holiness, and unity. A constant and overruling reference to the Christian Scriptures, (in the spirit of Christ,) would forward Christian unity far more than all the subsidiary and substitute inventions, which have vexed the Church in all ages. We are for no idle spiritualism (as it has sometimes been called); we repudiate that unscriptural idleness, which would wait with folded hands for spiritual illumination; we would, in the words of the Sermon at the head of these pages, "watch against any the least depreciation or neglect of the means of grace, of the various branches of sound criticism for arriving at the best interpretation of Scripture, of the dignity of the sacraments, of the divine authority of the episcopal polity, and the study of Christian antiquity." But after making allowance for every human means of aid, in the attainment of Christian truth, we must never forget that its depositary stands separated by a broad line, from all the explanatory means given by God. It is true, that human learning, human reason, ecclesiastical practice and precedent on the one hand; and on the other (and in a far higher degree), God's grace, are needed as instruments to the right use of that sacred deposit; but it neither needs, nor can it have, any coordinate ally.

Even in respect of some important points, which Tradition would claim as her nurslings, and as indebted to her for that recognition, which under the blessing of God they enjoy; to Scripture they owe this very support and guardianship, and authority. No more apposite case perhaps can be quoted, than that of infant baptism. The expressions used respecting this rite, in the 27th article of the Church of England, are constantly urged as a signal instance of the necessity of an ultimate appeal to ecclesiastical tradition, as a proof of the difficulties to which the advocates of unaided Scripture must be ultimately reduced. If the very words of Scripture were to be regarded as the gage and boundary of Scripture doctrine, the difficulty would then be formidable; but the very point adverted to may serve as an illustration of the futility of the objection. The same writer (from whom we have already quoted so largely) after mentioning the statement of Gregory of Nazianzum, that "some truths are both contained and explicitly stated in Scripture; some on the other hand, although not explicitly stated, are equally contained therein," proceeds to anticipate the case we have above stated:

"Hæ quidem literæ et syllabæ non reperientur in Scriptura: Infantes sunt baptisandi, Apostoli baptisarunt infantes. Sed Patres quando dicunt, Baptisma parvulorum esse traditionem, idem probant et corfirmant certis et manifestis Scripturæ testimoniis.' 'Sunt quidam ritus, qui ex Scripturâ ita probari possunt, quia continent usum, exercitum, et utilem declarationem ejus doctrinæ, quæ in Scripturâ divinitus patefacta est. Sic. (1 Cor. xi. 17.

seqq.) Paulus ex institutione deducit, quomodo piè celebranda sit Cœna Dominica. Et ex doctrinâ Apostolorum, quæ Scripturâ comprehensa est, deductum est (2 Thess. iii. 6,) de separandis illis, qui inordinatè vivunt, (1 Cor. v. 3, seq.) de excommunicatione (Act. xiv. 23,) de constituendis ministris Ecclesiæ.'

"Tales etiam sunt illæ consuetudines Ecclesiasticæ, quas Augustinus existimat ex Apostolorum traditione, originem habere: de baptizandis infantibus, de non rebaptizandis, qui Baptismum ab hæreticis, secundum forman a Christo institutam, acceperant; illæ enim consuetudines tradunt exercitum clarum ejus doctrinæ, quæ in Scripturæ testimoniis comprehensa est. Tales ritus quin vocentur Apostolici, non pugnamus: cum hoc modo, sicut dictum est, habeant in ipsa Scripturâ testimonium."-(Chemnitz. Ex. Conc. Trid. pp. 99 -107.)

III. But an obvious question here arises concerning the sentiments of Catholic antiquity on what has been hitherto said with respect to the two facts, that tradition is equally unnecessary and impracticable, as an authority in any degree superseding or obviating the necessity of scriptural proof. Let us see how stands the case. If ever there was a period in the history of the Christian Church when oral tradition might fairly have claimed a co-ordinate authority with Scripture, that period was in the early days, on the confines of apostolical preaching, when the essential harmony of both Testaments had been but recently demonstrated, and the principles of Scriptural interpretation as yet lacked something of fixedness. But the early Fathers, such as Justin Martyr and the Apologists, cannot be quoted as exclusively favouring this view of the question at issue. Justin and Tatian ascribe their respective conversions to the direct influence of the Scriptures. The notions of the early Fathers (despite the statement of Chrysostom respecting the communications imparted to Ignatius) respecting the sufficiency of Scripture, and the consequent insignificance of tradition, correspond with what a learned prelate has stated to have been those of the Anglican Reformers. Respecting tradition, in the case of the former, as of the latter:

66

Nothing was more remote from their intention than indiscriminately to condemn all Tradition. They knew that in strictness of speech Scripture is Tradition-written Tradition. They knew that as far as external evidence is concerned, the Tradition preserved in the church is the only ground on which the genuineness of the Books of Scripture can be established."(Bishop Kaye. Tertullian, ed. 2, p. 302.)

But leaving out of the question, the authority of the Fathers who taught and wrote subsequently to the council of Nice, and who, by even the warmest advocates of tradition, are admitted to be far less favourable to their cause than those who lived anterior to that epoch-no testimony can be wrung from the latter more favourable to tradition than the statement quoted above. Neither Justin nor Tatian, nor Theophilus, nor Hippolytus, nor Clement of Alex

andria, nor Origen can be quoted as giving any support to the assumption :

"That great truths beyond the record of Holy Writ, truths of pure and authoritative revelation, were entrusted to that extraneous channel of conveyance; and that there existed a second, a collateral canon of unwritten doctrine."-(Davison. Prim. Sac.)

If we ascend still nearer than Justin to the Apostolic times,-a well-known passage in the eighth chapter of the epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians, whatever be the true solution of many of its difficulties, bears ample testimony to the value of Scripture above Tradition, in the judgment of that father. Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho, ascribes his conversion to the convincing arguments of Scripture, on the plainness and universal clearness of which he at the same time dwells. Hippolytus devotes the ninth chapter of his confutation of Noetus to asserting the sole authority of Scripture in matters of faith,-" that the practice of piety is to be learnt nowhere but in the oracles of God." "Whatever then," he continues, "the Holy Scriptures preach, let us regard; let us know all that they teach; let us believe as the Father would be believed; let us glorify as the Son would be glorified; let us receive, as the Holy Spirit would be given, not according to our own purpose or understanding, not forcing that which has been given by God, but seeing even as he has wished to reveal himself, through the Holy Scriptures.'

If we turn to the great lights of the Alexandrian school, we shall find in the Schoolmaster and Stromata of Clement, clear and positive statements of the sufficiency and clearness of the canonical scriptures. Origen again, on a fair estimate of his writings, will be found to recognize no other authentic standard of revelation than the inspired books of the two Testaments. These, in his opinion, contain the source and standard of trustworthy and saving knowledge and doctrine. Origen fully admits the presence of difficulties in the Scriptures, but the means of their solution are to be found not in an appeal to tradition, but by a careful comparison of such passages with other Scriptures.

Passing from Alexandria to Gaul, the authority of Irenæus has at length been recognized as producible only in behalf of a description of tradition, broadly distinguished from that which he is ordinarily quoted as advocating. But on this head we will quote the testimony of a writer whose lot was cast among other days of trouble than our own:

"And therefore there is wholly a mistake in this business: for when the Fathers appeal to Tradition, and with much earnestness, and some clamour, they call upon heretics to conform to or to be tried by Tradition, it is such a Tradition as delivers the fundamental points of Christianity, which were also

recorded in Scripture. But because the canon was not yet perfectly consigned, they called to that testimony they had, which was the testimony of the Churches Apostolical, whose Bishops and Priests being the Antistites Religionis, did believe and preach Christian religion, and conserve all its great mysteries according as they had been taught." "And yet these doctrines which they called Traditions, were nothing but such fundamental truths which were in Scripture, as πάντα σύμφωνα ταῖς γραφαῖς, as Irenæus in Eusebius observes, in the instance of Polycarpus."

"We are acquitted by the testimony of the primitive Fathers, from any other necessity of believing, than of such articles as are recorded in Scripture; and this is done by them, whose authority is pretended the greatest argument for Tradition, as appears largely in Irenæus, who disputes professedly for the sufficiency of Scripture, against certain heretics, who affirm some necessary truths not to be written."-(Lib. of Prophesying, pp. 123, 131.)

Let us turn from this judgment of Bishop Taylor respecting Irenæus, to the statements of Tertullian, who is usually considered as the co-founder of Catholic theology. Ordinarily indeed Tertullian is boldly put forward as an indisputable authority on the side of tradition. Undoubtedly, to the superficial or careless reader, there is much in his writings which would seem to favour this view. From the heat of his temper, and the habits of his former profession, Tertullian occasionally borders on rashness in the choice of his arguments; but a calm review of the remains of this most obscure among the Fathers, will best shew that he does not (as has been asserted) give to Tradition a coordinate authority with Scripture; and will also rescue his memory from such a charge of inconsistency as would impeach his credit as a witness. To an unprejudiced study of his Præscriptio it is necessary to remember, that Tertullian was combating the heretics of his day on their own ground. Both sides appealed to the Scriptures, but without any decisive result-both sides disagreeing as to how the standard should be applied. The Scriptures then being set aside as a means of arbitration, there remained no other course than a reference to the faith of the Church, as preserved in its general teaching since the days of the Apostles. Thus driven to appeal to tradition, the nature of the case compelled Tertullian to descend into the plain to give battle to the heretics. How unwillingly he did so, how stedfastly he maintains the sufficiency of Scripture, how warmly he repudiates the idea of hidden traditions, or of the concealment of any part of the whole counsel of God, let his own words bear witness :

"Eâdem agitati dementiâ, quâ rursus convertunt, omnia quidem Apostolos scisse, sed non omnia omnibus tradidisse: in utroque Christum reprehensioni subjicientes, qui aut minus instructos, aut parum simplices Apostolos miserit.".... Dominus palam edixit, sine significatione alicujus taciti sacramenti. Ipse præceperat, si quid in tenebris et in abscondito audissent, in luce et in tectis prædiearent. Ipse per similitudinem præfiguraverat, ne

unam minam, id est unum verbum ejus, sine fructu in abdito reservarent. Ipse docebat, lucernam non sub modium abstrudi solere, sed in candelabrum constitui, ut luceat omnibus qui in domo sunt. Hæc Apostoli aut neglexerunt, aut minimè intellererunt, si non adimpleverunt, abscondentes aliquid de lumine, id est Dei verbo, de Christi Sacramento."-(Tert. Præscript. xxii-xxvi.)

In what we have said on the subject of tradition, we trust that we have not departed from the pacific purpose with which we set out. Nor will it, we hope, be considered as a breach of faith, if in summing up the drift and purpose of these brief remarks, we make use of the weighty and pointed judgment of that great light of the seventeenth century, to whose authority we deferred in the case of Irenæus :

66 The sum is this: since the Fathers, who are the best witnesses of Traditions, yet were infinitely deceived in their account, since sometimes they guessed at them and conjectured by way of rule and discourse, and not of their knowledge, not by evidence of the thing; since many are called Traditions which were not so, many are uncertain whether they were or no, yet confidently pretended; and this uncertainty, which at first was great enough, is increased by infinite causes and accidents in the succession of 1600 years: Since the Church hath been either so careless or so abused that she could not or would not preserve Traditions with carefulness and truth; since it was ordinary for the old writers to get out their own fancies, and the rites of their Church which had been ancient, under the specious title of Apostolical Traditions; since some traditions rely but upon single testimony at first, and yet descending upon others, come to be attested by many, whose testimony though conjunct, yet in value is but single, because it relies upon the first single relator, and so can have no greater authority or certainty than they derive from the single person: since the first ages who were most competent to consign tradition, yet did consign such traditions as be of a nature wholly discrepant from the present questions, and speak nothing at all, or very imperfectly, to our purposes; and the following ages are no fit witnesses of that which was not transmitted to them, because they could not know it all, but by such transmission and prior consignation: since what at first was a tradition, came afterwards to be written, and so ceased its being a tradition; yet the credit of traditions commenced upon the certainty and reputation of those truths first delivered by word, afterward consigned by writing: since what was certainly tradition apostolical, as many rituals were, are rejected by the Church in several ages, and are gone out into a desuetude; and lastly, since, beside the no necessity of Traditions, there being abundantly enough in Scripture, there are many things called Traditions by the Fathers which they themselves either proved by no authors, or by apocryphal, and spurious, and heretical; the matter of Tradition will in very much be so uncertain, so false, so suspicious, so contradictory, so improbable, so unproved: that if a question be contested and be offered to be proved only by tradition, it will be very hard to impose such a proposition to the belief of all men with any imperiousness or resolved determination."-(Lib. of Proph. pp. 135, 136.)

It would be somewhat disrespectful, ere taking leave of this subject, not to say a few words respecting the sermon which we have chosen as a heading. It is clear, manly, vigorous, and sincere; and (as a passage which we have quoted, among others, amply shows) most assuredly no charge can be brought against its