refer to unwritten divine traditions, if there be any such.

It appears to me that these various passages of Scripture, adduced to prove that no part of Christian truth can be conveyed by unwritten tradition only, are insufficient for the purpose. In the Objections I shall prove that the opposite doctrine is equally without proof from Scripture.

IV. From the insufficiency of Tradition.

It is sometimes contended that unwritten tradition is liable to be corrupted, and that it would be improbable that God should consign his Revelation to so uncertain a mode of conveyance. If Christian tradition were indeed entirely unwritten, that is, if uninspired writings did not remain, which attest sufficiently the universal belief of Christians from the apostolic age: it might readily be admitted, that tradition only would be an uncertain proof of Christian doctrine. But there does not seem to be any impossibility, from the nature of tradition, that some truths of Revelation might be handed down by it, with the assistance of Divine grace. In fact, if we urge the uncertainty of tradition generally, it may cause very serious inconveniences, for the authenticity and genuineness of the books of Scripture rest in no inconsiderable degree on the testimony of primitive tradition. This is affirmed by Hooker, Whitaker, Field, Laud, Chillingworth, Lardner, Paley, Marsh, &c. But though tradition might possibly suffice for the delivery of a creed containing very few articles, like that of the patriarchs till the time of Moses, it does not by any means follow, that it would be sufficient to convey a widely-extended revelation like Christianity.

From what has been alleged above from theological reasons, and the general persuasion of Christians, and on the assumption that our opponents cannot prove their position (which will be shown in replying to Objections), I conclude that the doctrine of the sixth Article, which affirms all matters of faith to be contained in scripture, is true.

I also conclude that the contrary assertion of Roman theologians is a serious error, because it is apparently inconsistent with the Divine attributes, and is calculated to cause unnecessary difficulties. But as it does not actually subvert revelation, and is not directly opposed to Scripture, it need not be regarded as absolutely contrary to faith.

OBJECTIONS.

I. Religion was preserved among the patriarchs till the time of Moses by unwritten tradition only, and tradition alone conveyed Christian doctrine at first, till the books of the New Testament were written. Therefore it is sufficient for the conveyance of Christian doctrine. (Delahogue, Milner, &c.)

Answer. (1.) Religion was preserved in the time of the patriarchs not only by tradition but by repeated revelations to Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job, &c. (2.) I admit that oral tradition alone was sufficient to teach Christian doctrine to the first converts, but it does not follow that it was sufficient to carry it down for 1800 years. (3.) If it be meant that the whole Christian faith might have been preserved with sufficient security without scripture, then it follows that scripture was given in vain, which would be an impious and detestable assertion. If it be meant

that a part of the Christian faith might have been conveyed by tradition, then I deny the analogy of cases in which there were no scriptures, to that in which the scripture exists.

II. Tradition was the original rule of faith in the Christian church. Yet this original rule you suppose to have become useless as soon as God deigned to add a second. (Trevern, Bossuet.)

Answer. We teach that Scripture and tradition together were designed by God to sustain the truth. Our opponents regard tradition alone as sufficient: therefore they detract from the value and necessity of scripture.

III. Christ only commanded his apostles to preach the gospel; he did not command the Scriptures to be written. The apostles before their separation made no arrangements for committing the gospel to writing. The gospels and epistles were written fortuitously, under the pressure of circumstances, and not generally with the avowed purpose of preserving the Christian faith. Some apostles wrote nothing at all; and in fine, had the sacred writers designed to commit all Christian doctrines to writing, they would have composed some one book systematically arranged, (Trevern, Milner, Delahogue.)

Answer. It is an article of the catholic faith that scripture was written by the will and inspiration of God. Therefore however apparently fortuitous the immediate origin of its books may have been, it is de fide that they were not written merely by the will of man, or fortuitously, or without a profound counsel. Hence all the above objections are worthy of censure, as manifestly erroneous, and tending to infidelity, because they all lead to a denial of the divine inspiration

of scripture. In fine, it is rash and presumptuous to affirm that systematic arrangement was necessary, in case God had designed to convey the whole of his revelation in scripture; for we see no system in the discourses of Jesus Christ, and whatever course God adopts in making his revelation, must be the best for his divine purposes.

IV. The authenticity and genuineness of scripture rest entirely on the infallible authority of the existing catholic church, therefore you are bound to receive her testimony to all doctrines, even without scriptural proof.

Answer. We positively refuse to make any answer to this argument, until those who advance it shall affirm that all the arguments by which Bellarmine, Bossuet, Huet, Bergier, Duvoisin, Hooke, Fraysinnous, Bouvier, La Mennais, and all their own theologians

8 Bellarmine himself proves scripture to be the word of God not by the infallible authority of the church, but by testimony, De Verbo Dei, lib. i. c. 2. Driedo also proves the scriptures from the succession of the fathers, and not from the testimony of the existing church. De Eccl. Script. et Dogmat. c. i. Lovanii, 1556. See also Bossuet, Histoire Universelle, part. ii. chap. 27. Huetii Demonstratio Evangelica; Bergier, Certitude des Preuves du Christianisme; Hooke, Relig. Nat. et Rev. Principia, t. ii; Fraysinnous, Défense du Christianisme, t. ii.-That the books of Scripture are only proved genuine and authentic by unwritten tradition, which we are therefore bound to receive even without scripture in proof of catholic doctrine, is asserted by Eckius, Enchiridion, p. 7; Hosius,

g

Oper. t. i. p. 22; Peresius de Divin. Trad. p. 14-21; Alphons. à Castro, Advers. Hæres. lib. i. c. 5. p. 25; Petrus Canisius, Opus Catecheticum, De Præcept. Eccl. qu. 16. p. 161; Lindanus, Panoplia Evangelica, Col. Agrip. 1575, p. 3, 34, 70, 72, 79, 81, 480,488; Cardillus, Disputat. adv. Protestat. xxxiv. Hæret. fol. 149, Venet. 1564; Rutlandus, Loci communes, fol. 18; Pighius, Hierarch. Eccl. lib. i. c.

2.

The first part of their argument (which is styled by Eckius "Achilles pro Catholicis") could not have been objected to, if it merely went to show that the tradition of all ages should not be rejected by Christians, and that the existing tradition, so far as it agreed with the universal tradition, was binding; but it does not thence follow that such a tradition is to be received without

prove the authenticity and genuineness of Scripture against infidels, and which are our arguments, are invalid. If they affirm this, we shall know the principles of our opponents: if they refuse to affirm it, their argu

ment is at an end.

V. The variations of texts and versions of scripture render it necessary to rely entirely on the existing church for the meaning of scripture, therefore its doctrines must be implicitly received without any proof from scripture.

Answer. Bossuet replies to this objection as employed by infidels: "Qu'on me dise s'il n'est pas constant que de toutes les versions, et de tout le texte quelqu'il soit, il en reviendra toujours les mêmes lois, les mêmes miracles, les mêmes prédictions, la même suite d'histoire, le même corps de doctrine, et enfin la même substance. En quoi nuisent après cela les diversités des textes? Que nous falloit-il davantage que ce fond inaltérable des livres sacrées, et que pouvionsnous demander de plus à la Divine Providence "?"

VI. There is nothing but the unwritten tradition to prove several doctrines and practices which the British churches admit, such as the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the Divinity and the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, the perpetual virginity of the Mother of "God manifested in the flesh," the validity of infant baptism, and of baptism by heretics, and baptism by sprinkling, the non-obligation of the precept concerning blood and things strangled, the observation of the Lord's day instead of the Jewish sabbath.

Scripture as a proof of Christian doctrine, because we deny that any doctrine so universally received can be without scriptural

proof also.

h

Bossuet, Histoire Universelle, t. ii. p. 193.