Incarnation of Christ, the next point to be settled is, what is the rule of this Faith, and where it is to be found? The Church of England and of Rome agree in asserting the inspiration of Scripture; but besides this, the latter hold that the Books of the New Testament were not written with the design of making them the full rule of faith, but that many things were delivered orally by the Apostles, which, if faithfully transmitted to us, we are to receive with the same respect that we pay to their writings; and that to secure such a faithful transmission, there was an infallible authority lodged by Christ with his Church. We, on the contrary, affirm, that the Scriptures are a complete rule of faith, and that the whole Christian religion is contained in them alone; and though we make great use of ancient tradition to help us to a clear understanding of the written Word, still as to matters of faith, we reject it altogether.

The assertion of the article, may be established by two kinds of arguments: 1. Negatively, from the inadequacy of oral tradition; and 2. Positively, from the sufficiency of Scripture.

The inadequacy of oral tradition is evident from the following considerations: (1.) History

a See Bellarmine de Verb. Dei. 1. 4. c. 12. affectu et reverentiâ." Conc. Trid. Sess. 4.

"Pari pietatis

evinces this inadequacy, even under the most favourable circumstances. In the first ages of the world, it must have been much easier to preserve the tradition pure, than it could possibly be afterwards. There were then only a few things to be delivered concerning God, as that he was one spiritual Being, that he had created all things, and that he alone was the object of worship. The first men, too, were very long lived, and saw their own families spread extremely, so that they had on their side the authority and credit of parents with their children, to secure tradition. Thus,a Methuselah lived above three hundred years while Adam was yet alive, and Shem was an hundred years old when the former died, and also lived upwards of an hundred years along with Abraham; so that the original revelation could have been conveyed to the latter by only two persons. Yet, even under these cir. cumstances, the tradition had become so entirely corrupted, that it was necessary to correct it by immediate revelation to Abraham, who was ob. liged to quit his country in order to escape from its idolatrous practices, and his posterity to be marked with the sign of circumcision, in order to separate them from the rest of mankind.

Again, though the promulgation of the law at Mount Sinai, was, from the circumstances of

a See Gen. v. 10 and 11. b Gen. xii. 1., and xxxi. 19.

its delivery, one of the most amazing things that ever happened, and the fittest to be orally conveyed down; though the law was short, and the ceremonies of their religion to be performed by the members of one family; though they were all of one language, and obliged to maintain a constant commerce among themselves; though they had signal characters of God's miraculous presence among them, as in the trial by the water of jealousy, the overplus of the sixth to supply the Sabbatical year, a constant succession of prophets, and the answers by the Urim and Thummim; still, notwithstanding all these circumstances, God commanded them to write their law, a command which could only originate in his intention to secure revealed religion from the doubtfulness and uncertainties of oral tradition. If, then, tradition was thus declared by God an incompetent means of conveying revelation, with every advantage on its side, much more is it an incompetent means, when there are no such advantages, as in the Christian Church.b

a Num. v. 11.; Lev. xxv. 1., and Exod. xxviii. 30.

b Roman Catholics are willing to admit, that tradition is liable to corruption from the nature of man, but they say this liability is obviated by the possession of infallibility. This argument, therefore, may seem inconclusive. But it is to be considered, 1. they admit that the Jewish Church had the same infallibility. God's rejection

(2.) Experience shows that tradition tends to the corruption of truth. We see mankind so prone to misrepresentation, and so many additions made to a matter of fact as it is reported, that if religion had not a more assured foundation than tradition, it could not have that credit paid to it, which it ought to have. Among the Jews, we have frequent instances of this uncertainty, so that our Saviour chides them for making the law of God of no effect by their traditions." (Matt. xv. 6.) We find also that from submitting to the authority of tradition, they were led to interpret the prophecies concerning the Messiah sitting on the throne of David, literally, and consequently rejected Christ from the poverty of his appearance. From the same cause, they valued mere ceremonial observances above the moral law, and thought a performance of the former would atone for a violation of the latter; so that when they saw Christ and his Apostles disclaiming the authority of tradition, and setting the Gentiles at liberty from those obser

of it, therefore, as a medium of conveying revelation, shows that even under circumstances exactly analogous to their own, this corruption may and does take place. 2. They cannot prove the infallibility of the persons who handed down this tradition; for oral tradition can only be committed to individuals. Now they never ascribe infallibility to each of the fathers personally, and consequently the objections in the text are valid, since those fathers might err in the conveyance of the doctrine.

F

vances, their prejudices against them were increased. And hence the rejection of the Messiah, and the persecution of his followers originated in their belief of tradition.

(3.) Such traditions as were held in the early ages, but were unsupported by Scripture, were subsequently rejected. Thus, the opinion of Christ's reign on earth for a thousand years; the necessity of giving infants the Eucharist, and the Divine inspiration of the seventy interpreters, have been laid aside in later times. This fact proves, that even though there did exist some Apostolical traditions, the Church cannot know what they are; for if she had this knowledge, she would not have given that title to such as she afterwards violated.b

(4.) The early Fathers place no reliance on tradition. Thus, in the disputes with the Gnostics and other heretics, who pretended to the possession of an Apostolical tradition for the explana

a The force of this argument is increased by the fact, that none agree in what are traditions, and what are not; for those doctrines which one writer declares are derived solely from tradition, another proves conclusively from Scripture. See Field, of the Church, B. 4. p. 376.

b Thus, Basil (de Spir. Sanc. c. 27,) accounts "traditions as equal with the Word of God." Yet those traditions which he there enumerates, are now all abolished in the Roman Church. Jewel's Def. of Apol. p. 200. Ed. Lond. 1609.

See

Also Bishop J.

Taylor's Polemical Discourses, sec. 5. p. 978. Ed. Lond. 1674.