the most
gerieral council we read of in church history. For Bel
larmine owns that there were six hundred bishops in
the Western part of it. So that there were many more
bishops assembled than were in the Council of Nice ;
there was no exception against the summons, or the
bishops present.'
" Again, another proof of this is afforded us in the
contradictory determinations of the second Council of
Ephesus in 449, and the Council of Chalcedon (called
the fourth general council) in 451 . It is a well-known
fact, that the great question upon which both these
« See Goode's Divine Rule, vol. i, pp. 271-276.

258 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
councils were assembled, that relating to the Eutychian
error respecting the person of Christ, was determined
by them in a precisely opposite manner ; and the lead
ing advocate of each opinion punished and sent into
exile by these councils respectively ; Flavianus by that
of Ephesus, Dioscorus by that of Chalcedon."*
The controversy upon the latter instance of contra
dictory decisions in the general councils between
Bishop Jewel and Dr. Cole clearly shows the views
the old reformers entertained of the soundness of the
decisions of these bodies, and the shifts and evasions
to which their opponents were driven.
Says Bishop Jewel, " When ye say, ye could never
yet find the error of one general council, I trow this
escaped you, for default of memory. Alhertus Pigghius,
the greatest learned man of your side, hath found out
such errors to your hands, namely, in his book that he
calleth Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, speaking of the second
council holden at Ephesus, which ye cannot deny but
it was general, and yet took part with the heretic abbot
Eutychus against the godly man Flavianus ; he writeth
thus : ' Concilia universalia, etiam congregata legitime,
ut bene itaperperam injuste impieque judicare ac defi-
nire possunt ;' that is, ' General councils, yea, even
such as be lawfully summoned, as they may conclude
things well, so may they likewise judge and determine
things rashly, unjustly, and wickedly.' "
To this Dr. Cole replies, " Ye ground yourself upon
Pigghius's error : for Pigghius holdeth the Council of
Ephesus was general, which the Council of Chalcedon
denieth. So that I marvel much hearing of you, that
* Divine Rule, vol. i, pp. 276, 277.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 259
ye allege that for a council which hath no place in
the book of councils."
Bishop Jewel responds, " In Pigghius's words there
are two things to be noted. The one is, that he saith
a general council rnay err in faith : the other, that he
saith, the second Council of Ephesus was general.
And forasmuch as ye challenge him only for the latter,
I think ye will agree with him in the first ; which to
my purpose is sufficient. But here ye cause me to
marvel, what ye mean, to make so light account of
Pigghius : for he, as ye know, hath been taken for the
chiefest champion of your side.
" Pigghius saith the Council of Ephesus was gene
ral ; and ye say it was not so. Ye must give me leave
to say the truth ; if the matter come to a quid dicunt,
Pigghius will be taken in the country for a man as
well learned, and as skilful in the councils, as Doctor
Cole. Ye should not so little esteem the doctors of
your own side, lest that, not being able to allege any
old doctor, and refusing the new, it may haply be
thought ye have neither old nor new. And yet, when
ye were before the queen's majesty's commissioners,
at Lambeth, ye said openly there, that Pigghius is full
of errors. But forasmuch as ye yourself have begun
to find fault with your own doctors, I trust hereafter ye
will the better bear with us, if we sometimes shall do
the same. Here ye drive me to use the more words,
partly to defend Pigghius in his right, and partly to
make you see how wilfully ye withstand an open truth,
having so little to the contrary. And as ye shall be
found true in this, even so am I well content to take
you in all the rest, >

260 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
" First. Nicephorus and Evagrius, that write the
whole story and order of the Council o{ Ephesus; never
denied it to be general. Theodosius, the emperor, that
summoned the bishops together, as it may appear by
his words, took it to be general. For thus he writeth
to the council : ' Cogitantes non esse tutum absque
vestra, sancta synodo, et ubique sanctarum ecclesiarum
praesulibus, hujusmodi quaestionem de fidei renovari,
necessarium duximus vestram sanctitatem conveniere.'
These words, sanctarum ecclesiarum, qua ubique sunt,
import a generality of all churches through the world.
Further, there was the emperor's authority, the bishop
of Rome's legates ; which, as some men think, maketh
up altogether, and other bishops of all nations. And
how could such a council not be general ?" After this
the bishop quotes the Paris doctors, who say, " That
the council be lawfully gathered, it should be suffi
cient that the solemnity, and form of law, be observed
throughout." This he claims to have been observed
in the Council of Ephesus.
He then observes, that Eutychus and Dioscorus re
cognise it as a "general council." " But," proceeds
the learned bishop, "if perhaps ye doubt- of these
words, because the one was Eutychus, the other was
Dioscorus, by whom they were spoken, (howbeit not
withstanding they were heretics, yet could they not
lightly make an open lie in a matter that was so evi
dent,) then read ye the old father, Liberatus, that was
archidiaconus carthaginensis, and lived under Vigilius,
bishop of Rome, at the least a thousand years ago, and
writeth the very story of this council ; his words are
these : ' Fit Ephesi generale concilium, ad quod con-

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 261
venerunt, Flavinus, et Eutychus, tanquam judicandi.'
' There is appointed,' saith he, ' at Ephesus, a general
council, in the which Flavianus and Eutychus made
their appearance, as men standing to be judged.'
Now, if ye will say that generale concilium is not, in
English, a general council, then I would it might be
put over to some other court. O- master doctor, if ye
meant nothing but truth, ye would not do as ye do !"*
The canons of the councils have been sadly muti
lated and corrupted, so that it is now difficult to tell
whether they have all been handed down to us, or
whether some which are reported have not been forged
by unscrupulous hands. The Greeks and the Latins
have for centuries mutually charged each other with
publishing spurious canons, and suppressing genuine
ones.! In some instances it is possible for the scholar
to arrive at a probable conclusion in these matters, but
in others darkness and mystery reign, and will proba
bly continue to do so to the end of time.
I have previously noticed that there are diversities
in the Nicene Creed which indicate undue liberties
upon the part either of the Greeks or Latins. I will
now give -a brief view of the corruptions of the canons
of the Council of Nice which have been perpetrated
by the Romanists, from Dean Comber : —
" Sixthly, therefore, we will consider the impostures
and fictions annexed to this council, to give colour to
their feigned supremacy. And first. Because Euse
bius speaks little of the popes, for he could not truly
» Jewel's Works, fol., 1609, pp. 34, 35.
+ For a tolerably full view of this subject, see Daille's Right
Use of the Fathers, pp. 63-69.

362 Not tradition, but scripture,
say much of them, Baronius and the annotator invent
all the calumnies against him imaginable ; and the
former (though he have little true history in his Annals-
for three hundred years together which is not taken
out of Eusebius) rails at him most unjustly, as being
an Arian ; a malicious, fraudulent, and partial writer.*
And Binius treats this great historian at the same
rate : but Athanasius expressly saith, that Eusebius
of Cesarea subscribed the orthodox faith.! Socrates
affirms also, that he agreed to the faith of the Nicene
Council.^ Pisanus, his Greek author of the History
of this council, brings in Eusebius disputing against
the Arians :§ and Valesius, in his Life, clears him from
this spiteful accusation, which these men invent merely
to be revenged on him, for not countenancing the pope's
supremacy ; which is not his fault, but his virtue, be
cause there was no such thing pretended to in his days.
Secondly. These editors publish a letter of Athanasius
to Pope Marcus, with that pope's answer,|| among the
records of this council ; and the annotator often cites
them to prove the supremacy and infallibility, because
the Roman Church is here called the mother and head
of all churches, and, a ehurch which had never erred ;
and the pope is called bishop of the universal church ;
yet their being forged is so notorious, that Bellarmine,
Possevin, and Baronius,Tf reject them. Thirdly. They
* Baron. An. 318, sec. 46 ; An. 324, sec. 136, 143, et 152 ;
item An. 325, sec. 192, &c.
+ Athan. Apol. cont. Arian., p. 180.
X Socrat. Hist., lib. i, cap! 3. § Bin., p. 313 col. 2.
II Lab., p. 287. Bin., p. 326, col. 1 et 2.
IT Baron. An. Dom. 336.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 263
likewise publish in these Nicene acts an epistle of
Pope Julius, wherein diverse canons for the primacy
are fathered on this great council :* and Pisanus is so
' bold and so vain as to defend this to be genuine, by an
epistle of the Egyptians to Pope Felix, (owned to be
forged,!) and by other decretal epistles as false as this,
which he defends.; but it is so manifest a forgery, this
of Pope Julius, that the editors themselves afterward
reject it.ij: Fourthly. Whereas the ninth canon of Chal
cedon allows the clergy to complain to the primate, or
to the bishop of the royal city of Constantinople ; notes
are put upon this to falsify that canon, which say, that
Constantinople is here put for Rome.§ Fifthly. Here
is a canon called the thirty-ninth of Nice, which saith,
He that holds the see of Rome is the head and prince
of all patriarchs ; because he is first, as Peter, to whom
power is given over all Christian princes and people ;l\
which must be a forgery of some Roman parasite, be
cause it not only contradicts the sixth .canon of the
genuine Council of Nice, but the eighth of these pre
tended canons, which limits the bishop of Rome's
jurisdiction to the places near to him.'Tf However, the
editors say, Steuchus, Turrian, and Cope cite it ; and
they print Turrian's notes upon it, which affirm it to
agree with the sixth canon of the true edition ; and
would prove it genuine by no better evidence than a
forged decretal of Anacletus.** By which we see the
* Bin., p. 328, col. 2. t Bin., p. 499, col. 1.
X Lab., p. 433. Bin., p. 391, col. 1. § Bin., p. 331, col. 1.
II Lab., p. 303. Bin., p. 337, col. 2.
IT Lab., p. 294. Bin., p. 333, col. 1.
«* Bin., p. 358, col. 1.

264 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
most apparent falsehoods shall be published and de
fended, if they do but promote the supremacy.
" Lastly. We will make some remarks on the cor
rupt editions of this council. First. That of Alfonsus
Pisanus is so fabulous, that Labbe for mere shame
omits it;* but Binius prints it at large, with all its
fictions and impostures ;! of which Richerius gives
this character, ' By this History of Pisanus we may
learn, not what the Council of Nice was, but what it
should be to fit it for a Jesuit's palate ; for he hath
scraped together all the falsehoods and forgeries he
could find, for enlarging the number of the canons.'J
But I must add, that there are divers passages in this
edition which will not serve the ends of the modem
Roman flatterers: for first. Pisanus his Greek author
highly extols Eusebius ;§ for which the Jesuit corrects
him with a note in the margin. Secondly. The ortho
dox bishop bids the philosopher ' believe that which
was written, but not to regard things unwritten, because
the faith is grounded on Holy Scripture :'|| whereas
the margin cautions the reader not to think that ' this
is spoken against ecclesiastical traditions,' though it
be levelled at them. Thirdly. Hosius doth not sub
scribe (as the pope's legates here do) for Pope Syl
vester ; wherefore this compiler did not think him to
be the pope's legate.!! Fourthly. It is here said to
have been declared at Nice, ' That every bishop under
God was the head of his own church.'** Fifthly. Here
» Lab., marg., p. 106. t Bin., p. 300, col. 1.
X Richer. Hist. Concil., lib. i, cap. ii, ^ ult.
§ Bin., p. 301, col. 2, et 302, col. 2. || Bin., p. 316, col. 1.
T Bin., p. 322, col. 1. ?» Bin., p. 325, col. 2.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 265
is printed that part of the African bishop's letter to
Celestine, wherein they blame this legate for falsely
citing the Nicene Canons.* So also the LXXX Ca
nons were not invented by a thorough-paced friend to
the Roman modern interest, and therefore probably
Baronius will not defend them.! The eighth canon
(as was noted) limits the pope's jurisdiction to such
places as were near him. The twenty-fourth and
sixty-sixth of these canons clearly declare, that some
bishops had wives,:j: forbidding bigamy, and compelling
them to take their first wife again. And there are
other like examples, which are not worth setting down,
because they are all forged in later times, as appears
by their citing a fabulous discourse out of the Life of
St. Anthony, falsely ascribed to the great Athanasius,^
by their quoting a spurious work under the naime of
Dionysius Areopagita, which was (as all agree) writ
after the Nicene Council many years : {| by their giving
the patriarch of Antioch jurisdiction over the arch
bishop of Cyprus, who was always free from that
subjection, as was declared long after in the Council
of Ephesus.TT Finally. Though this Pisanus do im
pudently reject the true story of Paphnutius his ad
vising to leave the clergy at liberty to marry ; which
history is in his author, and in Gelasius Cyzicenus
also ; yet he magnifies a ridiculous fiction afterward
of two bishops, which signed the Nicene faith after they
* Bin., p. 328, col. 1. t Baron. An. 325, § 53.
X Bin., p. 335, col. 2, et p. 341, col. 1. ^
§ Bm., p. 302, col. 2. Vid. Rivet. Grit. Sacr., lib. iii, cap. 4.
IJBin., p. 336, col.2.
IT Bin., p. 337, col. 1. Vid. Concil. Ephesin. Act. 7.
12

266 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
were dead and buried.* A fable so gross, that Baronius
rejects it, with a note which I wish he had often re
membered, namely, ' That it was not usual among
Christians to confirm the faith by miracles, which was
attested by more firm evidence of Holy Scripture.'!
Secondly. Turrian's edition of this council repeats all
these LXXX Canons, and in his preface and his notes
he vindicates them all ; and yet the tracts which he
cites to prove these canons genuine are owned to be
spurious by all modest Romanists, and his arguments
are so trifling, they are not worth confuting. We will
only note, therefore, that the seventh and the fortieth
of these canons require that synods shall be held twice
a year, which (as Turrian confesseth) agrees not with
the custom of the Roman Church :;{: and his notes say,
the seventy-second canon differs from the thirteenth,
and the seventy-third canon is contrary to the forty*-
ninth ;§ but he will rather suppose the holy Nicene
fathers contradicted themselves, than own any of these
canons to be forged, because some of them seem to
favour the pope's supremacy. As to the edition of
Gelasius Cyzicenus, it is generally a very modest ac
count of this council, and hath not many errors in it ;
but, like all other ancient authors, it speaks very Uttle
of the pope ; for which reason Binius claps it under
hatches, and will not produce it till the latter end of
his second tome after the Council of Ephesus, to
convince us, that all authors are valued or slighted
* Bin., p. 347, col. 2.
t Baron. An. 325, § 182.
X Lab., pp. 294 et 303. Bin., p. 353, col. 2, et 358, col. 1.
§ Lab., p. 315. Bin., p. 363, col. 1 and 2.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 267
merely as they promote or discourage the usurpations
of Rome."*
Such are the documents of antiquity, which, it is
confidently asserted, are designed to convey the sense
of Holy Scripture. These are the records which con
tain the oral explanations of the apostles, made and
handed down to us as the true standards of catholic truth,
and which make an end of all controversy as to the
meaning of Scripture iyt)ocuraeDi.svi\i\i^ are mutilated
and corrupted, until we know not in a single instance
whether they speak the voice of the church or the
sense of the apostles only by their harmony with the
Scriptures — documents often at war with themselves,
with Scripture, with reason and common sense, are to
be taken as an essential part of the divine rule of faith
and practice ! f And to doubt all this, we are gravely-
told, " undermines the very foundation of Christian
ity."! Who does not see that this system itself " un
dermines the very foundation of Christianity?" It
makes it absolutely impossible to ascertain what
Christianity is — it involves it in absurdities and con
tradictions — it brings upon a level the Holy Scriptures
and the productions of fallible and even wicked men —
it puts the whole system beyond the bounds of rational
belief, by making its very principles to depend upon a
standard or rule of interpretation which is variable,
wholly inapplicable, and grossly absurd. And is not
.this to peril the faith itself?
* See Roman Forgeries iii the Councils. Preservative against
Popery, tit. xi, pp. 76-78.
t Manning — Rule of Faith, Appendix, p. 111.

268 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
SECTION V.
Traditionists do not follow out their Principles.
It might well be supposed, that the assertors of tra
dition would themselves beheve all the doctrines, and
practise all the usages, which they consider to have
the sanction of their great rule, universality, antiquity,
and consent. But it turns out to be a fact, that they
reject many doctrines and usages which approach
nearer to the terms of this rule than many of those
which they adopt. They not only would have us
reject all those things in the writings of the fathers
which will not bear the test of the rule they adopt
from Vincentius, but they themselves reject many
others which come as near to the rule as any one of
the principles which they call catholic, and which is
not settled in the Scriptures. This argument is pre
sented at length by Mr. Goode* to whom I would refer
those who wish to survey the whole field. I can only
occupy space for a few specimens, which, however,
wiU be in themselves entirely conclusive, and satisfac
tory to the unprejudiced.
1. The doctrine taught by the fathers of the first
three centuries as to the divine appearances to man
under the Old Testament dispensation.
The early lathers maintained that it was Christ who
appeared to the ancient patriarchs. There is a sense
in which this may be admitted in relation to several
of these appearances. But the fathers evidently lost
sight of the orthodox sense. They say, —
• Divine Rule, vol. i, pp. 319-331.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 269
"It was Christ who spoke to Jacob in a dream.
Gen. xxxi, 11, 13, where he calls himself the God of
Bethel. See ch. xxviii, 13, 19. — Justin M. Dial, cum
Trypho, c. 58 ; Cyp. Test., ii, 5 ; Novatian, c. 27.
" It was Christ who wrestled with Jacob, Gen. xxxii,
24, where it is expressly said that he was God. Ver.
28, 30. — Justin M. Dial, cum Trypho, c. 58, 125 ; Ire-
ruBus, p. 238 ; Clem. Alex. Proid. i, 7.
" It was Christ who appeared to Jacob, Gen. xxxv,
1, 9, {Justin M. Dial, cum Tryph., c. 58,) where he
says, ' he is called God, and is God, and will be.' —
Cyp. Test., ii, 6.
" It was Christ who appeared to Moses in the bush,
Exod. iii, 2, where the person calls himself ' the God
of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ;'
and at verse 14, 'I am that I am.' — Justin M. Apol. i,
26 ; Dial, cum Tryph., c. 60 ; Irenceus, iv, 10, 12 ;
Clem. Alex. Cohort, at Gent. ; Tertul. Adv. Jud., c. 9.
" It was Christ who said to Moses, Gen. xx, 2,
' I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out
of the land of Egypt.' — Clem. Alex. Pried, i, 7."
Upon these expositions Mr. Goode says, "The fact
is, the Arians stoutly contended for this opinion, as
strengthening their cause, and showing that though
the Son was God, there was yet some difference be
tween the nature of the Son and the Father, and the
earliest supporters of the opinion that some of these
appearances might be attributed to the Father are, I
think, to be found among the opponents of the Arians."
And again : — " I would ask, then, do our opponents
consider themselves bound so to interpret Scripture ?
If they do, it is more than Augustine did, for he held

270 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
that it was probably the Father who appeared on some
occasions ; and evidentiy considered, as many others
have done since, that the view we have shown to have
been taken by some of the anti-Nicene fathers was an
Arian view of the subject."*
" 2. The doctrine taught by the fathers as to the
reappearance of Enoch and Elias hereafter on earth —
to wage war with antichrist.
" ' Enoch and Ellas,' says Tertullian, ' are trans
lated, neither is their death found ; that is, it is de
layed ; but they are removed to die at a future time,
that they may extinguish antichrist with their blood.' "
To the same purpose Mr. Goode quotes Irenaeus, Justin
Martyr, Pseudo Cyprian, Pseudo Ambrose, or Hilary
the deacon, St. Augustine, Chrysostom, and Arethas,
and then significantly asks, " Is this to be received as
a revelation ?"
" 3. The doctrine of the fathers as to the absolute
unlawfulness of an oath.
" Irenaeus says, that our Lord ' hath commanded us
not only not to swear falsely, but not to swear at all.' —
Adver. Hair., lib. iii, c. 32.
" Justin Martyr, that he has commanded us ' not to
swear at all.' — Apol. i, ^ 16.
" So Clement of Alexandria says, that Plato's pre
cept against an oath agrees with our Lord's prohibi
tion of it. — Strom., lib. v.
" ' I say nothing,' says Tertullian, ' respecting per
jury, since it is not lawful even to swear.' — De Idol.,
c. 11." To the same purpose the author quotes Basil
ides the martyr, Cyprian, Origen, Lactantius, Euse»
* Divine Rule, vol. i, pp. 322, 323.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 271
bius, Basil, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Jerome, Theodo
ret, and the Council of Constantinople under Flavia
nus, A. D. 448.
l" 4. Standing at prayer on Sundays, and during the
period between Easter and Whitsuntide.
" The author of the ' Questions and Answers to the
Orthodox,' in the Works of Justin Martyr, gives the
following question and answer: 'Why on Sundays,
and from Easter to Whitsuntide, do they not kneel
when praying? And whence was this custom intro
duced into the churches?' The answer is, that we
are to stand at those times, as a sign of the resurrec
tion ; and it is added, that ' the custom commenced from
the apostolical times, as the blessed Irenaeus, martyr
and bishop of Lyons, says.' — Qu(Bst. 115, Inter^Op.
Just. " Now let us hear Tertullian : ' We account it a
crime to kneel at prayer on Sundays.' — Tertull. De
Cor. Mil, c. 3.
" Lastly. We have the determination of the great
Council of Nice : ' Since there are some who kneel
on the Sunday and at Whitsuntide, in order that all
tilings may be observed alike in every diocess, the
holy synod decrees that they shall offer their prayers
to God, standing.'-^ — Can. xx. Justell. Cod., tom. i.
" Can our opponents get better testimony in the
fathers to the apostolicity and importance of any cus
tom of the primitive church than we have here ? But
the Romanists themselves have wholly rejected this
custom.",^ " 5. Thq^threefold immersion in baptism, which is
witnessed by Tertullian, (De Cor. Mil., c. 3,) Jerome,

273 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
(Adv. Lucifer., § 8,) Cyril of Jerusalem, (Cat. Mystag.
ii,) Ambrose, (De Sacram., lib. ii, c. 7,) and the writings
passing under the name of Dionysius Areopagita, (De
Eccl. Hierarch., c. 2,) Athanasius, (Quaest. in Psalm.,
q. 92,) Augustine, (Serm. 40,) and Basil, (De Spur.
Sanct., c. 27.)
" 6. Infant communion, or the giving of the eucha
rist to infants."
Bingham, who is good authority with Churchmen,
declares that " it is beyond dispute, that as she bap
tized infants, and gave them the unction of chrism
with imposition of hands for confirmation, so she im
mediately admitted them to participation of the eucha
rist, as soon as they were baptized, and ever after,
without exception."
This he proves from Cyprian, Dionysius, Gumal-
lius, Alcuin, "the Ordo Romanus, and other pubUc
offices of the Church containing the rules of baptism
and confirmation.'' The practice arose from the no
tion that the eucharist was necessary to salvation.
This reason is urged by St. Augustine, who brings for
proof John vi, 53, " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son
of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you."
Thus clearly proving, not only that these holy fathers,
who, it seems, have handed down to us " the preach
ings of the apostles," not only perverted the eucharist,
but grossly misunderstood and misinterpreted Holy
Scripture. It will be sufficient to say, that, so far as the Ro
manists are concerned, in their infallible Council of
Trent they condemned this patristic practice as here
tical ; yet, to save the ancient church, which it was

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 273
known practised it, they gave an explanation which
contradicts the declarations of St. Augustine, and is,
indeed, grossly false. These are their words : " We
do not hereby intend to condemn antiquity for observing
this custom in some places. For as those holy fathers
had a probable reason, considering the state of the
times they lived in, for their practice, so it is certain,
and without all controversy to be believed, that they
did not do it upon any opinion of its being necessary to
salvation"* This explanation or apology for the holy
fathers, I say, is- a gross falsehood : for it is just as
evident that infant communion was practised for at
least eight hundred years upon the " opinion that it
was necessary to salvation," as that it was practised
at all ; and the fact of the existence of the usage for
this length of time is capable of the clearest proof, and,
indeed, is not denied by this celebrated council.
Bingham objects to the resumption of the practice,
though he says, " Bishop Bedle and some others have
declared entirely for it ;" and concludes his section on
the subject with the following remarkable passage : —
" What I have, therefore, discoursed upon this head,
by deducing the matter historically from first to last,
is rather to show the vanity of that pretence to infalli
bility and unerring tradition in the Church of Rome,
in matters of doctrine and necessary practice ; since
they themselves have thought fit to alter one point,
which their infallible popes and forefathers observed
for so many ages as necessary, in communicating in
fants upon a divine command; and withal to show,
that any other church has a better pretence than they
* Con, Trident., sess. x», cap. 4.
12*

274 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
to reform any practice, however generally observed,
if, upon better examination, it be found not to be
grounded upon a good foundation in the word of
God."* 7. The practice of exorcism.
Bingham tells us that catechumens "were all exer
cised for twenty days before baptism :" and that " this
custom is often mentioned by the ancient writers, both
of the Greek and Latin Church." This he proves from
St. Augustine, Cyprian,Genuadius of Marseilles, Gre
gory Nazianzen, and Cyril of Jerusalem. Though this
practice is still retained by the Romish Church, it is
rejected by the English : but that, according to the
views entertained by high-Churchmen, it ought to be
retained, there can be no rational doubt.
8. Unction before baptism, and chrism before con
firmation. These usages are sustained by the authority of Ter
tullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Dionysius, Ambrose, and
the Apostolical Constitutions ;! yet they are disused
in the Church of England. Why this leaving off the
ancient usages ?
I might add still other matters which by the fathers
were deemed vital, and which can boast of as fair a
claim to universality, antiquity, and consent, as any of
those " church principles" which are made to rest upon
this foundation, but which both Romanists and Church
men now reject. Romanists can do this with some
little consistency, holding, as they do, to the living
judge in all matters of faith and practice ; but it is
* Origines Eccles., book xv, chap, iv, sec. 7.
t Ibid., book xi, chap. xi.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 275
with a bad grace that our Churchmen, after taking the
primitive church, without the living judge, for their
pattern, and asserting that the doctrines and usages
sanctioned by her must be presumed to have come by
oral tradition from the apostles, and, of course, to be
of divine authority, receive some of these apostolical
traditions, and' reject others. Recognising no power
in the Church to change apostolical institutions, they
have still dispensed with many of them. What now
becomes of all their high-sounding professions of vene
ration for antiquity ? They talk largely upon this sub
ject, but in practice it would seem they act very much
as though they felt themselves at full liberty either to
receive or reject the ancient usages, at their own dis
cretion. This course they, it would seem, may adopt
with perfect safety, but in dissenters it is the worst
species of heresy. We charge our opponents, then,
with gross inconsistency. Let them meet this charge
manfully ; and tell us, if they are able, why it is that
they profess and contend for a principle which they
unscrupulously abandon whenever they please. Would
it be supposed possible for our Churchmen to reject
infant communion, exorcism, chrism, &c., as human
institutions, and not universally obligatory, and yet to
insist that baptismal regeneration, the eucharistic sacri
fice, the apostolical succession, &c., which are sup
ported by no higher authority, are essential to Chris
tianity? Who have given them the right to cut and
carve the system handed down from the apostles ? to
mould it to suit their humour ? to lay reckless hands
upon " the venerable remains of antiquity ?" But we
must not forget that it is often the fate of error to be

276 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTUR-E,
inconsistent. It is, indeed, well that it is so, for it
then neutralizes itself, and at least partially remedies
its own evil tendencies.
I have now gone through with the leading reasons
for not admitting tradition as a part of the rule of faith.
I need not recapitulate them — the reader, by glancing
over the heads of the several sections of this chapter,
will readily recall them. And who, after a careful
investigation of these reasons, can for a moment yield
to the high claims for patristical tradition which are set
up by Romanists and high-Churchmen ? Who would
receive the Bible as a divine revelation, if it were
situated precisely as is the system of tradition^ which
are claimed to be " an unwritten revelation ?" Who
can, without first abandoning his reason and common
sense, regard with the same confidence and reverence
the Holy Scriptures and " the unwritten word ?" Those
who do, must in all consistency abandon all independ
ence of thought and action, and submit to a mental
slavery as derogatory to the character of man as sub
versive of all rational Christian liberty ; for they will
necessarily bow to assumed authority, and believe
without the least particle of rational evidence.
I need scarcely apologize for closing this chapter in
the eloquent and pithy language of a powerful opponent
of the Tractarians. He proceeds : — " Many of these
pretended traditionary revelations are utterly unworthy
of our belief — ^because antiscriptural and unreasonable.
The traditionary doctrines and practices just cited—
the dogma of the millennium, as held by the fathers,
infant communion, clerical celibacy — and, we might
add, many of the speculations on the Trinity, and many

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 377
of the ecclesiastical practices, prevalent in ancient
times, are opposed alike to the written word of God
and the dictates of a calm and sanctified reason. The
various customs which are now maintained by Pusey
ites, such as the use of the cross, the veneration of
relics, the practice of asceticism, the burning of caudles
by day in divine service, all of which find their vindi
cation in the broad authority of ecclesiastical tradition,
are customs unwarranted by the letter, and opposed to
the spirit of Scripture, and do painful violence to every
enlightened understanding. The system of interpret
ing Scripture adopted by the fathers of the church, and
venerated and followed by the Oxford Tract writers,
is also utterly unworthy of our regard. It is a system
which spirituahzes thei Bible throughout, and finds
mysteries in every fact, and almost in every verse.
The' rod of Moses, the peeled sticks that Jacob set up
before Laban's flock, and almost all the pieces of wood
mentioned in the Bible, are, according to their exposi
tions, symbols of the cross. The number 318, the
number of Abraham's servants, is, by a cabalistic in
terpretation, made to denote the name of Jesus. The
waters that gushed from Horeb, the waters in which
Elisha made the iron swim, and many other waters
mentioned in Scripture, are taken as striking emblems
of baptism. And in expounding the history of our
Lord's feeding the multitude, one father tells us, that
the five loaves brought to Christ signified the five
senses that are to be subjugated to his authority ; and
another, that they denoted the five books of Moses,
which he fulfilled. But this is not all — the failings
and sins of the patriarchs and others are so spiritual-

278 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
ized, that their moral impurity is hidden. Jacob's
deceit, we are assured in so many words, was not a
lie, but a mystery;* and Noah's intemperance and
nakedness (one shudders at the thought) are said to
be images of our Lord's passion ! These very instances
are all quoted in the Oxford Tracts, and quoted with
approbation, not as the private criticisms of the fathers,
but as the divinely-authorized traditionary interpreta
tions of the early church.! These, according to the
Tractarians, we are bound to admit, and follow ; and
we are plainly told that, ' when the sense of Scripture,
as interpreted by reason, is contrary to the sense given
to it by catholic antiquity, we ought to side with the
latter.'t " But, for ourselves, we are compelled to confess
our sympathy with Milton, rather than with the Pusey
ites : ' We do injuriously, in thinking to taste better
the evangehc manna, by seasoning our mouths with
the tainted scraps and fragments of an unknown table,
and searching among the venomous and polluted rags
* " Sunilar mysteries the Tractarians find in the history of Eng.
land ; and they speak of ' sacred reserve,' as a characteristic of
Charles 1. — Tract No. 80, p. 56. His was ' retiredness of spurit,'
' solitariness of spirit,' resembling the reserve and concealment
which they attribute to the Saviour. What would they say to a
similarly 'sacred reserve,' ascribed to Oliver Cromwell? Yet,
here they have it — ' On this ground, too, I explain to myself
Cromwell's reputed confusion of speech. To- himself, the inter-
nal meaning was seen clear ; but the material with which he was
to cjothe it in utterance was not there. He had lived silent ; a
great unnamed sea of thought round him all his days ; and in
his way of life, litde call to attempt naming, or uttering that.' —
Carlyle's Heroes, p. 341."
t See Tract No. 89. X Newman's Lectures, p. 160.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 279
dropped, over-worn, from the toiling shoulders of time,
with these deformedly to quilt and interlace the entire,
the spotless, and undecayed robe of truth, the daughter
not of time, but of heaven, only bred up here below, in
Christian hearts, between two grave and holy nurses —
the doctrine and discipline of the gospel.'*
" To bring the whole of our argument to a point, let
us retrace the steps we have taken. There is no re
cognition in the written word of the authority of any
traditionary doctrines and practices. Tradition is, has
been, and ever must be, an extremely perilous vehicle
for the conveyance of truth. The earliest writers after
the apostles never recognised it as a divine informant,
but treated the Holy Scripture as the sole rule of faith
and practice. There are insuperable difficulties at
tendant on an appeal to tradition, as a rule to find out
what is true and divine. Consider these facts, and,
moreover, ponder those examples which we have given
from the treasures of that depository of exposition,
which the theologians of Oxford regard as the very
ark of the covenant. Look at the doctrines, rites, and
interpretations it contains, and then say, is tradition
worthy of being regarded as a rule of belief and con
duct supplementary to the sacred volume ? Can it be
entitled to our regard, as of equal authority with the
¦written record? Is it credible, that while the New
Testament is proved to be the word of God, both by
external and internal evidence ; while its proofs are
such as to silence every gainsayer, ecclesiastical tra
dition, which is destitute of external support, and is
* Of Prelatical Episcopacy, Milton's Works, Birch's edition,
vol. i, p. 33.

280 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
fraught with internal characteristics, rendering it, to
say the least, extremely suspicious, should be intended
by the great Head of the church to rank beside those
lively oracles ? Do the two forms of communication
agree ? Do they both bear the impress and stamp of
His wisdom ? Is it like Him, to appoint one so clearly
and exclusively divine, and to appoint another so du
bious, obscure, self-contradictory, and perplexing to
the humblest and most docile mind? We ask, is it
like Him ?
" The Tractarians assume that our chief objection
to tradition is, that it adds to Scripture, and that it
does not harmonize with it ; and they ineet the objec
tion by an ingenious collection of certain passages in
the Old and New Testaments, supplementary to others,
or appearing to contradict them, though all these pas
sages are equally true, and, therefore, perfectly recon
cilable ; and hence it is argued, that tradition may add .
to Scripture, and even seem to oppose it, and yet be
fully entitled to our belief. They observe that, ' as
distinct portions of Scripture itself are apparently in
consistent with one another, yet are not really so,
therefore it does not follow that Scripture and catholic
doctrine are at variance with each other, even if they
seem to be.'* Now, in reply, we allege that our first
and chief objection to traditionary doctrines is, that
they are without authority ; that there is no evidence
to prove them the genuine and authentic doctrines of
the apostles ; that they are destitute of external and
internal proof; and such being the case, that the fact
of their presenting to us something which the Bible
* Tract No. 85.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 281
does not teach us, and especially the fact of their in
consistency with it, becomes at once a most powerful
kind of evidence against them. All parts of Scripture
being inspired, we are quite sure that it contains no
real contradictions ; and when we meet with any ap
parent ones, we are bound at once to admit that they
are only apparent, and that there is some principle on
which they can be reconciled, whether we are able to
discover it or not ; but it is absurd, in the extreme, to
allege this as a parallel case to the difficulties arising
from the comparison of Scripture with tradition, — the
former possessing indubitable evidence of its divine
authority, the latter possessing none.
" Yet tradition, so manifestly an unauthorized teach
er, an usurper of the throne of Christian verity, is
really exalted by its disciples above the written record
of inspiration. Scripture is to be explained by tradi
tion ; our notions of Christianity are to be taken from
the catholic consent of the church. In the fathers we
have the development and the perfection of the truths
hinted at, and covertly contained, in the writings of
apostles ! We are to take our faith, not from the
simple study of the Scriptures, but from ancient creeds,
expositions, treatises, homilies, and forms. To talk of
appealing to Scripture for the truth of what is taught
by the subsequent records of the church, after being
directed to them for the sense and interpretation of
Scripture, is absurd in the extreme. This is to allow
their interpretation of the law, and afterward to try
them by their own interpretation. It must be appa
rent, then, to every one who has considered the sub
ject, that the system, in fact, gives to the traditions

282 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
of the church, the final authority in matters of rehgion.
We cannot judge for ourselves, we must go to the
tomes of patristical literature, the rich depositories of
ancient divinity. In the settlement of rehgious con
troversy, when several persons, each examining the
Bible for himself, take different views of its meaning,
reference is to be made to catholic traditions, and they
are to decide the matter. This is to make the bench
of the fathers the court of final appeal, and to carry
the most solemn causes before them, as occupying the
highest seat of Christian judicature. All we say fur
ther is. Wo to our Protestantism — wo to our spiritual
freedom — wo to our Christianity itself, when this doc
trine shall generally prevail !"*
* Lectures on Tractarian Theology, by John Stoughton,
pp. 27-34. London, 1843.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 283

CHAPTER IV.
PROOF THAT SCRIPTURE IS A SUFFICIENT RULE OF
FAITH AND PRACTICE.
SECTION I.
Proof from the Scriptures themselves.
Before entering upon the argument, it may be ne
cessary to explain what we mean by alleging Scripture
as a rule of faith and practice. Archbishop Tillotson
says, " Arule (when we speak of a rule of faith) is a
metaphorical word, which, in its first and proper sense,
being applied to material and sensible things, is the
measure according to which we judge of the straight-
ness and crookedness of things ; and from hence it is
transferred by analogy to things moral or intellectual.
A moral rule is the measure according to which we
judge whether a thing be good or evil ; and this kind
of rule is that which is commonly called a law, and
the agreement or disagreement of our actions to this
rule is suitably to the metaphor, called rectitude or
obliquity. An intellectual rule is the measure accord
ing to which we judge whether a thing be true or
false ; and this is either general or more particular.
Common notions, and the acknowledged principles of
reason, are that general rule, according to which we
judge whether a thing be true or false. The particular
principles of every science are the more particular
rules, according to which we judge whether things in
that science be true or false. So that the general

284 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
notion of a rule is, that it is ' a measure, by the agree
ment or disagreement to which, we judge of all things
of that kind to which it belongs.' "*
According to this definition of a rule, we hold the
Scriptures to be the rule of faith and practice : that
is, we consider the Scriptures the perfect measure ot
standard of what we must believe and what we must do,
in order to glorify God and save our souls. The re
formers express the idea intelligibly in the sixth article
of the Church of England, thus : " Holy Scripture
containeth all things necessary to salvation : so that
whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved
thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should
be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requi
site or necessary to salvation."
I shall now proceed to the evidence afforded in the
Scriptures themselves in favour of this doctrine. A
learned author gives us a general view of the Scrip
ture argument as follows : —
" Let it be inquired whether, on the other hand, the
Scriptures bear testimony to their own sufficiency, as
a rule of faith. By the rule of faith is meant a rule
whereby to judge of all matters of faith, and by which
all doctrines are to be tried ; and when it is said that
the Scriptures are, in this sense, a full and complete
rule, it is meant that they are sufficient for the purpose
of proving and establishing our faith. The Church
of England does not in so many wor«b call the Scrip
tures the rule of faith ; but she does what is tanta
mount, when, in the sixth article, she declares, they
' contain all things necessary to salvation ;' that is, no
* Rule of Faith, part i, sec, 1.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 285
doctrine is of necessity to be received, except such as
may be proved by this infallible standard.
" To substantiate the Scriptures to be the rule of
faith, it is necessary to prove both their intelligibi
lity and SUFFICIENCY. They may possess the former
property, and neverthelesrnot be adequate to form of
themselves a full and complete rule. The questions,
then, are in some sort distinct, yet they may be simul
taneously discussed ; and our position will be granted,
if it can be shown that the Scriptures bear testimony
to their own intelligibility, and also to their own suffi
ciency for the establishment of the true doctrine of
Christ, without the supplemental accompaniment of
tradition. " In receiving the sacred Scriptures as an intelligi
ble rule of faith, it is not meant that they are free from
all obscurities, and everywhere easy to be understood ;
quite the contrary ; they are often of very difficult in
terpretation. Why the Deity has vouchsafed a reve
lation, in which some parts are obscure, some ambi
guous ; why it should require learning and study to
investigate their evidence ; and why the dispensation
of transcendant grace should appear to be encumbered
with many difficulties, are questions which will not be
suffered to perplex those who, tutored in the school
of Butler, well know that to judge of what relates to
the divine procedure, in granting a revelation, is be
yond the grasp of the human intellect.
" Neither is it intended to assert that the Scriptures
are throughout plain and perspicuous, even with all the
aids we possess for their elucidation, but that they are
a rule, sufficiently intelligible, for the confirmation and

286 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
establishment of faith, to all who are competent by
learning and talent to apply it ; that a saving know
ledge may be gained from them by those who, with
the requisite ability, apply with becoming diligence to
the study of them, and employ the means which Pro
vidence has furnished for understanding them ; and
that such a knowledge may be imparted to all who
will attend to the guides instituted for their instruction.
" Now the sufficiency of Scripture is implied in the
fact of its being the word of God, written by his au
thority. It ' came not of old by the will of man,' but
by the decree of God, and under his superintendence :
for what purpose, then, could it have been written,
except to preserve an authentic record of his revealed
will to his creatures ? If so, the whole must be writ
ten ; for it cannot be supposed that, in causing his will
to be thus recorded, he would omit any material por
tion of it. A partial disclosure of it is wholly incon
sistent with the object for which revelation was de
signed — to be a faithful record of the divine will. The
Scriptures, being confessedly such record, must be full
and adequate to accomplish the end proposed ; and
consequently sufficient, in themselves, to form the rule
and standard of faith.
" The intelligibility of the Scriptures also, by them
selves, is necessarily implied in their very nature as
a written revelation ; for they would not communicate
religious truth, would be, in fact, no revelation, unless
they were intelligible to those who understand the
languages in which they are written. If God has re
vealed his will to man, it follows, as a matter of course,
that it is discoverable from the writings in which it is

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 287
recorded. Now, it will scarcely be denied that the
Scriptures contain this revelation of the divine will,
and were consequentiy designed to communicate the
knowledge of it ; we are, therefore, constrained to in
fer that God has adapted them to our comprehension ;
otherwise they will not attain their object. Hence,
their meaning must be ascertainable by the same means
which are requisite for understanding all other written
communications. " And this is agreeable to the actual fact. Take,
for instance, the Epistle to the Romans, which was
written by St. Paul before -he had ever been in that
city, chap, i, 8, 13 ; xv, 23. Could the Romans un
derstand it without an authorized oral interpretation ?
If they could, so may persons in every succeeding age
who have a competent knowledge of the Greek lan
guage : if they could not, then we must admit it not
to be, what it purposes, a divine revelation, the design
of which is to be an intelligible communication. It
must, therefore, have been intended to be understood,
an intention which the writer, jmder the guidance of
the Spirit, could not fail of accomplishing; and so
must have been by itself intelligible to the Romans :
and if to them, then also intelligible by itself to us.
" The same inference is deducible from the practice
of Christ and the apostles. • Our blessed Lord never
once refers to tradition for proof, but about twenty
times to the Jewish Scriptures ; which constant appeal
to them, in his discourses, plainly implies their suffi
ciency for the conviction of his hearers ; but which
they could not be, unless they were such writings as
could be generally understood. In like manner the

288 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
apostles endeavoured to convince the Jews from their
own Scriptures. Acts xvii, 2, 3 ; xviii, 28. In their
epistles also, whatever truth they are establishing, or
whatever error they are combating, they never argue
from tradition, but always from the Scriptures ; which
is a plain demonstration of their entire disregard to
Jewish tradition, and of their conviction that the Old
Testament at least is sufficiently clear ; otherwise an
appeal to it would have been nugatory. Those whom
they addressed would have been wholly unable to judge
of their reasoning, unless they could understand the
documents upon which it was founded. If such was
the case with the Old Testament, we must, by parity
of reason, affirm the same of the New. The latter is
explanatory of the former ; and no imaginable reason
can be assigned why both the text and the commentary
should not be equally intelligible, proceeding, as they
do, from the same source.
" By the especial promise of our Lord, the apostles
were endued with ability to declare fully the whole
doctrine of the gospel ; ' I will give you a mouth and
wisdom, which all your adversaries will not be able to
gainsay nor resist,' Luke xxi, 15. Though the promise
here may seem to imply no more than to bestow wis
dom of speech, yet he further promises that the Com
forter, which is the Holy Ghost, ' shall teach you all
things, and bring all things to your remembrance,
whatsoever I have said unto you,' John xiv, 36 ; corap.
chap, xvi, 13. In these words the divine assistance
is in no way limited to oral instruction. It would be
irrational to suppose that the aid of the Spirit, which
enabled them to preach the truth plainly and perspicu-

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 389
ously, would desert them when they were committing
it to writing. The Holy Ghost, which ' guided them
into all truth' in the one case, cannot be supposed to
have suffered them to omit anything essential, or to
execute their task in a bungling and imperfect manner,
when putting the substance of the Christian faith upon
record in their writings.
" From the fact of being inspired, it follows that the
apostles, when they communicated any Christian truth
by writing, did it by the aid of inspiration ; and to this
effect there are some express declarations. In the
book of Revelation, St. John is commanded by the
Spirit to write, chap, i, 10, 11 ; ii, 1, 8, 12, &c. ; xiv,
12; xxi, 5. St. Peter says, ' This second epistle I
WRITE — that ye may be mindful of the words which
were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the
commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Sa
viour,' 2 Epis. iii, 1,2. St. John says, ' That which
we have seen and heard declare we unto you ;' and
afterward, as explanatory, adds, ' these things I write,'
&c. 1 Epis. i, 3, 4 ; comp. chap, ii, 1, 12, 13, 14, 26 ;
v, 13. St. Paul writes the things which he delivered
to the Corinthians, and which he had ' received of the
Lord,' 1 Cor. xi, 33. They did, therefore, commit
some part of their preaching to writing. Now the
intention of the Spirit, in instigating them either to
speak or to write, must have been, that they should
communicate the truth, and in an intelligible manner ; -
and this intention, Omnipotence could enable them to
accomplish successfully in both speaking and writing.
" Besides, the Scriptures present the only record
we possess of our Saviour's miracles and discourses.
13

290 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
How, then, is it possible, as Bishop Taylor argues,
that they ' should not contain all things necessary to
salvation ; when of all the wOrds of Christ — in which,
certainly, all things necessary to salvation must needs
be contained, or else they were never revealed — there
is not any one saying, or miracle, or story of Christ,
in anything that is material, preserved in any indubi
table record, but in Scripture.'* If, therefore, the re
cord of the Lord's teaching be preserved in Scripture
alone, it must be for ever lost to us, unless Scripture
be intelligible ; and if our Lord's teaching, as revealed
in Scripture, contain all things necessary to salvation,
then we must infer the sufficiency of Scripture for life
and salvation.
" This is confirmed by the language of the apostles
themselves. St. Luke tells us, that he -wrote his
Gospel that Theophilus ' might know the certainty of
those things wherein he had been instructed,' i, 4.
His Gospel, then, is here declared to be a faithful
record of the things relating to the religion of Christ,
and sufficient to afford Theophilus a sure and certain
knowledge of them ; it must, consequently, be suffi
cient to afford the same certainty to all others who are
able to consult it. St. John declares, ' He that saw it
bare record, and his -record is true; and he knoweth
that he saith true, that ye might believe,' xix, 35 :
' These are written, that ye might believe that Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye
might have life through his name,' xx, 31. The evan
gelist here declares that he had written what is neces
sary for faith ; which it could not be, unless what he
* Dissuasive from Popery, part ii, lib. i, § 2, p. 391.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 291
had written was both intelligible, and sufficientiy full
for that purpose. That he is not speaking of works
and miracles alone, but also of doctrines, is plain ; for
he declares it to be written, that ' believing we might
have life ; through the name of Christ ;' which is, in
fact, declaring it to be sufficient for producing a faith
leading to eternal life.
" Many things to the same purpose are found in the
apostolical episties. Thus to the Philippians, St. Paul
says, ' To write the same things to you, to me indeed
is not grievous, but for you it is safe,' iii, 1 ; namely,
makes you safe, because, as Macknight remarks,
' having them in writing, they could examine them at
their leisure, and have recourse to them as often as
they had occasion ;' which implies the intelligibility
of what was written. To Timothy he says, »' I write
these things, that thou mightest know how thou ought-
est to behave thyself in the house of God,' 1 Tim. iii,
14, 15 ; which knowledge his epistle was therefore
designed and sufficient to impart. St. Peter's exhorta
tion is, ' If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles
of God,' 1 Epis. iv, 1 1 ; meaning that no doctrine or
interpretation is to be advanced in opposition to the
sacred Scriptures ; a matter impossible to be decided,
unless the ' any man' spoken of be capable of compre
hending them. St. John says, ' These things write I
unto you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life,
and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of
God,' 1 Epis. V, 13 ; which surely declares the things
¦written to be adequate for instruction in the faith.
" In various passages the word of God assures us,
either directly or indirectly, of its own intelligibleness

292 NOT tradition, but SCRIPTURE,
and sufficiency. Thus to the Israelites it is enjoined,
• These words which I command thee this day shall
be in thine heart, and thou shalt teach them diligently
unto thy children,' &c.. Dent, vi, 6-8 ; comp. ch. xi,
8-31. Blessings are promised to them if they kept
God's ' commandments and his statutes which are
¦written in the book of this law,' Dent, xxx, 9, 10;
which law was at stated periods to be read ' before all
the people in their hearing,' that they might learn to
fear the Lord. Deut. xxxi, 11, 13. The king was to
write a copy of the law, in which he was to read, that
he might learn to keep the divine statutes. Deut. xvii,
19; comp. 1 Kings ii, 3 ; 3 Chron. xxxiv, 31. The
Psalmist says, ' The words of the Lord are pure words,'
Psa. xii, 6 : ' The law of the Lord is perfect, convert
ing the soul ; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making
wise the simple,' Psa. xix, 7-11 : ' Thy word is a lamp
unto my feet, and a light unto my path,' Psa. cxix, 105.
The prophets exhort the people to have recourse ' to
the law and to the testimony : if they speak not ac
cording to this word, it is because there is no light
in them,' Isaiah viii, 30; compare chap, xxxiv. Iff;
Mai. iv, 4.
" Turning to the New Testament, the mind is forci
bly struck with our Saviour's severe condemnation of
the Jews, who ' transgressed the commandment of
God,' and made it ' of none effect by their traditions,'
Matt. XV, 3, 6 ; Mark vii, 7. The traditions here
spoken of, says the note in the Rhemish Testament,
are such as 'be either repugnant to God's laws, or
which at least be frivolous, unprofitable, and imperti
nent to piety and true worship.' The learned Allix is

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 293
much of the same opinion ; yet he contends for other
traditions of a different description from those so se
verely condemned by our Lord, and advances many
ingenious allegations in their support ; but few of them
have any sohdity; and those which have, apply to
Jewish testimony, not to a tradition of doctrines.*
" If ever people had facilities for preserving tradi
tion pure and uncorrupted, it was the Jewish nation.
They had all the same language, and were bound by
their institutions to have constant commerce among
themselves, without mingling much with foreign na
tions. They had a specific code of laws in the books
of Moses, and specific ordinances, which were to be
performed in one place by one tribe and family ; and
external rites, however numerous, are more easily re
tained. Their belief was simple ; and they had the
continual and miraculous presence of God, together
with a succession of prophets to teach and instruct
them. Yet with all these advantages, their traditions
became so corrupt as to merit the rebuke of our Lord ;
and surely he would not have denounced them so en
tirely, without any limitation whatever, if he had in
tended any tradition to be received in after-ages by his
" * Judgment of the Ancient Jewish Church, ch. i-iii. Dr. Hey
well observes, ' If we are to judge of tradition (that is, whether
it be repugnant to God's laws, or frivolous) its authority is gone ;
that is, if We are only to adopt it when we think it useful.' — Lect.
in Divinity, lib. iv, art. vi, § 4. Forcible is the reasoning of
Whitby : ' Before we can know true tradition from false, we
must know true faith from false ; and if I must first know this
faith, before I can know true tradition, I cannot need tradition
to instruct me in the Christian faith.' — Treatise of Tradition,
part i, p. 70."

294 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
church. His unqualified contradiction of tradition
justifies us in rejecting it.
" Again, we find our Saviour rebuking the Saddu-
cees, ' Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures ;' which
therefore might have been known ; that is, understood
by them, if they had diligently used their reason in
discovering the true sense of them. Matt, xxii, 29 ;
comp. Mark xii, 24. In the parable of the rich man
and Lazarus, Abraham says, ' They have Moses and
the prophets ; let them hear them ;' which implies that
they were capable of understanding them. Luke xvi,
29. When the lawyer asked our Lord, what was to
be done in order to obtain eternal life, ' he said unto
him. What is written in the law ? how readest thou ?'
Luke X, 25, 36 ; and he often refers his hearers to the
commandments. Matt, xix, 16 ; xxii, 35 ; all which
would be a mockery, if they could not understand
what they read.
"In Acts xvii, 11, the Bereans are commended be
cause they ' searched the Scriptures daily, whether
these things were so.' St. Paul says to the Corinthi
ans, ' I speak as to wise men ; judge ye what I say,'
1 Cor. X, 15 ; namely, in what I am now writing to
you, exercise your own judgment whether it be not
true ; which supposes that he was writing intelligibly
to them. Again he tells them, ' If our gospel be hid,
it is hid to them that are lost ; in whom the god of this
world hath blinded the minds of them which believe
not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who
is the image of God, should shine unto them,' 3 Cor.
iv, 3, 4 ; the plain import of which is, that the gospel
is so clear in all things necessary to make men Chris-

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 295
tians, that its light can only be hid from those whose
minds are blinded by the god of this world ; and, as
the language is general, it must be true of the gospel
written, as well as preached.
" Most of these texts, it is objected, speak of the
Old Testament alone, and therefore, if understood exclu
sively, prove too much, as if the Old Testament alone
was sufficient for salvation. But, even if only imme
diately referable to the Hebrew volume, they evidently
go the length of asserting its sufficiency as an intelli
gible law of faith and manners to those on whom it
was bestowed. Immutability cannot change ; omni
science cannot err ; inspiration admits no imperfec
tion ; and if one part of the revealed word be perfect
and sufficient for general edification, every other part
must of necessity be the same. Now the New Tes
tament, it is universally allowed, is a part of divine
revelation ; it is expressly denominated ' Scripture' by
apostolical authority, 2 Pet. iii, 16; and so must be
possessed of those characters of perfection and com
pleteness which the sacred writers ascribe to the words
of inspiration. It is a part of one grand scheme of
revelation, designed to explain and complete the older
one ; a design which it could not fulfil unless it were
in itself intelligible and complete.
" But the objection proceeds upon a false founda
tion; for some, at least, of the texts above cited have
a reference to the New Testament. St. Peter reckons
the Epistles of St. Paul to be ' Scripture.' St. Paul
calls upon the Corinthians to ' judge' of what he ad
dressed to them, which implies intelligibility in his
communications. He declares that ' the light of the

296 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
glorious gospel' is only hid to them whose minds are
wilfully blinded, and asserts that ' all Scripture is given
by inspiration ;' or rather, ' all Scripture is divinely
inspired, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness.'
" The volume of the New Testament closes with
this denunciation, ' If any man shall add unto these
things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are
¦written in this book ; and if any man shall take away
from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall
take away his part out of the book of life,' &c.. Rev.
xxii, 18, 19. Supposing this denunciation to refer to
the book of Revelation, it must in principle apply to all
the productions of the inspired writers ; all of which
must, consequently, be both intelligible and sufficient
as a revelation ; otherwise no man could know whether
he added to, or took away from, their words and mean
ing, or in any way violated the prohibition. The threat
is in effect this : — Divine Scripture being vouchsafed,
the severest punishment will be inflicted upon whom
soever will be so presumptuous as to alter or corrupt
it ; which implies its perfection.
" Had it been the design of the apostles to superadd
to their writings a body of explanatory and supple
mental doctrines for the guidance of the church, some
intimation would assuredly have been given in a matter
so vastly important.* But so far from it, we meet, on
the other hand, with many intimations, as well as ex
press affirmations, that the apostolical writings are
intended, and, consequently, are fitted for a complete
rule of faith in after-ages. General perspicuity is
* Bp. Van Mildert, Bampt. Lect. iii, p. 71.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 297
essential to such a design. If they are dark, obscure,
and enigmatical, the inspired authors have failed in
their intended object ; a supposition of revolting irre
verence. It is inconsistent with the wisdom of God
not to accomplish his own design ; it is repugnant to
his justice to require from men a faith which he has
not clearly revealed to them ; and it is opposed to his
unfailing promise, that the Holy Spirit would ' bring
all things to their remembrance,' and ' guide them into
all truth.' Hence their writings must be a sufficiently
full and clear communication, not needing any supple
mentary tradition to render them complete and intelli
gible ; and being intended for perpetuity, they must
retain the same character for ever.
" From the examination which has now been made,
it must be evident, that nothing like satisfactory Scrip
tural evidence can be produced in support of the au
thority of tradition ; while, on the contrary, the Scrip
tures attest their own sufficiency as an intelligible rule
of faith and life ; it would, therefore, be irrational to
exalt tradition to an equality with them. Indisputably,
it may be a useful aid in Biblical interpretation ;, it may
be a valuable secondary authority; but the Scriptural
evidence proves that it is not, like the New Testament
itself, of apostolical origin."*
This is a perfectly conclusive argument. But as it
is often urged by traditionists that there is a paucity
of Scripture testimonies in favour of our position upon
the sufficiency of Scripture, I will add several other
Scripture proofs, which will, by all candid minds, be
* Holden on the Authority of Tradition in Matters of Religion,
pp. 69-80, 13*

298 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
considered quite sufficient to settle the controversy.
Let any one carefully read the 19th and the 119th
Psalms, and see whether the language there held can
be at all reconciled with the notion that God's written
word is defective and obscure — not capable of being
understood, and felt, and practised by all classes of
minds. But I shall now proceed to adduce proof more
specific and conclusive from the New Testament.
In the New Testament we find the Scriptures re
ferred to, without qualification or reserve, as being
intelligible, sufficient, and infallible in their decisions.
All this, it will be admitted, is said of the Old Testa
ment Scriptures. But this strengthens rather than
weakens the argument. For if the Old Testament
Scriptures constituted an adequate- rule of faith to the
Jews, a fortiori, the New Testament, which is more
simple and more full in its instructions, is such a rule
to us. Indeed, it will not be denied but all I shall
quote in relation to the Old Testament Scriptures is
much more literally applicable to the New Testament.
Fir^J. J.sball adduce several passages which ^x>^
press the doctrine of the suitableness and sufficiency^
_of^the Scriptures to instruct us in religion.
. Our Saviour says, " Search the Scriptures, for in
them ye think ye have eternal life : and they are they
w:hich testify of me," John v, 39. Observe here, that
the command to " search the Scriptures" is general —
it is given to all, without exceptions. And the reason
is, that they testify of Christ. Now, their testimony
must be intelligible — such as common minds can ap
prehend, or the reason for this general requisition
•would not be valid. If it had been a fact that the

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 299
sense of the Scriptures was in the traditions of the
elders, as the doctors maintained, the Saviour would
have said, Search the traditions, for they give you the
only true sense of Scripture ; or. Consult the rabbins,
for they will give you the traditions, " for they are they
which testify of me." Instead of this, however, the
Saviour directs the people to the Scriptures, and con
demns tradition as most mischievous in its practical
influence — " making the word of God of none effect."
The apostle says, " Whatsoever things were writ
ten aforetime were written for our learning ; that we,
through patience and comfort of the Holy Scriptures,
might have hope," Rom. xv, 4.
In this text we have two points clearly presented.
The first is, that the Scriptures were written for our
learning, XidaoKaXiav, teaching, instruction. They
must consequently be intelligible. The Tractarian
maxim upon this point is, " Tradition teaches. Scrip
ture proves." This is, indeed, the ground taken by
all traditionists. But here we are told that the Scrip
tures " were written for our teaching," — a proposition
utterly subversive of the traditionary system in all its
modifications. The second point clearly presented in the text is,
that the Scriptures were written as a foundation for
well-grounded and comfortable hope. Now, what
" hope" would an unintelligible record inspire ? what
" comfort" would it impart? It is doubtless the sense
of Holy Scripture which lays the foundation for hope ;
and if that sense lies in tradition, is it not " through
patience and comfort of" tradition that " we have
hope ?"

300 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
But we need not depend upon the mere verbiage
of the passage. Its spirit and design are evidently
hostile to the traditionary theory. For if this theory
be true, too much stress is laid upon the Scriptures.
The omission to notice their defectiveness as a rule
of faith and the means by which this deficiency is to
be remedied, is, upon the traditionary system, wholly
unaccountable. The next passage to which I shall call the attention
of the reader is a truly remarkable one. St. Paul, in
addressing Timothy, says, " From a child thou hast
known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make
thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in
Christ Jesus. All Scripture is 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." 2 Tim. iii, 15-17.
Upon this passage let us remark, 1 . Timothy had
"known the Holy Scriptures _^om a child" — (ipe(povg,
an infant, a babe, a suckling. The Scriptures, then,
may be understood by children.
3. The Scriptures are sufficient for the purposes
of salvation, without the addenda affixed to them by
our Cathohcs : for, says the apostle, they " are able to
make thee wise unto salvation through faith that is in
Christ Jesus." They are not mere " unsensed words,"
without meaning or power ; but are able both to make
men wise and to save them.
3. All Holy Scripture is divinely inspired. Now,
will our wise traditionists be so kind as to tell us how
the inspiration can be in the unmeaning record. If the

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 301
sense is in tradition, must not the inspiration be there ?
Surely, if there be any inspiration, it must be in the
expression of the mind of the Holy Ghost. Well,
where is this expression? Why, according to our
good Catholics, it is in "the voice of the primitive
church." St. Paul was most certainly ignorant of this
scheme, or, I should rather say, he most certainly did
not adopt it. And it is not at all strange that those
who do adopt this system think the Bible a most diffi
cult book to be understood.
4. These Scriptures are profitable for all the great
doctrinal and practical purposes contemplated in our
holy religion : " Profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness ;" — npog
iraiSeiav ttjv ev SiKaioawxi, literally, for the training,
or education, of a child in righteousness. The Scrip
tures, then, are an appropriate instrument to be em
ployed in the education of children. This principle, as
we have seen above, had been practically carried out
in the case of Timothy, who had been conversant with
the Scriptures from his early childhood. Now, does
this accord with the traditionary system ? What Jew
ish rabbi, what Popish priest, what consistent Pusey-
ite, would ever think of giving the Bible to children ?
It will be in vain for the traditionist to urge in
answer to all this, that he admits the use of the Scrip
tures in the work of teaching — that the Church, through
her pastors, communicates to the learner its true sense,
and that thus all the ends contemplated by the apostle
are fully answered. For if the traditionary system I
here oppose is the legitimate mode by which God
communicates the knowledge of his wiU, then the

302 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
rabbinical system of traditions constituted the legiti
mate and divinely-appointed means of understanding
what God required of the Jews. That system, as we
have seen, substituted " the traditions of the elders"
and the living teacher for the writings of Moses and
the prophets. The apostle ought then, in all consist
ency, to have referred to the evidence through which
alone the diyine teaching, could come — to have told
Timothy that he had been taught by the traditions of
the elders what the Scriptures mean, and then have
proceeded to say that the Scriptures are profitable for
education in righteousness only in a very indirect
sense : — that they are in the hands of the doctors, who
only have the authority to draw their sense from divine
traditions. This was especially important, as the views
the apostle presents would in future time be applied to
such apostolical writings as would be introduced into
the sacred canon, and as these writings would be
situated precisely like the Jewish Scriptures — have no
sense in themselves, but require to be expounded by
tradition. Now, I ask, who can persuade himself that
the system of rabbinical or of patristical tradition as
an interpreter of Scripture ever entered the apostle's
mind while he penned the above passages ? None, I
am sure, not utterly beside himself.
"Secondly. Portions of the sacred writings, as diffi
cult to be understood as any of the Bible, are addressed
expressly to the membership of the church, and not to
any authorized expounders of God's word.
St. Paul addresses his Epistle to the Romans, " To
all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be
saints," Rom. i, 7 : — the First Epistle to the Corinthi-

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 303
ans, to " the church of God which is at Corinth, to
them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be
saints, with all that in every place call upon the name
. of Jesus Christ our Lord," 1 Cor. i, 2. The Second
Epistle, " To the church of God which is at Corinth,
with all the saints which are in all Achaia," 2 Cor. i, 1.
The Epistle to the Galatians, to " the churches of Ga-
latia," Gal. i, 2. The Epistle to the Ephesians, " To
the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in
Christ Jesus," Eph. i, 1. The Epistie to the Phihp-
pians, " To all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at
Philippi, with the bishops and deacons," Phil, i, 1.
The Epistle to the Colossians, " To the saints and
faithful brethren- in Christ which are at Colosse," Col.
i, 2. And the Epistles to th« Thessalonians, to " the
church of the Thessalonians," 1 Thess. i, 1 ; 2 Thess.
i, 1. St. James directs his Epistle "to the twelve
tribes which are scattered abroad," James i, 1. St.
Peter directs his First Epistle " to the strangers scat
tered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia,
and Bithynia," 1 Pet. i, 1 : and the Second, " to them
that have obtained like precious faith with us,"
2 Pet. i, 1.
Here we see the sacred writers addressing them
selves directly to all classes of people, as though they
considered themselves in immediate contact with them.
According to the traditionary system, would this have
been the natural course ? Might we not expect to hear
the apostles immediately addressing the ministry, and
directing them to give to the people the traditionary
sense of their Epistles ? In one instance St. Paul par
ticularly mentions " the bishops and deacons," but he

304 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
does this after first addressing " all the saints," show
ing that he stands in as direct communication with
"the saints" in general as with the pastors of the
church. And in these very writings of St. Paul, St. Peter
says there are " some things hard to be understood,
which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as
they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own de
struction," 2 Pet. iii, 16. Now, "hard to be under
stood" as are " some things" in these Epistles of St.
Paul, they are all addressed to the body of believers
in general, without exception or reserve. Why did
not the holy apostle admonish the churches, that it
would be extremely dangerous for them to study his
writings — that the true sense of them was to be ascer
tained from " the oral preachings'' of himself and his
fellow-apostles ? He does not even premonish " the
unlearned and the unstable" of any danger from reading
and studying what he had written. In one instance
he solemnly requires that his epistle should " be read
to all the holy brethren," 1 Thess. v, 27.
Before leaving this argument, it may be proper to
notice that the passage above quoted from St. Peter is
used by traditionists to prove the necessity of the tra
ditionary sense. But the wonder is, that St. Peter does
not take occasion, from the fact that St. Paul's writings
were sometimes " hard to be understood," and some
times ¦wrested to the destruction of the soul, to urge
the danger of reading these writings without the com
mentary, and fully to explain the fact that the remedy
for the evil lay in " the oral preachings of the apos
ties."

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 305
Thirdly. In these same Scriptures, which we are
told are so hard to be understood that we cannot be
sure of the true sense until we have consulted tradition,
we find all classes of persons, not excepting those in
the meanest condition in life, particularly addressed.
St. John addresses •" fathers," "young men," and
"littie children," 1 John ii, 13, 14. The apostie, by
these appellations, evidently refers to the different
grades of Christians. And he declares that he wrote
not only to ih.& fathers, but to the young men, and even
to the TEKvla, little children, or, as Dr. Pyle understands
him, to " new converts and younger Christians." Noy,
who supposes that by young men and little children
the apostle means general councils, archbishops,
bishops, or parish priests ? Does he not embrace
especially under the last appellation the youngest
Christians — those whose knowledge and experience
were in their incipient stages? And had St. John
" written" directly to such, knowing that they could
not safely exercise private judgment upon what he had
written ? Let all judge of the consistency of this lan
guage with the traditionary system.
St. Paul particularly addresses " husbands," "wives"
"fathers," " children," " masters,'' and " servants." See
Col. iii, 18-25, and iv, 1. Here the Holy Ghost is in
direct communication with common minds — even chil
dren and servants. These several classes are addressed
as though it were their common privilege to derive in
struction directly from the written word of God. Now,
how does this quadrate with the notion that " the
Scriptures are not designed for the many," as Mr.
Newman says ? How does it consist with the hypo-

306 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
thesis that the sense of Scripture lies far beyond the
reach of common minds ?
It will not answer here to change the ground, and
say that some few plain precepts may be understood by
all, while as to the great mass of instructions in the
Scriptures we must depend upon tradition. For we
find no such limitations in the Scriptures themselves.
We nowhere find it stated in the Scriptures that a few
plain passages of God's written word may be safely
interpreted by the mass of Christians, while the greater
part of it has a hidden sense — or, rather, has no sense
i%itself, but is to be interpreted by " the oral preach
ings of the apostles." And it would be an anomaly to
find direct communications made in a book, to classes
of persons who could only ascertain the sense of the
book through others. If I were to write a book in
Latin, would I address myself to mere English read
ers ? — would I talk familiarly with children and slaves ?
There might be matter in such a book of more or less
interest to these classes of persons, but it would scarcely
be thought consistent with a sane state of mind for me
to turn to them and give them advice as though I were
using a medium of communication open to them.
Now, who would suppose that such passages as
those which have just passed in review could be found
in the Scriptures, if those Scriptures were " not de
signed for the many" — if they were not intelligible to
all classes ? Upon such a hypothesis the language of
these passages is grossly absurd — the sense is false
and deceptive, and calculated to lead men into conclu
sions which must peril their salvation. For who would
dream of a hidden sense, to be ascertained from tradi-

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 307
tion, upon reading such passages in the Scriptures
themselves ? In fact, upon the traditionary hypothesis
the Bible is an enigma, and its utility is quite ques
tionable. The sacred writers seem to put themselves into
immediate contact with all classes and conditions : —
they address them directly — they give them doctrinal
and practical instructions — ^they invite their attention
to their own teachings, as the sure guide to faith and
duty — and they give no intimation that for an under
standing of the contents of the sacred volume they are
to have recourse to tradition. Now, I put it to all
candid and sensible men, whether, upon the tradition
ary theory,- this is not false dealing ? Can it be recon
ciled with the inspiration or the truth of Holy Scrip
ture ? "I trow not." Indeed, to me this vaunted sys
tem of " apostolical traditions'' seems calculated to
unsettle all rational faith in the book of divine revela
tion, and to open a highway to universal skepticism.
For where can a man find a resting-place for the sole
of his foot, if he lets go his hold of a personal faith in
the Scriptures founded in evidence brought home to
his own mind ? There is no response, either from the
living or the dead, to all his anxious inquiries as to
what he must do to be saved. There is neither pro
phecy nor urim and thummim in the church, and there
is no voice from heaven to guide his wandering feet
and to satisfy his anxious mind, and to give comfort to
his aching, bleeding heart. The miserable figment of
tradition, when he exercises upon it his reason and
common sense, he sees to be, like the Bath Col of the
rabbins, a mere fiction, conjured up by those " blind

308 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
guides" who would take away from the people " the
key of knowledge." It neither agrees with Scripture,
nor with reason, nor with itself, and consequently can
be regarded with no rational confidence. If this, then,
is the final resort — if there is nothing more rational or
siibstantial than this upon which to build our faith and
hopes, who would not despair ? Ay, who would not
naturally be led to doubt the truth of the whole system
of Christianity ? Most men who are accustomed to
think for themselves — and all should be — would very
naturally conclude, that if they are required to swallow
all the absurdities of " the catholic system" without
inquiry — whether left to grope their way through the
labyrinths of patristical tradition, or cast upon the
authority of that indefinite, occult, inscrutable some
thing called " the Church," — it would be vastly better
to follow the dictates of natural reason, and reject the
whole system of revelation as utterly impracticable
and wholly absurd. I know this will be considered
as quite irreverent and rationalistic by our traditionists.
I am sorry to wound their tender feelings ; but I am
bound to follow their system to its legitimate results,
though it may be at the expense of their good opinion.
But I must forbear.
A leading objection to private or personal interpret
ation of the Holy Scriptures is, that to grestt masses
the thing is wholly impossible. For instance, our
attention is called to children. It is gravely asked,
" Where is their power of free inquiry or deliberate
choice ? The word of their parents," it is said, " from
the very first, supplies to them the place of the exter-

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 309
nal voice of God, correlative and responsive to his
voice within them. . . . Such, surely, are God's ordinary
dealings with children ; nor is this process interrupted
when the parent himself commits them to the school
system, or trusted friends, or ultimately to some reli
gious community ; they repose their confidence in this
very object of regard with the same implicit unreserved
submission as before. How long this simple, peace
ful, heavenly course of action will proceed, varies, of
course, indefinitely with all varieties of external cir
cumstances and inward endowments ; but wherever it
ends, it has left the pupil in certain and inalienable
possession of an invaluable stock of moral principles,
of whose truth his conviction is most certain and
secure, and which will be, in time to come, his main
stay and support, in temptations from without, in per
plexities from within."*
Here are two positions laid down which deserve
attention. The first is, that children first look to their
parents, next to their school teachers, and then to their
religious instructers, for the elements of religious know
ledge ; and that these instructions occupy " the place
of the external voice of God." This position need not
be controverted. No one thinks of sending children
anywhere else but to their parents and teachers for
the first elements of religion. Before reason is so far
matured as to enable the child to investigate moral
truth for himself, God has provided parental instruc
tions and discipline. But what has this to do with the
privileges and obligations of the full-grown man ? Be
cause children must submit to authority, and receive
* British Critic, vol. xxxi, pp. 39, 40.

310 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
as truth whatever is delivered, until they are able to
judge for themselves between truth and error, there
fore must men of mature minds take everything for
truth that the Church delivers as such upon mere
authority without investigation ? As well might it be
said, that because children of a certain age are inca
pable of providing themselves food and clothing, there
fore men of mature years are to go to the public coffers
for all their supplies. I need say no more to expose
the fallacy of this reasoning.
But the other position is, that the truths the child
learns or receives on authority from his parents and early
teachers will be those " of whose truth his Conviction
is most certain and secure, and which will be, in time
to come, his main stay and support, in temptations
from without, in perplexities from within.'' This, I
conceive, is not at all evident. Whether the notions
he imbibed in early childhood remain, and are those
" of whose truth he is most certain," will depend en
tirely upon their accordance with his subsequent expe
rience and the decisions of his mature judgment. If
the authority of parental instructions is permanent, and
the impressions which they make are indelible, how
could the errors of the parent ever be eradicated from
the mind of the child? How, for instance, could the
offspring of heathen parents ever become Christians ?
Indeed, ¦ according to the principle advocated by our
Catholics, the children of heathen or Mohammedan
parents are bound to make the superstitions into which
they were early inducted " their main stay and sup
port, in temptations from without, and in perplexities
from within !"

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 311
The pupil may see no reason in the first principles
of science inculcated by his teacher. He relies im
plicitly upon the wisdom and virtue of his instructer.
But is he therefore n^ver to see the philosophy of
these principles ? Is he always to believe them, and
act upon them, on the principles and grounds upon
which he first received them, namely, his confidence
in the qualifications of his early instructor?. This
would be a strange doctrine : but an exact parallel to
the position now under examination.
And supposing our traditionists should find an infi
nite multitude besides children who need to be in
structed in the very elements of religion, and who
are scarcely qualified to judge of any of the reasons
upon which the Christian faith is grounded. All such
cases are irrelevant. They are not accountable for
the use of powers which they do not possess, nor are
they bound to throw away those they have because
they have no more. A man's responsibility begins
with the dawn of his moral powers and his means of
information, and is always exactly bounded by them.
The instances adduced by our opponents are the ex
ceptions, and not the rule. It is a plain bare-faced
sophism to urge, that because there are those who
have not the power nor the means to form a correct
estimate of the grounds of our faith, therefore all
private judgment in religion is wholly unauthorized,
and eminently hazardous. But this is Puseyite rea
soning. It is also objected that private judgment is not to be
tolerated, because it leads to diverse and contradictory
conclusions. Behold, say our Catholics, what a mul-

312 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
titude of sects this erroneous principle has originated,
all of which claim support'from the Scriptures !
This objection would be a little more entitled to
respectful consideration, if the system of those who
allege it was not attended with the same embarrass
ments. I have before shown that there is as great a
variety of opinions upon controverted questions among
Catholics as there is among "the sects," and that their
great rule of interpretation is practically inefficient.
Now, these wise ones certainly demand too much
when they require us to leave our own system, with
out having one that is better to offer us in its place.
" Nor do the Tractarians forget to refer to the varie
ties of Protestantism and the controversies of the pre
sent day, with a view to show the necessity of some
rule, in addition to Scripture, to fix its meaning, and
to repress the irregularities of humaii opinion ; though,
alas for them ! the variations of Popery itself are quite
sufficient to show that, tight as may be the rein of
church authority, it is totally unable to curb the acti-
¦vity of the human mind. But these sophistries we
shall unravel no further. However ingeniously they
may be woven,' common sense must see the flimsiness
of the web, even when it cannot fix on the clew to
unwind it. They are old forms of Popish argumenta
tion. The soldiers of Oxford have stolen their wea
pons from the arsenal at Rome, or, to give them credit
for the highest originality they can claim, they have
gone ' down to the Philistines to sharpen every man
his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his mat
tock.' But all in the end will be vain. Even the
best of weapons will be poor when levelled at the aegis

THE RULE OP FAITH AND PRACTICE. 313
of truth, — at that round and glorious shield, which,
when the heavy spears of the Papacy touched it at the
Reformation, shivered them in pieces, and will conti
nue to repel with the same fate the burnished lances
of Puseyism."*
Again, I have shown that private judgment, after
all, is to us inevitable. We must judge of their rule
of interpretation — of its truth, and of its application — ¦
and here is opened a wide door for diversity of opinion,
insomuch that scarcely any two persons would be
likely to come to the same result. We cannot even
admit the authority of " the Church," could we find it,
¦without the exercise of private judgment on the sense
of Scripture and the fathers, and in this case we
should fall into the same danger against which our
advisers warn us, and must, indeed, peril our souls by
a most daring act, and the adoption of an uncatholic
principle, before we can get within the reach of the
means of grace ! Upon the Church — the authority of
the Church — the chosen means of instruction— the
rule of interpretation— the meaning of the fathers — •
and the sense to put upon the simplest formularies
of the Church, there is as great latitude for diversity
of sentiment and the creation of sects — all of which
might claim the sanction of catholic consent — as there
can be in the exercise of private judgment upon the
naked Scriptures themselves. We are, then, just as
far out at sea as ever, until we can find a Pope whom
we can make eyes and ears for us, and to whom we
can implicitly intrust the affairs of our salvation.
But, our objectors continue, if men are left to private
* Stoughton, Lectures, pp. 39,40.
14

314 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
judgment in religion, they will often judge erroneously
in essentials, and so peril their salvation.
And supposing they do, who is in fault ? The truth,
in all essential points, is not hid in a maze, or sunk
in a well. And if men will not take the pains to exa
mine thoroughly before they decide, whose fault is it ?
and who is to bear the consequences ? And here I
would turn upon our Catholics, as in the former case,
and ask them what security they have to give, that if
all the world should lay aside private judgment and
follow them, they would be guided infallibly to a safe
issue ? Do they know that none have ever been lost
while devoutly adhering to what assumed to be, and
what they verily thought, the true church ?
The fact is, God has not so laid open the truth that
men must see it whether they will or not. Voluntary
efforts are necessary. And the divine Being has
made all men, in possession of their mental facul
ties in maturity and unimpaired, accountable for the
discovery and practice of moral duty. Nor is he " a
hard master, reaping where he has not sown, and
gathering where he has not strawed." If men lose
their way, and lose their eternal all, it is not because
the way of salvation is so mysterious that they could
not, with reasonable diligence, find it out ; much less
because they do not submit to the assumptions of
a class of spiritual monopolists who claim to have
" the keys of the kingdom of heaven," but because of
their own voluntary neglect or miserable recklessness.
Now, I will lay down a few propositions to which
I beg special attention, and which, I am persuaded,
are perfectly tenable : and should they be assailed, I

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 315
should expect an easy triumph, no matter how Goliah-
like the champion with whom I might be called to
contend. 1. All things essential to salvation are contained in
Holy .Scripture.
2. All those matters of faith or practice, contained
in Holy Scripture, which are essential to salvation, are
clearly and simply stated, and easy to be understood.
3. Those things in the Scriptures not plainly and
simply set forth, and not easily understood, are not
essential to salvation.
4. There is no evidence that there is couched in
those portions of Scripture of difficult interpretation
any new doctrine of faith, or moral duty, not clearly
set forth in other parts of the sacred volume.
5. The corruptions of the Christian doctrine and
institutions have not generally originated from the
principle or practice of private interpretation, but from
the unhallowed union of philosophy, falsely so called,
with the Christian system, or the admixture of heathen
or Jewish errors with the simple truth ; and these un
holy associations and unauthorized admixtures have
come in through the doctors and professed spiritual
guides of the church.
Now, if these propositions are founded in truth, the
danger of private judgment in matters of religion, and
the necessity of authoritative instructions, aside from
the Scriptures, either from the dead or the living, are
mere creatures of the imagination. I shall not attempt,
in this place, any proof of the above propositions, as
they will be found sufficiently sustained in different
parts of this work, and, indeed, may be considered fair

316 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
deductions from the great principles which I have
laboured to settle upon a firm and an immovable basis,
by the aid of Scripture, reason, and common sense.
I cannot better close this section than in the lan
guage of Mr. Stoughton. He says, " Tradition, then,
is no authoritative rule of faith and practice. It is
utterly unsafe — it cannot be trusted. What then fol
lows, but that Scripture is the only rule by which we
can be guided ? Scripture alone gives us security that
we have the genuine teaching of Christ's apostles.
By their instructions we must abide. An awful ana
thema hangs over our head, if we dare to depart from
them. Paul, standing in the midst of the Christian
church, perceiving, with a divinely-illuminated eye,
the shadows of error that were beginning to rise,
anticipating the efforts of false apostles, that would
transform themselves into angels of light, and, above
all, bearing upon him the burden of the Lord, pro
nounces with a voice of thunder, writes >vith a pen
of flame, the awful words, ' If we, or an angel from
heaven, preach any other gospel than that which we
have preached, let him be accursed.' Py the gospel
which Paul preached, then, we must abide ; and as we
are sure we have it here, and cannot be sure we have
it anywhere else, we must adhere exclusively to the
¦written record. O, we fear that anathema of the
apostle ! It rings in our ear with a monitory sound ;
and if we can escape the curse which he threatens,
we may smile at all the fulminations either of Rome
or her allies. And while Scripture is the only rule to
be trusted, it is the only rule that is explicit. That
we can understand. The Bible is one book, and all

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 317
that it contains is alike authoritative. It speaks on
every essential point with a perspicuity that cannot
be mistaken. But as to tradition, that we cannot un
derstand. The writings of the fathers consist of many
books ; the statements they contain are, on several
points, contradictory ; frequentiy their teaching is ob
scure and unintelligible, and they darken counsel with
words without wisdom.
" Scripture alone is sufficient. It claims to be a
complete rule. Have ye never read, 'All Scripture
is 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 ?' Does not
this declare the completeness of the written word?
And do not the knowledge, faith, purity, love, and zeal
of many who are the men of one book, who never heard
of the fathers, who are. totally ignorant of all their
traditionary teaching,-<-'do not their exemplary lives
and happy deaths, arising from the knowledge im
parted by the Bible, demonstrate that it needs no sup
plementary rule, no church interpreter ? Ves ! Scrip
ture is sufficient, — alone it has guided millions to
heaven, and thither it is guiding millions still. It is
a broad and glorious light shining in a dark place, a
noble pharos beaming in the ocean of life, and we need
no flickering light of tradition to contribute its feeble
and deceitful ray. At the Reformation, when the Bible
was translated and circulated, the dayspring from on
high visited our land, to give light to them that sit in
darkness and the shadow of death, and to guide their
feet into the way of peace ; and we have no wish to

318 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
go back to the times when men implicitly followed the
ignis fatuus of tradition, that deceptive light which
springs up from the pestilential marshes of a corrupted
religion. " We avow, then, and are prepared to maintain with
our latest breath, that the Bible, and the Bible alone,
is, and ought to be, the religion of Protestants ; and
we regard with apprehension the efforts of those who
would undermine this noble principle, written in the
blood of martyrs, and endeavour once more to bring us
under the authority of tradition. Oxford is building up
a temple like that of Rome, save that it lacks the papal
chair, and is cleansed from some of the fouler enormi
ties of its ancient model. She strives to cover it with
the richest architectural embellishments, to fill it with
the softest music, and to shed over it the associations
of the most venerable antiquity, and to allure within
its walls admiring multitudes. And when they have
entered its aisles, no light from the Bible is to fall
upon them, save what is transmitted through the
painted windows of tradition. There the people are
to be kept in a sort of holy imprisonment, and to be
prevented from ever going abroad to breathe the air
of spiritual liberty, or to feel the pure sunshine of the
gospel. We warn you against these efforts of spiritual
despotism. We exhort you to put others on their guard.
Surely, with a knowledge of the system, you will never
think of surrendering to its usurpations. ' Stand fast,
therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ has made
you free, and be not entangled again in the yoke of
bondage.' " I have said nothing of the right of private judg-

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 319
ment, and can now only observe that this follows as a
corollary from the doctrine that the Bible alone is the
authoritative rule of faith and practice. If all autho
rity over the conscience be in the Bible, — if there be
none in tradition, none in the priesthood, none in the
church, — then to what are we left but the study of the
Bible in the exercise of our private judgment ? And
after all the interminable wrangling on the subject.
Papists, Tractarians, and Protestants, are all forced
practically to admit the inalienable right. The differ
ence between the Catholic and the Protestant is this :
the Catholic says. Choose your church first, and then
receive your religion on her authority ; the Protestant
says. Choose your religion first, and then discover the
true church by her guidance. But in either case the
appeal is first made to private judgment ; there is no
thing else to appeal to, because in the nature of the ,
case there is no other judge acknowledged. Till a
man has actually chosen his religion, and his church,
it must be so ; and we may safely add, that every in
telligent Catholic, whose religion is grounded on the
conviction of his conscience, — and no other religion is
worth a straw, — was really exercising his own private
-judgment at the very moment of his surrendering the
right for ever.
" The exercise of your private judgment is a right,
a sacred right, a birth-right, which all that the world
can give, or all that the world can threaten, should
never tempt you to sell. But while in reference to
your fellow-men it is a right, in relation to God it is a
duty. Imagine not that you are at liberty to exercise
it or not as you please. The command of God binds

320 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
you to employ it. You sin in neglecting to do so. It
is equally your duty to refuse to suffer others to judge
for you, and to judge conscientiously for yourself It
is equally your sin to surrender your judgment to an
other, and to retain it inactive in your own keeping.
Let me ask, then, while you value the right, do you
exercise the duty ? In other words, have you employed
your minds in the study of religion ? Have you tried
by diligent search to find out what the Bible means ?
Have you brought the faculties of your minds to bear
on the great questions, — What is religious truth?
What is religious duty? What shall I do to be saved?
What will take me to heaven ? While repudiating
Rome, and avoiding Oxford, have you come to the
oracles of inspiration to inquire of God? While re
sisting all forms of spiritual tyranny, are you submitting
to the gentle sway of Christ, the Lord of conscience ?
While you exercise common sense in rejecting the
vain and foolish dogmas of superstition, do you exer
cise the same common sense in caring for your souls,
and making the pure truths, of the Bible your rule of
action, your spring of comfort, and your guide to
heaven ? While boasting that you are Protestants, are
you Christians ? After all, the ignorant, deluded, but
conscientious devotee of Popery, is safer for eternity,
than the intelligent, enlightened, but merely nominal
and hypocritical professor of Protestantism ; because
the former has some religion — the latter none. To
the Bible, then, we most affectionately exhort you to
apply. Study it carefully. Study it with prayer. Re
jecting the interpretations of tradition, seek the teach
ing of the Spirit. Look up for heavenly light. Submit

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 321
your reason to this divine authority, while you refuse
to submit it to any other. Ungalled as you are, and
as we wish you to be, by the yoke of earthly tyranny,
meekly bow to the yoke of Christ, l^ake his truth
your wisdom — his cross your dependance — his salva
tion your joy. Remember you are responsible for your
privileges. The word which Christ delivers to you in
the New Testament, the same will judge you at the
last day. The possession of the gospel in its unadul
terated form, while it now constitutes an unspeakable
advantage, will, if slighted, hereafter prove your terri
ble condemnation. And, of all the lost, none will
incur so dreadful and so deep a fall, as you, who
must sink from the very gate of heaven into the gulf
of hell!"*

SECTION H.
Views of the Fathers upon the SufKciency of the Scriptures as
the Rule of Faith.
In a previous section I have noticed what is pre
sented from the fathers in favour of patristic tradition.
There I proceed upon the ground that the fathers are
of authority with our opponents ; and though we can
not admit them in matters of faith, yet they are avail
able in a controversy with traditionists as an argu
mentum ad hominem. And I wish the reader to recol
lect that it is in this light only that I rely upon the
patristic testimony which I adduce in this section.
And if it is clearly shown that the chosen -witnesses
* Stoughton, Lectures, pp. 40-47.
14*

322 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
of our opponents bear testimony against them, the
weakness of their cause will appear in a very clear
and strong light.
The first three authorities I quote below are from
the number of what are called " apostolical fathers ;"
from the fact of their having lived in the apostolic age.
They lived and wrote early in the period during which
Archdeacon Manning maintains that " the oral preach
ings of the apostles'' constituted "the chief rule of faith"
for all Christians.- But, strange as the fact may seem,
as I have already had occasion to observe, these writers
take no notice whatever of any such rule of faith.
More than this, they afford the clearest evidence that
the Scriptures, even then, were recognised as alone
constituting that rule. This I shall now proceed to
show. Clemens Romanus has, as they say, left us one
epistle. This epistle is directed to the Corinthians,
and was -written for the purpose of composing certain
differences and schisms which had occurred in that
church between the pastors and the people. The
manner and strain of this epistle furnish an irrefutable
argument in favour of our position, that the Scriptures
were considered by the writer as the only rule of faith
and practice.
The argument of this father is principally founded
Upon the Scriptures, large quotations being made from
the Old Testament, the Gospels, and the Epistles of
St. Paul, without a single allusion to tradition or " the
preachings of the apostles." Nor can it be plead that
the occasion was not a fit one upon which to introduce
the authority of the oral teaching of the apostles, had

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 323
that at the time constituted either the entire rule of
faith, or any part of that rule. For it was just such
an occasion as now makes special demand for tradi
tionary argument. The unity of the church, the divine
right of episcopacy, ministerial authority, and the fact
that there is no salvation but in connection with the
divinely-authorized pastor, are the very points which
have for centuries been maintained upon the authority
of the oral teaching of the apostles or " the unwritten
word." Now, how did this father, at a period when
this " divine informant" must have been fully before
the church in all its original freshness, and, if ever,
must have been well understood, come to overlook it
entirely, upon an occasion when it would have been
more available than anything else ? I hope our tradi
tionists will give us some light upon this point.
St. Clement, instead of referring to any traditionary
teachings of Christ or the apostles, goes to the written
word. Says he, " Ye are contentious, brethren, and
zealous for things that pertain not unto salvation. Look
into the Holy Scriptures, which are the true words of
the Holy Ghost. Ye know that there is nothing unjust
or counterfeit written in them. There you shall not
find that righteous men were ever cast off by such as
were good themselves."*
Again, " Ye know, beloved, ye know full well, the
Holy Scriptures, and have thorou^ly searched into
the oracles of God; call them thej*rore to your re
membrance."! The father does indeed have recourse to other
sources of argument besides the Scriptures, but in
* Archbp. Wake's translation, sec. 45. t Ibid., sec. 53.

324 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
each case his facts are of vastly less weight than a
reference to apostolic tradition would have been. For
instance, he refers to the Apocrypha, (in sec. 55,) and
in proof of the doctrine of the resurrection he adduces
as a matter of fact the fabulous account of the phenix,
which, he gravely says, " is seen in the eastern coun
tries, that is to say, in Arabia."*
Now, I do not allude to this instance of strange
credulity in the father for the purpose of asking our
traditionists whether they consider him as giving us a
specimen of "the oral preachings of the apostles,"
though this query is very naturally suggested ; but for
the purpose of urging that the " unwritten revelation"
upon the resurrection, now found in the Apostles'
Creed, could scarcely have had a substantive exist
ence at the time. Why was it that, in writing to
Christians who had heard Paul preach, he does not
refer to his " preachings," or to the creed which had
been composed by the apostles, as a digest of the
matter of their " preachings," when the questions he
urges were then, by an authority which all Christian
churches must have acknowledged, explicitly settled ?
How does it come to pass that he has recourse to
Scripture — to Moses and the prophets — to Christ and
the apostles — to apocryphal Jewish stories, and to
heathen fables, to enforce his exhortations, and yet
takes no notice at -all of the grand "depositum'' of
" oral traditions**^l!iich were to be used through all
succeeding ages as a divinely-authorized commentary
upon the written word ? This is a mystery, which upon
the traditionary system it is hard for me to unravel.
* Archbp. Wake's translation, sec. 35.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 325
Finally. It is worthy of note that this father refers
especially to St. Paul's First Epistie to the Corinthians,
and not to his " preachings'' among them. He says,
" Take the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle into
your hands ; what was it he wrote to you at his first
preaching the gospel among you ? Verily he did by
the Spirit admonish you concerning himself, and Ce
phas, and ApoUos, because that even then ye had begun
to fall into parties and factions among yourselves."*
Now, let it be considered that St. Paul had exercised
his personal ministry among the Corinthians for a con
siderable space of time together! — Dr. Clarke thinks
" about two years" — and during that time must have
preached, many sermons, and, upon the traditionary-
system, have deposited these traditions in no small
store for the future use of the church in their endea
vours to understand his writings and the other Scrip
tures. Now, how it comes to pass that Clement refers
to " the unsensed record," and says nothing about the
independent commentary, is a little difficult to deter
mine. Why did he not say. Dear Corinthian brethren,
remember " the preachings" of the blessed Paul ; who,
while he was with you, delivered to you " the depo
situm" of " apostolical tradition," which is now your
" chief rule of faith," and which in all subsequent ages
is to be regarded as an " unwritten revelation," and as
expressive of " the sense of the written record ?" But,
strange to tell, we have nothing of the kind from the
holy father. He simply directs the Corinthian Chris
tian to one of the apostle's written epistles, just as
* Archbp. Wake's translation, sec. 47.
t See Acts xviii, 11, 18.

326 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
though he had considered them capable of understand
ing its " sense" without reference to an independent
oral revelation, or anything of the sort. Overlooking
wholly what Archdeacon Manning now tells us consti
tuted "the chief rule of faith," the simple-hearted father,
in quite an " anticatholic" and " ultra-Protestant" strain,
directs their attention to the " unsensed record !" Had
the father lived in our own times, he might have pro
fited by the lessons of instruction which are dispensed
by our Romish and Anglican Catholics. He would
then not have been guilty of such a slight upon a
necessary portion of the rule of faith. He would have
kept back no part of the word of God, but would have
treated with the same respect the unvnitten as the
written word. But the good father lived a littie too
early to avail himself of Popish or high-Church light,
and it is not wonderful that his epistle is scarcely up
to the standard of catholicity which our apostolic Catho
lic doctors have now attained.
St. Ignatius says, " I therefore did as became me,
as a man composed to unity. For where there is
division and wrath, God dwelleth not. But the Lord
forgives all that repent, if they return to the unity of
God, and to the council of the bishop. For I trust in
the grace of Jesus Christ that he will free you from
every bond. Nevertheless, I exhort you that you do
nothing out of strife, but according to the instruction
of Christ. Because I have heard of some who say.
Unless I find it written in the originals,* I will not be
lieve it to be written in the gospel. And when I said.
It is written, they answered what lay before them in
* Archives.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 327
their corrupted copies. But to me Jesus Christ is in
stead of all the uncorrupted monuments in the world :
together with those undefiled monuments, his cross, and
death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by him :
by which I desire, through your prayers, to be justified.
" The priests indeed are good ; but much better is
the High Priest to whom the holy of holies has been
committed, and who alone has been intrusted with the
secrets of God. He is the door of the Father; by
which Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all prophets
enter in ; as well as the apostles'and the church. And
all these things tend to the unity which is of God.
Howbeit the gospel has somewhat in it far above all
other dispensations; namely, the appearance of our
Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, his passion and resur
rection. For the beloved prophets referred to him :
but the gospel is the perfection of incorruption. All
therefore together are good, if ye believe with charity."*
From this it appears that the written Gospels were
the ultimate appeal in which all professing Christians
agreed, and the only question raised by heretics was,
as to which were the authentic copies. Neither the
orthodox nor heterodox make as yet any claim to oral
traditions as authoritative expositions of the written
record. St. Polycarp affords us some rays of light upon
the question at issiie. His epistle is directed to the
Philippians. In this he says, " These things, my
brethren, I took not the liberty of myself to write unto
you concerning righteousness, but you yourselves be
fore encouraged me to it. For neither can I, nor any
* Archbp. Wake's translation, sec. 8, 9.

328 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
Other such as I am, come up to the wisdom of the
blessed and renowned Paul ; who being himself in
person with those who then lived, did with all exact
ness and soundness teach the word of truth ; and being
gone from you, wrote an epistle to you ; into which if
you look, you will be able to edify yourselves in the
faith that has been delivered unto you ; which is the
mother of us all ; being followed with hope, and led
on by a general love, both toward God and toward
Christ, and toward our neighbour. For if any man
has these things, he has fulffiled the law of righteous
ness ; for he that has charity is far from all sin."*
Observe, first, that -this father expressly denies
being the receptacle of that " wisdom" which, upon
the traditionary system, must have been deposited with
all the successors of the apostles. Paul, he says,
" being himself in person with those who then lived,
did with all exactness and soundness teach the wOrd
of truth." This " exactness and soundness" he does
not arrogate to himself. But why not, if he had re
ceived the " depositum" in all its integrity from the
apostles themselves ?
Observe, secondly, that he, as Clement does in ad
dressing the Corinthians, directs their attention to the
epistle which Paul had written to them, and says,
" into which if you look, you will be able to edify
yourselves in the faith that has been delivered unto
you." " The faith" had been " delivered" to the Phi
lippians by the oral preaching of Paul, which was,
doubtiess, to them who heard it, a portion of the rule of
faith. But the generation to whom St. Paul preached
* Archbp. Wake's translation, sec. 3.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 329
in person may by this time be presumed to have fol
lowed the apostle to the world of spirits. And now
their children and successors are directed, not to any
tradition of the oral preaching of the apostle, but to his
¦written epistle.
Again this father says, " And whosoever perverts
the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that
there shall neither be any resurrection, nor judgment,
he is the first-born of Satan. Wherefore leaving the
vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let us return
to the word that was delivered to us from the begin
ning ; watching unto prayer, [1 Pet. iv, 7,] and perse
vering in fasting: with supplication beseeching the
all-seeing God not to lead us into temptation; [Matt.
vi, 13 ;] as the Lord hath said, ' The spirit truly is
willing, but the flesh is weak,' [Matt, xxvi, 41.]"*
And again, " For I trust that ye are well exercised
in the Holy Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from
you."! Justin Martyr embraced Christianity A. D. 133,
and suffered martyrdom A. D. 164. Mr. Goode presents
his testimony as follows : —
" I proceed to Justin Martyr, of whom we may ob
serve, first, that in his conference with Trypho the
Jew, he makes it a rule to ground all his statements
upon Scripture, and Scripture only;| and exhorts Try
pho to despise the tradition of his Jewish teachers, as
under that name, they palmed their own fancies upon
* Archbishop Wake's translation, sec. 7.
t Ibid., sec. 12.
X Just. Mart. Dial, cum Tryph., § 28. Ed. Bened. Paris. 1742,
p. 126. (Ed. Colon. 1686, p. 245.) /

330 not tradition, but scripture,
the world.* As these remarks, however, apply only to
Jewish traditions, and not to those of the Christian
church, (though it is hard to see why one should be
secure from error, though the others were not,) I shall
not press them as evidence on our present subject.
" Again, in a passage already quoted, he says, —
alluding to a heterodox doctrine prevailing among
some professed Christians at the time, — ' With whom
I do not agree, nor could agree, even though the great
majority of those who are of my own religion should
say so ; since we are commanded by Christ himself
to be ruled by not the doctrines of men, but those
preached by the blessed prophets, and taught by
him.' " Further, as to the question of the fulness of the
revelation made in the Scriptures, we may observe the
following passages : — ' Those,' saith he, ' who have
left us a relation of all things that concern our Saviour
Jesus Christ, have thus taught us.'! Again : ' Neither
did God ask Adam where he was, as one who knew
not, nor Cain where Abel was ; but for the purpose of
convincing each of them what he was, and that the
knowledge of all things might be conveyed to us by their
being committed to writing.' "J §
St. IrenjEus was constituted bishop* of Lyons, in
Gaul, A. D. 174. His testimony is presented by the
above learned author as follows : —
" We now come to an author who is. very confidently
* Just. Mart. Dial, cum Tryph., § 38, p. 135. Ed. Col., p. 256.
t Id., Apolog. Prim., § 33, p. 64. (Ed. Col. Apol. Sec, p. 75.)
X Id., Dial, cum Tryph., § 99, p. 195. (Ed. Col., p. 326.)
§ Divine Rule, vol. ii, p. 208. Epistle to the Philadelphians.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 331
appealed to, both by the Romanists and our opponents,
as a supporter of their views, namely, Irenaeus. The
claim is made upon the authority of one or two pas
sages, which need only to be compared with other
parts of the work in which they occur, to show that
they afford no support to the views in defence of which
they are adduced.
" ' By no other,' says Irenaeus, ' have we come to
the knowledge of the plan of our salvation, but those
through whom the gospel came to us, which they then
preached, but afterward, by the will of God, delivered
to us in the Scriptures to be the foundation and
PILLAR OF OUR FAITH ;'* a testimony which one might
suppose would be sufficient of itself to settle the ques
tion. But it stands not alone.
" After having spoken of the witness home by Scrip
ture to the truth of his doctrine respecting God, he
says, ' Having, therefore, the truth itself as our rule,
and the testimony respecting God placed clearly before
us, we ought not to cast away the firm and true know
ledge of God,' &c.!
" And again : ' But we, following the only true God
as our teacher, and taking his words as our rule of
truth, always teach the same all of us on the same
points .'J
" And again : ' Therefore the disciple of the Lord,
wishing to proscribe all such things, and to constitute
a rule of truth in the church  thus commenced the
* IrensEi adv. Haer., lib. iii, t. 1. Ed. Grabe Oxon. 1702, fol.,
p. 198. (Ed. sec. Massuet. Ven. 1734, vol. i, p. 173.)
t lb. ii, 47, p. 173. (M. ii, 28, p. 156.)
X lb. iv, 69, p. 368. (M. iv, 35, p. 277.)

332 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
doctrine taught in his gospel, ' In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word, &c.' '*
" And when, after having in his first and second
books explained and shown the absurdity of the doc
trines of the heretics whom he was opposing, he pro
ceeds to prove their opposition to the doctrine of the
apostles, he professes only to be about to give that
proof from their toritings ;! and he manifestly alludes
to the tradition preserved in the churches founded by
the apostles, only for the sake of convincing the here
tics with whom he had to deal, who, he tells us,
' when reproved from the Scriptures, immediately be
gan to accuse the Scriptures themselves, as if they
were not correct, nor of authority, and as if they were
ambiguous ; and as if the truth could not be discovered
from them, by those who were ignorant of tradition, for
THAT THE TRUTH WAS NOT DELIVERED IN WRITING,
BUT ORALLY.'I: To meet these heretics, therefore, on
their own ground, (to the similarity of whose views to
those of our opponents I need hardly point the atten
tion of the reader,) he introduces incidentally, and be
yond his professed design, the testimony borne by the
creed professed in the various churches founded by the
apostles, to the correctness of his doctrine. So evident
is this, that the learned Romanist, Erasmus, scruples
not to say that Irenaeus in this work ' fights against a
host of heretics, with the sole aid of the Scrip
tures.'^
* Irensei adv. Hter., ii, 11. (M. ib., p. 188.)
i lb. ii, 66, pp. 194, 195. (M. ii, 35, pp. 170, 171.)
X Ib. iii, 2. (M. ib., p. 174.)
§ Erasmi, Prsef. in Iren, 'Vide ed. Mass., vol. ii, p. 152,

the rule of faith and PRACTICE. 333
" I will add two more passages in proof of this : —
" ' On this account,' he says, ' we labour to adduce
those proofs which are derived from the Scriptures,
that confuting them by the very words of God, we
may, as far as is in our power, drive them from their
enormous blasphemy.'*
" And again : ' Using those proofs which are from the
Scriptures, you may easily overturn, as we have de
monstrated, all those heretical notions which were
afterward invented.'"! J
Tertullian was the earliest Latin father whose
works are extant, and was born at Carthage about the
middle of the second century. Toward the latter part
of his life he joined the Montanists, who differed from
the Catholics, as they called themselves, upon some
points of discipline. Though, according to the rule
of Vincentius, not dying in the catholic faith, he is not
good catholic authority, yet he is quoted by Catho
lics whenever they find it convenient to avail them
selves of his opinions. As we have already seen,
Archdeacon Manning presses him into the service of
tradition : and the Oxford divines give us a translation
of his Works in their " Library of Fathers of the Holy
Catholic Church." He was a writer of great eloquence
and power, though he broached several strange and
singular conceits. And it must be admitted that he
rests certain ceremonial observances, not authorized
in Scripture, upon the authority of tradition ;^ though
» Erasmi, iv, 68, p. 367. (M. iv, 34, p. 276.)
t lb., V, 14, p. 422. (M. ib., p. 311.)
X Divine Rule, vol. ii, pp. 208-210.
§ See his Works in Library of JFathers, vol. i, pp. 161-165.

334 not tradition, but scripture,
he still quotes the Scriptures as the only rule of faith.
Mr.Goode has collected the evidence from this father,
and presented it as follows : —
" Next in importance to the testimony of Irenaeus is
that of Tertullian, and their views on our present sub
ject appear to be precisely the same.
" Is, then. Scripture the sole authoritative rule of
faith with Tertullian ?
" The following passages will show how frequently
it is referred to by him as the authoritative rule of
faith, (not indeed under that name, because he uses
that term more particularly for the creed established
by the consent of the apostolical churches, but as being
what that title signifies with us,) and we shall show
hereafter what were the only exceptions he would have
made against its being regarded as the sole authorita
tive rule of faith.
" In his treatise, then, ' Against Hermogenes,' he
distinctly calls it ' the rule of truth ;'* and elsewhere
he says of a doctrine in question, ' Nothing is certain
respecting it, because the Scripture does not declare
it.'! And in his treatise ' Against Praxeas,' he says,
' You ought, to prove this as clearly from the Scriptures
as we prove that He made his Word his Son.'J Aftd
elsewhere he urges the refutation of error by ' referring
the points in dispute to the Scriptures of God.'^
" Nay, in his treatise ' Against Hermogenes,' he
says plainly, ' That all things were made of some
* Tertull. adv. Hermog., c. 1. Ed. Paris. 1664, fol., p. 233.
t Id. De carne Christi, c. 6, p. 312.
X Id. Adv. Prax., u. 11, p. 505.
§ Id. De anima, c. 2, p. 265.

the rule of faitB and practice. 333
subjacent matter, I have nowhere as yet read. Let
the shop of Hermogenes show that it is written. If
it is not written, let him fear that wo that is destined
for those who add to or take from Scripture.'* And so
he says elsewhere, ' Take from the heretics the prin
ciples they hold in common with the heathgn, so that
they may be left to prove their points from the Scrip
tures alone, and they will not be able to stand.'\
" And hence, in his treatise, ' On Praescription
against the Heretics,' he calls the Scriptures ' the
documents of the doctrine [of religion.J'J
" And, in a word, throughout all his treatises, with
a few exceptions, he refers to the Scriptures alone for
the proof of the doctrines of religion, and that, not as
Mr. Newman does, who would have us suppose that it
would be no proof unless tradition had delivered the
doctrine, that is, in other words, that it is no proof at
all, but as a real proof speaking to the common sense
of every man.
" Moreover, that Scripture contains all the points
of faith belonging to the Christian religion, we have
these testimonies : — ' I adore,' he says, ' the fulness of
Scripture which manifests to me both the Creator and
his works. But in the gospel I find discourse very
abundantly serving as the minister and witness of the
Creator. But that all things were made of some sub
jacent matter I have nowhere as yet read. Let the
shop of Hermogenes show that it is written. If it is
« Tertull. Adv. Hermog., c. 22, p. 241.
t Id. De resurr. cam., c. 3, p. 327. That the arguments of
the heretics from Scripture may be refuted from Scripture, he
also intimates, ib., c. ult., p. 365.
X Id. De Prescript., c. 38.

336 NOT tradition, but scripture,
not written, let him fear that wo that is destined for
those who add to or take from Scripture,'*
" This testimony is surely plain and distinct. The
cavil of the Romanists that it applies only to one par
ticular article is too absurd to need refutation. The
latter part of the passage, in particular, is so utterly
irreconcilable with such a notion, that no impartial
reader could entertain it for a moment.
" Again, in his treatise ' On Praescription against
the Heretics,' he says, speaking of the Church of
Rome, ' She joins the law and the prophets with the
writings of the evangelists and apostles, and thence
she draws the faith.'\ In those writings, then, ' the
faith' is to be found ; and in another part of the same
treatise is a passage strongly, though indirectly, show
ing his mind in this matter : ' The heretics,' he says,
' to show the ignorance of the apostles, bring forward
the fact that Peter, and they that were with him, were
blamed by Paul. . . . But we might here say to those
who reject the Acts of the Apostles, You have first to
show who that Paul was, both what before he was an
apostle, and how he was an apostle. . . . But they may
believe, forsooth, without the Scriptures, that they may
believe contrary to the Scriptures.' ":j:§
Clemens Alexandrinus succeeded Pantsenus in
the catechetical school of Alexandria about the year
189, and taught there until the edict of Severus, in 303,
* Tertull. Adv. Hermog., c.22, p. 241. See also his reference
to Scripture m c. 33 of the same treatise, p. 245 ; and De came
Chiisti, c. 7, p. 312.
t Id. De Praescript., c. 36, p. 215.
X Id. De Prescript., c. 23, p. 210. See also c. 8, p. 305.
4 Divine Rule, vol. ii, pp. 219-221.

THE RULE OF PAtTH AND PRACTICE. 337
obUged him to change his residence. He was in
Cappadocia in 210, and afterward visited Antioch, but
nothing further of his history is known.* As I cannot
better serve the reader, I shall, as in several other in
stances, give the digest of his views upon the subject
in question from Mr. Goode : —
" We come to Clement of Alexandria, one of the
most learned of the early fathers whose remains are
extant, but one whose works, valuable as they are,
exhibit strong traces of feelings and habits of thought
derived more from human philosophy than from divine
revelation.! " In entering upon a review of his opinions on the
subject before us, we have at once to remark his advo
cacy of a notion somewhat similar to that of our oppo
nents, and which might by an incautious reader be
confounded with it, but which nevertheless is far from
being the same, and, moreover, is one almost peculiar
to himself, of the fathers yet extant. It was his opi
nion, then, as we learn from Eusebius, that ' the Lord,
after his resurrection, conferred the gift of knowledge
upon James the Just, John, and Peter, which they
delivered to the re,st of the apostles, and those to the
seventy disciples.'J And in the first book of his Stro-
mata, he says that the teachers from whom he had
learned the Christian doctrine ' preserved the true
tradition of the blessed gospel as delivered by Peter,
and James, and John, and Paul, the holy apostles,
having received it in succession the son from his
* Gorton.
t See especially the first book of his Stromata.
t Euseb. Hist. Eccles,, lib. ii, e. 1. (Ed. Col. 1612.)
15

338 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
father, though few are like the fathers ; and at length,
by God's help, are depositing with us those seeds
received from their forefathers and the apostles.'* A
knowledge of this tradition he considers to be neces
sary to constitute a perfect Christian, whom he calls a
Gnostic, distinguishing him from the ordinary Chris
tian, whom he speaks of as having only common faith.!
" This ' Gnostic tradition,' however, as he frequentiy
calls it,J was not intended for Christians in general.
The Lord, he tells us, ' permitted the divine mysteries
and the holy light to be communicated to those who
were capable of receiving them. He did not imme
diately reveal them to many, because they were not
adapted to many, but to a few, to whom he knew them
to be adapted, and who were both able to receive them
and to be conformed to them. Secret things, like God,
are intrusted to speech, not to writing.'^ And hence
he exhorts the Gnostic, ' Be cautious in the use of the
word, lest any one who has fallen in v/ith the know
ledge taught by you, and is unable to receive the truth,
should disobey and be ensnared by it ; and to those
who come without understanding, shut the fountain,
whose waters are in the deep, but give drink to those
who are athirst for truth. Conceal, therefore, this
fountain from those who are not able to receive the
profundity of the knowledge. The Gnostic, who is
* Clem. Alex., Strom., lib. i, pp. 322, 323. Ed. Potter. Ox.
1715, (pp. 274, 275, edd. Par. 1641, and Col. 1688.) See also
Strom., lib. vi, p. 771, (or 645.)
t See Strom., lib. v, pp. 659, 660, (or 557, 558.)
X Id. Strom., lib. iv, p. 564, (or 475,) and lib. v, p. 683, (or
677,) &c.
^ Id. Strom., lib. i, p. 323, (or 275.)

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 339
master of this fountain, will himself suffer punishment,
if he gives occasion to one who as yet is only con
versant with little things of taking offence, and of being
swallowed up as it were by the greatness of his dis
course, or if he transfers one who is only an operative
to speculation, and leads him away by occasion of a
momentary faith [which has no solid grounds in his
mind to rest upon.]'*
" Of this tradition Clement professes to give in his
Stromata some account, though not of the whole of it,
concealing some part intentionally, as too profound for
common ears, and delivering the rest so that a common
reader would not understand its full Gnostic sense,!
and, moreover, acknowledging that some part of what
had been delivered to him had escaped his recollec
tion, not being committed to writing, and other parts
partially obliterated by the lapse of time, — a tolerably
good proof of the insufficiency of oral tradition for the
conveyance of truth. But we will quote his own words.
" After stating that he is about to deliver the tradi
tion which he had been taught by his Christian in
structers, he adds, ' But I well know that many things
have escaped us, having by the length of time fallen
from my recollection, being unwritten, whence, in order
to assist the weakness of my memory, and supply my
self with a systematic exposition of the principal points,
as a useful record for keeping them in remembrance,
I have found it necessary to use this delineation of
them. There are indeed some things which I do not
• Clem. Alex., Strom., lib. v, p. 678, (or 573.)
t Id. Strom., lib. i, pp. 323, 324, (or 375 ;) and lib. vii, p. 901,
(0^766 ;) and eoe p. 326, (or 278.)

340 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
recollect, for there was in those blessed men great
power. And there are some things which remained
unnoted for some time, and which have now escaped
me ; and some things are nearly obliterated from my
meftiory, perishing in my own mind, since such a
service is not easy to those who are not experienced.
But reviving the recollection of these things in my
¦writings, 1 purposely omit some things, making a pru
dent choice, fearing to write what I even speak with
caution and reserve ; not in the spirit of en^vy, for that
would be unjust, but fearing for my readers, lest by
any means they should otherwise be made to fall, and
we should be found putting, as those who speak in
proverbs say, a sword into the hands of a child.'*
" Now certainly our opponents have here a patron
not only of oral tradition, but also of ' reserve in the
communication of religious knowledge,' but, unfortu
nately for their cause, not the sort of tradition for which
they are contending. The notion of this Gnostic tra
dition delivered only by our Lord to three or four of
the apostles, and disclosing certain hidden meanings
of the truths and doctrines of Christianity not intended
for Christians in general, is one of which Clement is,
of those whose writings remain to us, almost the only
supporter. " Nay, his statements on this point are directiy op
posed to those of Irenaeus and Tertullian, who both
inveigh strongly against any such notion. The former
speaks of it as a tenet of the Carpocratian heretics,
who, he tells us, ' said that Jesus spoke some things
privately in a mysterious manner to his disciples and
• Clem, Alex., Strom., Ub. i, p. 324, (or 276.)

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 341
apostles, and commanded them to deliver those things
to those that were worthy and obedient.'* And he
says, ' That Paul taught plainly what he knew, not
only to his companions, but to all who heard him, he
himself manifests. For in Miletus the bishops and
presbyters being assembled, ... he says, ' I have not
shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.'
Thus the apostles plainly and willingly delivered to
all, those things which they had themselves learned
from the Lord.'! And again, he says, ' The doctrine
of the apostles is manifest and firm, and conceals no
thing, and is not that of men who teach one thing in
secret and another openly. For this is the contrivance
of counterfeits, and seducers, and hypocrites, as the
Valentinians do.':j:
" And thus Tertullian : — ' All the sayings of the
Lord are proposed to all.'§ And he accuses those of
* madness' who ' think that the apostles did not reveal
all things to all, but that they committed some things
openly to all, without exception, and some secretly to a
few.'W " Most justly, therefore, is this notion of Clement,
as to a secret tradition reserved for a few, pronounced
by a learned prelate of our Church, who is referred to
with approbation by our opponents, to be • destitute of
solid foundation. 'TT
* Iren. adv. Haer., lib. i, c. 24, (ed. Grabe.)
t Id., lib. iii, c. 14. X Id., ib., c. 15.
§ Tertull. De Praescript. adv. Haeret., c. 8, p. 205.
II lb., c. 25, p. 210.
IT Bishop of Lincoln's Account of the Writings and Opinions
of Clement of Alexandria, ch. viii, p. 368,

342 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
" And the reserve recommended, is a reserve only
in communicating this Gnostic tradition, not in preach
ing the great doctrines of Christianity; and one which
even to this limited extent is entirely opposed, as we
have shown, to the views of Irenaeus and Tertullian.
" At any rate, as this Gnostic tradition is confess
edly delivered by Clement so that the uninitiated can
not avail themselves of it, his writings will not serve
to show us its true nature ; and unless our opponents
can lay claim to the possession of the key which un
locks this treasure, his tradition, and his notions re
specting it, are to us equally useless and inapplicable.
The knowledge of the profundities of this mystic tradi
tion is gone, and with it the applicability to any prac
tical purpose of all that is said respecting it.
" But, with this exception, he speaks agreeably to
the view we have been attemptiiig to establish, as I
shall now proceed to show. For,
" First. He acknowledges no divine informant but
Scripture, and this supposed Gnostic tradition.
" Secondly. With respect to the claims of Scripture
as the rule of faith, he speaks thus : — ' He, therefore,'
he says, ' who believes the divine Scriptures with a
firm conviction, receives an incontrovertible demon
stration, namely, the voice of God, who gave the
Scriptures.'* " Again : ' But the just shall live by faith ; that faith,
namely, which is according to the Testament and the
commandments ; since these [Testaments], which are
two as it respects name and time, having been given
by a wise economy, according to age and proficiency,
* Id. Strom., lib. ii, p. 433, (or 362.)

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 343
are one in effect. Both the Old and the New were
given by one God, through the Son.'*
" Again : ' But since a happy life is set before us by
the commandments, it behooves us all to follow it, not
disobeying anything that is said, nor lightly esteeming
what is becoming, though of the most trifling nature,
but following whithersoever the word may lead ; if we
err from it, we must necessarily fall into endless evil.
But they who follow the divine Scripture, by which be
lievers walk, that they may become, as far as they can,
like the Lord, ought not to live carelessly, but, &c.'!
" Again, he tells us, that for those who, ' for the
benefit of their neighbours, betake themselves, some
to writing, and others to the oral delivery of the word,
while learning of another kind is useful, the perusal
of the Dominical Scriptures is necessary for the proof
of what they say.''^
" And in the seventh book of his Stromata, replying
to the objection of the heathen to Christianity, on the
ground of its followers being divided into so many
sects, he says, ' But when proof is being given, it is
necessary to descend to the particular questions, and
to learn demonstratively, from the Scriptures themselves,
how, on the one hand, the sects were deceived, and
how, on the other, both the most perfect knowledge,
and that which is in reality the best sect, are in the
truth alone and the ancient church.'^
" Nor let it be supposed that by the words ' the an-
* Id. Strom., lib. ii, p. 444, (or 372.)
t lb., lib. iii, p. 530, (or 443.)
X lb., lib. vi, p. 786, (or 600.)
§ lb., lib. vii, p. 888, (or 755.)

344 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
cient church,' he says anything opposed to our view ;
for, by that phrase, he means the church under the
apostles ; as is evident, not only by the time when he
wrote, but from his own words a little further on.*
" Again, he says, ' They who are willing to labour
for the acquisition of those things which are of the
greatest excellence, viill not desist from their search
for truth, before they have received a proof from the
Scriptures themselves.'^
" And again : ' Thus, therefore, we, giving perfect
proof respecting the Scriptures from the Scriptures
themselves, persuade through faith demonstratively .'J
" ' The truth,' he says, . . . ' is found, by considering
attentively what is perfectly proper and becoming for
the Lord and the almighty God, and by confirming
each of the things demonstrated by the Scriptures from
like Scriptures. '§
" And a little further on, his language clearly shows
that he appealed to the Scripture alone as the rule and
judge of controversies, in disputing with those who
differed from him, where he says, ' When we have '
overthrown them by demonstrating that they are clearly
opposed to the Scriptures, you will see the leaders of
the doctrine opposed do one of two things ; for either
they give up the consequence of their own doctrines,
or the prophecy itself, or rather their own hope.'||
" ' They,' he says, ' who do not follow God whither
soever he may lead them, fall away from that exalted
* Id. Strom-, lib. vii, pp. 898, 899, (or 764, 765.)
t lb., lib. vii, p. 889, (or 755.)
X lb., lib. vu, p. 891, (or 757.)
§ lb., lib. vii, p. 891, (or 758.)
II lb, lib. vii, p. 892, (or 758.)

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 345
state [which he has been describing ;] and God leads
by the divinely-inspired Scriptures'*
" From these passages, I think it is evident that the
Holy Scriptures were proposed by Clement as the
authoritative rule of faith and judge of controversies
for all Christians, and, to all but his Gnostic Christian,
the sole and exclusive rule and judge.
" Unless, then, our opponents are willing to contend
for his notions about a Gnostic tradition, delivered to
four of the apostles, and left as deposite with certain
rabbles of the church for the benefit of a few mature
Christians,! they will derive no benefit from Clement's
testimony on this matter.
" Moreover, notwithstanding his notions about a
Gnostic tradition, it is evident that he considered it to
be only an exposition of Scripture, and not as contain
ing any additional doctrines or points of faith ; for he
says, ' We offer them that which cannot be contra
dicted, even that of which God is the author ; and of
each of those things which form the subject of our inqui
ries, he has taught us in the Scriptures.'^
" And it is clear from many passages, that he con
sidered the Gnostic tradition as only explanatory of
Scripture, and not adding to it any new points of faith.
Thus he says, when about to give a description of the
Christian faith, ' We shall bring testimonies from the
Scriptures hereafter, in their proper places ; but we
shall give what they deliver, and describe the Chris
tian faith (or Christianity) in a summary way .... and
* Id. Strom., lib. vii, p. 894, (or 761.)
t See Strom., lib. vii, pp. 864, 865, (or 731, 732.)
X Id. Strom., lib. v, p. 646, (or 547.)
15*

346 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
if what we say should appear to any of the vulgar
contrary to the Dominical Scriptures, they must know
that, from that source, they have their breath and life ;
and taking their origin from them, profess to give the
sense only, not the words.'*
" So, also, he intimates elsewhere, that the Gnostic
tradition delivered only things 'agreeable to the di
vinely-inspired oracles.'! And that ' the Gnostic knows
ancient things, and conjectures things to come, by the
Scriptures.':]: " Hence, he says, that ' they who have only tasted
the Scriptures are believers ; but they who have ad
vanced further are perfect indexes of the truth, namely,
the Gnostics, as, in things pertaining to this life, those
who understand any art possess something more than
the ignorant, and produce that which is superior to the
ideas of the vulgar.'^
" It is evident, therefore, that (as the learned prelate
already quoted has observed) ' the same Scriptures
were placed in the hands of Clement's Gnostic, and
of the common believer ; but he interpreted them on
different principles ; he affixed to them a higher and
more spiritual meaning. The same doctrines were pro
posed as the objects of his faith; but he exj)lained them
in a different manner ; he discovered in them hidden
meanings, which are not discernible by the vulgar
eye.' "lit
* Id. Strom., lib. vii, p. 829, (or 700.)
t lb., lib. vii, p. 896, (or 762.)
X lb., lib. vi, p. 786, (or 660.) See also lib. vi, p. 802, (or 676.)
§ lb., lib. vii, p. 891, (or 757.)
II Bp. of Lincoln's Account of Clem, of Alex., pp. 367,368.
IT Divine Rule, vol. ii, pp. 225-233.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 347
Origen was born in Alexandria A. D. 185, and, as
is generally supposed, died at Tyre A. D. 254. And
here again I shall present the evidence as collected
by Mr. Goode. He proceeds : —
" Our next witness shall be Origen. He says, ' To
me it seems good to cleave close, as to God and our
Lord Jesus Christ, so also to his aposties, and to take
my information from the divine Scriptures, according to
their own tradition.'*
" Again : ' These two things are the works of a
priest ; that he should either be learning from God, hy
reading and frequently meditating upon the divine Scrip
tures, or be teaching the people. But let him teach
those things which he himself shall have learnt from
God, not from his own heart, or from the human under
standing, but what the Holy Spirit teaches.'^
" ' We must take the Scriptures as witnesses [to
prove the truth of what we say.] For our doctrines
and interpretations, without such witness, are not to
be believed. 'J
" ' If the oracles of God are in the Law and Prophets,
and Gospels and Apostles, it behooves him, who is a
disciple of God, to reckon God his master for those
oracles.'^ " Speaking of our Saviour silencing the Sadducees
by a reference to Scripture, he says, ' As our Saviour
imposed silence on the Sadducees by the word of his
doctrine, and confidently refuted the false dogma which
* See Divine Rule, vol. il, p. 193.
t Origen. In Levit. hom. 6, § 6, tom. ii, p. 219, ed. Bened.
Paris. 1733. X In Jerem., hom. 1, § 7, tom. iii, p. 129.
^ In Jer., hom. 10, init. (sec. Hieron., hom. 8,) tom. iii, p. 182.

348 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
they esteemed to be the truth, so will the followers of
Christ also do by instances from the Scriptures, by
which, according to sound doctrine, it behooves every
voice of Pharaoh to be silent. . . . We ought to treat
of those things that are not written according to the
things that are written.'*
" Again : St. Paul, ' as is his custom, is desirous of
confirming what he had said from the Holy Scriptures ;
and at the same time affords an example to the teachers
of the church, that in what they preach to the people
they should bring forward, not their own imaginations,
but things that are supported by the divine testimonies.'!
Similarly to what he says elsewhere, that ' he is cir
cumcised and clean who always speaks the word of
God, and brings forward sound doctrine, supported by
evangelical and apostolical admonitions.':}:
" ' See,' he says, ' how close they are upon danger
who neglect to be versed in the divine Scriptures,
which alone ought to direct our judgment in such an
examination,' that is, as to who are true and who are
false ministers of Christ.^ A very remarkable testi
mony this as it respects other points in the present
controversy, besides that immediately before us. For
we here see that the Scriptures are considered by
Origen as the proper test of orthodoxy and the true
church. And hence we see what is meant by those
passages that are often triumphantly adduced in de
fence of pseudo-catholic views, such, for instance, as
* In Matt. Comment. Series § 1, (al. Tract 23,) tom. iii, p. 830.
t In Epist. ad Rom., lib. iii, § 2, tom. iv, p. 504.
X In Genes., hom. iii, § 5, tom. ii, p. 69.
¦ § In Epist. ad Rom., Ub. x, § 35, tom. iv, p. 684.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 349
the following : ' It is a capital sin,' says Origen, ' to
think otherwise of the divine doctrines than the faith
of the church contains.'* No doubt it is-; but it is not
here intended that the dictum of any certain body of
men should be laid down as the ground upon which
our faith is to rest. It is true in the mouth of all par
ties, that he who in fundamental points does not hold
the faith of the true church of Christ is in fundamental
error. But before we can make the creed of the
church the ground of our faith, we must determine
infallibly who constitute that church ; and one of the
necessary evidences by which we must discern that
church is its holding the orthodox faith, which, there
fore, must be determined before we can discover that
church. And when we consider these words in con
nection with him who uttered them, we shall see most
forcibly how little practical meaning they have. For
what sort of exposition would Origen have given of the
doctrines of the church ? An exposition unsound even
in the highest points, and full (as Jerome will tell us!)
of his own vagaries.
" Further, Holy Scripture is with him the complete
rule of faith. For, commenting on Lev. ¦vii, 17, 18, on
the words that the sacrifice was to be eaten within two
days, and that if any remained to the third day it was
to be burnt, he says, ' By these two days I think that
the two Testaments may be understood, in which every
word which belongs to God (for this is the sacrifice)
may be sought and discovered, and a knowledge of all
things obtained from them. But if anything shall re-
* In Levit., hom. viii, § 11, tom. ii, p. 235.
t See Divine Rule, vol. i, p. 171, note, and p. 174.

350 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
main which the divine Scripture does not determine, no
other third scripture must be taken as an authority for
our information, because this is called the third day,
but we must put into the fire what remains, that is, we
miist leave it with God. For God does not intend that
in the present life we should knov.r all things  Lest,
therefore, our sacrifice should not be accepted, and
this very thing, namely, that we desire to inform our
selves from the divine Scriptures, become to us a cause
of sin, let us keep ourselves within those limits which
the spiritual law announces to us by the legislator.'*
Absurdly fanciful as this interpretation is, it shows
most forcibly Origen's views upon the point now in
question. " Again : ' Therefore, in proof of all the words we
utter when teaching, we ought to produce the doctrine
of Scripture as confirming the doctrine we utter. For
as all the gold that is without the temple is not sancti
fied, so every doctrine that is not in the divine Scrip
ture, although it may seem admirable to some, is not
sacred, because it is not contained by the doctrine of
Scripture, which sanctifies that doctrine alone which
it contains within itself, as the temple [renders sacred]
the gold that is in it. We ought not, therefore, for the
confirmation of our instructions, to swear by and take
as evidence our own notions, which we individually
hold, and think to be agreeable to truth, unless we are
able to show that they are sacred, as being contained
in the divine Scriptures as in some temples of God.'!
" And hence, when discussing the question concern-
* In Levit., hom. v, § 9, tom. ii, p. 212.
t In Matt. Com. Series, § 18, (al. Tract. 23,) tom. iii, p. 842.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 351
ing the guardian angels of children, when they were
appointed to them, at their birth or baptism, he says,
(if the ancient Latin version maybe trusted,) ' You see
that he who would discuss both of them with caution,
it is his duty to show which of them is true, and to
adduce in proof Scripture testimony agreeing with one
of the two.' "*!
Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, was converted to
Christianity A. D. 246, and suffered martyrdom A. D.
258. In his epistle to Quirinus, introductory to his
" three testimonies against the Jews," he says, " This
will be sufficient to draw the outlines, and to form in
your mind the first principles of the doctrine of Christ.
You will daily get more ground and strength in it, and
the eyes of your understanding will be more and more
enlightened as you get a fuller acquaintance with the
books of the Old and New Testaments, and take along
with you the whole thread of the inspired writings.
At present I have only sent you a taste of them drawn
from the fountain-head ; you may take for yourself a
larger draught, and entirely quench your thirst in the
waters of life, if you will in your own person resort to
them, and apply them to their proper use."f
But in his celebrated dispute with Stephen, bishop
of Rome, on the baptism of heretics, he is perfectly
explicit. The first section of his letter to Pompeius is
as follows : —
" Although, ray dear brother, I have comprised the
* In Matt., tom. xiii, § 27, sec. vet. interpret., tom. iii, p. 607.
t Divine Rule, vol. ii, pp. 233-237.
X See Cypriani Opera, Venetiis, 1758, p. 628. Also Marshall's
translation of the Wprks of St. Cyprian, part i, p. 19.

352 NOT tradition, but scripture,
substance of what may be said upon the case of bap
tizing heretics, in those several letters, of which I have
sent you copies ; yet, inasmuch as you desire to be
made acquainted with what our brother Stephen hath
returned in answer to my letters upon that subject, I
have herewith sent you a copy of such his answer ;
in reading which you will more and more observe his
error, who labours to maintain the cause of heretics
against Christians and the church of God. For among
other things written by him, unwarily and unskilfully,
with great pride, impertinence, and self-contradiction,
he hath proceeded so far as to dictate thus : ' If any
come over to us from any heresy whatsoever, let no
innovations be made in the custom handed down to us
from tradition ; and therefore let such persons be re
ceived by imposition of hands, in order to their penance ;
forasmuch as they, who are properly heretics, baptize
not the persons who come over to them from any other
sect, but receive them by communion only.' In which
words he hath forbidden those to be baptized who come
over from ' any heresy whatsoever ;' that is, indeed,
he hath pr9nounced the baptisms of all heretics to be
legal and valid. And whereas each particular heresy
hath a distinct baptism, and holds its distinct errors ;
he, by communicating with each upon the foot of such
baptism, amasseth their whole heap of errors, and
sheltereth them within his own bosom. He hath been
pleased, moreover, to issue out his further orders;
forbidding any ' innovations to be made in the custom
handed down to us from tradition ;' as if he could be
censured for making any such innovations who is for
maintaining the unity of the church, and for insisting

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 353
on her title to baptism exclusive of other pretensions ;
and not rather he, who, overlooking all regards of
unity, declares himself in favour of injurious usurpa
tions, and of false and pretended baptisms. ' Let no
innovations,' saith he, ' be made in the custom handed
down to us from tradition.' But from whence, I would
ask, have we this tradition ? Do we derive it from the
immediate authority of our Lord himself ia.the gospel ?
Or cometh it down to us from the directions of the
apostles in any of their Epistles ? For God hath most
plainly given us to understand, that his written will is
to be followed, where we find him thus directing Joshua,
and saying, ' This book of the law shall not depart out
of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and
night, that -thou mayest observe to do all which is
written therein,' Josh, i, 8. Our Lord also, when he
sent forth his apostles, ordered, that the ' Gentiles
should be baptized, and taught to observe all things
which he had commanded them,' Matt, xx, 28. If,
then, there be anywhere extant, either in the Gospel
itself, or in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles, an
express direction, that heretics should not be baptized,
but only receive imposition of hands, in order to their
penance, let such a holy and heavenly tradition be,
by all means, observed. But now, on the other hand,
if heretics have everywhere in Scripture the character
of enemies and antichrists ; if they are to be avoided
as persons ' subverted and self-condemned,' Tit. iii, 1 1 ;
how is it, that we must not condemn them, when, as
the apostle hath borne witness, they are condemned
by themselves ? So that no one should presume to
defame the aposties, as if they approved the baptisms

354 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
of heretics, or admitted them to communion without
baptizing them ; when yet there are extant such severe
censures of the apostles upon heretics ; and these re
corded at a time when the ranker sorts of heresy had
not yet broke out upon the church ; when Marcion had
not yet appeared from Pontus, whose master. Cordon,
came to Rome in the pontificate of Pope Hyginus, the
ninth bishop of that see ; whom Marcion so followed,
as to improve upon his master's errors, and to blas
pheme with more daring impudence than others against
God, the Father and Creator ; and to point his auda
cious heresy, wherewith he rebelled against the church,
with a keener malice, as well as to arm it with a new
set of offensive weapons. Now if it be apparent, that
more and worse heresies started up in after-times, and
if it was never in times before commanded, or written,
that hands should only be laid upon heretics, in order to
their penance, and so they should be admitted to com
munion ; if, further, there be but one baptism, and that
with us, in the pale of the church, and granted by the
favour of God to her only ; what obstinate and hardy
presumption must it be, to prefer the tradition of men
before the appointment of God ; nor at the same time
to consider, that God is always angry, whenever
human tradition overlooks, or weakens, the authority
of the divine commands ? Thus he hath complained
by his prophet, saying, ' This people honoureth me
with their lips, but their heart is far removed from me :
but in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines
the commandments of men,' Isa. xxix, 13. And our
Lord hath accordingly censured this practice in his
gospel, where he saith, ' Ye reject the commandment

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 355
of God, that ye may keep your own tradition,' Mark
vii, 13. Which observation and censure the blessed
apostle St. Paul bearing in mind, hath added this fur
ther comment thereupon, and thus instructed us, say
ing, ' If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to
the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
to his doctrine ; his pride hath stupified him, and he
knoweth nothing; from such we must withdraw,'
1 Tim. vi, 3-5."*
Again, the learned father says, " They, who simply
and honestly mean the truth, and would rid them
selves of error, have a short and easy way to both
these ends. For if we will apply ourselves to the
fountain-head of divine tradition, all human errors will
presently disappear ; and when we thence discern the
method and economy of God's holy sacraments, all
clouds and darkness will vanish, and the light of truth
will break out from under them. Should a pipe,
through which water was used to be carried in great
abundance, be stopped on a sudden, would you not go
to the spring which furnished it, and there look out for
the reason of the failure ? Whether the veins of water
which supplied the fountain were dried up ; or whether
the streams flowed thence in their accustomed plenty,
and were stopped in the middle of their passage ; so
that if the hinderance of the waters flowing proceeded
from any stoppage or leakage in the pipe, it might be
forthwith repaired, and the water might pass on in
the same quantity wherein it came originally from its
spring-head, for the several uses of the place it was
designed for ? Thus should the bishops of God behave
* Opera, pp. 329-333. Marsh, trans., part ii, pp. 244-246.

356 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
upon the present occasion, if we would keep his com
mandments ; that is, in any case where the truth is
shocked or disputed, we should resort to our fountain-
head, to the gospel of our Lord, and the tradition of
his apostles ; and thence our conduct should take its
rise, from whence our religion and all its ordinances
took theirs."*
FiRMiLiAN was a pupil of Origen, and bishop of
Cesarea, in Cappadocia. In a letter to Cyprian he
fiercely assails Pope Stephen's traditionary argument.
Thus he proceeds : —
" As to what Stephen hath asserted, concerning the
apostle's forbidding persons to be baptized who come
over from heresy, and their handing down this rule to
posterity, you have given a full and sufficient answer,
that no one surely can be so weak as to believe the
apostles made any such rule, inasmuch as these exe
crable heresies have taken rise since their times. For
Marcion is known to have been the disciple of Cor
don, and to have introduced his blasphemous opinions
against God, long after the age of the apostles ; and so
is Apelles, who grafted upon his blasphemy some fur
ther articles, more repugnant to truth, and more inju
rious to our faith. Valentinus and Basilides are also
known to have vented their pernicious errors against
the .church long after the apostolic times; and so,
indeed, are the rest of the heretical tribe ; all which
are manifestly self-condemned, and have pronounced
against themselves an irreversible sentence even be
fore the day of judgment : he, therefore, who is for
confirming their baptism judgeth, in effect, his own
» Opera, pp. 338, 339. Marsh, trans., part ii, pp. 249, 250.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 357
case the same with theirs, and accordingly condemns
himself by becoming a partaker with them.
" But now, that the Romanists are no exact observers
of tradition, and have very littie title to urge the autho
rity of the apostles, a man may easily guess, who shall
attend to their different manner of keeping Easter, with
diverse other variations from the customs retained by
the church of Jerusalem. As, indeed, among several
other provinces there is a like diversity, but without
any breach, upon such accounts, of the peace and unity
of the catholic church. This breach of peace hath
Stephen adventured to make with you, which his pre
decessors all along maintained, in all fit expressions
of love and honour to you ; he hath, moreover, cast a
reflection upon the memory of the blessed apostles
Peter and Paul ; as if he had derived his practice from
a tradition delivered by them, who in their epistles
have severally pronounced their censures upon here
tics, and admonished us to avoid them. From whence
it is apparent, that this pretended tradition is merely
human, which avoweth the cause of heretics, and in-
sisteth, that they have true baptism among them, which
indeed belongeth to none, but to the church only."*
Athanasius was constituted bishop of Alexandria
A. D. 326, and died A. D. 373.
I have, in a preceding section of this work, noticed
that traditionists claim the Nicene Creed as a speci
men of primitive tradition : — that they maintain its
language to have come from the apostles, and not to
have been founded upon the Scriptures. In opposition
* See Cypriani OpMa, pp. 343, 344. Marsh, trans., part ii,
pp. 253, 254.

358 NOT tradition, but scripture,
to this theory we have a passage from Athanasius, and
none is better qualified to give us a commentary upon
the Nicene Creed, which explicitly asserts that the
language of that creed is founded upon the Scriptures,,
and is expressive of its sense : so far is this great de
fender of this creed from giving it an origin independent
of the Scriptures.*
The Arians objected that the terms of the creed
were not taken from the Bible. To this the great
orthodox doctor replies, " But I well know that if they
hold the sense of the council, they will fully accept the
terms in which it is conveyed ; whereas, if it be the
sense which they wish to complain of, all must see
that it is idle in them to discuss the wording, when
they are but seeking handles for irreligipn.
" This, theai, was the reason of these expressions ;
but if they still complain that such are not Scriptural,
that very complaint is a reason why they should be
cast out, as talking idly and disordered in mind ; and
next why they should blame themselves in this matter,
for they set the example, beginning their war against
God with words not in Scripture. However, if a per
son is interested in the question, let him know, that,
even if the expressions are not in so many words in the
Scriptures, yet, as was said before, they contain the
* Archdeacon Manning asserts, and labours to prove, " that-
the oral preaching of the apostles, and not the Scriptures, was
the original source of the creed." That under the term creed
he embraces the Nicene formulary, may be seen in his summing
up, where he says, " It cannot be doubted that the Nicene and
the Apostles' Creeds are the oflfspring and representatives of the
oral preaching of the apostles." — See Rule of Faith, Appendix,
pp. 37, 75.

THE RULE OP FAITH AND PRACTICE. 359
sense of Scripture, and expressing it, they convey it to
those who have their hearing unimpaired for religious
doctrine. Now this circumstance it is for thee to con
sider, and for those ill-instructgd men to learn. It has
been shown above, and must be believed as true, that
the word is from the Father, and the only offspring
proper to him and natural. For wherein may one
conceive the Son to be, but from God himself? How
ever, the Scriptures also teach us this, since the Father
says by David," &c.*
Now we ask Archdeacon Manning why Athanasius
does not vindicate the language of the • creed upon
the ground of its apostolical origin, independent of the
Scriptures ? How much more direct and conclusive
would it have been for him to urge, that the formulary
in question came from the apostles — was communi
cated orally as a divinely-authorized commentary upon
the Scriptures — and consequently was in its language,
as well as its sense, of divine authority ? This, upon
the traditionary system, would have been the legitimate
course of argumentation, and would have been entirely
conclusive. The question whether this language was
indeed expressive of " the sense of Scripture" would
then have been fully settie^ by an infallible interpreter.
But Athanasius evidently considers this point as still
open. for discussion, and proceeds without seeming to
know that it had been settled by apostolical tradi
tions. Again this father says : " And if so be the same
terms are used of God and man in divine Scripture,
* Defence of the Nicene Definition, chap, iii, sec. 6, 7. See
Library of Caitholic Fathers, vol. viii, pp. 36, 37.

360 Not tradition, but scripture,
yet the clear-sighted, as Paul enjoins, will study it,
and thereby discriminate, and dispose of what is writ
ten according to the nature of each subject, and avoid
any confusion of sense, so as neither to conceive of
the things of God in a human way, nor to ascribe the
things of man to God."*
Here observe, for the difficulty involved in the
" terms'' of " divine Scripture'' we have not the Catho
lic remedy — the traditionary sense — ^but the " study"
of the Scriptures themselves, that we may " dispose of
what is written according to the nature of each subject"
and not according to the traditionary interpretation.
Again this father says : " For, behold, we take divine
Scripture, and therein discourse with freedom of the
religious faith, and set it up, as a light upon its candle
stick."! I give but one more quotation from Athanasius, and
this is entirely decisive of his views of the sufficiency
of Scripture. He says, " Let not any one any longer
ask such questions, but learn only what is in the Scrip
tures ; for the illustrations we have of this matter in
them are sufficient of themselves, and need no addi
tion. "J
Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, finished his course
A. D. 386.
The testimony of this father is very clearly in our
favour. He says, " This seal have thou ever on thy
* Nic. Def., chap, iii, sec. 8. t Ibid., sec. 2.
X Ep. i. ad Scrap., sec. 19. This last quotation I take from
Mr. Goode, who gives us a multitude more of the same class,
which the reader will do well to consylt. See Divine Rule,
vol. ii, pp. 270-276.

the rule of FAItM ANb FftACTlCE. S61
snlnd ; which now by way • of summary has been
touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall
hereafter be set forth according to our power, with
Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and
sacred mysteries of the faith, we ought not to deliver
even the most casual remark without the Holy Scrip'-
tures : nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and
the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me
because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive
from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set
forth : for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not
by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy
Scriptures."* Again he says, " But take thou and hold that faith
only as a learner and in profession, which is by the
church delivered to thee, and is established from all
Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture,
but some as being unlearned, others by business, are
hindered from the knowledge of them ; in order that
the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the
articles, which are few, we comprehend the whole
doctrine of the faith. . . . For the articles of the faith
were not composed at the good pleasure of men : but
the most important points chosen from all Scripture,
make up the one teaching of the faith."!
And again : " And first we have to inquire, where
fore Jesus came down ? Now heed not any ingenious
views of mine ; else thou mayest be misled ; but un
less thou receive the witness of the prophets concern
ing each matter, believe not what is spoken ; unless
* Catechetical Lectures, lect. iv, sec. 17.
t Ibid., lect. v, sec. 12.
16

362 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
thou learn from Holy Scripture concerning the Virgin,
and the place, and the time, and the manner, receive
not witness from man."*
Upon these passages comment is unnecessary. He
does not allow " the most casual remark" to be put
forth ".concerning the divine mysteries of the faith—
without the Holy Scriptures ;" and refuses his pupils
the liberty of receiving his own " ingenious views," or
any " witness from man," unless they " learn" the same
"from Holy Scripture."
Macarius the Egyptian was born A, D. 301, and
died A. D. 391.
This ancient monk was a member of the Council
of Nice, and among other writings attributed to him
are fifty homilies upon experimental and practical
religion. In these discourses he makes the Sicriptures
his great and almost only text-book. He always ex
plains and applies them independently of any tradi
tionary sense. And though his expositions are often
fanciful enough, and might be used with good effect in
showing the vanity of giving the sense of Scripture, as
presented by the ancient fathers, any authority, yet they
furnish the clearest e-vidence that, in his opinion, the
Scriptures were to be consulted by all, and that, in
arriving at their sense, men were not to take the
authority of tradition, but to judge for themselves, as
they would of the sense of any other writing.
" These proofs,'' says he, " have we brought out of
the Scriptures, in order to make it plain beyond dis
pute, that the energy of the grace of God in man, and
the gift of the Holy Spirit, which the faithful soul is
* Catechetical Lectures, lect. xii, sec. 5.

the RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 363
thought worthy to receive, is attended with great con
flict, much patience, and long-suffering, and tempta
tions, and trials ; the genuine inclinations of the will
being tried by all manner of affiictions."* Here ob
serve, he makes his point "plain beyond dispute''
simply from the Scriptures.
Again he says : " As from the works which are
manifest, we perceive the designs which were con
cealed : so from what passes in the soul may we un
derstand the relations of Scripture."! Here he^teaches
that we may " discover the relations of Scripture from
what passes in the soul." It is not material to my
argument to ascertain precisely what the father means
by " what passes in the soul," whether it be divine
illumination or the mere exercise of our rational facul
ties, as in either case, or whatever else he may mean,
he certainly looks at something which is within the
reach of all, and cannot mean oral tradition.
And again : " But we men endeavour to proclaim
some part of his works, supported by Scripture ; but
rather instructed by it. For ' who,' saith he, ' hath
known the mind of the Lord ?' "% .
Our Catholics say,, " tradition instructs," but the
father says, we are " instructed" into " the mind of the
Lord" by " Scripture."
Finally, the father has a short homily upon the
mode of deriving advantage from the Scriptures, which
I will give entire. " As a king," says he, " that has
written letters to them, upon whom he has a mind to
bestow codicils and special gifts, signifies to them all,
' Ye must make haste to come to me, that ye may re-
* Homily ix. t Homily xxxvii. t Ibid.

364 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
ceive from me royal gifts ;' and if they will not go and
receive them, they shall be nothing the better for having
read the letters, but rather are worthy of death for not
having the will to go, and accept of the honour from
the king's own hand : in like manner also has God the
King sent his divine writing, as his letters, signifying
by them, that with calling upon God, and believing in
him, they should ask and receive the heavenly gift
from the substance of his Godhead. For it is writ
ten, ' That we may be partakers of the di-vine nature,'
2 Pet. i, 4. But if man will not come to Him, and ask,
and receive, he will be nothing the better for having
read the Scriptures ; but rather will be in danger of
death, because he. would not receive the gift of life
from the heavenly King, without which it is impossible
to obtain the life immortal, which is Christ himself.
To whom be glory for ever ! Amen."*
Here God is represented, in " his divine writings,"
as " signifying by them" our duty to him. And those
who do not through this medium " receive the gift of
life from the heavenly King," " will be in danger of
death." What sense is there in Che argument of this
homily on any other principle than that men may
read and understand the Scriptures for themselves,
and that they are justly held criminal for not doing
so ? Where is there anything about " the traditionary
sense ?"
Basil, bishop of Cesarea, in Cappadocia, was born
A. D. 328, and died A. D. 379.
Though, in a corrupted portion of this father's
work on the Holy Spirit, several passages _are found
? Homily xxxix.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 365
which give divine authority to tradition,* where he is
permitted to speak for himself he is a clear witness to
the truth for which I contend. I copy from the learned
Bishop Taylor the following decisive passages, with
his remarks : —
" St. Basil, in his Ethics definit. 26, Aet nav f)ri[ia
il npdyfia ntaroiJadat tj naprvpi^ r^f ¦&EOTTVEvaTOV
ypcup^g, elg irXripo^opiav fj,sv twv dya^Syv, &VTp07:Tjv
6t Tuv irovTjpibv — ' Whatsoever is done or said ought
to be confirmed by the testimony of the divinely-in
spired Scripture ; both for the full persuasion of the
good, as also for the condemnation of the evil :' ndv
prjfia i] irpdyfia, that is, everything that belongs to
faith and manners, not every indifferent thing, but
everything of duty; not everything of a man, but
everything of a Christian ; not things of natural life,
but of the supernatural. Which sense of his words
clearly excludes the necessity of tradition, and yet in
tends not to exclude either liberty, or human laws, or
the conduct of prudence."!
Again : " St. Basil, to the question, Whether new
converts are to be accustomed to the Scriptures ?
answers, ' It is fit that every one should out of the
Holy Scriptures learn what is for his use ; yea, it is
necessary, elg re rtXripoipoplav Trjg ¦deoasfielag, Kat
inep Tov fii] npoaedeaflrjvat dvdpumvaig irapadoaeaiv,
both for the full certainty of godliness, and also that
they may not be accustomed to human traditions.'
* The latter half of this work, according to Erasmus, is an
evident forgery. See his Dedication to his Latin translation.
Opera D. Basilii Magni. Basileae, 1565.
f Cases of Conscience, book ii, chap. 3,

366 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
Where it is observable, he calls all human traditions
which are not in Scripture ; for if there were any
divine traditions which are not in Scripture, he ought
to have advised the learning of them besides Scripture,
for the avoiding of traditions which are not divine : but
the Scripture being sufficient for all, whatsoever is be
sides it is human, and to be rejected. I sum up this
particular with an excellent discourse of the same saint
to the same purpose. He asks a question, ' Whether
it be lawful or profitable to any one to permit himself
to do or to sp^ak what himself thinks right, without
the testimony of the Holy Scriptures?' He answers,
(after the quotation of many places of Scripture,)
' Who therefore is so mad, that of himself he dare so
much as in thought to conceive anything, seeing he
wants the Holy and good Spirit for his guide, that he
may be directed both in lUind, in word, and in action,
into the way of truth, or that he would remain blind,
without our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Sun of
righteousness, &c. ? But because of those things which
are disputed among us, some are determined by the
commandment of God in Holy Scripture, others are
passed over in silence ; as for those things which are
written, there is absolutely no power at all given to
any one, either to do any of those things which are
forbidden, or to omit any -of those things which are
commanded : since our Lord hath at once denounced
and said. Thou shalt keep the word which I command
thee this day ; thou shalt not add to it, nor take from it.
For a fearful judgment is expected, and a burning &ce
to devour them who dare any such thing. But as for
those things which are passed over in silence, the

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 367
apostle Paul hath appointed us a rule, saying. All
things are lawful to me, but all things are not expe
dient ; all things are lawful, but all things do not edify:
let no man seek to please himself, but every one an
other's good. So that it is altogether necessary to be
subject to God, according to his commandment.' The
sum is this : Nothing is matter of duty either in word
or deed, in faith or manners, but what is written in the
Scriptures : whatsoever is not written there, it is left
to our liberty, and we are to use it as all indifferent
things are to be used, that is, with liberty and with
charity. Now, if concerning such things as these
there be any traditions, it matters not; they are no
part of our religion, but to be received like laws of
man, or customs, of which account is to be given in
the proper place."*
Ambrose, bishop of Milan, was born about A. D.
340, and died A. D. 396.
I will give from this father two short, but expli
cit passages. He says, " But I do not wish you, O
sacred emperor, to trust in my argument and disputa
tion : let us examine the Scriptures, let us interrogate
the apostles, let us interrogate the prophets, let us
interrogate Christ."! " I do not wish you to trust to
me — let the Scripture be recited.''^
Jerome, or Hieronymus, was born A. D. 331, and
died A. D. 423.§
* Cases of Conscience, book ii, chap. 3. ,
t De Fide, lib. i, c, 6. ' X In De Incarn. Dom. Sacrem, c. 3.
§ Gorton. Du Pin's account varies somewhat from this. Ac
cording to him, Jerome " came into the world about the 345th
year of Jeaus Christ — and died very old, in the year of Christ 420."

368 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
. Among the many testimonies which might be col
lected from the works of this father, I present the
following : —
" The error, neither of parents nor ancestors, is to
be followed ; but the authority of the Scriptures, and
the government of God as our teacher."*
Again : " They therefore err, because they know
not the Scriptures ; and because they are ignorant of
the Scriptures, they consequently know not the power
of God, that is, Christ who is the power of God, and
the wisdom of God."!
And again : " Some think that Zacharias, the father
of John, is to be understood ; proving it from some
dreams of apocryphal ¦writers, that he was put to death,
because he preached the advent of the Saviour. But
this, as it has no authority from the Scriptures, is as
easily despised as proved.":|:
And yet again : " The princes of the people, that
is, the apostles and evangelists, of those who were in
her, [that is, Zion,] observe what he says : those who
were, not those who are, that excepting the apostles,
whatsoever should be spoken afterwards might be cut
off, it has no longer any authority. Although, there
fore, there may be some saint or wise man, [that is,
after the apostles,] he has no authority, since our Lord
speaks through the Scriptures of the people, and of
those princes who were in her."^
Augustine, or Austin, was born A. D, 354, and
died A. D, 430.
* Hieron. In Jerem., c. 9, vv. 12-14.
t Id. In Matt., c. 22, v. 29. " X lb., c. 23, vv. 35, 36.
§ Comment, in Psalm. 86,

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 369
The following are a few of many clear testimonies
which I might bring forward from this author : —
" But who does not know that the holy canonical
Scripture of the Old as well as of the New Testament
is restrained within its own proper bounds, and that it
is so preferred to all succeeding writings of bishops,
that we cannot possibly doubt or hesitate as to any
thing that shall appear to be written in it, whether it
is true or right : but it is allowable that the writings
which were written after the canon was confirmed, or
are being written, should be reproved both by the
voice of any one of the wiser who is more skilled in
the matter, and by the more weighty authority and
learned wisdom of other bishops, and by councils,
wherever there is a deviation from truth; and that
those councils which are created by single districts
or provinces yield without any doubt to the authority
of plenary councils which are formed from the whole
Christian world, and that those plenary councils are
often corrected, the former by the latter, when expe
rience discovers what was hid, and brings to light that
which was concealed, without any exhibition of sacri
legious pride, without any haughty neck of arrogance,
without any contention of dark envy, with holy humi
lity, with catholic peace, with Christian charity."*
Again he says, " But what shall I say concerning
those interpreters of the divine Scriptures who flou
rished in the catholic church, and who have not en
deavoured to turn them to another sense, because they
were fixed in the most ancient and sound faith, and
were moved by no new error : whom if I should wish
* De Bapt. contra Donat., lib. ii, c. 3.
16*

370 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE, "'
to collate and use as testimony, perhaps I should be
too tedious, or appear to rely less than I ought upon
the canonical authorities from which we ought not to
be diverted?"*
And again. After speaking of the infalhbility of the
sacred writers, he turns to those which are uninspired,
and says, " But others I so read, that however much
they may excel in hohness and learning, I do not there
fore think anything true because they so thought, but
because they have been enabled to persuade me by
those canonical authors, or by some good reason, that
it was not repugnant to the truth."!
And yet again : " But now, neither ought I as pre
judging to bring forward the Council of Nice, nor you
that of Ariminum. Nor should I be held by the authori
ty of one, nor you of the other. Let the points, and
causes, and rea«ons, contend with each other on the
authority of the Scriptures, which are not the exclusive
tests of either, but the common tests of each."J
Upon this passage Bishop Taylor says : —
" By which words, if St. Austin's affirmative can
prevail, it- is certain that nothing ought to be pretended
for argument but Scripture in matters of religion. For
if a general council, which is the best witness of tra
dition, the best expounder of Scripture, the best deter
miner of a question, is not a competent measure of
determination, then certainly nothing else can pretend
to it, nothing but Scripture. And if it be replied-, that
this is only affirmed by him in case that two councils
are or seem contrary ; I answer, that if councils can
* De Nupt. et Concup., lib. ii, c. 29. + Epist. ad Hieron. 82.
X Contra Maximin. Arian., lib. ii, cap. 14.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 371
be or seem contrary, so that wise and good men cannot
competently insist upon their testimony, it is certain a
man may be deceived, or cannot justly be determined
by any topic but the words and consequences of Scrip
ture ; and if this be the only probation, then it is suffi
cient, that's certain. But that will be a distinct con
sideration. In the mean time, that which I intend to
persuade by these testimonies is, that the fathers of
the primitive church did in all their mysterious inqui
ries of religion, in all matters of faith and manners,
admit no argument but what was derived from Scrip
ture."* Chrysostom, John, was born A. D. 347, and died
A. D. 407.
In his commentary upon 3 Tim. iii, 14-16, this
learned father is very explicit in relation to the suffi
ciency of the Holy Scriptures. He says, " Which are
able to make thee wise unto salvation. For the Scrip
tures suggest to us what is to be done, and what is
not to be dpne. For hear this blessed one elsewhere
saying, ' Thou art confident that thou thyself art a guide
of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an
instructer of the foolish, a teacher of babes,' Rom. ii,
19, 30. Thou seest that the Law is the light of them
which are in darkness ; and if that which showeth the
letter, the letter which killeth, is light, what then is
the Spirit which quickeneth ? If the Old Covenant is
light, what is the New, which contains so many, and
so great revelations ? where the difference is as great,
as if any one should open heaven to those who only
know the earth, and make all things there visible."
* Rule of Conscience, book ii, chap. 3.

373 NOT tradition, but SCRIPTURE,
Again : " For I am now ready to be offered up, he
says. For this reason he writes, 'All Scripture is
given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doc
trine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness.' All what Scripture ? all that sacred
'writing, he means, of which I was speaking. This is
said of what he was discoursing of; about which he
said, ' From a child thou hast known the Holy Scrip
tures.' All such, then, ' is given by inspiration of
God ;' therefore, he means, do not doubt ; and it is
' profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness : that the man of God may
be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.'
" For doctrine. For thence we shall know, whether
we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And
thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may
be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be com
forted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we
may have it added to us.
" That the man of God may be perfect. For this is
the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man
of God may be rendered perfect by it ; without this,
therefore, he cannot be perfect. Thou hast the Scrip
tures, he says, in place of me. If thou wouldest learn
anything, thou mayest learn it from. them. And if he
thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit,
how much more to us !
" Throughly furnished unto all good works ; not
merely taking part in them, he means, but throughly
furnished."* * See Homilies on Timothy and Titus, (Library of the Fathers,)
pp. 245, 246, and p. 250.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 373
Can language be more explicit for the fulness of
Holy Scripture ? Here we are taught " what we ought
to learn or be ignorant of: — thence we may disprove
what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought
to a right mind, may be consoled, and if anything is
deficient, may have it added to us." What room here
for the traditionary system ?
But we have a notice of a rule of interpretation,
adopted by this father, equally against the scheme I
here oppose. Upon Gal. i, 17, " Neither went I up
to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me,"
he observes, " These words, weighed by themselves,
seem to breathe an arrogant spirit, and to be foreign
to the apostoUc temper. For to give one's suffrage
for one's self, and to admit no man to share one's
counsel, is a sign of foUy  This then let us do ;
for it is not the right course to weigh the mere
words, nor examine the language by itself, as many
errors will be the consequence, but to attend to the
intention of the writer. And unless we pursue this
method in our own discourses, and examine into the
mind of the speaker, we shall make many enemies,
and everything will be thrown into disorder. Nor is
this confined to words, but the same result will foUow,
if this rule is not observed in actions."*
He then proceeds to construe the language of the
apostle upon the principle laid down. He brings for
ward no tradition, which, had there been any, would
have been most convenient for the occasion ; but he
arrives at his results, aided solely by the sacred story
* Homily on Galatians and Ephesians, (Library of the Fa
thers,) p. 22.

374 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
and his own reasoning powers — comparing Scripture
with Scripture.
Bishops Jewel and Taylor quote another very deci
sive passage from Chrysostom, which I will here in
sert -from the former, together with his preliminary
note : — " And as the word of God is the light to direct
us, and to bewray errors ; so is it also the standard
and beam to try the weights of truth and falsehood.
Chrysostom, ¦writing upon the four-and-twentieth of
St. Matthew, showeth it were impossible for a man to
stay himself, and find out which is the true church,
but by the word of God : ' For it could not be tried by
working of miracles, because the gift of working mi
racles is taken away : and such false miracles as carry
some show, are rather to be found among false Chris
tians : nor yet by their conversation and life, because
Christians live either as ill, or worse than heretics.
Nulla probatio potest esse verse Christianitatis, neque
refugium potest esse Christianorum aliud, volentium
cognoscere fidei veritatem, nisi tantummodd per Scrip-
turas : — There can be no trial of true Christianity;
and Christians, which desire to know the truth, where
upon they may build their faith, have no other refuge,
but to try and learn this by the Scriptures. For
(saith he) heretics have the counterfeit and likeness
of those things which are proper to Christ. They
have churches, they have the Scriptures of God, they
have baptism, they have the Lord's supper, and all
other things like the true church : yea, they have
Christ himself. He, therefore, that will know which
is the true church of Christ, how may he know it, but
by the Scriptures ? Therefore our Lord, knowing that

THE RULE ^F FAITH AND PRACTICE. 375
there should be such confusion of things in the latter
days, commandeth, that Christians which live in the
profession of Christian faith, and are desirous to settle
themselves upon a sure ground of faith, should go to
no other thing but to the Scriptures. Otherwise, if
they had regard to other things, they should be offend
ed and perish, and not understand which is the true
church.' "*
Again this author quotes Chrysostom, as follows : —
" Therefore hath the grace of the Holy Spirit disposed
and tempered them so, that publicans, and fishers, and
tent-makers, shepherds, and the apostles, and simple
men, and unlearned, might be saved by these books :
that none of the simpler sort might make excuse by
the hardness of them : and that such things as are
spoken might be easy for all men to look on : that the
labouring man, and the servant, the widow woman,
and whosoever is most unlearned, may take some good
when they are read. For they whom God ever from
the beginning endued with the grace of his Spirit,
have not gathered all these things for vain-glory, as
the heathen writers use, but for the salvation of the
hearers."! Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, a town in Syria, was
bom A. D. 386, and died A. D. 457 or 458.
This' writer is exceedingly clear in his testimony in
favour both of the perspicuity of Scripture, and of its
being the only infallible guide in matters of faith : —
" But we are taught by these not to quench the
Spirit, but to kindle up the grace which we have re
ceived, and to bring in nothing not belonging to the
* Treatise of the Holy Scriptures, p. 34. + Ibid., p. 44.

376 NOT tradition, but SCRIPTURE,
Holy Scripture, but to rest satisfied with the teaching
of the Spirit, and to hate those heresies, some of which
have placed fables above the divine word, and others
preferred their own impious maxims to the sentiments
of Scripture."*
Bishop Jewel gives us the following very clear testi
mony, from this father, upon the readiness with which
the necessary knowledge of the doctrines of Scripture is
gained by aU. descriptions of people. I give the bishop's
translation and remarks : — " And now to conclude what
the learned fathers, and ancient doctors, have said in
this matter. Theodoret saith, ' Passim videas haec nos-
tratia dogmata non ab iis solum teneri, qui sunt eccle-
sise magistri, populorumque praeceptores, sed ab ipsis
quoque sutoribus, fabrisque, ferrariis, lanificibus, &c. : —
Ye may commonly see, that our doctrine is kno'wn,
not only of them that are the doctors of the church,
and the masters of the people ; but also even of the
tailors, and smiths, and weavers, and of all artificers :
yea, and further also of women, and that not only of
them that be learned, but also of labouring women, and
sewsters, and servants, and handmaids : neither only
the citizens, but also the country folks do very well
understand the same. Ye may find, yea, even the
very ditchers, and delvers, and cow-herds, and garden
ers, disputing of the holy Trinity, and of the creation
of all things.' Thus we see there was a time, before
ignorance crept into the church, and got the upper
hand, when the word of God was not counted hard,
and dark, and doubtful : when children, and women,
and servants, and men of the country had the know-
* Qusest, in Levit., q. 9.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 377
ledge of God, and were able to reason of the works
of God. Then went it well with them : they could
not easily be deceived, because they had that word
which bewrayeth the thief: they carried with them,
like good exchangers, the weights, and touchstone,
and were able to try coins whether they were true or
false. Such were the people, such was the state of
God's church in those days."*
Upon this collection of testimonies I have two ob
servations to make : one is, that they are from our
opponents' own chosen witnesses._ jThey go to these
fathers for the proof of all their peculiar dogmas, and
rely upon them especially for the establishment of their
doctrine of tradition. One point which Archdeacon
Manning labours hard to prove is, that " the oral
preaching of the apostles is recognised by the early
Christian writers as a rule of faith, distinct in itself
from the apostolic Scriptures."^ In opposition to this
I have shown that these " writers'' recognise the Scrip
tures alone as the rule of faith ; and that the language
they employ excludes all human testimony and all oral
traditions from any participation in this rule:-^- 
MyJ '^econ^ observation is, '-'3iat whatever may be
found in the writings of the fathers which may seem
to indicate a respect for oral traditions — and though
the most explicit passages might be adduced from
these sources in favour of the traditionary theory,
what I have adduced will be amply sufficient to prove
that the universal consent of antiquity is fairly out of
the question. / 'While these passages, and a multitude-
« Treatise of the Holy Scrip., p. 46. t Rule of Faith, Ap., p. 51.

378 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
more of the same character, are to be found scattered
through the writings of the fathers, it is folly, ap
proaching madness itself, to pretend to sustain the
traditionary theory upon Vincent's rule. In an appeal
to t;he fathers we are not bound to prove that they are
always consistent with themselves. All that fairly
devolves upon us is to show that the testimony
derived from the writings of the fathers, upon the
ground which our opponents have chosen, entirely
fails to sustain them. As they profess not to build
their theory upon a single father, nor upon a single
testimony from each of the fathers, but upon what
was believed always, .everywhere, and at all times, —
if we show that such universal consent to the tradi
tionary system cannot be fairly plead, our point is
gained. But when it appears that the testimonies
produced by our opponents are wholly irrelevant, and
that we have a multitude of statements in the succes
sion of fathers, for more than four centuries after
Christ, wholly inconsistent with their theory, our argu
ment is completely triumphant, and we may confidently
conclude that the traditionary theory cannot fairly be
sustained by the testimony of the primitive church.
This conclusion any one may arrive at with the utmost
safety without any further investigation of the fathers
Jhan that which I have prosecuted in this work. And
I am fully persuaded, that whoever will examine th?"
evidence here presented pro and eon, will arrive at the
same conclusions to which. I have been conducted,
namely, that the holy fathers cannot be made to prove
the traditionary theory upon the principles of construction
which traditionists have themselves adopted.  „-

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 379
SECTION HI.
Romish Evidence against Tradition.
My object in this section shall be to show/that,
prior to the Council of Trent, there was no universal
consent, even in the Romish Church, in favour of the
doctrine of tradition, as now maintained by Romanists
and high-Churchmen.r This evidence I find collected
and condensed in an elaborate Tract in the Preserva
tive against Popery, in a way so well suited to my
purpose, that I shall copy it verbatim. And as the
work from which I copy, and the authorities referred
to, are now within the reach of very few who will
read these pages, I shall so far vary from my general
course as to give the originals in the margin. The
learned author proceeds : —
" Before I come to particulars, I shall lay down
some reasonable postulata.
" 1. That a catholic tradition must be universally
received among the sound members of the catholic
church. " 2. That the force of tradition lies in the certainty
of conveyance of matters of faith from the apostolical
times. For no new doctrines being pretended to, there
can be no matter of faith in any age of the church, but
what was so in the precedent, and so up to the apos
tles' times.
" 3. That it is impossible to suppose the divines of
the catholic church to be ignorant, what was in their
own time received for catholic tradition. For, if it be
so hard for others to mistake it, it will be much more

380 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
SO for those whose business is to inquire into, and to
deliver matters of faith.
" These things premised, I now enter upon the
points themselves ; and I begin with,
"I. Traditions being a rule of faith equal with
Scriptures. " This is declared by the Council of Trent as the
groundwork of their proceedings.
" The words are, sess. 4, ' That the council receives
traditions, both as to faith and manners, either deli
vered by Christ himself with his own mouth, or dic
tated by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the catholic
church by a continual succession, with equal piety of
affection and reverence, as the proofs of Holy Scrip
ture.'* " Where the council first supposes ' there are such
traditions from Christ and the Holy Ghost, distinct
from Scripture, which relate to faith ;' and then it de
clares ' equal respect and veneration due to them.' No
one questions but the word of Christ, and dictates of
the Holy Ghost, deserve equal respect, howsoever
conveyed to us ; but the point is, whether there was
a catholic tradition before this time for an unwritten
word, as a foundation of faith, together with the writ
ten word.
"1. It is therefore impertinent here to talk of a
' tradition before the written word ;' for our debate is
concerning both being joined together to make a per-
* " Necnon traditiones ipsas, turn ad fidem turn ad mores perti-
nentes, tanquam vel ore tenus k Christo vel a Spiritu Sancto dic
tatas, et continue successione in ecclesia catholica conservatas,
pari pietatis affectu ac reverentiS suscipit et veneratur."

THE RULE OP FAITH AU» PRACTICE. 581
feet rule of faith : and yet this is one of the common
pleas on behalf of tradition.
" 2. It is likewise impertinent to talk of that tradi
tion, whereby we do receive the written word. For
the council first supposes the written word to be re
ceived and embraced as the word of God, before it
mentions the unwritten word ; and therefore it cannot
be understood concerning that tradition whereby we
receive the Scriptures. And the council affirms, ' that
the truth of the gospel is contained partly in books that
are written, and partly in unwritten traditions.' By the
truth of the gospel they cannot mean the Scriptures
being the word of God, but that the word was contained
partly in Scripture, and partly in tradition ; and it is
therefore impertinent to urge the tradition for Scripture
to prove tradition to be part of the rule of faith, as it is
here owned by the Council of Trent.
" 3. The council doth not here speak of a tradition
ary sense of Scripture, but of a distinct rule of faith
from the Scripture. For of that it speaks afterward
in the decree about the use of the Scripture ; where
it saith, ' No man ought to interpret Scripture against
the sense of the church, to whom it belongs to judge
of the true sense and meaning of Scripture, nor against
the unanimous consent of the fathers.' Whereby it is
evident, the council is not to be understood of any con
sequences drawn out of Scripture concerning things
not expressly contained in it ; but it clearly means an
unwritten word distinct from the written, and not con
tained in it; which, together with that, makes up a
complete rule of faith. This being the true sense of
the council, I shall now show that there was no catho-

382 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
lie tradition for it. Which I shall prove by these
steps :— "
" 1. From the proceedings of the council itself.
" 2. From the testimony of the divines of that church
before the council for several centuries.
" 3. From the canon law received and allowed in
the Church of Rome.
" 4. From the ancient offices used in that church.
" 1. From the proceedings of the council about this
matter. " By the postulata it appears, that a catholic tradi
tion is such as must be known by the sound members
of the church, and especially, of the divines in it. But
it appears by the most allowed histories of that coun
cil, this rule of faith was not so received there. For
Cardinal Pallavicini tells us, that it was warmly de
bated, and canvassed even by the bishops themselves.
The bishop of Fano (Bertanus) urged against it,* ' that
God had not given equal firmness to tradition as he.had
done to Scripture, since several traditions had failed.'
But the bishop of Bitonto (Mussus) opposed him, and
said, ' Though all truths were not to be equally re
garded, yet every word .of God ought, and traditions,
as well as Scripture, were the word of God, and the
first principles of faith ; and the greater part of the
council followed him.' It seems, then, there was a
division in the council about it ; but how could that
be, if there were a catholic tradition about this rule
of faith ? Could the bishops of the catholic church,
when assembled in council to determine matters of
* Hist. Condil. Trident., lib. vi, o. 14, n. 3.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRTicTICE. 383
faithj be no better agreed about the rule of faith ; and
yet must we believe there was at that time a known
catholic tradition about it, and that it was impossible
they should err about such a tradition ? Nay, further,
the same author tells us, that although this bishop had
gained the greatest part of the council to him, yet his
own heart misgave him, and in the next congregation
himself proposed, that instead of equal, it might be put
a like veneration ; and yet we must believe there was
a catholic tradition for an equal veneration to Scrip
ture and tradition. ' But the bishop of Chioza,' (Na-
clantus,) he saith, ' inveighed more bitterly against
this equality, and in the face of the council charged
the doctrine with impiety ; and he would not allow any
divine inspiration to traditions, but that they were to be
considered only as laws of the church.'* It is true,
he saith he professed to consent to the decree after
ward, but withal, he tells us, that he was brought
under the Inquisition not long after, upon suspicion of
heresy ; which shows they were not well satisfied with
his submission. We are extremely beholden to Car
dinal Pallavicini for his information in these matters,
which are passed over too jejunely by Father Paul.
" 2. I proceed to the testimony of the divines of the
Roman Church before the Council of Trent. It is
observed by some of them, that when the fathers ap
pealed to the tradition of the church in any contro
verted point of faith, they made their appeal to those
who wrote before the controversy was started ; as St.
Augustine! did against the Pelagians, &c. This is a
* Hist. Concil. Trident., lib. vi, c. 14, n. 4.
t Aug., lib. ii, c. Julian.

§84 fJOT TRADITION, BUT ScRtPl'tJRfij
reasonable method of proceeding, in case tradition be
a rule of faith : and therefore must be so even in this
point, whether tradition be such a rule or not. For
the divines who wrote before could not be ignorant of
the rule of faith they received among themselves.
" Gabriel Biel lived in the latter end of the fifteenth
century, and he affirms,* ' that the Scripture alone
teaches all things necessary tocj^galvation ;' and he
instances ' in the things to be done and to be avoided,
to be loved and to be despised; to be believed, and to
be hoped for.' And again,! ' that the will of God is to
be understood by the Scriptures, and by them alone
we know the whole will of God.' If the whole will
of God were to be known by the Scripture, how could
part of it be preserved in an unwritten tradition ? And
if this were then part of the rule of faith, how could
such a man, who was professor of divinity at Tubing,
be ignorant of it ? I know he saith he took the main
of his book frorri the lectures of Eggelingus, in the
cathedral church at Mentz; but this adds greater
strength to the argument, since it appears hereby, that
this doctrine was not confined to the schools, but
openly delivered in one of the most famous churches
of Germany.
" Cajetan died not above twelve years before the
council, who agrees with this doctrine of Biel or Egge
lingus, (and he was accounted the oracle of his time
for divinity,) for he affirms.J ' that the Scripture gives
* " Et CEetera nostrse saluti necessaria, quae omnia sola docet
sacra Scriptm-a." — Lection, in Canon. Missa 71.
t " HsBc autem in sacris Scripturis discuntur, per quas solas
plenam intelligere possumus Dei voluntatem." — Ibid.
X " Ecce quo tendit utilitae divin» Scriptures ad perfectionem

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 383
such a perfection to a man of God, (or one that de
voutly serves him,) that thereby he is accomplished
for every good work.' How can this be, if there be
another rule of faith quite distinct from the written
word ?
"Bellarmine indeed grants,* 'that all things which
are simply necessary to the salvation of all, are plainly
contained in Scripture ;' by which he yields, that the
Scripture alone is the rule of faith as to necessary
points ; and he calls the Scripture! ' the certain and
stable rule of faith,' yea,:j: ' the most certain and most
secure rule.' ^If there be, then, any other, it must be
less certain, and about points not necessary to salvation ;
that is, it must be a rule where there is no need of a
rule. For if men's salvation be sufficiently provided
for by the written rule, and the divine revelation be in
order to men's salvation, what need any other revela
tion to the church, besides what is written ?
"He asserts further,]] 'that nothing is de fide, but
what God hath revealed to the prophets and aposties,
or is deduced from thence.' This he brings to prove
hominis Dei (hoc est, qui totum seipsum Deo dat) perfectionem
inquam talem ut sit perfectus ad omne bonum exercendum." —
In 2 ad Tim. iii, 16.
* " Dico ilia omnia Scripta esse ab apostolis quSB sunt omnibus
necessaria, et quce ipsi palam omnibus vulgo prsedicaverunt." —
Bellarm. de verbo Dei, lib. iv, c. 11.
t " lUud imprimis statuendum erit, propheticos et apostolicos
libros juxta mentem ecclesiae catholicae varum esse verbum Dei,
et certam ac stabilem regulam fidei." — Id., lib. i, c. 1.
X " At sacris Scripturis quse propheticis et apostolici? Uteris
continentur, nihil est notius, nihil certius." — Id., c. 2.
§ " Quare cum sacra Scriptura regula credendi certissima tutis-
eimaque sit." — Ibid. || Lib. iv, c. 9.
17

386 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
' that whatsoever was received as a matter of faith in
the church, which is not found in Scripture, must have
come from an apostolical tradition.' But if it be neces
sary to salvation, according to his own concession, it
must be written ; and if it be not, how comes it to be
received as a matter of faith ? unless it be first proved,
that it is necessary to salvation to receive an unwritten
rule of faith, as well as a written : for, either it must
be necessary on its own account, and then he saith. it
must be written ; and if not, then it can be no other
wise necessary than because it is to be believed on the
account of a rule, which makes it necessary. And
consequently that rule must be first proved to be a
necessary article of faith ; which Bellarmine hath
nowhere done ; but only sets down rules about know
ing true apostolical traditions from others in matters
of faith, wherein he wisely supposes that which he
was to prove.
" And the true occasion of setting up this new rule
of faith is intimated by Bellarmine himself, in his first
rule of judging true apostolical traditions. Which is,
' When the church believes anything as a doctrine of
faith, which is not in Scripture,' then, saith he, ' we
must judge it to be an apostolical tradition.' Why so ?
' Otherwise the church must have erred in taking that
for a matter of faith which was not.' And this is the
great secret about this new rule of faith; they saw
plainly several things were imposed on the faith of
Christians, which could not be proved from Scripture ;
and they must not yield they had once mistaken, and
therefore this new, additional, less certain rule for
unnecessary points must be advanced, although they

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 387
wanted tradition among themselves to prove tradition
a rule of faith ; which I shall now further make ap
pear, from their own school divines, before the Coun
cil of Trent.
" We are to observe among them, what those are
which they strictly call theological truths, and by them
we shall judge what they made the rule of faith. For
they do not make a bare revelation to any person a
sufficient ground for faith ; but they say,* ' the revela
tion must be public, and designed for the general
benefit of the church ;' and so Aquinas determines!
' that our faith rests only upon the revelations made to
the prophets and apostles ;' and theological truths are
such as are immediately deduced from the principles
of faith, that is, from public divine revelations owned
and received by the church. The modern schoolmenj
who follow the Council of Trent, make theological
truths to be deduced from the unwritten, as well as
the written word ; or else they would not speak con
sonantly to their own doctrine. And therefore, if those
before them deduce theological truths only from the
written word, then it will follow, that they did not hold
the unwritten word to be a rule of faith.
" Marsilius ab Inghen^ was first professor of divinity
at Heidelberg, (at the latter end of the fifteenth cen
tury, saith Bellarmine, but Trithemius saith the four
teenth,) and he determines, ' that a theological propo
sition is that which is positively asserted in Scripture,
* " Et quantum ad ea quas proponuntur omnibus credenda, quse
pertinent ad fidem."— 2. 2. q. 171, prol.
+ 1. q. 1, a. 5. X Melch. Can., lib. xii, t. 3.
§ Marsil. in 4 lib. Sentent., lib. i, Prooem., q. 2, art. 2.

388 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
or deduced from thence by good consequence ; and
that a theological truth, strictly taken, is the truth of
an article of faith, or something expressed in the Bible,
or deduced from thence.' He mentions apostolical
traditions afterward, and joins them with ecclesiastical
histories and martyrologies. So far was he from sup
posing them to be part of the rule of faith.
" In the beginning of the fifteenth century lived
Petrus de Alliaco,* one as famous for his skill in
divinity as for his dignity in the church : he saith,
' that theological discourse is founded on Scripture,
and a theological proof must be drawn from thence ;
that theological principles are the truths contained in
the canon of Scripture ; and conclusions are such as
are drawn out of what is contained in Scripture.' So
that he not only makes the Scripture the foundation
of faith, but of all sorts of true reasoning about it. He
knew nothing of Cardinal Pallavicini's two first prin
ciples of faith.
" To the same purpose speaks Gregorius Ariminen-
sis,\ about the middle of the fourteenth century; he
saith, ' All theological discourse is grounded on Scrip
ture, and the consequences from it ;' which he not only
proves from testimony, but ex communi omnium concep-
tione, from the general consent of Christians. For,
saith he, ' all are agreed, that then a thing is proved
theologically, when it is proved from the words of
Scripture.' So that here we have plain tradition,
against traditions being a distinct rule of faith, and
this delivered by the general of an order in the Church
* Pet. de Alliaco in Sent., lib. i, q. 1, a. 3.
t Greg. Arimin., q. 1, a. 2.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 389
of Rome. He affirms, that the principles of theology
are no other than the truths contained in the canon of
Scripture ; and that the resolution of all theological
discourse is into them ; and that there can be no theo
logical conclusion but what is drawn from Scripture.
" In the former part of that century lived Durandus ;*
he gives a threefold sense of theology: — ' 1. For a
habit whereby we assent to those things which are
contained in Scripture, as they are there delivered.
3. For a habit whereby those things are defended and
declared which are delivered in Scripture.! 3. For a
habit of those things which are deduced out of articles
of faith ; and so it is all one with the Holy Scripture.':]:
" And in another place he affirms, ' that all truth is
contained in the Holy Scripture at large ;^ but, for the
people's conveniency, the necessary points are summed
up in the Apostles' Creed.'
" In his preface before his book on the ' Sentences,'
he highly commends ' the Scriptures for their dignity,
their usefulness, their certainty, their depth ;' and after
all, concludes, ' that in matters of faith, men ought to
speak agreeably to the Scriptures ; and whosoever doth
not, breaks the rule of the Scriptures,' which he calls
'the measure of our faith.' What tradition did ap
pear, then, for another rule of faith in the fourteenth
century ?
" But before I proceed higher, I shall show the- con
sent of others with these school divines in the three
last centuries before the Council of Trent. In the
middle of the fifteenth lived Nicolaus Panormitanus,
* Durand. Prol., q. 5, n. 9. t A. 13. X N. 21.
4 Lib, iii, Dist. 25, q. 8,

390 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
one of mighty reputation for his skill in the canon law.
In the chapter, Significasti prima 1 . de Electione, de
bating the authority of pope and council, he saith,*
' If the pope hath better reason, his authority is greater
than the council's ; and if any private person, in mat
ters of faith, hath better reason out of Scripture than
the pope, his saying is to be preferred above the pope's.'
Which words do plainly show, that the Scripture was
then looked on as the only rule of faith ; or else no
man's grounding himself on Scripture could make his
doctrine to be preferred before the pope's ; who might
allege tradition against him, and if that were an equal
rule of faith, the doctrine of one rule could not be
preferred before the other.
" At the same time lived Tostatus, the famous bishop
of Avila, one of infinite industry and great judgment,
and therefore could not be mistaken in the rule of
faith. In his Preface on Genesis, he saith,! 'that
there must be a rule for our understandings to be
regulated by, and that rule must be most certain ; that
divine faith is the most certain, and that is contained
in Scripture, and therefore we must regulate our un
derstandings thereby. And this he makes to be the
measure of truth and falsehood.' If he knew any other
* " Nam in concernentibus fidem, etiam dictum unius privati
esset preeferendum dicto papae, si ille moveretur melioribus rati.
onibus novi et veteris Testament! quam papse."
t " Cam ergo in omni veritate Veritas divina sit certior et im-
mutabilior, ergo omnes alias debent regulari per illam, et in quan
tum conformantur illi, sunt verae ; in quantum autem deviant ab
ilia, deviant 4 natura veritatis. Sacra autem Scriptura Veritas
divina est, ideo judicium nostrum debemus regulare per Ulam
applicando ad earn," &c. — Tostat. in Ep. Hieron., c. 6, p. 28. D.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 391
rule of faith besides the Scriptures, he would have
mentioned it in this place ; and not have' directed men
only to them, as the ' exact measure of truth and
falsehood.' " In the beginning of this century, Thomas Walden
(confessor to our Henry V., saith Trithemius) disputed
sharply against Wickliffe ; but he durst not set up the
church's authority, or tradition, ' equal with the Scrip
tures.' For when he mentions tradition after Scrip
tures, he utterly ' disclaims any such thought as that
of equality between them ;'* but he desires a due dis
tance may be kept between canonical Scripture, and
ecclesiastical authority, or tradition. In the first place,
he saith, ' we ought to believe the Holy Scriptures ;'
then ' the definitions and customs of the catholic
church ;'! but he more fully explains himself in an
other place, where he plainly asserts,J ' that nothing
else is to be received by such faith as the Scripture
and Christ's symbolical church ; but for all other au
thorities, the lowest degree is that of catholic tradi
tion ; the next of the bishops, especially of the apos
tolical churches, and the Roman in the first place ;
and above all these, he places that of a general coun
cil ;' buf when he hath so done, he saith, ' All these
authorities are to be regarded but as the instructions
of elders, and admonitions of fathers.' So that the
chief opposers of Wickliffe had not yet found out this
new rule of faith.
* "Non quod in auctoritate aequantur, absit; sed sequantur;
non quidem in subsidium auctoritatia canonicae, sed in admoni-
tionem posterorum." — Lib. ii, art. 2, u. 22.
t C. 28. X C. 27.

392 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
" Much about the same time lived Joh. Gerson*
whom Cardinal Zabarella declared, in the Council of
Constance, ' to be the greatest divine of his time,' and
therefore could not be ignorant of the true nile of
faith. He agrees with Panormitan in this, 'that if a
man be well skilled in Scripture, his doctrine deserves
more to be regarded than the pope's declaration ; for,'
saith he, ' the gospel is more to be believed than the
pope, and if such a one teaches a doctrine to be con
tained in Scripture, which the pope either knows not,
or mistakes, it is plain whose judgment is to be pre
ferred.' Nay, he goes further, ' that if, in a general
council, he finds the majority incline to that part which
is contrary to Scripture, he is bound to oppose it,' and
he instances in Hilary. And he shows, ' that since
the canon of Scripture is received by the church, no
authority of the church is to be equalled to it.'! He
allows a judgment of discretion in private persons,
and a certainty of the literal sense of Scripture attain
able thereby. He makesf ' the Scripture the only
standing infallible rule of faith for the whole church
to the end of the world. And whatever doctrine is
not agreeable thereto, is to be rejected either as here-
* Joh. Gerson, Exam. Doctr., p. 540, part, i, cons. 5.
t Cons. 6.
X " Nihil audendum dicere de divinis, nisi quae nobis a sacra
Scriptura tradita sunt. Cujus ratio est, quoniam Scriptura nobis
tradita est tanquam regula sufHciens et infallibilis, pro regimine
totius ecclesiastici corporis et membrorum usque in finem seculi.
Est igitur talis ars, talis regula, vel exemplar, cui se non confor-
mans alia doctrina, vel abjicienda est ut haereticalis, aut suspecta,
aut impertinens ad religionem prorsus est habenda." — Exam.
Doctr., part, ii, consid. 1,

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 393
tical, suspicious, or impertinent to religion.' If the
Council of Trent had gone by this rule, we had never
heard of the creed of Pius IV.
" In the beginning of the fourteenth century lived
Nicolaus de Lyra,* who parallels ' the Scriptures in
matters of faith' with ' first principles in sciences ;' for
' as other truths are tried in them by their reduction to
first principles, so are matters of faith by their reduc
tion to canonical Scriptures, which are of divine reve
lation, which is impossible to be false.' If he had
known any other principles which would have made
faith impossible to be false, he would never have
spoken thus of Scripture alone. But to return to the
school divines.
" About the same time lived Joh. Duns Scolus,j the
head of a school, famous for subtilty ; he affirms, ' that
the Holy Scripture doth sufficiently contain all matters
necessary to salvation ; because by it we know what
we are to believe, hope for, and practise.' And after
he hath enlarged upon them, he concludes in these
words, ' Paiet quod Scriptura sacra sufficienter continet
doctrinam necessariam viatori.' If this be understood
only of ' points simply necessary,' then however it
proves, that all such things necessary to salvation are
therein contained ; and no man is bound to inquire
after unnecessary points. How, then, can it be neces
sary to embrace another rule of faith, when all things
necessary to salvation are sufficiently contained in
Scripture ?
" But Thomas Aquinas is more express in this mat-
* Lyra, Praefat. ad lib. Tobise.
t Scot, in Sentent. Prolog., q. 2, n. 14.
17*

394 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
ter ; for he saith,* ' that those things which depend on
the will of God, and are above any desert of ours, can
be known no otherways by us, than as they are deli
vered in Scripture, by which the will of God is made
known to us.'
" This is so remarkable a passage, that Suarez\
could not let it escape without corrupting it ; for in
stead of Scripture, he makes him to speak of divine
revelation in general, namely, under Scripture he com
prehends all, that is, under the written word, he means
the unwritten. If he had meant so, he was able to
have apprehended his own mind more plainly ; and
Cajetan expressed no such meaning in his words.
But this is a matter of so great consequence, that I
shall prove from other passages in him, that he assert
ed the same doctrine, namely, ' that the Scripture was
the only rule of faith.'
" 1 . He makes ' no proofs of matters of faith to be
sufficient,! but such as are deduced from Scripture ;
and all other arguments from authority to be only
probable ; nay, although such persons had particular
revelations.' How can this be consistent with another
rule of faith distinct from Scripture ? For if he had
* " Ea enim quae ex sola Dei voluntate supra omne debitum
creaturse, nobis innotescere non possunt, nisi quatenus in sacra
Scriptura traduntur, per quam divina voluntas nobis innotescit." —
3. q. 1, a. 3, in C. t Suarez, in 3, p. 117.
X " Authoritatibus autem canonicEe Scripturse utitur propria ex
necessitate argumentando ; authoritatibus autem aliorum doctorum
ecclesiiE, quasi arguendo ex propriis sed probabilit^r. Innititur
enim fides nostra revelation! apostolis et prophetis faetae, qui
canonicos libros scripserunt; non autem revelationi si qua fuit
aliis doctoribus facta." — 1. q. 1, a. 8, ad 2.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 395
owned any such, he must have deduced necessary
arguments from thence, as well as from canonical
Scriptures. But if all other authorities be only pro
bable, then they cannot make anything necessary to
be believed.
" 3. He affirms,* ' that to those who receive the
Scriptures, we are to prove nothing but by the Scrip
tures, as matter of faith.' For by ' authorities,' he
means nothing but the Scriptures ; as appears by the
former place, and by what follows,! where he men
tions the ' canon of Scripture' expressly.
" 3. He asserts,:]: ' that the articles of the creed are
all contained in Scripture, and are drawn out of Scrip
ture, and put together by the church only for the ease
of the people.' From hence it necessarily follows,
that the reason of believing the articles of the creed
is to be taken from the written word, and not from any
unwritten tradition. For else he needed not to have
been so careful to show, that they were all taken out
of Scripture.
" 4. He distinguisheth the matters of faith in Scrip
ture, ' some to be believed for themselves,' which he
calls prima credibilia ; these, he saith, ' every one is
* " Quae igitur fidei sunt, non sunt tentanda probari nisi per
autoritates his qui autoritates suscipiunt." — 1. q. 32, a. 1, u.
t " Si autem ad veritatem eloquiorum, sc. sacrorum respicit,
hoc et nos canone utimur." — Ibid.
X " Dicendum quod Veritas fidei in sacra Scriptura diff"usd con-
tinetur . . . ided fuit necessarium ut ex sententiis sacrse Scripturae
aliquid manifestum summariS coUigeretur, quod proponeretur
omnibus ad credendum ; quod quidem non est additum sacrae
Scripturas, sed potius ex sacra Scriptura sumptura." — ^2. 2. q. 1,
a. 9, adprimum.

396 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
bound explicitiy to believe ; but for other things he is
bound only implicitly, or in a preparation of mind, to
believe whatever is contained in Scripture ; and then
only is he bound to believe explicitly, when it is made
clear to him, to be contained in the doctrine of faith.'*
Which words must imply the Scripture to be the only
rule of faith ; for otherwise, implicit faith must relate
to whatever is proved to be an unwritten word.
" From all this it appears, that Aquinas knew no
thing of a ' traditional rule of faith ;' although he lived
after the Lateran Council, A. D. 1315, being born
about nine years after it.
" And Bonaventure, who died the same year with
him, affirms,! ' that nothing was to be said' (about mat
ters of faith) ' but what is made clear out of the Holy
Scriptures.' " Not long after them lived Henricus Gandavensis ;
and he delivers these things, which are very material
to our purpose : —
" 1 . ' That the :j: reason why we believe the guides
* " Quantum ad prima credibilia, quae sunt articuli fidei, tene-
tur homo explicite credere, sicut et tenetur habere fidem. Quan
tum autem ad alia credibilia non tenetur homo explicit^ credere,
sed BoMcca implicit^, vel in praeparatione animi in quantum paratus
est credere quicquid Scriptura continet; sed tunc solum hujus
modi tenetur explicite credere, quando hoc ei constiterit in doc
trina fidei contineri." — ^2. 2. q. 2, a. 5, c.
+ " Et nihil nobis dicendum est, praeter ea quae nobis ex sacriis
eloqviiis clarent." — Bonav. in 3 Sent., dist. 1, art. 2, q. 2.
X " Quod autem credimus posterioribus circa quos non apparent
virtutes di-vinae, hoc est, quia non praedicant alia quam quae illi in
scriptis certissimis reliquiSrunt, quse constat per medios in nuUo
iiiisse vitiata ex consensione concordi in eis omnium succedentium
usque ad tempera nostra." — Hen. Gand Sum., art. 9, q. 3, n. 13. 2.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 397
of the church since the apostles, who work no mira
cles, is, because they preach nothing but what they
have left in their most certain writings, which are de
livered down to us, pure and uncorrupt, by a universal
consent of all that succeeded to our times.' Where
we see he makes the Scriptures to be the only certain
rule, and that we are to judge of all other doctrines by
them. "3. ' That truth is more certainly preserved in
Scripture than in the church;* because that is fixed
and immutable, and men are variable, so that multi
tudes of them may depart from the faith, either through
error or malice ; but the true church will always re
main in some righteous persons.' How then can tra
dition be a rule of faith equal with Scriptures, which
depends upon the testimony of persons who are so
very fallible ?
" I might carry this way of testimony on higher still,
as when Richardus de S. Victoire saith, in the thir
teenth century,! ' that every truth is suspected by him,
which is not confirmed by Holy Scripture;' but in
stead of that, I shall now proceed to the canon law,
as having more authority than particular testimonies.
" 3. As to the canon law, collected by Gratian, I do
not insist upon its confirmation by Eugenius, but upon
* " Quia Veritas ipsa in Scriptura immobiliter et unpermutabi-
liter semper custoditur. ... In personis autem ecclesiae mutabilis
est et variabilis, ut dissentire fidei possit multitude illorum, et vel
per errorem, vel per malitiam ^ fide discedere licet ; semper ec
clesia in aliquibus justie stabit." — Art. 8, q. 1, n. 5.
t " Suspecta est mihi omnis Veritas, quam non confirmat Scrip-
turarum auctoritas." — Mich, de S. Victore, De Prapar. Animi
ad Contempl., part i, c. 81.

398 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
its universal reception in the Church of Rome. And
from thence I shall evidently prove, that tradition was
not allowed to be a rule of faith equal with the Scriptures.
" Dist. 9, c. 3-5, 7-10. ' The authority and infallibi
lity of the Holy Scripture is asserted above all other
writings whatsoever ; for all other writings are to be
examined, and men are to judge of them as they see
cause.' " Now Bellarmine tells us,* ' that the unwritten word
is so called, not that it always continues unwritten, biit
that it was so by the first author of it.' So that the
unwritten word doth not depend on mere oral tradition,
according to him, but it may be found in the writers
of the church ;! but the canon law expressly excludes
all other writings, let them contain what they will,
from being admitted to any competition with canonical
Scripture ; and therefore, according to that, no part
of the rule of faith was contained in any other than
canonical Scriptures.
" Dist. 37, c. Relatum. A man is supposed to ' have
an entire and firm rule of faith in the Scriptures.'^
" Caus. 8, q.l, c. Nee stifficere,^ 'The Scriptures
are said to be the only rule both of faith and life.'
" And the Gloss on the canon law there, owns the
Scripture to be the rule for matters of faith ; but very
pleasantly applies it to the clergy, and thinks images
enough for the laity.
* De verbo Dei, lib. iv, c. 2. t C. 12.
t " Ciim enim ex divinis Scripturis integram quis et firmam
regulam veritatis susceperit."
§ " Quibus sacris Uteris unica est credendi pariter et vivendi
regula prtescripta."

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 399
" Caus. 24, q.\, c. Non afferentes. The Scriptures
are acknowledged to be the true balance ; and that we
are not so much to weigh what we find there, as to own
what we find there already weighed. Which must
imply the Scripture alone to be that measure we are
to trust to.
" Dist. 8, c. 4-9. It is there said, ' that custom must
yield to truth and reason, when that is discovered,
and that for this reason, because Christ said, I am
truth, and not custom.' Now, if tradition be an infal
lible rule of faith, custom ought always to be presumed
to have truth and reason of its side. For, if we can
once suppose a custom to prevail in the church against
truth and reason, it is impossible that tradition should
be infallible ; for what is that but ancient custom ?
" Caus. 11, q. 3, c. 101. Si is qui pr<R est. 'If any
one commands what God hath forbidden, or forbids
what God hath commanded, he is to be accursed of all
that love God. And if he requires anything besides
the will of God, or what God hath evidently required
in Scripture, he is to be looked on as a false witness
of God, and a sacrilegious person.' How can this be,
if there be another infallible way of conveying the will
of God besides the Scriptures ?
" Caus. 24, q. 3, c. 30, c. Quid autem. * ' In matters
of doubt, it is said, that men are to fly to the written
¦word for satisfaction, and that it is folly not to do it.'
It is true, men's own fancies are opposed to Scripture,
* " Sed in hanc insipientiam cadunt, qui cum ad cognoscendam
veritatem aliquo impediuntur obscuro, non ad propheticas voces,
non ad apostolicas literas, nee ad evangelicas auctoritates, sed.ad
seipsos recurrunt."

4
400 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE, .^ 'S^
but against men's fancies no other rule is mentioned
but that of the written word.
" Joh. 22, Extravag., c. Quia quorundam, tit. 14,
makes his appeal tb;Scripture in the controversy then
on foot about use and property, Dicant nobis ubi legunt,
&c., and he shows,* ' that if it were a matter of faith,
it must be contained in Scripture, either expressly, or
by deduction ; otherwise the Scripture would be no
certain rule ; and by consequence, the articles of faith,
which are proved by Scripture, would be rendered
doubtful and uncertain.'
" The glosser there saith, ' Whence comes this
consequence ?' and refers to another place, where he
makes it out thus : ' That faith can only be proved by
the Scripture, and therefore; if the authority of that be
destroyed, faith would be taken away.'! The Roman
editors, for an antidote, refer to Cardinal Turrecremata,^
who doth indeed speak of catholic truths, which are
not to be found in the canon of Scripture ; and he
quotes a passage in the canon law for it, under the
name of Alex. 3. c. cum Marthas. Extrav. de Cel'ebr.
Missce, but in truth it is Innoc. 3. Decretal. I. 3, tit. 41,
and yet this will not prove what he aims at ; for the
question was about the author of the words added in
the eucharist to those of Christ's institution ; and he
pleads that many of Christ's words and actions are
omitted by the evangelists, which the apostles after-
* " Nee quasi hoc sacra Scriptura contineat, quo negato tota
Scriptura sacra redditur dubia ; et per consequens articuli fidei,
qui habent per Scripturam sacram probari, redduntur dubii et
incerti." + Extrav. Joh. 22. Cum inter Gloss, per consequens.
X Turrecrem. de Ecclesia, lib. iv, part 2, c. 9.

. ,./ THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 401
"ward set down ; and he instances in St. Paul, as to
those words of Christ, ' It is more blessed to give than
to receive ;' and elsewhere. But what is all this to
catholic truths not being contained in Scripture, either
in words, or by consequence ? The cardinal was here
very much to seek, when he had nothing but such a
testimony as this to produce in so weighty and so new
a doctrine. The best argument he produces* is a
horrible blunder of Gratian's, where St. Augustine
seems to reckon the decretal epistles equal with the
Scriptures, Dist. 19. c. in Canonicis ; which the Ro
man correctors were ashamed of, and confess that St.
Augustine speaks only of canonical epistles in Scrip
ture. So hard must they strain, who among Christians
would set up any other rule equal with the written word.
" 4. I proceed to prove this from the ancient offices
of the Roman Church.
" In the office produced by Morinus^ out of the Vati
can MS., which he saith ' was very ancient,' the bishop,
before his consecration, was asked, ' if he would ac
commodate all his prudence, to the best of his skill, to
the sense of Holy Scripture ?'
" Resp. ' Yes, I will with all my heart consent, and
obey it in all things.'
" Inter.' ' Wilt thou teach the people, by word and
example, the things which thou learnest out of Holy
Scriptures ?'
" Resp. ' I will.'
" And then immediately follows the Examen about
manners.' * Turrecrem., lib. ii, c. 18.
t Morin. de Ordinat. Sacris, p. 275.

402 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
" In another old office of St. Victor's,* there are the
same questions in the same manner.
" And so in another of the church of Rouen, lately
produced by Mabillon,j which, he saith, was about
William the Conqueror's time, there is not a word
about traditions ; which crept into the Ordo Romanus,
and from thence hath been continued in the Roman
Pontificals. But it is observable, that the Ordo Roma
nus owns that the Examen was originally taken out of
the Galilean offices, (although it does not appear in
those imperfect ones lately published at Rome by
Thomasius,) and therefore we may justiy suspect, that
the additional questions about traditions were the Ro
man interpolations, after it came to be used in that
Pontifical. " And the first office in Morinus was the true ancient
Galilean office. But if tradition had been then owned
as a rule of faith, it ought no more to have been omit
ted in the ancient offices than in the modern.
" And the ancient writers about ecclesiastical offices
speak very agreeably to the most ancient offices about
this matter. Amalarius% saith, ' the gospel is the
fountain of wisdom ; and that the preachers ought to
prove the evangelical truth out of the sacred books.'
Isidore,^ ' that we ought to think nothing' (as to matters
of faith) ' but what is contained in the two Testaments.'
Rabanus Maurus,^ ' that the knowledge of the Scrip
tures is the foundation and perfection of prudence.
* Morin., p. 333. t MabUlon Analect., tom. ii, p. 468.
t Amalarius de Officiis, lib. iii, u. 5.
§ Isidor. de OSic, lib. ii, i;. 23.
II Rab. Maur. de Inst. Cler,, lib. iii, c. 2 ; lib. ii, u. 53.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 403
That truth and wisdom are to be tried by them ; and
the perfect instruction of life is contained in them.'
Our venerable Bede* agrees with them, when he saith,
' that the true teachers take out of the Scriptures of the
Old and New Testaments that which they preach : and
therefore have their minds employed in finding out the
true meaning of them.'"!
From all this it would seem that the ante-Tridentine
doctors in the Romish Church were far from being
unanimous in favour of the divine authority of tradition,
and against the sufficiency of Scripture. A respectable
portion of them, at least, considered the question still
open, and thought themselves at liberty to advance their
own opinions and arguments upon the subject. Even
their canon law and authorized offices go strongly for
the Scriptures as the ultimate authority in all matters
of dispute.
Archdeacon Blackburn says, " It is a question of
some difficulty when the Church of Rome began to
derogate from the authority of Scriptures, and to raise
their traditions to an equality with them." He finds
" no formal decree to such effect till the year 1415,
when the Council of Constance, in the condemnation
of the 38th article of Wicliff's heresy, ordained, ' that
such of the decretal epistles as should be found, upon
examination, to be rightly ascribed to the popes whose
names they bore, should be of equal authority with the
epistles of the apostles.' "J
* Bed. in Cant., lib. v. De Tabemaculo, lib. i, c. 6.
t Preservative, vol. ii. General Discourses against Popery,
pp. 110-116. X See " The Confessional," p. 114.

404 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
SECTION IV.
Church of England Authorities.
Before I proceed to adduce my authorities under
this head, a brief survey of Protestantism, so far as it
respects the question at issue, may be proper.
A distinguished writer and historian of our own age
has said, " At the epoch of the Reformation, if I may so
speak, three distinct eras had occurred in the history
of the church: — 1. That of evangelical Christianity,
which,having its focus in the times of the apostles,
extended its rays throughout the first and second cen
turies of the church. 3. That of ecclesiastical Catho
licism, which, commencing its existence in the third
century, reigned till the seventh. 3. That of the
Papacy, which reigned from the seventh to the fifteenth
century. " Such were the three grand eras in the then past
history of the church ; let us see what characterized
each one of them.
" In the first period, the supreme authority was attri
buted to the revealed word of God. In the second, it
was, according to some, ascribed to the church as re
presented by its bishops. In the third, to the pope.
" We acknowledge cheerfully that the second of
these systems is much superior to the third ; but it is
inferior to the first 1 In fact, in the first of these sys
tems it is God who rules. In the second, it is man.
In the third, it is, to speak after the apostle, ' that
WORKING OF Satan, with all power, and signs, and
lying wonders,' 2 Thess. ii, 9.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 403
" The Reformation, in abandoning the Papacy, might
have returned to the second of these systems, that is,
to ecclesiastical Catholicism ; or to the. first, that is, to
evangelical Christianity.
"In returning to the second, it would have made
half the way. Ecclesiastical Catholicism is, in effect,
a middle system — a via media, as one of the Oxford
doctors has termed it, in a sermon which he has just
published. On the one hand, it approaches much to
Papacy, for it contains, in the germ, all the principles
which, are there found. On the other, however, it
diverges from it, for it rejects the Papacy itself.
" The Reformation was not a system of pretended
juste milieu. It went the whole way ; and rebounding
with that force which God gives, it fell, as at one
single leap, into the evangelical Christianity of the
apostles."* Almost simultaneously with the outbreak of the Re
formation, the agents whom God in his providence had
raised up for its support began to call in question the
validity of human authority in matters which lie be
tween God and the human conscience, and to appeal
to the canonical Scriptures as the only rule of faith.
Luther, in his Defence of the Articles condemned by
the Bull of Leo X., takes the following just and ele
vated position in relation to the supremacy of the Holy
Scriptures : — " The sacred writings," says he, " are
not to be understood, but by that Spirit with which
they were written ; which Spirit is never felt to be
more powerful and energetic than when he attends the
* See Puseyism Examined ; by J. H. Merle D'Aubigne, D.D.,
pp. 30-32.

406 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
* serious perusal of the writings which he himself dic
tated. Setting aside an implicit dependance on all
human writings, let us strenuously adhere to the Scrip
tures alone. The primitive church acted thus : she
must have acted so ; for she had seen no writings of
the fathers. The Scripture is its own interpreter, try
ing, judging, and illustrating all things. If it be not '
so, why do Augustine and other holy fathers appeal to
the Scripture as the first principles of truth, and con
firm their own assertions by its authority? Why do
we perversely interpret the Scriptures, not by them
selves, but by human glosses, contrary to the example
of all fathers ? If these fashionable modes of exposi
tion be right, we had better at once admit, that the
writings of the fathers are more perspicuous than the
Scriptures. Again: If this be the case, the fathers
•themselves acted very absurdly, when they undertook
to prove their own writings by the authority of Scrip
ture ; and it will follow, that we ought to pay more
regard to expositors than to the word of God. The
apostles themselves proved their assertions by the
Scriptures ; yet they surely had more right to plead
their own authority than any of the fathers had. Let
the fathers be allowed to have been holy men ; still,
they were only men, and men inferior to apostles and
prophets : let them, however, be an example to us ;
and, as they in their time laboured in the word of God,
so let us in our days do the same. There is one vine
yard, and there are labourers employed at different
hours. It is enough that we have learned from the
fathers the duty of studying, and diligently labouring
in the Scriptures ; it is not necessary that we should

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 407
approve of all their works. There are seasons, when
the diligence of many does not afford what a critical
opportunity alone gives to one, — provided that that
opportunity be connected with the incomprehensible
energy of the Holy Spirit."
And Melancthon, in reply to the chancellor of Ingol-
stadt. Dr. Eck, says, " How often has not Jerome been
mistaken ! — how often Augustine ! — how often Am
brose ! How often do we not find them differing in
judgment — how often do we not find them retracting
their errors ! The sense of Scripture is one and
simple, as heavenly truth itself We enter into it by
comparing Scripture with Scripture, and deduce it
from the thread and connection of the whole. There
is a philosophy enjoined us with respect to the Scrip
ture given by God ; it is to bring to them all the
thoughts and maxims of men, as to the touchstone by.
which these are to be tried."
These views were adopted by the continental
churches, and inserted in their confessions of faith.
The following is the article of the Helvetic confession
" concerning the interpretation of the sacred Scrip
tures — the fathers, councils, and traditions :" —
" The true interpretation of Scripture. — ' The Holy
Scriptures,' says the apostle Peter, ' cannot receive a
private interpretation.' Moreover, we do not receive
every interpretation, hence we do not acknowledge,
that should be received as a true and genuine
interpretation of the Scriptures which the Roman
Church calls the sense, and which the defenders
of the Romish Church plainly endeavour to force
on every one ; but that interpretation only shall be

408 tfOT TRADITION, fiUT SCRIPTURE,
received as orthodox and genuine which is derived
from the Scriptures themselves, (which are to be inter
preted with reference to the genius of the language in
which they were written— with reference to the cir
cumstances — and explained according to the spirit of
the greater number of clearer passages, both similar
and dissimilar,) and which agrees with the rule of faith,
and charity, and tends most to the glory of God, and
the salvation of man. Moreover, we do not reject the
interpretations of the Greek and Latin holy fathers :
neither do we condemn their disputations and treatises
of holy things which agree; with the Scriptures. Never
theless, we modestly recede from them when they are
found to teach different from the Scriptures, or to go
contrary to them. Nor do we think that they do us
any injury in this thing if they do not all with one
consent wish to conform their writings to the canons,
but desire to prove to what extent they themselves
either agree or disagree with them, and wish to
receive those things that agree with them, and
reject those which differ. The definitions of the
councils and of the canons are placed in the same
rank. " Wherefore we do not permit ourselves to be in
fluenced in religious controversies, or in matters of
faith, by the bare opinion of the fathers,. or decisions
of the councils, much less by received customs, or
even by a multitude of those thinking the same
thing, or by the authority of established usage.
Therefore we admit no other judge in matters of faith
than God himself, as he makes known through the
Holy Scriptures what is true, what is false, what is to

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 409
be followed, and what is to be avoided. Hence we
acquiesce only in the judgments of spiritual men, ob
tained from the word of God. Jeremiah, and other
prophets, have certainly greatly condemned the
sacerdotal councils instituted contrary to the law of
God, and carefully admonished us not to listen to,
or follow the way of those fathers who, walking in
their own inventions, have turned aside from the law
of God.
" In like manner we reject human traditions, which,
though inscribed with splendid titles, as if they were
divine and apostolic, and, as it were, coming from the
mouth of apostles, and handed down by apostolical
men to succeeding bishops, and through them to the
church, but, though their style is Scriptural, they differ
from the Scriptures, and such is the difference, they
show at once they are by no means apostolical. For
as the apostles have not taught among themselves
different things, so the apostolical men (apostolici) have
not held forth things contrary to the apostles.
" But certainly it would be impious to assert that
the apostles have transmitted by word of mouth things
contrary to Scripture. The apostle Paul clearly says
that he taught the same everywhere in every church.
1 Cor. iv, 17. And again he says, ' For we write no
other things unto you than what ye read or acknow
ledge,' 2 Cor. i, 13. And in another place he declares
that he and his disciples, that is, the apostolical men,
(apostolici,) walked in the same spirit, and in the same
Steps. 3 Cor. xii, 18. The Jews had formerly the
traditions of their elders, but were heavily censured
by our Lord, who showed them that their own obser-
18

410 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTtIRE,
vance was contrary to the law of God, and that they
worshipped him in vain."*
The following is the article of the Belgic confes
sion, upon " the perfection of the Holy Scriptures :" —
" We believe that the Holy Scripture is entirely the
most perfect, containing the will of God, and fully
teaches all necessary for man to believe, in order to
obtain salvation. Since, indeed, in that is described
most exactly and extensively the entire spirit of divine
worship which God requires from the faithful, no man
gifted even with apostolical dignity, not even an angel
from heaven, has a right, as the sainted apostle Paul
says, to teach different from what we have before
learned in the Holy Scriptures. Since, indeed, it is
forbidden either to add to or take from the word of
God, it is sufficiently evident from this, that the Holy
Scripture, in its whole and parts, is perfect and
absolute. Every one, therefore, ought to be care
fully on his guard, neither to add to or detract from
it, in such a manner as in any way to mingle
human wisdom with divine. Therefore, no writings
of men, however gifted with holiness, no custom, no
number of men, no antiquity, no prescription of times,
no succession of persons, no councils, no decrees or
statutes of man, can be compared with these divine
Scriptures and this truth of God, since the truth of
God supersedes all things. For all men are liars, and
their wisdom cannot be subjected to God ; for they are
more vain than vanity itself. Therefore we reject,
with our whole heart, all things whatsoever which do
* See CoUectio Confessionum in Ecclesiis Reformatis Publica-
tarum, edidit Dr. H. A. Niemeyer, Lipsiae, 1840, pp. 469, 470.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 411
not agree with this most infallible rule, for so we are
taught by the apostles, who say, ' Try the spirits whe
ther they are of God :' and again, ' If any one cometh
to you having not this doctrine, receive him not into
your hcrase/^
ThisJSement of Protestantism ¦»!•» early infused into
the English Church ; bflt-^^ing to the fact that the
vReformation in Great Britain became connected with
(a,_ great civil and political changej i^^nSvex became^
,¦ universaL/'but has up to this time had to contend
against the antagonist principle which constitutes a
leading feature of both " ecclesiastical Catholicism"
and " the Papacyt" "--
To show how fully the Romish system of tradition
was adhered to by Henry VIII. and his clergy upon
their breaking with the pope, I will now present their
views from authorized documents. The following is the
first thing we meetwith under the head of " The Articles
of our Faith," in " Articles about Religion," &c. : —
"First. As touching the chief and principal articles
of our faith, sith it is thus agreed as hereafter followeth
by the whole clergy of this our realm, we will, that all
bishops and preachers shall instruct and teach our
people, by us committed to their spiritual charge, that
they ought and must most constantly believe and de
fend all those things to be true, which be compre
hended in the whole body and canon of the Bible, and
also in the three creeds or symbols, whereof one was
made by the apostles, and is the common creed which
every man useth ; the second was made in the holy
Council of Nice, and is said daily in the mass ; and
» See CoUectio Confess, in Eccl. Ref. Pub., pp. 362, 363.

412' NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
the third was made by Athanasius, and is compre
hended in the psalm Quicunque vult: and that they
ought and must take and interpret all the same things
according to the self-same sentence and interpretation,
which the words of the self-same creeds or symbols do
purport, and the holy approved doctors of the church
do entreat and defend the same.
" Item, That they ought and must repute, hold, and
take all the same things for the most holy, most sure,
and most certain, and infallible words of God, and such
as neither ought, nor can be, altered or convelled by
any contrary opinion or authority.
" Item, That they ought and must believe, repute,
and take all the articles of our faith contained in the
said creeds to be so necessary to be believed for man's
salvation, that whosoever being taught will not believe
them as is aforesaid, or will obstinately affirm the con
trary of them, he or they cannot be the very members
of Christ and his spouse .the church, but be very infi
dels or heretics, and members of the devil, with whom
they shall perpetually be damned.
" Item, That they ought and must most reverently
and religiously observe and keep the self-same words,
ac&rding to the very same form and manner of speak
ing, as the articles of our faith be already conceived
and expressed in the said creeds, without altering in
anywise, or varying from the same.
" Item, That they ought and must utterly refuse and
condemn all those opinions contraryto the said arti-^
cles, which were of long time past condemned in the
four holy councils, that is to say, in the Council of
Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedonense,

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 413
and all other sith that time in any point consonant to
the same."*
In " The Institution of a Christian Man," published
in 1537, we have the same thing in a more condensed
form, as follows : —
" Thirdly. That all true Christian men ought and
must not only repute, take, and hold all the same
things for the most holy, most sure, and most certain
and infallible words of God, and such as neither ought
nor can be altered or convelled by any contrary opinion
or authority ; but also must take and interpretate all
the same things according to the self-same sentence
and interpretation, which the words of Scripture do
purport and signify, and the holy approved doctors of
the church do entreat and defend the same."!
And also in " A necessary Doctrine and Erudition
for any Christian Man," published A.D. 1543, under
the head of " Faith," it is said, " And also, that all
those things which were taught by the 'apostles, and
have been by a whole universal consent of the church
of Christ ever sith that time taught continually, and
taken always for true, ought to be received, accepted,
and kept, as a perfect doctrine apostolic."^
And again, in the " Notes for' the better understand
ing of the Creed," we have the following : —
" Thirdly. That all true Christian men ought and
must not only repute, take, and hold all the said things
for the most holy, most sure, and most certain and in-
* See " Articles about Religion, Anno M.D.XXX'VI. Formu
laries of Faith put forth by authority during the Reign of Henry
VIH.," pp. 5, 6.
f Formularies of Faith, p. 61, ' X Ibid., p. 221.

414 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
fallible truths of God's word, and such as neither ought
nor can be altered or convelled by any contrary opinion
or authority ; but also must take and interpretate all
the same things according to the self-same sentence
and interpretation which the words of Scripture do
signify, and the holy approved doctors of the church
do agreeably entreat and defend."*
And in a canon concerning preachers, passed in
convocation in 1571, the traditionary system was again
officially recognised and established. In this it is said,
" Let preachers above all things be careful that they
never teach aught in a sermon, to be religiously held
and believed by the people, except. that which is agree
able to the doctrine of the Old and New Testaments ;
and which the catholic fathers and ancient bishops have
collected from that very doctrine."
I have italicised the words of this canon, to which
I wish to direct the attention of the reader. In the
Creed of Pope Pius IV., the Catholic is required to
promise that he will not "receive or expound — the
sacred Scriptures — ^but according to the uniform con
sent of the fathers." And we have precisely the same
principle in the above canon, and more largely drawn
out in the preceding enactments of the " supreme head
of the church" and his " convocation" of bishops. In
all these formularies we are required to go to " the
fathers'' to learn what the Scriptures say, and are for
bidden to form any judgment with regard to the sense
of the divine oracles not deduced therefrom by " the
catholic fathers and ancient bishops." This is the sys
tem, precisely, as maintained by the Church of Rome.
* Formularies of Faith, p. 237.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 415
But before I leave this point, I should observe, that it
is a matter of controversy in what light the above canon
is to be regarded. It is represented by Dr. Pusey,*
and by Mr. Palmer,! as an expression of the sense
of the English Church and the doctrine of the English
Reformation. Mr. Goode, however, maintains that, as
the canon was not revived under the reign of Queen
Elizabeth, and as it has never since been by authority
inserted among the canons of the Church, it is of no
force.J Whatever authority is to be allowed to this canon,
or whether it is to be regarded as entirely obsolete, so
far as the -written formularies of the Church are con
cerned, it is still a lamentable fact that its real princi
ples are embraced and propagated by a large portion
of the clergy of the English Church. The learned
author of the " Treatise on the Church," Mr. Palmer,
maintains that the right of private judgment, so expli
citly prohibited in this canon, is also precluded by the
articles of religion. He says, " The doctrine then
maintained was the authority of the Church :
' The Church hath power to decree rites and ceremo
nies, and authority in controversies of faith. '§
And accordingly it is afterward said, ' Whosoever,
through his private judgment, willingly and purposely
doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of
the Church, which b'e not repugnant to the word of
God, and be ordained and approved by common autho-
* See Library of the Fathers, vol. i. Preface, p. ii.
t See Treatise on the Church, vol. i, p. 459.
X See Divine Rule, vol. ii, pp. 443, 444.
§ Article XX, A.D. 1562.

416 not tradition, but scripture,
rity, ought to be rebuked openly,' &c. ;* the Church
herself, of course, being the judge of this repugnance.!
Even the parliaments which established the Reforma
tion acknowledged the authority of tradition, and of
the Catholic Church. The act (1547) appointing
communion in both kinds, and the people to receive it
with the priest, went on the ground of ' the practice
of the church for five hundred years after Christ,' and
' the primitive practice.'! The Act for the Royal Su
premacy (1559) declared, th»t such persons as should
be commissioned by the queen to reform and order
ecclesiastical matters, should judge nothing to be heresy
but what had been already so judged by the authority
of the canonical Scriptures, or by the first four general
councils, or by any other general council in which
such doctrines were declared to be heresies by the
express and plain words of Scripture. All other points,
not so decided, were to be judged by the parliament,
with the assent of the clerg^y in their convocation.^
" It is strange that in opposition to the weight of
such facts, the principle of the Reformation should be
assumed to be that of the right of individuals to oppose
their own judgments to the true doctrine of Scripture,
taught by the tradition of the universal church in all
ages. I know not what answer can be made to the
above facts, except that the principle of the Reforma-
* Article XXXIV.
t " Towgood the dissenter says, ' Of this repugnance and con
trariety, the Church alone, you will observe, and not every pri-
vate person, is aUowed to be the proper judge, for otherwise the
article is absurd ; it actually overthrows itself, and takes away
with one hand what it gives with the other.' — On Dissent, p. 6."
X Act 1 Edw. VI., c. 1. 5 Act 1 Eliz., u. 1.

the rule of faith AND PRACTICE. 417
tion ought to have been this, and that it is indefensible
on any other : but we are satisfied with the principle
of the English Reformation as it actually was, because
we believe it was orthodox, and consistent with com
mon sense, and accordingly always and in all places
received by Christians ; and as for the defence of the
Reformation, we are content to undertake it without
the aid of the principle which later ages have attempted
to create for it."*
The XXth Article, as it apjy stands, only varies a trifle
in its phraseology from its original form as quoted by Mr.
Palmer, the sense being preserved and remaining the
same, and the XXXIXth remains without verbal change.
But the question. Who is to decide whether a doc
trine or a tradition is " repugnant to the word of God ?"
is a very grave one. " Towgood the dissenter'' main
tained that " the Church alone, and not any private
person, is allowed to be the proper judge." And
though this " dissenter" had made a strong argument
against the Church of England upon these two arti
cles,! Mr. Palmer quotes him, it seems, for the only
* Treatise on the Church, vol. i, pp. 461, 462.
t This aigument is really too good to leave with the short
notice given of it by Mr. Palmer. The whole is as follows : —
" The Church, you say, and solemnly subscribe it, ' hath power
to decree rites, and authority in matters of faith.' This is the
grand hinge upon which the whole controversy turns. Now
here, sir, let me ask you,
" First. What Church is it, to whom this authority and power
is given ? You wiU, doubtless, say, the Church of England ; for
the Church of England expressly claims and exercises this power ;
and you avow and defend it in this exercise and claim. Yea,
this is the very basis on which its whole frame and hierarchy
18*

418 NOT tradition, but scripture,
purpose of admitting his positions ! Now, if the con
struction of the articles here distinctly admitted by the
stand. ' It obliges all its ministers to subscribe to articles of faith,
which it hath authoritatively decreed ; and to use in religious
worship ceremonies and rites, which it hath authoritatively
enjoined. " But mind, sir, I beseech you, the consequences of this claim.
If the Church of England hath really this authority and power,
hath not the Church of France — the Church of Spain — the Church
of Rome the very same ? Hath England, in this matter, any
privilege from God, any spiritual prerogative, any charter from
Heaven, which its neighbour countries have not ? You will not
pretend it has. But if it has no privilege nor prerogative of this
kind, then the Church of France, and the Church of Rome, have
also, you acknowledge, ' power to decree rites and ceremonies in
God's worship,' and ' authority in points of faith ;' consequently,
all the fopperies and superstitions of the Romish Church, at least,
which cannot be proved to be contrary to the word of God, are
to be reverently submitted to by all the members of that church,
- and cordially received.
" But will not your claiming this power for the Church abso
lutely overthrow the Reformation itself, and subvert the very
foundation of the Church you seek to establish ? For till yoa
can show why the Church of England is possessed of this power,
but not the Church of Rome ; why a body of acknowledged fal
lible men in Britain have authority to make and to enjoin articles
of faith, but not a body of pretended infallible men at Trent;
whence England came thus spiritually gifted, and endowed be.
yond all its neighbour kingdoms — your separation from the Church
of Rome is incapable of a just and solid defence.
" To this, perhaps, you wUl reply. But our Church hath ex
pressly guarded against any such abuse of the power it claims,
by adding in the XXth Article, ' Yet is it not lawful for the
Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's word writ.
ten ; neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be
repugnant to another.' But, upon this I entreat your patience
for these two remarks : —

the rule of faith and practice. 419
learned author of the " Treatise" be the true one,
what liberty of private judgment does the Church of
" 1st. Whatever ceremony Qr rite, then, cannot be shown to
be ' contrary to God's word,' your Church, yea, the Church of
^ome hath, you acknowledge, full authority to enjoin : conse
quently, as your Church, by virtue of this authority, hath enjoined
the cross in baptism, it hath full power also to require you to cross
yourselves, whenever you enter the place of worship, say your
prayers, look toward the east, touch the Bible, sit at meat — ^it
hath full power to enjgin the use of salt and spittle in baptism,
chrism, extreme unction, and a hundred other things which are
no more ' contrary to God's word' than the cross in baptism is.
" As your Church now consecrates ground, it has every whit
as much ' power' to consecrate the other element, and to make
' holy water,' as well as ' holy earth ;' and to order it to be de
cently sprinkled upon its members, (' for all things,' you know,
' are to be done decently and in order,') in token that they shall
keep themselves pure f^ora sin : it hath ' power' to consecrate
' holy knives' to cut the sacramental bread ; holy ' basins' and
' ewers' for the priests to wash in before the sacrament, ' holy
vestments and robes,' and a great variety of 'holy utensils,'
lighted ' tapers' for the altar, &c., (all which, you know, sir, was
done by your admired Bishop Laud,) knocking on the breast,
bowing toward the east, prostration before the altar : — all these,
I say, and innumerable other ceremonies, your Church claims
' authority' and ' power' to enjoin ; for none of these can be
shown to be more ' contrary to the word of God,' or to be a whit
more superstitious, ridiculous, or absurd, than the ' crossing' at
baptism, or the solemn consecration of churches and their yards.
" But, 2dly. The limitation, or guard, which the article seems
to put upon 'this power' of the Church, is really of no force, and
amounts to nothing at all.
" For though it says, that ' the Church may not ordain any
thing contrary to God's word, nor so expound one Scripture as
to be repugnant to another :' yet of this repugnance and contra
riety, the ' Church alone,' you will observe, and not every ' pri
vate person,' is aUowed to be the proper judge : for else the

430 not tradition, but scripture,
England allow ? Why, just none at all. She claims
the right " to decree rites and ceremonies," and " au
thority in matters of faith." And though she con
cedes that " it is not lawful for the Church to ordain
anything that is contrary to God's word written," yet^
" the Church herself, of course, being the judge of this
repugnance," what security is given to individuals
against error and corruption in the exercise of these
powers ? For if the Church is to decide whether her
own decrees are according to God's word, her deci
sions are paramount law, and the Scripture is a mere
tool ! and all that private individuals have to do is to
adhere implicitly to the decisions of the Church, with
out presuming to judge whether they accord with the
Scriptures. And be it known to the reader, that this
same " Treatise on the Church," which affords us such
a truly " catholic" exposition of the articles in question,
article is absurd ; it actually overthrows itself; and takes away,
with one hand, what it gives with the other. For, if every ' pri
vate person' hath authority to judge of the Church's decisions,
and to reject them, if they appear to him repugnant to Scripture,
then the 'Church's authority' in points of faith comes to just
nothing at all. It is an authority to decree, where none are
bound to submit ; that is, an authority over nobody, an authority
to do nothing. But such a senseless, unmeaning, impertinent
claim, can never be the design and import of this article. It
does claim, therefore, for the Church some real authority to settle
points of faith ; consequently, to points thus authoritatively set
tled by it, private Christians, its members, are reverently to sub
mit, even though to their own judgments they appear repugnant
to the word of God."-^See "A Dissent from the Church of
England fully justified, ^c: being the dissenting Gentleman's
three Letters and Postscript, in answer to Mr. John White's
on that subject," pp. 4-7.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 421
has been edited in this country by a bishop of the
Protestant Episcopal Church,* and pronounced not
only " the first complete treatise on the subject in our
language," but " the best in any language :"\ and that
|he articles thus expounded are the same in the Prayer-
book as amended by the Protestant Episcopal Church
as in that of the Church of England, and of course
must mean fhe same thing in the former as in the
latter. And will American Churchmen swallow this
construction ? Many of them doubtless will. I would
that more of them might reject it, and come back to
the true principles of the Reformation.
These principles, I rejoice to say, have beeni^ecog^' :
nised by many of the great lights of the Church of / '
England, and are found in her authorized standards of I'.
doctringjl) TThis I shall now proceed to show.
The following extract is from her Homilies : —
" Unto a Christian man there can be nothing either
more necessary or profitable than the knowledge of
Holy Scripture, forasmuch as in it is contained God's
true word, setting forth his glory, and also man's duty.
And there is no truth nor doctrine necessary for our
justification and everlasting salvation, but that is, or
may be, drawn out of that fountain and well of truth.
Therefore, as many as be desirous to enter into the
right and perfect way unto God, must apply their minds
to know Holy Scripture ; without the which, they can
neither sufficiently know God and his will, neither
their office and duty. . . . Therefore, forsaking the cor
rupt judgment of fleshly men, which care not but for
* Bishop Whittingham, of the diocess of Maryland.
t See Preface, p. xvi.

423 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
their carcass ; let us reverently hear and read Holy
Scripture, which is the food of the soul. Let us dili
gently search for the well of life in the books of the
New and Old Testaments, and not run to the stink
ing puddles of men's traditions, devised by mei^
imagination, for our justification and' salvation. For
in Holy Scripture is fully contained what we ought
to do, and what to eschew, what to belipve, what to
love, and what to look for at God's hands at length. . . .
He that is ignorant may there learn and have know
ledge. He that is hard-hearted, and an obstinate
sinner, shall there find everlasting torments, prepared
of God's justice, to make him afraid, and to mollify or
soften him. He that is oppressed with misery in this
world shall there find relief in the promises of ever
lasting life, to his great consolation and comfort. He
that is wounded by the devil unto death, shall find
there medicine whereby he may be restored again unto
health ; if it shall require to teach any truth, or reprove
any false doctrine, to rebuke any vice, to commend any
virtue, to give good counsel, to comfort or to exhort, or
to do any other thing requisite for our salvation, — all
those things, saith St. Chrysostom, we may learn plen
tifully of the Scripture. There is, saith Fulgentius,
abundantly enough, both for men to eat, and children
to suck. There is whatsoever is meet for all ages,
and for all degrees and sorts of men. These books,
therefore, ought to be much in our hands, in our eyes,
in our ears, in our mouths, but most of all in our hearts.
For the Scripture of God is the heavenly meat of our
souls ; the hearing and keeping of it maketh us bless
ed, sanctifieth us, and maketh us holy ; it turneth our

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 433
souls, it is a light lantern to our feet ; it is a sure,
steadfast, and everlasting instrument of salvation ; it
giveth wisdom to the humble and lowly hearts ; it
comforteth, maketh glad, cheereth, and cherisheth our
Conscience : it is a more excellent jewel or treasure
than any gold or precious stone ; it is more sweet than
honey or honeycomb ; it is called the ' best part,'
(Luke X,) which Mary did choose, for it hath in it
everlasting comfort. The words of Holy Scripture be
called words of ' everlasting life,' (John vi :) for they
be God's instrument, ordained for the same purpose.
They have power to turn through God's promise, and
they be effectual through God's assistance, and (being
received in a faithful heart) they have ever a heavenly
spiritual working in them : they are lively, quick, and
mighty in operation, and ' sharper than any two-edged
sword, and enter through, even to the dividing asunder
of the soul and the spirit, of the joints and the marrow.'
Heb. iv. Christ calleth him a wise builder, (Matt, vii,)
that buildeth upon his word, upon his sure and sub
stantial foundation. By this word of God we shall be
judged : for ' the word that I speak,' saith Christ, ' is
it, that shall judge in the last day,' John xii."*
" But they that have no good affection to God's
Word (to colour this their fault) allege commonly two
vain and feigned excuses. Some go about to excuse
them by their own frailness and- fearfulness, saying,
that t'ney dare not read Holy Scripture, lest through
their ignorance they should fall into any error. Others
pretend that the difficulty to understand it and the
hardness thereof is so great, that it is meet to be read
* Homily on reading the Scriptures, part i.

424 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
only of clerks and learned men. As touching the first :
Ignorance of God's word is the cause of all error, as
Christ himself affirmed to the Sadducees, saying, that
' they erred, because they knew not the Scripture,'
Matt. xxii. How should they then eschew error, thal^
will be still ignorant ? And how should they come out
of ignorance, that will not read nor hear that thing
which should give them knowledge ? He that now
hath most knowledge was at the first ignorant ; yet he
forbare not to read for fear he should fall into error :
but he diligently read, lest he should remain in igno
rance, and through- ignorance in error. And if you
will not know the truth of God (a thing most necessary
for you) lest you fall into error ; by the same reason
you may then lie still, and never go, lest, if you go,
you fall into the mire ; nor eat any good meat, lest you
take a surfeit ; nor sow your corn, nor labour in your
occupation, nor use your merchandise, for fear you lose
your seed, your labour, your stock, and so by that rea
son it should be best for you to live idly, and never to
take in hand to do any manner of good thing, lest, per-
adventure, some evil thing may chance thereof. And
if you be afraid to fall into error by reading of Holy
Scripture, I shall show you how you may read without
danger of error. Read it humbly with a meek and a
lowly heart, to the intent you may glorify God, and
not yourself, with the knowledge of it : and read it
not without daily praying to God, that he would direct
your reading to good effect ; and take upon you to
expound it no further than you can plainly understand
it. For, as St. Augustine saith, the knowledge of Holy
Scripture is a great, large, and a high place ; but the

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 435
door is very low, so that the high and arrogant man
cannot run in ; but he must stoop low, and humble
himself, that shall enter into it. Presumption and
arrogancy are the mother of all error ; and humility
needeth to fear no error. For humility will only search
to know the truth ; it will search, and will bring toge
ther one place with another, and where it cannot find
out the meaning, it will pray, it will ask of others that
know, and will not presumptuously and rashly define
anything which it knoweth not. Therefore the humble
man may search any truth boldly in the Scripture, with
out any danger of error. And if he be ignorant, he
ought the more to read and to search Holy Scripture,
to bring him out of ignorance. I say not nay, but a
man may profit with only hearing ; but he may much
more profit with both hearing and reading. This have
I said as touching the fear to read, through ignorance
of the person. And concerning the hardness of Scrip
ture ; he that is so weak that he is not able to brook
strong meat, yet he may suck the sweet and tender
milk, and defer the rest until he wax stronger, and
come to more knowledge. For God receiveth the
learned and unlearned, and casteth away none, but is
indifferent unto all. And the Scripture is full, as well
of low valleys, plain ways, and easy for every man to
use and to walk in ; as also of high hills and mount
ains, which few men can climb unto. And whosoever
giveth his mind to Holy Scriptures with diligent study
and burning desire, it cannot be, saith St. John Chry
sostom, that he should be left without help. For either
God Almighty will send him some godly doctor to teach
him, as he did to instruct the eunuch, a nobleman of

426 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
Ethiopia, and treasurer unto Queen Candace, who
having a great affection to read the Scripture, (although
he understood it not,) yet, for the desire that he had
unto God's word, God sent his apostle Philip to de
clare unto him the true sense of the Scripture that he
read ; or else, if we lack a learned man to instruct and
teach us, yet God himself from above will give light
unto our minds, and teach us those things which are
necessary for us, and wherein we be ignorant. And
in another place Chrysostom saith, that man's human
and worldly wisdom or science is not needful to the'
understanding of Scripture, but the revelation of- the
Holy Ghost, who inspireth the true meaning unto them
that with humility and diligence do search therefore.
' He that asketh shall have, and he that seeketh shall
find, and he that knocketh shall have the door open,'
Matt. vii. If we read once, twice, or thrice, and un
derstand not, let us not cease so, but still continue
reading, praying, asking of others, and so by still
knocking, at the last the door shall be opened ; as St.
Augustine saith. Although many things in the Scripture
be spoken 'in obscure mysteries, yet there is nothing
spoken under dark mysteries in one place, but the
self-same thing in other places is spoken more fami
liarly and plainly, to the capacity both of learned and
unlearned. And those things in the Scripture that be
plain to understand, and necessary for salvation, every
man's duty is to learn them, to print them in memory,
and effectually to exercise them. And as for the dark
mysteries, to be contented to be ignorant in them, until
such time as it shall please God to open those things
unto him. In the mean season, if he lack either

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 427
aptness or opportunity, God will not impute it to his
folly : but yet it behooveth not, that such as be apt
should set aside reading, because some other be unapt
to read ; nevertheless, for the hardness of such places,
the reading of the whole ought not to be set apart.
And briefly to conclude, as St. Augustine saith, by the
Scripture all men be amended, weak men be strength
ened, and strong men be comforted. So that surely
none be enemies to the reading of God's word, but
such as either be so ignorant, that they know not how
wholesome a thing it is ; or else be so sick, that they
hate the most comfortable medicine that should heal
them ; or so ungodly, that they would wish the people
still to continue in blindness and ignorance of God."*
I next present Archbishop Cranmer, the father of
the English Reformation, and martyr for the truth.
In his Answer to Smythe, he says, " As for me, I
ground my belief upon God's word, wherein can be no
error, having also the consent of the primitive church,
requiring no man to believe me further than I have
God's word for me. But these Papists speak at their
pleasure what they list, and would be believed without
God's word, because they bear men in hand, that they
be the church. The church of Christ is not founded
upon itself, but upon Christ and his word ; but the
Papists build their church upon themselves, devising
new articles of the faith from time to time, without any
Scripture, and founding the same upon the pope and
his clergy, monks, and friars, and by that means they
be both the makers and judges of their faith themselves.
Wherefore this Papist, like a politic man, doth right
* Homily on reading the Scriptures, part ii.

428 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
wisely provide for himself and his church, in the first
entry of his book, that all men should leave searching
for the truth, and stick hard and fast to the church,
meaning himself and the Church of Rome. For from
the true catholic church, the Romish Church whieh
he accounteth catholic, hath varied and dissented many
years passed, as the blindest that this day do live may
well see and perceive, if they will not purposely wink
and shut up their eyes."*
Again, in his " Defence of the True and Catholic
Doctrine of the Sacrament," he says, " The fifth, that
no man ought to be so arrogant and presumptuous to
affirm for a certain truth in religion, anything which is
not spoken of in Holy Scripture. And this is spoken
to the great and utter condemnation of the Papists,
which make and unmake new articles of our faith from
time to time, at their pleasure, without any Scripture
at all, yea, quite and clean contrary to Scripture. And
yet will they have all men bound to believe whatso
ever they invent, upon peril of danmation and ever
lasting fire."!
A tract is published in the Works of the archbishop,
already referred to, entitled " A Confutation of Unwrit
ten Verities." The editor of Cranmer's Works seems
unwilling to admit the authenticity of this tract, assert
ing that " it cannot be safely quoted as evidence of
Cranmer's tenets." Yet he admits that the archbishop
" certainly brought together most of the materials from
which it was composed :" and also that it " was known
to his contemporary, Bale."
Upon the whole, I see no good reason to doubt the
* See Cranmer's Works, vol. iii, p. 3. t Ibid., vol. ii, p. 395.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 439
authenticity of this tract. And certainly nothing will
be gained by the opposition by calling it in question,
so long as the archbishop has expressed himself in
other works, which are beyond question, in equally
strong terms against " unwritten verities." This may
be seen in the above extracts. In this tract the arch
bishop brings arguments against the Romish doctrine
of tradition from the Scriptures, from the fathers, and
from reason, and answers many arguments which are
urged in its favour. I insert the whole of the eighth
chapter, 'as follows : —
" Reasons against Unwritten Verities.* — The Old
Testament was sufficient for the Jews, and why shall
not both the New and Old suffice us ?
* [" The reasons against unwritten verities are thus stated in
Cranmer's Common-place Book at the British Museum : —
" ' Reasons in idem. — If traditions apostolic have the strength
of God's word, so that every man is bound to the observation
of them, the bishop of Rome hath a great advantage thereby to
establish his primacy, (not such a primacy as he hath lately
usurped, but such a primacy as he hath had hy prerogative from
the beginning,) that ia to say, to be one of the four patriarchs of
Christendom, and the chief of all four. And the traditions be the
chief anchors whereupon Pighius stayeth himself. And further
more, if we admit traditions to be of such authority, it is to be
feared that we must resort to the Church of Rome, to fetch there
our tradith^ns, as of the oldest and the mother church.
" ' Cyprianus calleth Rome, Petri cathedram, et Ecclesiam
principalem.' " Here follow some other citations. The reasons are then
continued : —
" ' The Old Testament was sufficient for the Jews, and is not
both the Old and. the New sufficient for us ?
" ' What things came by traditions from the apostles, no man
can tell certainly; and if we be bound to receive them as articles

430 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
" Christ and the apostles proved all their doctrines
by the law and prophets. What an arrogancy is it
then in us, to teach anything which we can neither
prove by the law, the prophets, the apostles, nor the
evangelists. " The devil, when he tempted Christ, was not so far
past all shame to persuade anything without the testi
mony of the Scriptures, although he did (as his dear
children, the Papists, do), falsely allege them, wrest
them from their true meaning to a contrary sense, and
also cut off that which should make against him, or
declare the true meaning of the Scriptures.
" This word, ' unwritten verities,' is a new term
lately invented, and never heard or read among the
old writers ; of which they could not have been igno
rant, if there had been any such thing needful to sal
vation. " All contention which the old fathers had with
heretics was for the Scriptures, which heretics partiy
denied, as Marcion, Manichseus, and Faustus, partly
of our faith, then is our faith uncertain, for we be bound to be
lieve we know not what.
" ' Faith must needs be grounded upon God's word, for St. Paul
saith. Fides ex auditu, auditus autem per verbum Dei. Rom. x.
" ' Omnis Scriptura divinitus inspiratur, &c. This text St.
John Chrysostom, Theophylactus, Thomas, with many other
authors both old and new, do expound plainly as the words be,
that whatsoever truth is necessary to be taught for our salvation,
or the contrary to be reproved, whatsoever is necessary for us to
do, and what to forbear and not to do, all is completely contained
in the Scripture, so that a man thereby may be perfectly instruct
ed unto aU manner of goodness.' — Royal MSS. 7, b. xi, p. 94.
Stfy^e, Memorials, vol. ii, part i,.p. 138."]

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 431
they wrongly expounded ; but for things which are not
contained in the Scriptures, they never accused any
man of heresy.
" If there were any word of God besides the Scrip
ture, we could never be certain of God's word ; and
if we be uncertain of God's word, the devil might bring
in among us a new word, a new doctrine, a new faith,
a new church, a new god, yea, himself to be god, as
he hath already done in the Popish kingdom. For
this is the foundation of antichrist's kingdom, to settle
himself in God's temple, which is the heart and con
science of man, of him to be feared and worshipped,
as though he were God himself
" If the church and the Christian faith did not stay
itself upon the word of God certain, as upon a sure
and strong foundation, no man could know whether
he- had a right faith, and whether he were in the true
church of Christ, or in the synagogue of Satan.
" If we be bound to believe certain things, delivered
from the apostles by word of mouth only, without
writing, as they would make us believe, but what those
things be, no man can tell, it should hereof follow, that
we are bound to believe we wot not what.
" Without faith it is not possible to please God, and
faith cometh by hearing of God's word. Ergo, where
God's word lacketh, there can be no faith.
" Almighty God, afore he gave to Moses the law
written of the Ten Commandments, (wherein he fully
taught the true worshipping of him,) as it were a pre
servative against a plague or a poison to come, gave
them this notable lesson, worthy .alway to be had in
memory. You shall add nothing to the words, &c., and

432 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
again he oftentimes repeateth the same sentence both
in the law and the prophets, in the Gospels, and the
Epistles of the apostles. And because his people
should never forget it, St. John commandeth the same
in the last words of all the New Testament, threaten
ing terrible plagues, that is, the loss of his everlasting
joys of heaven, and the pain of eternal fire of hell, to
all them that either put to or take aught from the word
of God."*
My next authority is Bishop Hooper, who with
Cranmer suffered martyrdom under " bloody Mary."
He says, " This law [the Scripture] teaches man suffi
ciently, as well what he is bound to do unto God, as
unto the princes of the world. Nothing can be de
sired necessary for man, but it is prescribed in this
law : of what degree, vocation, or calling soever he
be, his duty is showed unto him in the Scripture,
And in this it differs from man's laws, because it is
absolute, perfect, and never to be changed ; nothing to
be added unto it, nor taken from it. And the church
of Christ, the more it was and is burdened with man's
laws, the further it is from the true and sincere verity
of God's word. The more man presumes and takes
authority to interpret the Scripture after his own brain
and subtle wit, and not as the verity of the text re
quires, the more he dishonours the Scripture, and
blasphemes God, the author thereof
" It is the office of a good man to teach the church,
as Christ taught, to revoke all errors, and bring back
such as err unto the fold of Christ, only by the word
of Christ. For the water at the fountain-head is more
* Cranmei^'s Works, vol. iv, pp. 215-217.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 433
wholesome and pure, than when it is carried abroad in
rotten pipes or stinking ditches. I had rather follow
the shadow of Christ, than the body of all the general
councils or doctors since the death of Christ. The
devil has never slept, but always by his ministers at
tempted to destroy the verity of Christ's religion, and
quite to put out the light of truth, which was perfect in
Christ's time and in the time of the aposties. None
since that time so pure. St. Jerome saith^ that his
time was darkness compared with the apostles' time.
" The antiquity of the world darkens the verity of
God's word ; as Varro saith the truth, ' that age cor-
rupteth and taketh away many things ;' ' and ' the third
century doth not see the same man which the first
saw.' The truth of God's verity, the more it is used,
practised, and taught, after the wisdom of man, the
more is the glory and perfection thereof darkened. It
is the contrary in all human arts, as Cicero saith : ' In
human discoveries nothing is invented and perfected
all at once, but is improved by use and practice ; so
that the arts of every kind are more advanced in ex
cellence the further they are removed from their first
origin and inventors.'
" The church of God must .therefore be bound to no
other authority than unto the voice of the gospel and
unto the ministry thereof, as Isaiah saith, (chap, viii,)
'Seal the law among my disciples.' The prophet
speaketh of such darkness as should follow his time,
concerning the coming of Messias, the true teacher
of the church. Therefore he prayed to preserve the
true heirs of the promise, and that it would please him
to confirm the doctrine of truth in their hearts, lest the
19

434 NOT TRADITIO.M, BUT SCRIPTURE,
word, and true understanding of the word, should be
put out by the devil. And seeing the church is bound-
unto this infallible truth, the only word of God, it is a
false and usurped authority that men attribute unto the
clergy, and bind the word of God and Christ's church
to the succession of bishops, or any college of cardi
nals, schools, ministries, or cathedral churches.
" Paul would have no man to give faith to any per
son or minister in the church of God, but when he
preaches the word of God truly. Gal. i. Men may
have the gift of God to understand and interpret the
Scripture unto others, but they never have authority to
interpret it otherwise than it interprets itself; which
the godly mind of man, by study, meditation, and com
paring one place with the other, may find ; howbeit
some more, some less, as God gives his grace. For
the punishment of our sins God leaves in all men great
imperfection ; and such as were endued with excellent
wit and learning saw not always the truth. As it is
to be seen in Basilius, Ambrose, Epiphanius, Augus
tine, Bernard, and others, though they stayed them
selves in the knowledge of Christ, and erred not in
any principal article of the faith : yet they did inordi
nately and more than enough extol the doctrine and
tradition of men ; and after the death of the aposties,
every doctor's time was subject unto such ceremony
and man's decrees as were neither profitable nor neces
sary. Therefore Paul diligently exhorted the church
of Christ principally to consider and regard the founda
tion of all verity; meaning that doctors of the church
had their imperfection and faults. ' Other foundation,'
saith he, ' can no man lay, besides that which is laid.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 435
which is Jesus Christ.' In these few words is estab
lished all our faith, and all false religion is repre
hended."* I next give the words of Bishop Jewel, as Hooker
says, " the worthiest divine that Christendom hath had
for the space of some hundreds of years,"! and whose
" Apology for the Church of England" was " published
by the queen's authority, and with the advice of some
of the bishops, as the public confession of the catholic
and Christian faith."J From a multitude of similar
passages scattered through his works, I select the
following. He says : —
" What shall a godly-disposed simple man do ? How
shall he settle himself? To which side maybe safely
join himself? If he make reckoning of learning, there
are learned men on both sides ; if he make reckoning
of virtue and of godly life, there be virtuous men and
of godly life on both sides ; if he make reckoning of
* Declaration of Christ and his Office, chap. iv.
t Eccl. Pol., book ii, chap. vi. And whom Jam«3 calls " one
of the most precious and peerless jewels of these latter times, for
learning, knowledge, judgment, honesty, and industry." See
" A Treatise of the Corruptions of Scripture, Councils, and Fa.
thers, by the Prelates, Pastors, and Pillars of the Church of Rome,
for the Maintenance of Popery. By Thomas James, Student in
Di^rinity ; chief Keeper of the Public Library in the University
of Oxford." I have just received a copy of a new edition of this
invaluable work, edited by Rev. J. E. Cox, M. A. London : John
W. Parker, West Strand. I could wish it might be republished
in this country. It is a fearful exhibition of the frauds and for
geries of the Romanists, and shows just how much confidence is
to be placed in the writings of the fathers, and the decrees of
councils which have come through their hands.
t See Strype's Life of Archbishop Parker, fol., 1711.

436 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
zeal, either side is zealous in the religion they hold ;
if he make reckoning of the name of the church, they
take it as well to the one side as to the other ; if he
make reckoning of the multitude, there are many on
either side, but neither side hath so many as hath the
Turk. Whither, then, may a man turn himself, and
to which side may he safely join ? In this case we
find the comfort and profit of the word of God. In this
case St. Paul telleth us, ' Whatsoever things are writ
ten aforetime are written for our learning,' to lighten
our eyes, to resolve our doubts, audio guide our feet.
 With this word Christ confounded the scribes and
Pharisees, and put them to silence. . . . This word con
founded the Arians and all sorts of heretics. What is
become of Marcion, of Nestorius ? . . . they are blown
away as smoke before the wind, the word of God hath
confounded them, and beat them away. As Dagon
fell, and broke his hands and neck, and could not stand
in the presence of the ark of the Lord, even so shall
all falsehood fall and hide itself in the presence of the
truth of God. As the rod of Moses devoured the rods
of the charmers, as the beams of the sun drive away
and consume darkness, so shall the word of God chase
away errors. . . . They [that is, ' the Scriptures''\ bring
us to God ; teach us the truth, and give us reason of all
things ; they keep us in safety, suffer not wolves to
devour us, keep off heretics, bewray a thief, and make
known who is antichrist. . . . And as the word of God
is the light to direct us, and to bewray errors, so is it
also the standard and beam to try the weights of truth
and falsehood. . . . The master of the ship, when he is
on the main sea, casteth his eye always upon the load-

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 437
Star, and so directeth and guideth his ways. Even so
must we, which are passengers and strangers in this
world, ever settle our eyes to behold the word of God.
So shall no tempest overblow us, so shall we be guided
without danger, so shall we safely arrive in the haven
of our rest  This is the rule of our faith; without
this our faith is but a fantasy, and no faith, for faith is
by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. There
fore Christ saith, ' Search the Scriptures, they are they
which testify of me.' There shall ye find testimony
of my doctrine, there shall ye know what is the will
of my heavenly Father, and there shall you receive
the comfort for everlasting life."*
Again : " You know, right well, we despise not the
authority of the holy fathers, but rather, in this self
same place, have alleged together St. Augustine, St.
Hierome, and St. Ambrose, three of the most ancient
and approved fathers ; and throughout the whole dis
course of this Apology in defence of the catholic truth
of OVR religion, next unto God's holy word, have used^
no proof or authority so much as the expositions and
judgments of the holy fathers. We despise them not,
therefore ; but rather give God thanks in their behalf,
for that it hath pleased him to provide so worthy instru
ments for his church  To come near the matter, we
say not that all cases of doubt are, by manifest and
open words, plainly expressed in the Scriptures. For
so there should need no exposition. But, we say,
there is no case in religion so dark and doubtful, but it
may necessarily be either proved or reproved by collection
and conference of the Scriptures. ... In this conference
* Treatise of the Holy Scriptures, (Works,) pp. 32-34.

438 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
and judgment of the Holy Scriptures, we need often
times the discretion and wisdom of learned fathers.
But, notwithstanding, may we not give them herein
greater credit than is convenient ; or than they them
selves, if it were offered, would receive. We may
reverently say of them, as Seneca in the like case
sometime said, ' Th^y are our leaders, but not our lords'.'
They are not the truth of God itself, but only witnesses
unto the truth. ... St. Augustine saith, 'Soils canonicis
Scripturis sine uUa recusatione consensum debeo :' —
' I owe my consent without gainsaying (not unto the
doctors or fathers, but) only unto the canonical Scrip
tures.' But the bishops in those councils, saith M.
Harding, brought forth and followed the expositions
of the ancient learned fathers. And wherefore might
they not ? What man ever taught or said the contrary ?
Yet notwithstanding they alleged them not as the foun
dations or grounds, but only as approved and faithful
witnesses of the truth. St. Augustine in another case
concerning the Arians . . . likewise refuseth the deter
minations of all councils and fathers, and standeth only
to the Scriptures : ' Neither will I,' saith he, ' allege
against thee the Council of Nice ; nor shalt thou allege
against me the Council of Ariminum,' &c. Neither
doth St. Augustine only say thus ; but also yieldeth a
reason why he saith it. These be his words : ' Have
away all those authorities that either of us allegeth
against the other ; saving only such as be taken out of
the heavenly canonical Scriptures. But perhaps some
man will ask me, Wherefore would ye have all such
other authorities put away? I answer. Because I would
have the holy church to be proved, not by the doctrines

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 439
of men, but by the word of God.' . . . Fain would M.
Harding have his reader believe [so similar were his
tactics to those of the Tractators] that we utterly de
spise all holy fathers. But we despise them not, M.
Harding, as may partly appear by that we have al
ready said. We read their works, we reverence them,
we give God thanks for them ; we call them the pil
lars, the lights, the fathers of God's church; we de
spise them not. This thing only we say. Were their
learning and holiness never so great, yet be they not
equal in credit with the Scriptures of God. ... As the
Scriptures were written by the Spirit of God, so must
they be expounded by the same. For without that Spirit
we have neither ears to hear, nor eyes to see. It is
that Spirit that openeth, and no man shutteth ; the
same shutteth, and no man openeth. The same Spirit
prepared and opened the. silkwoman's . heart, that she
should give ear to and consider the things that were
spoken by St. Paul. And in respect of this Spirit, the
prophet Esay saith, ' They shall be all taught of God.'
But God hath not bound himself that this Spirit should
evermore dwell in Rome, but upon the lowly and humble-
hearted that trembleth at the word of God. . . . Whereas
we make reasonable request that God may be umpire in
his own cause, and that all our controversies may he
judged and tried by the Holy Scriptures, M. Harding
thereto answereth thus. The Scripture standeth not in
the words, but in the sense ; and the same sense is con
tinued by tradition in the church. Otherwise he saith.
The Jews, the Arians, the Nestorians, the Eutychians,
and all other heretics, were always able to claim by the
Scriptures. . . . Notwithstanding Pharisees and heretics

440 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
wickedly misalleged the Scriptures, as ye sometimes do,
to serve your purpose, yet for all that, Christ said unto
them, ' Search the Scriptures' And, as it is said before^
the catholic learned fathers, in all their cases and con
troversies, appealed evermore to the Scriptures. . . . To
conclude, whereas M. Harding saith, we cannot
UNDERSTAND THE ScRIPTURES WITHOUT TRADITION,
[the very words of the Tractators,] the ancient fa
ther IrenjEUS saith, this is one special mark
whereby we may know a heretic"*
" But what say we of the fathers, Augustine, Am
brose, Hierome, Cyprian, &c. ? What shall we think
of them ; or what account may we make of them ?
They be interpreters of the v/ord of God. They were
learned men, and learned fathers ; the instruments of
the mercy of God; and vessels full of grace. We
despise them not, we read them, we reverence them,
and give thanks unto God for them. They were wit
nesses unto the truth ; they were worthy pillars and
ornaments in the church of God. Yet may they not
be compared with the word of God. We may not
build upon them; we may not make them the foundation
and warrant of our conscience, — we may not put our
trust in them. Our trust is in the name of the Lord.
And thus are we taught to esteem of the learned fathers
of the church, by their own judgnient ; by that which
they have written, either for the credit of their own
doings, or of the authority which they have thought
due to the writings of others."!
" But they say, the Scriptures be dark, therefore we
* Defence of Apology, pp. 53-69.
t Treatise of the Holy Scriptures, p. 36.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 441
must seek the meaning of them in the doctors. The
DOCTORS agree NOT. Then must we weigh and try
them by the Master of the Sentences. The Master
of the Sentences himself sometimes is not holden.
Then must we seek further to the school-doctors.
The school-doctors can in nowise agree. There is
Scotus against Thomas, and Occam against Scotus,
and AUiacensis against Occam ; the nominals against
the reals, the scholasticals against the canonists ; the
contention is greater, and the doubts darker, than ever
they were before."*
-A.nd again : " They say, the Scriptures are hard,
and above the reach of the people. So said the Pela
gian heretic, Julian, whom St. Augustine therefore
reproveth. . . . But God himsplf, and the ancient fathers
of the church, said otherwise. . . . Some things in the
Scriptures are hard ; I deny it not. It is very expe
dient that somewhat should be covered, to make us
more diligent in reading, more desirous to understand,
more fervent in prayer, more willing to ask the judg
ment of others, and to presume the less of our own
judgment. ... It is true which St. Peter hath said, some
things are hard to be understood. But it is also true,
that they which pervert them unto their own destruc
tion are unlearned and unstable ; that is, they to whom
they are hard have not their eyes opened that they
may see the light of the word ; or they be wicked, and
turn the truth of God into lies, and abuse the Scriptures
to their own damnation. The owlet seeth not by the
brightness of the sun ; not because the sunbeams are
dark, but for that his eyes are weak, and cannot abide
* Reply to Harding's Answer, p. 193.
19*

442 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
SO clear light ; it is, therefore, but a pretence and colour
for their ignorance, and a means to deceive the people
more boldly with their errors, when they charge the word
of God with darkness and hardness. . . . The ways of the
Lord are straight, and his words plain, even unto the
simple. Chrysostom saith, ' All things are clear and
plain in the Holy Scriptures ; whatsoever there things
are necessary for us, are also manifest.' Some things
are covered, as men cover precious stones and precious
garments. They are covered, and yet we see them.
We see them, and yet they are covered. Yet all things
that are necessary are plain and open .... [and after
quoting a passage from Theodoret, he adds,] Thus we
see there was a time, before ignorance crept into the
church, and got the upper hand, when the word of God
was not counted hard, and dark, and doubtful ; when
children, and women, and servants, and men of the
country, had the knowledge of God, and were able to
reason of the works of God. Then went it well with
them ; they could not easily be deceived, because they
had that word which bewrayeth the thief; they carried
with them, like good exchangers, the weights and
touchstone ; and were able to try coins, whether they
were true or false. Such were the people, such was
the state of God's church in those days."*
" We teach not the people to presume of knowledge,
as you teach them to presume of ignorance. But only
we exhort them, for the better satisfaction of their
consciences, to read the Scriptures, and therein to learn
the good will of God  But ye will say, the Scriptures
are hard, and above the reach of the people. Even so
» Treatise of the Holy Scriptures, pp. 43-46.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 443
said the Pelagian heretic, Julianus, and therefore St.
Augustine thus reproveth him for the same."*
" Whereas M. Harding, to withdraw the people's
hearts from reading, saith, the Scriptures are dark and
dangerous, and no man able to wade in them without
a guide, St. Chryspstom contrariwise, to encourage the
people to read the Scriptures, saith they be plain and
easy; and that the ignorant and simple man, by prayer
unto God, may attain the knowledge of them, without
. any master or teacher, by himself alone."]
" Notwithstanding a few certain places in the Holy
Scriptures be obscure, yet generally ' the Scriptures
are a candle to guide our feet ;' generally, ' God's
commandment is light, and lighteneth the eyes ;' and
therefore, generally, the word of God is full of com
fort. . . . [And then proceeding to quote from Chrysos
tom and others, he adds,] Thus, notwithstanding cer
tain clauses and sentences in the Holy Scriptures be
hard and dark, yet by these holy fathers' judgments,
the Scriptures generally are easy and clear. . . . True it
is, flesh and blood is not able to understand the holy
will of God, without special revelation. Therefore
Christ gave thanks unto his Father, ' For that he had
revealed his secrets unto the little ones,' and likewise
' opened the hearts of his disciples, that they might
understand the Scriptures.' Without this special help
and prompting of God's Holy Spirit, the word of God
is unto the reader, be he never so wise or well learned,
aS the vision of a sealed book. But this revelation is
not special unto one or two, but general to all them that
* Defence of Apology, pp. 516, 517.
t Reply to Harding, p. 152.

444 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
he the members of Christ, and are endued with the Spirit
of God."*
The following is the testimony of " the judicious
Hooker :" —
" When the question, therefore, is, whether we be
now to seek for any revealed law of God, otherwise than
only in the sacred Scripture ; whether we do now stand
bound in the sight of God to yield to traditions, urged
by the Church of Rome, the same obedience and reve
rence we do to his written law, honouring equally, and
adoring both as divine ; our answer is. No. They that
so earnestly plead for the authority of tradition,
as if nothing were more safely conveyed, than that
which spreadeth itself by report, and descendeth by
relation of former generations unto the ages that suc
ceed, are not all of them — surely a miracle it were if
they should be — so simple as thus to persuade them
selves ; howsoever, if the simple were so persuaded,
they could be content, perhaps, very well to enjoy the
benefit, as they account it, of that common error.
What hazard the truth is in when it passeth through the
hands of report, how maimed and deformed it becometh,
they are not, they cannot possibly be ignorant. Let them
that are indeed of this mind consider but only that little
of things divine which the heathen have in such sort
received. How miserable had the state of the church
of God been, long ere this, if, wanting the sacred
Scriptures, we had no record of his laws, but only the
memory of man receiving the same by report and rela
tion from his predecessors !"!
* Reply to Harding, pp. 393, 394.
t Eccles. Pol., book i, chap. 13.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 445
Again, he says, " They which add traditions as a
part of supernatural necessary truth, have not the truth,
but are in error. For they only plead that whatsoever
God revealeth as necessary for all Christian men to
do or believe, the same we ought to embrace, whether
we have received it by writing, or otherwise ; which
no man denieth : when that which they should confirm,
who claim so great reverence unto traditions, is,
that the same traditions are necessarily to be acknow
ledged divine and holy. For we do not reject them
only because they are not in the Scripture, but because
they are neither in Scripture, nor can otherwise suffi
ciently, by any reason, be proved to he of God. That
which is of God, and may be evidently proved to be
so, we deny not but it hath in his kind, although un
written, yet the self-same force and authority with the
written laws of God."*
Archbishop Usher is perfectly clear and full upon
this subject. He says : " First. They [the Scrip
tures] are perfectly holy in themselves, and by them
selves : whereas all other writings are profane, fur
ther than they draw some holiness from them ; which
is never such but that their holiness is imperfect.
" Secondly. The authority of these holy writings,
inspired of God, is highest in the church, as the au
thority of God ; whereunto no learning or decrees of
angels or men, under what name or colour soever it
be commended, maybe accounted equal, (Gal. i, 8, 9 ;
2 Thess. ii, 3,) neither can they be judged or sen
tenced by any.
" Thirdly. The books of Holy Scripture are so suffi-
* Eccles. Pol., book i, chap. 14.

446 • not tradition, but scripture,
cient for the knowledge of Christian religion, that they
do most plentifully contain all doctrine necessary to
salvation. They being perfectly profitable to instruct
to salvation in themselves ; and all other imperfectly
profitable thereunto, further than they draw from them.
Whence it followeth that we need no unwritten veri
ties, no traditions or inventions, of men, no canons of
councils, no Sentences of fathers, much less decrees
of popes, for to supply any supposed defect of the
written word, or for to give us a more perfect direction
in the worship of God, and the way of life, than is
already expressed in the canonical Scriptures. Matt.
xxiii, 8 ; John v, 39 ; Matt, xv, 9. Finally. These
Holy Scriptures are the rule, the line, the square, and
light, whereby to examine and try all judgments and
sayings of men and angels. John xii, 48 ; Gal. i, 9.
All traditions, revelations, decrees of councils, opinions
of doctors, &c., are to be embraced so far forth as they
may be proved out of the divine Scriptures, and not
otherwise. So that from them only all doctrine con
cerning our salvation must be drawn and derived : that
only is to be taken for truth, in matters appertaining to
Christian religion, which is agreeable unto them ; and
whatsoever disagreeth from them is to be refused."*
Again : " The Scriptures, you say, are a rule and a
line : but are they not (as the Church of Rome ima-
gineth) like a rule of lead which may be bowed every
way at men's pleasures ?
" They are as a rule of steel, that is firm and changeth
not. Matt. V, 18 ; Psalm xix, 9. For seeing they are
sufficient to make us wise unto salvation, (as is before
* Body of Divinity, p. 15.

the rule of faith and practice. 447
proved,) it followeth of necessity, that there is a most
certain rule of truth for instruction, both of faith and
works, to be learned out of them, by ordinary means
of reading, prayer, study, the gifts of tongues, and other
sciences ; to which God promiseth the assistance of
his grace. John v, 39 ; James i, 5. And this sword
of the Spirit, which is the word of God written, as
the example of Christ our general Captain showeth,
(Matt, iv,) is delivered unto us by the Holy Ghost,
both to defend our faith, and to overcome all our spi
ritual enemies, which are the devil and his instruments,
false prophets, heretics, schismatics, and such like.
Ephes. vi, 12. Therefore the Holy Scriptures are not
as a nose of wax, or a leaden rule, (as some Papists
have blasphemed,) that they be so writhed every way
by impudent heretics, but that their folly and madness
(as the apostie saith, 3 Tim. iii, 9) may be made mani
fest to all men."
" Are the Scriptures, then, plain and easy to be
understood ?
" There are some hard things in the Scriptures that
have proper relation to the time in which the Scripture
was written and uttered, or which are prophecies of
things to be fulfilled hereafter ; which if we never un
derstand, we shall be never the worse for the attaining
of everlasting salvation. There are other things in
Scripture belonging unto the saving knowledge of God :
all which are dark and difficult unto those whose eyes
the god of this world hath blinded ; (2 Cor. iv, 4 ;
2 Pet. iii, 5 ; John viii, 43 ;) but unto such as are by
grace enlightened, and made willing to understand,
(Psalm cxix, 18,) howsoever some things remain oh-

448 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
scure (2 Pet. iii, 16) to exercise their diligence, yet
the fimdamental doctrines of faith, and precepts of life,
are all plain and perspicuous. For all doctrine neces
sary to be known unto eternal salvation is set forth in
the Scriptures most clearly and plainly, even to the
capacity and understanding of the simple and un
learned : so far is it that the Scriptures should be dan
gerous to be read of the lay-folks, as Papists hold."*
My next witness is the learned Dr. Thomas Jack
son. He says, " When we affirm that the Scriptures
are the only infallible rule in matters of faith and
Christian obedience, we understand such a rule in
those matters, as Aristotle's Organon may be said of
logic : supposing it were sound, and free from all sus
picion of error in every point, and contained in it all
the general and undoubted principles, from which all
true forms of argumentation must be deduced, and into
which all must be finally resolved. To illustrate this
truth by a known practice : Our younger students are
bound to yield their absolute assent unto Aristotle's
authority, in matters of logic ; but not unto any inter
preter that shall pretend it, save only when he shall make
evident unto them that this was Aristotle's meaning.
And while they so only, and no otherwise, yield their
assent, they yield it wholly and immediately unto Aris
totle, not to the interpreter, although by his means-they
came to know Aristotle's meaning ; which once known,
without any further confirmation of other testimony or
authority, commands their obedience and assent. But
ere they can fully assent unto this great master, or
throughly perceive his meaning, they must condition-
* Body of Divinit}', p. 18.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 449
ally assent unto their private tutors, or other expositors,
and take his sense and meaning upon their trust and
credit. In like manner, (say we,) in all matters, doc
trines, or controversies of faith and Christian obedience,
we are bound to yield our assent, directiy, absolutely,
and finally, unto the authority of Scriptures only: not
unto any doctor, expositor, or other, whosoever he be,
that shall pretend authority out of Scripture over our
faith, save only when he shall make it clear and evi
dent unto us, that his opinion is the true meaning of
the Scripture. And thus yielding our absolute assent
unto the truth explained by him, we yield it not to him,
but unto the Author of truth, whose words we hold to
be infallible in whose mouths soever ; and once known
to be his words, they need not the testimony or autho
rity of him that did bring us to the true knowledge of
them. And before we be brought to see their truth
with our own eyes, and feel it by our sense, (by the
effects or experiments of it upon our own souls,) we
are to limit our assent and obedience (as it is set down
before) according to the probabilities, or unpartial in
ducements, which we have of the expositor's skill and
sincerity in dispensing divine mysteries. And these
motives or inducements, which we have of his skill
and sincerity, must be framed according to the rules
or precepts of Scripture, not according to our affections
or humours : we may not think him most to be believed
that is in highest place, or hath the greatest stroke in
other affairs. For as the faith of Christ, so must our
persuasion of the faithful dispensers, or skilful seeds
men of faith, be had without respect of persons."*
* Comment on the Apostles' Creed, b. ii, ch. xi, sec. 1.

450 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
Bishop Stillingfleet gives us the Romish posi
tions, and his answer in brief, as follows : —
The Romanist urges, " That it is not the words, but
the sense of Scripture is the rule ; and that this sense
is not to be taken from men's private fancies, which
are various and uncertain ; and therefore where there
is no security from errors, there is nothing capable of
being a rule."
To this the bishop answers : " To clear this, we
must consider,
" 1. That it is not necessary to the making of a
rule, to prevent any possibility of mistake, but that it
be such that they cannot mistake without their own
fault. For certainty in itself, and sufficiency for the
use of others, are all the necessary properties of a
rule ; but after all, it is possible for men not to apply
the rule aright, and then they are to be blamed, and
not the rule.
" 2. If no man can be certain of the right sense of
Scripture, then it is not plain in necessary things ;
which is contrary to the design of it, and to the clearest
testimonies of antiquity, and to the common sense of
all Christians, who never doubted or disputed the sense
of some things revealed therein ; as the unity of the
Godhead, the making of the world by him, the deluge,
the history of the patriarchs, the captivity of the Jews,
the coming of the Messias, his sending his apostles,
his coming again to judgment, &c. No man who
reads such things in Scripture can have any doubt
about the sense and meaning of the words.
" Where the sense is dubious, we do not allow any
man to put what sense he pleases upon them ; but we

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 451
say, there are certain means, whereby he may either
attain to the true sense, or not be damned if he doth
not. And the first thing every man is to regard, is
not his security from being deceived, but from being
damned. For truth is made known in order to salva
tion ; if, therefore, I am sure to attain the chief end,
I am not so much concerned as to the possibility of
errors, as that I be not deceived by my own fault.
We do not, therefore, leave men either to follow their
own fancy, or to interpret Scripture by it ; but we say.
They are bound, upon pain of damnation, to seek the
truth sincerely, and to use the best means in order to
it ; and if they do this, they either will not err, or their
errors will not be their crime."*
Dr. Claget gives us the following positions upon
the Scriptures as a rule of faith, together with canons
of interpretation ; all of which are clearly antitracta-
rian, and well worthy of attention : —
" As reason is a rule to all men, so is Scripture a
rule to all Christians, — at least it ought to be so ; and
all pretend to make it a rule for their judgment, by
appealing to it. The Church of Rome, indeed, allows
it to be but part of the rule of faith ; we say it is an
entire and perfect rule thereof. However, so long as
she acknowledges the Scriptures to be a rule, though
she pretends there is another rule besides that, she is
to be concluded by the authority of the Scriptures ;
and so we are to be acquitted by her, in not believing
her against the Scriptures.
* The Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly
represented. Preservative against Popery, tit. Lx, p. 289.

452 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
" Now everybody must grant that we do not judge
rightly by the Scriptures where we mistake the mean
ing of the text. And we ought to be sure that the
sense wherein we take any place is the true sense,
before we make our interpretation of it a rule whereby
to examine other things.
" Where the sense is very plain, it requires nothing
more than common sense and common honesty to un
derstand it ; and it is very reasonable to suppose that
God hath revealed all points necessary to salvation so
clearly and plainly, that it is not difficult for an honest
man to understand what they are.
" But because there are many obscure places in the
Scriptures, we must be very careful not to ground any
doctrine upon them, till we have well weighed and
examined the meaning of those places ; and the way
to be secure from any dangerous mistake in concluding
from places of Scripture that are more or less hard to
be understood, is to observe such cautions as these
are, which I think all Christians must allow to be
reasonable : —
" 1. That we take no text in a sense which is repug
nant to common sense and natural reason.
" 2. That we put no sense upon a place of Scripture
that is repugnant to the general scope and design of
the whole word of God.
" 3. That we understand no difficult places in a sense
that is contrary to those places whose meaning is plain
and manifest to all men.
" 4. That we mistake not those places for plain,
which are not so.
" 5. That we put no other sense upon a text than

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 453
what agrees with the scope and design of that particrf-
lar discourse wherein we find it."*
Good Bishop Burnet presents the great question
at issue thus : — " After we are well settled in the be
lief of the Christian religion, our next inquiry must
naturally be into the way and method of being rightly
instructed in the doctrine and other parts of this reli
gion ; and that chiefly in one great point, Whether we
ought to employ our own faculties in searching into
this, and particularly into the meaning of those books
in which it is contained ? or, Whether we must take
it from oral tradition, and submit to any man, or body
of men, as the infallible depositaries and declarers of
this tradition ?
" In this single point consists the essence of the
differences between us and the Church of Rome :
while we affirm that the Christian doctrine is com
pletely contained in the Scriptures, and that every
man ought to examine these with the best helps, and
all the skill and application of which he is capable :
and that he is bound to believe such doctrines only as
appear to him to be contained in the Scriptures ; but
may reject all others that are not founded upon that
authority. On the other hand, the foundation upon
which the Church of Rome builds is this. That the
apostles delivered their doctrine by word of mouth to
the several churches, as the sacred depositum of the
faith."! The following are his views of private judgment :—
* A Persuasive to an Ingenuous Trial of Opinions in Religion.
Preservative against Popery, tit. xiii, p. 136.
+ See Four Discourses to the Clergy, pp. 165, 166.

454 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
'* In such matters every man must judge for himself;
and every man must answer to God for the judgmerit
that he has made : he judges for nobody else, but for
himself He, and He only, can be the judge ; and if
he uses a due degree of industry, and frees himself
from every corrupt bias, from pride, vain-glory, and
affectation of singularity, or the pursuing any ill ends ;
under those appearances of searching for truth, and
the adhering to it, he is doing the best thing which,
according to that nature of which God has made him,
he can do ; and so he may reasonably believe that he
shall succeed in it : nor is there any pride in this, for
a man to think according to his own understaiiding,: no
more than to see with his own eyes. His humility
ought to make him slow and cautious, modest and
fearful ; but no humility can oblige him to think other
wise than he feels he must needs think."*
Upon the church's decisions he speaks thus :— ^
" Others are for the diffusive church of the present
age, and put infallibility there : for they reckon thus.
That every ag'e of the church believes as the former
age believed, till this is carried up to the apostles
themselves. This is to resolve all matters into oral
tradition, and to suppose it infallible : and indeed, if
we can believe that the generality of Christians have
in all ages been wise, honest, and cautious, and that
the generality of the clergy have in all ages been faith
ful and inquisitive, we may rely upon this, and so be
lieve an infallibility : but at the same time, and upon
this supposition, we shall have no occasion for it ;
since, if mankind could be brought to such a pitch
* See Four Discourses, &c., pp. 189, 190.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 455
of reformation, there would be no controversies, arBl
so no need of a judge to decide them infallibly : but
if we will admit that, which we see to be true, and
know to have been true in all ages, that men are apt
to be both ignorant and careless of religion ; that they
go easily into such opinions as are laid before them by
men of authority and reputation ; and that they have a
particular liking to superstitious conceits, to outward
pomp, and to such doctrines as make them easy in
their ill practices ; then the supposition of every age
believing nothing but that which it learned from the
former, falls quite to the ground. If we can also
imagine that the clergy have been always careful to
examine matters, and never apt to add explanations or
enlargements even in their own favours ; or if, on the
contrary, we see a gross ignorance running through
whole ages ; if we find the clergy to have been ambi
tious and quarrelsome, full of intrigues and interests ;
then all this general specious prejudice in favour of
oral tradition vanishes to nothing."*
And upon the infallibility of a general council he
holds the following language : — " And to sum up all
that belongs to this head : The decisions of those
councils must have an infallible expounder, as well,
as it is urged, that the books of the Scriptures cannot
be of use to us if there is not in the church a living
speaking Judge to declare their true sense. Now this
is rather more necessary with relation to the decrees
of councils, which, as they are v/ritings as well as the
Scriptures, so they being much more voluminous, and
more artificially contrived and couched, need a cora-
* See Four Discourses, &c., pp. 203, 204;

456 JJOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
nffentary much more than a few plain and simple wri
tings, which make up the New Testament. If, then,
the councils must be expounded, there must be, ac
cording to their main reasoning, an infallibility lodged
somewhere else, to give their sense : and the neces
sity of this has appeared evidently since the time of
the Council of Trent ; for both upon the article of
' divine grace,' and upon their sacrament of ' penance,'
there have been, and still are, great debates among
them concerning the meaning of the decrees of that
council ; both parties pretending that they are of their
side. Who, then, shall decide these controversies, and
expound those decrees ? This must not be laid over to
the next general council, for then the infallibility will
be in an abeyance, and lost during that interval."*
I next present the views of Archbishop Secker
upon the leading topics in question. He says, " In the
books of Scripture, then, the doctrines of our religion
are truly and fully conveyed to us : and we cannot be
so sure of any other conveyance. It is a confirmation
of our faith indeed, that the earliest Christian writers,
after those of Scripture, in all material points agree
with it. But if they did not, no writers can have equal
authority with inspired ones. And no unwritten tradi
tion can long be of any authority at all. For things,
delivered by word of mouth, always vary, more or less,
in going through but a few hands. And the world hath
experienced, that articles of belief, for want of having
recourse to the written rule of them, have greatly
changed in many churches of Christians : but in few
or none more than that of Rome, which absurdly pre-
• See Four Discourses, &c., pp. 225, 226.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 457
tends to be unchangeable and infallible. It is in the
" Scripture alone, then, that we, who live in these later
ages, can be sure of finding the Christian faith, pre
served, complete and undefiled : and there we may be
sure of it.
" For as to any pretence or fear of these books being
corrupted and altered, either by design or mistake :
had the Old Testament been depraved in anything
essential, our Saviour and his apostles would have
given us notice of it. And for the New, the several
parts of it were so immediately spread through the
world, and so constantly read, in public and in private,
by all Christians, and so perpetually quoted in all their
discourses, and all the disputes of one sect with an
other, that they could not possibly be changed, by any
of them, in anything considerable. For the rest would
immediately have discovered it, and charged them with
it, which must put an end to the danger. And indeed
it is an agreed point, among all who understand these
matters, that nothing of this kind either hath happened
or can happen, so as to affect any one article of faith.
" But perhaps it will be alleged, that the Bible was
written originally in languages which have long been
out of common use, and with which but a small part
of Christians now are acquainted : and how shall the
rest be sure that we have them rightly translated into
our own ? The plain answer is, That all translations,
made by all parties, agree in most places, and those
of the most importance : and where they disagree,
moderate consideration and inquiry will enable any
persons, who live in a country of knowledge and free
dom, which, God be thanked, is our case, to judge on
20

458 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
some good grounds, as far as they need judge, which
is right, and which is wrong; which is clear, and
which is doubtful. Nor doth any sect of Christians
pretend to accuse our common translation of concealing
any necessary truth, or asserting any destructive error.
" But: supposing all this, yet it may be urged, that
many parts of Scripture in oiu translation, and in the
original too, are dark and obscure : and how can it
then be the guide and rule of our faith ? I answer :
These are few in proportion to such as are clear : and
were they more, the Spirit of God, we may be sure,
would make all necessary points, in one part or an
other, sufficiently clear. These, therefore, the most
ignorant may learn from Scripture ; at least by the help
of such explanations as they are willing to ask and
trust in all other cases, and much admirable instruc
tion besides : which if they do but respect and observe
as they ought, they may be content to leave, for the
use of others, what a little modesty will show them is
above their own reach."*
The last witness I shall introduce is the renowned
Chillingworth. He holds the following language :
" It remains now that I should show that many rea
sons of moment may be alleged for the justification of
Protestants, which are dissembled by you, and not put
into the balance. Know then, sir, that when I say the
religion of Protestants is in prudence to be preferred
before yours, as, on the one side, I do not understand
.by your religion the doctrine of Bellarmine, or Baro
nius, or any other private man among you ; nor the
doctrine of the Sorbonne, or of the Jesuits, or of the
* See Lectures on the Catechism, vol. i, pp. 72-75.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 459
Dominicans, or of any other particular company among
you, but that wherein you all agree, or profess to agree
— the doctrine of the Council of Trent; so accord
ingly, on the other side, by the religion of Protestants,
I do not understand the doctrine of Luther, or Calvin,
or Melancthon ; nor the confession of Augusta, or Ge
neva, nor the catechism of Heidelberg, nor the Articles
of the Church of England, no, nor the harmony of
Protestant confessions ; but that wherein they all agree,
and which they all subscribe with a greater harmony,
as a perfect rule of their faith and actions : that is, the
Bible. The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the reli
gion of Protestants ! Whatsoever else they beheve
besides it, and the plain, irrefragable, indubitable con
sequences of it, well may they hold it as a matter of
opinion : but as matter of faith and religion, neither
can they with coherence to their own grounds believe
it themselves, nor require the belief of it of others,
without most high and most schismatical presumption.
I, for my part, after a long, and (as I verily believe and
hope) impartial search of the true way to eternal hap
piness, do profess plainly, that I cannot find any rest
for the sole of my foot but upon this rock only. I see
plainly, and with mine own eyes, that there are popes
against popes, councils against councils, some fathers
against others, the same fathers against themselves, a
consent of fathers of one age against a consent of
fathers of another age, the church of one age against
the church of another age. Traditive interpretations
of Scripture are pretended ; but there are few or none
to be found : no tradition, but only of Scripture, can
derive itself from the fountain, but may be plainly

460 NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE,
jgoveA, either to have been brought in, in such an age
after Christ, or that in^such an age it was not in. In
a word, there is no sufficient certainty, but of Scripture
only, for any considering man to build upon. This,
therefore, and this only, I have reason to believe ; this
r will profess'; according to this I will live ; and for
this, if there be occasion, I will not only willingly, but
even gladly, lose my life, though I should be sorry that
Christians should take it from me. Propose me any
thing out of this book, and require whether I believe
it or no, and seem it never so incomprehensible to
human reason, I will subscribe it with hand and heart,
as knowing no demonstration can be stronger than
this — God hath said so, therefore it is true. , In other
things I will take no man's liberty of judgment from
him ; neither shall any man take mine from me. I
¦will think no man the worse man, nor the worse
Christian, I will love no man the less, for differing in
opinion from me. And what measure I mete to others,
I expect from them again. I am fully assured that
God does not, and therefore that men ought not, to
require any more of any man than this — to believe the
Scripture to be God's word, to endeavour to find the
true sense of it, and to live according to it."*
It would be easy to extend this section much further,
but this is precluded both by the limits I have set to
the work, and the fact, that I have already presented
more than a sufficient number of testimonies from the
standard writers of the English Church to answer the
object I have in view. It hence clearly appears that
* See Works, American edition, pp. 480, 481.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 461
there has never been, since the Church of England-
broke with Rome, any consent ii\, that Church in favour
of the traditionary system. This conclusion will not
be disputed. Having, then, shoiyn that the unanimous
consent, neither of the primitive Church, nor of the
Romish Church, nor of the Church of England, is in
favour of tradition as a portion of the rule of faith, it
remains certain, that according to the catholic notions
of " the Church," maintained by high-Church divines,
it cannot be fairly plead that she has ever sanctioned
the traditionary system. In this whole argument I go
upon the principles contended for by our opponents.
I try them by their own " catholic rule."
In conclusion, I would say, that it will not be con
sistent for me further to enlarge this work by animad
versions upon the controversy now in progress among
Churchmen both in England and this country. Many
instructive facts might be gathered from the chronicles
of the times touching the subject of this work. The
strong and decided testimonies which have been set
forth in the Charges of several English bishops, and
of at least one bishop of the Protestant Episcopal
Church, show that the spirit of Protestantism is still
active in both these Churches. For this, as a true-
hearted Protestant, I am grateful to God : and I most
heartily wish success to the noble spirits who have
thrown themselves into the breach in the hour of perU.
I can but hope that the truth will finally triumph, even
where it has seemed to be in the most imminent
danger. The books and pamphlets now constantly'
teeming from the press will, it is to be hoped, awaken

462 / ' NOT TRADITION, BUT SCRIPTURE, ETC.

XS]

spirit, of inquiry among Churchmen which will not
be satisfied with partial discoveries of truth ; and
stand out as beacon lights to warn the sons and
successors of those who are now fighting the battle, of
the danger of the slightest approximation to Rome.
The Pusey party have doubtless been- forced by
circumstances to an unexpected issue. , The develop
ments of their system have been too rapid. They
intended to have gained upon the popular mass so far
as to ensure success before they should be compelled
to avow the whole theory in all its parts and practical
bearings. But, in this country especially, they have
not been quite sufficiently baptized with the spirit of
Loyola to keep themselves under ground until the
train was fully prepared. Or perhaps it will be more
consistent to attribute the forced developments which
have been made of the true character and tendency
of the new system to an interference of divine Provi
dence, for the purpose of saving a branch of the great
Protestant family from being insensibly, and yet com
pletely, imbued with the deadly leaven. At all events,
for one I can heartily say, God be praised that the
issue is joined so soon — that the battie is begun — and
that there is so much strength enlisted upon the side
of truth ! May God defend his own cause — carry on
his own work — and lead on the sacramental host of
his elect to complete and final triumph. Amen.

INDEX.
Page
Ambrose on the origin of the Apostles' Creed  28
¦ Works of, corrupted by Romanists  240-242
.when he flourished  367
' testimony of, to Scripture as the rule of faith  367
Apostolical Canons  226
. Constitutions  226,227
Athanasius, evidence firom, in favour oftradition,examined,165-168
 on the number of the primitive Christian writers  225
 when he flourished  359
 his testimony to Scripture as the rule of faith ... 357-360
Augustine, when he flourished  368
 testimony of, to Scriptures as the rule of faith. .. 369-371
Auricular confession in the first Prayer-book  80, 84
Baronius on the origin of Catholic traditions  184
¦ sets tradition above Scripture  193
Basil, St., evidence of, for tradition, examined  171-173
¦ when he flourished  364
¦ testimony of, to Scripture as the rule of faith ... 364-367
on the origin of Jewish traditions  184
 on the manner in which Jewish traditions were
handed down  185, 186
^ellarmine, views of, concerning the rule of faith  34
 concerning Scripture  36, 37
 on the authority of Scripture  114, 115
 on the obscurity of Scripture  120
 on the defectiveness of Scripture  132, 133
 honest confession of  note, 134
 on Scripture as a rule of faith  284-297
Bible, whether it depends upon tradition for its authority, 114-120
Biel, Gabriel, on the Scriptures  384
Bingham on the Liturgy  89, 93
 on the Disciplina Arcani  230
 on infant communion  272-274
Bonaventure on Scripture  396
British Critic on private judgment  61-64
 on private judgment exercised upon antiquity, note, 76, 77
 on transmission of tradition  187
Burnet, Bishop, on Scripture, tradition, and councils.... 453-456

464 INDEX.
Cajetan on the Scriptures  ¦.  384
Canon of Scripture, when settled  24
Catena Patrum of the Tractators  ;  130
Catholic theory on tradition  67, 68
 rule of Vincent  ,  74,129,130
Chillingworth, his views of the method of explaining Scrip
ture adopted by Romanists and high-Churchmen  124
 on Scripture and the fathers....  458-460
Chrysostom, evidence of, for tradition, examined  168, 169
 a passage expunged from the writings of, by Ro
manists....,  237,238
 when he flourished  371
 testimony of, to Scripture as the rule of faith ... 371-375
Church, whether a judge of controversies  38, 39
 indefectibility of the  43
 of England in -the place of the Church Catholic ... 43-45
 transmits the ancient faith in her Prayer-book. 65
 adopts Vincent's rule  74
 divines of, opposed to each other  '.  130, 131
 a witness  52,53
 fathers as well as Scriptures in the hands of the... 60-64
 Romanists and high-Churchmen make the, the en-
tire rule of faith  64
 infallibility of the, held by high-Churchmen  70
 an authoritative instructer  .'  71
. principles not in Scripture, but supported by tradition. 135
 — remarlis upon  136
 run into Romanism  138
 where, and what?  ..y  219,220
 three theories of, adopted by Romish doctors... 219, 220
 Church of England on the  220,221
 catholic, what, and where?  221, 222
 how the true ascertained  343
Claget, Dr., on Scripture and tradition  451-453
Clemens Romanus, his testimony upon the^sufEciency of
Scripture  ,  322-326
Clemens Alexandrinus, when he flourished  336, 337
 on Gnostic tradition  337-342-
 his testimony in favour of the Scriptures as the
rule of faith  -....342-346
Coleman, upon the Disciplina Arcani of the primitive
Christians  229,230
Comber, Dean, on the Disciplina Arcani  232,233
 on the alterations of the Nicene Creed  note, 234
. on the councils  ,  261-267
Confession, Helvetic, on the Scriptures  407-410
'¦: '. • - Belgic  ,  410,411

INDEX. 465
Controversy, whether there be a living, infallible judge of... 38
Councils, no confidence to be placed in  257-267
Cranmer, Archbishop, as a witness of antiquity  53-58
 his exposition of 2 Theas. ii, 15  146-148
 on TertuUian's views of tradition  162,163
 on the Scripmres and tradition   427^32
Creed, Apostles', Ambrose's and Ruffinus's account of the
origin of  -.  28, 29
 whether it embraces all points of mere belief  46, 47
 difference among Churchmen as to its meaning... 68, 69
Creed of Pope Pius IV  47
 Nicene, alterations of  234
Creeds part of the'rule of faith  22
 maintained to be more ancient than the Scriptures.. 23
 upon the traditionary system, as obligatory as
Scripture  48
 on the origin of  ,  189, 190
Cross, sign of, Romish formulary, used  82
Cyprian, evidence of, in favour of tradition, examined... 170, 171
 when he flourished  351
 his testimony in favour of the Scriptures as the rule
of faith  351-356
Cyril, when he flourished  360
 testimony of, to the Scriptures as the rule of
faith  360-362
Daille on the remaining fragments of antiquity  224,225
 on Romish forgeries  236,237
D'Aubigne on the principles of the Reformation  404,405
Decretal Epistles, authority and'brigin of the  227
 Luther burned a copy of  228
Disciplina Arcani  229-233
Doane, Bishop, endorses the views of Dr. Hook upon the
Prayer-book  88
Douay Bible, note of, upon 2 Thess. ii, 15  148
 divines on the design and use of tradition  185
Du Pin, authority of, on the antiquity of the Liturgies  97
 authority of, on the Creed  208-216
 gives an account of the corruption of St. Ambrose's
Works  240-242
Easter, difference between the Greeks and Romans as to the
time of keeping  253, 254
Elliott, Dr., on the word "tradition"  146
Eusebius on the origin of the Gospels  25
 . evidence from, in favour of tradition, exammed 164, 165
Exorcism in the first Prayer-book... „  ,.,, 81
20*

466 INDEX.
Faber asserts thp.t the reformers followed antiquity.  53
 on iheTksciplina Arcani  231
Fathers, views of the reformers concerning  18
 -' considered as witnesses of the doctrine of the Catho
lic Church  49
 not competent as such  50-53
 proof from, in favour of tradition, examined  152-177
 disagree  245-256
' not always to be relied on when they claim the
authority of the Church  256,257
 apostolic, say nothing of tradition  152
 writings of, of no authority  228
Firrnilian, when he floiurished  356
^^^^ his testimony against Romish tradition  356, 357
Fulke, Dr., his note upon 2 Tim. i, 13  142, 143
 2 Thess. ii, 15  150, 151
 his " Confutation of the Rhemish Testament"... note, 151
General councils, the inerrability of, held by Dr. Hammond 41, 42
¦  Mr. Manning's views of  42
Gerson on Scripture  390
Goode, Mr., views of, as to the identity of the Tractarian
and Romish views  37
 quotes the charges of several high-Churchmen against
the communion service  <. 83, 84
 on the origin of the Nicene Creed  note, 189
Gospels written to remedy the uncertainty of oral tradidon. . 27
Grotius, his exposition of 2 Tim. i, 14  145
Gregory Nazianzen, evidence of, for tradition, examined 169, 170
Gregory Ariminensis on Scripture  388
Hammond, Dr., views of, concerning tradition  32, 33
 holds the inerrability of a general council  41 , 42
 note of, upon 2 Tim. i, 13, 14  142, 143
Harding, Dr., views of, as to the means of ascertaining the
sense of Scripture  60
Heretics, whether those who had been baptized by, should
be rebaptized  254
High-Churchmen condemned by low-Churchmen  138,139
Hippolytus, St., evidence from, in favour of tradition, exa
mined  170
Holden, Mr., answer to Keble's exposition of 2 Tim. i, 14... 144
 his Scripture argument in favour of the Scriptures as
the rule of faith  284-297
Holy Ghost, personality and divinity of, fathers disagree
about  245
Hobk, Dr., bis account of the Prayer-book  66, 67

INDEX. 467
Hooker on Scripture  144, 145
Hooper, Bishop, on Scripture and tradition  sit...... 432-435
Hiugo, Cardinal, exposition of 2 Tim. i, 14  ..!',  145
Ignatius, his testimony in favour of the sufficiency of the
Scriptures  326,327
Index Expurgatorius of Pope Sixtus V  234,235
 Rules of  235
 Bishop Taylor on  KOie, 244
Infant communion practised in the prunitive church .... 272-274
Intermediate state, fathers differed about  246, 247
Irenaeus on the sacred writings as the rule of faith  25
 the first father who speaks of tradition  152
 his testimony for tradition examined  153-157
 his testimony in favour of the Scriptures as the rule
of faith  330-333
Jackson, Dr., on Scripture and tradition  448, 449
Jerome, when he flourished  367
 on Scripture as the rule of faith  368
Jewel, Bishop, accuses the Romanists of setting aside the
Scriptures  59, 60
 denounced by Froude and the British Critic  131
— — — controversy with Cole on decisions of councils... 258-261
 on the perspicuity of the Scriptures  376,377
 on Scripture and tradition  435-444
John, origin of his Gospel  26,27
Justin Martyr on the sacred writings as the only rule of
faith  24,329,330
 says nothing of tradition  152
Keble, Mr., on unwritten revelation  133
 his explanation of 2 Tim. i, 14  144
 on the Nicene Creed  189
King, Sir Peter, on the Apostles' Creed  28-30
Leslie makes the fathers witnesses  50
Lightfoot, Dr., on the transmission of Jewish traditions  186
Linden sets tradition above Scripture  193
Liturgies, the antiquity of  97, 190
Liturgy of the Church of England not apostolical  89, 93
Luke, origin of his Gospel  26
Luther on the Scriptures  405-407
Macarius, when he flourished  — 362
 on the sufficiency of Scripture as the mle of
faith  362-364

468 INDEX.
Manning, Archdn., his statement of the twofold rule... 19, 22, 33
 propositions of, on the antiquity of the Creeds j..j... 23
 holds universal tradition to be the voice of God..,..j%^32
 the Church a judge of controversies  39,20
 on convening a general council  42,43
 on the Church as a witness  53
 asserts that we receive the Scriptures upon the evi.
dence of tradition  115
 that the Scriptures are obscure  121
 on tradition as an interpreter of Scripture  185
Mark, origin of his Gospel  26
Marsilius ab Inghen on Scripture  S^
Matthew, origin of his Gospel...  ;..... rj§
Melancthon on the Scriptures and tradition  ;¦*<....... 407
Millennium held by some of the fathers, and denied by
others  251-253
Milton on tradition  ;  278,279
Mishna, origin of  187-189
Mosheim on the Book of the Sentences  192
Newman, Dr., views of, concerning tradition  33, 34
 holds that the Church Catholic is unerring  43
 denies private judgment in relation to the faith of the
primitive church  50
 rule of, upon the rule of Vincent  77, 78
 asserts that we receive the Scriptures upon the evi
dence of tradition  115
.  that the Scriptures are obscure  121
.'Nicolaus de Lyra on Scripture  393
Oral preaching of the apostles maintained to have constituted
the sole rule of faith before the completion of the canon
of Scripture, and the source of the Creeds  23
Ordination, form of, altered  58
Origen, evidence from, for tradition, examined  163,164
 when he flourished  347
 on the Scriptures as a rule of faith  347-351
Original sin, fathers differ about  245
Palmer, Mr., asserts that Christianity rests upon tradition  116
 on the origin of the Creeds  189, 190
 on the antiquity of the Liturgies  190
 on the principles of tradition recognised in the Church
of England  415-121
Papias on traditions  196, 197
./jp^jpnensis of Dr. Hammond  32
PetW de Alliaco on Scripture  388

INDEX, 469
Placette against tradition  248-251
Polycarp in favour of the Scriptures as the rule of faith 327-329
Prayer-book, antiquity of  53-59,80-97
— — — remedy for obscurity of  note, 67, 68
 ^history of the  80-84
 not so ancient as is pretended  96, 97
 American, alterations in  84-88
Prayer for the dead in the first Prayer-book  81
Preseivative against Popery  251
Prideaux on the origin of Jfewish traditions  185, 188
¦ on the writing of the Jewish traditions  188, 189
-t¥  on the Talmud  191
Primitive church, views of Mr. Wesley and the Methodists
on the authority of.  18, 19
Private judgment, in what sense understood  16,17
 no more allowed to be exercised upon anti
quity than upon the Scriptures  61, 62
Pusey, Dr., views of, concerning the indefectibility of the
Church, and the inerrability of a general council  43
. on the Church Catholic and Church of England... 43, 44
Rabbins, sayings of, in relation to the superiority of tradition
above Scripture  193
Records of antiquity, all of, which remain from the first ages 224
Reformation, principles and spirit of.  404
Reformers said to have derived the Prayer-book from records
of antiquity  53-56
 are they competent witnesses of antiquity?  58,59
Revelation, a, what it is  123
 according to Romanists and high-Churchmen, tradi
tion, and not Scripture, is a  123, 124
 what necessary to  194, 125
Rhemish note upon 2 Tim. i, 13  141
 Testament  note, 142
 upon 2 These, ii, 15  149
Romanists change their ground when occasion requires  112
 curious reasoning of  113
Ruffinus on the origin of the Creed  28
Rule of faith— of the mere Theist  14
Origin of the question of  ¦  15
Views of Romanists and high-Churchmen concerning... 17
The twofold  19-22
Bellarmine, 34 ; Tridentine Catechism, on  35
Both Romanists and high-Churchmen make the Church
the  64
Rules upon the  Itl?*
Scriptures the  283,!384

470 INDEX.
Schoolmen  191,192
Scorns on Scripture  393
Scripture, whether it is the only proof of the faith  45,46
 ¦ the proof of the faith, while tradition is the sense, 46, 59, 60
i'. evidence of the authenticity and inspiration of... 116—120
— ¦¦  whether obscure  120-127
 whether defective  132-140
 upon the Romish and high-Church theory, has no
sense at all  139, 140
 evidence of, for oral tradition, considered  141-151
ScRnTUKES the rule of faith — how  283,284
Scripture proof of  289-308
First. Scripture suitable to instruct  .,... ^^-302
Secondly. Addressed to the membership of the
Church  302-305
Thirdly. All classes are addressed  305-308
Objections to, answered  308-314
Objection from the British Critic  308,309
Leading principles concerning the, as the rule of
faith  315
Proof of, from the fathers  321-377
Clemens Romanus, 322-326 ; Ignatius, 326, 327 ; Polycarp,
327-329; Justin Martyr, 329,330; Irenseus, 330-333;
Tertullian, 333-336; Clemens Alexandrinus, 336-346;
Origen, 347-351 ; Cyprian, 351-356 ; Firmilian, 356, 357 ;
Athanasius, 357-360; Cyril, 360-362 ; Macarius, 362-364 ;
Basil, 364-367 ; Ambrose, 367 ; Jerome, 367, 368 ; Au
gustine, 369-371; Chrysostom, 371-375; Theodoret,
375-377.
Proof of, from Romanists  379-403
1. From the proceedings of the Council of Trent.. 382, 383
2. Testimony of divines  383-397
3. The canon law  397-401
4. The ancient oflfices  401-405
Evidence from the reformers  404r-411
Evidence from the Church of England : —
The HomiUes, 421-427 ; Archbp. Cranmer, 427-432 ; Bishop
Hooper, 432-435 ; Bishop Jewel, 435-444 ; Hooker, 144,
145 ; Archbp. Usher, 445-448 ; Dr. Jackson, 448, 449 ;
Bishop Stillingfleet, 450, 451; Dr. Claget, 451-453 ; Bishop
Burnet, 451-456 ; Archbishop Secker, 456-458 ; Chilling
worth, 458-460.
Secker, Archbp., on Scripture and tradition  456-458
Sentences, Book of the, in greater repute than the Scriptures 192
Short, Bishop, on the American Prayer-book  84-88
iStillingfleet, Bishop, on Vincent's rule  78, 79
¦ ' " on Scripture and tradition  450,451

INDEX. 471
Stoughton, Mr., on tradition, 276-282. Answers an objec
tion, 312, 313. On Puseyism, 316-321.
Suarez on Scripture  394
Talmud, what, and how originated  191
 absurd stories from  ^.194,195
Taylor, Bishop, on Romish corruptions and frauds  243,244
 on the fallibility of a general council, and
the reliance of the fathers upon the Scriptmres  370, 371
Tertullian, testimony of, in favour of tradition, examined 157-167
— ^.^.^ — in favour of the Scriptures as the rule of faith. 333-336
Theodoret, when he flourished  375
— i ' jy ,,.1 testimony of, to the sufficiency of Scripture as the
rule of faith  375-377
Tillotson, Archbishop, answer of, to the arguments d priori
and d posteriori for tradition  99-114
¦  his definition of a rule  283,284
Tostatus on Scripture  390
Towgood on the doctrine of the Thirty-nine Articles as to
private judgment  note*, 416-420
Tractators and Romanists hold the same doptrine  37, 38
Tracts for the Times — on tradition  ^ 34, 185
Tradition, patristic, its prominent features, 30, 31 ; universal,
held to be the voice of God, 32 ; a divine informant, 33.
 in what sense the Church of England upholds.. 74, 75
 impossibility of ascertaining what it is . . .'  76
 argument d priori for, stated and examined... 98, 105
 argument d posteriori  105-112
•  of what importance as an evidence of the authen
ticity of Scripture, 117, 118; whether it is a remedy for
the obscurity of Scripture, 127-132.
 first alleged by heretics  128
Tradition, oral, improbability of  178-183
 word explained  145, 146
— — — Scripture proof of, considered  140-151
 Patristic proof of, considered  152-177
 -^^ set above Scripture  193, 194
 identical with Jewish traditions  183-202
 not properly defined and attested  203-233
 Objections against  170-183
1. Against common belief  178-183
2. Jewish and Catholic systems similar  183
^ 1. In their pretended origin  184
2. In their design  «  185
3. Mode of their conveyance  185-187
4. In being finally written  187-191
5. In being matter of discussion and exposition. 191, 192

472 INDEX.
6. In elevating them above Scripture^  192-194
7. Puerilities palmed upon God by  ..194^199
8. Results in the proscription of the Scriptures... 199-203
3. Wanting in authority.;...  203-223J
Records doubtful or defective  ...224-267
1. No expression from the whole primitive chtirch 224-233
2. Have been corrupted  233-244
3. Fathers disagree  245-251
4. Some things maintained by fathers, to have come from
the apostles opposed and rejected'by others 251-256
5. Fathers sometimes false][y claim the authority of
the church  '.  :  256,257
6. No confidence to be placed in the councils... 257-267
4. Those who assert, do not follow out their principles 268-276
1. They reject the doctrine taught as to the divine
appearances  ;.. 268-270
2. As to the reappearance of Enoch and Elias  270
3. As to the unlawfulness of an oath....  270,271
4. Standing at prayer on Sundays  271
5. Threefold immersion in baptism  271,272
6. Infant communion  '.  272-274
7. The practice of exorcism  274
8. Unction and chrism  274
Traditions, catholic, what necessary to constitute  379
 from Papias, 196, 197 ; from Tertullian, 198 ; from
Basil, 198, 199.- '
 Romish system of, adhered to by Heniy VIII. and
his clergy, 411-415 ; and t'V the Church of England, if
. Mr. Palnier judges correctly, 415-421.
Trent, Council of, onMTadition  35, 187, 380-383
 falsehood of;" on mfant communion  273
Tridentine Catechism on the rule of faith  35
Usher, Archbishop, on Scripture and tradition  4457448
Vincent of Lirin, evidence of, for tradition, examined... 173-"! 77
 his catholic rule  74
 what this rule implies, and its diflficulties ... 75, 77, 78
— ^-^ how far available  205
Wake, Archbishop, a curious account of Romish fraud
given by  ;  *  237-240
Walden, "Thomas, on Scripture  391
Witnesses, fathers not competent, of the doctrine of the
primitive church  50, 51
'¦ — are the reformers competent  58,59
THE ENS.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 6688

'fe'i». ,'i
; '^f'^U'-'"'
, "¦# -^"n" '
¦ifiiaf^'-" '*-;

H, i

'-i^'*'

r

t

,*^ ¦".
i, 1 % ~

< 1

„iJ^'